Mapping Matriculation: Queer and Trans College Student Enrollment Trends by State

• In Event: Using Large-Scale Education Data to Advance Intersectional Policies and Practices for Queer and Trans Students

Abstract

Purpose
In the past year, U.S. lawmakers have proposed legislation to limit the rights of queer and trans (QT) youth to use facilities, change their legal name or sex, study QT-inclusive curriculum, access QT-affirming healthcare, and play sports on gendered teams (Jones & Navarro, 2022). Given the breadth and speed of this trend, there is an urgent need to explore the impact of anti-QT policies on the lives of QT students (McQuillan, 2021). The purpose of our study is to examine state enrollment trajectories and college affordability for QT and cisgender/heterosexual students. Two questions guide our study:
1. Are there differences in college level, control, and state enrollment for QT and cisgender/heterosexual students?
2. What is the landscape of state enrollment, QT statewide policies, and college affordability across 10 representative states?

Methods, Data, and Results
We selected data from 10 states with representative data in HSLS:09 (Dalton et al., 2016). Our sample consisted of two comparison groups: QT collegians (n = 510) and cisgender/heterosexual collegians (n = 4520). To answer RQ1, we performed chi-square tests of independence to investigate differences in college level (2-year, 4-year), control (public, private non-profit, for-profit), and state enrollment (stayed in state, left state).
For RQ2, we used geographic information system (GIS) mapping to illustrate statewide differences by sexual orientation. First, we analyzed HSLS:09 data to illustrate net-differences in state enrollment by sexual orientation. Our second map operationalized QT statewide policies derived from Lambda Legal’s overview of legal protections for QT people and state legislative archives from 2009-2016. Each state received a summative score of QT statewide policies across five categories, including school (n = 12), family/relationship (n = 12), healthcare (n = 4), public accommodations (n = 8), and religious exemption (n = 3). Our third map used data from the College Affordability Diagnosis National Report (Institute for Research on Higher Education, 2016), which examines the cost of higher education by state.
Results for RQ1 (Table 1) show significant differences in postsecondary control, with QT students more likely to attend for-profit institutions (5.1%) than cisgender/heterosexual students (2.5%; χ2(1)=12.65, p<.01). Figures 1, 2, and 3 present the GIS mapping for all three scores.

Significance
Our results highlight the need for consistent national policies to support QT college students, particularly given the high variability in affordability and QT policies by state. There are a number of noteworthy observations across state maps. In-state enrollment in Texas is higher among QT students (92.7%) compared to cisgender/heterosexual students (85.1%) and has lower net cost of public higher education (25%), demonstrating a greater affordability than other states. Yet, Texas has the overall poorest prevalence of QT-affirming policies (8/32 policies). For QT Texans, in-state college affordability may outweigh having QT-affirming statewide policies. Conversely, QT students in Pennsylvania are much less likely to attend college in-state, likely reflecting the poor affordability of postsecondary education. Combined, observations from these maps raise further questions regarding QT state policies, political reputations, affordability, and college enrollment for QT youth.

Authors

• Jason C. Garvey, University of Vermont
  Presenting Author

• Mario I Suárez, Utah State University
  Presenting Author

• Anil Lalwani, University of Vermont
  Presenting Author

• Christopher J.P. Sewell, Talladega College
  Presenting Author

• Dion Tremain Harry, North Carolina State University
  Presenting Author