Push and Pull in Community College Cross-Enrollment: Remoteness, Articulation, and Student Mobility

2026-05-16

AI Summary

This study examines how geographic remoteness and credit transfer policies jointly influence cross-institutional course enrollment among community college students. Drawing on a push-pull theoretical framework and analyzing over one million de-identified administrative records from twelve institutions, the research integrates geographic accessibility with institutional mechanisms of credit mobility for the first time, quantifying associations between cross-enrollment outflow/inflow rates and measures of remoteness, course equivalency, and articulation agreements. Findings indicate that non-remote institutions exhibit more active cross-enrollment; students strongly prefer courses with established articulation pathways; and institutions with higher course equivalency ratios enroll significantly more cross-institutional students (8.62% vs. 6.70%). Notably, this policy effect is amplified in remote institutions, underscoring the critical role of institutional design in mitigating geographic barriers to student mobility.

Abstract

Cross-enrollment across institutions can expand access to courses and support student progression. Still, little is known about how geographic constraints and institutional policies jointly shape cross-enrollment within community college (CC) systems. We adopt a push-pull framework: geographic remoteness constrains feasible cross-institution mobility, while credit mobility may attract enrollment expressed as articulation (CC-to-university: credit toward a four-year partner) and course equivalencies (CC-to-CC: equivalencies across the system). Using de-identified administrative records from a 12-institution community college system (100,547 students; 1,290,311 course enrollments), we quantify outgoing and incoming cross-enrollment and relate these patterns to institutional remoteness and credit mobility. We find that less remote colleges exhibit higher outgoing and incoming cross-enrollment than more remote colleges. Further, cross-enrolled students are more likely to take articulated courses, and institutions with higher equivalency ratios receive higher incoming cross-enrollment (8.62% vs. 6.70%). This association was slightly stronger at more remote colleges. This study demonstrates how analysis of complex college systems can surface factors shaping student mobility and inform the design of cross-enrollment and articulation policies in CC systems.

Problem

• cross-enrollment
• geographic remoteness
• articulation
• student mobility
• community college

Innovation

• push-pull framework
• cross-enrollment
• articulation
• course equivalency
• student mobility