Expansion of community college athletic programs

Community College Enterprise, The, Fall 2007 by Byrd, Laura Ann, Williams, Mitchell R

White community college intercollegiate athletic programs have been expanding in a somewhat sporadic manner, there have been few empirical studies which examine how and why these programs are growing. The current study investigates the questions of "how and why" with the goal of helping community college leaders to make informed decisions about athletic programs. The study was designed to build upon and provide more detailed information on a topic first discussed in The Community College Enterprise in 2006. The current article discusses leaders' perceptions of four aspects of community college intercollegiate athletics: current funding for community college athletics, future funding for athletics, whether local students are attracted to the community college because of athletic programming, and whether statewide guidelines on community college intercollegiate athletics are needed.

Introduction

Intercollegiate athletics in higher education have generated a great deal of research, debate, and public scrutiny for almost a century (Savage, 1929) and, more intensely, in the past decade (Holbrook, 2004; Shulman & Bowen, 2001; Sperber, 2000). To the dismay of many academicians, few endeavors in higher education have generated more interest and excitement than athletics. Indeed, while the benefits of intercollegiate athletics to a university may be debatable, there is little doubt that growth in the number of four-year institutions of higher learning participating in athletics has been steady across the nation, particularly at the Division One (or "Big Time" athletics) level.

The growth in community college intercollegiate athletics has, for the most part, been sporadic and regional. Very few empirical studies have examined community college athletics, and they often find that community colleges emulate four-year institutions (Fink &. Kirk, 1979; Raepple, Peery, &. Hohman, 1982). Until recently, community colleges in many states did not support any intercollegiate athletic teams. In recent years, however, more community colleges in more states have been initiating new athletic programs or expanding the number of athletic teams within existing programs. The expansion, while more national in scope, has continued to be sporadic and somewhat haphazard.

North Carolina is one of a growing number of states in which community college leaders are making decisions about initiating, expanding, or in some cases, terminating intercollegiate athletics programs (Hines, 2005). A lack of research may have contributed to the seemingly haphazard development of two-year college athletics in several states, including North Carolina. One recent study suggests the processes for establishing and funding new athletics programs at community colleges are not always well understood by community college leaders (Williams & Pennington, 2006). The current study was conducted to help community college decision-makerspresidents and board of trustee chairs-make informed decisions about how and why intercollegiate athletic programs should be initiated, expanded, or terminated. The study was designed to provide more detailed information on a topic discussed in The Community College Enterprise in 2006. This article discusses leaders' perceptions of four aspects of community college intercollegiate athletics: current funding for community college athletics in North Carolina, future funding for athletics, whether local students are attracted to the community college because of athletic programming, and whether statewide guidelines on community college intercollegiate athletics are needed.

Methodology

A survey instrument on community college athletics was developed through a review of literature. The instrument was reviewed by community college leaders with experience or expertise in intercollegiate athletics, and it was tested through a pilot study of community college presidents in Oklahoma and community college vice presidents in North Carolina. The final instrument uses a Likert scale; respondents are asked to read a series of statements on community college athletics and to express agreement or disagreement with each statement based on a five-point scale.

The survey instrument was mailed to 58 community college presidents and 58 board of trustee chairs. A total of 54 presidents completed the survey, representing a 93% response rate, and 41 board of trustee chairs responded for a response rate of 71%. The only demographic information gathered concerned whether or not the respondent's community college currently had athletic teams. As indicated in Table 1, 35 of the presidents and 30 of the Board Chairs were from colleges which did not have athletic teams and 19 of the presidents and 11 of the Board Chairs were from colleges with athletic teams.

T-tests were used to analyze the data to determine if there were significant differences between the mean responses of community college presidents and community college board of trustee chairs. For some items, further analysis determined if significant differences existed between the responses from presidents of colleges with athletic teams and presidents from colleges without athletic teams.