Citation
Relationship of Enrollment to the Tuition and Fee Difference Ratio and State Resources between 1960 and 2000

Material Information

Title:
Relationship of Enrollment to the Tuition and Fee Difference Ratio and State Resources between 1960 and 2000
Creator:
Mullin, Christopher Michael
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (111 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Higher Education Administration
Educational Administration and Policy
Committee Chair:
Honeyman, David S.
Committee Members:
Wood, R. Craig
Campbell, Dale F.
Miller, M David
Graduation Date:
8/9/2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Colleges ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Education ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
Fees ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
Prices ( jstor )
School enrollment ( jstor )
Statistical models ( jstor )
Tuition ( jstor )
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
community, higher, price, tuition, undergraduate
Genre:
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.

Notes

Abstract:
The literature indicated that tuition and fee prices influenced enrollment in postsecondary education, with higher prices resulting in decreased attendance. The difference in tuition and fees between public community colleges and undergraduate institutions, operationalized as the tuition and fee difference ratio, was examined for its association with enrollment. The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a state's resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Results indicated that the difference in tuition and fees was not statistically significantly related to enrollment. The general trend of the tuition and fee difference ratio was, however, negatively associated with enrollment. Implications for state systems were discussed. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local:
Adviser: Honeyman, David S.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Christopher Michael Mullin. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2010
Classification:
LD1780 2008 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





Balance of a Public Postsecondary Education System

The evolution and balance of postsecondary options within a state depended largely on

whether there was local participation in the development the postsecondary enterprise (Medsker

and Tillery 1971). A tension between state control and institutional autonomy also existed with

undergraduate systems (Dressel 1980). The resulting composition of postsecondary education

systems differed substantially from state to state (The Carnegie Commission on Higher

Education 1973; Dressel 1980), authorizing the development of institutions with focused efforts

on either more community colleges or extending an already present state university (Rouse

1998). It was the case that states engaged in master planning had to strategically plan for growth

and balance the roles of institutions already established.

California provided an example of a state that maintained a tiered structure of higher

education, with an emphasis on community colleges. Public community colleges emerged in

California in 1910 as an addition to state colleges and the University of California. The

institutions within this tripartite postsecondary education system acted independently of each

other, and were pitted against each other in their requests to the legislature, until they were joined

under a master plan in 1960 (Douglass 2000). It had since been the case that a tiered system

operated in California, with a reliance on community colleges to serve as the primary access

point to higher education. State colleges coordinated as the California State University campuses

offered up to the master's degree1 and the University of California campuses offered the

doctorate (California State Department of Education 1960).

Wisconsin took another approach by incorporating extension centers of their land-grant

institution, the University of Wisconsin, as pre-baccalaureate education campuses (Brubacher

1 These institutions also offered doctoral degrees jointly with University of California
campuses (Tillery 1973).



























Figure 2-2. Conceptual framework

































2008 Christopher Michael Mullin









postsecondary education as it was the only enrollment variable consistently reported across all

five years.

Enrollment data were obtained by summing fall headcount enrollment for degree-seeking

undergraduate students for the institutions within a state for a given year. Fall, degree-seeking

headcount enrollment for each institution type and state were obtained from reports from the

National Center for Education Statistics for the years 1960 and 1970. The Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System was accessed for fall headcount enrollment in 1980, 1990,

and 2000. Total degree-seeking, fall headcount enrollment in both institution types (TOT ENR),

degree-seeking, fall headcount enrollment at community colleges (CC ENR), and degree-

seeking, fall headcount enrollment at undergraduate institutions (UIENR) were employed as

dependent variables.

Tuition difference ratio. Tuition and fees data reflected the price of instruction for an

academic year. The difference in tuition and fee rates at public community colleges and

undergraduate institutions was the variable of interest in this study. This difference would play

an important role in future policy actions as states examined actions to redirect students to public

community colleges before attending undergraduate institutions (Ruppert 2001).

Tuition and fee data utilized in this research study were collected from two data sources:

the Blue Book and the United States Office/Department of Education. The need for the two

sources was due to a lack of tuition and fee data from the United States Office/Department of

Education requisite for the study in 1960 and 1970.

Tuition and fee data for 1960 were obtained from a report by the United States Office of

Education entitled Higher education planning and management data, 1960-61: Salaries, tuition

and fees, room and board (Bokelman 1960). The data reported in this report was deemed









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The provision of public postsecondary education by the states gained support from the

federal government in the late nineteenth century.1 Spurred on by a growing populist concern

for agricultural advancements, Justin Morrill introduced a bill in Congress to support the

establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges with federal aid to the states (Roche 1986).

Up to and during this time public financial support for postsecondary education was sporadic at

best, relying heavily on student fees, private gifts and grants (Chambers 1968; Cohen 1998;

Roche 1986; Lucas 1994).

Within a context of sectional differences along economic and social lines, Abraham

Lincoln signed the Morrill Act of 1862 providing the means for states to begin operating their

own postsecondary education institutions (Anderson 1976; McDowell 2001). The purpose of

these new institutions was specified in the fourth section of the act which stated "each State

which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of

at least one college... in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial

classes in the several professions and pursuits of life" (PL 37-108, emphasis added).

The act was an effort to extend the opportunity for education to individuals via

institutions that would reflect the unique local context and desires of each state (Eddy 1957). In

approximately twenty states the land-grant college was an addition to an already present state

1 It was the case that public funds were utilized to support a few public and private
postsecondary education institutions prior to this time. Support from private and public sources
uniquely placed the institutions as semi-public entities (Roche 1986). For example, four hundred
British pounds for the establishment of Harvard and the President of the university's salary came
from the Massachusetts General Court in 1636 and was thereafter supplemented by bank taxes
and tolls paid to cross the Charles River (Lucas 1994; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986). In another
case, tracts of land, taxes on tobacco, export duties on furs and skins and a tax on peddlers were
directed toward the establishment and maintenance of William and Mary College in 1693 (Lucas
1994; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986).

























Z d

S- -- d
-- b


Undergraduate Institution
Tuition and Fees


Community College
- ~Tuition and Fees


Figure 2-1. A depiction of the difference in tuition and fees examined in the study









participate in public postsecondary education. Other individuals may have engaged in

employment opportunities, being unable to risk the foregone earnings one sacrificed while

attending an institution of postsecondary education.









Greenleaf, W. J. 1936. Junior Colleges, Educational Bulletin No. 3. Washington, DC: United
States Government Printing Office.

Gross, E., and P. V. Grambsch. 1974. Changes in University Organization, 1964-1971. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Publishers.

Hansen, W.L., and B. A. Weisbrod. 1969. Benefits, Costs, andFinance of Public Higher
Education. New York: Markham.

Harris, S. E. 1960. Higher Education in the United States: The Economic Problems. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Hauptman, A. M. 1990. The Tuition Dilemma: Assessing New Ways to Pay for College.
Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution.

Hauptman, A. M., and J P. Merisotis. 1990. The College Tuition Spiral: An Examination of Why
Charges Are Increasing. New York: The College Board and the American Council on
Education.

Heam, J. C., Griswold, C. P., and G. M. Marine. 1996. Region, Resources, and Reason: A
Contextual Analysis of State Tuition and Student Aid Policies. Research in Higher
Education, 37(3): 241-278.

Heam, J. C. and C. P. Griswold. 1994. State-level Centralization and Policy Innovation in U. S.
Postsecondary Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2): 161-190.

Heller, D. E. 1997. Student Price Response in Higher Education: An Update to Leslie and
Brinkman. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6): 624-659.

Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329 (1965).

Hoberock, B. 2007. Free Community College Tuition Pushed. Tulsa World, October 20.
Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http:///www.tulsaworld.com

Hurt, H. W., and M. E. Abbott. 1947. The College Blue Book, 5th ed. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY:
Christian E. Burkel.

Hurt, H. W., and M. E. Abbott. 1950. The College Blue Book, 6th ed. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY:
Christian E. Burkel.

Hurt, H. W., and H. Hurt. 1933. The College Blue Book, 3rd ed. Hollywood-by-the-Sea, FL: The
College Blue Book.

Hurt, H. W., and H. Hurt. 1950. The College Blue Book, 4th ed. DeLand, FL: The College Blue
Book.









levels of education, such as undergraduate and graduate, within an institution (The Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education 1970b; Schietinger 1981). Differentiated tuition between the

first two years of study, the second two years of study and graduate education was believed to

have a negative impact on attrition (Bowen 1974).

A rational for differentiated tuition was grounded in cost analysis (The Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education 1973). Implications of a shift towards cost-based tuition

differentiation were hindered by the influence cost had on elasticity of demand, concerns about

equity, and the relationship of cost and prestige (Johnson 1979). Additionally, the relationship

between tuition differences and institutional costs were not supported in the literature

(Middaugh, Graham and Shahid 2003; Johnson 1979).

Tuition differences between public four-year and private undergraduate institutions were

a concern, as tuition charges at private schools were between three and five times larger than at

public institutions (The National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education

1973). It was believed that maintaining lower tuition and fees at public undergraduate

institutions would be difficult, as it disadvantaged private institutions (The Carnegie Council on

Policy Studies in Higher Education 1975). In response to the perspective that the market

mechanism should exist in postsecondary education, a decrease in this difference was the

incorporation of financial aid to the student (Garms 1980; The National Commission on the

Financing of Postsecondary Education 1973).

Institutional Rationales

Tuition and fee increases have consistently overtime based upon three general arguments:

shifts in inflation, increasing expenditures, and unstable sources of income. Two reports, forty

years apart, provided greater detail (Table 2-1).









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Postsecondary education participation, 1910 to 1950............................................. 21

1-2 Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1910 to 1950.............................22

1-3 Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 2000...........................23

1-4 Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 1950 ................24

2-1 Difference in tuition and fees examined in the study ................................................. 49

2-2 C onceptual fram ew ork ............................................................................. ....................50

4-1 Studentized residual versus CC ENR ........................................ .......................... 81

4-2 Studentized residual versus TD R ............................................................ .....................82

4-3 Studentized residual versus M FI............................................. .............................. 83

4-4 Studentized residual versus E A .............................................................. .....................84

4-5 Studentized residual versus Y ear......... ................. .................................. ............... 85

4-6 Studentized residual versus UI ENR...... ............................................. ...............86

4-7 Studentized residual versus TD R ........... ............................ ................. ............... 87

4-8 Studentized residual versus M FI.................................. ........................ ............... 88

4-9 Studentized residual versus EA ............................................................. .....................89

4-10 Studentized residual versus Y ear......... ................. .................................. ............... 90

5.1 Forty-year trend of TDR on enrollment................. ........ .. ............... 98

5.2 Forty-year trend of MFI on enrollment............... ........... .. ...................99

5.3 Forty-year trend of EA on enrollment .............................................. ................. .. 100











8









Fixed effect models. Inserting the values of"0" and "1" wherever the relevant dummy

code occurs in the full model, the following regression equations were determined for the years,

1960,
CCENR =- 28,851.061 + 13,696.399(TDR) + 1.165(MFI) 613.373(EA), (4-3)

1970,
CCENR = 55,026.003 + 4,999.395(TDR) + 1.487(MFI) +345.442(EA), (4-4)

1980,
CC ENR = 9,130.052 + 294.142(TDR) + 4.384(MFI) 1,542.196(EA), (4-5)

1990,
CCENR = 389,521.733 33,375.694(TDR) + 1.401(MFI) 4,424.714(EA), (4-6)

2000,
CCENR = 868,315.562- 36,095.709(TDR) 1.222(MFI)- 11,432.693(EA). (4-7)

Across the forty years, as measured every ten years, investigated in the study, the

independent variables exhibited different trends. The tuition and fee difference ratio (TDR) was

positively associated with degree-seeking enrollment in a public community college for the years

1960, 1970, and 1980, a trend that turned negative in 1990 and 2000. The trend however was

consistently negative as the associations, which started out positively, continued to decrease

since the reference year. Increases in median family income were positively associated with

community college enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, only to become

negatively associated in 2000. Increases in educational attainment were negatively associated

with enrolment for all years but 1970,when the association was positive.

This suggested that, over the five time points examined, an increase in the difference in

tuition and fee difference ratio, median family income, and educational attainment shifted from

being positively associated with fall headcount, degree-seeking enrollment at public community

colleges to being negatively associated.









and Rudy 1997; Cohen 1998). The state-university philosophy took root at the turn of the

twentieth century, when extension efforts and research yielded returns to the society greater than

were expected (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). As a result or early contributions to state

development, the university and state became integral to each other's development. Two-year

colleges in the state were branch campuses for liberal arts, with a separate state system for

vocational education. It was observed that another reason for enacting this philosophy was due

to the lack of local initiative to extend postsecondary education opportunity (Medsker and Tillery

1971).

An examination of state postsecondary education structures in 1976 reported that 26 states

were identified as having the potential deficit in institutions offering open-access2 via the

community college in 1976.3 Conversely, 12 states were lauded for having a community college

within commuting distance of most state residents4 (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement

of Teaching 1982). Rouse (1998) termed states providing more education options beyond the

high school via a large number of community colleges as compared to undergraduate institutions

have embraced the democratization effect (Koos 1924; Brint and Karabel 1989). Conversely,

Rouse (1998) termed states with a focus on limiting community colleges in favor of the

development of four-year, undergraduate institutions as having created a diversion effect,

whereby a higher proportion of individuals must attend four-year institutions for education


2 Open-access was defined as an institution with low or no tuition for high school
graduates.

3 These states included Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, new Mexico,
New York (SUNY), North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

4 These states include Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New York,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.











6

5

4

3

2-




-1
0




-2
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

o Community College -A- Undergraduate Institution

Figure 5-2. Forty-year trend of MFI on enrollment









RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO THE TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE RATIO
AND STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1960 AND 2000





















By

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MULLIN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008































0
I s *:-:--* ------ "--------
o, o


oo
0 00
o oo0 0 0



0 O0
0 9 0
o o

.0000







0.00 2.00 4.00




Figure 4-7. Studentized residual versus TDR.


TDR


1 ~-::





PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO TH E TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE RATIO AND STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1960 AND 2000 By CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL MULLIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Christopher Michael Mullin 2

PAGE 3

To my family. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my family for their support as I pursued education beyond that which was compulsory. I thank my advisor for the knowledge, skills and memories. I thank my committee for their support of my research and invaluable contribu tions of their expertis e. Lastly, I thank the office staff in the Department of Educati onal Administration and Po licy for all their support and friendship. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 10Era of Organization .................................................................................................................11Participation via Local ized Institutions ..................................................................................12Stratifying Tuition and Fees .................................................................................................. .13Enrollment and Increasing Tuition and Fees ...................................................................15State Resources ................................................................................................................17Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... .....18Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................192 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................................26Access and State Structures ................................................................................................... .26State Master Plans ...........................................................................................................27Balance of a Public Postsecondary Education System ....................................................29Student Price Response ...........................................................................................................31Philosophies Guiding Tuition and Fee Policy .................................................................33Tuition Differentiations ...................................................................................................35Institutional Rationales ....................................................................................................36Federal Actions ................................................................................................................39Tuition and Fees and Enrollment ....................................................................................40State Resources .......................................................................................................................41Educational Attainment ...................................................................................................42Income and the Ability to Pay .........................................................................................43Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................... .453 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................51Research Question ..................................................................................................................51Research Hypothesis ...............................................................................................................51Data Summary ........................................................................................................................52Population .................................................................................................................... ....52Variables of Interest ........................................................................................................52 5

PAGE 6

Design ........................................................................................................................ .............57Model 1 ............................................................................................................................57Model 2 ............................................................................................................................58Data Treatment .......................................................................................................................59Limitations ................................................................................................................... ...........594 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........64Model 1 ...................................................................................................................................64Model 2 ...................................................................................................................................685 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... ...91Discussion of the Results ..................................................................................................... ...91Significance of Association .............................................................................................91Forty-Year Trends ...........................................................................................................92Directions for Future Research ...............................................................................................95Implications for State Planning ..............................................................................................9 6LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................101BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................111 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Rationales for increased costs ............................................................................................ 473-1 States without a public comm unity college system, by year .............................................623-2 Conditional mean imputation for median family income, selected states in 1970 ............634-1 Model summary for Model 1 .............................................................................................724-2 Coefficients for Model 1 ....................................................................................................734-3 ANOVA for Model 1 ......................................................................................................... 744-4 Descriptive statistics for Model 1 ......................................................................................744-5 Pearson correlations for Model 1 .......................................................................................754-6 Model summary for Model 2 .............................................................................................764-7 Coefficients for Model 2 ....................................................................................................774-8 ANOVA for Model 2 ......................................................................................................... 784-9 Descriptive statistics for Model 2 ......................................................................................794-10 Pearson correlations for Model 2 .......................................................................................80 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Postsecondary education participation, 1910 to 1950........................................................211-2 Number of public postsecondary education institu tions, 1910 to 1950 .............................221-3 Number of public postsecondary education institu tions, 1933 to 2000 .............................231-4 Tuition and fees at public postsecond ary education institutions, 1933 to 1950 ................242-1 Difference in tuition and fees examined in the study .......................................................492-2 Conceptual framework ...................................................................................................... .504-1 Studentized residual versus CC_ENR ...............................................................................814-2 Studentized resi dual versus TDR .......................................................................................824-3 Studentized residual versus MFI ........................................................................................834-4 Studentized resi dual versus EA .........................................................................................844-5 Studentized resi dual versus Year .......................................................................................854-6 Studentized residual versus UI_ENR .................................................................................864-7 Studentized resi dual versus TDR. ......................................................................................874-8 Studentized resi dual versus MFI. .......................................................................................884-9 Studentized re sidual versus EA. ........................................................................................894-10 Studentized re sidual versus Year .......................................................................................905.1 Forty-year trend of TDR on enrollment .............................................................................985.2 Forty-year trend of MFI on enrollment ..............................................................................995.3 Forty-year trend of EA on enrollment .............................................................................100 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO THE TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE RATIO AND STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1960 AND 2000 By Christopher M. Mullin August 2008 Chair: David S. Honeyman Major: Higher Education Administration The literature indicated that tu ition and fee prices influenced enrollment in postsecondary education, with higher prices resu lting in decreased attendance. Th e difference in tuition and fees between public community colleges and undergradua te institutions, operationalized as the tuition and fee difference ratio, was examined for its asso ciation with enrollment. The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public postsec ondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a states resources, wa s associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Results indicated that the difference in tuition and fees was not statistically significantly related to enrollment. The general trend of the tuition and fee difference ratio was, however, negatively associat ed with enrollment. Implications for state systems were discussed. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The provision of public postsecondary educat ion by the states gained support from the federal government in the late nineteenth century.1 Spurred on by a growing populist concern for agricultural advancements, Justin Morrill introduced a bill in Congress to support t establishment of agricultural and mechanical colle ges with federal aid to the states (Roche 1986). Up to and during this time public financial supp ort for postsecondary education was sporadic at best, relying heavily on student fees, privat e gifts and grants (C hambers 1968; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986; Lucas 1994). he Within a context of sectional differences along economic and social lines, Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act of 1862 providing the means for states to begin operating their own postsecondary education institutions (A nderson 1976; McDowell 2001). The purpose of these new institutions was specified in the four th section of the act which stated each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one collegein order to promote th e liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several professions and pursu its of life (PL 37-108, emphasis added). The act was an effort to extend the oppor tunity for education to individuals via institutions that would reflect the unique local context and desires of each state (Eddy 1957). In approximately twenty states the land-grant colle ge was an addition to an already present state 1 It was the case that public funds were utilized to support a few public and private postsecondary education institutions prior to this time. Support from private and public sources uniquely placed the institutions as semi-public entities (Roche 1986). For example, four hundred British pounds for the establishment of Harvard and the President of the universitys salary came from the Massachusetts General Court in 1636 and was thereafter supplemented by bank taxes and tolls paid to cross the Charles River (L ucas 1994; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986). In another case, tracts of land, taxes on tob acco, export duties on furs and skins and a tax on peddlers were directed toward the establishment and maintena nce of William and Mary College in 1693 (Lucas 1994; Cohen 1998; Roche 1986). 10

PAGE 11

college (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). For exampl e, Michigan had alr eady established the University of Michigan in 1817 when Michigan State University was chartered as a land-grant institution in 1863 (Anderson 1976). Dunham ( 1969) asserted non-land-grant public colleges and universities often started out as another type of institution such as a teachers college, a junior college or a religious college. Throughout th e late nineteenth and early twentieth century postsecondary education institutions were created with little to no federal or state guidance. Era of Organization The years after World War II were critical to the development of postsecondary education in the United States. Again federa l action spurred the growth of opportunity for postsecondary education and the states had to respond. Soldiers returning from the Second Word War were provided federal tuition vouchers, via the Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1947 (PL 346268, GI Bill), which were valid at any institution, public or private, in-state or out. As such, en rollments at public postsecondary education institutions significantly expanded along with the belief everyone could go to college (Cohen 1998). As compared to only 2.8% of 18 to 24 year-olds attending postsecondary education in 1910, by 1950 this percenta ge increased to 15 (Figure 1-1). In 1950, the number of public institutions had expanded to include 66 land-grant colleges, 259 other undergraduate institutions an d 330 community colleges (Figure 1-2). These institutions of various size and shape were in operation with their focus on liberal education, teacher training and vocational education. With the encouragement of the federal government, states began at this time to create state ma ster plans to organize postsecondary education institutions and create efficiencies in th eir operation (The Carneg ie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1976; Dressel 1980; Hearn and Griswold 1994). 11

PAGE 12

To meet the increased demand for participa tion in postsecondary education, states took innovative action with the expansion of the two-year, public community college2 in postsecondary education structur es to provide educational op portunity (Longanecker 2007). Termed democracys colleges, these institutio ns were believed to have brought educational opportunity to the masses through their open-door ph ilosophy, proximity to a states citizens and low-cost to the student (The Carnegie Co mmission on Higher Education 1970b). Medsker and Tillery (1971) contributed three other factors to their growth: (a) training programs of various duration and focus were needed to meet the grow ing job market, (b) the influx of participants taking advantage of the GI Bill, and (c) the perspective of adults after World War II that there was a broader world to which they belonged and should learn about. Participation via Localized Institutions While the ideal of increased educational opportunity via open-acce ss institutions was situated at the end of the Second World War (P almer 1996), it had been suggested that universal access to postsecondary education vi a the creation of localized institutions was not achieved until the decade spanning the years 1960 to 1969 (Linge nfelter 2004; Longanecker 2007). The facts confirmed this belief, for between 1960 and 1970 the number of community colleges grew from 412 to 909, an increase of 497 institutions or 121% (American Association of Community Colleges n.d.), while the number of other public postsecondary e ducation institutions remained constant (Figure 1-3). 2 The term community college, as utilized herei n, indicated an institution that offers at least an associates of arts degree program. Institutions that did not offer an a ssociate of arts program, such as a technical college, were not included in this study. Historically the community colleges were referred to as junior colleges. The te rm community college gained prominence after its application in Volume 1: Establishing the Goals of The Presidential Commission on Higher Education (1947). 12

PAGE 13

The increased number of community college s allowed undergraduate public institutions to expand in areas commensurate with increased status, such as graduate education, research, and research funding. As a result, these undergraduat e institutions could redirect less-qualified students to community colleges by increasing their own admission standards (Cohen 1998). Community colleges accepted their role as providers of postseconda ry opportunity to those who were of lesser income, geographically bound or older (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1970a). A salient theme early in the evolution of th e American postsecondary enterprise was the notion of access via the material realization of localized instituti ons. There was no doubt that the local proximity of community colleges was a ma jor achievement and primary factor in the democratization of postsecondary educati on (Cohen and Brawer 1996). However, as postsecondary education institutions became accessibl e to the vast majority of the population via localized, open-access institutions, a new frontier was to be drawn: access as a condition of price. Stratifying Tuition and Fees For the increasing number of i ndividuals interested in pursuing postsecondary education, community colleges were always the less expensiv e option. It was the cas e that the range in tuition and fees3 between community colleges and unde rgraduate institut ions nationally narrowed from 1933 to 1956. The maximum difference in tuition and fees during this time was $31 per 36-week academic year in 1939, with the minimum amount being $5 in 1950 (Figure 1-4). 3 Tuition, theoretically, had been conceptualized as the cost of instruction, whereas fees applied to a service or additional cost (see Shelburne [1939] for a legal review of the differentiation of tuition and fees). Lombar di (1973) noted [S]ome community college educators prefer the term fee to tuition, reflect ing their uneasiness at th e contradiction between the concept of the open door and the practice of charging tuition. The use of fee may also be a circumvention of state law that forbids tuition but permits fees (38). 13

PAGE 14

As the difference in tuition and fees be tween public undergraduate institutions and community colleges equalized, the tidal wave of enrollments and accompanying federally sponsored scholarships via the Servicemens Readjustment Act of 1947 (PL 346-268, GI Bill) ended. It was also the case at this time that other sources of income did not proportionally increase to keep up with inflation and their increased expenditure le vels (The Commission on Financing Higher Education 1952). The decrease in GI Bill revenue in the decade of 1950-1959 concerned institutions as they had become increasingly dependent on student-oriented revenue via augmented tuition and fee revenue and st ate and local appropria tions contingent upon enrollment. With the National Education Defense Act of 1958 (PL 85-864), the federal government had the option to extend opportunity and support to students via federa l scholarship programs first introduced in the GI Bill. However, it came to be that in the last days before the passage of that [NDEA] act, the provision for student loans was inserted in lieu of a plan of scholarships, at the initiative of the conservative Eisenhower Administ ration (Chambers, 1968, p.117). The National Defense Education Act of 1958s emphasis on fellowships4 and loan programs was a critical juncture in the evolution of tuition and fee5 policy it contributed to the beginning of a stratified price structure in postsecondary education (Hauptman, 1990; Callan, 2006; Thelin, 2007). 4 The focus of fellowships was on graduate education. Specifically, Title IV of the National Defense Education Act funded 1,500 fello wships per year for students preparing to teach at the college or univers ity level (Thelin 2007, 27). 5 Tuition and fees are examined here in the co llective. While tuition had been defined as a cost for instruction, a fee had been defined as an educational cost applied to an individual for purposes other than instruction. A review of lega l precedent supports the us e of fees, other than those used for tuition. It was observed that legal precedent had determined the prohibition or restraint on public pos tsecondary education institutions in setting fees was limited only when expressed or implied by constitutional or statutory language (Shelburne 1939). 14

PAGE 15

By 1965, the equalization of tuition and fees between public postsecondary education institution types ended, as community college tuition was half of that charged at undergraduate institutions, with prices of $109 and $284 respectively. The twic e-as-much difference continued until the early 1990s. By 2000, the difference increas ed to a factor of three with the national average price of $1333 at public community coll eges and $3501 at undergraduate institutions (Figure 1-5). Enrollment and Increasing Tuition and Fees The decrease in federal assistance to the student, however, did not signal the end of increased participation by individuals and the fe deral government, in postsecondary education. In the years following the introduction of the GI Bill (1950-1959), the perc ent of the population enrolled in degree-granting institutions increased from 15% to 18.3% (United States Department of Education 1972). The 3.3% increase was noticeably less than both the preceeding and proceeding decades, with the percent of the population increasing from 8.4% in 1940 to 15% in 1950 (a 6.6% increase) and an increase from 18.3% in 1960 to 25.7% in 1970 (a 7.4% increase) as illustrated in Figure 2-1. The rapid increase in postsecondary educa tion participation held level during the 1970s, only to increa se rapidly again between 1980 and 2000. The decades following 1960 marked a signifi cant period of growth for the public postsecondary education enterprise.6 Participation was increasing as new institutions were built 6 The rapid expansion of community colleges, however, did not come without criticism. Critical theorists have pointed towards community colleges specifically as vehicles for social stratification. Hansen and Weisbrod (1969) argued the low tuition policies common within community colleges served to limit intergenerati onal social mobility and provided the benefits of higher education only to those who could afford the higher priced state institutions. Their work sounded the initial warnings of st ratification of educational opportunity along fiscal lines. Brint and Karabel (1989) espoused that community colle ges, void of a transfer function, would have remained extensions of elementary and sec ondary education. Instead, community colleges provided the opportunity to transfer to higher education institutions via preparation in the liberal arts. Furthermore, they claimed early leaders in the community college movement, specifically 15

PAGE 16

to meet the continued demand engendered by the so cial climate of the middle of the twentieth century, and expanded services to include educat ional options other than transfer (Cain 1982). The social climate was fueled by paradigm -shifting social policy resulting from Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483 1954 ) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (PL 89-329), Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-318) and other federal and state actions ensuring democracy was an opportunity for all citizens (T he Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1982; Kim and Rury 2007), in addition to the looming tide of baby-boomers entering postsecondary education (Kim and Rury 2007; Rouse 1994). The concern over the increasing difference in tuition and fees was compounded by the fact that a body of literature had shown price influenced student par ticipation (H eller 1997; Jackson and Weathersby 1975; Leslie and Bri nkman 1987; Pryor, Hurtado, et al. 2006). Additionally, there had been extensive study of th e influence of tuition and fee rates on student participation, finding that as rates increase, participation decreases (Heller 1997; Kane 1991; Leslie and Brinkman 1987). Recently, it ha d been observed that between 1993 and 2005, young and working-aged adults had not increased in their enrollment in education beyond the high school (The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2006). This plateau in postsecondary participation had le ad to national concerns as th e United States lead member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the percent of adults aged 45 to 54 with at least an associates degree (40%), seven countries had higher percentages of individuals aged 25 to 34 with at least an associates degree. This Leonard V. Koos, Walter Crosby Eells, and Doak S. Campbell, attempted to divert students to vocational education in an attempt to provide short range upward mobility while satisfying the colleges need to secure the best traini ng markets still unoccupied by their four-year competitors (209). 16

PAGE 17

generational change in college at tainment was concerning as it i ndicated the impact of decreased attendance in postsecondary education in a gl obalized society (Rei ndl 2007; OECD 2007). State Resources State resources contribute to the college participation. In deve loping and maintaining postsecondary education systems, state policymakers had to take into cons ideration the resources of a state. Two areas of particular interest were the educational par ticipation of academically qualified individuals and the abilit y of a states citizens to pay for non-compulsory education. High school graduation rates increased throughout the twen tieth century, providing for and increased percentage of state residents to be academically qualified to attend postsecondary education (Kim and Rury 2007). The national de mand for, and participation in postsecondary education lead to the realignment of state systems and the development of institutions such as the community college. While estimates of college going rates seem to have plataeued since the early 1990s, a recent survey indicated that the shif t in national demographics was contributing to a decrease in postsecondary education partic ipation. The survey, conducted by the National Center on Public Policy and Higher Educati on (2007), found 62% of re spondents agreed that motivated and academically qualified students were not attending college be cause of a perceived lack of opportunity, a belief most prevalent am ongst African-American a nd Hispanic parents. The wealth of a states residents influenced the tuition and fee rates (Koshal and Koshal 2000), as family income remains a strong predictor of who will go to college (Callan 2006). Between 1982 and 2005, median family income out paced the consumer price index, 127% to 95% respectively, while tuition and fees increas ed by 375% during the same time period (Callan 2006). In 2002, the Advisory Committee on Stud ent Financial Assist ance found financial barriers prevent 48 percent of college-quali fied, low-income high school graduates from 17

PAGE 18

attending a four-year college, a nd 22 percent from attending any coll ege at all, within two years of graduation [from high school] nationally (v). Two states addressing concerns over access a nd participation in postsecondary education were Kentucky and Texas. An 83% increase in tuition at undergraduate institutions in Kentucky during a 6-year period from 2001-2002 to 20062007 heightened apprehension over the affordability of postsecondary educations impact on educational participation in the state (Division of Performance Audit 2006). Te xas unease over post secondary education participation was addressed in their educational plan entitled Closing the Gaps by 2015. The impetus behind this plan was the states acknowle dgement that the proporti on of state residents enrolling in postsecondary education was declini ng. A goal of the plan was to increase the percentage of residents partic ipating in postsecondary education from 5% in 2000 to 5.7% in 2015 (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2000). Admittedly, a part in meeting this goal was to set tuition and fee prices at levels that closed the gaps. Purpose of the Study It was observed that the difference in tuit ion and fees between public institution types changed between the years 1950 and 2000 by a f actor of three while participation in postsecondary education had plateaued. The purpos e of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to wh ich the attempt to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced opti on, with considerations of a states resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Research Question In order to address this issue, the following research question was developed. How was enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between in stitution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000? 18

PAGE 19

Research Hypotheses HO1: Enrollment was not significantly associat ed with tuition and fee difference ratio between public institution types and st ate resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. HA1: Enrollment was significantly associated with tuition and fee difference ratio between public institution types and st ate resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Significance of the Study An examination of factors contributive to the difference in tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions is imperativ e as prior research ha d shown that (a) the difference continues to expand, (b) legislators were actively pursuing methods to redirect students to lower cost institutions for the first two years of college and (c) tuition and fees play a significant role in determinations of postsecondary education particip ation. The cost of postsecondary education had become a signifi cant concern for all stakeholders. The compilation of a dataset, acquired from the work of Hurt and Burkel (1939-1960), provided the opportunity to extend our understanding of state-level analysis to a time when (a) national data available by the National Center for Education Statistics was not available, and (b) increasing participation in postsecondary educat ion participation became a national objective. Definition of Terms Affordability : Perceived ability of potential participants to afford attending postsecondary education. Affordability had been measured in th e literature as a percentage of family income needed to pay tuition and fees at a postsecondary education institution. No attempts to operationaliz e affordability were made in this study. References pertained to the theoretical conception of the term. Community college: Any two-year institution offering liberal arts education. The purpose for this distinction rests in the comp arative nature between community colleges and four-year undergraduate institutions dr awn in the study. When collecting data, institutions with the work technical in thei r name were excluded, unless it also included community (representing its comprehensive na ture). Tribal community colleges were also emitted as they receive a disproportio nate amount of funding from the federal government. 19

PAGE 20

Elasticity : How one unit change in supply resu lted in a change in price. Inflation : The result of excesses in demand as co mpared to supply resulting in increased prices. Postsecondary education structures: The composition of a state higher education system. Pricing : Tuition and fees as outlined below. Tuition and fees : The costs reported by the institu tions on surveys from either the National Center for Educational Statistics or the editors of th e Blue Book. This discussion focused on costs associated with tuition and fees, not on the other costs associated with education such as forgone ear nings and the cost of living described in the literature. The literature also referred to tuition and fees as it was defined for the purposes of this study as the sticker price. Undergraduate institution: A public postsecondary education institution that offered at least a bachelors degree. 20

PAGE 21

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Participation (%) 2.8 4.5 6.9 8.4 15 19101920193019401950 Figure 1-1. Postsecondary education participa tion, 1910 to 1950. [United States Department of Education 1972]. 21

PAGE 22

22 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Number of Institutions Community Colleges 25 74 180 238 330 Four-Year 196 220 242 251 259 Land-Grant 65 66 66 66 66 19101920193019401950 Figure 1-2. Number of public postsecondary education instituti ons, 1910 to 1950. [United States Department of Education 2003; Dunham 1969; American Association of Community Colleges n.d.; National Associ ation of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges 2008

PAGE 23

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Year (decade) Community Colleges 4-Year Land-Grant Community Colleges 25 74 180 238 330 412909105811061156 4-Year 196 220242 251 259 279359 482 528526 Land-Grant 65 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 96 1910192019301940195019601970198019902000 23 Figure 1-3. Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 2000. [United States Department of Education 2003; Dunham 1969; American Association of Community Colleges n.d.; National Associ ation of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges 2008]

PAGE 24

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1933193919471950Dollars (current) Community Colleges Undergraduate Institutions 24 Figure 1-4. Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 1950. [Authors calculations from The Blue Book 3-6th Editions.]

PAGE 25

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000Average Tuition and Fees (Current Dollars) Comm. Coll. 7272849010114610918724539164182412391333 Undrgrd. Inst. 9310392951271662844055568041318188828483501 19331939194719501956195919651970197519801985199019952000 Figure 1-5. Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education in stitutions, 1933 to 2000. [Autho rs calculations from The Blue Book 3-6th and 8-9th Editions, for years 1933 to 1959; Unites States De partment of Education 2003, for years 1965 to 2000.] 25

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Literature reviewed for this study was com posed of documents originating from public and private entities, policy co mmissions, government agencies, and scholars in the fields of postsecondary education finance, education, poli cy, sociology, law, economics and history. The literature reviewed was primarily in the form of reports, books and other policy documents with a lesser amount in the form of studies guided by specific rese arch questions. Access and State Structures The Morrill Act of 1862 expanded a states ab ility to provide postsecondary education opportunity to their citizens. To meet the gr owing interest in posts econdary education, the number and type of public institutions grew without guidance throughout the nation. An attempt to coordinate these institutions within a framewor k to increase systemic efficiencies came with the implementation master plans. The Morrill Act of 1862 (PL 37-108) served as the catalyst for the expansion of public postsecondary education as the federal governme nt provided support fo r states to open and maintain their own postsecondary education in stitutions (Anderson 1976; McDowell 2001). The fourth section of the Morrill Act outlined purpos e of these new institutions, specifically each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college in order to promote the liberal a nd practical education of the industrial classes in the several professions and pur suits of life (7 U.S.C.301, emphasis added). Expressly, intent of public institutio ns of postsecondary education was to provide educational opportunity for those who were destined for it or who had the courage to attend (Morrill 1887). 26

PAGE 27

These new federally initiated institutions signified the emancipation of postsecondary education from their traditionally classical pur pose (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). The emergence of these new public institutions from the battle weary nation faced difficulties gaining consistent, fiscal support from the states (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). It was not until the second signing of the act in 1890, that states began to provide substa ntial support for the ins titutions, as the original land-grant institutions had subsisted on their endowm ent from the original legislation (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). For the next seventy-five years, institutions of postsecondary education, lacking in coordination at the state level, appeared in various forms in localities determined largely by political maneuvering, with little attention to the goals of the institution (Gross and Grambsch 1974). As access to public postsecondary education began to expand after World War II, The Presidential Commission on Highe r Education asserted the greatest need faced by higher education is for the machinery necessary to as sure a comprehensive but economical State-wide system of education (1947, 3:30). This recomme ndation, with the aid of political infighting and increases in government size, prompted states to initiate coordination efforts to increase efficiency (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1976; Dressel 1980; Hearn and Griswold 1994). The Presidents Committee on Education Beyond the High School (1957) recommended the expansion and support of existing institutions should in general take priority over the esta blishment of new ones (72). The Committee suggested the community college be utilized to meet this pressing problem of an increase in the postsecondary sector, albeit only as part of a thoroughly considered state-wide plan. State Master Plans Glenny (1965) outlined several features of a recent development in postsecondary education: the master plan. It was observed that these plans would, among other things, 27

PAGE 28

emphasize the creation of colleges, and place ju nior colleges under the realm of postsecondary education as opposed to secondary education. Fu rthermore, it was expressed that master plans would reinforce the use of admission standards a nd tuition rates to funnel students into desired types of institutions and programs (Gle nny 1965, 97). During the decade 1960-1969, master plans were present in 38 states (The Carneg ie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1982). The master plans were often implemented or developed by nascent statewide coordinating boards (Berdahl 1971). Section 1202 of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-318) supported the establishm ent of statewide postsecondary education commissions to coordinate the development and governance of all state higher educa tion entities (McKinney 1974). The language of the legislation blurre d the lines between higher education and postsecondary education, favoring the latter (Martorana 1974). While going unfunded, and ultimately disregarded, the governing state education entities initially established as a result of 1202 Commissions were charged with various powers, responsibilities and duties. A reason for doing so was that the intent of s ection 1202 was to unite the unique institutions within a state, yet it resulted in the opposite (Martorana 1974). These nascent governing state postsecondary education systems were provided minimal federal guidance, while the number of institutions continued to grow (McKinney 1974). The growth of state coordination boards was observed by Berdahl (1971) to grow from sixteen in 1950 to more than twice that amount by 1970. The introduction of accountability measures, increase d regulation by state and federal agencies, and concern for equity and efficiency served as the impetus behind coordination efforts (Tillery and Wattenbarger 1985). The period from the early 1970s to the 1990s was marked as one of decentralization of state level governing authority (McLendon 2003). 28

PAGE 29

Balance of a Public Postsecondary Education System The evolution and balance of postsecondary options within a state depended largely on whether there was local participation in the development th e postsecondary enterprise (Medsker and Tillery 1971). A tension between state control and institutional autono my also existed with undergraduate systems (Dressel 1980). The re sulting composition of postsecondary education systems differed substantially from state to state (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1973; Dressel 1980), authorizing the deve lopment of institutions with focused efforts on either more community colleges or extending an already present state university (Rouse 1998). It was the case that states engaged in master planning had to strategically plan for growth and balance the roles of institutions already established. California provided an example of a state th at maintained a tiered structure of higher education, with an emphasis on community colleges. Public community colleges emerged in California in 1910 as an addition to state colleges and the Univ ersity of California. The institutions within this trip artite postsecondary education syst em acted independently of each other, and were pitted against each other in their requests to the legi slature, until they were joined under a master plan in 1960 (Douglass 2000). It ha d since been the case that a tiered system operated in California, with a reliance on comm unity colleges to serve as the primary access point to higher education. State colleges coordi nated as the California State University campuses offered up to the masters degree1 and the University of California campuses offered the doctorate (California State De partment of Education 1960). Wisconsin took another approach by incorpor ating extension centers of their land-grant institution, the University of Wisconsin, as pr e-baccalaureate education campuses (Brubacher 1 These institutions also offered doctoral de grees jointly with University of California campuses (Tillery 1973). 29

PAGE 30

and Rudy 1997; Cohen 1998). The state-university philosophy took root at the turn of the twentieth century, when extension efforts and research yielded returns to the society greater than were expected (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). As a result or early co ntributions to state development, the university and state became inte gral to each others development. Two-year colleges in the state were branch campuses for lib eral arts, with a sepa rate state system for vocational education. It was obs erved that another reason for enacting this philosophy was due to the lack of local in itiative to extend postsecondary educat ion opportunity (Medsker and Tillery 1971). An examination of state postsecondary educatio n structures in 1976 re ported that 26 states were identified as having the potential deficit in institutions offering open-access2 via the community college in 1976.3 Conversely, 12 states were lauded for having a community college within commuting distance of most state residents4 (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1982). Rouse (1998) termed states providing more education options beyond the high school via a large number of community colle ges as compared to undergraduate institutions have embraced the democratization effect (Koos 1924; Brint and Ka rabel 1989). Conversely, Rouse (1998) termed states with a focus on limiting community colleges in favor of the development of four-year, undergraduat e institutions as having created a diversion effect, whereby a higher proportion of individuals must attend four-year institutions for education 2 Open-access was defined as an instituti on with low or no tuition for high school graduates. 3 These states included Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada New Hampshire, New Jersey, new Mexico, New York (SUNY), North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 4 These states include Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. 30

PAGE 31

beyond the high school (Rouse 1998). Research indicated that state systems that had a heavy dependence on community colleges had lower levels of baccalaureate atta inment (Orfield and Paul 1992), and diverted more students to co mmunity college (Rouse 1994; Rouse 1998). Student Price Response It was argued that there was not enough evidence of the cost of tuition on the enrollment of low-income students. Specifically, [s]ince so l ittle is known about the independent effect of low or no tuition on the decision of various groups of students to attend a community colleges, a rigid position on tuition may not be justified (Garms 1977, 80). This claim was since challenged by a body of literature focused on the response of students to price. Leslie and Brinkman (1987) expressed price, buyer income, the prices of comparable goods, and the buyers preferences as factors in fluencing the amount of a good being demanded. Their review of price-response literature was a meta-analysis where the studies were perceived as one observation and each study was standard ized according to the work of Jackson and Weathersby (1975) to arrive at a student price response coeffici ent (SPRC). Upon reviewing the literature, the authors concluded that tuition and fee prices infl uenced participation rates in postsecondary education. Savoca (1990) examined student price res ponse arguing prior studies underestimated the elasticity of demand by one-half because they did not take into account the effect of increases on individuals who did not apply to college. Kane (1991) found increased tuition resulted in decreased enrollment, with black students bei ng the most sensitive to price. In a 1995 study, Kane found that community college students were the most sensitive to tuition increases. St. John and Starkey (1994) found a strong negativ e relationship between tuition charges and persistence in community colleges (211). 31

PAGE 32

Heller (1997) expanded upon Leslie and Brinkm ans study to examine the relationship between tuition and financial aid on enrollment. His review of price-response literature was summarized in one sentence: [a]s the price of college goes up, the probability of enrollment tends to go down (649). Four ke y observations included (a) aid de creases were associated with decreased enrollment, with grants having the stro ngest influence, (b) low-income students were the most sensitive to pricing differences, (c) black students were the most sensitive, Hispanic students were mixed and white students were least sensitive, and (d) community colleges students were more sensitive to prices than students at four-year public institutions. A survey of college students conducted by researchers at the Higher Education Re search Institute found financial barriers impacted students decisions as to which postsecondary institutions they attended (Pryor, Hurtado, et al. 2006). The importance of price in student decision-m aking was not limited to public institutions. Twenty-three elite private institutions5 created in 1958 the Ivy Overlap Group an agreement among the participants to refrain from offering financial aid to student applicants bases other than financial need, to use standard guidelines in determining aid to needy students, and to adjust offers in order to frame an potential stude nts choice on non-financia l reasons (Matlock 1994, 523). There were warnings as to the potential fo r increased tuition as a funding source could result in socio-economic stratification in postsecondary education (Chambers 1968). The 5 The institutions included Brown University, Columbia University, Amherst College, Barnard College, Cornell University, Bow doin College, Dartmouth College, Bryn Mawr College, Harvard University, Colby College, Ma ssachusetts Institute of Technology, Middlebury College, Princeton University, Mount Holyoke Co llege, University of Pennsylvania, Smith College, Yale University, Trinity College, Tuft s University, Vassar College, Wellesley College, Wesleyan University and Williams College. 32

PAGE 33

Commission on Higher Education a ppointed by President Truman r ecognized the need for, and advocated on behalf of, affordable postsecondary education. Volume Two of the report, entitled Equalizing and Expanding Individual Opportunity cited income inadequacies and the lack of sufficient state support as two of the greates t barriers hindering the affordability of postsecondary education (The Presidential Commission on Higher Education 1947). As postsecondary education part icipation increased in the se cond half of the twentieth century so did the amount students were respon sible to pay. Rationales for the increased expenditures in postsecondary education he ld constant. Two ph ilosophies guided the development of tuition and fee policy. The first placed a larger burden on public support in an effort to hold tuition low and negate the influe nce of individual costs in the decision to pursue educational opportunity. The other perspective, suggested that th e market mechanism be enacted in postsecondary education. Philosophies Guiding Tuition and Fee Policy The demands of access and affordability facing policymakers were encapsulated in the debates regarding tuition prici ng. The two primary philosophies6 guiding the development of tuition policy were (a) low tuition with high state support to institutions or (b) high tuition with federal, state, and private support to the individual in the form of aid. Low tuition. The support for a low tuition policy was rooted in the belief that the student already had a fiscal burden to bear in addition the out-of-pocket costs charged by the institution 6 Alternative tuition philosophies included Carbones five models: nonresident student surcharge model, resident tuition-fee-remission m odel, sliding scale, multiple-criteria model, sliding-scale single-criterion model, and the na tional tuition bank (1974). Moore et al (1974) also outlined eight possible considerations in th e development of tuition models. They were, tuition rates reflective of (a) th e average citizens ability to pay, (b) the students ability to pay, (c) the program of study, (d) credit-hours pursued, (e) equally across all institutions, (f) level of instruction, (g) the proportion of instructional costs per student, and (h) a combination of the preceding seven options. 33

PAGE 34

(Wattenbarger 1979; Bowen 1980; Stampen 1980). In addition to the burdens faced by the individual in the devot ion of time and effort to pursuing further education, the argument for a low tuition policy was set in the belief that an ed ucated citizenry benefits the entire society in their decreased dependence on healthcare and welfar e, increased tolerance for others, and fiscal returns in the form of higher taxes to be paid over a lifetime (Chambers 1968; Cohen and Brawer 1996). A last consideration in the low tuition policy argument was that low-income families had to pay a larger percentage of their family in come to attend postsecondary education institution, so low prices should be maintained wh enever possible (Cohen and Brawer 1996). The low tuition philosophy was championed in the community college, which saw their student body as the community, not a select few (Gleazer 1980; Wattenbarger, Shafer and Zucker 1973). The perspectiv e of access via the open-door philosophy mirrored the philosophy of public school education in that if an indivi dual wished to learn, th e opportunity would be afforded to them (The Carnegie Commissi on on Higher Education 1970; Wattenbarger 1979). Ultimately, access via low-to-no tuition went unr ealized as a discernable trend toward increased tuition was observed between the years 1966 and 1971 and continued through the remainder of the twentieth century (Wattenbarger, Schafer and Zucker 1973). Even California, a bastion in the low tuition cause for community colleges, raised its tu ition from $18 per unit to $26 unit in 2004-05, in order to maximize student elig ibility for federal Pell Grants (The State of California 2004). However, the interest in free tuition at public community colleges had continued despite the presence of tuition in every state. High-tuition/high-aid. The implementation of a high-tuition/high-aid policy fundamentally operated from the application of free market princi ples to postsecondary education (Harris 1960; Kerr 1968; Hauptman 1990). The thrust of this perspective framed 34

PAGE 35

tuition as too low in comparison to the actu al costs accrued by an institution (Mumper and Anderson 1993). It was argued that higher tuit ion would allow institutions to redirect institutional revenues via tuiti on and fees to individuals base d upon need (Hansen and Weisbrod 1969; Fisher 1990) supported high-tuition/aid. Fixing tuition and fees at a le vel equal to private institutions was also percei ved of as a way to operationa lize the market mechanism in postsecondary education (Garms 1980). Tuition Differentiations The literature on tuition differences was reflec tive of three dichotomies. The requirement for potential students to pay di fferentiated prices were depend ent on residency status, program differences and their relationship to each other, a nd the idea of providing access for all citizens to postsecondary education. Residency Tuition differences were discussed with respect to residence of the student as the primary determinant (Greenleaf 1936). It was ar gued that a state or dist rict should not have to fund the education of an outsider at the same rate as a citizen who lived within its borders and who contributed to the postsecondary e ducation institution via taxes (Arney 1970; Schietinger 1981 ) District differences, commonly termed charge backs, were observed to decrease in the in the years between 1970 and 2005 (Mullin and Honeyman 2006). Interstate variations in tuition and fee charges, however, had continued in practice.7 Differences in relationship Relational differences were both intraand interinstitutional. Intra-institutional tuition differences primarily addr essed expenditure differences at the institutional level between various colleges offering differe nt services (Wetzel 1995), or 7 There have been interstate cooperatives that have negated the cost to out-of-state students through regional policy boa rd (Christal 1997). 35

PAGE 36

levels of education, such as unde rgraduate and graduate, within an institution (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1970b; Schietinger 1981). Differentiated tuition between the first two years of study, the second two years of study and graduate education was believed to have a negative impact on attrition (Bowen 1974). A rational for differentiated tuition was gr ounded in cost analysis (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1973). Implicatio ns of a shift toward s cost-based tuition differentiation were hindered by the influence co st had on elasticity of demand, concerns about equity, and the relationship of cost and pres tige (Johnson 1979). Additionally, the relationship between tuition differences and institutional costs were not supported in the literature (Middaugh, Graham and Shahid 2003; Johnson 1979). Tuition differences between public four-year an d private undergraduate institutions were a concern, as tuition charges at pr ivate schools were between three and five times larger than at public institutions (The Nati onal Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education 1973). It was believed that maintaining lower tuition and fees at public undergraduate institutions would be difficult, as it disadvantag ed private institutions (The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education 1975). In response to the perspec tive that the market mechanism should exist in postsecondary educat ion, a decrease in this difference was the incorporation of financial ai d to the student (Garms 1980; The National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education 1973). Institutional Rationales Tuition and fee increases have consistently overtime based upon three general arguments: shifts in inflation, increasing e xpenditures, and unstable sources of income. Two reports, forty years apart, provided grea ter detail (Table 2-1). 36

PAGE 37

In 1952, The Commission on Financing Higher Education was formed to examine the fiscal condition of postsecondary education. The Commission outlined five sources of financial difficulties for postsecondary education institutions: (a) inflation; (b) the expansion of educational services; (c) needs for enlarged and modernized capita l plant; (d) fluctuating student enrollments; and (e) uncertain sources of income. Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) reviewed arti cles and other documents relating to the dramatic dependence on tuition and fees originating from the student. The results of their analysis indicated five reasons for the increase: (a ) higher charges were the result of increases in costs; (b) increases in expenditures by colleges for a variety of services; (c) competition between institutions; (d) non-tuition reve nue had leveled-off or dropped; and (e) the increase in student aid. They asserted the increase in inflation8 forced the institutions to be more dependent on student income, as it was the most available so urce of additional income. A concern in doing so was the instability of tuition and fee revenue as compared to endowment income on operating budgets. Inflation had impacted th e costs of doing business; however, it had been the case that tuition increases have outpaced in flation (Paulsen 1998; Wellman 2001). Reasons provided for increasing expenditures were factors external to institutional control and may have provided justifiable rationales for in creases in tuition and fees. It had been argued, however, that increases in costs were not closely related with the tuition and fees charged to students (The Commission on Fi nancing Higher Education 1952; Cunningham and Merisotis 8 Inflation was conceptualized as the increase in the price of goods and services (Martinez 2004). The Consumer price index (CPI) was a common measure reflective of the broad costs associated with participation in society. Anot her inflation measure, the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI), was developed by Halstead (1989) to apply directly to goods and services demanded by postsecondary education institutions. 37

PAGE 38

2002; Johnson 1979; Jones, 2002; Mi ddaugh, Graham and Shahid 2003). Implications of a shift towards cost-based tuition differentiation were hi ndered by the influence cost had on elasticity of demand, concerns about equity, and the relatio nship of cost and prestige (Johnson 1979). Furthermore, increases in expenditures and compet ition between institutions were the result of institutional desires that cannot be justified on the gr ounds of costs, but rather on questionable budgeting and planning: conceptualized as the Revenue Theory of Costs, which may be summarized as expenditures drive revenues in the search for prestige (Bowen 1980, 15). What appeared to be a contri buting factor in the developmen t of tuition and fee policy was the uncertain nature of non-tui tion revenue. While working in concert with tuition and fees, state and local governments have always assumed the largest burden for funding public postsecondary education since data from public institutions were available (Table 2-2). State and local revenue was the only source of the three to increase in each time span for which data was available. The smallest increase was between 1930 and 1950, when state and local revenue increased only 14% with the greatest increase was between 1950 and 1963 when revenue increased 380%. Institutional revenue resultant of tuition and fees and the federa l government exhibited dramatic shifts between time spans, but the shifts were in the same direction (Campbell, English and Lampros 1952; United States Department of Education 1965; United States Department of Education 1972; United States De partment of Education 2003). A factor unique to the lite rature obtained for this st udy was Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) fifth reason. A reason they cited for the increased tuition and f ees was not driven by economic conditions or institutional desires, rath er the augmentation of the student share of educational costs via student fina ncial aid availability. In summar y, the determinations of tuition and fee policy were reflective of institutionally espoused expenditures and guiding philosophies 38

PAGE 39

and differences. These rationales resulted in differences in tuition and fee policy between institutions types and locations. Federal Actions An upturn in the dependence on tuition was enha nced via federal legi slation, starting with the NDEA of 1958 (PL 85-864), that Stampen ( 1980) asserted was influenced by the high tuition, high-aid philoso phy of economists. Chambers outline d schemes developed to keep both public and private postsecondary education as high-fee enterprises (1968). These schemestaxsupported tuition scholarships, government loans, private loans, student-work opportunities and tax credits for postsecondary educationin many respects have become institutional operations within the national scope of fi nancing higher education. Chambe rs (1968) asserted that the benefits of such schemes should be examined vi a two tests. First, was the scheme designed indirectly to channel tax moneys into private colleges (96). Second, was it designed to shift the cost of education from the general public to the student (96). A caveat in the hightuition/high-aid philosophy was that it only works if state/instituti ons increase need-based aid at the same rates as increases in tu ition. If not, college would become less affordable (Mumper and Anderson 1993). A different perspective on why tuition and fees became such a pivotal source of revenue was summized by Clark Kerr (1968). Kerr (1968) su mmized five options being considered by the federal government during the decade of the 1960s to assist in structuring fiscal support for all institutions of postsecondary ed ucation. One option was to provi de tax breaks to parents with students enrolled in postsecondary education. This option was not favored as it was perceived to benefit middle and upper-income families due to the regressive nature of the taxes, while positioning power in the hands of parents with re spect to influence over institutional choice and program curriculum. Direct grants to states a nd/or individual institutions were also considered, 39

PAGE 40

but not favored as they were perceived as placing too much power in either the state or institution with additional concerns about equitabl e distribution states with larger enrollments. The last two options, grants to individuals and cat egorical grants based up on federally identified needs, gained acceptance. It was believed grants to students would contribute to fiscal stability of institutions through diversified revenue st reams, allow students to enact the market mechanism in postsecondary education, and remain neutral with respect to the issue of support for public and private institutions. Categorical aid, was believed to contribute to a diverse revenue stream for institutions while meeting th e various education and workforce needs of the nation. Tuition and Fees and Enrollment The fundamental purpose of the community college was to provide educational opportunity. To meet this purpose three conditions we re deemed as requisite. First, the colleges must be open-access Second, they must offer a diverse range of curricular offerings. Finally, attendance must be fiscally easy (Medsker and Tillery 1971). Reasons provided for the differences in tui tion were twofold. First, community college leaders wanted to maintain the concept of open-acce ss, of which they believed affordability to be a primary component. Second, state leaders were trying to control enrollments in the more costly state colleges and universities (Educat ion Commission of the States 1972). Both rationales continue to inform the nationa l dialogue on tuition and fee policy in 2007. In 2007, the governor of Massachusetts announced a plan that would make community college tuition free within ten years (Ashburn 2007). Kenneth Corn, a Senator from Oklahoma, submitted a bill to make all community colleges in Oklahoma free to all high school graduates (Hoberock 2007). Ruppert (2001) observed th at 71% of state polic ymakers believed the 40

PAGE 41

increased demand for higher education should redire ct students first thro ugh the two years at the lower cost community college then on to an undergraduate institution. A concern with setting tuition and fees at a level that made postsecondary education accessible to all students was the concern that lowincome and minority students would concentrate in the community colleges (The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education 1975). Howard Bowen (1974) expressed concern that an increasing gap in tuition and fee pricing may exacerbate attriti on. It had been expressed that comparisons of tuition and fees between community colleges and undergraduate inst itutions was difficult because the ability to separate (a) the costs between undergraduate and graduate work at undergraduate institutions, (b) the instruction costs between the two instituti on types varied as the un dergraduate institutions utilized less-expensive graduate students and community colleges utilized professors, (c) economies of scale, and (d) curriculum differences (Medsker and Tillery 1971). Only recently had the difference in tuition and fees between community colleges and undergraduate institutions been examined. Hear n, Griswold and Marine (1996) included the tuition difference between public community college s and undergraduate inst itutions as part of their analysis of state tuition and aid policies. Their independ ent variables reflected regional, resource and governance influence on the tuition di fference. Utilizing four regression models, they found a smaller tuition and fee difference in the Midwest region and states with high levels of high school completers. Whereas states w ith high income levels or weak coordinating boards/planning agencies were likely to have a higher difference in tuit ion and fees between community colleges and underg raduate institutions. State Resources It was in the interest of state policymaker s to have a more educated citizenry (Rupport 2001). States with a large percentage of individuals enrolled in postsecondary education were 41

PAGE 42

likely to exhibit high levels of educationa l attainment beyond the high school, high degree completion, a high percentage of civic participa tion in the voting process, and rates of poverty below (Martinez, 2004). A resulti ng benefit to the state was an in crease in lifetime earnings for citizens and subsequently a larger individual contribution to tax revenue for the state (Vernez, Krop and Rydell, 1999; Martinez 2004). Participation in po stsecondary education demand continued to grow as a result of demographic growth, improvements in K-12 education and policy imperatives (Martin ez 2004; Kim and Rury 2007). Two problems have faced the expansion of edu cational opportunity within a state. First, the individual benefits of postsecondary educatio n can only apply to those who are eligible to participate (Martinez 2004). Second, the college eligible individual must be able to pay for the additional educational experience. Educational Attainment A problem facing the nascent in stitutions of the nineteenth century was locating properly prepared students for admission as few secondary school graduates attend ed college (Krug 1962; Goldin and Katz 2000). In 1920, the nation was experiencing a rapi d increase in the number of high school graduates (Sonnenberg 1993). By 1940, only 16 percent of high school graduates were attending college, an amount that increased to approximately 33 percent in 1960 and then to more than 40 percent by 19809 (Kim and Rury 2007). While in creases in high school graduates influenced college participation rates, as co llege participation increased tenfold between 1940 and 1980. Taking only the increases in high scho ol graduation rates, Kim and Rury (2007) 9 Diane Ravitch (1981) suggested an approximate high school graduation rate of 50% in 1940 and 85% in 1970. She also indicated college participation rates similar to Kim and Rury, however specifying college participati on rates leveled-off at 45% in 1968. 42

PAGE 43

calculated the increase would have been threefold. It was clear th ere was a national shift towards increased participation in postsecondary education. Improved high school graduation rates were not uniform in regions across the nation. For example, while the percentage of college participants in the s outh mirrored other regions, lower than average high school graduation retarded part icipation (Kim and Rury 2007). Disparities in postsecondary education participation by underrepresented groups we re another reason for the plateau in college enrollment rates. In 2000, Texas acknowledged that its population characteristics were becoming incr easing diverse, and that significan t efforts had to be made to encourage enrollment and decrease barriers to postsecondary educati on in the state. The result was a plan entitled Closing the Gaps by 2015 (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2000). Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996) found that as a state s educational attainment, as measured by the percent of a st ates population with at least a high school education, increased the difference in tuition and fees between institution types decreased. Income and the Ability to Pay Postsecondary education partic ipation and the ability to pa y was documented consistently throughout the evolution of the postsecondary enterprise.10 Parental income had been associated with in the educational attainment of an individual. Specifically, increased income resulted in 10 In colonial colleges, family position in society influenced a students position for recitations and academic processions (Brubach er and Rudy 1997). The practice of ranking individuals by socio-economic status was co mmon practice until the 1767 at Yale and 1770 at Harvard (Roche 1986). However, it was not until we ll into the eighteenth century that colleges assumed an elitist, patrician cast as rising costs began to restrict attendance at college to the wellto-do (Lucas, 1994, p.108). Fees, room and board ranged from ten to fifty pounds, at a time when a journeyman mechanic earned fifty pounds per year and a prosperous attorney from two hundred to three hundred pounds. Obviously, college was not for the sons of the poor (Cohen 1998, 46). 43

PAGE 44

increased attendance (Taubman 1989; The Natio nal Commission on Financing Postsecondary Education 1973). The United States General Accounting Office (1996) examined the in crease in college costs in relationship to household income. The report only examined public, 4-year institutions, finding tuition increased 234 percent during the fourteen-year period between 1980-1981 and 1994-1995. During this same time period, media household income, serving as a proxy for ability to pay, increased 82 percent.11 The increased variability be tween states with respect to average tuition and related fees ranged from $1, 524 to $5,521. It was observed that states with low tuition were associated with low median household incomes, low college expenditures per student, and higher state appropr iations for higher education (K oshal and Koshal 2000). The ability to pay12 tuition and fees prevent postsecondary education participation for otherwise 11 It is important to note that increases in tuition and fees experienced during the 1980s was compounded by the fact that federal and state ta xes increased as well, thereby making college ever more costly (Mumper and Anderson 1993). 12 An important question when examining th e concept of the ability to pay was a specification of whose ability to pay? Historical ly, it had been the case th at individuals engaged in the act of influencing tuition policies expressed views that expos ed their nave beliefs in the ability of students to afford postsecondary education. This sentiment was mostly clearly articulated in a report on the fi nancing of higher education, which stated [t] he economic barrier to higher education is usua lly exaggerated in most discussions of the subject, for this barrier can be overcome where there is an individual de termination to do so (The Commission on Financing Higher Education 1952, 135). They conti nued to advocate for the federal government to withdraw any notion of a scholarship aid program for a vast number of citizens. In 1990, Hauptman and Merisotis asserted an economically-framed perspective that comparing increases in what it costs to send a ch ild to college with changes in the value of stocks, bonds, and other investments is one way to examine changes in parents ability to save for their childrens educational co sts. Interestingly, in the high -tuition 1980s, the pretax return on stocks and bonds increased faster than the grow th in tuitions and other charges, suggesting that many parents could have kept pace with college costs if they had invested in stocks and bonds (6). The audience of this statement suggested that affordability was not being defined for the industrial classes, but rather those who have the fina ncial wherewithal to maintain and manage fiscal assets representa tive of fiscal prosperity. 44

PAGE 45

qualified individuals (The A dvisory Committee on Student Fi nancial Assistance 2002; The Commission on Financing Higher Educati on 1952; Mumper and Anderson 1990). Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework guiding this study wa s developed in respons e to the literature that noted the influence of tu ition in the enrollment of indivi dual in postsecondary education. Where earlier studies examined the influence of price on enrollment or the decision to apply, this study contributed to the dialogue by examining th e association of a states public postsecondary education pricing structure on enrollment. A states public postsecondary education pricing structure was operationalized by a ratio depicting the difference in state-averaged, tuitio n and fees at a public undergraduate institution divided by tuition and fees at a community colleg e, as depicted in Figure 2-1. A small ratio would be the result of tuition and fee prices clos e to each other, as expressed by the relationship between points (a) and (b). A larger ratio woul d result when the differe nce in tuition and fees was greater as expressed in point s (c) and (d). Theoretically, if the difference were zero, the price would determine enrollment (as examined previously in the student rice response literature). As such, one would suspect that if the difference ra tio were zero, and the price was high, enrollment would be negative ly associated. Conversely, if the difference ratio were zero and the tuition and fee were low, enrollment woul d be positively associated. This study does not take actual tuition and fee sti cker-price into consideration (College Board 2006), rather it examined the difference in price. It therefore, may be conceptualized, that as the difference ratio increases a lower cost option is created in the postsecondary education st ructure. This lowerpriced option, as compared to the higher-priced option, could serve as an entry-point that would be more affordable and decrease the influence of tuition and fee as a deterrent in postsecondary education enrollment. 45

PAGE 46

States developed public postsecondary educa tion structures to a ddress the increased participation in postsecondary education. The na ture of these structures varied by state and arrangement in an effort to optimize efficiency and participation. Specifi c, state resources were included to determine their asso ciation with enrollment. Stat e public postsecondary education structures were operationalized in the form of median family inco me and percent of a states 25+ population with a high school di ploma or higher but not a ba chelors degree or higher. The variable of interest to this study was enrollment in public pos tsecondary education. This construct was operationalized by a variab le reflective of fall headcount enrollment for degree-seeking individu als in undergraduate academic programs. In summary, there had been an increa sing number of individuals partaking in postsecondary education in the second half of th e twentieth century. Par ticipation in education had been observed to increase, determinations of tuition and fee pri ces have been found to impact individual pursuit of postsecondary educati on and the type of instit ution attended, and the concerns of a generation ago have been realized, as income had served to stratify institutional enrollment. It is therefore proposed that an asso ciation existed between the constructs of state resources and postsecondary education prici ng structures with enrollment in public postsecondary education (Figure 2-2). The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to wh ich the attempt to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced opti on, with considerations of a states resource, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. 46

PAGE 47

Table 2-1. Rationales for increased costs Rationale Commission on Financing Higher Education (1952) Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) Shifts in inflation (a) Inflation (a) Higher charges were the result of increases in costs Increasing costs (b) The expansion of educational services (b) Increases in expenditures by colleges for a variety of services (c) Needs for enlarged and modernized capital plant (c) Competition between institutions Unstable sources of income (d) Fluctuating student enrollments (d) Non-tuition revenue had leveled-off or dropped (e) Uncertain sources of income Other (e) There was an increase in student aid availability 47

PAGE 48

48 Table 2-2. Changes in federal, state and local and tuition and fee revenues in public postsecondary education, 1933-2000. Year Revenues (in thousands) Percent Change Tuition and fees Federal State and local 1930 $37,447 $14,450 $145,423 1940 $55,287 $29,144 $165,518 48% 102% 14% 1950 $222,635 $104,593 $493,444 303% 259% 198% 1963 $1,880,700 $2,142,200 $2,367,600 745% 1948% 380% 1968 $1,399,013 $1,566,037 $5,362,810 -26% -27% 127% 1980 $5,570,404 $5,540,101 $20,629,654 298% 254% 285% 1990 $15,258,024 $9,763,427 $41,771,692 174% 76% 102% 2000 $31,919,611 $19,744,966 $69,948,323 109% 102% 67% Sources: Campbell English and Lampros 1952; United States Department of Education 1965,1972 and 2003.

PAGE 49

d c b a Undergraduate Institution Tuition and Fees Community College Tuition and Fees Figure 2-1. A depiction of th e difference in tuition and fees examined in the study 49

PAGE 50

50 State Resources Enrollment Postsecondary Pricing Structures Figure 2-2. Conceptual framework

PAGE 51

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY It was observed that the difference in tuit ion and fees between public institution types changed between the years 1960 and 2000 by almost a factor of three. During this time period, access to postsecondary education was operationa lized via localized institutions (Koos 1924; Gleazer 1980; Cohen and Brawer 1996) and organi zed via state master plans (Glenny 1965), the number of students with at le ast a high school diploma but not a bachelors degree or higher increased as did the college part icipation rate (Kim and Rury 2007), and an the price of tuition an fees increased faster than infla tion (Paulsen 1998). The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examin ing the degree to which the attemp t to provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced opti on, with considerations of a states resource, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Research Question In order to address this issue, the following research question was developed. How was enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between in stitution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000? Research Hypotheses In order to test the research quest ion, the following hypothesis was developed. HO1: Enrollment was not significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between public institution types and st ate resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. HA1: Enrollment was significantly associated wi th the tuition and fee difference ratio between public institution types and st ate resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. 51

PAGE 52

Data Summary In order to answer the research ques tion, data was obtained for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Analysis of the data was calcul ated utilizing the state as the unit of analysis. Population The population of interest consisted of all st ates that had at least one public community college and at least one public undergraduate institution. South Dakota and Maine were removed as they did not have a public community college at anytime during the years examined, bringing the total number of stat es to forty-eight. State pos tsecondary education structures evolved by adding, removing, or combining institutions. These shifting public postsecondary education organizations resulted in different pop ulation sizes for each year (Table 3-1), where: 1960 (N=34), 1970 (N=45), 1980 (N=46), 1990 (N=48), and 2000 (N=48). As a result, the total number of cases was 221. Variables of Interest This study examined two independent constructs, comprised of three independent factors, believed to influence the dependant variab le, enrollment in public institution types. Enrollment. The number of public postsecondary educ ation institutions had increased significantly between the years 1960 and 2000. The growth of these inst itutions was under the direction, or the result, of state master pl ans (Glenny 1965; Dressel 1990; Hearn and Griswold, 1994). Guided by The Presidential Commission on Higher Education (1947) and established in whole, or partially in res ponse to the 1202 Commissions of th e Educational Amendments of 1972, a primary goal of these systems was to prov ide a public postsecondary education structure to provide access for qualified i ndividuals interested in particip ating. This study utilized fall headcount enrollment of degree-seeking undergradua te students to gauge participation in public 52

PAGE 53

postsecondary education as it was the only enrollment variable c onsistently reported across all five years. Enrollment data were obtained by summing fa ll headcount enrollment for degree-seeking undergraduate students for the in stitutions within a st ate for a given year. Fall, degree-seeking headcount enrollment for each institution type a nd state were obtained from reports from the National Center for Education Statistics for the years 1960 and 1970. The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System was accessed for fall headcount enrollment in 1980, 1990, and 2000. Total degree-seeking, fall headcount enrollment in both institu tion types (TOT_ENR), degree-seeking, fall headcount enrollment at community colleges (CC_ENR), and degreeseeking, fall headcount enrollment at undergraduat e institutions (UI_ENR) were employed as dependent variables. Tuition difference ratio. Tuition and fees data reflected the price of instruction for an academic year. The difference in tuition a nd fee rates at public community colleges and undergraduate institutions was the variable of in terest in this study. This difference would play an important role in future policy actions as states examined actions to redirect students to public community colleges before attending underg raduate institutions (Ruppert 2001). Tuition and fee data utilized in this research study were coll ected from two data sources: the Blue Book and the United States Office/Department of Education. The need for the two sources was due to a lack of tu ition and fee data from the Unite d States Office/Department of Education requisite for th e study in 1960 and 1970. Tuition and fee data for 1960 were obtained from a report by the United States Office of Education entitled Higher education planning and manageme nt data, 1960-61: Salaries, tuition and fees, room and board (Bokelman 1960). The data reported in this report was deemed 53

PAGE 54

inappropriate as it aggregated tuition and fee data on public institutions by regions and individual state data were not reported. As such, the Blue Book (Burkel 1960), a survey of institutions of postsecondary education similar in methodology to those utilized by the National Center for Education Statistics, was used as a data source. Tuition and fee data for 1970 were al so dependent upon the use of the Blue Book (Russell 1970) as a data source for the acquisition of tuitio n data, as there was a lack of tuition and fee data from the National Center for Education Statistics for the years 1966-1972. Specifically, it was noted that In the first three HEGIS surveys (fall 1966, 1967, and 1968) the data on basic student charges were obtained from a survey for whic h also sought projections of various data into the future. Difficulties with these surv eys prevented the publica tion of data on basic student charges except for the small amount of summary data published for the 19661967 and 1968-1969 academic years. The reduced HEGIS survey for 1969 did not contain a request for data on st udent charges. The survey of basic student charges was reinstituted in the fifth HEGIS survey (fa ll 1970) as part of the survey of financial statistics and continued in this manner in the sixth survey (fall 1971). However, the resulting data were unsatisfactory since finan ce data are for the previous year and basic student charges data are the current year. In the seventh HEGIS survey (fall 1972) the survey form on basic student charges was atta ched, appropriately, to the survey form on institutional characteristics (United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1975, iii). Attempts to collect the raw tuition and fee data collected in these reports from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Re search Triangle Institute, the Inter-university Consortium on Political and Social Research1 (ICPSR), and a federal document repository were unsuccessful. When an institution reported only enrollment from the United States Office of Education report or tuition and fees from the Blue Book, they were removed from the population. Listwise 1 ICPSR, located at the University of Michig an, was awarded a contract to archive data utilized in the Higher Education General Information Surveys (HEGIS) employed by the National Center for Education Statistics from 1966 to 1986. 54

PAGE 55

deletion was employed as it was both the logical and most robust option. It made no sense to utilize estimation procedures to create a missing tuition and fee price when institutions within each state which maintaining control over tuition and fees varied (Mullin and Honeyman 2008). Utilization of the Dataset Cutting Tool of the Nati onal Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) resulted in undergraduate tuition and fees public community colleges and undergraduate instit utions for the years 1980, 1990 and 2000. State level tuition and fee data were acquired by averaging tuition and fees by institution type per state from the data sources. The tu ition and fee difference ratio between institution types (TDR) was determined by dividing the stat e average tuition and fees at undergraduate institutions by the state average tuit ion and fees at community colleges. State resources. The growth and expansion of public in stitutions and tuition and fee rates took place within the context of the state. Two factors believed to be associated with these increases were the ability of the states citizenry to pay fo r noncompulsory education and the percentage of the states populat ion eligible to attend either a public community college or undergraduate institution. Ability to pay was operationalized as the Median Family Income in constant dollars for the year 2000 (MFI). Data on Median Family Income for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 were obtained from the Integrated Public Us e Microdata Series (IPU MS) database at the University of Minnesota, sponsored by th e National Science Foundation and the National Institutes on Health to disseminate census data. Data were missing for median family income for six states (DE, ID, MT, ND, VT and WY) in 1970. The missing data were replaced via conditional mean imputation (Allison 2002). This process regressed the missing variable on all other variables in the equation. The missing values were then generated utilizing the estimated 55

PAGE 56

equation (Table 3-2). A con cern resulting from utilizing this imputation method was that standard errors were estimated and test statisti cs that may be overestimated (Allison 2002). The values obtained via IPUMS and the imputed valu es for 1970, were converted to current dollars for the year 2000 utilizing the in flation calculato r of the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The state resource of educational attainment in a state had been operationalized as the percent of a states popu lation twenty-five years or older wi th a high school degree or higher (Hearn, Griswold, and Marine 1996). During data compilation for this study, it became apparent that the use of this variable was questionable as it also in cluded those individuals who had already achieved an undergraduate degree. This conclusion was the result of examining the data utilized by Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996). In doing so, it wa s observed that the data were reflective of a states educatio nal resources for the percentage of a states population over twenty-five years of age with a high school diploma or higher. Another table was also presented which depicted the percent of a population aged tw enty-five or older with a bachelors degree or higher. In comparing these percentages, it was determined that there was overlap as the two percentages together exceeded 100%. In an effort to most clearly operati onalize the construct of a states educational resources, the variable for educational attainment (EA) was defined as the percentage of a states population with at le ast a high school diploma, but not a bachelors degree. This percentage was calculated by s ubtracting the percent of a states population 25 years old or more with a high sc hool diploma or higher from the percent of a states population 25 year old or more with a bachelors degree or more in order to arrive at a percentage reflective of those who may be interested in enrolling in a public postsecondary educati on institution as an undergraduate. The state-level da ta were obtained from the Unite d States Census Bureau (n.d.) 56

PAGE 57

data table entitled Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century of Learning: Historical Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000. Design The research question asked if enrollment was associated with the tuition difference ratio between institution types or state resources between 1960 and 2000. Two multiple regression analysis models were constructed to address this question for each of five years (1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000). Years were du mmy coded, with 1960 serving as the reference year. Model 1 A multiple regression analysis was conduc ted with degree-seeking fall headcount enrollment at a public community college (CC_EN R) serving as the dependent variable. The independent variables were included in the model to determine the amount of variance associated with the dependent variable. The resulting model was the following: CC_ENRi = a + B1 (TDRi) + B2(MFIi) + B3(EAi) + B4(YR70i) + B5(YR80i) + B6(YR90i) + B7(YR00i) + B8(YR70* TDRi) + B9(YR80* TDRi) + B10(YR90* TDRi) + B11(YR00* TDRi) + B12(YR70*MFIi) + B13(YR80*MFIi) + B14(YR90*MFIi) + B15(YR00*MFIi) + B16(YR70*EAi) + B17(YR80*EAi) + B18(YR90*EAi) + B19(YR00*EAi) + ei (3.2) where, CC_ENR = the dependent variable for the community college, degree-seeking fall enrollment in public postsecondary education, i = the state a = the intercept of the regression equation B1 = the regression coefficient for the slope of TDR, TDR = the independent variable for the tuiti on difference ratio between institution types, B2 = the regression coefficient for the slope of MFI, MFI = the independent variable for Median Family Income, B3 = the regression coefficient for the slope of EA, EA = the independent variable for the per cent of a states population that was had completed high school but had not earned a bachelors degree, B4-7 = the regression coefficien ts for the slope of YR, YR = the independent variable for the year of interest, B8-11 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by TDR, 57

PAGE 58

B12-15 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by MFI, B16-19 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by EA, and e = the random error not acc ounted for in the model. The null and alterative hypothesis were HO: B1-19 = 0 HA: B1-19 0 The null hypothesis stated that there was not an associati on between community college enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state resources. Model 2 A multiple regression analysis was conduc ted with degree-seeking fall headcount enrollment at a public undergradu ate institution (UI_ENR) servi ng as the dependent variable. The independent variables were included in th e model to determine the amount of variance associated with the dependent variable. The resulting model was, UI_ENRi = a + B1 (TDRi) + B2(MFIi) + B3(EAi) + B4(YR70i) + B5(YR80i) + B6(YR90i) + B7(YR00i) + B8(YR70* TDRi) + B9(YR80* TDRi) + B10(YR90* TDRi) + B11(YR00* TDRi) + B12(YR70*MFIi) + B13(YR80*MFIi) + B14(YR90*MFIi) + B15(YR00*MFIi) + B16(YR70*EAi) + B17(YR80*EAi) + B18(YR90*EAi) + B19(YR00*EAi) + ei (3.3) where, UI_ENR = the dependent variable for the undergraduate institution, degree-seeking fall enrollment in public postsecondary education, i = the state a = the intercept of the regression equation B1 = the regression coefficient for the slope of TDR, TDR = the independent variable for the tuiti on difference ratio between institution types, B2 = the regression coefficient for the slope of MFI, MFI = the independent variable for Median Family Income, B3 = the regression coefficient for the slope of EA, EA = the independent variable for the per cent of a states population that was had completed high school but had not earned a bachelors degree, B4-7 = the regression coefficien ts for the slope of YR, YR = the independent variable for the year of interest, B8-11 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by TDR, B12-15 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by MFI, 58

PAGE 59

B16-19 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by EA, and e = the random error not acc ounted for in the model. The null and alterative hypothesis were HO: B1-19 = 0 HA: B1-19 0 The null hypothesis stated that there was not an association between undergraduate institution enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state resources. Data Treatment The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program calculated the data. Descriptive statistics were calcul ated to describe the nature of the variables utilized in the study. Statistical selection procedures such as stepwise forward, backward or all possible subsets were not utilized in the analysis. Data were entered into the models based upon the theoretical basis. Independent variables were entered as a block, and then interaction terms were entered as another block. Change statistics were reported to determine the presence of interaction effects. In all models, assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and equal conditional variances were checked utilizing scatter and re sidual plots (Shavelson 1996). Collinearity was checked through the application of tolerance and variance infl ation factors methods. Cooks Distance was checked for the influence of data poin ts on the analysis. The decision to reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis was based upon a type I error ra te of .05. The analysis was interested in significance, either positive or nega tive, so non-directional hy potheses were used. Limitations The use of 1959 and 1969 tuition and fee data in the place of 1960 and 1970 tuition and fee data were necessary as multiple attempts to co llect data from the United States Department of Education, contracted archival entities, and a federal repository were unsuccessful. This reality 59

PAGE 60

caused concerns regarding the validity of the findings and should be interpreted with such concerns. It was decided to continue forward with the data because it the ratio of the difference, not the actual raw data that was utilized in the study. A one-year change in the ratio may have occurred, but it was believed the change would not be substantially differe nt than the tuition and fee difference for the 1959 and 1969 years. The literature suggested the inclusion student financial aid as a va riable (Paulson 1994). This variable was not included in the study as cons istent data were not available for the five time periods examined within this study. The TDR may be interpreted as a low-end estimate of the gap in costs between community colleges and four-year institutions when room and board and other external costs were considered. This assumption would only apply to instances where an indi vidual had to move to attend a baccalaureate degree granting, four-year institution. When identifying community colleges, there was the possibility that a community college may offer the four-year degree and not have been identified as doing so. The relatively new status of these institutions should not have significantly impacted the study as baccalaureate degree programs were limited in number and type at each institution. In thinking about life option beyond the high scho ol, it is important for future researchers to consider that other options existed for individuals outside of postsecondary education. What this study did not factor in, and would contribute to understa nding this observation, was the percentage of individuals who choose to pursu e a career option that re quired only a high school diploma. For example, Campbell and Siegel (1960) included estimates of death and military enrollment rates in their calculation of what they termed eligible college aged population (486). State incarceration rates would also co ntribute to understanding who was eligible to 60

PAGE 61

participate in public postseconda ry education. Other individuals may have engaged in employment opportunities, being unable to risk the foregone earnings one sacrificed while attending an institution of postsecondary education. 61

PAGE 62

62 Table 3-1. States without a public community college system, by year 1960 1970 1980 Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Louisiana New Hampshire New Mexico Nevada Ohio Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Virginia Vermont Delaware New Hampshire Vermont Alaska Kentucky

PAGE 63

Table 3-2. Conditional mean imputation for median family income, selected states in 1970 State TDR EA Conditional mean imputation for MFI Delaware 0 41.5 $4,681 Idaho 1.17 49.5 $5,541 Montana 2.15 48.2 $5,360 North Dakota 1.03 41.9 $4,689 Vermont 0 45.6 $5,143 Wyoming 1.58 51.1 $5,707 Estimation equation: MFI = -35.319(TDR) + 112.784(EA) 63

PAGE 64

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to test stude nt price response theory by examining how enrollment was associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources for the years1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. In order to addr ess this issue, the following research question was developed: How was enrollment associated with the tuition difference ratio between institution types and state resources between 1960 and 2000? It was hypothesized that enrollment was not significantly associ ated with tuition difference ratio between public institution types and state re sources between 1960 and 2000. To test the research question and resulting hypothese s, multiple regression analysis was employed. Two multiple regression models were develope d to predict enrollment from the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources. Th e independent variables in each model were the same tuition and fee difference ratio (TDR), median family income (MFI), educational attainment (EA), year (YR), and interactions by year (YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA) while the dependent variable depicted tw o different enrollment counts. The first model included total enrollment in community colleges as its dependent variable. The second model included the total en rollment in undergraduat e institutions as its dependent variable. Model 1 A multiple regression analysis was performed with the dependent variable as community college enrollment (CC_ENR) and the independe nt variables (TDR, MFI, EA, YEAR, YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA). Product terms for the thr ee continuous variable s (TDR, MFI, and EA) were computed for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 with 1960 serving as the reference 64

PAGE 65

year. As a result, a reduced model, a full mode l inclusive of product terms, and fixed effect models were constructed for analysis. The influence of outliers on predicted values (Cooks distance) and the intercept and slope (DFBETAS) were calculated as part of the analysis. It was determined that California in 1980, 1990, and 2000 served as an outlier influenci ng the predicted value with a Cooks Distance value greater than 1. California in 1980, 1990, a nd 2000 were removed after a review of Cooks distance values of 3.42120, 5.35827, and 6.39814 respectiv ely. Scores greater than 1 were perceived as being influential. As such, the da ta points were removed fr om analysis reducing the sample size to 218. Reduced model. The multiple regression analysis of the reduced model, not inclusive of product term variables, accounted for a 15.9% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-1). A 95% confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .399) extends from .281 to .505, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data a nd not merely that it was not equal to zero. The resulting standard re gression equation (Table 4-2) was, CC_ENR = 11,373.667 + 6,160.406(TDR) + 1.895(MFI) 1,442.072(EA) + 12,274.185(YR70) + 45,704.127(YR80) + 74,992.184(YR90) + 77,671.040(YR00) (4-1) The intercept was not interpreta ble as zero was not a valid enro llment option in the study. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) re vealed that the reduced model was statistically significant, F (7, 210) = 5.666, p < 0.01 (Table 4-3). Full model. The multiple regression analysis of th e full model, inclusive of all variables and product terms, accounted for 24.6% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-1). A 95% confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .496) extends from .389 to 65

PAGE 66

.590, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data a nd not merely that it was not equal to zero. The resulting standard re gression equation (Table 4-2) was, CC_ENR = 28,851.061 + 13,696.399(TDR) + 1.165(MFI) 613.373(EA) 26,174.942(YR70) + 37,981.113(YR80) + 418,372.794(YR90) + 897,166.623(YR00) 8,697.004(YR70* TDRi) 13,402.257(YR80* TDRi) 47,072.093(YR90* TDRi) 49,792.108(YR00* TDRi) + .322(YR70*MFIi) + 3.219(YR80*MFIi) + .236(YR90*MFIi) 2.387(YR00*MFIi) + 958.815(YR70*EA) 2,065.569(YR80*EAi) -5, 038.087(YR90*EAi) 10,819.320(YR00*EAi) (4-2) The intercept was not interpreta ble as zero was not a valid enro llment option in the study. The inclusion of product terms accounted for 8.7% of the variance in community college enrollment. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the full model was statistically significant F (19, 198) = 3.404, p < 0.05 (Table 4-3). Therefore, the null h ypothesis that there was not a relationship between community colleg e enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types a nd state resources was rejected. Descriptive statistics for th e full model standard regressi on equation were presented in Table 4-4. Pearsons correlations indicated that the independent va riables median family income, educational attainment, the years 1970, 1990 and 2000 were statistically significant at the 0.05 level in association with community college enrollment. Product te rms for the years inclusive of 1990 and 2000 were also significantl y associated with community college enrollment at the 0.10 level (Table 4-5). The TDR was not observed to correlate significantly with the dependent variable or any independent variable save those that in cluded TDR in the product term. The models were tested for violations to the assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and equal conditiona l variance (Shavelson 1996). Studentized residuals were calculated and plotted against a ll variables in the model to check for violations to the assumptions (Figures 4-1 to 4-5). Analysis of th e scatterplots did not reveal violations of the assumptions. 66

PAGE 67

Fixed effect models. Inserting the values of a nd wherever the relevant dummy code occurs in the full model, the following regr ession equations were determined for the years, 1960, CC_ENR = 28,851.061 + 13,696.399(TDR) + 1.165(MFI) 613.373(EA), (4-3) 1970, CC_ENR = 55,026.003 + 4,999.395(TDR) + 1.487(MFI) +345.442(EA), (4-4) 1980, CC_ENR = 9,130.052 + 294.142(TDR) + 4.384(MFI) 1,542.196(EA), (4-5) 1990, CC_ENR = 389,521.733 33,375.694(TDR) + 1.401(MFI) 4,424.714(EA), (4-6) 2000, CC_ENR = 868,315.562 36,095.709(TDR) 1.222(MFI) 11,432.693(EA). (4-7) Across the forty years, as measured every ten years, investigated in the study, the independent variables exhibited different trends. The tuition a nd fee difference ratio (TDR) was positively associated with degree-seeking enrollme nt in a public community college for the years 1960, 1970, and 1980, a trend that turned negativ e in 1990 and 2000. The trend however was consistently negative as the associations, whic h started out positively, continued to decrease since the reference year. Increases in median fa mily income were positively associated with community college enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, only to become negatively associated in 2000. Increases in educat ional attainment were negatively associated with enrolment for all ye ars but 1970,when the asso ciation was positive. This suggested that, over the five time point s examined, an increase in the difference in tuition and fee difference ratio, median family income, and educational attainment shifted from being positively associated with fall headcount, degree-seeking enrollment at public community colleges to being negatively associated. 67

PAGE 68

Model 2 A multiple regression analysis was performed with the dependent variable as undergraduate enrollment (UI_ENR) and the in dependent variables (TDR, MFI, EA, YEAR, YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA). Product terms fo r the three continuous variables (TDR, MFI, and EA) were computed for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 with 1960 serving as the reference year. As a result, a reduced model, a full model inclusive of pr oduct terms, and fixed effect models were constructed for analysis. The influence of outliers on predicted values (Cooks distance) and the intercept and slope (DFBETAS) were calculated as part of the analysis. It was determined that California in 1980, 1990, and 2000 served as an outlier influenci ng the predicted value with a Cooks Distance value greater than 1. California in 1980, 1990, a nd 2000 were removed after a review of Cooks distance values of 15.93089, 4.44889, and 1.35235 respectiv ely. Scores greater than 1 were perceived as being influential. As such, the da ta points were removed fr om analysis reducing the sample size to 218. Reduced model. The multiple regression analysis of the reduced model, not inclusive of product term variables, accounted for a 15.5% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-6). A 95% confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .393) extends from .274 to .499, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data a nd not merely that it was not equal to zero. The resulting standard re gression equation (Table 4-7) was, UI_ENR = 54,650.696 4,036.997(TDR) + 1.275(MFI) 1,754.747(EA) + 38,510.392(YR70) + 70,930.372(YR80) + 85,750.868(YR90) + 89,662.325(YR00) (4-8) The intercept was not interpreta ble as zero was not a valid enro llment option in the study. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) re vealed that the reduced model was statistically significant, F (7, 210) = 5.489, p < 0.01 (Table 4-8). 68

PAGE 69

Full model. The multiple regression analysis of th e full model, inclusive of all variables and product terms, accounted for 24.2% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-6). A 95% confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .492) extends from .384 to .586, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data a nd not merely that it was not equal to zero. The resulting standard re gression equation (Table 4-7) was, UI_ENR = 31,163.881 + 4,396.764(TDR) + 1.928(MFI) 2,061.697(EA) 1,387.195(YR70) + 128,432.212(YR80) + 455,913.581(YR90) + 506,613.606(YR00) 13,138.783(YR70* TDRi) 24,096.449(YR80* TDRi) 47,856.271(YR90* TDRi) 29,237.839(YR00* TDRi) + .135(YR70*MFIi) + 3.336(YR80*MFIi) 1.825(YR90*MFIi) 3.253(YR00*MFIi) + 1,253.781(YR70*EA) 2,901.814(YR80*EAi) 3,763.268(YR90*EAi) 3,751.613(YR00*EAi) (4-9) The intercept was not interpreta ble as zero was not a valid enro llment option in the study. The inclusion of product terms accounted for 8.7% of the variance in undergraduate institution enrollment. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the full model was statistically significant, F (19, 198) = 3.331, p < 0.05 (Table 4-8). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was not a relationship between undergraduate in stitution enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution ty pes and state resources was rejected. Descriptive statistics for th e full model standard regressi on equation were presented in Table 4-9. Pearsons correlations indicated that the independent variables median family income, educational attainment, the year 1990 a nd 2000 were statistically significant (p < 0.10) associated with undergraduate in stitution enrollment. Product te rms for median family income in 2000 and educational attainment in 2000 were also significantly associat ed with undergraduate institution enrollment at the .10 level (Table 4-10). The TDR was not observed to correlate significantly with the dependent va riable or any independent variable save those that included TDR in the product term. 69

PAGE 70

The models were tested for violations to the assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and equal conditiona l variance (Shavelson 1996). Studentized residuals were calculated and plotted against a ll variables in the model to check for violations to the assumptions (Figures 4-6 to 4-10). Analysis of the scatterplots did not reveal violations of the assumptions. Fixed effect models. Inserting the values of a nd wherever the relevant dummy code occurs in the full model, the following regr ession equations were determined for the years, 1960, UI_ENR = 31,163.881 + 4,396.764(TDR) + 1.928( MFI) 2,061.697(EA), (4-10) 1970, UI_ENR = 29,776.686 8,742.019(TDR) + 2.063( MFI) + 807.916(EA), (4-11) 1980, UI_ENR = 159,596.093 19,699.685(TDR) + 5.264(MFI) 4,963.511(EA), (4-12) 1990, UI_ENR = 487,077.462 43,459.507(TDR) + 0.103(MFI) 5,824.965(EA), (4-13) 2000, UI_ENR = 537,777.487 24,841.075(TDR) 1.325(MFI) 5,813.31(EA). (4-14) Across the forty years, as measured every ten years, investigated in the study, the independent variables exhibited di fferent trends. The tuition a nd fee difference ratio (TDR) was negatively associated with degree-seeking enroll ment in at undergraduate institutions for all years as compared to the refe rence year, 1960. While still negatively associated, this trend reversed in 2000. Increases in median family income were positively associated with undergraduate institution enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, only to become negatively associated in 2000. Increases in educat ional attainment were negatively associated with enrolment for all ye ars but 1970,when the associ ation was positive. 70

PAGE 71

An emerging trend in the data over five time points investigated showed largely negative associations with undergraduate institution, degree-seeking fall enrollment for the independent variables TDR and EA. This sugge sted that, over the five time points over forty years examined, an increase in the difference in tuition and fee differe nce ratio had an influence on the decreased number of individuals enrolled in undergraduate institutions. It also continued the trend observed in the other models, that as the percentage of a state s population over 25 years old with at least a high school degree but not a bachelors degree or higher increased, enrollment at public postsecondary education institutions decreased. 71

PAGE 72

72 Table.4-1. Model summary for Model 1 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 .399 .159 .131 71531.984 .159 5.666 7 210 .000(a) 2 .496 .246 .174 69738.627 .087 1.912 12 198 .035(b) a Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR 90; b Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YR00XTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XM FI, YR80XMFI, YR00XMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YR00XEA; c Depe ndent Variable: CC_ENR

PAGE 73

Table 4-2. Coefficients for Model 1 Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence interval for B Collinearity statistics B Std. error Beta Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) -11373.667 35581.340 -.320 .750 -81516.045 58768.711 TDR 6160.406 5030.651 .078 1.225 .222 -3756.641 16077.453 .986 1.014 MFI 1.895 .689 .207 2.750 .006 .537 3.254 .705 1.418 EA -1442.072 825.333 -.197 -1.747 .082 -3069.071 184.926 .315 3.174 YR70 12274.185 17736.895 .065 .692 .490 -22690.997 47239.366 .455 2.196 YR80 45704.127 21073.768 .242 2.169 .031 4160.886 87247.368 .323 3.099 YR90 74992.184 23881.600 .403 3.140 .002 27913.795 122070.574 .243 4.109 YR00 77671.040 25248.842 .417 3.076 .002 27897.372 127444.707 .218 4.593 2 (Constant) -28851.061 72443.060 -.398 .691 -171710.041 114007.919 TDR 13696.399 6789.071 .174 2.017 .045 308.233 27084.565 .515 1.943 MFI 1.165 2.612 .127 .446 .656 -3.986 6.317 .047 21.418 EA -613.373 2561.671 -.084 -.239 .811 -5665.033 4438.287 .031 32.168 YR70 -26174.942 95685.673 -.138 -.274 .785 -214868.763 162518.878 .015 67.228 YR80 37981.113 137958.454 .201 .275 .783 -234075.369 310037.595 .007 139.750 YR90 418372.794 181823.314 2.248 2.301 .022 59814.041 776931.546 .004 250.605 YR00 897166.623 239149.633 4.820 3.751 .000 425559.367 1368773.879 .002 433.541 YR70XTDR -8697.004 14127.311 -.089 -.616 .539 -36556.310 19162.301 .182 5.488 YR80XTDR -13402.257 15678.857 -.145 -.855 .394 -44321.238 17516.723 .132 7.579 YR90XTDR -47072.093 21409.786 -.456 -2.199 .029 -89292.566 -4851.621 .089 11.287 YR00XTDR -49792.108 18148.526 -.539 -2.744 .007 -85581.320 -14002.897 .099 10.126 YR70XMFI .322 2.906 .071 .111 .912 -5.409 6.053 .009 107.571 YR80XMFI 3.219 3.560 .686 .904 .367 -3.801 10.239 .007 151.122 YR90XMFI .236 2.891 .055 .081 .935 -5.465 5.936 .008 120.218 YR00XMFI -2.387 3.050 -.595 -.783 .435 -8.401 3.627 .007 151.677 YR70XEA 958.815 2850.686 .217 .336 .737 -4662.788 6580.418 .009 109.322 YR80XEA -2065.569 3323.399 -.563 -.622 .535 -8619.370 4488.232 .005 215.699 YR90XEA -5038.087 3565.719 -1.534 -1.413 .159 -12069.747 1993.574 .003 309.608 YR00XEA -10819.320 3930.419 -3.390 -2.753 .006 -18570.176 -3068.464 .003 398.275 73 a Dependent variable: CC_ENR

PAGE 74

Table 4-3. ANOVA for Model 1 Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. 1 Regression 202950708476.311 7 28992958353.759 5.666 .000(a) Residual 1074533196251.469 210 5116824744.055 Total 1277483904727.780 217 2 Regression 314515626586.006 19 16553454030.842 3.404 .000(b) Residual 962968278141.774 198 4863476152.231 Total 1277483904727.780 217 a Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90; b Pr edictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YR00XTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XM FI, YR80XMFI, YR00XMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YR00XEA; c Depe ndent Variable: CC_ENR Table 4-4. Descriptive statistics for Model 1 Mean Std. deviation N CC _ENR 50121.1000 76726.9350 218 TDR 1.7466 .9720 218 MFI 40612.5321 8387.3626 218 EA 49.3193 10.4817 218 YR70 .2064 .4057 218 YR80 .2064 .4057 218 YR90 .2156 .4122 218 YR00 .2156 .4122 218 YR70XTDR .3488 .7851 218 YR80XTDR .3839 .8313 218 YR90XTDR .3664 .7429 218 YR00XTDR .4016 .8301 218 YR70XMFI 8354.5642 16895.4960 218 YR80XMFI 8244.8532 16347.6940 218 YR90XMFI 9176.0138 17955.9504 218 YR00XMFI 9844.1284 19117.8521 218 YR70XEA 8.5913 17.3640 218 YR80XEA 10.5656 20.9211 218 YR90XEA 12.1734 23.3616 218 YR00XEA 12.5376 24.0379 218 74

PAGE 75

Table 4-5. Pearson correlations for Model 1CC_EN R TDR MFI EA YR70 YR80 YR90 YR00 YR70X TDR YR80X TDR YR90X TD R YR00X TDR YR70X MFI YR80X MFI YR90X MFI YR00X MFI YR70X EA YR80XE A YR90X EA TDR Pearson Correlation .103 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .128 MFI Pearson Correlation .286 .023 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .730 EA Pearson Correlation .232 .040 .477 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .553 .000 YR70 Pearson Correlation -.147 -.030 -.008 -.375 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .662 .901 .000 YR80 Pearson Correlation -.016 .060 -.041 .091 -.260 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .811 .382 .548 .181 .000 YR90 Pearson Correlation .159 -.026 .122 .358 -.267 -.267 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .707 .072 .000 .000 .000 YR00 Pearson Correlation .208 .063 .316 .443 -.267 -.267 -.275 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .355 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR70XTDR Pearson Correlation -.115 .166 .003 -.326 .873 -.227 -.233 -.233 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .091 .014 .964 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 YR80XTDR Pearson Correlation -.004 .205 -.036 .057 -.236 .908 -.243 -.243 -.206 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .950 .002 .597 .404 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 YR90XTDR Pearson Correlation .130 .061 .111 .316 -.252 -.252 .943 -.259 -.220 -.229 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .055 .372 .101 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 YR00XTDR Pearson Correlation .171 .181 .257 .390 -.247 -.247 -.254 .925 -.216 -.224 -.240 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 YR70XMFI Pearson Correlation -.123 -.025 .104 -.332 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .854 -.229 -.245 -.240 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .070 .716 .126 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 YR80XMFI Pearson Correlation -.005 .059 -.006 .104 -.258 .991 -.265 -.265 -.225 .900 -.250 -.245 -.251 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .946 .382 .928 .127 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR90XMFI Pearson Correlation .172 -.026 .217 .348 -.261 -.261 .977 -.269 -.228 -.237 .919 -.248 -.254 -.259 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .011 .699 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR00XMFI Pearson Correlation .215 .049 .382 .427 -.263 -.263 -.271 .984 -.230 -.239 -.255 .895 -.256 -.261 -.264 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .475 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR70XEA Pearson Correlation -.132 -.028 .032 -.275 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .850 -.230 -.245 -.241 .965 -.251 -.254 -.256 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .051 .681 .644 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR80XEA Pearson Correlation -.021 .048 -.027 .120 -.258 .992 -.265 -.265 -.225 .888 -.250 -.245 -.251 .990 -.259 -.261 -.251 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .760 .480 .687 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR90XEA Pearson Correlation .148 -.033 .120 .374 -.266 -.266 .996 -.274 -.233 -.242 .930 -.253 -.259 -.264 .973 -.270 -.259 -.264 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .029 .629 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 YR00XEA Pearson Correlation .191 .055 .307 .455 -.267 -.267 -.274 .997 -.233 -.242 -.258 .914 -.259 -.264 -.268 .978 -.259 -.265 -.273 Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .416 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 75 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). a L istwise N=218

PAGE 76

Table 4-6. Model summary for Model 2 76 Model Change statistics Adjusted R Std. Error of R R square square the Estimate R square change F change df1 Sig. F df2 change 1 .393(a) .155 .126 60493.800 .155 .000 5.489 7 210 2 .492(b) .242 .169 58985.437 .088 .035 1.906 12 198 a Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR 70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR 90; Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90, YR70X TDR, YR80XTDR, YR00XTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YR00XMF I, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YR00XEA; c Dependent Variable: UI_ENR

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-7. Coefficients for Model 2 a Dependent Variable: UI_ENR Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. 95% Confidence interval for B Collinearity statistics B Std. Error Beta Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 54650.696 30090.742 1.816 .071 -4667.929 113969.322 TDR -4036.997 4254.365 -.061 -.949 .344 -12423.733 4349.738 .986 1.014 MFI 1.275 .583 .165 2.186 .030 .125 2.424 .705 1.418 EA -1754.747 697.975 -.284 -2.514 .013 -3130.682 -378.813 .315 3.174 YR70 38510.392 14999.894 .241 2.567 .011 8940.729 68080.055 .455 2.196 YR80 70930.372 17821.850 .445 3.980 .000 35797.717 106063.027 .323 3.099 YR90 85750.868 20196.402 .546 4.246 .000 45937.200 125564.537 .243 4.109 YR00 89662.325 21352.663 .571 4.199 .000 47569.290 131755.359 .218 4.593 2 (Constant) 31163.881 61272.865 .509 .612 -89667.279 151995.042 TDR 4396.764 5742.245 .066 .766 .445 -6927.044 15720.572 .515 1.943 MFI 1.928 2.209 .250 .873 .384 -2.429 6.285 .047 21.418 EA -2061.697 2166.680 -.334 -.952 .342 -6334.427 2211.034 .031 32.168 YR70 -1387.195 80931.636 -.009 -.017 .986 -160985.796 158211.406 .015 67.228 YR80 128432.212 116686.260 .805 1.101 .272 -101675.133 358539.556 .007 139.750 YR90 455913.581 153787.477 2.903 2.965 .003 152641.989 759185.173 .004 250.605 YR00 506613.606 202274.493 3.226 2.505 .013 107724.770 905502.441 .002 433.541 YR70XTDR -13138.783 11948.982 -.159 -1.100 .273 -36702.385 10424.819 .182 5.488 YR80XTDR -24096.449 13261.291 -.309 -1.817 .071 -50247.947 2055.048 .132 7.579 YR90XTDR -47856.271 18108.552 -.549 -2.643 .009 -83566.653 -12145.889 .089 11.287 YR00XTDR -29237.839 15350.155 -.375 -1.905 .058 -59508.613 1032.936 .099 10.126 YR70XMFI .135 2.458 .035 .055 .956 -4.712 4.983 .009 107.571 YR80XMFI 3.336 3.011 .843 1.108 .269 -2.602 9.274 .007 151.122 YR90XMFI -1.825 2.445 -.506 -.746 .456 -6.647 2.997 .008 120.218 YR00XMFI -3.253 2.580 -.961 -1.261 .209 -8.340 1.834 .007 151.677 YR70XEA 1253.781 2411.131 .336 .520 .604 -3501.012 6008.573 .009 109.322 YR80XEA -2901.814 2810.955 -.938 -1.032 .303 -8445.066 2641.438 .005 215.699 YR90XEA -3763.268 3015.911 -1.358 -1.248 .214 -9710.697 2184.162 .003 309.608 YR00XEA -3751.613 3324.377 -1.393 -1.129 .260 -10307.343 2804.117 .003 398.275

PAGE 78

78 Table 4-8. ANOVA for Model 2 Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. 1 Regression 140596911838.069 7 20085273119.725 5.489 .000(a) Residual 768494961526.836 210 3659499816.795 Total 909091873364.904 217 2 Regression 220194092036.388 19 11589162738.758 3.331 .000(b) Residual 688897781328.517 198 3479281723.882 Total 909091873364.904 217 a Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR 70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR 90. b Predictors: (Constant), YR00, TDR, YR70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YR00XTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YR00XMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YR00XEA. c Depe ndent Variable: UI Fall enrollment

PAGE 79

Table 4-9. Descriptive statistics for Model 2 Mean Std. deviation N I_ENR 73228.3700 64725.2920 218 TDR 1.7466 .9720 218 MFI 40612.5321 8387.3626 218 EA 49.3193 10.4817 218 YR70 .2064 .4057 218 YR80 .2064 .4057 218 YR90 .2156 .4122 218 YR00 .2156 .4122 218 YR70XTDR .3488 .7851 218 YR80XTDR .3839 .8313 218 YR90XTDR .3664 .7429 218 YR00XTDR .4016 .8301 218 YR70XMFI 8354.5642 16895.4960 218 YR80XMFI 8244.8532 16347.6940 218 YR90XMFI 9176.0138 17955.9504 218 YR00XMFI 9844.1284 19117.8521 218 YR70XEA 8.5913 17.3640 218 YR80XEA 10.5656 20.9211 218 YR90XEA 12.1734 23.3616 218 YR00XEA 12.5376 24.0379 218 Dependent variable: UI_ENR 79

PAGE 80

80 Table 4-10 Pearson correlations for Model 2 UI_ ENR TDR MFI EA yr70 yr80 yr90 yr00 yr70x TDR yr80x TDR yr90x TDR yr00x TDR yr70x MFI yr80x MFI yr90x MFI yr00x MFI yr70x EA yr80x EA yr90x EA TDR Pearson Correlation -.027 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .691 MFI Pearson Correlation .255 .023 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .730 EA Pearson Correlation .190 .040 .477 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .553 .000 yr70 Pearson Correlation -.066 -.030 -.008 -.375 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .333 .662 .901 .000 yr80 Pearson Correlation .047 .060 -.041 .091 -.260 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .491 .382 .548 .181 .000 yr90 Pearson Correlation .126 -.026 .122 .358 -.267 -.267 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .064 .707 .072 .000 .000 .000 yr00 Pearson Correlation .160 .063 .316 .443 -.267 -.267 -.275 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .355 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr70xTDR Pearson Correlation -.080 .166 .003 -.326 .873 -.227 -.233 -.233 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .239 .014 .964 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 yr80xTDR Pearson Correlation .019 .205 -.036 .057 -.236 .908 -.243 -.243 -.206 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .776 .002 .597 .404 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 yr90xTDR Pearson Correlation .083 .061 .111 .316 -.252 -.252 .943 -.259 -.220 -.229 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .220 .372 .101 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 yr00xTDR Pearson Correlation .127 .181 .257 .390 -.247 -.247 -.254 .925 -.216 -.224 -.240 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .062 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000 yr70xMFI Pearson Correlation -.039 -.025 .104 -.332 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .854 -.229 -.245 -.240 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .568 .716 .126 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 yr80xMFI Pearson Correlation .059 .059 -.006 .104 -.258 .991 -.265 -.265 -.225 .900 -.250 -.245 -.251 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .387 .382 .928 .127 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr90xMFI Pearson Correlation .126 -.026 .217 .348 -.261 -.261 .977 -.269 -.228 -.237 .919 -.248 -.254 -.259 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .062 .699 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr00xMFI Pearson Correlation .159 .049 .382 .427 -.263 -.263 -.271 .984 -.230 -.239 -.255 .895 -.256 -.261 -.264 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .019 .475 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr70xEA Pearson Correlation -.065 -.028 .032 -.275 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .850 -.230 -.245 -.241 .965 -.251 -.254 -.256 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .337 .681 .644 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr80xEA Pearson Correlation .035 .048 -.027 .120 -.258 .992 -.265 -.265 -.225 .888 -.250 -.245 -.251 .990 -.259 -.261 -.251 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .610 .480 .687 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr90xEA Pearson Correlation .114 -.033 .120 .374 -.266 -.266 .996 -.274 -.233 -.242 .930 -.253 -.259 -.264 .973 -.270 -.259 -.264 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .093 .629 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 yr00xEA Pearson Correlation .152 .055 .307 .455 -.267 -.267 -.274 .997 -.233 -.242 -.258 .914 -.259 -.264 -.268 .978 -.259 -.265 -.273 Sig. (2-tailed) .025 .416 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0. 01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 81

Figure 4-1. Studentized residual versus CC_ENR 81

PAGE 82

Figure 4-2. Studentized residual versus TDR 82

PAGE 83

Figure 4-3. Studentized residual versus MFI 83

PAGE 84

Figure 4-4. Studentized residual versus EA 84

PAGE 85

Figure 4-5. Studentized residual versus Year 85

PAGE 86

Figure 4-6. Studentized re sidual versus UI_ENR. 86

PAGE 87

Figure 4-7. Studentized residual versus TDR. 87

PAGE 88

Figure 4-8. Studentized residual versus MFI. 88

PAGE 89

Figure 4-9. Studentized residual versus EA. 89

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4-10. Studentized residual versus Year.

PAGE 91

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The nature of state postseconda ry education systems, via en rollment, has been examined both in the literature and through quantitative analysis. This chap ter will conclude the study with a discussion of the results, suggestions for future research, and implicatio ns for state planning. Discussion of Results The purpose of the study was to test stude nt price response theory by examining how enrollment was related to the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. The omnibus hypothesis guiding this study stated enrollment was not significantly associated with tuition difference ratio betw een public institution types and state resources between 1960 and 2000. This inquir y was examined through statistical analysis of the significance of association between enro llment and the independent variables and the analysis of forty-year trends. Significance of Association Two models, differing by dependent variable reflective of community college and undergraduate institution enrollment, were develo ped to test the hypothesis. Analysis of the results indicated that the tuition and fee difference ratio did not have a statistically significant association with the enrollment variables. It was observed that in both the community college enrollment and the undergraduate institution enrollment models, the tuition and fee difference ratio was not significantly asso ciated with enrollment. The complete models, inclusive of median family income and educational attainment, accounted for 24.6 % and 26.5% of the variance in enrollment for Model 1 and Model 2 respectively. In both models the state resource variables, median family income and educational attainment, had statistically si gnificant zero-order correlations with community college 91

PAGE 92

enrollment as did the years 1990 and 2000. This resu lt confirms prior resear ch indicating income and educational attainment in fluence participation in public postsecondary education. Forty-year Trends The fixed effects models for each year, with 1960 serving as the reference year, captured forty-year trends in the relationship of enrollm ent to each independent variable, while holding the others constant. Trends for each relationshi p were presented and discussed in further detail in this section. Enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio Whereas the student price response theory, as conceptualized as the differe nce in pricing between two institution types and not the actual tuition and fee sticker price, wa s not statistically significant in its association with enrollment, the forty-year trend depicting the relationshi p between enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio provided evidence for further consideration. The emergent trends indicated that as the tuition and fee difference ratio increase d community college enrollment decreased. This trend was the same in undergra duate institutions, excep t between the years 1990 and 2000 where the trend took a turn in the positive direction (Figure 5-1). Results of the analysis indicating that community college enrollment was negatively associated with an increase in the TDR suggested that the community college was not increasing enrollment by serving as the low-cost, entry-poin t to postsecondary education. One would have suspected that as the gap in tuition and fee pri ces, as operationalized by the TDR, increased that a larger number of individuals woul d have opted to enroll in a le ss-costly, localized institution to mitigate expenses. This was not the case. The increased association of the TDR to enrollment at undergraduate institutions from 1990 to 2000 was a result of significant interest to the researcher. It s uggested that as the difference in tuition and fees between institution types increa sed, there was the tendency for 92

PAGE 93

more individuals to enroll in f our-year public institutions. The f act that approximately 25% of the variance in enrollment was explained in th e whole model provided two lens for analyzing this phenomena. First, it may have been that th e result of increases in state and institutionally supported merit-based aid at four-y ear institutions mitigated the in fluence of price in enrollment decisions. For example, Cornwall, Mustard and Sridhar (2006) found that Georgias implementation of the HOPE Scholarship increased enrollment in the states public institutions, with four-year institutions seeing most of the gain. While aid as a variable of interest was not a possibility for this study, future studies of student price response must factor in aid to account for its influence on enrollment. Second, if state aid was not a driving factor in the enrollment decisi ons of individuals, what could have been associated with such a trend reversal? Anot her lens through which enrollment decisions may be viewed was that of competition. It has be en reported that during the 1990s an increasingly larger percentage of th e total population enrolled in private institutions (Snyder 2008). In order for i ndividuals to compete for the job market after postsecondary education it may have been that individuals who may have consider ed first attending the community college either did not attend or engaged in personal fi nancing practices that enable them to pay relatively higher prices at public four-year institutions. Perhaps Bowens (1980) Revenue Theory of Costs may be reframed from the students perspective, as such: prestige drives expenditures in the search for revenue. Enrollment and median family income. Median family income exhibited itself to be strongly correlated with enroll ment. Across both models, median family income exhibited the same trend. Between 1960 and 1980, holding other va riables constant, an increase in median family income resulted in an increasingly posi tive association with en rollment. However, 93

PAGE 94

between 1980 and 2000, an increase in median family income resulted an increasingly negative association with enrollment. This trend suggested that wealthier students began to enroll in postsecondary options other than public institutions during this time. Such a position was supported by the observation that enrollment in th e private sector of pos tsecondary education, as a percent of total enro llment in all postsecondary education, increased from 21.5% in 1990 to 23.2% in 2000 and continued to 25.5% in 2005 (S nyder 2008). This observation, in combination with results of the study, contribut ed to price response studies in that not only were individuals on the lower end of the economic spectrum most influenced by price in their enrollment decisions (Leslie and Brinkman 1987; Kane 1995; Heller 1997), but thos e states with high median family incomes also exhibited a preferen ce not to attend public postsecondary education. Enrollment and educational attainment The relationship between enrollment at both institution types and educational attainment provided the opportunity to examine the impacts of a more educated populace at the compulsory leve l on postsecondary education. Between 1960 and 1970, analysis of the data indicated a positive association between enrollment and educational attainment of individuals. This trend reversed between 1970 and 2000, where it was observed that the percentage of a states population ag ed 25+ with a high school diploma but not a bachelors degree or higher increased an incr easingly negative associ ation with enrollment emerged. The most dramatic shifts happened between 1990 and 2000, when the association with community college enrollment continued its negative trend by nearly doubling. At undergraduate institutions, the trend was incr easingly negative, however between 1990 and 2000 there was a positive association between enrollment and educational attainment. This trend could be interpreted two ways. Either states had academically qualifi ed individuals that were not engaged in postsecondary educati on or states where educational attainment increased witnessed 94

PAGE 95

an increase in individuals choosing options othe r than public postsecondary education. Both options have some credibility a the former wa s supported by the conclusions of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (2002), who concluded a million bachelors degree were lost during the 1990s to academically qualified individuals. The latter perspective appeared to be an emerging trend in this study, namely that an increasing number of academically qualified individualsas determined by comple tion of high schooloriginating from families with lesser income were deciding to attend four-year institutions as compared to community colleges. Directions for Future Research The national scope and time span covered by the study presented multiple options for future studies. Specifically, studies with state size adjustments, state le vel studies, studies of populations and studies of progr ams may be undertaken to furt her examine the association between enrollment and price and state characteristics. Even after removing outliers, it may have b een that the size of the states population enrolled in public postsecondary education influenced the analysis Future studies could control for the influence of state size on the enrollment va riable by calculating a ra tio of enrollment to the number of persons in a state. As it applied to state-specific studies, the aggregate nature of the study may have masked the unique nature of a state outcomes. Case stud ies of specific states, or longitudinal studies of their shifts in enrollment and tuition and fee prices in the context of state resources would contribute to the dialogue on th e various state structures on public postsecondary education attainment. Kentucky, for example, had experimented over the time period examined in the study with numerous state structures of public postsecondary education. They have had independent community colleges, community colle ges as an extension of the University of 95

PAGE 96

Kentucky with a separate technical college sy stem, and most recently a joint community and technical college system. With respect to studies of various populations the current nature of the national dialogue surrounding postsecondary education was the part icipation of traditi onally underrepresented groups. It was the case, however, that data delin eated by race or ethnicity was not available until 1980. Specifically, Statistical Directive 15 of 1977 instructed federal ag encies to classify individuals racially with in one of four racial classifications: American Indian, Asian of Pacific Islander, Black, or White with further delineatio ns of the White and Black classifications as either Hispanic or non-Hispanic (Office of Management and Budget 1977). The resulting ethno-racial pentagon has since been applied to institutions of higher education to quantify demographic characteristics of student populations. Another area for future research was the application of comparisons between federal programs geared at college participation to a stat e or national norm. A program of interest may include the United States Depa rtment of Educations Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP) or othe r programs centrally focused on the increasing postsecondary participation for groups w ho have traditionally not participated. Implications for State Planning The results would implicate that in order for states to maximize enrollment in public postsecondary education, it may be the case that states should equalize tuition and fee rates for all institution types. The difficulty in this ap proach was that each stat e, and institution type within the state, has statutorily delegated responsibility for fixing1 tuition to a different entity (Mullin and Honeyman 2008). It wa s therefore the case that, in lig ht of statutory responsibility, 1 The term fixing was the term found to be most commonly utilized in statutory language regarding tuition a nd fee pricing. 96

PAGE 97

agreements between entities responsible for fi xing tuition and fees was the avenue most appropriate for addressing the association of an increase in the TDR and enrollment. Perhaps the positioning of community colleg es as lower-cost options, relative to undergraduate institutions, contributed to the negative trends in enro llment. State level policymakers undertaking planning should theref ore philosophically situate the community college as a separate entity rather than a juni or college. There was limited evidence for this position in California. California was unique in that it has held tu ition and fee prices very low at community colleges, resulting in relatively large tuition and f ee difference ratios. Initial analysis indicated that there was a positive associa tion with enrollment in Califor nia. However, in 1980, 1990 and 2000 the state was removed from the analysis as they were an outlier statis tically determined to influence the data. It may be that states starting to reexamine th eir tuition and fee policies should clarify if they intend to pursue a low tuition and fee rate or a no tuition and fee rate. There was, at the time of this manuscript, an action by policymakers to im plement Californias virtually-no tuition model in the states of Indiana (Indian a Commission for Higher Education), Massachusetts (Ashburn 2007), and Oklahoma (Hoberock 2007). 97

PAGE 98

13,696.40 4,999.40 294.142 -33,375.69 -36,095.71 4,396.76 -8,742.02 -19,699.69 -43,459.51 -24,841.08 -50,000.00 -40,000.00 -30,000.00 -20,000.00 -10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 19601970198019902000 Year Community College Undergraduate Institution Figure 5-1. Forty-year tre nd of TDR on enrollment 98

PAGE 99

-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 19601970198019902000 Year Community College Undergraduate Institution Figure 5-2. Forty-year tre nd of MFI on enrollment 99

PAGE 100

100 -613.373 345.442 -1,542.20 -4,424.71 -11,432.69 -2,061.70 807.916 -4,963.51 -5,824.97-5,813.31 -14000 -12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 19601970198019902000 Year Community College Undergraduate Institution Figure 5-3. Forty-year tre nd of EA on enrollment

PAGE 101

LIST OF REFERENCES Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2002, June. Empty Promises: The Myth of College Access in America Washington, DC: Author. Allison, P. D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. American Association of Community Colleges. Community College Growth by Decade Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationM enu/AboutCommunityColleges/HistoricalI nformation/CCGrowth/CCGrowth.htm Anderson, G. L. 1976. Land-Grant Universities and Their Continuing Challenge East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Arney, L. H. 1970. State Patterns of Financial S upport for Community Colleges Gainesville, FL: Institute of Higher Education. Ashburn, E. 2007. Massachusetts governor ca lls for tuition-free community colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education June 4. Retrieved January13, 2008, from http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/06/2007060403n.htm Berdahl, R. O. 1971. Statewide Coordination of Higher Education Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Bokelman, W. R. 1961. Higher Education Planning and Management Data, 1960-61: Salaries, Tuition and Fees, Room and Board. Washington, DC: United States Office of Education. Bowen, H. R. 1980. The Costs of Higher Education: How Much Do Colleges and Universities Spend Per Student and How Much Should They Spend? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bowen, H. R. 1974. Financing Higher Education: Th e Current State of the Debate. Washington, DC: Associati on of American Colleges. Brint, S., and J. Karabel. 1989. The Diverted Dream: Community Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity iIn America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Brubacher, J. S., and W. Rudy. 1997. Higher Education in Transition: A History of American Colleges and Universities, 4th ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Burkel, C. E. 1956. The College Blue Book 8th ed. Baltimore, MD: Christian E. Burkel. Burkel, C. E. 1960. The College Blue Book 9th ed. Baltimore, MD: Christian E. Burkel. Cain, R.A. 1982. Equal Educational O pportunity and the Community College. The Journal of Negro Education, 51(1): 16-28. 101

PAGE 102

California State Department of Education. 1960. A Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960-1975. Sacramento, CA: Author. Callan, P.M. 2006. College Affordability: Coll eges, States Increase Financial Burdens on Students and Families. In Measuring Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher Education, 19-22 San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Campbell, R., and B. N.Siegel. 1967, June. The Demand for Higher Education in the United States, 1919-1964. The American Economic Review, 57 (3): 482-494. Campbell, W. V., English, R. J., and G. Lampros. 1952. Current Operating Expenditures and Income of Higher Education in the Unite d States 1930, 1950, and 1950: A Staff Technical Paper for the Commission on Financing Higher Education New York: Columbia University Press. Carbone, R. F. 1974. Alternative Tuition Systems. ACT Special Report No. 12 Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1970a, March. A Chance to Learn: An Action Agenda for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1973, June. Higher Education: Who Pays? Who benefits? Who should pay? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1970b, June. The Open-door Colleges. New York: 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. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1976. The States and Higher Education: A Proud Past and a Vital Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Chambers, M. M. 1968. Higher Education: Who Pays? Who Gains? Financing Education Beyond the High School. Danville, IN: Interstate Printers and Publishers. Christal, M. E. 1997, March. State Tuition and Fee Policies: 1996-97. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers. Cohen, A. M. 1998. The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cohen, A. M., and F. B. Brawer. 1996. The American Community College 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 102

PAGE 103

College Board. 2006. Trends in Colleg e Pricing, 2006. Washington, DC: Author. Commission on Financing Higher Education. 1952. Nature and Needs of Higher Education. New York: Columbia University Press. Cornwall, C., Mustard, D.B., and D.J. Sridhar. 2006. The Enrollment Effects of Merit-Based Financial Aid: Evidence from Georgias HOPE Program. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(4): 761-786. Cunningham, A. F. and J. P. Merisotis. 2002. Na tional Models for College Costs and Prices. Planning for Higher Education, 30 (3): 15-26. Douglass, J. A. 2000. The California Idea and American Higher Education: 1850 to the 1960 Master Plan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Division of Performance Audit. 2006, February 12. Recent Kentucky Tuition Increases May Prevent the Achievement of the Commonwea lths 2020 Postsecondary Education Goals, briefing report. Frankfurt, KY: Auditor of Public Accounts. Dressel, P. L. 1980. The Autonomy of Public Colleges. New Directions for Institutional Research No. 26, 7 (2): 11-23. Dunham, E. A. 1969. Colleges of the Forgotten Americans : A Profile of State Colleges and Regional Universities New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Eddy, E. D. 1957. Colleges for Our Land and Time New York: Harper and Brothers. Education Commission of the States. 1972. Higher Education in the States, Volume 3, Number 3. Denver CO: Author. Fisher, F. J. 1990. State Fina ncing of Higher Education: A New Look at an Old Problem. Change 22 (1): 42-56 Garms, W. I. 1980, February. On Measuring the Equity of Community College (ERIC Document Reproductive Service No. ED187378). Garms, W. I. 1977. Financing Community Colleges New York: Teachers College Press. Gleazer, E. J. 1980. The Community College: Values, Vision and Vitality Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Glenny, L. A. 1965. State Systems a nd Plans for Higher Education. In Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education, ed. L. Wilson, 86-103. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Goldin, C. and L. F. Katz. 2000, September. Education and Income in the Early Twentieth Century: Evidence from the Prairies. The Journal of Economic History 60 (3): 782-818. 103

PAGE 104

Greenleaf, W. J. 1936. Junior Colleges, Educational Bulletin No. 3 Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Gross, E., and P. V. Grambsch. 1974. Changes in University Organization, 1964-1971. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Publishers. Hansen, W.L., and B. A. Weisbrod. 1969. Benefits, Costs, and Finance of Public Higher Education. New York: Markham. Harris, S. E. 1960. Higher Education in the United States: The Economic Problems Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hauptman, A. M. 1990. The Tuition Dilemma: Assessing New Ways to Pay for College Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution. Hauptman, A. M., and J P. Merisotis. 1990. The College Tuition Spiral: An Examination of Why Charges Are Increasing New York: The College Board and the American Council on Education. Hearn, J. C., Griswold, C. P., and G. M. Marine. 1996. Region, Resources, and Reason: A Contextual Analysis of State Tu ition and Student Aid Policies. Research in Higher Education, 37 (3): 241-278. Hearn, J. C. and C. P. Griswold. 1994. State-le vel Centralization and Policy Innovation in U. S. Postsecondary Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2): 161-190. Heller, D. E. 1997. Student Price Response in Hi gher Education: An Update to Leslie and Brinkman. Journal of Higher Education 68(6): 624-659. Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329 (1965). Hoberock, B. 2007. Free Community College Tuition Pushed. Tulsa World, October 20. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http:///www.tulsaworld.com Hurt, H. W., and M. E. Abbott. 1947. The College Blue Book 5th ed. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: Christian E. Burkel. Hurt, H. W., and M. E. Abbott. 1950. The College Blue Book, 6th ed. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: Christian E. Burkel. Hurt, H. W., and H. Hurt. 1933. The College Blue Book, 3rd ed. Hollywood-by-the-Sea, FL: The College Blue Book. Hurt, H. W., and H. Hurt. 1950. The College Blue Book 4th ed. DeLand, FL: The College Blue Book. 104

PAGE 105

Indiana Commission for Higher Education. Governor outlines plan for higher education access and affordability. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.che.state.in.us/ Jackson, G. A. and G. B. Weathersby. 1975. Individual Demand for Higher Education. Journal of Higher Education 46(6): 623-52. Johnson, J. L. 1979. An Analysis of the Re lationship Between Instructional Costs and Differential Tuition Levels. The Journal of Higher Education 50(3):280-288. Jones, D. 2002. Cost analysis and the formation of public policy. In Study of College Costs and Prices, 1988-89 to 1997-98, Vol. 2 Commissioned Papers, ed. A. F. Cunningham et al., 4555. Washington, DC: United States Departme nt of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Kane, T. J. 1991. College Entry by Blacks Since 1970: Th e Role of Tuition, Financial Aid, Local Economic Conditions, and Family Background. EdD diss., Harvard University. Kane, T. J. 1995. Rising Public College Tuition and Colle ge Entry: How Well Do Public Subsidies Promote Access to College? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic research Working Paper Series No. 5164. Kerr, C. 1968. Financing Higher Education: The Policy Dilemmas." Public Interest, (11): 99136. Kim, D. and J. L. Rury. 2007, August. The Changing Profile of College Access: The Truman Commission and Enrollment Patterns in the Postwar Era. History of Education Quarterly, 47(3): 302-327. Koos, L. V. 1924. The Junior College. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Koshal, R. K., and M. Koshal. 2000. State Appropriation and Higher Educati on Tuition: What Is the Relationship? Education Economics, 8(1): 81-89. Krug, E. 1962, Autumn. Graduates of Seconda ry Schools In and Around 1900: Did Most of Them Go to College? The School Review 266-272. Leslie, L. L. and P. T. Brinkman. 1987. Stude nt Price Response in Higher Education: The Student Demand Studies. Journal of Higher Education, 58(2): 181-204. Lingenfelter, P. E. 2004. The state and higher education: An essential partnership. In Restructuring Shared Governance in Higher Education, New Directions for Higher Education Series Vol. 127, ed. W. G. Tierne y and V. M. Lechuga, 47-59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lombardi, J. 1973. Managing Finances in Community Colleges San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. 105

PAGE 106

Longanecker, D. A. 2007, March. College Access. In Thinking Outside the Box: Policy Strategies for Readine ss, Access, and Success, ed. D. A. Longanecker et al. ,25-38. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Lucas, C. J. 1994. American higher education: A history New York: St. Martin's Griffin.Martinez, M.C. 2004. Postsecondary Participation an d State Policy: Meeting the Future Demand. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Martorana, S. V. 1974. State-Level Planning for Comm unity Colleges: Are the 1202 Commissions a Centripetal or Centrifugal Fo rce in Postsecondary Education? Essays on Education, No. 4. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publications. Matlock, T. P. 1994. The Overlap Group: A Study of Nonprofit Competition. Journal of Law and Education, 23 (4): 523-548. McDowell, G. R. 2001. Land-grant Universities and Extens ion into the 21st century: Renegotiating of abandoning a social contract Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. McKinney, T. H. 1974, June. Section 1202 and Statewide Planning for Public Community and Junior Colleges: The New Reality. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Center for State and Regional Leadership. McLendon, M. K. 2003. Setting the governmental ag enda for state decentralization of higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 74 (5): 470-515. Medsker, L. L., and D. Tillery. 1971. Breaking the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-year Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Middaugh, M. F., Graham, R., and A. Shahid. 2003. A Study of Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity. [NCES-2003161]. Washington, DC: United States Depart ment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Moore, P. R. et al. 1974. Report of the Interinstitutiona l Committee on Tuition and Fee Policy Providence, RI: Rhode Island St ate Board of Education. Morrill Act, Public Law 37-108 (1862). Morrill, J.S. 1887, June 21. Address. In Commemorative Addresses 1862-1887 unedited volume, 17-26. Amherst, MA: J. E. Williams, Book and Job Printer. Mullin, C.M., and Honeyman, D. S. 2008, April. Statutory Responsibilit y for Fixing Tuition and Fees: The Relationship between Community Colleges and Undergraduate Institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32(4-6): 284-304. Mullin, C.M., and Honeyman, D.S. 2006, March. Community College Funding Formula Typologies: Calculating the Base. Presentation to the American Education Finance Association, Denver, CO. 106

PAGE 107

Mumper, M., and J. Anderson. 1993, Fall. Main taining Public College Affordability in the 1980s" How Did the States Do? Journal of Education Finance 19(2): 183-199. National Association of State Univer sities and Land-Gr ant Colleges. 2008. The Land-Grant Tradition. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.nasulgc.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=780 National Center for Public Poli cy and Higher Education. 2007. The Squeeze Play: How Parents and the Public Look at Higher Education Today San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.makingopportunityaffordable.org National Center for Public Poli cy and Higher Education. 2006. Measuring Up 2006: The National Report Card on Higher Education. San Jose, CA: Author. National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education. 1973. Financing Postsecondary Education in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. National Defense Education Act, Public Law 85-864 (1958). Orfield, G., and F.G. Paul. 1992. State Higher Education Systems and College Completion. New York: Ford Foundation. Office of Management and Budget. 1977. Statistical Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics an d Administrative Reporting Washington, DC. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2007, September. Education at a glance 2007: OECD briefing note for the United States. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.oecd.org Palmer, J. 1996. Funding the multipurpose community college in an era of consolidation. In A Struggle to Survive: Funding Higher Education in the Next Century, ed. D. S. Honeyman, J. L. Wattenbarger and K. C. West brook, 187-208. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Paulsen, M. B. 1998. Recent Research on the Ec onomics of Attending College: Returns on Investment and Responsiveness to Price. Research in Higher Education, 39 (4): 471-489. Presidential Commission on Higher Education. 1947. Higher Education for American Democracy, Vol. 1-6. New York: Harper and Brothers. President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School. 1957, July. Second Report to the President Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Korn, J. S., Santos J. L., and W. S. Korn. 2006. The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2006. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA. 107

PAGE 108

Ravitch, D. 1981. Forgetting the Questions: The Problem of Educational Reform. The American Scholar, 50(3): 329-340. Reindl, T. 2007, March. Hitting Home: Quality, Cost, and Access Challenges Confronting Higher Education Today. Boston, MA: Making Opportunity Affordable. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from http://www.makingopportunityaffordable.org Roche, J. P. 1986. The Colonial Colleges in the War for American Independence. Millwood, NY: Associated Faculty Press, Inc. Rouse, C. E. 1998. Do Two-year Colleges Incr ease Overall Educational Attainment? Evidence from the States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(4): 595-620. Rouse, C. E. 1994. What to Do After High Sc hool: The Two-Year versus Four-Year College enrollment decision. In Choices and consequences: Cont emporary policy issues in education ed. R.G. Ehrenberg, 59-88. Ithica, NY: ILR Press. Ruppert, S. S. 2001. Where We Go from Here: State Legi slative Views on Higher Education In The New Millennium. Littleton, CO: National Educati on Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED455740). Russell, M. 1970. The College Blue Book 1969/70, 13th ed., Vol.2. New York: CCM Information Corporation. Savoca, E. 1990. Another Look at the Demand for Higher Education: Measuring the Price Sensitivity of The Decision To Apply To College. Economics of Education Review, 9 (2): 123-134. Scheitinger, E. F. 1981. Tuition Policy for the Eighties Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Servicemen's Readjustment Act, Public Law 346-268 (1947). Shelburne, J. C. 1939. Fees in a Public System. The Journal of Higher Education, 10 (2): 83-89. Snyder, T. D. 2008. Mini-Digest of Educa tion Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-023). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Sonnenberg, W. C. 1993. Elementary and Secondary Education. In 120 years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait ed. T. D. Snyder, 34-70. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Cent er for Education Statistics. St. John, E. P., and J. B. Starkey. 1994. The Influence of Costs on Persistence by Traditional College-Age Students in Community Colleges." Community College Journal of Research and Practice 18(2): 201-13. 108

PAGE 109

Stampen, J. 1980. The Financing of Public Higher Education Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education and ER IC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. State of California. 2004, January. Governor's Budget Summary, 2004-2005. Sacramento, CA: Author. Taubman, P. 1989, May. Role of Parental Income in Educational Attainment. The American Economic Review 79(2): 57-61. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2000. Closing the Gaps: The Texas Higher Education Plan Austin, TX: Author. Thelin, J. R. 2007. Higher Educations Student Financial Aid Enterp rise in Historical Perspective. In Footing the Bill: The Ne w Student Loan Sector, ed. F. M. Hess, 19-41. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute Press. Tillery, D. and J. L. Wattenbarger. 1985. State Po wer in a New Era: Threats to Local Authority. New Directions for Community Colleges, 13 (1): 5-23. Tillery, D. 1973. Distribution and Differentiation of Youth: A Study of Transition from School to College. Cambridge, MA: Ballinge r Publishing Company. Title IX of the Educational Amen dments, Public Law 92-318 (1972). United States Census Bureau. Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Centur y of Learning: Historical Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000 Washington, DC: United States Department of Commer ce. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/ socdemo/education/phct41.html United States Census Bureau. No. HS-35. Personal Income and Personal Income Per Capita by State: 1929 to 2001 Washington, DC: United States Depa rtment of Commerce. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-35.pdf United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1975. Higher Education: Basic Student Charges 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Inflation calculator Washington, DC: Author. Re trieved February 3, 2008, from http://data.bls.gov/cgibin/cpicalc.pl United States Department of Education, Nati onal Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Digest of Educational Statistics, 2002 Edition Washington, D.C.: Author. United State Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1972. Digest of Educational Statistics, 1971 Edition Washington, D.C.: Author. 109

PAGE 110

United State Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1965. Digest of Educational Statistics, 1965 Edition Washington, D.C.: Author. United States General Accounting Office. 1996, August. Higher Education: Tuition Increasing Faster than Household Income and Public Colleges' Costs [GAO/HEHS-96-154]. Washington, DC: Author. Vernez, G., Krop, R. A., and C.P. Rydell. 1999. Closing the Education Gap: Benefits and Costs [MR-1036-EDU]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Wattenbarger, J. L., Shafer, S., and J. D. Zucker. 1973. Tuition and the open door. In J. Lombardi ed., Legal Issues in the Community College. New Directions in Community Colleges, 1(2): 57-64. Wellman, J. V. 2001. Looking Back, Going Forward: The Carnegie Commission on Tuition Policy. Washington, DC: Institute fo r Higher Education Policy. Wetzel, J. N. 1995. The Effect of Tuition Di fferentials on Student Enrollment Patterns and University Revenues. Washington, DC: Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary Education. Wattenbarger, J.L. 1979. More Mone y for More Opportunity: Reappraisal. Journal of Education Finance 4 (4): 483-491. 110

PAGE 111

111 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christopher M. Mullin was an alumni fellow in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy at the University of Florida. He earned a Master of Education degree at Teachers College, Columbia University and B achelor of Arts degree at the University of Florida.


























To my family.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

L IST O F T A B L E S ......................................... ................................................ . 7

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. ..... ..... ................. .8

ABSTRAC T .........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION .......................................................................... .. ... .... 10

Era of O rganization....................... .. ..................... .. .......... .............. 11
Participation via Localized Institutions ........................................................................... 12
Stratifying Tuition and Fees ....................................................................................... 13
Enrollm ent and Increasing Tuition and Fees ............................................................... 15
State R sources .............................................. 17
Purpose of the Study ............... ............... .......... ......................... .... 18
D definition of T erm s ...... .... ................................ ...................... ........ .. .. ............. 19

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................... ............................. 26

A access and State Structures ........................................................... ..... ............... 26
State M aster Plans .................... ..............................................27
Balance of a Public Postsecondary Education System................................. ...............29
Student Price R response ........ .......... .... .. .. ............................. .......................... 31
Philosophies Guiding Tuition and Fee Policy ................................................. ..........33
Tuition Differentiations ................................. ............ ........ .... ...............3 5
Institutional R ationales .......... ..... .. ............................. ........... ..... .....36
F federal A action s ........................................................ ...................39
Tuition and Fees and Enrollm ent .................................. ...........................................40
State R sources ................... ..................... .................. ......... 41
E educational A ttainm ent .................................................... ............... ...............42
Incom e and the A ability to P ay ......... ................. .........................................................43
Conceptual Framework............................... .. ... ..... ..............45

3 M ETHODOLOGY .............................. ... ....... .................. ............. 51

R research Q question ............................................................................. 5 1
Research Hypothesis............. .... .. ........................... ..... .......51
D ata Sum m ary ...............................................................................52
P o p u latio n ...................................... .................................... ................5 2
V ariables of Interest ................ ... ......................... ......... ........ ................. .. 52














14


12


10 -


8


6





2


0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950
Participation (%) 2.8 4.5 6.9 8.4 15

Figure 1-1. Postsecondary education participation, 1910 to 1950. [United States Department of
Education 1972].





























1910


1920


1930


1940


1950


Community 25 74 180 238 330
Colleges
1 Four-Year 196 220 242 251 259
1 1 Land-Grant 65 66 66 66 66


Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1910 to 1950. [United States
Department of Education 2003; Dunham 1969; American Association of
Community Colleges n.d.; National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges 2008


Figure 1-2.


'do -

'dgoo
wo






















0

0
0














o.a .o (6
S 0






















Figure 4-3. Studentized residual versus MI
2 oo







0 0








2.0000



MFI


Figure 4-3. Studentized residual versus MFI











4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000


500


1933 1939 1947 1950 1956 1959 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000


Comm. Coll. 72 72 84 90 101 146 109 187 245 391 641 824 1239 1333
- -Undrgrd. Inst. 93 103 92 95 127 166 284 405 556 804 1318 1888 2848 3501


Figure 1-5. Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 2000. [Author's calculations from The Blue Book
3-6th and 8-9th Editions, for years 1933 to 1959; Unites States Department of Education 2003, for years 1965 to 2000.]













Table 4-5. Pearson correlations for Model 1
CC ENR TDR MFI EA YR70 YR80 YR90YR00 YR70X YR80X YR90X YROOX YR70X YR80X YR90X YROOX YR70XYR80XE YR90X
TDR TDR TDR TDR MFI MFI MFI MFI EA A EA


TDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
MFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
EA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR70 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR80 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR90 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YROO Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR70XTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR80XTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR90XTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YROOXTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR70XMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR80XMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR90XMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YROOXMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR70XEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR80XEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YR90XEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
YROOXEA Pearson Correlation
Sie. (2-tailed)


.023 1
.730
.040 .477 1
.553 .000
-.030-.008-.375 1
.662 .901 .000
.060-.041 .091 -.260
.382 .548 .181 .000
-.026 .122 .358 -.267
.707 .072 .000 .000
.063 .316 .443 -.267
.355 .000 .000 .000
.166 .003-.326 .873
.014 .964 .000 .000
.205-.036 .057 -.236
.002 .597 .404 .000
.061 .111 .316 -.252
.372 .101 .000 .000
.181 .257 .390 -.247
.007 .000 .000 .000
-.025 .104-.332 .972
.716 .126 .000 .000
.059-.006 .104 -.258
.382 .928 .127 .000
-.026 .217 .348 -.261
.699 .001 .000 .000
.049 .382 .427 -.263
.475 .000 .000 .000
-.028 .032-.275 .972
.681 .644 .000 .000
.048-.027 .120 -.258
.480 .687 .077 .000
-.033 .120 .374 -.266
.629 .077 .000 .000
.055 .307 .455 -.267
.416 .000 .000 .000


** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


-.275 1
.000
-.233 -.233
.001 .001
-.243 -.243
.000 .000
.943 -.259
.000 .000
-.254 .925
.000 .000
-.260 -.260
.000 .000
-.265 -.265
.000 .000
.977 -.269
.000 .000
-.271 .984
.000 .000
-.260 -.260
.000 .000
-.265 -.265
.000 .000
.996 -.274
.000 .000
-.274 .997
.000 .000


1

-.206
.002
-.220
.001
-.216
.001
.854
.000
-.225
.001
-.228
.001
-.230
.001
.850
.000
-.225
.001
-.233
.001
-.233
.001


1

-.240
.000
-.245
.000
-.248
.000
.895
.000
-.241
.000
-.245
.000
-.253
.000
.914
.000


1

-.264
.000
-.254
.000
-.259
.000
.973
.000
-.268
.000


a Listwise N=218


















4.cOOO


* ] %8


-1.00000


1946


1970


Figure 4-10. Studentized residual versus Year.





























90


0
8 0
0


1980
YEAR


2000









deletion was employed as it was both the logical and most robust option. It made no sense to

utilize estimation procedures to create a missing tuition and fee price when institutions within

each state which maintaining control over tuition and fees varied (Mullin and Honeyman 2008).

Utilization of the Dataset Cutting Tool of the National Center for Education Statistics' Integrated

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) resulted in undergraduate tuition and fees public

community colleges and undergraduate institutions for the years 1980, 1990 and 2000.

State level tuition and fee data were acquired by averaging tuition and fees by institution

type per state from the data sources. The tuition and fee difference ratio between institution

types (TDR) was determined by dividing the state average tuition and fees at undergraduate

institutions by the state average tuition and fees at community colleges.

State resources. The growth and expansion of public institutions and tuition and fee rates

took place within the context of the state. Two factors believed to be associated with these

increases were the ability of the state's citizenry to pay for noncompulsory education and the

percentage of the state's population eligible to attend either a public community college or

undergraduate institution.

Ability to pay was operationalized as the Median Family Income in constant dollars for

the year 2000 (MFI). Data on Median Family Income for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and

2000 were obtained from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) database at the

University of Minnesota, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National

Institutes on Health to disseminate census data. Data were missing for median family income for

six states (DE, ID, MT, ND, VT and WY) in 1970. The missing data were replaced via

conditional mean imputation (Allison 2002). This process regressed the missing variable on all

other variables in the equation. The missing values were then generated utilizing the estimated









Ravitch, D. 1981. Forgetting the Questions: The Problem of Educational Reform. The American
Scholar, 50(3): 329-340.

Reindl, T. 2007, March. Hitting Home: Quality, Cost, andAccess Challenges Confronting
Higher Education Today. Boston, MA: Making Opportunity Affordable. Retrieved
February 28, 2008, from http://www.makingopportunityaffordable.org

Roche, J. P. 1986. The Colonial Colleges in the War for American Independence. Millwood, NY:
Associated Faculty Press, Inc.

Rouse, C. E. 1998. Do Two-year Colleges Increase Overall Educational Attainment? Evidence
from the States. Journal of Policy Analysis andManagement, 17(4): 595-620.

Rouse, C. E. 1994. What to Do After High School: The Two-Year versus Four-Year College
enrollment decision. In Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in
education ed. R.G. Ehrenberg, 59-88. Ithica, NY: ILR Press.

Ruppert, S. S. 2001. Where We Go from Here: State Legislative Views on Higher Education In
The New Millennium. Littleton, CO: National Education Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED455740).

Russell, M. 1970. The College Blue Book 1969/70, 13th ed., Vol.2. New York: CCM
Information Corporation.

Savoca, E. 1990. Another Look at the Demand for Higher Education: Measuring the Price
Sensitivity of The Decision To Apply To College. Economics of Education Review, 9 (2):
123-134.

Scheitinger, E. F. 1981. Tuition Policyfor the Eighties. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional
Education Board.

Servicemen's Readjustment Act, Public Law 346-268 (1947).

Shelburne, J. C. 1939. Fees in a Public System. The Journal of Higher Education, 10(2): 83-89.

Snyder, T. D. 2008. Mini-Digest of Education Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-023). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.

Sonnenberg, W. C. 1993. Elementary and Secondary Education. In 120 years ofAmerican
Education: A StatisticalPortrait, ed. T. D. Snyder, 34-70. Washington, DC: United States
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

St. John, E. P., and J. B. Starkey. 1994. The Influence of Costs on Persistence by Traditional
College-Age Students in Community Colleges." Community College Journal ofResearch
and Practice 18(2): 201-13.









Table 4-8. ANOVA for Model 2
Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 140596911838.069 7 20085273119.725 5.489 .000(a)
Residual 768494961526.836 210 3659499816.795
Total 909091873364.904 217
2 Regression 220194092036.388 19 11589162738.758 3.331 .000(b)
Residual 688897781328.517 198 3479281723.882
Total 909091873364.904 217
a Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90. b Predictors: (Constant), YROO,
TDR, YR70, MFI 2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YROOXTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI,
YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YROOXMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YROOXEA. c Dependent Variable: UI Fall enrollment















C '. :.. -


0




0



.0



0e 0
4 --: -

0









S0 0
J 0

0 3
o o
SiI











I I I I I
190 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR


Figure 4-5. Studentized residual versus Year









between 1980 and 2000, an increase in median family income resulted an increasingly negative

association with enrollment. This trend suggested that wealthier students began to enroll in

postsecondary options other than public institutions during this time. Such a position was

supported by the observation that enrollment in the private sector of postsecondary education, as

a percent of total enrollment in all postsecondary education, increased from 21.5% in 1990 to

23.2% in 2000 and continued to 25.5% in 2005 (Snyder 2008). This observation, in combination

with results of the study, contributed to price response studies in that not only were individuals

on the lower end of the economic spectrum most influenced by price in their enrollment

decisions (Leslie and Brinkman 1987; Kane 1995; Heller 1997), but those states with high

median family incomes also exhibited a preference not to attend public postsecondary education.

Enrollment and educational attainment. The relationship between enrollment at both

institution types and educational attainment provided the opportunity to examine the impacts of a

more educated populace at the compulsory level on postsecondary education. Between 1960 and

1970, analysis of the data indicated a positive association between enrollment and educational

attainment of individuals. This trend reversed between 1970 and 2000, where it was observed

that the percentage of a state's population aged 25+ with a high school diploma but not a

bachelor's degree or higher increased an increasingly negative association with enrollment

emerged. The most dramatic shifts happened between 1990 and 2000, when the association with

community college enrollment continued its negative trend by nearly doubling. At

undergraduate institutions, the trend was increasingly negative, however between 1990 and 2000

there was a positive association between enrollment and educational attainment. This trend could

be interpreted two ways. Either states had academically qualified individuals that were not

engaged in postsecondary education or states where educational attainment increased witnessed









Commission on Higher Education appointed by President Truman recognized the need for, and

advocated on behalf of, affordable postsecondary education. Volume Two of the report, entitled

Equalizing and Expanding Individual Opportunity, cited income inadequacies and the lack of

sufficient state support as two of the greatest barriers hindering the affordability of

postsecondary education (The Presidential Commission on Higher Education 1947).

As postsecondary education participation increased in the second half of the twentieth

century so did the amount students were responsible to pay. Rationales for the increased

expenditures in postsecondary education held constant. Two philosophies guided the

development of tuition and fee policy. The first placed a larger burden on public support in an

effort to hold tuition low and negate the influence of individual costs in the decision to pursue

educational opportunity. The other perspective, suggested that the market mechanism be enacted

in postsecondary education.

Philosophies Guiding Tuition and Fee Policy

The demands of access and affordability facing policymakers were encapsulated in the

debates regarding tuition pricing. The two primary philosophies6 guiding the development of

tuition policy were (a) low tuition with high state support to institutions or (b) high tuition with

federal, state, and private support to the individual in the form of aid.

Low tuition. The support for a low tuition policy was rooted in the belief that the student

already had a fiscal burden to bear in addition the out-of-pocket costs charged by the institution

6 Alternative tuition philosophies included Carbone's five models: nonresident student -
surcharge model, resident tuition-fee-remission model, sliding scale, multiple-criteria model,
sliding-scale single-criterion model, and the national tuition bank (1974). Moore et al (1974)
also outlined eight possible considerations in the development of tuition models. They were,
tuition rates reflective of (a) the average citizen's ability to pay, (b) the student's ability to pay,
(c) the program of study, (d) credit-hours pursued, (e) equally across all institutions, (f) level of
instruction, (g) the proportion of instructional costs per student, and (h) a combination of the
preceding seven options.









Indiana Commission for Higher Education. Governor outlines plan for higher education access
and affordability. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from
http://www.che.state.in.us/

Jackson, G. A. and G. B. Weathersby. 1975. Individual Demand for Higher Education. Journal
ofHigher Education, 46(6): 623-52.

Johnson, J. L. 1979. An Analysis of the Relationship Between Instructional Costs and
Differential Tuition Levels. The Journal of Higher Education, 50(3):280-288.

Jones, D. 2002. Cost analysis and the formation of public policy. In Study of College Costs and
Prices, 1988-89 to 1997-98, Vol. 2 Commissioned Papers, ed. A. F. Cunningham et al., 45-
55. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

Kane, T. J. 1991. College Entry by Blacks Since 1970: The Role of Tuition, Financial Aid, Local
Economic Conditions, and Family Background. EdD diss., Harvard University.

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.

Kerr, C. 1968. Financing Higher Education: The Policy Dilemmas." Public Interest, (11): 99-
136.

Kim, D. and J. L. Rury. 2007, August. The Changing Profile of College Access: The Truman
Commission and Enrollment Patterns in the Postwar Era. History of Education Quarterly,
47(3): 302-327.

Koos, L. V. 1924. The Junior College. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Koshal, R. K., and M. Koshal. 2000. State Appropriation and Higher Education Tuition: What Is
the Relationship? Education Economics, 8(1): 81-89.

Krug, E. 1962, Autumn. Graduates of Secondary Schools In and Around 1900: Did Most of
Them Go to College? The School Review, 266-272.

Leslie, L. L. and P. T. Brinkman. 1987. Student Price Response in Higher Education: The
Student Demand Studies. Journal of Higher Education, 58(2): 181-204.

Lingenfelter, P. E. 2004. The state and higher education: An essential partnership. In
Restructuring .N/h, ii eI Governance in Higher Education, New Directions for Higher
Education Series Vol. 127, ed. W. G. Tierney and V. M. Lechuga, 47-59. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Lombardi, J. 1973. Managing Finances in Community Colleges. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.









In 1952, The Commission on Financing Higher Education was formed to examine the

fiscal condition of postsecondary education. The Commission outlined five sources of financial

difficulties for postsecondary education institutions: (a) inflation; (b) the expansion of

educational services; (c) needs for enlarged and modernized capital plant; (d) fluctuating student

enrollments; and (e) uncertain sources of income.

Hauptman and Merisotis (1990) reviewed articles and other documents relating to the

dramatic dependence on tuition and fees originating from the student. The results of their

analysis indicated five reasons for the increase: (a) higher charges were the result of increases in

costs; (b) increases in expenditures by colleges for a variety of services; (c) competition between

institutions; (d) non-tuition revenue had leveled-off or dropped; and (e) the increase in student

aid.

They asserted the increase in inflation8 forced the institutions to be more dependent on

student income, as it was the most available source of additional income. A concern in doing so

was the instability of tuition and fee revenue as compared to endowment income on operating

budgets. Inflation had impacted the costs of doing business; however, it had been the case that

tuition increases have outpaced inflation (Paulsen 1998; Wellman 2001).

Reasons provided for increasing expenditures were factors external to institutional control

and may have provided justifiable rationales for increases in tuition and fees. It had been argued,

however, that increases in costs were not closely related with the tuition and fees charged to

students (The Commission on Financing Higher Education 1952; Cunningham and Merisotis


8 Inflation was conceptualized as the increase in the price of goods and services (Martinez
2004). The Consumer price index (CPI) was a common measure reflective of the broad costs
associated with participation in society. Another inflation measure, the Higher Education Price
Index (HEPI), was developed by Halstead (1989) to apply directly to goods and services
demanded by postsecondary education institutions.









The models were tested for violations to the assumptions of linearity, normality,

independence and equal conditional variance (Shavelson 1996). Studentized residuals were

calculated and plotted against all variables in the model to check for violations to the

assumptions (Figures 4-6 to 4-10). Analysis of the scatterplots did not reveal violations of the

assumptions.

Fixed effect models. Inserting the values of"0" and "1" wherever the relevant dummy

code occurs in the full model, the following regression equations were determined for the years,

1960,
UIENR = 31,163.881 + 4,396.764(TDR) + 1.928(MFI) 2,061.697(EA), (4-10)

1970,
UIENR = 29,776.686 8,742.019(TDR) + 2.063(MFI) + 807.916(EA), (4-11)

1980,
UIENR = 159,596.093 19,699.685(TDR) + 5.264(MFI)- 4,963.511(EA), (4-12)

1990,
UIENR = 487,077.462 43,459.507(TDR) + 0.103(MFI) 5,824.965(EA), (4-13)

2000,
UIENR = 537,777.487 24,841.075(TDR) 1.325(MFI) 5,813.31(EA). (4-14)

Across the forty years, as measured every ten years, investigated in the study, the

independent variables exhibited different trends. The tuition and fee difference ratio (TDR) was

negatively associated with degree-seeking enrollment in at undergraduate institutions for all

years as compared to the reference year, 1960. While still negatively associated, this trend

reversed in 2000. Increases in median family income were positively associated with

undergraduate institution enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990, only to become

negatively associated in 2000. Increases in educational attainment were negatively associated

with enrolment for all years but 1970,when the association was positive.









increased attendance (Taubman 1989; The National Commission on Financing Postsecondary

Education 1973).

The United States General Accounting Office (1996) examined the increase in college

costs in relationship to household income. The report only examined public, 4-year institutions,

finding tuition increased 234 percent during the fourteen-year period between 1980-1981 and

1994-1995. During this same time period, media household income, serving as a proxy for

ability to pay, increased 82 percent.11 The increased variability between states with respect to

average tuition and related fees ranged from $1,524 to $5,521. It was observed that states with

low tuition were associated with low median household incomes, low college expenditures per

student, and higher state appropriations for higher education (Koshal and Koshal 2000). The

ability to pay12 tuition and fees prevent postsecondary education participation for otherwise



11 It is important to note that increases in tuition and fees experienced during the 1980s was
compounded by the fact that federal and state taxes increased as well, thereby making college
ever more costly (Mumper and Anderson 1993).
12 An important question when examining the concept of the ability to pay was a
specification of whose ability to pay? Historically, it had been the case that individuals engaged
in the act of influencing tuition policies expressed views that exposed their naive beliefs in the
ability of students to afford postsecondary education. This sentiment was mostly clearly
articulated in a report on the financing of higher education, which stated "[t] he economic barrier
to higher education is usually exaggerated in most discussions of the subject, for this barrier can
be overcome where there is an individual determination to do so" (The Commission on
Financing Higher Education 1952, 135). They continued to advocate for the federal government
to withdraw any notion of a scholarship aid program for a vast number of citizens.
In 1990, Hauptman and Merisotis asserted an economically-framed perspective that
"comparing increases in what it costs to send a child to college with changes in the value of
stocks, bonds, and other investments is one way to examine changes in parents' ability to save
for their children's educational costs. Interestingly, in the high-tuition 1980s, the pretax return
on stocks and bonds increased faster than the growth in tuitions and other charges, suggesting
that many parents could have kept pace with college costs if they had invested in stocks and
bonds" (6). The audience of this statement suggested that affordability was not being defined for
the industrial classes, but rather those who have the financial wherewithal to maintain and
manage fiscal assets representative of fiscal prosperity.









year. As a result, a reduced model, a full model inclusive of product terms, and fixed effect

models were constructed for analysis.

The influence of outliers on predicted values (Cook's distance) and the intercept and

slope (DFBETAS) were calculated as part of the analysis. It was determined that California in

1980, 1990, and 2000 served as an outlier influencing the predicted value with a Cook's Distance

value greater than 1. California in 1980, 1990, and 2000 were removed after a review of Cook's

distance values of 3.42120, 5.35827, and 6.39814 respectively. Scores greater than 1 were

perceived as being influential. As such, the data points were removed from analysis reducing the

sample size to 218.

Reduced model. The multiple regression analysis of the reduced model, not inclusive of

product term variables, accounted for a 15.9% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-1). A 95%

confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .399) extends from .281 to

.505, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data and not merely that it was not

equal to zero. The resulting standard regression equation (Table 4-2) was,

CCENR = 11,373.667 + 6,160.406(TDR) + 1.895(MFI) 1,442.072(EA)
+ 12,274.185(YR70) + 45,704.127(YR80) + 74,992.184(YR90) +
77,671.040(YROO) (4-1)

The intercept was not interpretable as zero was not a valid enrollment option in the study. The

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the reduced model was statistically significant, F

(7, 210) = 5.666, p < 0.01 (Table 4-3).

Full model. The multiple regression analysis of the full model, inclusive of all variables

and product terms, accounted for 24.6% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-1). A 95%

confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .496) extends from .389 to









LIST OF REFERENCES

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2002, June. Empty Promises: The Myth of
College Access in America. Washington, DC: Author.

Allison, P. D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

American Association of Community Colleges. Community College GI i till by Decade.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/Historicall
nformation/CCGrowth/CCGrowth.htm

Anderson, G. L. 1976. Land-Grant Universities and Their Continuing Challenge. East Lansing,
MI: Michigan State University Press.

Arney, L. H. 1970. State Patterns of Financial Support for Community Colleges. Gainesville,
FL: Institute of Higher Education.

Ashburn, E. 2007. Massachusetts governor calls for tuition-free community colleges. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, June 4. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from
http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/06/2007060403n.htm

Berdahl, R. O. 1971. Statewide Coordination ofHigher Education. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.

Bokelman, W. R. 1961. Higher Education Planning and Management Data, 1960-61: Salaries,
Tuition andFees, Room andBoard. Washington, DC: United States Office of Education.

Bowen, H. R. 1980. The Costs of Higher Education: How Much Do Colleges and Universities
Spend Per Student and How Much .\shln/l They Spend? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowen, H. R. 1974. Financing Higher Education: The Current State of the Debate.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Brint, S., and J. Karabel. 1989. The DivertedDream: Community Colleges and the Promise of
Educational Opportunity iln America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brown v. Board ofEducation, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Brubacher, J. S., and W. Rudy. 1997. Higher Education in Transition. A History ofAmerican
Colleges and Universities, 4th ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Burkel, C. E. 1956. The College Blue Book, 8th ed. Baltimore, MD: Christian E. Burkel.

Burkel, C. E. 1960. The College Blue Book, 9th ed. Baltimore, MD: Christian E. Burkel.

Cain, R.A. 1982. Equal Educational Opportunity and the Community College. The Journal of
Negro Education, 51(1): 16-28.










20,000.00

10,000.00

0.00

-10,000.00

-20,000.00

-30,000.00

-40,000.00

-50,000.00


- 1 3 ,6 9 6 .^-------------


294. 2

-8,742.0%,%


-19,699 69 A
-2 \ 441 .n

-3375
V- -36,095.71

-43,459.51


1960 1970 1980 1990 20
Year

-- Community College -A- Undergraduate Institution
Figure 5-1. Forty-year trend of TDR on enrollment


100









but not favored as they were perceived as placing too much power in either the state or

institution with additional concerns about equitable distribution states with larger enrollments.

The last two options, grants to individuals and categorical grants based upon federally identified

needs, gained acceptance. It was believed grants to students would contribute to fiscal stability

of institutions through diversified revenue streams, allow students to enact the market

mechanism in postsecondary education, and remain neutral with respect to the issue of support

for public and private institutions. Categorical aid, was believed to contribute to a diverse

revenue stream for institutions while meeting the various education and workforce needs of the

nation.

Tuition and Fees and Enrollment

The fundamental purpose of the community college was to provide educational

opportunity. To meet this purpose three conditions were deemed as requisite. First, the colleges

must be open-access Second, they must offer a diverse range of curricular offerings. Finally,

attendance must be fiscally easy (Medsker and Tillery 1971).

Reasons provided for the differences in tuition were twofold. First, community college

leaders wanted to maintain the concept of open-access, of which they believed affordability to be

a primary component. Second, state leaders were trying to control enrollments in the more

costly state colleges and universities (Education Commission of the States 1972). Both

rationales continue to inform the national dialogue on tuition and fee policy in 2007.

In 2007, the governor of Massachusetts announced a plan that would make community

college tuition free within ten years (Ashburn 2007). Kenneth Corn, a Senator from Oklahoma,

submitted a bill to make all community colleges in Oklahoma free to all high school graduates

(Hoberock 2007). Ruppert (2001) observed that 71% of state policymakers believed the









college (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). For example, Michigan had already established the

University of Michigan in 1817 when Michigan State University was chartered as a land-grant

institution in 1863 (Anderson 1976). Dunham (1969) asserted non-land-grant public colleges

and universities often started out as another type of institution such as a teachers college, a junior

college or a religious college. Throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century

postsecondary education institutions were created with little to no federal or state guidance.

Era of Organization

The years after World War II were critical to the development of postsecondary

education in the United States. Again federal action spurred the growth of opportunity for

postsecondary education and the states had to respond.

Soldiers returning from the Second Word War were provided federal tuition vouchers,

via the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1947 (PL 346- 268, GI Bill), which were valid at any

institution, public or private, in-state or out. As such, enrollments at public postsecondary

education institutions significantly expanded along with the belief everyone could go to college

(Cohen 1998). As compared to only 2.8% of 18 to 24 year-olds attending postsecondary

education in 1910, by 1950 this percentage increased to 15 (Figure 1-1).

In 1950, the number of public institutions had expanded to include 66 land-grant

colleges, 259 other undergraduate institutions and 330 community colleges (Figure 1-2). These

institutions of various size and shape were in operation with their focus on liberal education,

teacher training and vocational education. With the encouragement of the federal government,

states began at this time to create state master plans to organize postsecondary education

institutions and create efficiencies in their operation (The Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching 1976; Dressel 1980; Hearn and Griswold 1994).









Table.4-1. Model summary for Model 1
Std. error Change Statistics
Adjusted R of the R square Sig. F
Model R R square square estimate change F change dfl df2 change
1 .399 .159 .131 71531.984 .159 5.666 7 210 .000(a)
2 .496 .246 .174 69738.627 .087 1.912 12 198 .035(b)
a Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90; b Predictors: (Constant),
YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YROOXTDR,
YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YROOXMFI, YR80XEA,
YR90XEA, YROOXEA; c Dependent Variable: CCENR









calculated the increase would have been threefold. It was clear there was a national shift towards

increased participation in postsecondary education.

Improved high school graduation rates were not uniform in regions across the nation. For

example, while the percentage of college participants in the south mirrored other regions, lower

than average high school graduation retarded participation (Kim and Rury 2007). Disparities in

postsecondary education participation by underrepresented groups were another reason for the

plateau in college enrollment rates. In 2000, Texas acknowledged that its population

characteristics were becoming increasing diverse, and that significant efforts had to be made to

encourage enrollment and decrease barriers to postsecondary education in the state. The result

was a plan entitled Closing the Gaps by 2015 (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

2000). Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996) found that as a state's educational attainment, as

measured by the percent of a state's population with at least a high school education, increased

the difference in tuition and fees between institution types decreased.

Income and the Ability to Pay

Postsecondary education participation and the ability to pay was documented consistently

throughout the evolution of the postsecondary enterprise.10 Parental income had been associated

with in the educational attainment of an individual. Specifically, increased income resulted in




10 In colonial colleges, family position in society influenced a student's position for
recitations and academic processions (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). The practice of ranking
individuals by socio-economic status was common practice until the 1767 at Yale and 1770 at
Harvard (Roche 1986). However, "it was not until well into the eighteenth century that colleges
assumed an elitist, patrician cast as rising costs began to restrict attendance at college to the well-
to-do" (Lucas, 1994, p.108). "Fees, room and board ranged from ten to fifty pounds, at a time
when a journeyman mechanic earned fifty pounds per year and a prosperous attorney from two
hundred to three hundred pounds. Obviously, college was not for the sons of the poor" (Cohen
1998, 46).









attending a four-year college, and 22 percent from attending any college at all, within two years

of graduation [from high school]" nationally (v).

Two states addressing concerns over access and participation in postsecondary education

were Kentucky and Texas. An 83% increase in tuition at undergraduate institutions in Kentucky

during a 6-year period from 2001-2002 to 2006-2007 heightened apprehension over the

affordability of postsecondary education's impact on educational participation in the state

(Division of Performance Audit 2006). Texas' unease over postsecondary education

participation was addressed in their educational plan entitled Closing the Gaps by 2015. The

impetus behind this plan was the state's acknowledgement that the proportion of state residents

enrolling in postsecondary education was declining. A goal of the plan was to increase the

percentage of residents participating in postsecondary education from 5% in 2000 to 5.7% in

2015 (The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2000). Admittedly, a part in meeting

this goal was to set tuition and fee prices at levels that closed the gaps.

Purpose of the Study

It was observed that the difference in tuition and fees between public institution types

changed between the years 1950 and 2000 by a factor of three while participation in

postsecondary education had plateaued. The purpose of this study was to test student price

response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public

postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a

state's resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.

Research Question

In order to address this issue, the following research question was developed. How was

enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state

resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000?









qualified individuals (The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance 2002; The

Commission on Financing Higher Education 1952; Mumper and Anderson 1990).

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework guiding this study was developed in response to the literature

that noted the influence of tuition in the enrollment of individual in postsecondary education.

Where earlier studies examined the influence of price on enrollment or the decision to apply, this

study contributed to the dialogue by examining the association of a state's public postsecondary

education pricing structure on enrollment.

A state's public postsecondary education pricing structure was operationalized by a ratio

depicting the difference in state-averaged, tuition and fees at a public undergraduate institution

divided by tuition and fees at a community college, as depicted in Figure 2-1. A small ratio

would be the result of tuition and fee prices close to each other, as expressed by the relationship

between points (a) and (b). A larger ratio would result when the difference in tuition and fees

was greater as expressed in points (c) and (d). Theoretically, if the difference were zero, the

price would determine enrollment (as examined previously in the student rice response

literature). As such, one would suspect that if the difference ratio were zero, and the price was

high, enrollment would be negatively associated. Conversely, if the difference ratio were zero

and the tuition and fee were low, enrollment would be positively associated. This study does not

take actual tuition and fee "sticker-price" into consideration (College Board 2006), rather it

examined the difference in price. It therefore, may be conceptualized, that as the difference ratio

increases a lower cost option is created in the postsecondary education structure. This lower-

priced option, as compared to the higher-priced option, could serve as an entry-point that would

be more affordable and decrease the influence of tuition and fee as a deterrent in postsecondary

education enrollment.









Table 4-6. Model summary for Model 2

Change statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of R square Sig. F
Model R R square square the Estimate change F change dfl df2 change
1 .393(a) .155 .126 60493.800 .155 5.489 7 210 .000
2 .492(b) .242 .169 58985.437 .088 1.906 12 198 .035
a Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI_2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90; Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR,
YR70, MFI 2000, YR80, Educational attainment, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YROOXTDR, YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI,
YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YROOXMFI, YR80XEA, YR90XEA, YROOXEA; c Dependent Variable: UI_ENR









Heller (1997) expanded upon Leslie and Brinkman's study to examine the relationship

between tuition and financial aid on enrollment. His review of price-response literature was

summarized in one sentence: "[a]s the price of college goes up, the probability of enrollment

tends to go down" (649). Four key observations included (a) aid decreases were associated with

decreased enrollment, with grants having the strongest influence, (b) low-income students were

the most sensitive to pricing differences, (c) black students were the most sensitive, Hispanic

students were mixed and white students were least sensitive, and (d) community colleges

students were more sensitive to prices than students at four-year public institutions. A survey of

college students conducted by researchers at the Higher Education Research Institute found

financial barriers impacted students' decisions as to which postsecondary institutions they

attended (Pryor, Hurtado, et al. 2006).

The importance of price in student decision-making was not limited to public institutions.

Twenty-three elite private institutions5 created in 1958 "the Ivy Overlap Group ... an agreement

among the participants to refrain from offering financial aid to student applicants bases other

than financial need, to use standard guidelines in determining aid to needy students, and to adjust

offers" in order to frame an potential students choice on non-financial reasons (Matlock 1994,

523).

There were warnings as to the potential for increased tuition as a funding source could

result in socio-economic stratification in postsecondary education (Chambers 1968). The

5 The institutions included Brown University, Columbia University, Amherst College,
Barnard College, Comell University, Bowdoin College, Dartmouth College, Bryn Mawr
College, Harvard University, Colby College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Middlebury
College, Princeton University, Mount Holyoke College, University of Pennsylvania, Smith
College, Yale University, Trinity College, Tufts University, Vassar College, Wellesley College,
Wesleyan University and Williams College.















C :.:'I -


I
E


0
0 0

0


(b JR 0 0


O
0


0 0


Figure 4-2. Studentized residual versus TDR


1 I f I I









California State Department of Education. 1960. A Master Plan for Higher Education in
California, 1960-1975. Sacramento, CA: Author.

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, 19-22. San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education.

Campbell, R., and B. N.Siegel. 1967, June. The Demand for Higher Education in the United
States, 1919-1964. The American Economic Review, 57 (3): 482-494.

Campbell, W. V., English, R. J., and G. Lampros. 1952. Current Operating Expenditures and
Income of Higher Education in the United States 1930, 1950, and 1950: A Staff Technical
Paper for the Commission on Financing Higher Education. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Carbone, R. F. 1974. Alternative Tuition Systems. ACT Special Report No. 12. Iowa City, IA:
American College Testing Program.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1970a, March. A Chance to Learn: An Action
Agenda for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1973, June. Higher Education: Who Pays? Who
benefits? Who shouldpay? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1970b, June. The Open-door Colleges. New York:
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.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1976. The States andHigher
Education: A Proud Past and a Vital Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Chambers, M. M. 1968. Higher Education: Who Pays? Who Gains? Financing Education
Beyond the High School. Danville, IN: Interstate Printers and Publishers.

Christal, M. E. 1997, March. State Tuition andFee Policies: 1996-97. Denver, CO: State Higher
Education Executive Officers.

Cohen, A. M. 1998. The ./hqig of American Higher Education: Emergence and Gi ,A ith of the
Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Cohen, A. M., and F. B. Brawer. 1996. The American Community College, 3rd ed. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.










Table 4-7. Coefficients for Model 2
Standardized
Unstandardized coefficients coefficients 95% Confidence interval for B Collinearity statistics
Model
B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF


1 (Constant)
TDR
MFI
EA
YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
2 (Constant)
TDR
MFI
EA
YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
YR70XTDR
YR80XTDR
YR90XTDR
YROOXTDR
YR70XMFI
YR80XMFI
YR90XMFI
YROOXMFI
YR70XEA
YR80XEA
YR90XEA
YROOXEA


54650.696
-4036.997
1.275
-1754.747
38510.392
70930.372
85750.868
89662.325
31163.881
4396.764
1.928
-2061.697
-1387.195
128432.212
455913.581
506613.606
-13138.783
-24096.449
-47856.271
-29237.839
.135
3.336
-1.825
-3.253
1253.781
-2901.814
-3763.268
-3751.613


30090.742
4254.365
.583
697.975
14999.894
17821.850
20196.402
21352.663
61272.865
5742.245
2.209
2166.680
80931.636
116686.260
153787.477
202274.493
11948.982
13261.291
18108.552
15350.155
2.458
3.011
2.445
2.580
2411.131
2810.955
3015.911
3324.377


-.061
.165
-.284
.241
.445
.546
.571

.066
.250
-.334
-.009
.805
2.903
3.226
-.159
-.309
-.549
-.375
.035
.843
-.506
-.961
.336
-.938
-1.358
-1.393


1.816
-.949
2.186
-2.514
2.567
3.980
4.246
4.199
.509
.766
.873
-.952
-.017
1.101
2.965
2.505
-1.100
-1.817
-2.643
-1.905
.055
1.108
-.746
-1.261
.520
-1.032
-1.248
-1.129


.071
.344
.030
.013
.011
.000
.000
.000
.612
.445
.384
.342
.986
.272
.003
.013
.273
.071
.009
.058
.956
.269
.456
.209
.604
.303
.214
.260


-4667.929
-12423.733
.125
-3130.682
8940.729
35797.717
45937.200
47569.290
-89667.279
-6927.044
-2.429
-6334.427
-160985.796
-101675.133
152641.989
107724.770
-36702.385
-50247.947
-83566.653
-59508.613
-4.712
-2.602
-6.647
-8.340
-3501.012
-8445.066
-9710.697
-10307.343


a Dependent Variable: UIENR


113969.322
4349.738
2.424
-378.813
68080.055
106063.027
125564.537
131755.359
151995.042
15720.572
6.285
2211.034
158211.406
358539.556
759185.173
905502.441
10424.819
2055.048
-12145.889
1032.936
4.983
9.274
2.997
1.834
6008.573
2641.438
2184.162
2804.117


.986
.705
.315
.455
.323
.243
.218

.515
.047
.031
.015
.007
.004
.002
.182
.132
.089
.099
.009
.007
.008
.007
.009
.005
.003
.003


1.014
1.418
3.174
2.196
3.099
4.109
4.593

1.943
21.418
32.168
67.228
139.750
250.605
433.541
5.488
7.579
11.287
10.126
107.571
151.122
120.218
151.677
109.322
215.699
309.608
398.275









data table entitled Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century ofLearning. Historical Statistics on

Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000.

Design

The research question asked if enrollment was associated with the tuition difference ratio

between institution types or state resources between 1960 and 2000. Two multiple regression

analysis models were constructed to address this question for each of five years (1960, 1970,

1980, 1990, and 2000). Years were dummy coded, with 1960 serving as the reference year.

Model 1

A multiple regression analysis was conducted with degree-seeking fall headcount

enrollment at a public community college (CCENR) serving as the dependent variable. The

independent variables were included in the model to determine the amount of variance associated

with the dependent variable. The resulting model was the following:

CCENRi = a + B1 (TDR) + B2(MFIi) + B3(EAi) + B4(YR70i) + Bs(YR80i) +
B6(YR90i) + B7(YR00i) + Bs(YR70* TDRi) + B9(YR80* TDRi) + Bio(YR90* TDRi) +
Bll(YROO* TDRi) + B12(YR70*MFIi) + B13(YR80*MFIi) + B14(YR90*MFIi) +
Bi5(YROO*MFIi) + B16(YR70*EAi) + Bi7(YR80*EAi) + Bls(YR90*EAi) +
B19(YROO*EAi) + ei (3.2)

where,

* CCENR = the dependent variable for the community college, degree-seeking fall
enrollment in public postsecondary education,
* i = the state
* a = the intercept of the regression equation
* B1 = the regression coefficient for the slope of TDR,
* TDR = the independent variable for the tuition difference ratio between institution types,
* B2 = the regression coefficient for the slope of MFI,
* MFI = the independent variable for Median Family Income,
* B3 = the regression coefficient for the slope of EA,
* EA = the independent variable for the percent of a state's population that was had
completed high school but had not earned a bachelor's degree,
* B4-7 = the regression coefficients for the slope of YR,
* YR = the independent variable for the year of interest,
* Bs.11 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by TDR,









Longanecker, D. A. 2007, March. College Access. In Thinking Outside the Box: Policy
Strategies for Readiness, Access, and Success, ed. D. A. Longanecker et al. ,25-38.
Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Lucas, C. J. 1994. American higher education: A history. New York: St. Martin's
Griffin.Martinez, M.C. 2004. Postsecondary Participation and State Policy: Meeting the
Future Demand. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Martorana, S. V. 1974. State-Level Planningfor Community Colleges: Are the 1202
Commissions a Centripetal or Centrifugal Force in Postsecondary Education? Essays on
Education, No. 4. Iowa City, IA: ACT Publications.

Matlock, T. P. 1994. The Overlap Group: A Study of Nonprofit Competition. Journal of Law
and Education, 23(4): 523-548.

McDowell, G. R. 2001. Land-grant Universities and Extension into the 21st century.
Renegotiating of abandoning a social contract. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

McKinney, T. H. 1974, June. Section 1202 and Statewide Planning for Public Community and
Junior Colleges: The New Reality. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Center for
State and Regional Leadership.

McLendon, M. K. 2003. Setting the governmental agenda for state decentralization of higher
education. Journal of Higher Education, 74(5): 470-515.

Medsker, L. L., and D. Tillery. 1971. Breaking the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-year
Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Middaugh, M. F., Graham, R., and A. Shahid. 2003. A Study of Higher Education Instructional
Expenditures: The Delaware Study ofInstructional Costs and Productivity. [NCES-2003-
161]. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.

Moore, P. R. et al. 1974. Report of the Interinstitutional Committee on Tuition and Fee Policy.
Providence, RI: Rhode Island State Board of Education.

Morrill Act, Public Law 37-108 (1862).

Morrill, J.S. 1887, June 21. Address. In Commemorative Addresses 1862-1887, unedited
volume, 17-26. Amherst, MA: J. E. Williams, Book and Job Printer.

Mullin, C.M., and Honeyman, D. S. 2008, April. Statutory Responsibility for Fixing Tuition and
Fees: The Relationship between Community Colleges and Undergraduate Institutions.
Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 32(4-6): 284-304.

Mullin, C.M., and Honeyman, D.S. 2006, March. Community College Funding Formula
Typologies: Calculating the Base. Presentation to the American Education Finance
Association, Denver, CO.









United State Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1965. Digest of
Educational Statistics, 1965 Edition. Washington, D.C.: Author.

United States General Accounting Office. 1996, August. Higher Education: Tuition Increasing
Faster than Household Income and Public Colleges' Costs [GAO/HEHS-96-154].
Washington, DC: Author.

Vernez, G., Krop, R. A., and C.P. Rydell. 1999. Closing the Education Gap: Benefits and Costs
[MR-1036-EDU]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Wattenbarger, J. L., Shafer, S., and J. D. Zucker. 1973. Tuition and the open door. In J.
Lombardi ed., Legal Issues in the Community College. New Directions in Community
Colleges, 1(2): 57-64.

Wellman, J. V. 2001. Looking Back, Going Forward: The Carnegie Commission on Tuition
Policy. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Wetzel, J. N. 1995. The Effect of Tuition Differentials on Student Enrollment Patterns and
University Revenues. Washington, DC: Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary
Education. Wattenbarger, J.L. 1979. More Money for More Opportunity: Reappraisal.
Journal of Education Finance, 4 (4): 483-491.









* B16-19 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by EA, and
* e = the random error not accounted for in the model.

The null and alterative hypothesis were

* Ho: B1-19 0
* HA: B1-19 0

The null hypothesis stated that there was not an association between undergraduate institution

enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state resources.

Data Treatment

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program calculated the data.

Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the nature of the variables utilized in the study.

Statistical selection procedures such as stepwise, forward, backward or all possible subsets were

not utilized in the analysis. Data were entered into the models based upon the theoretical basis.

Independent variables were entered as a block, and then interaction terms were entered as

another block. Change statistics were reported to determine the presence of interaction effects.

In all models, assumptions of linearity, normality, independence and equal conditional

variances were checked utilizing scatter and residual plots (Shavelson 1996). Collinearity was

checked through the application of tolerance and variance inflation factors methods. Cook's

Distance was checked for the influence of data points on the analysis. The decision to reject or

fail to reject the null hypothesis was based upon a type I error rate of .05. The analysis was

interested in significance, either positive or negative, so non-directional hypotheses were used.

Limitations

The use of 1959 and 1969 tuition and fee data in the place of 1960 and 1970 tuition and

fee data were necessary as multiple attempts to collect data from the United States Department of

Education, contracted archival entities, and a federal repository were unsuccessful. This reality










Table 4-2. Coefficients for Model 1
Standardized
Unstandardized coefficients coefficients 95% Confidence interval for B Collinearity statistics
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig. Lower bound Upper bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -11373.667 35581.340 -.320 .750 -81516.045 58768.711


TDR
MFI
EA
YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
2 (Constant)
TDR
MFI
EA
YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
YR70XTDR
YR80XTDR
YR90XTDR
YROOXTDR
YR70XMFI
YR80XMFI
YR90XMFI
YROOXMFI
YR70XEA
YR80XEA
YR90XEA
YROOXEA


6160.406
1.895
-1442.072
12274.185
45704.127
74992.184
77671.040
-28851.061
13696.399
1.165
-613.373
-26174.942
37981.113
418372.794
897166.623
-8697.004
-13402.257
-47072.093
-49792.108
.322
3.219
.236
-2.387
958.815
-2065.569
-5038.087
-10819.320


5030.651
.689
825.333
17736.895
21073.768
23881.600
25248.842
72443.060
6789.071
2.612
2561.671
95685.673
137958.454
181823.314
239149.633
14127.311
15678.857
21409.786
18148.526
2.906
3.560
2.891
3.050
2850.686
3323.399
3565.719
3930.419


.078
.207
-.197
.065
.242
.403
.417

.174
.127
-.084
-.138
.201
2.248
4.820
-.089
-.145
-.456
-.539
.071
.686
.055
-.595
.217
-.563
-1.534
-3.390


1.225
2.750
-1.747
.692
2.169
3.140
3.076
-.398
2.017
.446
-.239
-.274
.275
2.301
3.751
-.616
-.855
-2.199
-2.744
.111
.904
.081
-.783
.336
-.622
-1.413
-2.753


a Dependent variable: CCENR


.222
.006
.082
.490
.031
.002
.002
.691
.045
.656
.811
.785
.783
.022
.000
.539
.394
.029
.007
.912
.367
.935
.435
.737
.535
.159
.006


-3756.641
.537
-3069.071
-22690.997
4160.886
27913.795
27897.372
-171710.041
308.233
-3.986
-5665.033
-214868.763
-234075.369
59814.041
425559.367
-36556.310
-44321.238
-89292.566
-85581.320
-5.409
-3.801
-5.465
-8.401
-4662.788
-8619.370
-12069.747
-18570.176


16077.453
3.254
184.926
47239.366
87247.368
122070.574
127444.707
114007.919
27084.565
6.317
4438.287
162518.878
310037.595
776931.546
1368773.879
19162.301
17516.723
-4851.621
-14002.897
6.053
10.239
5.936
3.627
6580.418
4488.232
1993.574
-3068.464


.986
.705
.315
.455
.323
.243
.218

.515
.047
.031
.015
.007
.004
.002
.182
.132
.089
.099
.009
.007
.008
.007
.009
.005
.003
.003


1.014
1.418
3.174
2.196
3.099
4.109
4.593

1.943
21.418
32.168
67.228
139.750
250.605
433.541
5.488
7.579
11.287
10.126
107.571
151.122
120.218
151.677
109.322
215.699
309.608
398.275









Table 4-3. ANOVA for Model 1

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 202950708476.311 7 28992958353.759 5.666 .000(a)
Residual 1074533196251.469 210 5116824744.055
Total 1277483904727.780 217
2 Regression 314515626586.006 19 16553454030.842 3.404 .000(b)
Residual 962968278141.774 198 4863476152.231
Total 1277483904727.780 217
a Predictors: (Constant), YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90; b Predictors: (Constant),
YROO, TDR, YR70, MFI, YR80, EA, YR90, YR70XTDR, YR80XTDR, YROOXTDR,
YR90XTDR, YR70XMFI, YR70XEA, YR90XMFI, YR80XMFI, YROOXMFI, YR80XEA,
YR90XEA, YROOXEA; c Dependent Variable: CCENR


Table 4-4. Descriptive statistics for Model 1
Mean Std. deviation N
CC ENR 50121.1000 76726.9350 218
TDR 1.7466 .9720 218
MFI 40612.5321 8387.3626 218
EA 49.3193 10.4817 218
YR70 .2064 .4057 218
YR80 .2064 .4057 218
YR90 .2156 .4122 218
YROO .2156 .4122 218
YR70XTDR .3488 .7851 218
YR80XTDR .3839 .8313 218
YR90XTDR .3664 .7429 218
YROOXTDR .4016 .8301 218
YR70XMFI 8354.5642 16895.4960 218
YR80XMFI 8244.8532 16347.6940 218
YR90XMFI 9176.0138 17955.9504 218
YROOXMFI 9844.1284 19117.8521 218
YR70XEA 8.5913 17.3640 218
YR80XEA 10.5656 20.9211 218
YR90XEA 12.1734 23.3616 218
YROOXEA 12.5376 24.0379 218









Stampen, J. 1980. The Financing of Public Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American
Association for Higher Education and ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

State of California. 2004, January. Governor's Budget Summary, 2004-2005. Sacramento, CA:
Author.

Taubman, P. 1989, May. Role of Parental Income in Educational Attainment. The American
Economic Review, 79(2): 57-61.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2000. Closing the Gaps: The Texas Higher
Education Plan. Austin, TX: Author.

Thelin, J. R. 2007. Higher Education's Student Financial Aid Enterprise in Historical
Perspective. In Footing the Bill: The New Student Loan Sector, ed. F. M. Hess, 19-41.
Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute Press.

Tillery, D. and J. L. Wattenbarger. 1985. State Power in a New Era: Threats to Local Authority.
New Directionsfor Community Colleges, 13(1): 5-23.

Tillery, D. 1973. Distribution and Differentiation of Youth: A Study of Transition from School to
College. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

Title IX of the Educational Amendments, Public Law 92-318 (1972).

United States Census Bureau. Census 2000 PHC-T-41. A Half-Century ofLearning: Historical
Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000. Washington, DC:
United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/education/phct41 .html

United States Census Bureau. No. HS-35. Personal Income and Personal Income Per Capita by
State: 1929 to 2001. Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce. Retrieved
January 13, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/HS-35.pdf

United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1975. Higher Education: Basic
Student Charges 1972-1973 and 1973-1974. Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Inflation calculator.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 3, 2008, from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Digest of
Educational Statistics, 2002 Edition. Washington, D.C.: Author.

United State Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 1972. Digest of
Educational Statistics, 1971 Edition. Washington, D.C.: Author.









State's developed public postsecondary education structures to address the increased

participation in postsecondary education. The nature of these structures varied by state and

arrangement in an effort to optimize efficiency and participation. Specific, state resources were

included to determine their association with enrollment. State public postsecondary education

structures were operationalized in the form of median family income and percent of a state's 25+

population with a high school diploma or higher but not a bachelor's degree or higher.

The variable of interest to this study was enrollment in public postsecondary education.

This construct was operationalized by a variable reflective of fall headcount enrollment for

degree-seeking individuals in undergraduate academic programs.

In summary, there had been an increasing number of individuals partaking in

postsecondary education in the second half of the twentieth century. Participation in education

had been observed to increase, determinations of tuition and fee prices have been found to

impact individual pursuit of postsecondary education and the type of institution attended, and the

concerns of a generation ago have been realized, as income had served to stratify institutional

enrollment. It is therefore proposed that an association existed between the constructs of state

resources and postsecondary education pricing structures with enrollment in public

postsecondary education (Figure 2-2). The purpose of this study was to test student price

response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public

postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a

state's resource, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.









* Elasticity: How one unit change in supply resulted in a change in price.

* Inflation: The result of excesses in demand as compared to supply resulting in increased
prices.

* Postsecondary education structures: The composition of a state higher education
system.

* Pricing: Tuition and fees as outlined below.

* Tuition and fees: The costs reported by the institutions on surveys from either the
National Center for Educational Statistics or the editors of the Blue Book. This
discussion focused on costs associated with tuition and fees, not on the other costs
associated with education such as forgone earnings and the cost of living described in the
literature. The literature also referred to tuition and fees as it was defined for the
purposes of this study as the "sticker price."

* Undergraduate institution: A public postsecondary education institution that offered at
least a bachelor's degree.









agreements between entities responsible for fixing tuition and fees was the avenue most

appropriate for addressing the association of an increase in the TDR and enrollment.

Perhaps the positioning of community colleges as lower-cost options, relative to

undergraduate institutions, contributed to the negative trends in enrollment. State level

policymakers undertaking planning should therefore philosophically situate the community

college as a separate entity rather than a junior college. There was limited evidence for this

position in California.

California was unique in that it has held tuition and fee prices very low at community

colleges, resulting in relatively large tuition and fee difference ratios. Initial analysis indicated

that there was a positive association with enrollment in California. However, in 1980, 1990 and

2000 the state was removed from the analysis as they were an outlier statistically determined to

influence the data. It may be that states starting to reexamine their tuition and fee policies should

clarify if they intend to pursue a low tuition and fee rate or a no tuition and fee rate. There was,

at the time of this manuscript, an action by policymakers to implement California's virtually-no

tuition model in the states of Indiana (Indiana Commission for Higher Education), Massachusetts

(Ashburn 2007), and Oklahoma (Hoberock 2007).


































00
00


%<90 4p 0 00 0
0 O 0 O o
o o
0 0


I I
30.00 40.00

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT


Figure 4-9. Studentized residual versus EA.


*1V.: -


1.ODcDo -




o.ODDOOr -


I I
0.00 10.00


70.00
70.00


. ..........









(Wattenbarger 1979; Bowen 1980; Stampen 1980). In addition to the burdens faced by the

individual in the devotion of time and effort to pursuing further education, the argument for a

low tuition policy was set in the belief that an educated citizenry benefits the entire society in

their decreased dependence on healthcare and welfare, increased tolerance for others, and fiscal

returns in the form of higher taxes to be paid over a lifetime (Chambers 1968; Cohen and Brawer

1996). A last consideration in the low tuition policy argument was that low-income families had

to pay a larger percentage of their family income to attend postsecondary education institution,

so low prices should be maintained whenever possible (Cohen and Brawer 1996).

The low tuition philosophy was championed in the community college, which saw their

student body as the community, not a select few (Gleazer 1980; Wattenbarger, Shafer and

Zucker 1973). The perspective of access via the open-door philosophy mirrored the philosophy

of public school education in that if an individual wished to learn, the opportunity would be

afforded to them (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1970; Wattenbarger 1979).

Ultimately, access via low-to-no tuition went unrealized as a "discernable trend" toward

increased tuition was observed between the years 1966 and 1971 and continued through the

remainder of the twentieth century (Wattenbarger, Schafer and Zucker 1973). Even California, a

bastion in the low tuition cause for community colleges, raised its tuition from $18 per unit to

$26 unit in 2004-05, in order to maximize student eligibility for federal Pell Grants (The State of

California 2004). However, the interest in free tuition at public community colleges had

continued despite the presence of tuition in every state.

High-tuition/high-aid. The implementation of a high-tuition/high-aid policy

fundamentally operated from the application of "free market" principles to postsecondary

education (Harris 1960; Kerr 1968; Hauptman 1990). The thrust of this perspective framed


























00
0
I ".:: :." 0







00




,0 0
o o



0;




o




00 0




O0 10DCOD 20&DOD J0OO0O 400000 S0000
-2.00000


0 10=0 =0 3 4I==I= SOOOI

CC FALL ENROLLMENT


Figure 4-1. Studentized residual versus CCENR













Table 4-10 Pearson correlations for Model 2
UI yr70x yr80x yr90x yr00x yr70x yr80x yr90x yr00x yr70x yr80x yr90x
ENR TDR MFI EA yr70 yr80 yr90 yrOO TDR TDR TDR TDR MFI MFI MFI MFI EA EA EA


TDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
MFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
EA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr70 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr80 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr90 Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yrOO Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr70xTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr80xTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr90xTDR Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yrOOxTDR Pearson Correlation
00 Sig. (2-tailed)
S yr70xMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr8OxMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr90xMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yrOOxMFI Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr70xEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr8OxEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yr90xEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
yrOOxEA Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)


.255 .023 1
.000 .730
.190 .040 .477 1
.005 .553 .000
-.066 -.030 -.008 -.375 1
.333 .662 .901 .000
.047 .060 -.041 .091 -.260 1
.491 .382 .548 .181 .000
.126 -.026 .122 .358 -.267 -.267 1
.064 .707 .072 .000 .000 .000
.160 .063 .316 .443 -.267 -.267 -.275 1
.018 .355 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
-.080 .166 .003 -.326 .873 -.227 -.233 -.233 1
.239 .014 .964 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001
.019 .205 -.036 .057 -.236 .908 -.243 -.243 -.206 1
.776 .002 .597 .404 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002
.083 .061 .111 .316 -.252 -.252 .943 -.259 -.220 -.229 1
.220 .372 .101 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001
.127 .181 .257 .390 -.247 -.247 -.254 .925 -.216 -.224 -.240 1
.062 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .000
-.039 -.025 .104 -.332 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .854 -.229 -.245 -.240 1
.568 .716 .126 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000
.059 .059 -.006 .104 -.258 .991 -.265 -.265 -.225 .900 -.250 -.245 -.251 1
.387 .382 .928 .127 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000
.126 -.026 .217 .348 -.261 -.261 .977 -.269 -.228 -.237 .919 -.248 -.254 -.259 1
.062 .699 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.159 .049 .382 .427 -.263 -.263 -.271 .984 -.230 -.239 -.255 .895 -.256 -.261 -.264 1
.019 .475 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
-.065 -.028 .032 -.275 .972 -.253 -.260 -.260 .850 -.230 -.245 -.241 .965 -.251 -.254 -.256 1
.337 .681 .644 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.035 .048 -.027 .120 -.258 .992 -.265 -.265 -.225 .888 -.250 -.245 -.251 .990 -.259 -.261 -.251 1
.610 .480 .687 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.114 -.033 .120 .374 -.266 -.266 .996 -.274 -.233 -.242 .930 -.253 -.259 -.264 .973 -.270 -.259 -.264 1
.093 .629 .077 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
.152 .055 .307 .455 -.267 -.267 -.274 .997 -.233 -.242 -.258 .914 -.259 -.264 -.268 .978 -.259 -.265 -.273
.025 .416 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000


** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Literature reviewed for this study was composed of documents originating from public

and private entities, policy commissions, government agencies, and scholars in the fields of

postsecondary education finance, education, policy, sociology, law, economics and history. The

literature reviewed was primarily in the form of reports, books and other policy documents with

a lesser amount in the form of studies guided by specific research questions.

Access and State Structures

The Morrill Act of 1862 expanded a state's ability to provide postsecondary education

opportunity to their citizens. To meet the growing interest in postsecondary education, the

number and type of public institutions grew without guidance throughout the nation. An attempt

to coordinate these institutions within a framework to increase systemic efficiencies came with

the implementation master plans.

The Morrill Act of 1862 (PL 37-108) served as the catalyst for the expansion of public

postsecondary education, as the federal government provided support for states to open and

maintain their own postsecondary education institutions (Anderson 1976; McDowell 2001). The

fourth section of the Morrill Act outlined purpose of these new institutions, specifically "each

State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and

maintenance of at least one college ... in order to promote the liberal and practical education of

the industrial classes in the several professions and pursuits of life" (7 U.S.C.301, emphasis

added). Expressly, intent of public institutions of postsecondary education was to provide

educational opportunity for those who were destined for it or who had the courage to attend

(Morrill 1887).









Mumper, M., and J. Anderson. 1993, Fall. Maintaining Public College Affordability in the
1980s" How Did the States Do? Journal of Education Finance, 19(2): 183-199.

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. 2008. The Land-Grant
Tradition. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from
http://www.nasulgc.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=780

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. 2007. The Squeeze Play: How Parents
and the Public Look at Higher Education Today. San Jose, CA: Author. Retrieved
February 28, 2008, from http://www.makingopportunityaffordable.org

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. 2006. Measuring Up 2006: The
National Report Card on Higher Education. San Jose, CA: Author.

National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education. 1973. Financing
Postsecondary Education in the United States. Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office.

National Defense Education Act, Public Law 85-864 (1958).

Orfield, G., and F.G. Paul. 1992. State Higher Education Systems and College Completion. New
York: Ford Foundation.

Office of Management and Budget. 1977. Statistical Directive 15: Race and Ethnic Standards
for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. Washington, DC.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2007, September. Education at a
glance 2007: OECD briefing note for the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved February 28, 2008 from http://www.oecd.org

Palmer, J. 1996. Funding the multipurpose community college in an era of consolidation. In A
Strau..le to Survive: Funding Higher Education in the Next Century, ed. D. S. Honeyman,
J. L. Wattenbarger and K. C. Westbrook, 187-208. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Paulsen, M. B. 1998. Recent Research on the Economics of Attending College: Returns on
Investment and Responsiveness to Price. Research in Higher Education, 39(4): 471-489.

Presidential Commission on Higher Education. 1947. Higher Education for American
Democracy, Vol. 1-6. New York: Harper and Brothers.

President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School. 1957, July. Second Report to the
President. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Korn, J. S., Santos J. L., and W. S. Korn. 2006. The
American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2006. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA.









inappropriate as it aggregated tuition and fee data on public institutions by regions and individual

state data were not reported. As such, the Blue Book (Burkel 1960), a survey of institutions of

postsecondary education similar in methodology to those utilized by the National Center for

Education Statistics, was used as a data source.

Tuition and fee data for 1970 were also dependent upon the use of the Blue Book (Russell

1970) as a data source for the acquisition of tuition data, as there was a lack of tuition and fee

data from the National Center for Education Statistics for the years 1966-1972. Specifically, it

was noted that

In the first three HEGIS surveys (fall 1966, 1967, and 1968) the data on basic student
charges were obtained from a survey for which also sought projections of various data
into the future. Difficulties with these surveys prevented the publication of data on basic
student charges except for the small amount of summary data published for the 1966-
1967 and 1968-1969 academic years. The reduced HEGIS survey for 1969 did not
contain a request for data on student charges. The survey of basic student charges was
reinstituted in the fifth HEGIS survey (fall 1970) as part of the survey of financial
statistics and continued in this manner in the sixth survey (fall 1971). However, the
resulting data were unsatisfactory since finance data are for the previous year and basic
student charges data are the current year. In the seventh HEGIS survey (fall 1972) the
survey form on basic student charges was attached, appropriately, to the survey form on
institutional characteristics (United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
1975, iii).

Attempts to collect the raw tuition and fee data collected in these reports from the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Research Triangle Institute, the Inter-university

Consortium on Political and Social Research1 (ICPSR), and a federal document repository were

unsuccessful.

When an institution reported only enrollment from the United States Office of Education

report or tuition and fees from the Blue Book, they were removed from the population. Listwise


1 ICPSR, located at the University of Michigan, was awarded a contract to archive data
utilized in the Higher Education General Information Surveys (HEGIS) employed by the
National Center for Education Statistics from 1966 to 1986.









Table 3-2. Conditional mean imputation for median family income, selected states in 1970
State TDR EA Conditional mean imputation for MFI
Delaware 0 41.5 $4,681
Idaho 1.17 49.5 $5,541
Montana 2.15 48.2 $5,360
North Dakota 1.03 41.9 $4,689
Vermont 0 45.6 $5,143
Wyoming 1.58 51.1 $5,707
Estimation equation: MFI = -35.319(TDR) + 112.784(EA)









By 1965, the equalization of tuition and fees between public postsecondary education

institution types ended, as community college tuition was half of that charged at undergraduate

institutions, with prices of $109 and $284 respectively. The twice-as-much difference continued

until the early 1990s. By 2000, the difference increased to a factor of three with the national

average price of $1333 at public community colleges and $3501 at undergraduate institutions

(Figure 1-5).

Enrollment and Increasing Tuition and Fees

The decrease in federal assistance to the student, however, did not signal the end of

increased participation by individuals and the federal government, in postsecondary education. In

the years following the introduction of the GI Bill (1950-1959), the percent of the population

enrolled in degree-granting institutions increased from 15% to 18.3% (United States Department

of Education 1972). The 3.3% increase was noticeably less than both the proceeding and

proceeding decades, with the percent of the population increasing from 8.4% in 1940 to 15% in

1950 (a 6.6% increase) and an increase from 18.3% in 1960 to 25.7% in 1970 (a 7.4% increase)

as illustrated in Figure 2-1. The rapid increase in postsecondary education participation held

level during the 1970s, only to increase rapidly again between 1980 and 2000.

The decades following 1960 marked a significant period of growth for the public

postsecondary education enterprise.6 Participation was increasing as new institutions were built


6 The rapid expansion of community colleges, however, did not come without criticism.
Critical theorists have pointed towards community colleges specifically as vehicles for social
stratification. Hansen and Weisbrod (1969) argued the low tuition policies common within
community colleges served to limit intergenerational social mobility and provided the benefits of
higher education only to those who could afford the higher priced state institutions. Their work
sounded the initial warnings of stratification of educational opportunity along fiscal lines. Brint
and Karabel (1989) espoused that community colleges, void of a transfer function, would have
remained extensions of elementary and secondary education. Instead, community colleges
provided the opportunity to transfer to higher education institutions via preparation in the liberal
arts. Furthermore, they claimed early leaders in the community college movement, specifically




























O




So o




1o1 o o o
0 0 0 0





2. 3.0 0 0 5.0


00 000
o oo




0.00 10.00 20.00 30.0D 40.00 S0.00 60.00 70.00

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT


Figure 4-4. Studentized residual versus EA









Model 2

A multiple regression analysis was performed with the dependent variable as

undergraduate enrollment (UI_ENR) and the independent variables (TDR, MFI, EA, YEAR,

YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA). Product terms for the three continuous variables (TDR, MFI,

and EA) were computed for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 with 1960 serving as the

reference year. As a result, a reduced model, a full model inclusive of product terms, and fixed

effect models were constructed for analysis.

The influence of outliers on predicted values (Cook's distance) and the intercept and

slope (DFBETAS) were calculated as part of the analysis. It was determined that California in

1980, 1990, and 2000 served as an outlier influencing the predicted value with a Cook's Distance

value greater than 1. California in 1980, 1990, and 2000 were removed after a review of Cook's

distance values of 15.93089, 4.44889, and 1.35235 respectively. Scores greater than 1 were

perceived as being influential. As such, the data points were removed from analysis reducing the

sample size to 218.

Reduced model. The multiple regression analysis of the reduced model, not inclusive of

product term variables, accounted for a 15.5% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-6). A 95%

confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .393) extends from .274 to

.499, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data and not merely that it was not

equal to zero. The resulting standard regression equation (Table 4-7) was,

UIENR = 54,650.696 4,036.997(TDR) + 1.275(MFI) 1,754.747(EA)
+ 38,510.392(YR70) + 70,930.372(YR80) + 85,750.868(YR90)
+ 89,662.325(YR00) (4-8)

The intercept was not interpretable as zero was not a valid enrollment option in the study. The

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the reduced model was statistically significant, F

(7, 210) = 5.489, p < 0.01 (Table 4-8).









enrollment as did the years 1990 and 2000. This result confirms prior research indicating income

and educational attainment influence participation in public postsecondary education.

Forty-year Trends

The fixed effects models for each year, with 1960 serving as the reference year, captured

forty-year trends in the relationship of enrollment to each independent variable, while holding

the others constant. Trends for each relationship were presented and discussed in further detail

in this section.

Enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio. Whereas the student price

response theory, as conceptualized as the difference in pricing between two institution types and

not the actual tuition and fee "sticker price, was not statistically significant in its association

with enrollment, the forty-year trend depicting the relationship between enrollment and the

tuition and fee difference ratio provided evidence for further consideration. The emergent trends

indicated that as the tuition and fee difference ratio increased community college enrollment

decreased. This trend was the same in undergraduate institutions, except between the years 1990

and 2000 where the trend took a turn in the positive direction (Figure 5-1).

Results of the analysis indicating that community college enrollment was negatively

associated with an increase in the TDR suggested that the community college was not increasing

enrollment by serving as the low-cost, entry-point to postsecondary education. One would have

suspected that as the gap in tuition and fee prices, as operationalized by the TDR, increased that

a larger number of individuals would have opted to enroll in a less-costly, localized institution to

mitigate expenses. This was not the case.

The increased association of the TDR to enrollment at undergraduate institutions from

1990 to 2000 was a result of significant interest to the researcher. It suggested that as the

difference in tuition and fees between institution types increased, there was the tendency for









.590, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data and not merely that it was not

equal to zero. The resulting standard regression equation (Table 4-2) was,

CCENR = 28,851.061 + 13,696.399(TDR) + 1.165(MFI) 613.373(EA) -
26,174.942(YR70) + 37,981.113(YR80) + 418,372.794(YR90) + 897,166.623(YR00) -
8,697.004(YR70* TDRi) 13,402.257(YR80* TDRi) 47,072.093(YR90* TDRi)-
49,792.108(YROO* TDRi) + .322(YR70*MFIi) + 3.219(YR80*MFIi) +
.236(YR90*MFIi) 2.387(YR00*MFIi) + 958.815(YR70*EA) -
2,065.569(YR80*EAi) -5, 038.087(YR90*EAi) 10,819.320(YROO*EAi) (4-2)

The intercept was not interpretable as zero was not a valid enrollment option in the study. The

inclusion of product terms accounted for 8.7% of the variance in community college enrollment.

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the full model was statistically

significant F (19, 198) = 3.404, p < 0.05 (Table 4-3). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there

was not a relationship between community college enrollment and the tuition and fee difference

ratio between institution types and state resources was rejected.

Descriptive statistics for the full model standard regression equation were presented in

Table 4-4. Pearson's correlations indicated that the independent variables median family income,

educational attainment, the years 1970, 1990 and 2000 were statistically significant at the 0.05

level in association with community college enrollment. Product terms for the years inclusive of

1990 and 2000 were also significantly associated with community college enrollment at the 0.10

level (Table 4-5). The TDR was not observed to correlate significantly with the dependent

variable or any independent variable save those that included TDR in the product term.

The models were tested for violations to the assumptions of linearity, normality,

independence and equal conditional variance (Shavelson 1996). Studentized residuals were

calculated and plotted against all variables in the model to check for violations to the

assumptions (Figures 4-1 to 4-5). Analysis of the scatterplots did not reveal violations of the

assumptions.









An emerging trend in the data over five time points investigated showed largely negative

associations with undergraduate institution, degree-seeking fall enrollment for the independent

variables TDR and EA. This suggested that, over the five time points over forty years examined,

an increase in the difference in tuition and fee difference ratio had an influence on the decreased

number of individuals enrolled in undergraduate institutions. It also continued the trend

observed in the other models, that as the percentage of a state's population over 25 years old with

at least a high school degree but not a bachelor's degree or higher increased, enrollment at public

postsecondary education institutions decreased.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank my family for their support as I pursued education beyond that which was

compulsory. I thank my advisor for the knowledge, skills and memories. I thank my committee

for their support of my research and invaluable contributions of their expertise. Lastly, I thank

the office staff in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy for all their support

and friendship.









an increase in individuals choosing options other than public postsecondary education. Both

options have some credibility a the former was supported by the conclusions of the Advisory

Committee on Student Financial Assistance (2002), who concluded a million bachelors degree

were lost during the 1990s to academically qualified individuals. The latter perspective appeared

to be an emerging trend in this study, namely that an increasing number of academically

qualified individuals-as determined by completion of high school-originating from families

with lesser income were deciding to attend four-year institutions as compared to community

colleges.

Directions for Future Research

The national scope and time span covered by the study presented multiple options for

future studies. Specifically, studies with state size adjustments, state level studies, studies of

populations and studies of programs may be undertaken to further examine the association

between enrollment and price and state characteristics.

Even after removing outliers, it may have been that the size of the state's population

enrolled in public postsecondary education influenced the analysis. Future studies could control

for the influence of state size on the enrollment variable by calculating a ratio of enrollment to

the number of persons in a state.

As it applied to state-specific studies, the aggregate nature of the study may have masked

the unique nature of a state outcomes. Case studies of specific states, or longitudinal studies of

their shifts in enrollment and tuition and fee prices in the context of state resources would

contribute to the dialogue on the various state structures on public postsecondary education

attainment. Kentucky, for example, had experimented over the time period examined in the

study with numerous state structures of public postsecondary education. They have had

independent community colleges, community colleges as an extension of the University of









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to test student price response theory by examining how

enrollment was associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources for the

years1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. In order to address this issue, the following research

question was developed: How was enrollment associated with the tuition difference ratio

between institution types and state resources between 1960 and 2000?

It was hypothesized that enrollment was not significantly associated with tuition

difference ratio between public institution types and state resources between 1960 and 2000. To

test the research question and resulting hypotheses, multiple regression analysis was employed.

Two multiple regression models were developed to predict enrollment from the tuition

and fee difference ratio and state resources. The independent variables in each model were the

same tuition and fee difference ratio (TDR), median family income (MFI), educational

attainment (EA), year (YR), and interactions by year (YRxTDR, YRxMFI, and YRxEA) while

the dependent variable depicted two different enrollment counts.

The first model included total enrollment in community colleges as its dependent

variable. The second model included the total enrollment in undergraduate institutions as its

dependent variable.

Model 1

A multiple regression analysis was performed with the dependent variable as community

college enrollment (CCENR) and the independent variables (TDR, MFI, EA, YEAR, YRxTDR,

YRxMFI, and YRxEA). Product terms for the three continuous variables (TDR, MFI, and EA)

were computed for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 with 1960 serving as the reference










Table 4-9. Descriptive statistics for Model 2
Mean Std. deviation N
I ENR 73228.3700 64725.2920 218
TDR 1.7466 .9720 218
MFI 40612.5321 8387.3626 218


49.3193


10.4817


YR70
YR80
YR90
YROO
YR70XTDR
YR80XTDR
YR90XTDR
YROOXTDR
YR70XMFI
YR80XMFI
YR90XMFI
YROOXMFI
YR70XEA
YR80XEA


.2064
.2064
.2156
.2156
.3488
.3839
.3664
.4016
8354.5642
8244.8532
9176.0138
9844.1284
8.5913
10 5656


YR90XEA 12.1734
YROOXEA 12.5376
Dependent variable: UI_ENR


.4057 218
.4057 218
.4122 218
.4122 218
.7851 218
.8313 218
.7429 218
.8301 218
16895.4960 218
16347.6940 218
17955.9504 218
19117.8521 218
17.3640 218
20.9211 218
23.3616 218
24.0379 218










120


100


40


00 0 o o


1933


1939


1947


1950


Community Colleges -Undergraduate Institutions


Figure 1-4. Tuition and fees at public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 1950. [Author's calculations from The Blue Book
3-6th Editions.]


I









increased demand for higher education should redirect students first through the two years at the

lower cost community college then on to an undergraduate institution.

A concern with setting tuition and fees at a level that made postsecondary education

accessible to all students was the concern that low-income and minority students would

concentrate in the community colleges (The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher

Education 1975). Howard Bowen (1974) expressed concern that an increasing gap in tuition and

fee pricing may exacerbate attrition. It had been expressed that comparisons of tuition and fees

between community colleges and undergraduate institutions was difficult because the ability to

separate (a) the costs between undergraduate and graduate work at undergraduate institutions,

(b) the instruction costs between the two institution types varied as the undergraduate institutions

utilized less-expensive graduate students and community colleges utilized professors,

(c) economies of scale, and (d) curriculum differences (Medsker and Tillery 1971).

Only recently had the difference in tuition and fees between community colleges and

undergraduate institutions been examined. Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996) included the

tuition difference between public community colleges and undergraduate institutions as part of

their analysis of state tuition and aid policies. Their independent variables reflected regional,

resource and governance influence on the tuition difference. Utilizing four regression models,

they found a smaller tuition and fee difference in the Midwest region and states with high levels

of high school completers. Whereas states with high income levels or weak coordinating

boards/planning agencies were likely to have a higher difference in tuition and fees between

community colleges and undergraduate institutions.

State Resources

It was in the interest of state policymakers to have a more educated citizenry (Rupport

2001). States with a large percentage of individuals enrolled in postsecondary education were









to meet the continued demand engendered by the social climate of the middle of the twentieth

century, and expanded services to include educational options other than transfer (Cain 1982).

The social climate was fueled by paradigm-shifting social policy resulting from Brown v. Board

ofEducation (347 U.S. 483 1954), the Higher Education Act of 1965 (PL 89-329), Title IX of

the Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-318) and other federal and state actions ensuring

democracy was an opportunity for all citizens (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching 1982; Kim and Rury 2007), in addition to the looming tide of baby-boomers entering

postsecondary education (Kim and Rury 2007; Rouse 1994).

The concern over the increasing difference in tuition and fees was compounded by the

fact that a body of literature had shown price influenced student participation (Heller 1997;

Jackson and Weathersby 1975; Leslie and Brinkman 1987; Pryor, Hurtado, et al. 2006).

Additionally, there had been extensive study of the influence of tuition and fee rates on student

participation, finding that as rates increase, participation decreases (Heller 1997; Kane 1991;

Leslie and Brinkman 1987). Recently, it had been observed that between 1993 and 2005, young

and working-aged adults had not increased in their enrollment in education beyond the high

school (The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education 2006). This plateau in

postsecondary participation had lead to national concerns as the United States lead member

countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the

percent of adults aged 45 to 54 with at least an associates degree (40%), seven countries had

higher percentages of individuals aged 25 to 34 with at least an associates degree. This



Leonard V. Koos, Walter Crosby Eells, and Doak S. Campbell, attempted to divert students to
vocational education in an attempt to provide "short range upward mobility" while satisfying the
college's need to secure "the best training markets still unoccupied by their four-year
competitors" (209).









likely to exhibit high levels of educational attainment beyond the high school, high degree

completion, a high percentage of civic participation in the voting process, and rates of poverty

below (Martinez, 2004). A resulting benefit to the state was an increase in lifetime earnings for

citizens and subsequently a larger individual contribution to tax revenue for the state (Vernez,

Krop and Rydell, 1999; Martinez 2004). Participation in postsecondary education demand

continued to grow as a result of demographic growth, improvements in K-12 education and

policy imperatives (Martinez 2004; Kim and Rury 2007).

Two problems have faced the expansion of educational opportunity within a state. First,

the individual benefits of postsecondary education can only apply to those who are eligible to

participate (Martinez 2004). Second, the college eligible individual must be able to pay for the

additional educational experience.

Educational Attainment

A problem facing the nascent institutions of the nineteenth century was locating properly

prepared students for admission as few secondary school graduates attended college (Krug 1962;

Goldin and Katz 2000). In 1920, the nation was experiencing a rapid increase in the number of

high school graduates (Sonnenberg 1993). By 1940, only 16 percent of high school graduates

were attending college, an amount that increased to approximately 33 percent in 1960 and then to

more than 40 percent by 19809 (Kim and Rury 2007). While increases in high school graduates

influenced college participation rates, as college participation increased tenfold between 1940

and 1980. Taking only the increases in high school graduation rates, Kim and Rury (2007)





9 Diane Ravitch (1981) suggested an approximate high school graduation rate of 50% in
1940 and 85% in 1970. She also indicated college participation rates similar to Kim and Rury,
however specifying college participation rates leveled-off at 45% in 1968.









and differences. These rationales resulted in differences in tuition and fee policy between

institutions types and locations.

Federal Actions

An upturn in the dependence on tuition was enhanced via federal legislation, starting with

the NDEA of 1958 (PL 85-864), that Stampen (1980) asserted was influenced by the high

tuition, high-aid philosophy of economists. Chambers outlined schemes developed to keep both

public and private postsecondary education as high-fee enterprises (1968). These schemes-tax-

supported tuition scholarships, government loans, private loans, student-work opportunities and

tax credits for postsecondary education-in many respects have become institutional operations

within the national scope of financing higher education. Chambers (1968) asserted that the

benefits of such schemes should be examined via two tests. First, was the scheme "designed

indirectly to channel tax moneys into private colleges" (96). Second, was it "designed to shift

the cost of education from the general public to the student" (96). A caveat in the high-

tuition/high-aid philosophy was that it only works if state/institutions increase need-based aid at

the same rates as increases in tuition. If not, college would become less affordable (Mumper and

Anderson 1993).

A different perspective on why tuition and fees became such a pivotal source of revenue

was summized by Clark Kerr (1968). Kerr (1968) summized five options being considered by

the federal government during the decade of the 1960s to assist in structuring fiscal support for

all institutions of postsecondary education. One option was to provide tax breaks to parents with

students enrolled in postsecondary education. This option was not favored as it was perceived to

benefit middle and upper-income families due to the regressive nature of the taxes, while

positioning power in the hands of parents with respect to influence over institutional choice and

program curriculum. Direct grants to states and/or individual institutions were also considered,









emphasize the creation of colleges, and place junior colleges under the realm of postsecondary

education as opposed to secondary education. Furthermore, it was expressed that master plans

would reinforce "the use of admission standards and tuition rates to funnel students into desired

types of institutions and programs" (Glenny 1965, 97). During the decade 1960-1969, master

plans were present in 38 states (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

1982).

The master plans were often implemented or developed by nascent statewide

coordinating boards (Berdahl 1971). Section 1202 of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (PL

92-318) supported the establishment of statewide postsecondary education commissions to

coordinate the development and governance of all state higher education entities (McKinney

1974). The language of the legislation blurred the lines between higher education and

postsecondary education, favoring the latter (Martorana 1974). While going unfunded, and

ultimately disregarded, the governing state education entities initially established as a result of

1202 Commissions were charged with various powers, responsibilities and duties. A reason for

doing so was that the intent of section 1202 was to unite the unique institutions within a state, yet

it resulted in the opposite (Martorana 1974). These nascent governing state postsecondary

education systems were provided minimal federal guidance, while the number of institutions

continued to grow (McKinney 1974). The growth of state coordination boards was observed by

Berdahl (1971) to grow from sixteen in 1950 to more than twice that amount by 1970. The

introduction of accountability measures, increased regulation by state and federal agencies, and

concern for equity and efficiency served as the impetus behind coordination efforts (Tillery and

Wattenbarger 1985). The period from the early 1970s to the 1990s was marked as one of

decentralization of state level governing authority (McLendon 2003).









Table 2-2. Changes in federal, state and local and tuition and fee revenues in public
postsecondary education, 1933-2000.
Revenues (in thousands)
Year Percent Change
Tuition and fees Federal State and local

1930 $37,447 $14,450 $145,423

1940 $55,287 $29,144 $165,518
48% 102% 14%

1950 $222,635 $104,593 $493,444
303% 259% 198%

1963 $1,880,700 $2,142,200 $2,367,600
745% 1948% 380%

1968 $1,399,013 $1,566,037 $5,362,810
-26% -27% 127%

1980 $5,570,404 $5,540,101 $20,629,654
298% 254% 285%

1990 $15,258,024 $9,763,427 $41,771,692
174% 76% 102%

2000 $31,919,611 $19,744,966 $69,948,323
109% 102% 67%
Sources: Campbell English and Lampros 1952; United States Department of Education
1965,1972 and 2003.









Full model. The multiple regression analysis of the full model, inclusive of all variables

and product terms, accounted for 24.2% of the variance in enrollment (Table 4-6). A 95%

confidence interval for the population correlation coefficient (R = .492) extends from .384 to

.586, indicating the observed value was consistent with the data and not merely that it was not

equal to zero. The resulting standard regression equation (Table 4-7) was,

UIENR = 31,163.881 + 4,396.764(TDR) + 1.928(MFI) 2,061.697(EA) -
1,387.195(YR70) + 128,432.212(YR80) + 455,913.581(YR90) + 506,613.606(YR00) -
13,138.783(YR70* TDRi) 24,096.449(YR80* TDRi) 47,856.271(YR90* TDRi)-
29,237.839(YROO* TDRi) + .135(YR70*MFIi) + 3.336(YR80*MFIi) -
1.825(YR90*MFIi) 3.253(YROO*MFIi) + 1,253.781(YR70*EA) -
2,901.814(YR80*EAi) 3,763.268(YR90*EAi) 3,751.613(YROO*EAi) (4-9)

The intercept was not interpretable as zero was not a valid enrollment option in the study. The

inclusion of product terms accounted for 8.7% of the variance in undergraduate institution

enrollment.

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed that the full model was statistically

significant, F (19, 198) = 3.331, p < 0.05 (Table 4-8). Therefore, the null hypothesis that there

was not a relationship between undergraduate institution enrollment and the tuition and fee

difference ratio between institution types and state resources was rejected.

Descriptive statistics for the full model standard regression equation were presented in

Table 4-9. Pearson's correlations indicated that the independent variables median family

income, educational attainment, the year 1990 and 2000 were statistically significant (p < 0.10)

associated with undergraduate institution enrollment. Product terms for median family income

in 2000 and educational attainment in 2000 were also significantly associated with undergraduate

institution enrollment at the .10 level (Table 4-10). The TDR was not observed to correlate

significantly with the dependent variable or any independent variable save those that included

TDR in the product term.









D e sig n ................... ...................5...................7..........
M o d el 1 .............. ..................................................................... 5 7
M o d e l 2 ..................................................................................5 8
D ata T re a tm e n t .................................................................................................................. 5 9
L im itatio n s ................... ...................5...................9..........

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................................6 4

M o d e l 1 ............................................................................6 4
M o d e l 2 ............................................................................6 8

5 C O N C L U S IO N .................................................................................................................. 9 1

Discussion of the Results ................................. ............................. ........91
Significance of A association ........................................................................................ 9 1
F orty -Y ear T ren d s .........................................................................92
Directions for Future Research .................................. .......................... .... ......95
Implications for State Planning ............................................................96

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................................................10 1

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................................... ........111
































6
























0


000

0





00 0

o
c oQm e








c- of 'o
00 o




0 0 0




Co C

0 C's



I I I I !
0 10 200000 300000 400000

UI FALL ENROLLMENT


Figure 4-6. Studentized residual versus UIENR.









Data Summary

In order to answer the research question, data was obtained for the years 1960, 1970,

1980, 1990 and 2000. Analysis of the data was calculated utilizing the state as the unit of

analysis.

Population

The population of interest consisted of all states that had at least one public community

college and at least one public undergraduate institution. South Dakota and Maine were

removed as they did not have a public community college at anytime during the years examined,

bringing the total number of states to forty-eight. State postsecondary education structures

evolved by adding, removing, or combining institutions. These shifting public postsecondary

education organizations resulted in different population sizes for each year (Table 3-1), where:

1960 (N=34), 1970 (N=45), 1980 (N=46), 1990 (N=48), and 2000 (N=48). As a result, the total

number of cases was 221.

Variables of Interest

This study examined two independent constructs, comprised of three independent factors,

believed to influence the dependant variable, enrollment in public institution types.

Enrollment. The number of public postsecondary education institutions had increased

significantly between the years 1960 and 2000. The growth of these institutions was under the

direction, or the result, of state master plans (Glenny 1965; Dressel 1990; Hearn and Griswold,

1994). Guided by The Presidential Commission on Higher Education (1947) and established in

whole, or partially in response to the 1202 Commissions of the Educational Amendments of

1972, a primary goal of these systems was to provide a public postsecondary education structure

to provide access for qualified individuals interested in participating. This study utilized fall

headcount enrollment of degree-seeking undergraduate students to gauge participation in public









generational change in college attainment was concerning as it indicated the impact of decreased

attendance in postsecondary education in a globalized society (Reindl 2007; OECD 2007).

State Resources

State resources contribute to the college participation. In developing and maintaining

postsecondary education systems, state policymakers had to take into consideration the resources

of a state. Two areas of particular interest were the educational participation of academically

qualified individuals and the ability of a state's citizens to pay for non-compulsory education.

High school graduation rates increased throughout the twentieth century, providing for

and increased percentage of state residents to be academically qualified to attend postsecondary

education (Kim and Rury 2007). The national demand for, and participation in postsecondary

education lead to the realignment of state systems and the development of institutions such as the

community college. While estimates of college going rates seem to have plataeued since the

early 1990s, a recent survey indicated that the shift in national demographics was contributing to

a decrease in postsecondary education participation. The survey, conducted by the National

Center on Public Policy and Higher Education (2007), found 62% of respondents agreed that

motivated and academically qualified students were not attending college because of a perceived

lack of opportunity, a belief most prevalent amongst African-American and Hispanic parents.

The wealth of a state's residents influenced the tuition and fee rates (Koshal and Koshal

2000), as family income remains a strong predictor of who will go to college (Callan 2006).

Between 1982 and 2005, median family income outpaced the consumer price index, 127% to

95% respectively, while tuition and fees increased by 375% during the same time period (Callan

2006). In 2002, the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance found "financial

barriers prevent 48 percent of college-qualified, low-income high school graduates from









College Board. 2006. Trends in College Pricing, 2006. Washington, DC: Author.

Commission on Financing Higher Education. 1952. Nature andNeeds of Higher Education.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Cornwall, C., Mustard, D.B., and D.J. Sridhar. 2006. The Enrollment Effects of Merit-Based
Financial Aid: Evidence from Georgia's HOPE Program. Journal of Labor Economics,
24(4): 761-786.

Cunningham, A. F. and J. P. Merisotis. 2002. National Models for College Costs and Prices.
Planning for Higher Education, 30(3): 15-26.

Douglass, J. A. 2000. The California Idea and American Higher Education: 1850 to the 1960
Master Plan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Division of Performance Audit. 2006, February 12. Recent Kentucky Tuition Increases May
Prevent the Achievement of the Commonwealth's 2020 Postsecondary Education Goals,
briefing report. Frankfurt, KY: Auditor of Public Accounts.

Dressel, P. L. 1980. The Autonomy of Public Colleges. New Directions for Institutional
Research, No. 26, 7 (2): 11-23.

Dunham, E. A. 1969. Colleges of the Forgotten Americans: A Profile of State Colleges and
Regional Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Eddy, E. D. 1957. Colleges for Our Land and Time. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Education Commission of the States. 1972. Higher Education in the States, Volume 3, Number
3. Denver CO: Author.

Fisher, F. J. 1990. State Financing of Higher Education: A New Look at an Old Problem.
Change, 22 (1): 42-56

Garms, W. I. 1980, February. On Measuring the Equity of Community College. (ERIC Document
Reproductive Service No. ED187378).

Garms, W. I. 1977. Financing Community Colleges. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gleazer, E. J. 1980. The Community College: Values, Vision and Vitality. Washington,
D.C.: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Glenny, L. A. 1965. State Systems and Plans for Higher Education. In Emerging Patterns in
American Higher Education, ed. L. Wilson, 86-103. Washington, DC: American Council
on Education.

Goldin, C. and L. F. Katz. 2000, September. Education and Income in the Early Twentieth
Century: Evidence from the Prairies. The Journal of Economic History, 60 (3): 782-818.









The increased number of community colleges allowed undergraduate public institutions

to expand in areas commensurate with increased status, such as graduate education, research, and

research funding. As a result, these undergraduate institutions could redirect less-qualified

students to community colleges by increasing their own admission standards (Cohen 1998).

Community colleges accepted their role as providers of postsecondary opportunity to those who

were of lesser income, geographically bound or older (The Carnegie Commission on Higher

Education 1970a).

A salient theme early in the evolution of the American postsecondary enterprise was the

notion of access via the material realization of localized institutions. There was no doubt that the

local proximity of community colleges was a major achievement and primary factor in the

democratization of postsecondary education (Cohen and Brawer 1996). However, as

postsecondary education institutions became accessible to the vast majority of the population via

localized, open-access institutions, a new frontier was to be drawn: access as a condition of price.

Stratifying Tuition and Fees

For the increasing number of individuals interested in pursuing postsecondary education,

community colleges were always the less expensive option. It was the case that the range in

tuition and fees3 between community colleges and undergraduate institutions nationally

narrowed from 1933 to 1956. The maximum difference in tuition and fees during this time was

$31 per 36-week academic year in 1939, with the minimum amount being $5 in 1950

(Figure 1-4).


3 Tuition, theoretically, had been conceptualized as the cost of instruction, whereas fees
applied to a service or additional cost (see Shelburne [1939] for a legal review of the
differentiation of tuition and fees). Lombardi (1973) noted "[S]ome community college
educators prefer the term fee to tuition, reflecting their uneasiness at the contradiction between
the concept of the open door and the practice of charging tuition. The use of fee may also be a
circumvention of state law that forbids tuition but permits fees" (38).









As the difference in tuition and fees between public undergraduate institutions and

community colleges equalized, the tidal wave of enrollments and accompanying federally

sponsored scholarships via the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1947 (PL 346-268, GI Bill)

ended. It was also the case at this time that other sources of income did not proportionally

increase to keep up with inflation and their increased expenditure levels (The Commission on

Financing Higher Education 1952). The decrease in GI Bill revenue in the decade of 1950-1959

concerned institutions as they had become increasingly dependent on student-oriented revenue

via augmented tuition and fee revenue and state and local appropriations contingent upon

enrollment.

With the National Education Defense Act of 1958 (PL 85-864), the federal government

had the option to extend opportunity and support to students via federal scholarship programs

first introduced in the GI Bill. However, it came to be that" in the last days before the passage

of that [NDEA] act, the provision for student loans was inserted in lieu of a plan of scholarships,

at the initiative of the conservative Eisenhower Administration" (Chambers, 1968, p. 117). The

National Defense Education Act of 1958's emphasis on fellowships4 and loan programs was a

critical juncture in the evolution of tuition and fee5 policy it contributed to the beginning of a

stratified price structure in postsecondary education (Hauptman, 1990; Callan, 2006; Thelin,

2007).


4 The focus of fellowships was on graduate education. Specifically, Title IV of the
National Defense Education Act "...funded 1,500 fellowships per year for students preparing to
teach at the college or university level" (Thelin 2007, 27).

5 Tuition and fees are examined here in the collective. While tuition had been defined as a
cost for instruction, a fee had been defined as an educational cost applied to an individual for
purposes other than instruction. A review of legal precedent supports the use of fees, other than
those used for tuition. It was observed that legal precedent had determined the prohibition or
restraint on public postsecondary education institutions in setting fees was limited only when
expressed or implied by constitutional or statutory language (Shelburne 1939).









beyond the high school (Rouse 1998). Research indicated that state systems that had a heavy

dependence on community colleges had lower levels of baccalaureate attainment (Orfield and

Paul 1992), and diverted more students to community college (Rouse 1994; Rouse 1998).

Student Price Response

It was argued that there was not enough evidence of the cost of tuition on the enrollment of

low-income students. Specifically, "[s]ince so little is known about the independent effect of

low or no tuition on the decision of various groups of students to attend a community colleges, a

rigid position on tuition may not be justified" (Garms 1977, 80). This claim was since

challenged by a body of literature focused on the response of students to price.

Leslie and Brinkman (1987) expressed price, buyer income, the prices of comparable

goods, and the buyer's preferences as factors influencing the amount of a good being demanded.

Their review of price-response literature was a meta-analysis where the studies were perceived

as one observation and each study was standardized according to the work of Jackson and

Weathersby (1975) to arrive at a student price response coefficient (SPRC). Upon reviewing the

literature, the authors concluded that tuition and fee prices influenced participation rates in

postsecondary education.

Savoca (1990) examined student price response arguing prior studies underestimated the

elasticity of demand by one-half because they did not take into account the effect of increases on

individuals who did not apply to college. Kane (1991) found increased tuition resulted in

decreased enrollment, with black students being the most sensitive to price. In a 1995 study,

Kane found that community college students were the most sensitive to tuition increases. St.

John and Starkey (1994) found a "strong negative relationship between tuition charges and

persistence in community colleges" (211).









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

It was observed that the difference in tuition and fees between public institution types

changed between the years 1960 and 2000 by almost a factor of three. During this time period,

access to postsecondary education was operationalized via localized institutions (Koos 1924;

Gleazer 1980; Cohen and Brawer 1996) and organized via state master plans (Glenny 1965), the

number of students with at least a high school diploma but not a bachelor's degree or higher

increased as did the college participation rate (Kim and Rury 2007), and an the price of tuition an

fees increased faster than inflation (Paulsen 1998). The purpose of this study was to test student

price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to provide access to public

postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option, with considerations of a

state's resource, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000.

Research Question

In order to address this issue, the following research question was developed. How was

enrollment associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state

resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000?

Research Hypotheses

In order to test the research question, the following hypothesis was developed.

* Hol: Enrollment was not significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio
between public institution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000.

* HA1: Enrollment was significantly associated with the tuition and fee difference ratio
between public institution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000.









These new federally initiated institutions signified the emancipation of postsecondary

education from their traditionally classical purpose (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). The emergence

of these new public institutions from the battle weary nation faced difficulties gaining consistent,

fiscal support from the states (Brubacher and Rudy 1997). It was not until the second signing of

the act in 1890, that states began to provide substantial support for the institutions, as the original

land-grant institutions had subsisted on their endowment from the original legislation (Brubacher

and Rudy 1997). For the next seventy-five years, institutions of postsecondary education, lacking

in coordination at the state level, appeared in various forms in localities determined largely by

political maneuvering, with little attention to the goals of the institution (Gross and Grambsch

1974).

As access to public postsecondary education began to expand after World War II, The

Presidential Commission on Higher Education asserted the "greatest need faced by higher

education is for the machinery necessary to assure a comprehensive but economical State-wide

system of education" (1947, 3:30). This recommendation, with the aid of political infighting and

increases in government size, prompted states to initiate coordination efforts to increase

efficiency (The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1976; Dressel 1980;

Hearn and Griswold 1994). The President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School

(1957) recommended "the expansion and support of existing institutions should in general take

priority over the establishment of new ones" (72). The Committee suggested the community

college be utilized to meet this pressing problem of an increase in the postsecondary sector,

albeit only as part of a thoroughly considered state-wide plan.

State Master Plans

Glenny (1965) outlined several features of a recent development in postsecondary

education: the master plan. It was observed that these plans would, among other things,









Research Hypotheses

* Hol: Enrollment was not significantly associated with tuition and fee difference ratio
between public institution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000.

* HA1: Enrollment was significantly associated with tuition and fee difference ratio
between public institution types and state resources for the years 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990
and 2000.

Significance of the Study

An examination of factors contributive to the difference in tuition and fees at public

postsecondary education institutions is imperative as prior research had shown that (a) the

difference continues to expand, (b) legislators were actively pursuing methods to redirect

students to lower cost institutions for the first two years of college and (c) tuition and fees play a

significant role in determinations of postsecondary education participation. The cost of

postsecondary education had become a significant concern for all stakeholders.

The compilation of a dataset, acquired from the work of Hurt and Burkel (1939-1960),

provided the opportunity to extend our understanding of state-level analysis to a time when (a)

national data available by the National Center for Education Statistics was not available, and (b)

increasing participation in postsecondary education participation became a national objective.

Definition of Terms

* Affordability: Perceived ability of potential participants to afford attending
postsecondary education. Affordability had been measured in the literature as a
percentage of family income needed to pay tuition and fees at a postsecondary education
institution. No attempts to operationalize affordability were made in this study.
References pertained to the theoretical conception of the term.

* Community college: Any two-year institution offering liberal arts education. The
purpose for this distinction rests in the comparative nature between community colleges
and four-year undergraduate institutions drawn in the study. When collecting data,
institutions with the work technical in their name were excluded, unless it also included
community (representing its comprehensive nature). Tribal community colleges were
also emitted as they receive a disproportionate amount of funding from the federal
government.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

The nature of state postsecondary education systems, via enrollment, has been examined

both in the literature and through quantitative analysis. This chapter will conclude the study with

a discussion of the results, suggestions for future research, and implications for state planning.

Discussion of Results

The purpose of the study was to test student price response theory by examining how

enrollment was related to the tuition and fee difference ratio and state resources for the years

1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000. The omnibus hypothesis guiding this study stated enrollment

was not significantly associated with tuition difference ratio between public institution types and

state resources between 1960 and 2000. This inquiry was examined through statistical analysis

of the significance of association between enrollment and the independent variables and the

analysis of forty-year trends.

Significance of Association

Two models, differing by dependent variable reflective of community college and

undergraduate institution enrollment, were developed to test the hypothesis. Analysis of the

results indicated that the tuition and fee difference ratio did not have a statistically significant

association with the enrollment variables. It was observed that in both the community college

enrollment and the undergraduate institution enrollment models, the tuition and fee difference

ratio was not significantly associated with enrollment.

The complete models, inclusive of median family income and educational attainment,

accounted for 24.6 % and 26.5% of the variance in enrollment for Model 1 and Model 2

respectively. In both models the state resource variables, median family income and educational

attainment, had statistically significant zero-order correlations with community college











2000

0

-2000 -i
-2,061.70 1,542.
-4000

-6000 --, 14
-5,824.9 -5,813.31
-8000

-10000

-12000
-11,432.69
-14000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year

0 Community College -A Undergraduate Institution

Figure 5-3. Forty-year trend of EA on enrollment









To meet the increased demand for participation in postsecondary education, states took

innovative action with the expansion of the two-year, public community college2 in

postsecondary education structures to provide educational opportunity (Longanecker 2007).

Termed "democracy's colleges," these institutions were believed to have brought educational

opportunity to the masses through their open-door philosophy, proximity to a state's citizens and

low-cost to the student (The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1970b). Medsker and

Tillery (1971) contributed three other factors to their growth: (a) training programs of various

duration and focus were needed to meet the growing job market, (b) the influx of participants

taking advantage of the GI Bill, and (c) the perspective of adults after World War II that there

was a broader world to which they belonged and should learn about.

Participation via Localized Institutions

While the ideal of increased educational opportunity via open-access institutions was

situated at the end of the Second World War (Palmer 1996), it had been suggested that universal

access to postsecondary education via the creation of localized institutions was not achieved until

the decade spanning the years 1960 to 1969 (Lingenfelter 2004; Longanecker 2007). The facts

confirmed this belief, for between 1960 and 1970 the number of community colleges grew from

412 to 909, an increase of 497 institutions or 121% (American Association of Community

Colleges n.d.), while the number of other public postsecondary education institutions remained

constant (Figure 1-3).



2 The term community college, as utilized herein, indicated an institution that offers at least
an associates of arts degree program. Institutions that did not offer an associate of arts program,
such as a technical college, were not included in this study. Historically, the community colleges
were referred to as junior colleges. The term "community college" gained prominence after its
application in Volume 1: Establishing the Goals of The Presidential Commission on Higher
Education (1947).









tuition as too low in comparison to the actual costs accrued by an institution (Mumper and

Anderson 1993). It was argued that higher tuition would allow institutions to redirect

institutional revenues via tuition and fees to individuals based upon need (Hansen and Weisbrod

1969; Fisher 1990) supported high-tuition/aid. Fixing tuition and fees at a level equal to private

institutions was also perceived of as a way to operationalize the market mechanism in

postsecondary education (Garms 1980).

Tuition Differentiations

The literature on tuition differences was reflective of three dichotomies. The requirement

for potential students to pay differentiated prices were dependent on residency status, program

differences and their relationship to each other, and the idea of providing access for all citizens to

postsecondary education.

Residency. Tuition differences were discussed with respect to residence of the student as

the primary determinant (Greenleaf 1936). It was argued that a state or district should not have

to fund the education of an "outsider" at the same rate as a citizen who lived within its borders

and who contributed to the postsecondary education institution via taxes (Arney 1970;

Schietinger 1981)

District differences, commonly termed "chargebacks," were observed to decrease in the

in the years between 1970 and 2005 (Mullin and Honeyman 2006). Interstate variations in

tuition and fee charges, however, had continued in practice.7

Differences in relationship. Relational differences were both intra- and inter-

institutional. Intra-institutional tuition differences primarily addressed expenditure differences at

the institutional level between various colleges offering different services (Wetzel 1995), or

7 There have been interstate cooperatives that have negated the cost to out-of-state students
through regional policy board (Christal 1997).









2002; Johnson 1979; Jones, 2002; Middaugh, Graham and Shahid 2003). Implications of a shift

towards cost-based tuition differentiation were hindered by the influence cost had on elasticity of

demand, concerns about equity, and the relationship of cost and prestige (Johnson 1979).

Furthermore, increases in expenditures and competition between institutions were the result of

institutional desires that cannot be justified on the grounds of costs, but rather on questionable

budgeting and planning: conceptualized as the "Revenue Theory of Costs," which may be

summarized as expenditures drive revenues in the search for prestige (Bowen 1980, 15).

What appeared to be a contributing factor in the development of tuition and fee policy was

the uncertain nature of non-tuition revenue. While working in concert with tuition and fees, state

and local governments have always assumed the largest burden for funding public postsecondary

education since data from public institutions were available (Table 2-2). State and local revenue

was the only source of the three to increase in each time span for which data was available. The

smallest increase was between 1930 and 1950, when state and local revenue increased only 14%

with the greatest increase was between 1950 and 1963 when revenue increased 380%.

Institutional revenue resultant of tuition and fees and the federal government exhibited dramatic

shifts between time spans, but the shifts were in the same direction (Campbell, English and

Lampros 1952; United States Department of Education 1965; United States Department of

Education 1972; United States Department of Education 2003).

A factor unique to the literature obtained for this study was Hauptman and Merisotis'

(1990) fifth reason. A reason they cited for the increased tuition and fees was not driven by

economic conditions or institutional desires, rather the augmentation of the student share of

educational costs via student financial aid availability. In summary, the determinations of tuition

and fee policy were reflective of institutionally espoused expenditures and guiding philosophies









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

RELATIONSHIP OF ENROLLMENT TO THE TUITION AND FEE DIFFERENCE RATIO
AND STATE RESOURCES BETWEEN 1960 AND 2000

By

Christopher M. Mullin

August 2008

Chair: David S. Honeyman
Major: Higher Education Administration

The literature indicated that tuition and fee prices influenced enrollment in postsecondary

education, with higher prices resulting in decreased attendance. The difference in tuition and fees

between public community colleges and undergraduate institutions, operationalized as the tuition

and fee difference ratio, was examined for its association with enrollment. The purpose of this

study was to test student price response theory by examining the degree to which the attempt to

provide access to public postsecondary education via the introduction of a lower-priced option,

with considerations of a state's resources, was associated with enrollment for the years 1960,

1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Results indicated that the difference in tuition and fees was not

statistically significantly related to enrollment. The general trend of the tuition and fee

difference ratio was, however, negatively associated with enrollment. Implications for state

systems were discussed.









caused concerns regarding the validity of the findings and should be interpreted with such

concerns. It was decided to continue forward with the data because it the ratio of the difference,

not the actual raw data that was utilized in the study. A one-year change in the ratio may have

occurred, but it was believed the change would not be substantially different than the tuition and

fee difference for the 1959 and 1969 years.

The literature suggested the inclusion student financial aid as a variable (Paulson 1994).

This variable was not included in the study as consistent data were not available for the five time

periods examined within this study.

The TDR may be interpreted as a low-end estimate of the gap in costs between community

colleges and four-year institutions when room and board and other external costs were

considered. This assumption would only apply to instances where an individual had to move to

attend a baccalaureate degree granting, four-year institution.

When identifying community colleges, there was the possibility that a community college

may offer the four-year degree and not have been identified as doing so. The relatively new

status of these institutions should not have significantly impacted the study as baccalaureate

degree programs were limited in number and type at each institution.

In thinking about life option beyond the high school, it is important for future researchers

to consider that other options existed for individuals outside of postsecondary education. What

this study did not factor in, and would contribute to understanding this observation, was the

percentage of individuals who choose to pursue a career option that required only a high school

diploma. For example, Campbell and Siegel (1960) included estimates of death and military

enrollment rates in their calculation of what they termed "eligible college aged population"

(486). State incarceration rates would also contribute to understanding who was eligible to









more individuals to enroll in four-year public institutions. The fact that approximately 25% of

the variance in enrollment was explained in the whole model provided two lens for analyzing

this phenomena. First, it may have been that the result of increases in state and institutionally

supported merit-based aid at four-year institutions mitigated the influence of price in enrollment

decisions. For example, Cornwall, Mustard and Sridhar (2006) found that Georgia's

implementation of the HOPE Scholarship increased enrollment in the state's public institutions,

with four-year institutions seeing most of the gain. While aid as a variable of interest was not a

possibility for this study, future studies of student price response must factor in aid to account for

its influence on enrollment.

Second, if state aid was not a driving factor in the enrollment decisions of individuals,

what could have been associated with such a trend reversal? Another lens through which

enrollment decisions may be viewed was that of competition. It has been reported that during

the 1990s an increasingly larger percentage of the total population enrolled in private institutions

(Snyder 2008). In order for individuals to compete for the job market after postsecondary

education it may have been that individuals who may have considered first attending the

community college either did not attend or engaged in personal financing practices that enable

them to pay relatively higher prices at public four-year institutions. Perhaps Bowen's (1980)

"Revenue Theory of Costs" may be reframed from the students' perspective, as such: prestige

drives expenditures in the search for revenue.

Enrollment and median family income. Median family income exhibited itself to be

strongly correlated with enrollment. Across both models, median family income exhibited the

same trend. Between 1960 and 1980, holding other variables constant, an increase in median

family income resulted in an increasingly positive association with enrollment. However,









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Christopher M. Mullin was an alumni fellow in the Department of Educational

Administration and Policy at the University of Florida. He earned a Master of Education degree

at Teachers College, Columbia University and Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of

Florida.









* B12-15 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by MFI,
* B16-19 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by EA, and
* e = the random error not accounted for in the model.

The null and alterative hypothesis were

* Ho: B1-19 = 0
* HA: B1-19 0

The null hypothesis stated that there was not an association between community college

enrollment and the tuition and fee difference ratio between institution types and state resources.

Model 2

A multiple regression analysis was conducted with degree-seeking fall headcount

enrollment at a public undergraduate institution (UI_ENR) serving as the dependent variable.

The independent variables were included in the model to determine the amount of variance

associated with the dependent variable. The resulting model was,

UI ENRi = a + B1 (TDRi) + B2(MFIi) + B3(EAi) + B4(YR70i) + Bs(YR80i) + B6(YR90i)
+ B7(YROOi) + Bs(YR70* TDRi) + B9(YR80* TDRi) + Bio(YR90* TDRi) + B11(YROO*
TDR) + B12(YR70*MFIi) + B13(YR80*MFIi) + B14(YR90*MFIi) + Bi5(YROO*MFIi)
+ B16(YR70*EAi) + B17(YR80*EAi) + B18(YR90*EAi) + B19(YROO*EAi) + ei (3.3)

where,

* UIENR = the dependent variable for the undergraduate institution, degree-seeking fall
enrollment in public postsecondary education,
* i = the state
* a = the intercept of the regression equation
* B1 = the regression coefficient for the slope of TDR,
* TDR = the independent variable for the tuition difference ratio between institution types,
* B2 = the regression coefficient for the slope of MFI,
* MFI = the independent variable for Median Family Income,
* B3 = the regression coefficient for the slope of EA,
* EA = the independent variable for the percent of a state's population that was had
completed high school but had not earned a bachelor's degree,
* B4-7 = the regression coefficients for the slope of YR,
* YR = the independent variable for the year of interest,
* B8-11 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by TDR,
* B12-15 = the regression coefficients for the product term of YR by MFI,









Kentucky with a separate technical college system, and most recently a joint community and

technical college system.

With respect to studies of various populations, the current nature of the national dialogue

surrounding postsecondary education was the participation of traditionally underrepresented

groups. It was the case, however, that data delineated by race or ethnicity was not available until

1980. Specifically, Statistical Directive 15 of 1977 instructed federal agencies to classify

individuals racially within one of four racial classifications: American Indian, Asian of Pacific

Islander, Black, or White with further delineations of the White and Black classifications as

either Hispanic or non-Hispanic (Office of Management and Budget 1977). The resulting

"ethno-racial pentagon" has since been applied to institutions of higher education to quantify

demographic characteristics of student populations.

Another area for future research was the application of comparisons between federal

programs geared at college participation to a state or national norm. A program of interest may

include the United States Department of Education's Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness

for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP) or other programs centrally focused on the increasing

postsecondary participation for groups who have traditionally not participated.

Implications for State Planning

The results would implicate that in order for states to maximize enrollment in public

postsecondary education, it may be the case that states should equalize tuition and fee rates for

all institution types. The difficulty in this approach was that each state, and institution type

within the state, has statutorily delegated responsibility for fixing1 tuition to a different entity

(Mullin and Honeyman 2008). It was therefore the case that, in light of statutory responsibility,

1 The term "fixing" was the term found to be most commonly utilized in statutory language
regarding tuition and fee pricing.









Table 3-1. States without a public community college system, by year
1960 1970 1980
Arkansas Delaware Alaska
Connecticut New Hampshire Kentucky
Delaware Vermont
Hawaii
Louisiana
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Nevada
Ohio
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Vermont









equation (Table 3-2). A concern resulting from utilizing this imputation method was that

standard errors were estimated and test statistics that may be overestimated (Allison 2002). The

values obtained via IPUMS and the imputed values for 1970, were converted to current dollars

for the year 2000 utilizing the inflation calculator of the United States Department of Labor,

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The state resource of educational attainment in a state had been operationalized as the

percent of a state's population twenty-five years or older with a high school degree or higher

(Hearn, Griswold, and Marine 1996). During data compilation for this study, it became apparent

that the use of this variable was questionable as it also included those individuals who had

already achieved an undergraduate degree. This conclusion was the result of examining the data

utilized by Hearn, Griswold and Marine (1996). In doing so, it was observed that the data were

reflective of a state's educational resources for the percentage of a state's population over

twenty-five years of age with a high school diploma or higher. Another table was also presented

which depicted the percent of a population aged twenty-five or older with a bachelor's degree or

higher. In comparing these percentages, it was determined that there was overlap as the two

percentages together exceeded 100%. In an effort to most clearly operationalize the construct of

a state's educational resources, the variable for educational attainment (EA) was defined as the

percentage of a state's population with at least a high school diploma, but not a bachelor's

degree. This percentage was calculated by subtracting the percent of a state's population 25

years old or more with a high school diploma or higher from the percent of a state's population

25 year old or more with a bachelor's degree or more in order to arrive at a percentage reflective

of those who may be interested in enrolling in a public postsecondary education institution as an

undergraduate. The state-level data were obtained from the United States Census Bureau (n.d.)


























] .555.


C

0
a


J 0




o0 b 0


C -) oo
0 0 0








IO- 0 0
0
** ^*0 0 ---------o-- -- 0





00 o
I 0 0 o0 8% ,o 0



o oi
00 00 0




I I I
0.00 20000.00 40000.00 a0e

MFI


Figure 4-8. Studentized residual versus MFI.


ri ,>* ;r.









Table 2-1. Rationales for increased costs
Rationale Commission on Financing
Higher Education (1952)
Shifts in inflation (a) Inflation


Increasing costs


Unstable sources of income


(b) The expansion of
educational services


(c) Needs for enlarged and
modernized capital plant

(d) Fluctuating student
enrollments
(e) Uncertain sources of
income


Hauptman and Merisotis
(1990)
(a) Higher charges were the
result of increases in costs

(b) Increases in expenditures
by colleges for a variety of
services

(c) Competition between
institutions

(d) Non-tuition revenue had
leveled-off or dropped


(e) There was an increase in
student aid availability


Other









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 R ationales for increased costs............................................................................. ...... 47

3-1 States without a public community college system, by year ...........................................62

3-2 Conditional mean imputation for median family income, selected states in 1970 ............63

4-1 M odel sum m ary for M odel 1 ..................................................................... ..................72

4-2 C oefficients for M odel 1 .......................................................................... ....................73

4-3 A N O V A for M odel 1 .............................................................................. ..................... 74

4-4 D escriptive statistics for M odel 1 ........................................................... .....................74

4-5 P earson correlations for M odel 1 ............................................................ .....................75

4-6 M odel sum m ary for M odel 2 .................................................. ............................... 76

4-7 C oefficients for M odel 2 .......................................................................... ....................77

4-8 A N O V A for M odel 2 ................................................................................................78

4-9 D escriptive statistics for M odel 2 ............................................. ............................. 79

4-10 Pearson correlations for M odel 2............................................... ............................ 80











1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0


1910


1920


1930


1940


1950


1960


1970


1980


1990


2000


Community Colleges 25 74 180 238 330 412 909 1058 1106 1156
4-Year 196 220 242 251 259 279 359 482 528 526
Land-Grant 65 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 96
Year (decade)


Community Colleges


- -4-Year


- Land-Grant


Figure 1-3. Number of public postsecondary education institutions, 1933 to 2000. [United States Department of Education 2003;
Dunham 1969; American Association of Community Colleges n.d.; National Association of State Universities and Land-
Grant Colleges 2008]


'640000opp-

'40or

.900 now

OWN mmop!!!!!0,Icllo= MOR goo 000

Mw&.MhMwdOrm =a a a am a a am a a am a a am 0 a am 0 a am a am