|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO THE TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE IN STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND THE INFLUENCE OF STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1970 AND 2010 By SHAWN DALE FELTON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Shawn Dale Felton
3 To my wife, April and daughter, De laney
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my wife and daughter for their selfless support and love while I pursued my doctorate at the University of Florida. I will forever be indebted to you for the sacrifices you both made while I pursued this degree and words cannot begin to describe what it meant to me I thank my parents for their guidance, love and encouragement throughout all of my education. I want to specifically thank my committee Chair, Dr. David Honeyman. I cannot say enough about his wil lingness to always help and for making sure you kept your eye on finishing. I would also like to thank his wife, Gretchen She was another supportive voice and was always welcoming when I called to speak with D r. Honeyman. I would like to thank the rest of my committee, Dr. Dale Campbell, Dr. Craig R Wood, and Dr. Mary Beth Hordoysksi. I would also like to extend a special thanks to Dr. David Miller for his assistance with the statistical analysis of this project. His knowledge was invaluable. Special thanks also needs to be extended to Chris Mullin for getting our cohort going at our first meeting and for his continued friendship and advice throughout the program. I would also like to acknowledge the friends made in the cohort, sometimes it pays to ju st be a flocker It seemed to have work ed out just fine for all of us. I would also like to thank Angela Rowe for her help w ith making our program a success, especially with logistics from a distance. I would like to acknowledge those that I have wor ked with throughout my career that have assisted me to this point. Thank you. I also must thank Peggy Mouser for her editorial assistance with this project. Lastly, I must thank my d administrative assistant MeLinda Coffey for all of her wisd om and help with MS Word
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Higher Education Overview ................................ ................................ .................... 13 Higher Education Organization ................................ ................................ ............... 17 Florida Higher Education Organization ................................ ................................ ... 18 Tuition and Fees ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 20 Enrollment and Increasing Tuition ................................ ................................ .... 22 Student Price Response Theory ................................ ................................ ....... 24 State Resources ................................ ................................ ............................... 25 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .............................. 28 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ 29 Research Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ............................. 29 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 29 2 REVI EW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 35 Access and State Structure ................................ ................................ .................... 35 Higher Education Regulation and State Master Plans ................................ ...... 37 State of Florida Higher Education Evolution ................................ ..................... 39 Student Price Response ................................ ................................ ......................... 41 Tuition and Fee Philosophies ................................ ................................ ........... 45 Low tuition ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 47 High tuition ................................ ................................ ................................ 48 Tuition Differentiat ions ................................ ................................ ...................... 50 Residency ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 51 Tuition differentials relationship comparisons. ................................ ........... 51 Institutional Rationales ................................ ................................ ..................... 52 Federal Actions ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 State of Flo rida Actions ................................ ................................ .................... 57 Tuition and Fees and Enrollment ................................ ................................ ...... 58 State Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 60
6 Income and the Ability to Pay ................................ ................................ ........... 61 State of Florida and Ability to Pay ................................ ................................ .... 64 State Appropriation and Tuition Relationship ................................ ................... 66 State of Florida State Appropriations ................................ ................................ 67 Educational Attainment ................................ ................................ .................... 68 Unemployment ................................ ................................ ................................ 69 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 70 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 77 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ 77 Research Hypothesis ................................ ................................ .............................. 78 Data Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 78 Population ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 78 Variables of Interest ................................ ................................ ......................... 79 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 83 Full Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 84 Reduced Model 1 ................................ ................................ ............................. 85 Reduced Model 2 ................................ ................................ ............................. 87 Data Treatment ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 88 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 89 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 95 Full Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 95 Reduced Model 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 97 Reduced Model 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 99 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 140 Discussion of Results ................................ ................................ ............................ 140 Enrollment and Type of Institution ................................ ................................ 142 Enrollment and Year of Analysis. ................................ ................................ ... 143 Enrollment and Tuition Price Difference Ratio ................................ ................ 144 Enrollment and Median Family Income ................................ .......................... 146 Enrollment and Education Attainment ................................ ............................ 147 Enrollment and Unemployment ................................ ................................ ...... 148 Enro llment and Florida State Financial Aid ................................ ..................... 150 Directions for Future Research ................................ ................................ ............. 150 Implications for Policy Makers ................................ ................................ .............. 152 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 155 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 170
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Number of institutions per year ................................ ................................ ........... 92 3 2 Counties served by state community college ................................ ...................... 93 3 3 Counties served by state university institutions ................................ .................. 94 4 1 Model s ummary for f ull m odel ................................ ................................ ........... 101 4 2 Coefficients for full model ................................ ................................ ................. 102 4 3 ANOVA for f ull m odel ................................ ................................ ....................... 103 4 4 Descriptive s tatistics for f ull m odel ................................ ................................ .... 103 4 5 ................................ ................................ .. 104 4 6 Model summary for reduced community college model ................................ .... 105 4 7 Coefficients for reduced community college model ................................ .......... 106 4 8 ANOVA for reduced community college model ................................ ................. 107 4 9 Descriptive s tatistics for reduced community college model ............................. 107 4 10 correlation for reduced community college model ........................... 108 4 1 1 Model s ummary for reduced state university system model ............................. 109 4 12 Coefficients for reduced state university model ................................ ................ 110 4 13 ANOVA for reduced state university system model ................................ .......... 111 4 14 Descriptive s tatistics for reduced state university system model ...................... 111 4 15 ..................... 112
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 197 0 200 8 .................. 31 1 2 condary institutions, 1900 20 1 0 ..................... 32 1 3 Fall Full Time Unduplicated Headcount 1970 2010 ................................ ............ 33 1 4 1970 2010. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 2 1 The balancing of the competing goals of enrollment ................................ .......... 74 2 2 A depiction of the difference in the tuition and fee structure in the State of Public Higher Education System ................................ .......................... 7 5 2 3 Conceptual framework ................................ ................................ ........................ 76 4 1 Studentized Residuals versus FL HEI_ENR ................................ ..................... 113 4 2 Studentized Residuals versus YEAR ................................ ................................ 114 4 3 Studentized Residuals versus TPDR ................................ ................................ 115 4 4 Studentized Residuals versus MFI ................................ ................................ ... 116 4 5 Studentized Residuals versus EA ................................ ................................ ..... 117 4 6 Studentized Residuals versus UNEM ................................ ............................... 118 4 7 Studentized Residuals versus FLSA ................................ ................................ 119 4 8 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residual ................................ ............. 120 4 9 Normal P P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual ................................ .... 121 4 10 Studentized Residuals versus FL CC_ENR ................................ ..................... 122 4 11 Studentized Residuals versus YEAR ................................ ................................ 123 4 12 Studentized Residuals versus TPDR ................................ ................................ 124 4 13 Studentized Residuals versus MFI ................................ ................................ ... 125 4 14 Studentized Residuals versus EA ................................ ................................ ..... 126 4 15 Studentized Residuals versus UNEM ................................ ............................... 127
9 4 16 Studentized Residuals versus FLSA ................................ ................................ 128 4 17 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residual ................................ ............. 129 4 18 Normal P P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual ................................ .... 130 4 19 Studentized Residuals versus FL SUS_ENR ................................ ................... 131 4 20 Studentized Residuals versus YEAR ................................ ................................ 132 4 21 Studentized Residuals versus TPDR ................................ ................................ 133 4 22 Studentized Residuals versus MFI ................................ ................................ ... 134 4 23 Studentized Residuals versus EA ................................ ................................ ..... 135 4 24 Studentized Residuals versus UNEM ................................ ............................... 136 4 25 Studentized Residuals versus FLSA ................................ ................................ 137 4 26 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residual ................................ ............. 138 4 27 Normal P P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual ................................ .... 139
10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S Community College Any institution that was regionally accredited to award the associate of arts or the associate in science as its highest degree (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). The nature of the study was designed to compare the tuition difference between the Although the comm College System towards the end of the study, they were referred to as community college through the time of analysis FTE Full Time Enrollment, the number of students enrolled at a particular institution durin g this study. The study was concerned with fall full time enrollment. Postsecondary Higher All institutions analyzed in this study Education Institution Price Elasticity Measure of the sensitivity of quantity demanded to the changes in price. (DesJa rdins & Bell, 2007) State University degree. Tuition and F ees Tuition represents a po r tion of the cost of instruction and fees were assessed for special services that may not be required for all students (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). This study has operationalized the definition according to the cost reported to the National Center for Educational Statistics, The Florida Board of Education, and The Florida Board of Governors. Th e study also recognized this in accordance
11 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Do ctor of Education RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO THE TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE IN THE STATE OF FLO RI S TEM AND STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND THE INFLUENCE OF STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1970 AND 2010 By Shawn Dale Felton May 2011 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The effects of college tuition and fees and the impact on student enrollment ha s been investigated substantially with studies mostly concluding that tuition a nd fees affect overall higher education enrollment. This study examined the actual difference in resident undergraduate tuition and fees between the 11 state university system institutions and 28 state college system institutions and its effects on enroll ment. The difference in fees between types of institution was operationalized as the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR) The purpose of this study examined how enrollment at were associated with the TPDR and other state resources including the type of institution median family income, educational attainment, unemployment rates and Florida state based financial assistance for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. The results of statistical analyses were mixed. Overall the study concluded that there was not a statistically significant association between enrollment and the TPDR; however there was a negative association between enrollment and the TPDR. Furthermore, the study
12 attainment significant predictors of post secondary participation.
13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Higher Education Overview Most Americans agreed that any type of education beyond secondary education was an extremely powerful means of advancement, both personally and professionally. Therefore, one could utilize this rationale to explain the historical ly large enrollment increases nationally and in Florida in postsecondary education participation (Mbilinyi, 2006). Furt hermore, the attainment of post secondary education has been considered more o f a requirement than an option. There were few unskilled employment opportunities that exist ed as of 1997 where 96% of manufacturing firms indicated that they provided some education and training for their hourly employees. (Casazza & Bauer, 2006); howeve r, measuring the true values and benefits of higher education w ere extremely challenging (Honeyman & Bruhn, 1996). Therefore, the values and benefits of higher education were usually classified through various dimensions attempting to classify the benefit s a s consumptive versus investment, monetary versus non monetary, and public versus private (Honeyman & Bruhn, 1996; Perna, 2005) Most often, the average American was concerned with the monetary benefits of higher education (Immerwahr, 1998, 2004; Imme rwahr & Foleno, 2000) In fact, most discussions about the values and benefits of higher education focused only on the narrow private economic benefits (Institute of Higher Education Policy, 1998) The largest monetary benefit to students attending highe r education institutions was the potential increase in lifetime earnings (Immerwahr, 2000, 2004; Immerwahr and Johnson, 2007) In fact, over their employment careers, college graduates earned over 60% more than their high school graduate counterparts As reported in the 2010
14 Current Population Survey Annual Social/Economic Supplement the average American with a baccalaureate degree earned $ 56,665 annually, as compared to $3 0,627 earned annually by individuals acquiring only a high school diploma ( U.S. Census, 2010 b ) Also, financing higher education has been considered a great investment The degree, which include d tuition, living expenses, books, and foregone earnings was over 11% This was believed to be extremely favorable as compared to other real returns on financial portfolios (Hill, Hoffman, & Rex, 2005). Although the monetary values of higher education were important, it has been just as important to identif y the non monetary benefits of higher education because of the common good these benefits provided to the individual and society as a whole (Baum & Ma, 2007) Those individuals that attended higher education institutions had overall improved health and an increased life expectancy (IHEP, 1998) Furthermore, those individuals that continued to increase their educational attainment reported decreased use of smoking cigarettes In fact, those students that received at least a baccalaureate degree were on a verage 20% less likely to smoke cigarettes than those without a higher education degree (Perna, 2005) In addition individuals that attended higher education institutions had significantly better working conditions than their non college counterparts (P erna, 2003) Furthermore those who attended a higher education institution experienced increased job stability In fact, the unemployment receiving a high school diploma (IHEP, 1998)
15 The non monetary benefits d id not stop with the individual; society as a whole benefit ed from individuals who attended a higher education institution This resulted from the fact that highly educated individuals were also members o f society The (Bowen, 1977) For example, there was a substantial increase in the civic responsibility In fact 7 7 % of indi viduals with at least a and 83% of those with an advance degree voted in the 2008 Presidential election This was compared to only 5 4 % of those with a high school diploma ( U S Census, 20 10a ) Furthermore, the increased educational attainment of individuals increased the likelihood of them contributing further to their community by volunteering with civic and community organizations (Perna, 2005) Those acquiring college education were more op en to diversity issues and tended to be more adaptable to new situations (Bowen, 1977) In addition, the more education an individual of society received, the less likely he or she was to be incarcerated The individuals were in turn better citizens a nd contributed more productively to society (IHEP, 1998) Therefore, one could better understand the reasons why both the federal and state governments supported public higher education The American system of higher education continued to be a mixed sy s tem of private and public post secondary institutions (Ehrenberg, 2000) The institutions were funded through several sources of revenue The primary funding sources includ ed tuition and fees, public tax supported revenue from federal, s tate and local sou rces, gifts, grants, and sales and services (Heller, 2006; Honeyman & Bruhn, 1996) Historically, the first public institutions of higher education were chartered in the late
16 eighteenth century, primarily in the South and the Midwest (Heller, 2006) The Am erican public university vastly expanded after the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862 1 (Heller, 2006; Nemc, 2006; Thelin, 2004) The Act was originally introduced into Congress by Justin Morrill in 1857 to establish agricultural colleges (Nemc, 2006) Initially, the act was vetoed by then President James Buchanan F ive years later t he Act was reintroduced and subsequently passed (Nemc, 2006) The Act essentially provided each state with land grants based on the number of congressional seats occupied by a state The land provided could then be sold and the proceeds from the sales of the land were to be used within five years to support and maintain at least one college wi thin the state (Thelin, 2004) The number of higher education institutions increased from 563 in 1869 to 977 by the end of the nineteenth century while student enrollments increased fourfold from approximately 52,000 to over 237,000 students (Heller, 200 6) Several of these institutions were agricultural institutes or teacher training colleges that bared little However, the institutions fostered by the Morrill Act provided individuals with lower c ost alternatives to private institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 2003) More recently, the lower cost option to higher education access has been represented by community colleges In addition, the expansion of higher education was further e nhanced by the second Morrill Act of 1890 1 The Morrill Act of 1862 was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln and it guaranteed to each state 30,000 acres of land per congressman to support colleges (Casazza & Bauer, 2006). The Act and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studie s and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education o f the industrial classes in 108)
17 which prohibited federal funding that practiced discrimination in higher education (Casazza and Bauer, 2006) Higher Education Organization Colleges and universities continued to expand throughout the first half of the 1900s Durin g that time period college enrollments grew exponentially as compared to year period (Lucas, 2006) During that time, the federal support of higher education was relatively quiet until the vocational education s upport laws of 1918 and subsequent years which provided financial support in a categorical manner to higher education (Wattenbarger & Cage, 1974). The next large expansion of the American higher education system followed World War II (Cohen, 1998; Hauptma n, 1990; Heller, 2006; Lucas, 2006; McPherson & Schapiro, 1991; Mills, 2007) 2 more commonly referred to as the GI Bill (Cohen, 1998; Heller, 2006; Kiester, 1994) This bill guaranteed financial aid to any veteran who had served after 1940 and met other conditions Essentially, the GI Bill provided the groundwork for increasing access and ensuring affordability of higher education through portable student ai d grants (Thelin, 2004) The Act provided the opportunity for 2.2 million veterans to attend two and four year colleges and universities Furthermore, 3.5 million veterans enrolled in vocational education (Casazza & Bauer, 2006) Essentially for the f irst time, people with average financial means had an opportunity to 2 Servicemen's Readjustment Act (1944) was an Act to provide Federal Government aid for the readjustment in civilian life of returning World War II veterans (PL 78 346). T he law was an entitlement to any veteran who had served after 1940 and met other conditions, and the scholarship monies were portable in that the eligible student could use the funding at the institution of his or her choice (Thelin, 2004).
18 pursue a college degree or some other type of vocational training (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2002). The number of individuals attending higher education i nstitutions continued to expand, especially during the 1960s and 1970s when both state and federal governments took steps to ensure that access to postsecondary education was open to all regardless of economic backgrounds. This expansion was mostly a res ult of the expansion of public support of higher education and a broad network of open enrollment of community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; McPherson and Schapiro, 1991 b ) In fact during that time period, the number of community colleges grew from 412 to 909 two year institutions (American Association of Community Colleges, n.d.) Rouse (1998) concluded that by adding one additional two year college per 10,000 high school graduate s increased the proportion of students enrolled in two year colleges by 11.2 % With the increasing number of two year colleges, a new issue became evident: access to post secondary institutions as an element of cost. Furthermore by 1999, two out of every three high school graduates enrolled in a postsecondary institution (Lee, 1999; Lingenfelter, 2006) In 2 00 9 there were over 1,100 public community colleges and 690 public four year institutions with enrollment of over 1 9 million students ( Snyder & Dillo w, 20 10 ) (Figure 1 1). Florida Higher Education Organization two entities, the State University System (SUS), and t he Community College System ( CCS ) Recently, the CCS was rena med the State College System of Florida when institutions in this systems offered baccalaureate degrees. (Florida Board of Governors, 2009; Florida Department of Education, 2010) The SUS was made up of 11 four year
19 institutions and one teaching center w hich enrolled over 302,000 total students in the 2008 09 academic year Furthermore, the SUS enrolled a total of 233,772 undergraduate students during the same time period (F LBOG 200 9 ) The s t ate college system was made up of 28 institutions and 62 different campuses that totaled enrollment over 831,000 unduplicated headcount in 2008 09 (FLDOE, 2010) As s S t ate C ollege S ystem, formerly known as the C ommunity C ollege S ystem grew rapidly between the 1960s and 1970s (Figure 1 2) Furthermore, over 50% of all attendance in higher education in the state of Florida occurred at the community college level This was a result of plus The pu blic community college was seen as the primary entry point to postsecondary education (Florida Postsecondary Education Planning Commission, 2000; Sanchez Penley, Martinez, & Nodine, 1997) fifths of the states students that were enrolle d in higher education ( Snyder & Dillow, 2010 ) fostered by the legislature establishing the Community College Council This council ou Und er this plan, the proposed post secondary education system population The intent of the Florida movement toward the establishment of community colleges was to serve the local districts in which they were geographically located ; (Wattenbarger & Cage, 1974), where con tinue to serve the entire state
20 During the past five years, the state of Florida has generally seen overall enrollment growth at all public higher education institutions (Figure 1 3) In fact, from nced a 17.2% increase from 442,000 FTE to 518,000 had a modest increase of only 2% appropriations per FTE declined approximately 7 % from $6647 in 2002 to $6203 in 2007 (State Higher Education Executive Officers, 2008) Therefore, as compared nationally, there was more emphasis placed on students and their families to cover the costs of attending higher education institutions in the state of Florida As compared to the best performing states, families in Florida devoted a large amount of their income, even after finan cial aid, to attend public post secondary institutions For example, a student arising from a family desiring to reach or maintain middle class status and earning an average of $18, 992 spent approximately 40% of their income on net college costs after financial aid was awarded (N ational Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2006) In 2005, Florida ranked 34 th am ong the 48 states that used similar accounting data in core funding (tuition and state appropriations) per FTE, and Florida fell below the national average in core funding by 11.9% (NCPPHE, 2006) Tuition and Fees The development of the community college system, both nationally and in Florida, opened higher education opportunities to several students that would not have had the opportunity to attend From the beginning, attendance at the two year institutions had always been the less expensive option St udents desiring to attend higher education institutions had long been supported by federal, state, and institutional student financial assistance programs Most of the programs originated in the concept
21 of equal access to higher education without regard t o financial need in the 1960s (Linsley, 1997; McPherson & Schapiro, 1991 a ) Prior to the 1970s, federal student aid programs were relatively small, limited and specific (Thelin, 2004) Essentially, federal aid to higher education was in response to some problem that arose in the early 1950s to middle 1960s Special finance projects enlisted by the federal government that counterbalanced the effects of Sputnik included graduate fellowsh ips and expanded research support The earlier GI Bills were responses by the federal government which provided student aid in response to military service (Hauptman, 1990) In 1 965 there was a change in policy with the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 The A ct resources of colleges and universities and to provide financial assistance for students in 239) In promoting financial assistance to students and families, emphasis was placed on fellowships and loan programs (Hauptman, 1990) At that time, there was much debate over the establishment of the federal direct student aid system First, it was contended that the federal loan system would escalate higher education cost s and reduce access to lower cost educational programs Secondly, institutional aid advocates posited that middle income students would be negatively affected by the constant increase of college costs (Chambers, 1968) This early legislation, with more emphasis placed on loans and fellowships, signaled the beginning of the price differential structures in higher education (Callan, 2006; Hauptman, 1990)
22 Beginning in the mid 1960s there was an ongoing widening between the p r ice differential of public post secondary institution s tuition and fees in the United States. This was true in Florida as well In 2 009 10 community college s was $ 2552.00, based on 30 credit hours ; whereas the tuition and fee total for students attending SUS institution s was $ 4352.54 for 30 credit hours (Florida Board of Governors, 2010; FLDOE, 2010) A ttendance at a community college remained the less expensive option in the 2009 10 academic year T he price difference between a SUS institution and community colleges grew significantly over the last four decades Specifically the difference has grown to a factor of almost nine. The tuition and fee gap between Florida institutions was much higher th an Mullin and Honeyman (2008) found nationally between 1960 and 2000. For example, in Florida, the 1969 70 aca demic year attendance at a SUS institution resulted in an expense to the student of $ 450 w here as attendance at a community college resulted in an average tuition of $ 246 a difference of $ 204 In 20 10 this difference was $ 1800.54 (Figure 1 4) a 782% change from 1970 to 2010 However, it should be noted, that when Florida was compared nationally, the tuition and fees that were charged by Florida education institutions were below the national average. Enrollment and Increasing Tuition There has been considerable research conducted examining the effects of rising tuition costs and its effect on higher education enrollment. Most often th e effects were analyzed and explained utilizing human capital theory (DesJardins & Bell, 2007; Shin & Milton, 2006) Human capital theory was first introduced by Gary S. Becker in 1962. onetary rate of return of high school and college education in the United States In the theory he suggested that an
23 individual had the ability to identif y lower cost options allowing him or her to have a better command over resources (Becker, 1962) As noted by Geske (1996), from an economic perspective, investments in human capital, such as post secondary education or on the job training, could be such as increased lifetime earnings and greater perso nal satisfactions The theory suggested that stud ents seeking enrollment to post secondary institutions attempted to maximize their rate of return 3 and sought low cost opportunities (Becker, 1962) Shin and Milton (2006) further explained human capital th eory and stated the theory could generally predict that as tuition at a given institution rose, enrollment would decrease due to the fact that students would search for lower cost alternatives Historically, public institutions largest source of revenues were a result of state and local governments However during the past two decades, tuition and fees contributed more to institutions revenues than the other primary sources of revenue which included the federal, state and local governments (Heller, 2006 ) Furthermore since 1980, tuition alone increased al most twice as fast as inflation (Hauptman, 1990; McPherson & Schapiro, 1991 b ; Heller, 1997; St. John, 1993) Besides the concerns of ity colleges and state universities, there was recent research which noted, although a few states ha d made improvements, the nation as a whole had made no progress with access to higher education opportunities since the early 1990s In fact, there were sm aller proportions of young individuals enrolled in education and training beyond high school in 2006 than the re were a decade ago (Hunt & Tierney, 2006) In addition, historically, the largest 3 Rate of retur n was defined as the ratio between the costs student pay for college and the future monetary benefits that will be received from the college education (Shin & Milton, 2006)
24 tuition increases occurred during times of economic downturns; thus limiting the abilities for student and families to cover college expenses ( NCPPHE 2002) Student Price Response Theory It was essential for those charged with setting tuition and fee structures at public postsecondary institutions to have an unde rstanding of student price response so that policy analysis could for higher education degree attainment (St. John, 2003) Policy makers were concerned with the cost of higher education, and whether thes e costs were an obstacle for qualified individuals to attend higher education institutions (Heller, 1996) This concept was vastly studied and the literature demonstrated the fact that participation in higher education instituti ons (Hearn & Longanecker, 1985, Heller, 1997; Jackson & Weathersby, 1975; Leslie & Brinkman, 1987; Shin & Milton, 2006; St. John, 1993) These studies noted a negative relationship between tuition and fee increases and student attendance at higher educati on institutions Therefore, one could conclude there was a definite relationship between the cost of attending an institution of higher education and actual attendance (Heller, 1997; Hsing & Chang, 1996; Leslie & Brinkman, 1987). There w ere several publ ished student price response studies However, most of these studies suggested a single net price was associated with postsecondary education attendance (St. John & Starkey, 1995) Evolving research suggested students responded to a set of prices and subsidies rather than to a single net price, and the most influenced students were those derived from a low socioeconomic status ( Dresch, 1965; St. John & Starkey 1995 ) Heller (1997) strength ened the argument for the need for policy makers to examine student price response and demand of higher
25 education by analyzing multiple factors More recently, Shin and Milton (2006) found college enrollments were more sensitive to relative tuition levels between competing colleges than to actual tuition levels State Resources As noted, government subsidization of higher education was primarily a function of the individual states; where on average states provided four dollars of support for every dol lar of federal subsidy (Archibald & Feldman, 2006) The state appropriations assisted all public postsecondary institutions to sell their primary product, education, at an extremely discounted price to the consumers in comparison to the cost of production (Winston, 1999) Since the support of higher education was constitutionally a state responsibility, each state had a unique financial support system that was crafted around state statutes (Crampto n 2001) Furthermore, higher education was often the lar gest spending item in state budgets after expenditures that mandatory by federal, state law, regulation or court order. T his was represented by an average of 11.8% of state general funds in the 2005 fiscal year (Layzell, 2007) The amount of an individua l the tax revenue per capita (Koshal & Koshal, 2000) was a catalyst for two thirds of high school graduates to be enrolled in college wi thin one year of high school graduation (Lee, 1999; Lingenfelter, 2006). Although it appeared during the initial analysis that actual state support of higher education was maintained since 1980, the ca usal comparison failed to evaluate the rising cost of e ducating students (Heller, 2006) From 1980 through 2005, expenditures in public institutions demonstrated an increase of 69% in real terms ( Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman 200 8 ) Furthermore, the state and local share of total college and university
26 revenues declined from a high of 34% to 26% in 1996 Another example of this was seen in the states that were members of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). For these sixteen states, located primarily in the southeastern portion of the United States, t here was a decline of 3% in inflation adjusted funds per FTE at public four year colleges, and a decline of 7% in inflation adjusted funds per FTE at public two year institutions from 2001 to 2005 (S outhern Regional Education Board 2006) Representing a 20 year time period, between the academic years of 1983 84 to 2003 04, state appropriations per FTE student ha s fallen 23% when utilizing the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) 4 (Cheslock, 2007) The consequence of the rising cost of instruction and s tate funding being unable to provide the needed support to public higher education institutions placed an increased burden on students and their families to subsidize payments for college costs (Heller, 2006) In fact, between 1980 and 1998, the share of fiscal responsibility assumed by students and parent s rose from 35% to almost 48% (Zumeta, 2001) A recent survey conducted by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education demonstrated that 57% of Americans believed that anyone who needed f inancial assistance could find the needed aid H owever there was a 10 point increase in anxiety about the availability of needed aid during the last year of this study ( Immerwahr & Johnson 2009) 4 was an inflation index designed specifically for use by institutions o f higher education. HEPI measures the average relative level in the price of a fixed market basket of goods and services purchased by colleges and universities each year through current fund educational and general expenditures, excluding research The HEP I was a more accurate indicator of cost changes for colleges
27 education paralleled the recent For example since the 2006 07 academic year, when state appropriations peaked at $7,751 per FTE, the amount of appropriations per FTE declined to its current 200 7 08 FTE support of $7,035 (Florida Board of Governors, 2008) This was true for the community colleges as well During the same time period, state funding per FTE for community colleges decreased from $3,793 to $2,849 (a 25% reduction) and total funds p er FTE decreased from $5,258 to $4,577 (a 13% reduction) when adjusted by the HPEI (Florida Association of Community Colleges, 2008) s experienced some of the largest enrollment growths when historically state su pport of FTE was the lowest support of higher education pursuits, 77% of Floridians strongly agreed that the price of a college education should not deter qualified and motivate d students from attending college (Immerwahr, 2000) Although state resources have fallen in Florida and much of the spending on higher education has lagged behind other major state spending categories since the institutions continued to enroll more students year after year (Educational Policy Institute, 2003; Sanchez Penley, et al., 1997) However there was a leveling off in enrollment in Florida higher education institutions recently (State Higher Education Ex ecutive Officers, 2008) It was also noted that for the years between 1996 2006, tuition and fees for both community colleges and the S outhern Regional Education Board 2007) This was in comparison to the national trend of tuition
28 payments increasing Since 1980, the tuition and fees at a four year institution, on average, rose nearly three times the rate of median family income and more than three time s the rate of the consumer price ind ex (Koshal & Koshal, 2000) The rise in tuition was common practice when higher education institutions were faced with budget shortfalls Often a small reduction in state support resulted in large increases in tuition (National Education Association, 20 03) Even more problematic was the rate of increase in the price of attending a higher education institution which had out priced several other entities in the U S economy including healthcare (Callan, 2006) Purpose of the Study It was observed that the difference in tuition and fees between public institution types in the state of Florida changed between the years of 19 70 and 20 10 by a factor of almost nine while participation in postsecondary education paralleled the national landscape Nationall y, tuition and fees grew by a factor of three between the years 196 0 and 2000 with enrollment at a plateau (Mullin & Honeyman, 2008) This was of Institutions and Flor ida Community Colleges was operationalized as the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR). Essentially, the SUS tuition and fee for a given year was divided by corresponding community college(s) in a service area to calculate the TPDR The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which providing access to postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower priced option, the community college as operationalized as the TPDR, with consideration of Florida 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010
29 Research Question To examine student price response theory by the different institution types while the following research question was developed How was enrollment associated with the t uition and fee difference ratio (TPDR) resources for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 ? This was tested through multiple linear regression and utilized three separate models The models tested included a full model which encompassed all variables from the state university system and state college system with total Florida Public Undergradu ate Enrollment serving as the dependent variables. The two subsequently reduced models included the variables in the research question with each model specifically analyzing enrollment at the State University System and State College System respectively. Research Hypotheses H 0 1 : Enrollment was not significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio resources for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010. H A 1: Enrollment was significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio resources for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010. Significance of the Study An examination o f the factors that contributed to the tuition and fee price imperative as policy makers set tuition prices and expanded access to higher education opportunities As noted by Leslie and Brinkman (1987), manipulation of student price of higher education has been seen as a major policy instrument that has achieved
30 expanding or decreasing access Furthermore, Shin and Milton (2006) posited that tuition and fee levels were importa nt policy tools for adjusting college enrollments Lastly, as state resources became more limited due to the recession beginning in 2005, and the increased bur den students and families faced in funding higher education, it was essential to appreciate the consequences of price increases on real and expected
31 Figure 1 1 Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 197 0 200 8 [ Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2008] 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Comm. Coll 909 945 972 1076 1032 4 Year 426 552 595 622 653 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Number of Institutions
32 Figure 1 2 Number of 20 1 0 [Florida Board of Governors n.d; Florida Department of Education, Florida Community College System Fact Book, 2008] 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Comm Coll 0 0 0 0 1 4 14 19 27 28 28 28 28 SUS 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 7 9 9 10 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of Institutions
33 Figure 1 3 Fall Full Time Unduplicated Headcount 1970 2010 [Florida Bo ard of Governors n.d; Florida Department of Education, Florida Community College System Fact Book ] 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Comm Coll 130820 200584 293580 311278 449469 SUS 54560 94011 113506 165198 243703 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 Fall Full Time Unduplicated Headcount
34 Figure 1 4 1970 2010. [ Florida Board of Governors, 2010; Florida Department of Education, 2010 ] 1969 1970 1979 1980 1989 1990 1999 2000 2009 2010 Community College $246 $410 $717 $1,404 $2,552 State University $450 $742 $1,336 $2,163 $4,352 % Difference per 10 years 62% 86% 22% 137% $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 Average Tuiton and Fees (Current Dollars)
35 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This study investigated the student price response theory by examining the degree to which providing access to postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower enrollment for the years 197 0, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 This chapter provided a review of literature which was composed of documents being originated by both private and public entities, scholars in the field of higher education finance, governmental reports and policy institutes This chapter identified the origination and expansion of higher education, the evolution of the state of Florida higher education system, how tuition and enrollment in higher education were associated, and the influences of state resources and higher education attendance. Access and State Structure There were a variety of forces driving the emergence of the American post secondary system Although no one event can be credited for this phenomenon, most literature traced the origins of the development to the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862 (Heller, 2006; National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 2008; Nemc, 2006; Thelin, 2004) The act guaranteed, to each state, 30,000 acres of land per congressman to su pport colleges dedicated to teaching agriculture and the mechanic arts (Casazza & Bauer, 2006) The land provided could then be sold and the proceeds, from the sales of the land, were to be used within five years to support and maintain at least one colle ge within the state (Thelin, 2004) Over 17.5 million acres were distributed to the states through the Morrill Act (Cohen, 1998) Within the state of Florida, there were two land grant universities, the University of Florida and Florida
36 A&M University. They were established by the second Morrill Act which appropriated some of the money available from the second act to initiate the development of 17 historically black land grant universities (NASULGC, 2008) The Morrill Act of 1862 (PL 37 108) provided and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the Although portrayed in the accounts of the development of land grant colleges as a the actual historical records were much more complex and ambiguous (Lucas, 2006) Furthermore, it was not until the Morrill Act of 1890 that regular annual state appropriations were made to the land grant colleges Prior to the second act, the actual state support of the institutions was marginal at best (Lucas, 2006) The lack of full appropriations prompted the land grant colleges to charge tuition directly to the individual (Heller, 2006) However, these charges were much less than the private institutions; therefore public supported universities were given impetus from the two Morrill Acts that provided individuals lower costs alternatives to private education (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Heller, 2006). Throughout the next seventy five years, often referred to as the University Transformat ion Era, much change was brought to higher education (Lucas, 2006) A
37 grea t deal of the first forty years of this time period were characterized by changes in institutional form, with the largest growth in enrollment occurring in the last thirty five year s (Cohen, 1998) An often overlooked, important approach to higher education policy occurred in the early 1900s at the University of Illinois that continued to shape a Durin g the flagship university was not funded as well as the other adjacent Therefore in 19 president began to lobby the state for regular and reliable state funding Contrary to the informed of the proposed projects while providing accurate estimates of the anticipated costs The president explained why the proposed units were expe nsive, but what worth they would bring to the institution and state of Illinois (Slosson, 1910) This early change marked the beginning of fundamental achievement of state governments and higher education to allocate annual appropriations defined through standards and formulas (Thelin, 2004). Higher Education Regulation and State Master Plans The federal constitution did not specifically state but did empower coordination and the responsibility of all education to the states in which they reside ( U.S. C onst itution. Amendment X) Historically institutions employed local governing boards to set policy and control operations (Glenny, 1976) However, during the depression of the early 1900s and 1930s more than twelve s tates placed organization and policy control under a single governing board (Berdahl, 1971) Glenny (1965) iden tified this phenomenon, in post secondary education, as the master plan Master planning was a linear approach that emphasized
38 a linkage between goals and actions; however, in the history of use for statewide planning, it had rarely However, after the early 1950s, states began establishing alternatives to the single statewide coordinating board (Glenn y, 1976; McLendon, 2003) Glenny (1976) concluded that by the early 1950s, as a result of the rapid expansion of education, which included rapid increases in student enrollment, expansions of college and university functions and services, expansion of b ranch campuses and two year colleges, and the emphasis on graduate training, one coordinating board was not sufficient Wattenbarger (1974) concluded that the rapid increases in statewide master planning and subsequent changes were a result of the increas ed influences on higher education Prior to the master plans, higher education was an elite function and was relatively simple to manage and control However, with an increased number of individuals having concern about higher education the system became too diffuse; thus the need for centralization within states He further concluded the balance of power in higher education was most affected by the initiation of new agencies within the state government (Wattenbarger) Glenny (1976) further sta ted faced by higher education, the states had little option but to initiate higher education coordination and budget review agencies The early agencies were charged, through state statutes, to approve ne w programs and to prevent unne cessary overlap and duplication. They were also charged with review ing and mak ing recommendations to the state affecting institutional budgets (Berdahl, 1971; Glenny 1976) By the 1960s, d the role of statewide planning for the orderly
39 development of higher education (Glenny, 1976) During the decade of 1960 master plans for higher education existed in 38 states (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1982) Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, the early centralization which characterized higher education institutions in prior decades was replaced with reorganization and restructuring initiatives within the states (McLendon, 2003) A policy change emerged during this tim e to decentralization Essentially, decentralization of decision authority was characterized by repositioning the power to make decisions at local institutional levels as compared to the centralized state levels (MacTaggart, 1998; Marcus, 1997) However, during the 1990s and 200 0 s, there was an enhanced initiative to move towards more decentralization of authority McLendon (2003) noted that not all decentralization efforts were successful Furthermore, Zumeta (2001) concluded through the performance fu nding mandates which were initiated in states, there were still vast centralized control of higher education. State of Florida Higher Education Evolution em was divided into two entities -the State Univer sity System (SUS) and the Community College System (CCS) Recently, the CCS was renamed the State College System of Florida when institutions in this system offered baccalaureate degrees. The SUS was made up of 11 four year institutions and one teaching center which enrolled over 302,000 total students which included undergraduate and graduate students, in the 2008 09 academic year. Of the 302,000 total students the SUS enrolled a total of 233,772 undergraduate students during the same time period (F LBOG 200 9 ) The state college system was made up of
40 28 institutions and 62 different campuses that totaled enrollment over 831,000 unduplicated headcount in 2008 09 (FLDOE, 2010). Higher education in the state of Florida began with a pair of frontier se minaries founded in the early 1850s These two seminaries were the precursors for what became known as the University of Florida and Florida State (Business Higher Education Partnership, 1996) secondary educational system, in both enrollment and in the number of institutions, was traced to the formation of the system of public higher education in 1905 (Select Council on Post High School Education, 1970) In the late 1950s, the legislature established the Community College Council and community colleges in Florida This marked the creation of the Division of Community Colleges within the State Department of Education (Florida Department of Education, 2008; Sanchez Penley, et al., 1997) The Florida master plan was fully implemented in 1962 when Pasco Hernando Community College opened The state board of education was the chief policy making and governing body for all public education in Florida Prior to the year 2000, the board was composed of the governor and seven elected cabinet members, which included the commissioner of education who served on the board of regents and the state board of community colleges (Sanchez Penley, et al., 1 997) The Board of Regents (BOR) was a governing board which provided oversight to the SUS while the community colleges had oversight from the State Board of Community Colleges (SBCC), which was a coordinating board (Mills, 2007) In 2000, the state legi slature implemented a new law which created a
41 all education within the state (Mills, 2007) The state statu t e also repealed the BOR and the SBCC replacing them with indi vidual trustees at each of the SUS institutions The statute did maintain the institutional board structure of the community colleges (Florida Department of Education, 2008; Mills, 2007) Later change occurred in the SUS governance structure after 2002 Individuals opposing the new structure, an initiative lead by a popular former governor and senator, advanced a referendum which created the Board of Governors (BOG) The newly created BOG was a coordinating board which provided oversight to each of the individual trustee boards, at the SUS institutions. This limited direct trustee control by the FLBOE (Mills, 2007) Student Price Response It was essential to have an understanding of student price response so that policy analysis c ould be conducted on student access and opportunit ies to higher education (St. John, 2003) Policy makers have long been concerned with the cost of higher education, and whether the costs were an obstacle for qualified individuals to attend higher education institutions (He ller, 1996) The literature demonstrated a definite relationship between the cost of attending an institution of higher education and actually attending any post secondary higher education institution (Heller, 1997; Hsing & Chang, 1996; Leslie & Brinkman, 1987) Hauptman (1990) further concluded the tuition set at higher education institution s provided an influence in both the supply and demand of higher education For higher education administrators and policy makers to shape
42 policies and apply economic concepts t o enrollment management, there was a need to define the foundational market concepts of supply and demand 1 The association between the cost of attending a higher education institution and seeking a degree was often explained through human capi tal theory Thus, human capital theory was a way for researchers to examine the rational decisions students made in regards to college enrollment or other life choices (DesJardins & Bell, 2007; Shin & Milton, 2006) Essentially, the theory suggested that individuals wanted to maximize their returns on investments, which was defined for the purposes of this study as the ratio between the costs students pay for college and the monetary benefits they received from their college education (Shin & Milton, 2006 ). Human capital theory was first introduced by Gary S Becker in 1962 original intent for the theory was to estimate the monetary rate of return of high school and college education in the United States This framework was the basis for severa l studies on student behavior which included student choice, student demand, and price response (Heller, 1997; Jackson & Weathersby, 1975; Leslie & Brinkman, 1988) In the predominant models related to net tuition, researchers have considered net price to be the remaining price following the subtraction of grant aid from tuition (St. John, 2003) Leslie and Brinkman (1987) reviewed over 25 studies conducted between 1967 and 1982 which evaluated the relationship between the price of attending a higher edu cation institution and actual college enrollment Their intent was to standardize the 1 Demand refers to the quantity of a good that consumers were willing to buy at a given price, where as supply w as the relationship that exist ed between the quantity of a good that producers were willing and able to supply at a given price. Related to higher education, the good that was supplied was the actual education provided by postsecondary institutions, the co nsumers were the students and their families, the producers were the institutions, and the price was the tuition charged in a given semester or academic year (DesJardins & Bell, 2007, p. 61 ).
43 findings of previous studies through meta analytical procedures which were guided by the methodol ogy utilized earlier by Jackson and Weathersby (1975) which calculate d a student price response coefficient (SPRC) 2 (Leslie & Brinkman, 1987) Leslie and Brinkman (1987) concluded that the mean price response was 0.7 percentage points This would have resulted in a three quarters percentage drop of enrollment for 18 24 year old participation groups for every $100 increase in tuition price given the 1982 1983 average weighted higher education prices of $3240 for tuition and room and board Savoca (1990) argued several of the earlier studies may have actually under estim ated the true tuition sensitivity on enrollment decisions by as much as half Her research focused on the level of tuition as a determining factor for a student to decide to apply to college, a factor that had been left out of sole tuition responsiveness of students who appl ied and were admitted to a post secondary institution Kane (1995) also found a phenomenon associated with community college enrollment He concluded tuition increases have increased effects on students attending community colleges as compared to those students attending four year colleges and universities As noted, there ha ve been several student demand studies published since Most of the earlier studies have conclude was related to a single net price (St John & Starkey, 1995) However, an emergent approach to evaluate student pric e response in higher education began to develop in the 1970s and 2 Student price response coefficient (SPRC) was defined as the change in college participation rates of 18 24 years old for every $100 increase in tuition process (in 1982 1983 dollars). Because of demand theory, as colleges prices rise, college enrollment should fall, ceteris paribus; one could conclude the SPRC to be negative (Leslie & Brinkman, 1987).
44 was first introduced by Step hen Dresch (1975). He posited the problem with several of the early student demand studies was that the y w ere too focused and did not account for all of the factors related to student demand of higher education Dresch (1975) concluded the single net pric e studies placed the process of educational decision making solely on the potential student without much regard for the external environment student demand research They concluded stude nts respond ed to a set of prices and subsidies rather than to a single net price Furthermore, their work stated low income students were the most price responsive to tuition which were followed by lower middle income students. Heller (1997) strengthened the argument for the need for policy makers to examine student price response and demand of higher education by analyzing multiple factors ed the efforts of Leslie and Brinkman He was specifically concerned with th e effects of financial aid on tuition charges, which correlate d to the other subsidies discussed by St. John and Starkey (1995) works contributed some key observations, which included: (a) increases in tuition led to declines in enrollment, (b) decreases in financial aid also led to declines in enrol l ment with changes to grant aid having increased effects as compared to loans or work study, (c) lower income students were more sensitiv e to changes in tuition and aid than students from middle and upper income families, (d) black students were more sensitive to changes in tuition and aid than white students and (e) students attending community colleges were more sensitive to tuition and changes as compared to their four year public colleges and u niversities counterparts. Heller (1997) concluded any
45 way a policy maker would like to evaluate tuition, financial aid or the net cost of goes up, the probability of e Although several of the earlier studies concluded that tuition was a critical factor in determining enrollment, studies conducted by Ghali, Miklius and Wade ( 1977 ) and and Peterson (1998) suggested tuition effects on enrollment we re small or non significant More recently, Shin and Milton (2006) concluded tuition change ha d no effect on change in enrollments and their best calculations were a $100 increase of college t uition correlated to a 1.13 student decrease per year Furthermore, the research conducted by Shin and Milton examined data from 1998 through 2000 and the authors posited that the earlier studies analyzed tuition from the 1960s to the late 1990s, a time i n which students were more responsive to tuition changes Lastly, Shin and Milton found that college enrollments we re more sensitive to relative tuition levels between competing colleges than to actual tuition levels Tuition and Fee Philosophies An d students for their academic program (Balderston, 1995) This source of revenue has historically been the second largest source of general fund income to the institutions (Whalen, 1996) Prior to discussing t he financial realities of increasing tuition one must differentiate the cost of college from the price paid by the students attending institutions of higher education Higher education was sold at a price that was lower than its actual cost (N ational Edu cation Association, 2003) In 1993, the average fees for resident undergraduate students was approximately 30 35% of the cost of instruction at public institutions with the remaining cost being covered, mostly, by the state operating appropriations
46 (Bal derston, 1995) The price that higher education was sold was in the form of tuition and fees ( NEA, 2003) Often times, tuition levels and fees also served as important policy tools for adjusting college enrollments, off setting shortages in state revenue s, and accomplishing other institutional goals such as expanding equal opportunity in higher education or emphasizing technology in the state economy (Shin & Milton, 2006). Setting tuition and fees price levels were difficult decisions for administrators They had to set the fee schedule at a rate that retained current student s attracted new students, and provided adequate revenue to cover costs (Bryan & Whipple, 1995) As a result of economic stresses faced by higher education administrators have produ ced a high premium on student enrollments to enhance institutional revenue, diversity and quality (Hossler, 2004) Hossler further posited that there were costs and trade offs associated with the pursuit of any one of these goals; therefore, it was essen tial for administrators and policy makers to find balance in the competition (Figure 2 1). Since the Mass Higher Education Era of the 1970s, tuition and fee charges have been the center of research analysis (Cohen, 1998) As noted in the literature, rela tive tuition increases have historically decreased enrollment (Heller, 1997; Leslie & Brinkman, 1987; Savoca, 1990; St. John & Starkey, 1995) The literature has stressed two general policies relating to tuition and fee sched ules established at public post secondary institutions The philosophies 3 included a low tuition charge to the student with increased state support directed to the institutions, or a high tuition, high student aid model where financial assistance was provided directly to the student 3 Carbone (1974) proposed alternative models for the establishment of tuition and fee structures. They included (a) the nonresident student surcharge model, (b) resident student fee remission model, (c) the sliding scale (multiple criteria) model, (d) the sliding scale (single criterion) model, and (e) the national tuition bank model.
47 Low tuition The support for a low tuition and fee structure policy originated from the idea to ensure affordable and equitable access to higher education opportunities to all students (Stampen, 1980; Wattenbarger & Cage, 1974) Furthermore, the rational e to maintain a low more educated citizens, better skilled workforce, and increased potential revenue from tax payers (Bowen, 1971; Wattenbarger & Cage, 1974; Young 1974; Stampen, 1980; Mingle 199 2) This policy approach was based on keeping tuition as low as possible by providing all governmental subsidies to institutions (Stampen & Layzell, 1997) Another argument in support of a low tuition and fee policy was the fact and fee structure does not account for the other expenses associated with attending a higher education institution (Wattenbarger & Cage, 1974) Hansen and Weisbrod (1969) posited the potential future earning s of college graduate s were overestimated They noted the discrepancy between the over estimation and actual financial gains was a result of the amount of foregone earning while attending college, the higher taxes set to be paid by the post college graduates, and the level of motivation among college attendees E ssentially these individuals would have had larger earning regardless of a college degree They further concluded the overestimation of potential income was a marketing technique utilized mainly by private schools t o promote their programs. The low tuition and fee policy was central to the foundational mission of the community college and paralleled the open door access philosophy of community colleges (Gleazer, 1998; Wattenbarger & Cage, 1974) In fact, the Preside Commission on Higher Education (1947) recommended free public education through
48 the fourteenth year be made available to all individuals willing to participate (p. 5 6). During the 1960s and the early 1970s, the policy held true Several states and metropolitan areas charged no tuition and those that did charged minimal fees (Gleazer, 1998). These views were not shared with many individuals outside of the academy In fact, tuition continued to increase rapidly (Cohen & Brawer, 2003) Wattenbarger and Cage (1974) concluded there was little rationale for actually charging tuition except to share the cost of higher education between society and the individual In contrast, Romano (2005) stated a low tuition policy actually subsidized th e education of the middle and upper socioeconomic groups, often at the expense of the low income groups He stated that most economists proposed a relatively high tuition, high financial aid policy as being more equitable and efficient. High tuition The high tuition and fee structure associated with high student financial aid policy was most often attributed to the argument established by Milton Friedman (1968) H e cove Wattenbarger and Cage (1974) noted there were two basic arguments utilized to rationalize the level at which tuition and fees were set Th e arguments utilized to set tuition and fee prices were developed around who shared in the benefits of higher education and whether the benefits were individual or societal. If one believed that higher education benefited individuals more th e n the price charged to the individual should have be en higher. The opposite held tr ue if it was perceived the benefits were accrued more by society, thus the basis for federal and state subsidiaries to higher education institutions. Hearn and Anderson (1995) stated
49 that the lower tuition setting and increased subsidization by the states to the institutions, through tax support, had overestimated the soci etal returns of postsecondary education; thus, providing higher education participants too generous of a subsidy. Romano (2005) concluded the actual problem associated with higher educati on cost was tuition was not too high, but rather the amount of need based financial aid was too low The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2002) noted the lowest income families have lost the most ground in the ability to finance hig her education and this was one of the major factors in their lower rates of college attendance Furthermore in 1970, the Carnegie Commission on Higher E ducation urged students to pay a larger share of instructional costs as a way to save the private secto r of higher education The report found, on average at public four year institutions, tuition charges met 17% of the instructional costs T herefore, within the report, it was and Anderson (1995) concluded the driving forces to set high tuition and high aid levels in the public sector was the fact tuition was too low T herefore, the amount of tuition should have been more reflect ive of The y further stated the tuition gap between the public and private institutions was economically inefficient and should be lessened Cohen and Brawer (2003) concluded that those individuals who benefited from going to college should pay and in turn would ha ve take n their education more seriously since they had a personal investment in the education. The high tuition/high aid model also received strength from the ability to capture the savings from the tuition rises and distributing them more equitably to th e lower
50 income, more financial needy students Hearn and Anderson (1995) concluded that the econometric evidence supported the notion that middle income and upper income students would continue to attend public institu tions regardless of the tuition rises and the lower income students would have more ability to attend with available modified and additional financial aid However, there were arguments against this policy as well Critics often argued that the high tuition/high aid strategy ignored the im portant psychological and political realities which include d lower income student s becoming price s Tuition Differentiations Tuition differentiation has long existed; however, more recently institutions were beginning to make finer distinctions in the tuition differentiation (Hearn, 2006) Tuition charges could be uniform, or they could have been set to vary according to the cost of a particular academi c program, or for non resident students The literature on tuition differences was representative of general themes Tuition differentials for potential students were dependent on the following themes: (a) residency status of students, (b) academic progr amming or academic level of students, (c) academic status of students, i.e. different tuition charges for undergraduate students versus graduate or professional students, (d) set fees for academic term or year compared to set fees per the number of credit hours a student has enrolled in a given semester, (e) the idea of providing access for all citizens to post secondary higher education opportunities (Balderston, 1997; Lenth, 1993)
51 Residency Historically, the posted tuition at most higher education institu tions ha s been uniform for all students. However, public universities and colleges were often obligated by state government to charge a higher tuition for non resident students (Balderston, 1995). Essentially, the tuition and fee structure was calculated in a way that charge d the non For example, a large mid state tuition in 1970 1971 was $325, and non residents were charged $745. In 2004 2005, tuition and fees for residents had raised to $6,776 versus $18,589 for non residents. Therefore in that time period, non resident tuiti on grew at a rate of almost 250% where as the resident tuition charges only grew 200% (Hossler, 2006). The plausible rationale for the difference between in state and out of state tuition was that the taxpayers in the state where a particular public institution was located should not be expected to subsidize the education of students that were non residents (Hossler) Tuition differentials relationship comparisons In addition to residency tuition differentials, there were several others that have already been noted The tuition difference was both intra and inter institutional Within an institution, there were differences among academic programs, level of education either undergraduate or graduate, or lower division or upper division (Lenth, 1993; Simpson, 1991) Simpson (1991) posited the difference in tuition among academic program of studies may have originated from the future benefit s, especially varied future earnings, to the individual of attaining a particular type of instruction. He also noted that another plausible explanation for the varied tuition and fee charges related to the higher costs associated by the different categories described However, Middaugh, Graham
52 and Shahid (2003) found no relationship between tuition differences and actual instructional costs. A recent study conducted by Romano and Djajalaksana (2010) suggested that it was not any cheaper for the public to educate students pursuing a bachelors at a community college for their first two years o f course. They fo und it actually more cost effec tive for public p uposes, for these students to be educated at four year institutions. There were several positives associated with differential tuition; however, careful consideration needed to be given prio r to the policy being implemented For example, higher education administrators had to critically analyze tuition elasticity Shin and Milton (200 8 ) concluded that the differences in tuition elasticity between academic disciplines could have been caused by the rates of return between academic majors They posited that students in high rate of return majors were not sensitive to tuition increases because those students expect ed greater benefits from their college education Furthermore, using differentia l tuition based on majors could cause students to declare a major out of current affordability and not interest (Balderston, 1995). Institutional Rationales A major recurring theme in reviewing the literature and the history of higher education was the o ngoing search by the public institutions for the needed financial resources to fulfill their individual missions (Hossler, 2004) Generally, the literature has supported the causes for increasing tuition and fees hav ing been a result of inflation changes, institutional expenditures increasing, and unstable financial sources Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) posited, after researching articles and other documents, six general trends for the increased tuition and fees seen a t public institutions They included: (a) increased costs to the institution, (b) the need to expand services (c)
53 decreased sources of other institutional financial support, (d) the amount of increased student aid available, (e) the need for institutions to be competitive and (f) the changing college student demographic. Since most public colleges covered the majority of the costs through state appropriations, and only a smaller portion of the costs through student tuition, a small percentage decrease in state appropriation led to a large increase in tuition and fees to help compensate for the lost state revenues ( NEA 2003). In fact, the burden of financing higher education was assumed by the students and families of those attending Between 1980 and 19 98, the share of fiscal responsibility assumed by the students and parent s rose from 35% to almost 48% Furthermore, state and local appropriations dropped from 55.5% to 43% (Zumeta, 2001). As noted, when institutions were faced with lower than needed sta te appropriations often the first response was an increase in tuition and fees (Hauptman, 1997) In fact, in a 15 year span from 1985 1999 at public institutions, the proportion of current fund revenue declined from 45.1% to 35.8%, which resulted in an absolute decrease of 21% (Santos, 2007) Furthermore, in the mid 1990s, tuition and fees represented about one fifth of total revenues at public institutions which was up from less than one sixth of total revenue a decade earlier (Hauptman, 1997). In com parison, from 1983 through 1997, tuition and other student charges in both the public and private sectors had increased at approximately double the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) (Hauptman, 1997) In fact, during a five year period from academic y ear 1990 91 through academic year 1995 96, the average tuition for a full time resident undergraduate student rose 43.8%, compared with an increase of 15.4% in the CPI,
54 and 13.8 % in median household income in 1998 current dollars (United States General Acc ounting Office, 1998). More recently, the annual tuition increases were at or above 10% from 2002 to 2004 (Benjamin, 2007) Furthermore, Hossler (2006) demonstrated the effect of raising tuition at a major research institution in the northeast At this institution the state resident tuition was $10,856 for 2004 2005 with approximately 34,000 undergraduates enrolled With a modest 5% increase in tuition, this generated $18.5 million additional revenue Furthermore if the tuition increase was 10%, whi ch had been the average, there was a potential for $37 million in new revenue. In addition, if the undergraduate population increased by 500 additional students, another $5.5 million was generated. Although both types of higher education institutions hav e seen rapid increases in tuition and fees, on a percentage basis, tuition increased more quickly at both the 4 and 2 year public colleges and universities than at 4 year private institutions In fact, there was a 30% increase in tuition for public colle ges and universities compared to a 17% increase for private institutions from 1993 1998 (USGAO, 1998) Tuition increases were consistent at both the private and public institutions. However, one major difference was when the tuition increase s historically occurred The increases in tuition and other charges at private institutions have largely been instituted during times of economic prosperity This was a result of the belief by the private institutions that the consumers were able to aff ord the higher rates and charges However at the public institutions, tuition and fee charges tended to increase the quickest during times of economic hardships maintaining their finan cial commitment to public institutions, often a result of tax revenue
55 shortfalls (Hauptman, 1997) Furthermore, tuition and fees increased in years that no state budget short falls were present. In fact, the increasi ng tuition rates and untargeted college financial aid for lower income families equated to approximately 40% of the total family income (Hunt & Tierney, 2006). Federal Actions a role of enabling. The programs that the federal government provided allowed millions of Americans an opportunity to purs u e a higher education degree regardless of their financial status (Wegner, 2003). However, to appreciate the role of the federal go vernment in funding higher education, one must examine the evolutionary role of this revenue source Following the two Morrill Acts, the federal support of higher education was relatively quiet until the vocational education support laws of 1918 and subse quent years which provided financial support in a categorical manner to higher education (Wattenbarger & Cage, 1974) Then in 1944, American colleges received an unexpected and not completely welcomed financial windfall. This came through ge of Public Law 36 which was more commonly referred to as the GI Bill (Kiester, 1994). This bill guaranteed financial aid to any veteran who had served after 1940 and met other conditions. Essentially, the GI Bill prov ided the groundwork for increasing access and ensuring affordability of higher education through portable student aid grants ( Hearn & Holdsworth 2004). It opened higher education to hundreds of thousands of American families who previously had no direct experience with education beyond high school. Essentially for the first time, people with average financial means had an opportunity to pursue a college degree or some other type of vocational training (N CPPHE 2002).
56 Although the federal government b egan to aid students in their pursuits of higher education, most of the early efforts were targeted to select populations such as: (a) military veterans, (b) children of military veterans, and (c) disabled students (St. John & Parsons, 2004). The federal government did not firmly establish its role in higher education finance until the 1970s with the creation of other federal student financial aid opportunities ( Heller 2006) In the 1970s, the United States elected to make student financial assistance a national priority (Lingenfelter, 2003) Some of the programs that were available to students after 1972 included the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant (BEOG), quickly renamed the Pell Grant in honor of Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, the Supplem entary Education Opportunity Grant (SEOG), and the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) With the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Educational Amendments of 1972, the United S t ates Congress significantly transf ormed higher education pol icy With the final support of the federal government, it marked the conclusion of over two decades of political and social debate about whether the federal government would provide direct aid to students rather than to the institutions fo r the purpose of expanding post secondary education access (Alexander, 2003). The federal government provided a substantial amount of financial aid that helped enable students to attend higher education institutions However, the majority of aid was in the form of lo ans and did little to reduce the cost of attending higher education It just delayed payment of the higher education costs associated with attendance (Hunt & Tierney, 2006) In addition, the use of student loans actually increased the cost of attendance because of interest charges and other matriculation fees (Hossler, 2006). Furthermore, the cost of education rose quicker tha n the available
57 amount of financial aid to stude nts (NEA, 2003) In addition, much of the current trends in federal financial assistance were targeted to the middle and upper income families that did little to ensure access to all (Lingenfelter, 2006) State of Florida Actions The Office of Studen t Financial Assistance (OSFA) was located in the Florida Department of Education (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 2005; Sanchez Penley, et al., 1997) The OSFA was responsible for the function of two major program area s rel ated to student aid These areas included loan program In 2003 04, the OSFA administered over $ 414 million in state student aid program s (OPPAGA, 2005) The state o f Florida provided over 18 programs (OSFA, 2009) with the largest support distributed to the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship program (FBFS) (Calcagno & Alfonso, 2007), the Florida Student Assistance Grant (FSAG), and the Florida Resident Access Grant (F RAG) (Sanchez Penley, et al., 1997). State financial aid policies had historically focused on need based aid to ensure equality in higher education access and completion However during the last 15 years, Dynarski (2004) noted the shifting trend of state s to a more merit aid system Such merit based programming has existed in the state of Florida since 1997 (Calcagno & Alfonso, 2007) The program was known as the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship (FBFS) program 4 students for their academic achievement in high school by assisting them to finance their in state 4 FBFS defined traditional students as those who matriculate at any Florida college in the fall term of the same year in which they graduated high school ( O ffice of Student Financial Assistance, 2009).
58 postsecondary education The FBFS was a lottery sponsored funding source which provided four different types of awards which included: (a) the Florida Academic Top Scholar Award (FATS), (b) the Florida Academic Scholarship (FAS), (c) the Florida Medallion Scholarship (FMS), and (d) the Florida Gold Seal Vocational Scholarship (FGSV) In 2008 09, the FBFS funded over 169,000 students with a total aid amount of over $436 million (OSFA, 2009) Although the state had several financial aid programs available to students, the federal government remained the largest provider of student aid in Florida (Sanchez Penley, et al., 1997) In fact, federal pr ogramming accounted for over $1.4 billion in financial aid programming in 2003 04 (OPPAGA, 2005). Tuition and Fees and Enrollment The general purpose of the community college was to provide educational opportunity Gleazer (1998) noted public community ( junior) colleges were intended to extend education opportunity. By the creation of the community college those families and individua ls with limited financial means had a low cost higher education option Medsker and Tillery (1971) noted these colleges h ad to be open access, offer a diverse range of curriculum options, and attendance at the institutions needed to be financially easier than attendance at other institutions. This was the case with the expansion of the Florida community college system Com munity colleges in Florida were originally authorized by the Florida Legislature to provide programs and services in the areas of: (a) lower level undergraduate instruction and awarding associate degrees, (b) preparation for vocations that require less tha n baccalaureate degrees, (c) promotion of economic development of the state within the college service district, and (d) community services, adult pre college education, recreational and leisure services, general education developmental examinations (GED)
59 and other programs and courses to fulfill the mission (Tollefson, Garrett & Ingram, 1999 p. 111). There was concern with setting the tuition and fees lower at the community colleges thereby making postsecondary education accessible to all students in th at the lower income and minority students might only focus their efforts at these type of institutions (Trow, 1977) In the state of Florida, Floridians were more likely to see community colleges as a solution to the problem of underprepared and low incom e students Further more, public community colleges in the state of Florida, typically enrolled over half of the students who attended higher education (Sanchez Penley, et al., 1997) The community college has long been the access point for students begin ning their higher education careers in the state of Florida It was often believed that when tuition was increased, there were associated enrollment decreases since the cost of attending a higher education institution over the costs of attendance (Morgan, Kickham, & LaPlant, 2001) However a study conducted by Shin and Milton (2006) concluded that enrollment changes between 1998 2002 were not affected by changes in tuition, financial aid, or unemployment rates In co ntrast, the wage premium for college graduates over high school graduates and competitive tuition demonstrated an effect on college enrollment growth Furthermore, the increases in tuition had more of an effect on where students cho se to attend college ve rsus not attending any higher education institution (Toutkoushian, 2003). Since 2004, the state of Florida has generally seen overall enrollment growth at all public higher education institutions
60 institution s experienced a 17.2% increase from 442,000 FTE to 518,000 FTE However, between 2006 and 2007, Florida saw a modest increase of only 2%. Between 1997 98 and 2001 02, after adjusting for inflation, tuition and fees increased 18% at the SUS institutions and 7% for the community college system (Council for Educational Policy Research and Improvement, 2003) State Resources The growth and expansion of the Florida public higher education system occurred rapidly after 1960 This was a result of the state nee ding to have a more developed workforce It was believed that the rapid increase occurred because of two factors citiz ens to financially support post secondary higher educa tion participation Research and literature demonstrated that tuition in public higher educational institutions was linked to the appropriations guaranteed by the states (Koshal & Koshal, 2000) The next factor believed to influence the state resources, was the percentage of the state of ligible to attend a public post secondary institution The monetary benefits of an educated workforce were extremely evident to society as a whole. All individuals of society were benefited from t he investment in higher education whether or not they attended a higher education institution. This was due to the fact that individuals that furthered their education beyond a high school diploma were more productive. Furthermore, the higher salaries th at these educated individuals received generated higher tax payments at all levels of government which benefited society as a whole (Baum & Ma, 2007). Lastly, one of the largest monetary societal benefits was the decreased reliance on governmental financi al support. In fact,
61 or advanced degree received any type of public assistance (Perna, 2005). There were generally two accepted problems associated with the expansi on of higher educational opportunities within a state Initially, the individual benefits of attaining a higher education degree were applied to the individuals whom were eligible to participate Secondly, those individuals whom were eligible had to have the ability to finance the educational opportunities (Martinez, 2004). Income and the Ability to Pay As noted, there has been an increased trend in higher education institutions utilizing tuition and fees as a source of income; thus, placing more burdens on students and their families in support ing the quest of attaining post secondary education opportunities (Hosssler, 2006) There have been several changes in financial aid policies to help support these students However, an inadequacy of the federal f inancial model was the initiation of programs improving the affordability of college for middle and upper class families One of the first such programs which benefited the middle and upper class was the program which removed income and eligibility limi ts for one of the federal loan program s, and subsequently, created another loan program for wealthier households This was a result of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 1992 (Baird, 2006) In 1997, the federal legislature enacted tax savings with the implementation of the federal Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credit tax credit programs, and college savings incentives (Zumeta, 2001) In 2003, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that the expenditures on the above two tax credit programs were approximately $6 billion In contrast, $11 billion dollars was spent on the Pell Grant in the same year (Baird, 2006) However, these programs were of little
62 use to the families who had incomes too low to owe taxes, or had no mea ns of saving for college (Zumeta, 2001) As a result, those from the middle and upper classes were the primary benefactors, and the programs had no discernible effects on college enrollments (Long, 2004) The current shift to the above initiatives may h ave affected the long term support of the important need based financial aid programs, thus skewing the enrollment further to more affluent students (Zumeta, 2001) Another disturbing trend was the shift of responsibility to the students and parents of those attending college In addition, there was an increasing trend to shift the way that financial aid was distributed The trend was that aid was being distributed through a merit based system instead of a financial need based system (NCPPHE, 2002) W ith this shift in distribution, most experts believed that the federal direct student aid polices have only marginally succeeded in improving lower income access to higher education (Alexander, 2003) In fact, need based aid fell from 80% a decade ago to less than 60% Furthermore, the federal student aid system drifted from a grant dominated system to that of a loan dominated system (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2004) In 1981, student financial loans only accounted for 45% of student financial aid and grants re presented 52% of the aid However, in 2000, student financial loans represented 58% of student financial aid and grants only contributed 41% of aid (NCPPHE, 2002) Although loans were often used to finance higher education, it was well documented that gr ants were much more effective th a n student loans in improving access to higher education Essentially, student loans did nothing to lower the price of higher education, it just delayed the payment In fact, student loans actually increased the costs of c ollege because of interest and matriculation fees (Hossler, 2006).
63 Although student loans were a legitimate source of aid and often times necessary for the financing of a college education, there was a need to evaluate how much debt college students should have incur red (Hunt & Tierney, 2006). The most disturbing trend in this shift of funding was that although all social classes of student s borrowed money to attend college, those from the lower socioeconomic classes borrowed money at a higher percentage Consequently, the borrowing of money by this class was a much greater burden than it was on other social classes Furthermore, the lowest income quartile experienced an increase in cumulative debt Senior students at public colleges and universities c umulative debt increased from $7,629 to $ 12,888, in constant dollars, between 1989 and 1999 (NCPPHE, 2002) These outstanding cumulative debt totals may have actually price d students out of lower paying public careers such as public school teachers (Hunt & Tierney, 2006). Another initiative enacted by several states to assist in the funding of higher education was the creation of pre paid college tuition plans (Baird, 2006) Although these plans were promoted as increasing access to all, they most often only increased ac cess for the middle and upper income families (Hauptman, 1990) Essentially state sponsored pre paid tuition plans allowed parents (or others) to purchase a future college education at the current tuition price (Baird, 2006) Often, t hey were referred to as tuition guarantees because the payments that the parents made at the initiation of such programs would fully cover the cost of tuition in the future, whenever the child was ready to enroll at an institution (Hauptman, 199 0 ) In add program contributed a sizeable contribution as well. The state used the principle and
64 interest to meet liabilities For this program to be succes sful and not to operate at a loss for the state, the investment returns had to equal or exceed tuition inflation (Baird, 2006). As stated, the pre paid tuition plans provided a general advantage for the middle and upper income households. Lehman (1990 ) noted that the higher income paid tuition plan In fact, he only 4% in the bottom income quintile Therefo re, it was evident that these plans target and were skewed to wealthier college attending families Furthermore, Baird (2006) concluded that the success of pre paid tuition programs may have actually compromised other goals that were central to educationa l policy such as access to all She further stated that the existence of this type of program may have le d to a decline in state or federal support of higher education. Although there were several programs initiated benefiting the middle and upper class, another disturbing issue related to financial assistance for the lower socioeconomic class student was the perception that postsecondary education was not an available opportunity (Callan, 2006). In fact, those that came to the conclusion that higher educ ation was unattainable did not take the steps to get there Coles and Baum (2005) concluded that several lower income students did not pursue higher education opportunities because they believe d that they could not afford it. State of Florida and Ability to Pay Even after several tuition increases, in the late 1990s, by 2008 09, Florida still ranked 49 th among the states on the amount charged to resident undergraduates at public universities Only Wyoming charged less than Florida The nati onal average for
65 flagship resident undergraduate tuition and fees in 2008 09 was $7,481; in Florida, it was $3, 777, which equated to more than 50% less than the national average (Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2009) tuition and fee structure remained the second lowest in 2008 09, Dosal (2008) posited this did not mean students in Florida had the ability to afford higher education costs He further noted that mar ginating a low tuition did not guarantee access to a Flo rida public higher education institution higher education in Florida should be measured in the total cost of attendance. Although Florida was recognized as a low tuition state, it still recei the National Center for Public Policy and Higher E ducation in 2006 In fact, the report noted families in Florida devoted a very large share of income, even after financial aid, to attend public two year and four year colleges in Florida Furthermore, the net college costs 5 for low and middle income students to attend public two and four year college for Florida based scholarships and other financial ai d. attend higher education institutions In fact, 80% of the aid appropriated through the state was intended to support the FBFS program, and the remaining 20% of the appropr iations were placed in need based aid initiatives (Dosal, 2008) Lastly, 48% of Floridians interviewed in 2000 believed that there were several individuals qualified to go to college that did not have the opportunity to do so (Immerwahr, 2000). 5 Net college cost represents tuition, room, and board after financial aid
66 State Appr opriation and Tuition Relationship State governments were the principle source of revenue for public higher education institutions (Mumpher, 1996) However, over the past two decades, state appropriations for public four year college s and universities wer e stable or declining (Hossler, 2004) To completely understand the dynamics of state funding of higher education institutions, one should realize that funding decisions often ha d more to do with the political make economic position (Alexander, 2003) Therefore, the actual study of higher education financial policy and practice was actually a study of state legislative activity (Crampton, 2001). Furthermore, since higher education was a public service, it had to a lso compete with other public services offered by the state which included K 12 schools, welfare, Medicaid, and corrections (Callan, 2002). These competing demands challenged state support for higher education, especially in lean budget years (Weerts & R onca, 2006) The competition became extremely fierce when state funds were scarce (Okunade, 2004) It was perceived by the state legislatures that public higher education institutions had more fiscal resources than the previously mentioned public service s and agencies. State policy makers believed that if an individual state was fa ced with a budget shortfall, tha n higher education institutions were able to find alternative sources more easily to offset the faced budget limitations (Callan, 2002). This o ften forced the institutions to raise tuition and fees to help off set state budget short falls (Baird, 2006; Morgan, Kickham, & state governments were faced with adverse budget conditions, higher education budgets were disproportionally reduced for the
67 above mentioned reasons. However, when states were faced with excellent budget conditions, higher education often received larger increases than the other public services funded by state appropriations (Hovey). In general, state support for higher education has decreased for several decades. Measures of state support that examined funding per $1,000 of personal income demonstrate One example of this can be seen in the states that were members of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). For these sixteen states, located primarily in the southeastern portion of the United States, there was a decline of 3% in inflation adjusted funds per FTE at public four year colleges, and a decline of 7% in inflation adjusted funds per FTE at public two year institutions from 2001 to 2005 (SREB, 2006). These trends were echoed b y a 2007 Survey of the National State Directors of Community Colleges which found that the majority of states with community college funding formulas indicated that their formulas were not fully funded for the 2007 08 fiscal year (Katsinas, Tollefson & Rea mey, 2008). State of Florida State Appropriations Florida experienced both underfunding and unfunded enrollment increases over the past ten years In fact, in 2005 06 constant dollars, the appropriations for (FTE) student dropped significantly over the pa st decade For example, in SUS General Revenue per FTE declined since the 2006 07 academic year when it peaked at $7,751 per FTE. Recently the General Revenue per FTE was $7,035 (Florida Board of Governors, 2008). While other fund sources, such as lottery funds, student fees and state trust funds contributed to the total amount of funding for the SUS system, the total amount of system funding also decreased since 2006 07 from a high
68 of $3,001,976,573 to the 2008 09 amount of $2,984,104,675 (Florida Board of Governors, 2008). Essentially, this amounted to a loss of 1% from 2006 07 to 2007 08, and another loss of 1.8% from 2007 08 to 2008 09, before adjusting for inflation The community college system experienced some of the same budget shortfalls In fact, state funding per FTE for community colleges decreased from $3,793 to $2,849 (a 25% reduction) and total funds per FTE decreased from $5,258 to $4,577 (a 13% reduction ) when adjusted by the higher education price index (Florida Association of Community Colleges, 2008). Educational Attainment An individual decided to attend or not attend a postsecondary institution for several different reasons. These reasons often revo lved around economic, social or psychological factors (Mumpher, 1996) However, another issue considered when analyzing higher education enrollment was the actual educational ability of those individuals desiring to attend. Essentially, there needed to be qualified individuals prior to analyzing the other reasons to attend or not attend. One can see the vast increases in the number eligible to attend higher education institutions by examining high school graduation rates. For example, in 1900, only 6% of all 17 years old graduated from high school, and by 1930 this grew to 30% (Goldin & Katz, 2000) This trend continued through the 2006 2007 academic year where close to 74% of the freshmen who entered high school graduated within four years. Kim and Ru ry (2007) concluded in their study that analyzed higher education enrollment patterns between 1940 and 1980 that having an increased number of high school graduate s naturally increased higher education participation rates. However, they further conclude d that the expansions of secondary education and subsequent
69 high school graduation rates did not account for all of the phenomenal growth in higher education during their years of study. It was observed that during the same time period along with the num ber of graduates, the proportion of secondary school graduates who attended postsecondary institutions increased as well In fact, college enrollment from high school graduates increased from 16.5% in 1940 to over 44% in 1980 (Kim & Rury, 2007). The trend that was noticed nationally was similar with the citizens of Florida Although since the turn of the 20 th century, Florida has steadily increased high school graduation rates, it did so at a slower rate as compared to the national landscape Ho 07 was minimally under the national high school graduation rate at 72.4% (Florida Department of Education). Unemployment An individual may have elected to attend a higher education institution as a result of the economic conditions. The literature suggested that potential student s often returned to colleges, specifically community colleges for job retraining to become employable in other occupations Another potential influence of unemployment or the threat of unemployment was students being enrolled in higher education institution s as a buffer from the unemployment business cycle (Betts & McFarland, 1995). Heller (1999) noted, in his study analyzing five different ethnic groups and factors aff ecting enrollment, as employment possibilities lessened, all of the groups studied were more likely to enroll in community colleges as an alternative to entering the workfo r ce. He further concluded that Asian Americans had the largest response followed by Whites. Another possible scenario to describe the increases in enrollment during high unemployment rate time periods could have be en explained through a rate
70 of return analysis. Betts and McFarland (1995) concluded that enrollments increased at community colleges during high rates of unemployment because the opportunity cost of enrollment declined. Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework that guided this study was developed after the literature reviewed demonstrated the influence that tuition pricing had on an individual s ability to at tend post secondary public institutions and the choice of attending specific institutions of higher education Earlier studies examined the effects of price on students to persist at an institution, and more recently enrollment This study contributed to an in depth an post secondary education pricing stru cture on enrollment from 1970 to 2010. by tuition and fees at the community colleges, as displayed in Figure 2 2 A small ratio resulted, when the difference in tuition and fees at Florida State universities and community colleges were close to each other, as demonstrated by points ( A ) and ( B ) The lar ger ratio demonstrated in the figure by points (C) and (D) represented a larger price difference between the Florida State univ e rsities and community colleges (Mullin, 2008 ; Mullin & Honeyman, 2008).The ratio grew to almost a factor of nine by the conclusi on of the study. As noted in the literature, if the price difference w ere zero, in theory, the price was the determinant for enrollment at a particular institution Expanding on this assumption, if the price difference remained zero and tuition and fees were high, then it was concluded that enrollment would
71 negatively be affected The opposite would also be true, if tuition and fees remained low, then st udent enrollm ent at public post secondary institutions would be positively affected (College Board, 2006); instead, the study was designed to evaluate the difference in public universities and community colleges Therefore, one could have posited that as the difference ratio increased between the two sectors of s public higher education, a lower cost option was created The lower priced option may have served as an entry point that was more affordable and essentially decreased the influences of tuition and fees as an obstacle for students in enrolling in a postsecondary education institution The state of Florida developed public postsecondary education struct ures to address the increased participation in postsecondary education Within the state, h enrollment The state structure was operationalized to include median family income, population aged 25+ with a high schoo l diploma but not a unemployment rates. postsecondary education institutions This was operationalized with a variable reflective of Fall Unduplicated Headcount for a given year of degree seeking ind ividuals in undergraduate academic programs.
72 In summary, since the 1950s, there have been an increasing amount of individuals participating in postsecondary education Much of the increased participation was a result of federal initiated programs that have allowed higher education opportunities to become affordable to a larger po pulation Florida experienced vast higher education enrollment growths between the 1960s and 1 970s with the creation of the communi ty college system serving the local geographical areas education In addition, since the early 1900s there was an increasing number of eligible individuals to attend higher education institutions. In fact, in 2006 07, the four year freshman graduation rate was approximately 74%. Therefore one could conclude over the past fifty years, there was a n increased eligible student population that also had the necessary resources to attend higher education institutions higher education opportunities. Tuition has steadil y increased over the past fifty years and has often increased at a rate much higher than the rate of inflation This has placed more emphasis on students and their families to finance post secondary education opportunities In addition to the rapid increa se in tuition the gap between tuition at two year colleges and four year colleges and universities have w idened Mullin and Honeyman (2008) concluded that between 1960 and 2000, the gap increased by a factor of three. The tuition gap between the two typ es of institution s has been even greater i n Florida where between 1970 and 201 0 the tuition a nd fee gap has widened by a factor of almost nine The literature recently has hinted that the impact of the tuition gap has been less founded. One explanation for the lower impact was the ever
73 expanding use of loans and other alternatives to assist students in their pursuits of postsecondary education There were several factors identified in the literature that have affected higher education enrollment. It w as proposed that an association existed between the which included education attainment of its population, unemployment rate, the ability to pay for higher education opportunities, state based financial aid and the structures with enrollment in these institutions (Figure 2 3) The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which providing access to postsecondary education v ia the introduction of a lower priced option, with 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
74 Figure 2 1. The balancing of the competing goals of enrollment [Hossler, 2004] Tuition Revenue Traditional Academic Selectivity Student Diversity
75 C A D B Florida State University tuition and fees Florida Community College tuition and fees Figure 2 2. A depiction of the difference in the tuition and fee structure in the State of E ducation System [Modified from Mullin, 2008] 9 x
76 Higher Education Enrollment Figure 2 3. Conceptual framework Institution Tuition and Fees Education Attainment Median Family Income and Ability to Pay Financial Assistance Unemployment Rates
77 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY It was observed that the difference in tuition and fees between public institution types in the state of Florida changed between the years of 1970 and 2010 by a factor of almost nine while participation in postsecondary education paralleled the national hi gher education landscape and fees were three times higher than that of the national landscape where between the years of 1950 and 2000, the difference in tuition and fees between publi c institution types increased by a factor of three while enrollment was at a plateau (Mullin & Honeyman, 2008) s community college system grew rapidly between the 1960s and 1970s Furthermore, during the ye ars of interest, over 50% of all attendance in higher education in Florida occurred at the community college level which reinforced plus The public community college was see n as the primary entry point to postsecondary education (Florida Postsecondary Education Planning Commission, 2000; Sanchez Penley, Martinez, & Nodine, 1997) The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to w hich providing access to postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower priced option, the community college, was associated with enrollment for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. Research Question To examine student price response theory as operationalized as the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR) between the different institution types while considering
78 developed How was enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010? Research Hypothesis In order to test the r esearch question, the following hypothesis was developed. H 0 1: Enrollment was not significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio resources for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010. H A 1: Enrollment was significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between resources for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010. Data Summary system, community college system, and state resources for the years of 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 These data were analyzed by utilizing the type of institutions as th e unit of analysis. Population tion system which included the S tate U niversity S ystem (SUS) and the C ommunity C ollege (CC) S ystem which was known as the Florida S tate C ollege S ystem (FSCS) at the conclusion of the years of interest in the study At the beginning time of analysis, in 1970, the state of Florida had 27 community colleges and 7 state universities By the next date of interest to the researcher, the C ommunity C ollege S ystem had grown to its full capacity of 28, at which it remained in 2010 The S tate U niversity S ystem expanded to 9 institutions by 1980 with the addition of universities in northeast and southeast Florida The S tate U niversity S ystem expanded again in 1 991 with the addition of the
79 10 th university in Southwest Florida, but did not officially begin operations until 1998 Therefore, data on the 10 th institution w ere only calculated for the last two years of interest to the researcher For the last year of analysis, the S tate U niversity S ystem had legislatively classified honors college for the liberal arts, thus increasing the number of institutions to 11 (Table 3 1) As a result of the additional institutions in the state of Florida throughout the study, the size of the population analyzed changed for each year, where: 1970 ( N = 34), 1980 ( N = 37), 1990 ( N = 37), 2000 ( N = 38), and 2010 ( N =39). As a result there were a t otal of 185 different cases. Variables of Interest This study analyzed three independent constructs, which consisted of seven independent variables that the researcher believed to influence the dependent variable education institutions. Enrollment. The number of post secondary institutions grew rapidly in the state of Florida between the years of 1960 and 1970 public postsecondary institutions resulted from the 1955 Legislature session, which established the Community College Council By 1957, the council published a report The report was approved by the State Board of Education and contained recommendations for neede d legal changes and for a master plan design that established the C ommunity C ollege S ystem in Florida (Florida Department of Education, 2008) This study utilized Full Time Fall Unduplicated Headcount to measure enrollment. Headcount was utilized in th e study since it was the most consistent data over the 40 years of investigation. Fall Unduplicated Headcount data for the Florida Community
80 College System were obtained from the Florida Department of Education, and specifically the State College System F actbooks. Likewise, Fall Unduplicated Headcount for the state university system s were obtained through data reported by the Florida Board of Governors and the State University Factbooks Total Fall Unduplicated Headcount in both types of public instituti ons (F L HEI ENR), Fall Unduplicated Headcount CC_ENR), and Fall Unduplicated Headcount SUS_ENR) were employed as the dependent variables in the three individual models. Tuitio n and Fees A structure was the price it charge d students for their academic program (Balderston, 1995) For this study, the tuition and fees reported represented the price of instruction for one academic year which was bas ed on a 30 credit hour course load The researcher was interested in the difference in tuition and fee rates at the Florida public community colleges and state universities due to recent research which suggested 71% of all state policymakers believed the increased demand for higher education should redirect students first through the two years at the lower cost community college, then on to the four year granting institution (Ruppert, 2001) Furthermore, community colleges typically have served as the pri mary gateway of access to higher education for disadvantaged students (Anderson, Alfonso, & Sun, 2006) Therefore price differences studied in The results could have informed higher education access initiatives that would have continue d to direct students to the lower cost community colleges, building on the two plus two policy, and prior to matriculating to the state universities for the upper division
81 course work, or those desiring to remain at the community college to seek a baccalaureate degree. Tuition and fee data utilized for this research were obtained from three sources: The Florida Department of Education, The Florida Board of Governors, and the National Cent (IPEDS) The need to utilize all of the sources was required to ensure that specific tuition and fees were reported for the 28 community colleges and 11 public universities. The tuition data for this study were based on the costs for a n in state undergraduate student to attend either the community college or stat e university system institution as a full time student, thus the tuition and fees represent ed the cost of 30 credit hours The tuition and fee difference ratio (TPDR) be post secondary higher education institutions was determined by dividing the SUS n and fees in the same service region s The counties served by each state university and community college were obtained from the Florida Board of Governors and Florida Department of Education, respectively (Table 3 2). State resources. The growth and e xpansion of the Florida public higher education system occurred rapidly after 1960 This resulted from the state needing to have a more developed workforce It was believed th at the rapid increase occurred because of two factors The first factor cont ributing to the expansion was the ability of Florida state citizens to financial ly support post secondary higher education participation in which the institution servi ced ( Tables 3 2 and 3 3). Data w ere obtained from U S
82 Census Data for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. For the year of 2010, the estimation of MFI was produced from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Median Family Income Documentatio n System. The next factor believed to influence the state resources was the percentage of s population e ligible to attend a public post secondary institution Within this context, the researcher also investigated how those careers tha t only required a high school secondary eligible population This was determined by combining potential degree seeking individual s from an institutions service area. This was further defined as those individual s in a county that were 25+ with at least a high school diploma and those that were 25+ without a four year degree Data w ere obtained from the U S Census Data for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. For the year of 2010, data were collected from the N orth Carolina Economic Development Intelligence System (EDIS) which produced an estimated educational attainment percentage for each county in the state of Florida. affected those individuals desir ing to pursue opportunities of post secondary education It had been suggested that as employment opportunities lessened individuals we re more likely to attend a post secondary education institution as an alternative to entrance into the workforce (Heller, 1999; Shin & Milton, 2006) Data were obtained from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research Florida Statistical Abstracts for the years 1970 and 1980. Data for the years 1990, 2000, and 2010 were obtained from the U S Departm ent of Labor.
83 State Financial Aid. The federal and state governments ha d several programs that assist ed students in the pursuit of higher education opportunities. The numbers of programs have expanded with the expansion of higher education (Mendoza, Mend ez, & Malcolm, 2009). Specifically states invest ed in higher education in several ways to assist students in gaining access and completing a college degree (Titus, 2009) However, with decreasing economic conditions, students struggled to find mechanism s to fund their higher education endeavors (Mendoza, et al., 2009). Titus ( 2009 ) production whereas state non need based aid was statistically insignificant. Data for Florida State Student Aid were obtained from two sources, and as Florida changed its student financial aid policies the data expanded to include both need based and non need based aid programs. Data for the years 1970, 1980 and 1990 were obtained from the Nationa l Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP) Annual Surveys and the data for the remaining years of interest were obtained from the The first two years of interest in the study, 1 970 and 1980, financial assistance was limited to only need based aid. For the remaining years of interest, 1990, 2000, and 2010, both need based and non need based state financial aid was included in the analysis. Research Design The research was a non experimental design that utilized pre existing data The colleges and state universities w ere associated with the tuition difference ra tio between the two public post secondary institutions between 1970 and 2010. The study utilized
84 three separate multiple regression analysis models to address the stated question for the years (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010) Full Model The first multiple regression analysis was co nducted with Fall Full Time ENR) which served as the dependent variable. The independent variables were included in the regression analysis to demonstrate the variance associated with the dependent variable The independent variables of interest were median family income (MFI), educational attainment (EA), the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR), unemployment rates (UNEM), Florida state financial aid (FLSA), and the type of institution (TYPE) for the five years of study. 0 1 (TYP 2 3 4 5 6 7 i where, FL HEI ENR = the dependent variable for unduplicated fall headcount, Florida public instit utions of higher education, 0 = Y intercept of the multiple regression equation 1 = r egression coefficient for the type of institution (TYPE) TYPE = t he independent variable for the type of institutions, either Florida Community Colleges or State Univ ersities, 2 = r egression coefficient for the year studied (YEAR) YEAR = t he independent variable for y ear 3 = r egression coefficient for median family income (MFI) MFI = t he independent variable for m edian f amily i ncome 4 = r egression coefficient for the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR)
85 TDPR = t he independent variable for the t uition p rice d ifference r atio between Florida Community Colleges and State Universities 5 =r egression coefficient for educational attainment (EA) EA = t he independ ent variable for e ducation a ttainment which was the percentage of those individuals in the State of Florida that had achieved a high school dipl oma but had not achieved their first baccalaureate degree 6 = r egression coefficient for the percentage of wo rkforce unemployment (UNEM) UNEM = t he independent variable for u nemployment which was the percentage of those individuals in the county that were unemployed 7 = r egression coefficient for Florida state aid (FLSA) FLSA = t he independent variable for t he total amount of Florida State Aid distributed in the year of interest and i = t he errors accounted for with the regression model The null and alternate hypotheses were: H O : 1 7 = 0 H A : 1 7 The null hypothesis stated that there was no higher education institutions FTE and the tuition and fee difference between the two different institution types and state resources. Reduced Model 1 The second multiple regression analysis was conducted with Fall Full Time community colleges, (FL CC ENR) which served as the dependent variable The independent variables were included in the regression analysis to demonstrate the variance associated with the dependent variable. Th e independent variables of interest were median family income (MFI), educational
86 attainment (EA), the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR), unemployment rates (UNEM), and Florida state financial aid (FLSA) for the five years of the study FL CC ENR = 0 1 2 3 ( 4 5 (UNEM) + 6 i where, FL CC ENR = the dependent variable for the Florida community college, full time equivalent (FTE) in public post secondary education 0 = Y intercept of the multiple regr ession equation 1 = r egression coefficient for the year studied (YEAR) YEAR = t he independent variable for y ear 2 = r egression coefficient for median family income (MFI) MFI = t he independent variable for m edian f amily i ncome 3 = r egression coefficient for the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR) TDPR = t he independent variable for the t uition p rice d ifference r atio between Florida Community Colleges and State Universities 4 = r egression coefficient for educational attainment (EA) EA = t he independent variable for e ducation a ttainment which was the percentage of those individuals in the State of Florida that had achieved a high school diploma but had not achieved their first baccalaureate degree 5 = r egression coefficient for the perc entage of workforce unemployment (UNEM) UNEM = t he independent variable for Unemployment which was the percentage of those individuals in the county that were unemployed 6 = r egression coefficient for Florida state aid (FLSA) FLSA = t he independent va riable for the total amount of Florida State Aid distributed in the year of interest and i = The errors accounted for with the regression model The null and alternate hypothesis were:
87 H O : 1 6 = 0 H A : 1 6 The null hypothesis stated that there institution types and state resources. Reduced Model 2 The third multiple regression analysis was conducted with Fall Full Time state universities, (FL SUS ENR) which served as the dependent variable The independent variables were included in the regression analysis to demonstrate the variance associated with the dependent variable. The independent variables of interest were median family income (MFI), educational attainment (EA), the tuition price di fference ratio (TPDR), unemployment rates (UNEM), and Florida state financial aid (FLSA) for the five years of the study. 0 1 2 3 ( 4 5 (UNEM) + 6 i where, FL SUS ENR = the dependent variab le for the Florida community college, full time equivalent (FTE) in public post secondary education 0 = Y intercept of the multiple regression equation 1 = r egression coefficient for the year studied (YEAR) YEAR = t he independent variable for y ear 2 = r egression coefficient for median family income (MFI) MFI = t he independent variable for m edian f amily i ncome 3 = r egression coefficient for the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR)
88 TDPR = t he independent variable for the t uition p rice d ifference r atio between Florida Community Colleges and State Universities 4 = r egression coefficient for educational attainment (EA) EA = t he independent variable for e ducation a ttainment which was the percentage of those individuals in the State of Florida that had achieved a high school diploma but had not achieved their first baccalaureate degree 5 = r egression coefficient for the percentage of workforce unemployment (UNEM) UNEM = t he independent variable for Unemployment which was the percentage of those individuals in the county that were unemployed 6 = r egression coefficient for Florida state aid (FLSA) FLSA = t he independent variable for the total amount of Florida State Aid distributed in the year of interest and i = The errors accounted for with the regression model The null and alternate hypothesis were: H O : 1 6 = 0 H A : 1 6 itution types and state resources. Data Treatment Data were analyzed through the IBM SPSS Statistics 18 Descriptive statistics median mode and standard deviation. In al l three models, assumptions of linearity and normality were achieved through scatter and residual plots (Huck, 200 8 ). Furthermore, colline arity was evaluated through the application of tolerance and variance inflation factors The decision to accept or re ject the null hypothesis was set at a level of
89 significance of .05. The analysis of the data were interested in significant interactions between the variables, either positive or negative; therefore, non directional hypotheses were used. Limitations The research study was concerned with undergraduate en rollment in Florida public post secondary institutions ; therefore, those interpreting the data should be cautious when interpreting the results as they relate d to graduate education enrollment. Also, the st udy was concerned with in state undergraduate enrollment; however, all of the data on undergraduate enrollment w ere reported as a total undergraduate enrollment for the years of study. Therefore, the actual enrollment may be slightly over inflated due to the inclusion of a small number of out of state students. This was a concern to the researcher and those using the results of this study should be cautioned The scenario outlined may have limited the impact of the independent variables However, since the Florida legislature mandate d that the overall State University System d id not allow for more than 10% of the statewide enrollment to be made up of non resident students, it was assumed that the impact was minimal. Furthermore, total system enrollment consist ed of both undergraduate and graduate enrol l ment number, thus limiting the impact as well. Lastly, the fall enrollment numbers presented for the Florida C ommunity College System was minimally impacted since community colleges tend ed to service stud ents from their local geographical area. The total fall undergraduate headcount used in the study was total undergraduate enrollment for the community colleges and the state university system institutions. This study did not account for choice of attendin g an upper division courses, but was interested in the overall analysis of the independent variables effect on the
90 dependent variable of undergraduate enrollment. Those individuals interpreting the results should be cautious when interpreting the results beyond the capacity of this study. The total undergraduate enrollment numbers utilized in the study were used since they were the most consistent data available for the years of interest. The impact of upper division student enrollment included in the to tal enrollment was not considered to be an impact of the regression analyses that occurred. If those students could have been removed, it would have decreased the total number but not a ffect ed the independent variables on enrollment. Another limitation of the study was the TPDR. This ratio need ed to be in terpreted as a conservative low est imate of the difference in cost to attend a Florida C ommunity C ollege versus a Florida State University. The TPDR did not include other costs associated with attending a postsecondary Florida public institution such as housing, meals, textbooks, or other student cost of living needs. As noted in the literature, financial assistance to students such as grants, scholarships, loans and fellowships expanded high er educatio n opportunities for students who without the subsidiaries would not have had the means to attend a postsecondary institution. Furthermore, the literature suggested that the federal government has provided the largest source of student financial aid to the state if Florida. The impact of financial aid was minimally accounted for in the study by the inclusion of only Florida state based aid. This variable impact was likely under represented since consistent data on other sources of financial aid such as federal loans, grants, and other sources were not available for the years of interest in this of
91 study Secondly this independent variable changed with the inclusion of state non need based aid for the last three years of interest in the study. Lastly, the study assumed that the population seeking attendance at a Florida public higher education institution were those that were 25 and over with a high school degree but without a four year degree. Those utilizing these results should be cautious s ince this study did not take into account those occupations that did not require any postsecondary education, thus removing those individuals from seeking higher education opportunities in the first place. However, it was believed that th e impact was limi ted since post secondary education opportunities have expanded with online delivery
92 Table 3 1. Number of institutions per year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Community Colleges 27 28 28 28 28 State Universities 7 9 9 10 11
93 Table 3 2. Counties served by state community college Community College Counties Brevard Brevard Broward Broward Central Florida Citrus, Levy, Marion Chipola Calhoun, Holmes, Jason, Liberty, Washington Daytona St. Flagler, Volusia Edison Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, Lee F lorida S tate C ollege at J acksonville Duval, Nassau Fl orida Keys Monroe Gulf Coast Bay, Franklin, Gulf Hillsborough Hillsborough Indian River Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, St. Lucie Lake City Baker, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Union Lake Sumter Lake, Sumter Manatee Manatee, Sarasota Miami Dade Dade North Fl orida Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Lafayette, Suwannee, Taylor Northwest F lorida Okaloosa, Walton Palm Beach Palm Beach Pasco Hernand o Hernando, Pasco Pensacola Escambia, Santa Rosa Polk Polk St. Johns Clay, Putnam, St. Johns St. Petersburg Pinellas Sante Fe Alachua, Bradford Seminole Seminole South Fl orida DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands Tallahassee Gadsden, Leon, Wakulla Valencia Orange Osceola
94 Table 3 3 Counties served by state university institutions State University Counties University of Florida All Florida counties Florida State University All Florida counties Florida A & M All Florida counties University of South Florida DeSoto, Hardee, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, Charlotte Collier Hendry Glades Lee Florida Atlantic University Broward, Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, Palm Beach, St. Lu cie, Dade**, Monroe** University of West Florida Bay, Escambia, Gulf, Holmes, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, Washington University of C entral Florida Brevard, Citrus, Flagler, Lake, Levy, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Sumter, Volusia Florida International University Dade, Monroe, Broward University of North Florida Alachua, Bradford, Clay, Duval, Nassau, Putnam, St.Johns Florida Gulf Coast University Charlotte, Collier, Hendry, Glades, Lee New College Sarasota, Pinellas, Hillsborough Counties marked with were served by USF for the years 1970, 1980, 1990. Counties marked with ** were served by FAU for the year 1970.
95 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which providing Floridians access to postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower priced option, the community college, with consideration of s state resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010 It was hypothesized that the enrollment was not significantly college s and state universities and state resources for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 To test the hypotheses, multiple linear regression analysis was employed. Three multiple linear regression equations were utilized in examining student price response theory as it related to the state of Florida. The variables analyzed in the study were the same throughout the three models and included the following. The independent variables were the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR), median family income (MFI), attainment (EA) the type of institution (TYPE), state of Florida financial assistance (FLSA), and the year of interest (YEAR). The dependent variable was fall undergraduate unduplicated hea dcount for the different postsecondary institutions. In the full model, total fall headcount at both types of institutions was the dependent variable For the reduced models the dependent variable was the total community college enrollment and state univ ersity system enrollment, respectively. Full Model The full model applied multiple linear regression analysis with Fall Full Time
96 ENR) which served as the dependent var iable. The independent variables were included in the regression analysis to demonstrate the variance associated with the dependent variable The independent variables of interest were median family income (MFI), educational attainment (EA), the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR), unemployment rates (UNEM), Florida state financial aid (FLSA), and the type of institution (TYPE) for the five years of study. The multiple regression analysis of the complete model accounted for 32.8% of the variance within the model (Table 4 1). The resulting multiple regression equation (Table 4 2) was as follows: FL HEI ENR = 872213.60 + 3583.62(TYPE) + 445.83(YEAR) 1830.31(TPDR) + .555(MFI) 665.24(EA) + 692.42(UNEM) 1.123E 5(FLSA) The intercept of the mult iple regression equation could not be zero since zero would not be a valid option for enrollment in this study The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed the full model to be statistically significant, F (7, 177) = 12.329, p<.01 (Table 4 3) As a result the null hypothesis that there was no association between enrollment state universities and state resources for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 was rejected. Descriptive statistics were presented in Table 4 4 For the full model, Pearson statically correlated with all the independent variables of interest (Table 4 5). The indepe ndent variables: TYPE, TPDR, EA, were all st atistically significant at the .05
97 level. Furthermore, the independent variables: MFI, UNEM, and FLSA were all st atistically significant at the .01 level. In terms of enrollment all independent variables except for the TPDR had weak positive correlations with the dependent variable of Florida Public Higher Education Enrollment where the TPDR was weakly negatively correlated. The assumptions of linearity and normality were achieved through scatter and residual p lots (Huck, 200 8 ) Studentized residuals were calculated and plotted on the y axis against ea ch variable separately on the x axis within the regression model (Figures 4 1 to 4 7 ). The evaluation of the scatter plots did not reveal any violations to the assumptions required to conduct multiple linear regression analysis In addition the dependent variable FL HEI_ ENR was examined to ensure that the frequency was normally distributed (Figure 4 8). Furthermore the dependent variable was tested for a normal distribution with a Normal P P plot (Figure 4 9). Reduced Model 1 The second multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with Fall Full Time c ommunity colleges, (FL CC ENR) which served as the dependent variable The independent variables were included in the regression analysis to demonstrate the variance associated with the dependent variable. The independent variables of interest were median family income (MFI), educational a ttainment (EA), state appropriations (SA), and the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR), unemployment rates (UNEM), and Florida state financial aid (FLSA) for the five years of the study.
98 The multiple regression analysis of the first reduced model (commun ity college specific model) accounted for 38.3% of the variance within the model (Table 4 6). The resulting multiple regression equation (Table 4 7) was as follows: FL CC ENR = 8977322.82+ 500.29(YEAR) 2551.31(TPDR) + .676(MFI) 757.59(EA) + 963. 73(UNEM) 1.756E 5(FLSA) The intercept of the multiple regression equation could not be zero since zero would not be a valid option for enrollment in this study The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed the first reduced model to be statistically signif icant, F (6, 132) = 13.636, p<.01 (Table 4 8). Descriptive statistics were presented in Table 4 9 For the first reduced model depicting specific enrollment evaluation for Florida Community Colleges, Pearson college enrollment was stati sti cally correlated with four of the six independent variables of interest (Table 4 10). The independent variables: YEAR, MFI, UNEM, FLSA were all st atistically significant at the .01 level. Unlike the full model, the TPDR and EA were not statistically correlated with community college enrollment. In terms of enrollment, all of the independent variables that were statistically significant had weak to moderate positive correlations with the dependent variable of Florida Communi ty College Enrollment. The assumptions of linearity and normality were achieved through scatter and residual plots (Huck, 200 8 ) Studentized residuals were calculated and plotted on the y axis against ea ch variable separately on the x axis within the reg ression model (Figures 4 10 to 4 1 6 ). The evaluation of the scatter plots did not reveal any violations to the assumptions required to conduct multiple linear regression analysis In addition the
99 dependent variable FL CC_ENR was examined to ensure that t he frequency was normally distributed (Figure 4 17). Furthermore the dependent variable was tested for a normal distribution with a Normal P P plot (Figure 4 18). Reduced Model 2 The third multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with Fall Full Time S tate U niversities, (FL SUS ENR) which served as the dependent variable The independent variables were included in the regression analysis to demonstrate the variance associated with the dependent variable. The independent variables of interest were median family income (MFI), educational attainment (EA), state appropriations (SA), and the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR), unemployment rates (UNEM), and Florida state financial aid (FLSA) for the five yea rs of the study The multiple regression analysis of the second reduced model (state university specific model) accounted for 31.1% of the variance within the model (Table 4 11). The resulting multiple regression equation (Table 4 12) was as follows: F L SUS ENR = 2826860.37+ 1478.85(YEAR) + 1170.60(TPDR) .870(MFI) 1025.56(EA) 116.30(UNEM) 2.779E 5(FLSA) The intercept of the multiple regression equation could not be zero since zero would not be a valid option for enrollment in this study The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed the second reduced model to be statistically significant, F (6, 39) = 2.933, p<.05 (Table 4 13) Descriptive statistics were presented in Table 4 14 For the second reduced model depicting specific enrollment evalu ation for Florida State University Institutions,
100 stati sti cally correlated with five of the six independent variables of interest (Table 4 15). The independent variables: M FI, EA, and UNEM were all stat istically significant at the .05 level Furthermore, the independent variables: YEAR and FLSA were all st atistically significant at the .01 level. Similar to the first reduced model, but unlike the full model, the TPDR was n ot statistically correlated with state university system enrollment. In terms of enrollment, all of the independent variables that were statistically significant had weak to moderate positive correlations with the dependent variable of Florida Community C ollege Enrollment. The assumptions of linearity and normality were achieved through scatter and residual plots (Huck, 200 8 ) Studentized residuals were calculated and plotted on the y axis against ea ch variable separately on the x axis within the regress ion model (Figure 4 1 9 to 4 2 5 .) The evaluation of the scatter plots did not reveal any violations to the assumptions required to conduct multiple linear regression analysis. In addition the dependent variable FL SUS_ENR was examined to ensure that the fr equency was normally distributed (Figure 4 26 ). Furthermore the dependent variable was tested for a normal distribution with a Normal P P plot (Figure 4 27 ).
101 Table 4 1 Model s ummary for f ull m odel Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .573 a .328 .301 8694.320 .328 12.329 7 177 .000 a. Predictors: (Constant), FLSA TYPE TPDR, MFI, UNEM EA Y EAR b. Dependent Variable: FL_HEI ENR
102 Table 4 2. Coefficients for full model Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 872213.596 374046.425 2.332 .021 1610378.208 134048.985 TYPE 3583.619 1489.161 .149 2.406 .017 644.823 6522.415 .986 1.014 YEAR 445.831 192.408 .605 2.317 .022 66.122 825.541 .056 17.942 TPDR 1830.307 3023.710 .044 .605 .546 7797.470 4136.855 .733 1.365 MFI .555 .107 .434 5.169 .000 .343 .767 .540 1.853 EA 665.240 148.287 .519 4.486 .000 957.877 372.603 .284 3.520 UNEM 692.419 310.784 .198 2.228 .027 79.101 1305.737 .482 2.077 FLSA 1.123E 5 .000 .229 1.038 .301 .000 .000 .078 12.780
103 T able 4 3. ANOVA for f ull m odel Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 6.524E9 7 9.320E8 12.329 .000 a Residual 1.338E10 177 7.559E7 Total 1.990E10 184 a. Predictors: (Constant), FLSA TYPE TPDR, MFI, UNEM EA Y EAR b. Dependent Variable: FL HEI_ENR Table 4 4. Descriptive s tatistics for f ull m odel Mean Std. Deviation N FL HEI_ENR 10863.62 10400.493 185 TYPE 1.25 .433 185 Y EAR 1990.59 14.110 185 TPDR 1.818919 .2476211 185 MFI 5.142484E4 8.1240010E3 185 EA 54.039306 8.1097300 185 UNEM 6.002695 2.9720124 185 FLSA 2.041722E8 2.1172820E8 185
104 Table 4 FL HEI_ENR TYPE Y EAR TPDR MFI EA UNEM FLSA FL HEI_ENR Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2 tailed) TYPE Pearson Correlation .150 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .042 YEAR Pearson Correlation .395 ** .000 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 1.000 TPDR Pearson Correlation .150 .071 .264 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .042 .337 .000 MFI Pearson Correlation .430 ** .021 .620 ** .212 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .774 .000 .004 EA Pearson Correlation .178 .044 .785 ** .127 .595 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .015 .551 .000 .084 .000 UNEM Pearson Correlation .277 ** .038 .622 ** .059 .229 ** .490 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .603 .000 .422 .002 .000 FLSA Pearson Correlation .388 ** .036 .938 ** .343 ** .533 ** .636 ** .632 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .627 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 *. Cor relation is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed). **. Cor relation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed).
105 Table 4 6. Model summary for reduced community college model Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .619 a .383 .355 8267.286 .383 13.636 6 132 .000 a. Predictors: (Constant), FLSA TPDR, MFI, UNEM EA Y EAR b. Dependent Variable: FL CC_ENR
106 Table 4 7 Coefficients for reduced community college model Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 977322.818 392098.471 2. 493 .0 14 1752932.349 201713.287 YEAR 500.289 201.343 .6 87 2.485 .0 14 102.012 898.566 .0 61 16.369 TPDR 2551.305 2997.708 .0 66 851 396 8481.067 3378.457 774 1. 293 MFI 676 108 569 6.282 .000 .463 889 .5 69 1. 757 EA 787.592 149.973 640 5.052 .000 1054.253 460.931 291 3 .436 UNEM 963.730 328.758 279 2. 931 .0 04 313.414 1614.045 515 1.944 FLSA 1.756E 5 .000 358 1. 531 128 .000 .000 .0 85 11.722
107 T able 4 8 ANOVA for reduced community college model Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 5.592 E9 6 9.320E8 13.636 .000 a Residual 9.022 E 9 1 32 6.835 E7 Total 1.461 E10 1 38 a. Predictors: (Constant), FLSA TPDR, MFI, UNEM EA Y EAR b. Dependent Variable: FL CC_ENR Table 4 9 Descriptive s tatistics for reduced community college model Mean Std. Deviation N FL CC_ENR 9969.29 10290.716 139 Y EAR 1990. 14 14.141 139 TPDR 1.83 .267 1 39 MFI 51523.86 8663.203 139 EA 53.83 8. 698 139 UNEM 5.94 2. 984 139 FLSA 1.98 E8 2.1 01 E8 139
108 Table 4 for reduced community college model FL CC_ENR Y EAR TPDR MFI EA UNEM FLSA FL CC_ENR Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2 tailed) Y EAR Pearson Correlation .363 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 TPDR Pearson Correlation .123 .235 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .149 .005 MFI Pearson Correlation .475 ** .577 ** .191 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .000 .025 EA Pearson Correlation .143 .781 ** .124 .582 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .093 .000 .147 .000 UNEM Pearson Correlation .256 ** .597 ** .077 .165 .483 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .002 .000 .366 .052 .000 FLSA Pearson Correlation .349 ** .937 ** .313 ** .496 ** .636 ** .598 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 **. Cor relation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed). *. Cor relation is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed).
109 Table 4 1 1 Model s ummary for reduced state university system model Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 .5 58 a .3 11 205 9249.370 311 2.933 6 39 .0 19 a. Predictors: (Constant), FLSA TPDR, EA, MFI, UNEM Y EAR b. Dependent Variable: FL SUS_ ENR
110 Table 4 12 Coefficients for reduced state university model Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 2826860.37 1535077.42 1.842 .0 73 5931847.54 278126.802 YEAR 1478.849 799.580 2.008 1.850 .0 72 138.455 3096.153 .0 15 66.689 TPDR 1170.600 12063.371 .020 .097 923 23229.872 25571.071 422 2.371 MFI .870 509 .528 1.711 095 1.899 158 186 5.384 EA 1025.558 669.915 .593 1.531 134 2380.588 329.472 116 8.590 UNEM 116.303 875.267 .033 .133 895 1886.698 1654.092 284 3.527 FLSA 2.7796E 5 .000 584 .770 446 .000 .000 .0 31 32.495
111 Table 4 13. ANOVA for reduced state university system model Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 1.506 E9 6 2.509 E8 2.933 .0 19 a Residual 3.336 E 9 39 8.555 E7 Total 4.842 E 9 45 a. Predictors: (Constant), FLSA TPDR, EA, MFI, UNEM Y EAR b. Dependent Variable: FL SUS_ENR Table 4 14 Descriptive s tatistics for reduced state university system model Mean Std. Deviation N FL SUS_ENR 13566.04 10373.222 46 Y EAR 1991.96 14.082 46 TPDR 1.789 .176 46 MFI 51125.63 6291.720 46 EA 54.659 6.032 46 UNEM 6.201 2. 958 46 FLSA 2.230 E8 2.1 78 E8 46
112 Table 4 15 FL SUS_ENR Y EAR TPDR MFI EA UNEM FLSA FL SUS_ENR Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2 tailed) Y EAR Pearson Correlation .480 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .001 TPDR Pearson Correlation .235 .405 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .116 .005 MFI Pearson Correlation .302 .840 ** .365 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .041 .000 .013 EA Pearson Correlation .319 .844 ** .132 .691 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .031 .000 .383 .000 UNEM Pearson Correlation .335 .694 ** .004 .516 ** .544 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .023 .000 .979 .000 .000 FLSA Pearson Correlation .492 ** .941 ** .491 ** .720 ** .674 ** .734 ** 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .001 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 **. Cor relation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed). *. Cor relation is significant at the .05 level (2 tailed).
113 Figure 4 1. Studentized Residuals versus FL HEI_ENR
114 Figure 4 2. Studentized Residuals versus YEAR
115 Figure 4 3. Studentized Residuals versus TPDR
116 Figure 4 4. Studentized Residuals versus MFI
117 Figure 4 5 Studentized Residuals versus EA
118 Figure 4 6 Studentized Residuals versus UNEM
119 Figure 4 7 Studentized Residuals versus FLSA
120 Figure 4 8 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residual
121 Figure 4 9 Normal P P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
122 Figure 4 1 0 Studentized Residuals versus FL CC_ENR
123 Figure 4 1 1 Studentized Residuals versus YEAR
124 Figure 4 1 2 Studentized Residuals versus TPDR
125 Figure 4 1 3 Studentized Residuals versus MFI
126 Figure 4 1 4 Studentized Residuals versus EA
127 Figure 4 1 5 Studentized Residuals versus UNEM
128 Figure 4 1 6 Studentized Residuals versus FLSA
129 Figure 4 1 7 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residual
130 Figure 4 1 8 Normal P P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
131 Figure 4 19 Studentized Residuals versus FL SUS_ENR
132 Figure 4 2 0 Studentized Residuals versus YEAR
133 Figure 4 2 1 Studentized Residuals versus TPDR
134 Figure 4 2 2 Studentized Residuals versus MFI
135 Figure 4 2 3 Studentized Residuals versus EA
136 Figure 4 2 4 Studentized Residuals versus UNEM
137 Figure 4 2 5 Studentized Residuals versus FLSA
138 Figure 4 2 6 Histogram of Regression Standardized Residual
139 Figure 4 2 7 Normal P P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
140 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The nature of postsecondary education participation in the state of Florida has been discussed through the literature and quantitative analysis. This chapter conclude d the results of the study, discusse d the implications for Florida policy makers, and recommend ed areas for future r esearch. Discussion of Results The purpose of this study tested student price response theory by examining the degree to which providing Floridians access to postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower priced option, the community college, wit h consideration of 1990, 2000, and 2010 It was hypothesized that enrollment was not significantly colleges and state universities and state resources for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010. The hypothe sis was tested through three multiple linear regression models and statistical analysis. The dependent variables for each model were Fall Unduplicated Headcount for the five years of investigation with the only difference being the type of institution. I n the full model, total Florida public higher education enrollment served as the dependent variable and in the two reduced models, community college and state university system enrollments served as the dependent variable s respectively Through statistic al analysis and specifically ANOVA evaluation of the three models, all models were statistically significant; therefore it was decided to reject the Null hypothesis. In all three models, it was concluded that the tuition price difference ratio
141 (TPDR) did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with enrollment. Therefore, one could conclude that the claim of the community college institution serving as a low cost option to students seeking higher education opportunities in the state of Flo rida d id not hold true in this model with the included variables of analysis. The full model accounted for 33 % of the variance with the included variables of type of institution, the year studied, the tuition price difference ratio, median family income, and Florida State based financial aid. With the same included independent variables for the reduced model s depicting specific community college and state university enrollment, the regression models acco unted for 38% and 31% of the variance in enrollment respectively. In the full model, including all seven independent variables, the regression analysis depicted the following variables demonstrating a significant association with total Florida public high er education enrol l ment. They included: type of institution, the year examined, median family income education attainment and unemployment rate s As noted, there was not a statistically significant association between enrollment and the TPDR or Florida S tate based financial aid. In the first reduced model with inclusion of only community college enrollment as the dependent variable, the regression equation demonstrated a significant association between enrollment and the year examined, median family i ncome, ed ucation attainment and unemployment at the p< .01 level. Consistent with the full model, the TPDR and Florida S tate based financial aid was not significantly associated with enrollment.
142 In the second reduced model with inclusion of only state u niversity system enrollment as the dependent variable, the regression equation demonstrated no significant association between any of the independent variables and enrollment at the p<.05 level. Although there was no statistically significant associations there was a trend approaching significant association between median family income and the year examined, p = .095 and .072 respectively. Enrollment and Type of Institution In the full model, the type of institution was dummy coded as 1 for a C ommunity C ollege S ystem institution and 2 for a S tate U niversity S ystem institution. In the reduced models, the independent variable type was not included in the predictors since each model analyzed specific community college enrollment and state university system enrollment respectively. The type of institution was positively correlated with enrollment. This was no surprise since S tate U niversity System institutions ha d l arger capacity and the ability to enroll larger cohorts of full time undergraduate students. Although overall in the state of Florida community colleges collectively enroll ed more students as a system, the capacity for higher individual enrollment was g reater at the S tate U niversity S ystem institutions Although the type of institution, specifically the S tate U niversity S ystem institution was correlated with an increase in enrollment, one must be cautious in a specific higher education institution The consensus within the literature was a student choice of higher education institution was related to three broad stages (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Jackson, 1982). The three stages include d, first the studen ursue post secondary education, which often beg an at an early age. The second stage consist ed of researching
143 institutions and finding needed information about admission processes and actually applying to the institutions The last stage inc lude d actual admission, enrollment and attendance. At this stage several factors affect ed the decision including tuition and financial aid packages (Hossler, Braxton & Coopersmith, 1989). Within this study, increased enrollment associated with the S tate U niversity S ystem institutions could have be en a result of institutional aid which positively affect ed Lastly, this will be something important to monitor in the next five to ten years with the increasing number of community coll eges offering baccalaureate degrees. It could be that those regiona l l y placed individuals would b e more likely to attend a state college rather than base their decision on the more commonly accepted student choice models. Enrollment and Year of Analysis. The year of analysis was positively correlated with enrollment in all three regression models. The results of the models in this study were consistent with other research studies examining enrollment. During the past 40 years, as the time period examin ed in this study, individuals vastly increased their participation in seeking out higher education opportunities. As noted in the literature, much of the response to attendance was based on human capital theory. Another explanation for the increased level of attendance w as the initiation of programs that provided the means to afford or finance postsecondary education opportunities Two such program that drastically increased access was the Higher Education Act and Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL 89 239 Alexander, 2003).
144 Enrollment and Tuition Price Difference Ratio The student price response theory investigated in this study operationalized as the difference between the cost of tuition and fees at Florida S tate U niversity S ystem institutions and Florida C ommunity C ollege S ystem institutions did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with enrollment. This claim was also consistent in both of the reduced models investigating specific enrollment s at each institution type Althoug h there was not a significant association between the TPDR and enrollment, the trend was that in both the full model and the community college specific mode l the TPDR was negatively associated with enrollment. The opposite was true in the state universit y system specific model. As analyzed in this study and concluded, the community college was not serving as a low cost entry point for students seeking post secondary higher education over the forty years of investigation but was consistent with the work of Mullin and Honeyman (2008). This was interesting to the researcher because as proposed, as the gap in tuition and fees between the cost of attendance at the community college and state university system increased, it was believed that this would have actually increase d enrollment at the community colleges These results were in contrast to Kane (1995). That study sugg ested that as tuition increased at four year institutions, it would increase the effects of students attending community colleges. Howe ver this study suggested through the second reduced model, the increased TPDR was positively associated with increased enrollment at the state university system institutions. This phenomena required more investigation by the researcher and could be anal yzed through several different theoretical lenses. Once again, one could examine these results through higher education student choice models. Several factors included
145 individual student characteristics, institutional characteristics and other contextua l factors such as parental or peer influences may have affected enrolling at a specific institution regardless of the increased price difference in tuition and fees between the community college and state university system institu tions (DesJardins, Ahlburg, & McCall, 2006) Another possible lens to examine the scenario outlined in this study was through the human capital theory. One could propose that those students seeking a four year degree w ould eventually realize larger lifetime earnings. Shin and Milton (2008) posited that disciplines expected to result in high rates of return wer e less sensitive to tuition level increases This was a result of students anticipating higher rates of return for their initial investment a s compared to those disciplines with lower rates of return. Furthermore, th e y suggested that colleges apply diverse tuition rates for academic majors by considering rates of return, but also these colleges need ed to be mindful of the demographical changes of students enrolled in these majors. Lastly, one could analyze the effects of the TPDR on enrollment by the amount of financial assistance available to the students Although for the point of this study, financial assistance was limited to Florida S tate based financial aid, the federal government provide d the largest source of aid for the state of Florida (Sanchez Penley, et al 1997) and include d federal loans and grants. It was well documented in the literature the impact that financial assistance ha d postsecondary education opportunities. The literature also discussed this as fiscal revenue source s for institutions Initially student financial aid awards were intended to reduce the monetary cost of attending a postse condary institution but became an
146 equalizer in allowing student s to freely choose his or her desired higher education institution of attendance (Tierney, 1980) It could be assumed that lower income families were granted more financial aid due to financial aid formulas, thus increasing their enrollment at SUS institutions However this was often not the case Coles and Baum (2005) concluded tha t too many qualified low income students d id not go to college because they believe d that they could not afford it, even though they may have been eligible for sufficient financial aid Mumpher (1996) further concluded that lower income families wer e often unnecessarily discouraged. He noted that these families made college attendance decision s on exaggera ted estimations before they kn ew the type of financial assistance available to them Enrollment and Median Family Income Median family income had a significant association with enrollment in the full model and community college reduced model. In the state university model, it was approaching significance. As indicated in the literature post secondary education was associated with the reality of actually attending postsecondary education. As indicated in the full model, as an indi family income increased, there was a positive association with enrollment. This was also congruent with the literature which suggest ed those individuals at the lower socioeconomic scales were more responsive to the cost of attendance at po stsecondary education institutions. Specifically, St. John and Starkey (1995) and Heller (1997) concluded that low income students were the most sensitive to increased tuition and fee charges. Therefore, with community colleges serving the local populace those earning the median family income were most served by this type of institution.
147 Of particular interest to the researcher was the negative association that median family income ( MFI ) had with enrollment at the S tate U niversity S ystem institutions The increased, it negatively reduce d enrollment to this type of institution. One could conclude that as median family income increase d these students may have been seeking other type s of institutions to enroll into such as private institutions. This could have be en made possible by the student financial assistance available to students lowering the actual costs of attending private institutions (Tierney, 1980). Hill, Winston and Boyd (2005) found that the actual cost of attending private institutions was often much cheaper for students than attending public institutions due to the ability of private higher education institutions to discount the tuition and fee price c harged to students and their families. However, they concluded that the greatest discount were for those students who demonstrated the greatest financial needs Therefore the phenomenon which was presented in this study, was interesting once again to t he researcher when analyzing this through the human capital theory. One would have pro po se d that students would seek to earn the greatest return on their investment ; thus electing to attend a public state university over that of a private university. Enrollment and Education Attainment of individuals who w ere 25+ with a high school diploma but without a four year degree. In th is study, there was a significant association between e nrollment and education attainment in the full regression model and the community college specific model. However, there was not a significant association between enrollment and education attainment at the S tate U niversity S ystem possibly indicating that those seeking a four
148 year degree at S tate U niversity S ystem institutions would have already attained that education goal by the time of reaching the age of twenty five. In all three regression models investigated in this study, there was a negative associa tion with a more educated county populace and enrollment over the past forty years in Florida public higher education institution. The negative association was less in the full model and community college models as compared to the state university system only model. The results of the study suggested that as the percentage of more individuals 25 years and o lder with a high school diploma increased. The number of individuals seeking four year higher education degree opportunitie s decreased They may have been redirected to other areas of employment not requiring a four year degree. Another possible explanation, since the negative association was less with the community college model, was those individuals were seeking two year s Although not part of this study, it would be interesting to examine these phenomena with enrollment in com munity college certificate and workforce training programs. Enrollment and Unemployment The unemployment rates calculated for this study were based on annual averages for a particular county and when an institution served more than one county, the rates were averaged for the years of investigation. There was a significant association with a coun model and the reduced community college model. However, when analyzing the regression coefficients, there was not a significant association demonstrated between unemployment rates and S tate U ni versity S ystem enrollment patterns
149 In the full model and community college specific regression models, there was a positive association between unemployment and enrollment Essentially unemployment rate increased, this pre dicted an increase in higher education total enrollment and community college enrollment respectively Shin and Milton (2006) cautioned the interpretation of these results noting that studies utilizing total enrollment could have found a greater impact of unemployment rates than studies utilizing smaller enrollment samples. In contrast, the S tate U niversity S ystem specific model demonstrated a negative association between the unemployment rate and enrollment This was particularly interesting to the rese archer after reexamining this specific study and the effect s of median family income and the negative association with increased median family income and enrollment. One would propose that as the unemployment rate increased which would create a reduction in the ability to pay by the students attending state university systems that enrollment would be positively associated with the unemployment rate phenomenon. This was not the case demonstrated in this study. In contrast when unemployment rates increas ed, state university system enrollment actually decreased The situation demonstrated in this study was congruent with earlier research on unemployment and enrollment. As posited by Betts and McFarland (1995), potential students were essentially forced t o enroll in the lower cost higher education option. Another lens to view this phenomenon wa s through an avoidance of entering the workforce. Essentially, increased those unemployed sought enrollment at the local community college for job retaining or as a diversion from
150 the employment sector. Heller (1999) found a significant effect between two year colleges and enrollment in relation to unemployment rates. He concluded that as employme nt possibilities lessen ed individuals were more likely to enroll in community colleges as an alternative to entering the workforce. This same scenario was explained by the regression analysis in this study. Enrollment and Florida State Financial Aid Flor ida S tate based financial aid never demonstrated a significant association to student undergraduate enrollment in any of the three models. Furthermore, the association with Florida S tate based financial aid was negatively associated with enrollment in all three models as well This was intriguing to the investigator because essentially with state based aid, it create d a false market allowing others to pursue education that would typically not have pursued higher education opportunities It could be that students in the state of Florida rel ied on other means of financial assistance such as student loans and other government subsidiaries not accounted for with Florida State based financial aid. Another possible explanation about the negative enrollment patterns presented and the state provided financial aid could have been that students sought enrollment in other institutions not accounted for in this study. This supports the research by Jackson (1978) which suggested that several factors account for e nrollment decisions and if often more related to student choice. Lastly, as noted earlier, the largest contributor to financial assistance to students enrolled in the higher education institutions in the state of Florida was the federal government. Directions for Future Research The nature and framework of this study has provided several opportunities for further analysis in the state of Florida Recently with the expansion of the C ommunity
151 C ollege S ystem to the State College System, future studies could examine the S tate C ollege S ystems institutions offering baccalaureate degrees as an alternative to baccalaureate production at the S tate U niversity S ystem institutions As noted the tuition price difference ratio (TPDR) utilized in this study wa s considered a low cost estimate of the cost of attending postsecondary education institutions. In future studies, researchers could expand the TPDR by including the total cost of attendance to include housing, meals, book costs, and other living expenses and then compute a ratio between the S tate C ollege S ystem and S tate U niversity S ystems. Furthermore, as state universities have begun to implement differential tuition, this could be examined as well. S tate U niversity S ystem institutions beginning to implement block tuition, one could compare this tuition and fee structure to that of the S tate C ollege S ystem. In comparison to the cost of attending postsecondary opportunities in the state of Florida, f urther research needs to be conducted on the impact of all financial aid sources and the effect on college enrollment. This will be particularly interesting with new financial aid policies being implemented both at the national and state level. Such chan ges include the larger per student Pell grant awards and the elimination of Bright Future scholarships covering full tuition costs Furthermore, with the implementation of differential tuition, institutions have been legislatively required to place a perc entage of this increased institution revenue into need based financial aid programs. Lastly, the premise of the study could be further investigated through other but not be limited to gender, race, firs t
152 time in college, and/or socioeconomic status. In addition one could investigate the impact of attendance and future earning of a particular degree or area of specialty. Implications for Policy Makers The results of this study suggested that en rollment at a lower cost option in this case the community college in the state of Florida was not being maximized. In the case presented in this study, an increase in the tuition and fee gap decreased enrollment in community colleges. Therefore as outlined i n Mullin and Honeyman (2008) it may have be en the case that the state of Florida should negate the tuition and fee difference associated with attending public higher education institutions for undergraduate education in the state of Florida. Mullin and Ho neyman (2008) further noted that with a large tuition and fee gap between community college and undergraduate institutions, a case could be made for the community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees to maximize baccalaureate postsecondary education aff ordability. This claim was recently reinforced by the work of Romano and Djajalaksana (2010). They noted it was actually more expensive to the public to educate students for the first two years of a degree at the community college. This wor k refuted earli er claims by Rouse (1998) that concluded it was more expensive to educate students at four year institutions. Therefore, Romano and Djajalaksana (2010) suggested that community colleges be converted to lower cost degree producing institutions to help maximize state resources This would also assist those students with limited financial means. Romano and Djajalaksana (2010) further concluded that this would also help to account for the research that suggested students that began a ere disadvantaged.
153 Th e community colleges becoming baccalaureate degree producing institutions has become a growing scenario in the state of Florida. The state of Florida was home to the largest number of community colleges authorized by the state to confer the baccalaureate degree (Floyd & Walker, 2009). The vast number of institution s authorized to provide baccalaureate degrees has been a state response to try and fulfill t he supply For example in 2006, Florida was 43 rd out of 50 states in the production of Consulting Group, 2007) However, one must also look at the actual headcounts in the baccal aureate programs offered by the community colleges and the fact that their impact on baccalaureate production should not be overstated (Floyd & Walker, 2009). In fact, at the conclusion of the 2007 0 8 academic year, there was a total head count of 5,333 i it was evident that they were making modest contributions to expanding access to baccalaureate degrees (Floyd & Walker, 2009). Therefore, it is imperative to continue to analyze and implement s trategies to improve baccalaureate degree production at the state colleges. Although this study suggested an increase in the number o f Florida community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees, this study also suggested that the community college in Flori da should continue to consider the polices of open access admissions and be able to continually respond to the local community educational needs. As noted, number of stu dents enrolled at th e community college. Therefore, in times of economic distress and increased unemployment rates, the community colleges need ed to remain as an entry point for a population that would potentially not be seeking post secondary
154 education. Furthermore, it would be beneficial for college administrators to monitor economic forecasts when planning for future enrollments. These results supported the conclusions by Betts and McFarland (1995) that suggested policy makers need to consider counterc yclical funding for community college training. S tate U niversity S ystem enrollment As concluded in the study, as the unemployment rate increased, student enrollment decreased at the SUS institutions. This would suggest to policy makers that during periods of economic recession, the SUS tuition and fees should be more comparable to the community college tuition and fee structure in order to maximize enrollment in all Florida h igher e ducation institutions. This has suggest ed that policy makers target institution based financial aid programs more towa rds need based aid versus merit based aid It further support ed the need to enhance other need based aid programs to he lp offset ones decreased ability to pay for attendance at SUS institutions Lastly, it was demonstrated in the full model that total public higher education enrollment was positively associated with median family income. This is important for policy make rs to consider when setting tuition and fee charges. This reinforced other research and claims for the increased demand of need based aid for those most susceptible to the financial pressures of attending higher education. This was also congruent with en rollment at the community colleges.
155 LIST OF REFERENCES Alexander, F.K. (2003). Comparative study of state tax effort and the role of federal government policy in shaping revenue reliance patterns. New Directions for Institutional Research 119 13 25. American Association of Community Colleges.(n.d.). Community College Growth Over Past 100 Years. Retrieved July 7, 2010 from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/history/Pages/ccgrowth.aspx Archibald, R.B., & Feldman, D.H. (2006). State higher education spending and the tax revolt. The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (4), 618 643. Anderson, G.M., Alfonson, M., & Sun, J.C. (2006). Rethinking cooling out at public community colleges: An examination of fiscal and demographic trends in higher education and the rise of statewide articulation agreements. Teachers College Record, 108 (3), 422 451. Baird, K.E. (2006). Do prepaid tuition plans affect state support for higher education? Journal of Education F inance, 31 (3), 255 275. Balderston, F.E. (1995). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. Balderston, F. (1997). Tuition and financial aid in higher education: The case of California. Economics of Education Review, 16 (3) 337 343. Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Education pays: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. College Board. Trends in Higher Education Series. Becker, G.S. (1962) Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70 (5), 9 49. Benjamin, B. (2007). Recreating the faculty role in university g overnance. In J.C. Burke (Ed.) Fixing the fragmented university: Decentralization with direction (pp. 70 98). Bolton, M A: Anker Publishing Co. Berdahl, R.O. (1971). Statewide coordination of higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education Betts, J.R., & McFarland, L.L. (1995). Safe port in a storm: The impact of labor market conditions on community college enrollments. The Journal of Human Resources, 30 (4), 741 765.
156 Bowen, H.R. (1971). Finance and the aims of American higher education. In M.D. Orwig (Ed.), Financing higher education: Alternatives for the federal government Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Pr ogram Bowen, H. (1977). Investment in learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Bryan, G.A., & Whipple, T.W. (1995). Tuition elasticity of the demand for higher education among current students. The Journal of Higher Education, 66 (5), 560 574. Business Higher Education Partnership. (1996). Higher education in Florida: The emerging catastrophe and how to prevent it Tampa, FL: Author. Calcagno, J.C., & Alfonso, M. (2007). State merit aid programs: responses by Florida community colleges. Com munity College Research Center Brief, 35 1 4. Callan, P.M. (2002). Coping with recession: Public policy, economic downturns and higher education. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved November 4, 200 9 from http:// www.highereducation.org/reports/cwrecession/MIS11738.pdf Callan, P.M. (2006). College affordability: Colleges, states increase financial burdens on students and families. In Measuring Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher Education (pp. 19 22). San Jose CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher education. Carbone, R.F. (1974). Alternative tuition systems. ACT special report (Report No. 12). Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No.ED100227) Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1970). A chance to learn: An action for equal opportunity in higher education New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Company. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1982). The control of the campus: A report on the governance of higher education Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press. Casazza, M.E. & Bauer, L. (2006). Access, opportunity, and success: Keeping the promise of higher education Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Council for Educational Policy Research and Improvement (2003). Trends in student aid and college pricing Florida 1997 98 to 2001 02. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http:/ /www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/Florida%20Trends%202003.pdf
157 Chambers, M.M. (1968). Higher education: Who pays? Who gains? Financing higher education beyond the high school. Danville, IN: Interstate Printers and Publishers. Cheslock, J.J. (2007). Applying economics to institutional research on higher education revenues. In R.K. Toutkoushian & M.B. Paulsen (Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research Volume 132: Applying economics to institutional research (pp. 25 41). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Cohen, A.M. (1998). The shaping of American higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. Cohen, A.M. & Brawer, F.B. (2003) The American community college, 4 th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. C oles, A. & Baum, S. (2005 ). Preface. In C.D. Blanco (Ed ), Early commitment financial aid programs: Promises, practice and policies. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. College Board. (2006). Trends in college pricing. Was hington, DC: Author. Commonfund Institute (2008). 2008 HEPI: Higher education price inflation update. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://www.commonfund.org/CommonfundInstitute/HEPI/HEPI%20Documents/20 08/2008HEPIReport.pdf Crampton, F.E. (2001). Financing education in the twenty first century: What state legislative trends of the 1990s portend. The Journal of Education Finance, 27 (1) 479 500. DesJardins, S.L., & Bell, A. (2007). Using economic concepts to inform enrollment management. In R.K. Toutkoushian & M.B. Paulsen (Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research Volume 132: Applying economics to institutional resea rch (pp. 59 73). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. DesJardins, S.L., Ahlburg, D.A., & McCall, B.P. (2006). An integrated model of application, admission enrollment, and financial aid. The Journal of Higher Education 77 (3), 381 489. Dosal, P. (2008 ). Higher education in Florida on the brink. Enlace Florida, 2 (2). Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://usfweb2.usf.edu/EnlaceFl/HigherEdonBrinkFINALDRAFT.pdf Dr esch, S.P. (1975). A critique of planning models for postsecondary education: Current feasibility, potential relevance, and prospectus for future research. The Journal of Higher Education, 46 246 86.
158 Dynarski, S. (2004). The new merit aid. In C. Hoxby (Ed.), College choice: The economics of where to go, when t o go and how to pay for it (pp. 63 100). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ehrenberg, R. (2000). Tuition rising: Why college cost so much Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Educational Policy Institute. (2003). Trends in student aid and college pricing Florida 1997 98 to 2001 02 Retrieved February 23, 2009, from http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/Florida%20Trends%202003.pdf Florida Association of Community Colleges. (2008). Florida community college system: Budget category comparison. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from www.facc.org/images/facc/PDF/2008OperatingBudgetSummary050508.pdf Florida Board of Governors. (2008). State university system summary of state education & general operation appropriati ons and actual FTE students Retrieved February 16 2009 from http://www.flbog.org/about/_doc/budget/univFundHist82_08.pdf Florida Board of Governors. (2009). State u niversity s ystem of Florida f acts and f igures 2008 2009 Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://flbog.org/resources/factbooks/factbooks.php Florida Board of Governors. (2010). Budget: Tuition and fees. Retrieved August 2, 2010 form http://flbog.org/about/budget/current.php Florida Department of Education. (2008). The fact book: Report for the Florida community c ollege system. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://www.flboe.org/arm/cctcmis/pubs/factbook/fb2008/fb2008.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2010). The fact book: Report for the Florida college system Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.fldoehub.org/CCTCMIS/c/Documents/Fact%20Books/fb2010.pdf Florida Postsecondary Education Planning Commission. (2000). Florida higher education at a g lance. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://www.cepri.state.fl.us/pdf/fheg4.pdf Floyd, D.L., & Walker, K.P. (2009). The community college baccalaureate: Putting the pieces together. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 90 124 Friedman, M. (1968). The higher schooling in America. The Public Interest, 108 112.
159 Geske, T.G. (1996). The value of investments in higher education: Capturing the full returns. In D.S Honeyman, J. L. Wattenbarger, & K.C. Westbrook (Eds.), A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century (pp. 1 28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ghali, M., Miklius, W., & Wade, R. (1977). The demand for higher education faci ng an individual institution. Higher Education, 6 477 487. Gleazer, E. J., Jr. (1998). The community college: Values, vision, and vitality. Washington, D.C.: The Community College Press. Glenny, L.A. (1965). State systems and plans for higher education In L. Wilson (Ed.), Emerging patterns in American higher education (pp. 86 103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Glenny, L.A. (1976). State budgeting for higher education: Interagency conflict and consensus. Berkeley, CA: Center for Research and Development in Higher Educati on. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 132940) Goldin, C., & Katz, L.F. ( 2000). Education and income in the early twentieth century: Evidence from the prairies. The Journal of Economic History, 60 (3), 782 818. Hansen, W.L., & Weisbrod, B.A. (1969). Benefits, costs, and finance of public higher education. Chicago, IL: Markham. Hauptman, A.M. (1990). The tuition dilemma: Assessing new ways to pay for college, Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution. Hauptman, A,M., & Merisotis, J.P. (1990) The college tuition spiral: An examination of why charges are increasing New York, NY: The College Board and the American Council on Education. Hauptman, A.M. (1997). Financing American higher education. In D.T. Layzell (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research Volume 93: Forecasting and managing enrollment and revenue: An overview of current trends, issues, and methods (pp. 19 35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass He arn, J.C., & Longanecker, D. (1985). Enrollment effects of alternative postsecondary pricing policies. The Journal of Higher Education, 56 (5) 485 508. Hearn, J.C. (2006). A lternative revenue sources. In D.M. Priest, & E.P. St. John (Eds.), Privatization and public universities (pp. 87 108). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Hearn, J.C., & Anderson, M.S. (1995). The Minnesota financing experiment. In E.P. St. John (Ed.), New Directions for Higher Education: Volume 89 Rethinking tuition and student aid strategies (pp. 5 25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
160 Hearn, J.C., & Holdsworth, J.M. (2004). Federal student aid: The shift from grants to loans. In E.P. St. John & M.D. Parson (Eds.) Public funding of higher education: Cha nging contexts and new rationales (pp. 40 59). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Heller, D.E. (2006). State support of higher education: Past, present, and future. In D.M. Priest & E.P. St. John (Eds.) Privatization and public univer sities (pp. 11 37). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Heller, D.E. (1999). The effects of tuition and state financial aid on public college enrollment. The Review of Higher Education, 23 (1) 65 89. Heller, D.E. (1996). Tuition, financial aid and access to public higher education: A review of the literature ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406906) Heller, D.E. (1997). Student price response in higher education: An update to Leslie and Brinkman. The Journal of Higher Education, 68 (6), 624 659. Honeyman, D.S, & Bruhn, M. (1996). The financing of higher education. In D.S. Honeyman J.L. Wattenbarger & K.C. Westbrook (Eds.), A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century (pp. 1 28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hossler, D. (2004). Refinancing public universities: Student enrollments, incentive based budgeting, and incremental revenue. In E.P. St. John & M.D. Parson (Eds.) Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationale s (pp. 145 163). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Hossler, D. (2006). Students and families as revenue: The impact on institutional behaviors. In D.M. Priest, & E.P. St.John (Eds.), Privatization and public universities (pp. 109 128 ). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Hossler, D., Braxton,J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college choice. In J.C. Smart (Ed.) Higher education: Handbook of theory and research Volume 1 (pp. 231 288). New York, NY: Agathon Press. Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K.S. (1987). Studying student choice: A three phase model and implication for policymakers. Colleg e and University, 62 207 221. Hsing, Y., & Chang, H.S. (1996). Testing increasing sensitivity of enrollment at private institutions to tuition and other costs. The American Economist, 40( 1), 40 45. Higher Education Act, Public Law 89 239 79 Stat.1219 (1965).
161 Hill, C.B., Winston, G.C., & Boyd, S. (2005). Affordability: Family incomes and net prices at highly selecti ve private colleges and universities. The Journal of Human Resources, 40 (4), 769 790. Hill, K., Hoffman, D., & Rex, T.R. (2005 ) The value of higher education: Individual and societal benefits(with special consideration for the state of Arizon a). L. William Seidman Research Institute. Retrieved on February 5, 2009 from http://wpcarey.asu.edu/seid/upload/Value%20Full%20Report_final_october% 202 005a.pdf Hovey, H.A. (1999). State spending for higher education in the next decade: The battle to sustain current support. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved August 4, 20 10 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/hovey/hovey.pdf Huck, S.W. (2008). Reading statistics and research Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Hunt, J.B., & Tierney, T.J. (2006). American higher education: How does it measure up for the 21 st century? The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved o n January 29, 2009 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/hunt_tierney/Hunt_Tierney.pdf Immerwahr, J. (1998). The price of admission: The growing i mportance of higher education. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved on February 1 2009 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/price/price.pdf Immerwahr, J. (2000). Great expectations: How Floridians view higher education. The Nationa l Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved on February 1, 2009 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/expectations_fl/expectations_fl.pdf Im merwahr, J. (2004). Public attitudes on higher education: A trend analysis, 1993 2003. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved on February 1, 2009 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pubatt/Pub_Agenda_040210.pdf Immerwahr, J. & Foleno, T. (2000). Great expectations: How the public and parents White, A frican American and Hispanics view higher education. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved on February 1, 2009 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/expectations/expectations.pdf
162 Immerwahr, J., & Johnson, J. (2007) Squeeze play: How parents and the public look at higher education today. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved on February 1, 2009 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/squeeze_play/squeeze_play.pdf costs today: Public agenda and the national center for public policy and higher education The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education Retrieved on October 3, 2010, from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/squeez e_play_09/squeeze_play_09.pdf Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998). Reaping the benefits: Defining the public and private value of going to college. Retrieved February 1, 2009 from http:// www.ihep.org/Pubs/PDF/Reap.pdf Jackson, G.A. (1982). Public efficiency and private choice in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4, 237 247. Jackson, G.A. (1978). Financial aid and student enrollment. The Journal of Higher Education, 49(6), 548 574. Jackson, G.A., & Weathersby, G.B. (1975). Individual demand for higher education: A review and analysis of recent empirical studies. The Journal of Higher Education 46 (6), 623 652. Kane, T.J. (1995). Rising public college tuition and college entry: How well do public subsidies promote access to college? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 5164. Katsinas, S. G., Tollefson, T. A., & Reamey, B.A. (2008). Funding issues in U.S. co mmunity colleges: Findings from a 2007 survey of the National State Directors of Community Colleges Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/fundingissues Kiester, E., Jr. (1994). The GI Bill may be the best deal ever made by Uncle Sam. Smithsonian Magazine, 25 (8), 129 39. Kim, D., & Rury, J.L (2007). The changing profile of college access: The Truman commission and enrollment patterns in the postwar era. History of Education Quarterly, 47 (3), 302 327. Koshal, R.K., & Koshal, M. (2000). State appropriation and higher education tuition: What is the relationship? Education Economics, 8 (1), 81 89.
163 Layzell, D.T. (2007). State higher education funding models: An assessment of current and emerging approaches. The Journal of Education Finance, 33 (1), 1 19. Lee, J.B. (1999). How do students and families pay for college? In J.E. King (Ed ) Financing a college education (pp. 9 27). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Lehman, J. (1990). Social responsibility, actuarial assumpti ons, and wealth redistribution: Lessons about public policy from a prepaid tuition program. Michigan Law Review, 88 1035 1041. Lenth, C.S. (1993). The tuition dilemma: State policies and practices in pricing public higher education Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 365264) Leslie, L.L., & Brinkman, P.T. (1987). Student price respons e in higher education: The student demand studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 58 (2) 181 204. Lingenfelter, P.E. (2006). The un funding of higher education. State Higher Education Executive Officers. Retrieved October 27, 2008 from http://www.sheeo.org/about/paulpres/Baruch%20College.pdf Linsley, C.B. (1997). The underpinning of student aid. In R.A. Voorhees (Ed .), New Directions for Institutional Research Volume 95: Researching student aid: Creating an action agenda (pp. 5 23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Long, B. (2004). The impact of federal tax credits for higher education expenses. In C.Hoxby (Ed.) College Choices: The Economics of Where to Go, When to Go, and How to Pay for It Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lucas, C.J. (2006). American higher education: A history 2 ed. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Marcus, L. R. (1997). Restructuring state higher education governance pattern s. Review of Higher Education, 20 (4), 399 418. returning to school. Capella University. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://www.degreesofopportunity.org/inc/degrees_opportunity_report.pdf McLendon, M.K. (2003). Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 74 (5), 470 515. McPherson, M.S., & Schapiro, M.O. (1991). Does student aid affect college enrollment? New evidence on a persistent controversy. The American Economic Review, 81 (1) 309 318.
164 McPherson, M.S. & Schapiro, M.O. (1991). Keeping college affordable: Government and educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. MacTaggart, T. (Ed.). (1998). Seeking excellence through independence: Liberating colleges and universities from excessive regulation. S an Francisco: Jossey Bass. Martinez, M. C. (2004). Meeting the challenges of population growth and the future demand for postsecondary education considerations for state higher education policy. Education Commission of the States Retrieved April 15, 2009 from http://www.ecs.org/ Medsker, L.L., & Tillery, D. (1971). Breaking the access barriers: A profile of two year colleges New York, NY: McGraw Hill Book Company. aniels, T.M., Malcolm, Z., Felton, S., Critical issues for community colleges today and in 2019. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33 866 882. Mendoza, P., M endez, J.P., & Malcom, Z. (2009). Financial aid and persistence in community colleges: Assessing the effectiveness of federal and state financial aid programs in Oklahoma. Community College Review, 37 (2), 112 135. Middaugh, M.F., Graham, R., & Shahid, A. (2003). A study of higher education instructional expenditures: The Delaware study of instructional cost and productivity. [NCES 2003 161}. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. reorganization. The Journal of Higher Education 78 (2), 162 187. Mingle, J.R. (1992). Low tuition, progressive taxation. AGB R eports 34 (6 ) 9 13. Morgan, D.R, K ickham, K., LaPlant, J.T. (2001). State support for higher education: A political economy approach. Policy Studies Journal, 29 (3), 359 371. Morrill Act, Public Law 37 108 12 Stat 503, (1862) Mullin, C.M. (2008). Relationship of enrollment to the tui tion and fee difference ratio and state resources between 1960 and 2000 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UF online dissertations. (UFE0022188)
165 Mullin, C.M., & Honeyman, D.S. (2008). Statutory responsibility for fixing tuition and fees: Community colleges and undergraduate institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32 (4), 284 304. Mumpher, M. (1996). Removing college price barrier$$$: What government has done Albany, NY: State Un iversity of New York Press. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (2008). The land grant tradition Washington, DC: Author, Retrieved January 30, 2 009 from https://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=780 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2002). Losing ground: A national status report on the affordability of American higher education. Retrieved November 1 2007 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/losing_ground/affordability_report_final_w .pdf National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2006). Mea suring up 2006: The state report card on higher education, Florida. Retrieved February 21, 2009, from http://measuringup.highereducation.org/_docs/2006/statereports/FL06.pdf National Education Association. (2003). Why are college prices increasing and what should we do about it? Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://www2.nea.org/he/heupdate/images/vol9no5.pdf Nemc, M.R. (2006). Ivory towers and nationalist minds: Universities, leadership, and the development of the American state Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. O ffice of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (2005). Office of student financial assistance improved some functions, but additional changes would enhance services Report No. 05 08 Retrieved March 20, 2009 from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/0508rpt.pdf Office of Student Financial Assistance (2009). Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program Fact Sheet Retrieved April 3, 2009 from http://www.floridastudentfinancialaid.org/SSFAD/factsheets/BF.htm Okunade, A.A. (2004). What factors influence state appropriations for public higher education in t he United States? The Journal of Education Finance, 30 (2), 123 138. Pappas Consulting Group Inc. (2007). Proposing a blueprint for higher education in Florida: Outlining the way to a long term master plan for higher education in Florida. A report to the Florida Board of Governors. Retrieved June 2, 2010, from http://www.senate.ufl.edu/archives/Homepage/FBOG%20REPORT.PDF
166 Perna, L.W. (2003). The private benefits of higher education: An examination of the earnings premium. Research in Higher Education, 44 (4), 451 471. Perna, L.W. (2005). The benefits of higher education: Sex, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic g roup differences. The Review of Higher Education, 29 (1), 23 52 Higher education for American democracy. Volume 5. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Romano, R.M. (2005). Seeking the proper balance between tuition, state support, and local r evenues: An economic perspective. In S.G. Katsinas, & J.C. Palmer (Eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges: Volume 132 Sustaining financial support for community colleges (pp 33 42 ) San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Romano, R.M., & Djajalaksana, Y.M. (2010). Using the community college to control college costs: How much cheaper is it?. Manuscript submitted for publication Rouse, C.E. (1998). Do two year colleges increase overall educational attainment? Evidence from the states. Journal of Pol icy Analysis and Management, 17 (4), 595 620. Ruppert, S.S. (2001). Where we go from here: State legislative views on higher education in the new millennium Littleton, CO: National Education Association. Sanchez Penley, Y., Martinez, M.C., & Nodine, T. (1997). Florida: Protecting access and anticipating growth. In P.M. Callan. & J.E. Finney (Eds.) Public and private financing o f higher education: Shaping public policy for the futur e (pp. 107 136). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Santos, J.L. (2007). Resource allocation in public research universities. The Review of Higher Education 30(2), 125 144. Savoca, E. (1990). Another look at the demand for higher education: Measuring the price sensitivity of the decision to apply to c ollege. Economics of Education review, 9 (2), 123 134. Select Council on Post High School Education. (1970). Florida post high school education: A comprehensive plan for the 70s Tallahassee, FL: Author. Servicemen's Readjustment Act, Public Law 78 346 58 Stat.284m (1944). Shin, J. C. & Milton, S. (2006). Rethinking tuition effects on enrollment in public four year colleges and universities. The Review of Higher Education, 29 (2), 213 237.
167 Shin, J. C. & Milton, S. (200 8 ). Student response to t uition increase by academic majors: Empirical grounds for a cost related tuition policy. Higher Education, 55 (6), 719 734. Simpson, W.B. (1991). Cost containment for higher education: Strategies for public policy and institutional administration. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. Slosson, E.E. 1910. Great American U niversities New York, NY: Macmillian. Snyder, T.D., & Dillow, S.A. (2010). Digest of Education Statistics 2009 (NCES 2010 013). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Snyd er, T.D., Dillow, S.A., & Hoffman, C.M. (2008 ). Digest of Education Statistics 20 07 (NCES 20 08 022 ). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Southern Regional Education Board. (2006). Funding for public colleges and universities continues to lose battle with enrollment growth and inflation. Retrieved February 13, 2009, from www.sreb.org Southern Regional Education Board. (2007). Florida featured facts: From the SREB factbook on higher education. Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://www.sreb.org/main/EdData/FactBook/2007StateReports/Florida07.pdf St. John, E.P. (1991). A framework for reexamining state resource management: Strategies in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 62 (3), 263 287. St John, E.P. (1993). Untangling the web: Using price response measures in enrollment projections. The Journal of Higher Education, 64 (6), 676 695. St. John, E.P. (2003). Refinancing the college dream: Access, equal opportunity, and justice for taxpaye rs. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. St. John, E.P., & Starkey J.B. (1995). An alternative to net price: Assessing the influence of prices and subsidies on within year persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 66 (2), 156 186. State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2008). State higher education finance: FY 2007. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef_fy07.pdf Stampen, J. (1980). The financing of public higher education (Report No. 9). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 202447)
168 Stampen, J.O., & Layzell, D.T. (1997). Tuition and student aid in public higher educat ion: Searching for an organizing principle. In R.A. Voor hees (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research Volume 95: Researching student aid: Creating an action agenda (pp. 25 42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Thelin, J.R. (2004). Higher educat ion and the public trough: A historical perspective. In E.P. St. John, & M.D. Parson, (Eds.) Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and n ew rationales (pp. 21 39). Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Tierney, M.L. (1980 ). The impact of financial aid on student demand for public/private higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 51 (5), 527 545. higher education policy: A dynamic analysis. The Journal of Higher Education, 80 (4), 439 468. Tollefson, T. A., Garrett, R. L. and Ingram, W. G. (1999). Fifty state systems of community c olleges: Mission, governance, funding and accountability Johnso n City, Tennessee: Overmountain Press. Toutkoushian, R.K. (2003). Weathering the storm: Generating revenues for higher education during a recession. In F.K. Alexander, & R.G. Ehrenberg (Eds.), New Directions for Institutional Research Volume 119: Max imizing revenue in higher education (pp. 27 40).San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Trow, M. (1977). Aspects of American higher education, 1969 1975: A report for the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 134085) U.S. Census Bureau (2010a) No. P20 562. Voting and registration in the election of November 2008. Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved August 25, 2010 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20 562.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2010 b ). No. P60 238. Income, poverty and health insurance cov erage in the United States: 200 9 Washington, DC: United S tates Department of Commerce. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60 238.pdf United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2007). The Condition of Education, 2007 (NCES 2007 064). Washington, D C : U.S. Government Printing Office.
169 United States General Accounting Office (1998). Higher education: Tuition increases Report to th e Honorable Charles E. Schumer House of Representatives Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98227.pdf U.S. Const itution, A mend ment. X. Washington Higher E ducation Coordinating Board. (2009). 2008 09 Tuition and fee rates: A national comparison. Retrieved April 12, 2009 from http://www.hecb.wa.go v/research/issues/documents/TAB6.TuitionandFees2008 09Report FINAL.pdf Wattenbarger, J.L. (1974). Who now has the power? In J.L. Wattenbarger, & L.W. Bender (Eds ), New Directions for Higher Education Volume 2: Improving Statewide Planning (pp. 1 6) San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wattenbarger, J.L., & Cage, B.N. (1974). More money for more opportunity. San Francisco,CA: Jossey Bass Publishers. Weerts, D.J., & Ronca, J.M. (2006). Examining differences in state support for higher education: A comparative study of state appropriations for research I universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (6), 935 967. Wegner, G.R. (2003). Purposes, policies, performance: Higher education and the The Nati onal Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved August 4, 20 10 from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/aiheps/AIHEPS.pdf (1998). An analysis of student enrollment demand. Economics of Education Review, 17 (1), 47 54. Whalen, E.L. (1996). Responsibility centered management: An approach to decentralized financial operations. In D.S. Honeyman, J.L. Wattenbarger, & K.C. W estbrook (Eds.), A struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century (pp. 127 154).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Winston, G.C. (1999). College costs: Who pays and why it matter so? In J.E. King (Ed.), Financing a college education: H changing (pp 28 47). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Young, K.E. (1974). Exploring the case for low tuition in public higher education Iowa C ity, IA: American College Testing Program. Zumeta, W. (2001). Higher education finance in th e nineties: Lessons for the new millennium. National Education Association. Retrieved February 4, 2009 from http://www2.nea.org/he/healma2k1/images/a01p75.pdf
170 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Shawn Felton was born in 1977, the only child of Eddie and Mary Ann Felton. He lived in Terra Alta, West Virginia for 18 years and graduated from Preston High School in Kingwood, West Virginia in 1995. He received his B.S. in Athletic Training from West Virginia University (WVU) in 1999. He went on to earn h is M. Ed from the University of Louisville (U of L) in Sports Administration in 2001 Upon his graduation from WVU in 1999, Shawn was hired as a G raduate Assistant Football Athletic Trainer at the U of L while he pursued his master s. In 2000, he was promoted to the Assistant Football Athletic Trainer and adjunct instructor where he remained until his resignation and moved to Florida in 2004. In July 2004, he joined Naples Community Hospital (NCH) as a Head Athletic Trainer for one of the local county high schools and was promoted to the Athletic Training Coordinator, superv ising a staff of eight, in June 2005. Also during this time, he served as an adjunct instructor for the Athletic Training Education Program (ATEP) at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) In September 2005, he joined FGCU full time as the Clinical Education Coordinator and as an Instructor I for the ATEP. Shawn was instrume ntal in the initial national Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education ( CAATE ) accreditation of the ATEP He was promote d in June 2010 to Instructor II. Shawn resides in Estero FL with his wife, April. They have one daughter, Delaney.