Search

This article uses the 2005 Basic Classifications of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a framing device through which to examine patterns of student financial aid at America's rural community colleges, which represent 64% of all U.S. community colleges. Rural community colleges serve more first-time, full-time students than suburban and urban community colleges, and their 3.2 million students have different patterns of student financial aid. Rural small and medium colleges have the most aided students, receive more Pell Grants and institutional aid, and have more students incurring loan indebtedness than do other types of community colleges. The article offers recommendations for future research, as well as for policy development and practice. (Contains 5 tables.)

This study had two major purposes. The first purpose was to compare federal, state, and institutional direct grant aid, unmet needs, and headcount in 2000-2001 and 2005-2006. The second was to assess if any changes found related to the presence or absence of two key factors identified by experts as important to understanding the community college field: (a) type of Associate's College (rural, suburban, and urban) delineated by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's 2005 Basic Classification, and (b) significant local funding, using the Grapevine definition that defines 25 states as having local tax appropriations accounting for more than 10% of total funding and 25 states without. Analyzing data from the National Center for Educational Statistics' Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the study found that between 2000-2001 and 2005-2006, enrollment at Associate's Colleges grew by 30%, and while all categories of direct student aid also grew, the growth was overwhelmed by tuition increases averaging 40%. Analysis of descriptive data revealed stark differences between community colleges in states with the presence of local tax support, and those without, and by type of Associate's College (rural, suburban and urban). By 2005-2006, it was more difficult for low-income students to attend college without incurring debt. The paper concludes with discussion as to the impact on open access for students attending community colleges if these trends continue. (Contains 3 tables.)