A ‘ L: {.A u! '. ‘\.- Hthuthl-I } .3 ii}. . t. N...hc$4.a..n...l. &. .K‘lx... .1. {lull}! I. I. lia.v.,. IHESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled WHY CERTlFIED TEACHERS 7? TI- I‘C‘ ENTER THE TEACHITTG j—fit “ IN” N presented by Edwrr: W full Warpe: has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Education degree in Elementary Education ire/ma Major professor was. 4 m7 0-169 Michigan State University ‘41- car will ’5 " w:;+.2/{ WHY CERTIFIED TEACHERS FAIL TO ENTER THE TEACHING PROFESSION BY EDWARD HAROLD HARPER A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of "Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Teacher Education 1958 .5— 255'- 5-7 9; is’fl ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It would have been impossible to conduct a study of this type without the assistance and cooperation of many individuals. The writer of this study is sepecially grateful to his major ad- visor, Dr. William V. Hicks, who gave invaluable guidance and assistance in the writing of this study. The author also wishes to eXpress his appreciation for the guidance and advice given him by Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover in the construction of a suitable instrument for this study. To the other two members of the guid- ance committee, Dr. Max 5. Smith and Dr. Calhoun C. Collier, the author is grateful for their encouragement and advice throughout this study. Special thanks are also extended to Mr. John Fohr of the College of Business and Public Service: for his advice in construc- ting the cover letters for the instrument used in this study, and to Mr. Charles Switzer of the Department of Communication Skills who critically analyzed all portions of the manuscript. To his wife, Almeta H. Harper, the writer is especially indebted for her encouragement, assistance, and expressions of faith throughout the course of this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTIOIV. O O O O 0 O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem Purpose and Importance of the Study Statement of the Sub-Problems Delimitation of the Study Definiation of Terms Assumptions upon Which Study is Based Hypotheses to Be Tested REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH. . . . Background Other Professions Teaching Profession Persistence Characteristics of Students Preconceptions Reasons for Entering or Leaving Recommendations Summary and Conclusions METHOD OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . Construction of the Instrument O Page 0 C ii . v . . 1 o o 12 . . 51 Selection of Test Methods for Each Hypothesis Procedures Used in Collecting Data The Trial Questionnaire Administering the Final Instrument Procedures Used in Treating the Data Scoring the Instrument Method of Analyzing the Data Summary iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Hypotheses over Which Educational Institutions Have Some Control Hypotheses over Which Educational Institutions Have No Control Exploratory Hypotheses Findings Related to Other Studies Summary and Conclusions V. SUMMARY iND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Recommended Research APPENDIX I o o c o 0 o o o c o o o o o o o o o o . o o o 123 APPENDIX II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 . 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Table Page 1. Distribution of Universe Outside Michigan . . . . . . . 44 2. Relation of Inadequate Counseling and Advice to Accept- tance of Teaching Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 3. Relation of Student Teaching Experiences to Acceptance 0f Teaching FOSitiOnS o o c o o o o o o c c o c c o o o 79 4. The Influence of Teacher Characteristics on Acceptance of Teaching Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 5. Relation of the Time at Which a Person Decides to Train for Teaching and Acceptance of Teaching Positions . . . 97 6. The Influence of Friends and/or Relatives on One's De- cision to Reject Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 7. Relation of Qualifying for State of Michigan Scholar- ships and Acceptance of Teaching Positions . . . . . . 104 8. Knowledge of Major and Minor Subject Areas at Graduation as It Affects Decisions to Teach . . . . . . . . . . . 107 9. Original Intent to Teach as It Relates to Decisions to Enter Teaching 0 o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o 111 10. How were the Services of the Placement Bureau When You Were Seeking a Teaching Position? . . . . . . . . . . . 129 11. Did the Placement Bureau Keep You Informed about Teach- ing POSitionS Available'l o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 130 12. Were You Made Aware of Where to Look for Current Posi- tions That Were Available?o o o o o c o c o o 0 o c o 0 131 13. Did You Return Your Completed Forms to the Placement Bureau Prior to Graduation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 '14. How Many Enrollment Officers Did You Have at h.S.U.? . 153 S 15. While at M.S.U. Did Your Enrollment Officer Ever Advise You to Major in a Specific Area?. . . . . . . . . . . . 134 16. Did He Warn You against Preparing to Teach in a Teach- LIST OF TABLES ing Area that Was Overcrowded? . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 V vi LIST OF TABLES--Continued Table Page 17. Did Any Person Connected with the Teaching Profession Ever Try to Help You Determine Whether or Not You Would D0 Well in Teaching? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 .18. Persons Who Helped Students to Determine lpptitude for TeaChing o o c o o o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o 137 19. While at D.S.U. Did Your taaor Professor Ever Advise You NOt t0 EHter TeaChing? c o o o o o o o o o e o o o 138 20. How often Did You Find Your Instructors at M.S.U. Wil- ling to Give Help and Advice? . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 21. How Many of Your Instructors at h.S.U. Were Willing to Give Help and ldvice?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 22. were You Interviewed by a School Administrator? . . . 141 25. By How Many School Administrators Here You Interviewed? 142 24. Were Your Questions Satisfactorily tsnwered by the School Administrators? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 25. Did You Feel That a Just Amount of Interest has Ex- pressed Toward You by the 1dministrators?. . . . . . . 144 26. Were You Favorably Impressed by the Way the Interview was ConduCted? . o o o o o o o o O c o o c o o c o o o 145 27. Did You Feel You Gained the Needed Information about the POSitiOn Offered? 0 o O 0 O O o c o o O o O o 0 o 146 28. Were There Any Shortcomings on the Part of the Admin- istrators Who Interviewed You? . . . . . . . . . . . 147 29. Shortcomings of School Administrators Interviewing Teacher Candidates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 30. Did You Do Your Student Peacning in Either a Major or Minor Subject Area in Which You Felt You Were Adequaiely Prepared?.oo....oo.............149 31. In Any Courses You Took Prior to Student Teaching Was the TOpic of Child Behavior and Discipline Studied? . 150 32. To What Extent Was This Study of Child Behavior and Discipline Effective? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 33. During Your Student Teaching Experience How Many Weeks Did You Have Complete Charge of One or More Classroom? 152 vii LIST OF TABLES-~Continued Table 34. How Would You Characterize Your Experiences With Your Supervising Teacher? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. How Would You Characterize Your Experiences With Your College Coordinator? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36. How Would You Characterize Your Student Teaching Ex- perience? O O O O O 0 O O C O O I. O O O O O O O O O O 0 37. Had You Had Experiences With Groups of Children Prior to Your Student Teaching Experience? . . . . . . . . . 38. How Would You Characterize the Teachers and Instructors You Have Had with Regard to Their General \ppearance? . 39. Did Your Teachers and Instructors Maintain a Democratic Attitude in the Classroom, as Opposed to an authoritar- ian Attitllde? O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 40. How Would You Characterize the Attitudes of Your Teach- ers and Instructors Toward Other Members of the Teach- ing PrOfeSSiOn? o O o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 41. How Would You Characterize the Respectfulness of Your Teachers and Instructors Toward One Another? . . . . . 42. Did You Feel that Your College of Education Instructors Possessed the Necessary Iublic School Experience to PrOperly qualify Them to be Effective in Teacher Train- ing? 0 O O C O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 9 O O O O O 0 O 0 O 43. How Would You Rate the Experiences Offered You by Your College of Education Instructors? . . . . . . . . . . . 44. Did These Experiences Offered by Your College of Educa- tion Instructors Prove of Benefit in Actual Classroom Application?.o.o.....oo.o....o.o.. 445. How Would You Characterize Your Teachers' and Instruct- ors' Attitudes about Their Work? . . . . . . . . . . . 416. Did Your College of Education Instructors Ever Lead You To Think that Your Social Status as a Teacher Would be Anything Other than Desirable? . . . . . . . . . . . ‘47. When Did You Make Your First Decision to Prepare to be a Teacher or Fulfill the Requirements for a Teaching certificate? 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O C C O O Page 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Tables 48. Did You Have any Friends or Relatives Who Tried to Persuade You Not to Teach or Take a Teaching Position? 49. Did Public Opinion Toward Teaching Influence Your Deci- sion about Taking a Teaching Tosition? . . . . . . . . 50. What Type of Public Opinion Influenced You in Your Decision about Entering Teaching?. . . . . . . . . . . 51. Was Your Mother Ever a School Teacher? . . . . . . . . 52. How Many Years Did Your mother Teach? . . . . . . . . 53. Was Your Father Ever a School Teacher? . . . . . . . . 54. How Many Years Did Your Father Teach? . . . . . . . . 55. Were Any of Your Brothers or Sisters Ever 3 Teacher? . 56. While an Undergraduate at h.S.U. Did You Ever Have a SChOIarShip?O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 57. Would You Have Enrolled in the Teacher Training Cur- riculum if You Had Not Red This Scholarship? . . . . 58. Did the Availability of a Scholarship Have Anything to Do With Your Decision to Train for Teaching? . . . . 539. Was the Availability of a Scholarship the lain Reason You Chose the Teacner Training Curriculum? . . . . . 60. Did You Feel You Had a Good Knowledge of Your hajor Subject(s) When You Graduated from h.S.U.?. . . . . . 61. Relation of Major Subject Areas to Accepting Teaching Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652. Did You Feel You Had a Good Knowledge of Your Minor Subjects When You Graduated from M.S.U.?. . . . . . . 63. Relation of Minor Subject lreas to Accepting Teaching Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641. During Your Undergraduate Years, Did You from Your Freshman Year Elan to Enter Teaching? . . . . . . . . 65. What Was Your Original Reason for Entering the Teach- er Education Program? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66. Reasons for Not Entering Teaching . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF TABLES-~Continued Page 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 Table 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 720 73. 74. ix LIST OF TABLES--Continued Page Positions issumed by Those Who Did Not Teach . . . . . 185 Relation of Sex to Accepting Teaching Positions. . . . 186 Relation of Secondary and Elementary Teacher CandidateS' Decisions about Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Relation of \ge to Acceptance of Teaching Positions. . 186 Relation of Grade Point Average to Acceptance of Teach- ingPOSitionSooo00000000000000,coo1S7 Relation of Entrance Examination Scores to Ecceptance of Teaching Positions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Were You Married When You Graduated from ‘.S.U.? . . . 187 Variables Controlled for in the inalysis of the Data . 188 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The need for well-trained, certified teachers has never been more acute than it is today. Most educators agree that the situation will probably become more critical in the near future. During 1956, in the State of Hichigan, approximately 5,000 people completed requirements for their Provisional Teaching Certificates, and of this number approximately 3,500 took teaching positions. This compares favorably with a recent national study completed by the National Education Associationlwhich indicated that slightly more than one-third of the secondary people accepted teaching positions while nearly twenty percent of the elementary graduates failed to take teaching positions. At Michigan State University in 1955-56, the Assistant Dean of Education of the College of Education surmized that approximately thirty-five percent of the graduates, holding provisional certificates, did not take teach- ing positions in the fall of 1956. The loss of such large percentages would not be considered so drastic if such losses were common to all professions, but none of the other major professions experience such a tremendous loss 1National Education Association Research Division, ”The 1956 Teacher Supply and demand Report," The Journal of Teacher Education, VII (March, 1956), 54f. of trained personnel. "Among graduates who started out studying for law, medicine, or dentistry, eight out of ten have ended up practicing their chosen professions; one in 100 has gone into some other profession, and two out of ten hold a business or government job." Previous research studies have shown the following to be significant reasons why trained teachers do not teach: teachers enter other occupations; military service (for men); homemaking responsibilities (for women); and continuation of formal education. Of the 1955 graduates, on a nationwide basis, approximately fif- teen percent did not teach for "other reasons,"5and of the 1956 group approximately ten percent did not enter the profession for "other reasons.”4 The Specific objective of this study is to determine if significant factors exist under the heading of "other reasons" as listed by trained teachers. Statement of the Problem The general problem with which this study is concerned is why certified teachers fail to enter the teaching profession. Purpose and Importance of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine the reasons given by Michigan State University graduates certified to teach for the fiscal year, 1956-1957, for not entering the teaching 2Ernest Havemann and Patricia West, They Went to College (New York; Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1952), p. 150. 3Ray c. Maul, "Ready, Able, but Unwilling," National Education Association Journal, XIIV (May, 1955), 298f. 4National Education Association uesearch Division, loo. cit. profession; to discover positions they assumed; to analyze statis- tically influ ntial factors causing them to enter areas other than teaching; and to compare various aspects of these findings with responses made by those who did enter the teaching profession. Furthermore, implications might be drawn from this study which will be useful to superintendents of schools and boards of education in the recruitment and retention of prospective teachers. Considering the number of people in Hichigan who have been certified as teachers, but are not presently teaching, one could safely assume that if these people were employed as teachers in Michigan, we would not have the critical shortage in the profes- sion that we now have, for one of the contributing factors to this shortage is the fact that many who graduate from college with pro- visional teaching certificates never enter the teaching profession. This number is large enough to be of concern to teacher education institutions. This concern has been expressed by faculty in the College of Education at Michigan State University and also by pro- fessional employees in the Michigan State Department of Public Instruction. It is reasonable to suppose that society is most bene- fited when individuals are working at tasks for which they have been carefully trained. And it is equally reasonable to suppose that an individual gets the most pleasure and satisfaction from doing work he knows how to do well. I It is on the basis of this statement that this study is _._ 5Robert Pace, They Went to College (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1941), p. 96. justified. It is further justified by the fact that: If highly competent teachers are to be effectively re— cruited, it is important to determine and understand those factors that ggide one either toward or away from teaching as a vocation. Statement of Sub-Problems Michigan State University has little information on its graduates who were certified to teach, but who did not enter teach- ing. There is no information as to why these people did not go into teaching. In addition, there is no record of the types of positions these certified graduates assumed after graduation from college. Therefore the following sub-problems were of concern: 1. location of these peOple who graduated with provision- al teaching certificates to determine what factors influenced them in their decision to reject teaching as a vocation; 2. comparison of questionnaire responses of this group to the responses of those graduates who accepted teaching posi- tions; 5. construction of a valid questionnaire to obtain the data needed for this study; 4. examination of the personal records of certified teachers who responded in order to obtain scores on entrance examinations and cumulative grade point averages. Delimitation of the Study A 6Robert Richey, et. al., "Factors that High School Stu- dents Associate with Selection of Teaching as a Vocation," Bulletin of the School of Education, XXVIII (March, 1952), 9. This study is concerned with students who graduated from Michigan State University during the fiscal year 1956-1957 with a State of Michigan Provisional (Elementary or Secondary) Teaching Certificate. Definition of Terms 1. Certified teachers refer to those persons who have been issued a State of Michigan Provisional (Elementary or Second- ary) Teaching Certificate. 2. Teacher education institution refers to any institu— tion qualified to offer a curriculum in teacher training. 5. Teaching profession refers to any phase of public or private school teaching for which the State requires that the em- ployee possess a State teaching certificate. 4. Trained teachers refers to those persons who have ful- filled the requirements of the State of Michigan and Michigan State University for a teaching certificate. 5. Teacher candidates refer to those persons enrolled in and pursuing a course of study leading to completion of require- ments for a teaching certificate. 6. Supervising teachers are the full-time teachers in the public schools who supervise the student teaching activities of Michigan State students. 7. College coordinators are Michigan State University faculty members who act as liason between the University and pub- lic school administrators, supervising teachers, and student teachers in the centers (or communities) where students do their student teaching. Assumptions on Which Study Is Based A. Theoretical Assumptions 1. There is no shortage of trained teachers in Michigan.7 2. There is a shortage of trained teachers who are pre- sently employed in the teaching profession in Michigan.8 3. Society is most benefited when people work at jobs for which they have had special training.9 4. A person receives the most pleasure and satisfaction from work he knows how to do well.10 5. If the teaching profession is to secure the most highly competent teachers, we must determine those factors which influence teacher candidates to enter fields other than teaching.11 6. The need for additional teachers will become greater in the future.12 7In a personal conference with Eugene Richardson, Director of Certification for the State of Michigan, he stated that in a study he conducted from June 50, 1959 to the Fall of 1949, Michi- gan colleges and universities recommended 33,000 persons to re- ceive Provisional Teaching Certificates. Of this number only 11,000 of these peOple were teaching in the Fall of 1949. He fur- ther stated that to the best of his knowledge these conditions have not improved over succeeding years. 8Ibid. 93. 0. Pace, op. cit., p.96. . 101bid. 113. Richey, et. al., op. cit., p. 9. 12Dael Wolfle, America's Resources of Specialized Talent (New'York: Harper & Brothers, 1954), p. 116. 7 7. The shortage of teachers will continue for years to come.13 8. Most teacher candidates who fail to enter teaching are lost to military service, homemaking, and graduate study.14 B. Operational Assumptions 1. The Michigan State University graduates of the fiscal year 1956-1957 constitute a typical and representative universe. This period was chosen for the following reasons: (a) there were fewer men called into the armed services during this year than in the years from World War II to 1956; (b) due to the rapid changes in the teacher education picture, it would be best to sample the most recent graduates. 2. The questionnaire used to gather data will produce valid, significant responses. 3. Responses in the questionnaire will reflect true atti- tudes and opinions of the subjects. 4. Many factors affect vocational decisions. Some of these will be tested by the questionnaire employed in this study. 5. Subjects tested in this study represent a universe, and any differences in responses will be significant. Hypotheses to be Tested A. General Hypothesis 151bid., p. 121. 1 National Education Assoc1ation Research DlVlSlon, op. cit., pp. 33-79. Persons who do not teach after graduating from Michigan State University have traits which will not be evident among those persons who teach after graduation. B. Specific Hypotheses After analyzing research related to the general problem of this dissertation, the investigator formulated many of the speci- fic hypotheses stated hereafter. These related research projects will be discussed in the succeeding chapter. Generally, the specific hypotheses fall into three cats- gories: those that educational institutions can control; those over which educational institutions have no control; and a small group of hypotheses which prior research has not treated, but which the author would like to use as exploratory hypotheses. Hypotheses over which the educational institutions have some control are as follows: 1. Those persons who have inadequate counseling and ad- vice while in training take positions other than teaching.15 Adequate advice would include the following: a. Placement aid by the college. b. Continuity of enrollment advisors (Having had not more than two enrollment officers.) c. Advice concerning majors and/or minors so that the student will not be trained in a teaching subject 15Raymond C. Gibson, "Shortage of Teachers or Imagination?" Higher Education, XII (Nov., 1955) 41-43. E. Havemann and P. West, 92. cit., p. 225. Raymond C. Maul. "A Turn for the Best," bulletin, College of Education, Michigan State University, May 1, 1957. d. e. f. of over-supply. Help in discovering aptitudes for teaching. Willing assistance by individual instructors. Pleasant interviews with school administrators dur- ing one's search for a position. 2. Those persons whose student teaching assignment did not include the following experiences take positions other than teach- ing:16 d. e. Having taught in a major or minor subject area of personal competence. Having had previous training in coping with prob- lems related to discipline. Having had complete charge of one or more class- rooms for at least three weeks of the assignment. Having had a pleasant relationship with supervis- ing teacher(s) and college coordinator. Having had a sense of personal enjoyment with the student teaching experience. 3. Those persons who have had teachers or instructors who fail to meet the following criteria take positions other than 16 R. C. Pace, Op. cit., p. 96. Curtis Phipps, "The Characteristics of Students in Teacher Education and the Factors Influencing Their Occupational Choices" (Dissertation, Lexington, Ken.: University of Kentucky, 1955» passim. Dwight K. Curtis and Leonard 0. Andrews, Guiding Your Igtudent Teacher, (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954) , passim. 10 teaching:17 a. Maintains neatness of dress and appearance. b. Possesses a democratic rather than authoritarian attitude in the classroom. c. Has a c00perative and respectful attitude toward other members of the teaching profession. d. Possesses the necessary actual public schoolroom experience. e. Offers practical experiences which prove to be beneficial in actual classroom teaching. f. Expresses a wholesome attitude about working con- ditions. Hypotheses over which the educational institutions have no direct control are as follows: 1. Those persons who decided to train to be teachers dur- ing‘their first two years in college take positions other than 'teaching.18 2. Those persons who maintain a grade point average of 3.00 or more during their undergraduate years take positions other than teaching.19 17Selmer 0st1ie. "Motivation for Entering Teaching,” The Journal of Teacher Education, VII (March, 1956), 80. Jay L. Pylman, "How Stable is the Teaching Profession?" The Nation's Schools, XXIV (Feb., 1945), 30f. 18Wesley G. Moon, "The Relation of Certain Factors to Persistence in the Teaching Profession of Houghton College Gradu- ates Prepared for Teaching." (Dissertation, Buffalo, N.Y.: The' thiversity of buffalo, 1952), p. 75. 191bid. ll 3. Those persons who are married at the time of gradua- tion take positions other than teaching.20 4. Those persons whose friends and/or relatives were un- favorably disposed to teaching as a career take positions other than teaching.21' C. Exploratory Hypotheses 1. Those persons who take the teacher training curricu- lum in order to qualify for a State of Michigan scholarship take positions other than teaching.22 2. Those persons who show greater ability on their col- lege entrance examinations take positions other than teaching.23 3. Those persons who feel they did not have a good know- ledge of their major and/or minor subject areas at graduation take positions other than teaching.24 4. Those persons who take the teacher education curricu- lum, who from their freshman year never intended to enter teach- ing, but who entered the program for specified personal reasons ‘9‘ take positions other than teaching.25 201bid. lebid. 2zl'his hypothesis is one that was submitted by a group of doctoral candidates in’a Thesis writing Seminar at hichigan State University during the Summer Session, 1957. 231bid. h“ 0* Phipps, 100. Cite 24 Seminar, loc. cit. 25This hypothesis was proposed by Dr. Leland Dean, A5315- tant Dean of Education, Michigan State University. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH Before this study could be designed and organized, the author had to review the related research and prior experience. The problem of teacher supply and demand has many facets which had to be investigated in planning the present study. Some of these facets which will be reviewed in this chapter are studies made in professions other than teaching which refer to persis- tence; persistence in teaching; characteristics of education stu- dents; preconceptions held by education students concerning the teaching profession; reasons given for entering and leaving teach- ing; and some recommendations made pertaining to the retention of teachers in the profession. Background Since the early years of World War II the schools of our nation have been plagued with the problem of obtaining a satis- factory supply of adequately trained, competent classroom teachers. Many events and situations have contributed to the shortage of teachers in the past ten or fifteen years. The supply of trained teachers fell to an all time low during the war years, 1941-1945. Most of the young men who re- ceived B. A. degrees had a military obligation to fulfill, and 12 15 industry and agencies other than the public schools lured people away from teaching. As a result of this situation, the United States was faced with a great depletion in its teaching ranks. Since World War II technological advance and the increas- ing demand for peOple who have more than a high school education have caused more and more college graduates to enter fields other than teaching. This, with problems encountered as a result of the huge influx of male students into colleges and universities, has increased the problem of acquiring an adequate supply of well- trained teachers. These male students, who came in under the G.I. Bill, failed to receive adequate counseling in setting up their college curricula, causing excessive numbers to train in over- crowded areas, such as physical education and the social sciences. When these men were unable to find teaching positions in their major areas of preparation, they turned to other vocations and were lost to the teaching profession. The Korean War also had its effect on the supply of male teachers. Up until 1950 most male graduating seniors could look forward to settling down in the vocation of their choice. With the conflict in Korea came a degree of uncertainty. Since then, most male college graduating seniors have had to fulfill military obligations. This has deprived the teaching profession of would- be teachers for a period of from two to four years for each per- son. Some of those who planned to teach when they were in college never did teach after completing their military service. During the early years of the Korean War, many school boards refused to hire males who had not completed their term of military service. ___:A 14 This discouraged some from teaching who might have taken teaching positions if they had been able to secure one upon graduation from college. The change in marriage and family customs since World War II has multiplied the problems connected with teacher supply and demand. Women are generally marrying at a younger age and having larger families. This has caused the school-age population to in- crease while the availability of women for teaching has decreased.1 We would normally expect elementary school population to increase with an increase in birthrate. It has not been until I l recent years, however, that such a great percentage of youngsters \ of school-age have begun and completed their high school education. ‘ This may be attributed to more strict enforcement of state laws of ‘ compulsory education and also to child labor laws. All of this has created more need for competent, well-trained high school teachers as well as elementary teachers. These and many other factors have increased the problems connected with supplying an adequate number of college graduates for the teaching profession. Other Professions If the other major professions experienced the same pro- blems of supply and demand, we might not be so concerned as we 1National Education Association, "The Postwar Struggle to Provide Competent Teachers," Research Bulletin, XXXV (Oct., 1957), 101f. __-__ ___A__ __, _ _—‘Q A 15 are about the present situation. Few studies concerned with per- sistence have been conducted by other professions. Robert Pace2 conducted a study several years ago in which he surveyed a group of peOple who had entered college during the years 1924-1929. He found that only a few more than half of the peOple who graduated from college actually found work in the field of their preparation. The largest percentage of those entering the field for which they had trained were those persons who trained for one of the estab- lished professions, mainly engineering and medicine. Another study conducted by Dael Wolfle3 showed that "high percentages" of persons preparing for such fields as engineering, health (medicine, dentistry, etc.), and law went into the field for which they had trained in college. Haveman and West made a comprehensive study of college graduates and in 1952 reported that: Among graduates who started out studying for law, medi- cine, or denistry, eight out of ten have ended up practic- ing their chosen professions; one in 100 has gone into some other profession, and two out of ten hold a business or government job. They further assert that one of the most common complaints of college graduates "is the matter of how little guidance or ad- "5 vice of any kind the colleges have offered to their students. 'This study is not primarily concerned with what happens 2Robert C. Pace, 0p. cit., passim. 3Dael Wolfle, Op. cit., pp. 6lff. 4E. Haveman and P. S. West, Op. cit., p. 150. 51bid., p. 225. 16 to teachers once they take a teaching position. This has been done many times previously. It is, however, interesting to note what happens to persons in professions other than teaching. Albert Reis recently conducted a study of white male professional persons twenty-five years old or older. He discovered that: . . . professional persons are more immobile than persons in other major occupational groups. This study suggests that a sizeable part of that immobility is contributed by persons in the old established professions only. Teaching Profession Numerous research studies and dissertations have been written on why teachers leave the teaching profession. Many have also been completed on the tOpic of why people choose teaching as their career or vocational objective. It would be pertinent to pay particular attention to some of the more significant research conducted in these areas. In 1945 Jay Pylman,7 Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Grand Rapids, Michigan, reported the results of a study cover- ing the post-World War I year of l920 to the pre-World War II year of 1943. He found that during these years, in Michigan alone, the professional mortality in teaching was seventy-seven and three- tenths percent. In 1943 only twenty-two and seven-tenths percent of the 1920 graduates were still actively engaged in teaching or in school administration. Pylman also discovered that those who 6Albert J. Reis, "Occupational Mobility of Professional Workers," American Sociolggical Review, XX (Dec., 1955), 693-700. «r 7Jay L. Pylman, loc. cit. 17 leave the teaching profession do so, most frequently, shortly after beginning their teaching service. During the years 1939 to 1949, Eugene Richards, Director of Certification for Michigan, conducted a study in Michigan to determine the persistence of certified teachers. The year 1939 was the first year Michigan began issuing provisional teaching certificates in their present form. During this ten year period the colleges and universities of Michigan recommended 33,000 per- sons for provisional certification. In the Fall of 1949 only 1 11,000 of these peOple were still teaching. This condition, to the best of Richard's knowledge, has not improved over the suc- ceeding years.8 Many studies have been made concerning the number of peo- ple who actually enter the teaching profession. In 1953, a thir- teen-state study was conducted. This research was concerned with teacher supply and demand. It showed that of the 1953 college graduates prepared to teach on the secondary level only fifty- three percent were actually actively engaged as teachers in the Fall of that year.9 In another survey made in 1953, Armsby stated: A recent study showed that only 40 per cent of the 1953 college graduates qualified to teach science and mathematics were teaching in November of that year. 8Eugene Richards, loc. cit. 9Robert C. Woellner, "Teacher Certification, Supply, and Demand," Review of aducational nesearch, XXV (June, 1955), 193—203. 10Henry H. Armsby, "An Educational 'Bottleneck'," School JLife, XXXVII (May, 1955), cover and 127. L 18 Since 1953 at least one study a year has been conducted on one or more of the various facets of teacher supply and demand. Ray Haul reports about the 1954 college graduates as follows: A Year ago [1954] almost 37,000 college graduates completed full four-year programs for preparation for elementary school teaching. Only about 3 in 20 of them are men. About 65 per cent of these men took teaching jobs, while 82 per cent of the women did so. A year ago [1954] about 49.000 college graduates became eligible for high school teaching. This group was divided almost evenly between the sexes. Just under one-half (47.5») of the eligible men entered teaching while two—thirds of the women (64.8%) did so.11 The National Education Association made a study of the graduates of 1955. This organization found that of those gradu- ates certified to teach high school only fifty-seven and eight- tenths percent of the men and sixty-eight and five-tenths percent of the women actually entered the teaching profession the Fall after their graduation from college. Of those trained to be ele- mentary teachers seventy—four and six-tenths percent of the men and eighty-two and seven-tenths percent of the women took teaching positions. This study also delved into reasons why teachers failed «r to enter the teaching profession. It was found that of the rea- sons most often given, these were significant: military service (for men); homemaking (for women); other employment; and continua- . 12 tion of education. Wesley Moon attacked this problem of persistence in 7?. day C. Maul, ”What Happens to (ur New Teacher Candi- dates?" Journal of Health — Physical Education - Hecreation, nXVI (Oct.,1955), 32° 12 . .- . . . . . . ‘ National education Assoc1ation fiesearch D1v1s10n, _°_P___' (fig-t" PP. 33'79- 19 teaching. He used, as the subjects for his study, all of the teacher education graduates from Houghton College during the years 1929-1947. He found that over eighty-two percent of those who trained for teaching actually taught and that about half of them are still in teaching. men tended to persist longer than women. Those who never entered teaching were not questioned very exten- sively, but Moon concluded that, "Circumstances rather than per- sonal choice appear to have been the determining factors . . . in keeping those who have never taught from taking teaching positions.”13 Reasons most often given for leaving teaching were as fol- lows: better Opportunities in areas other than teaching; inade- quate salaries; and marriage and family reaponsibilities.14 Reasons most often given for remaining in the teaching ‘professon were as follows: "personal interest and satisfaction"; "service to society"; "good working conditions"; and "easier to 15 <3ontinue than to change.” Persons who persist the longest in the teaching profession are men who choose teaching as their vocation, either before they enter college or during their junior or senior year, and women for whom teaching was the original vocational choice. Those persons accepting teaching positions as their first position upon gradua- 'ticni from college persist longer than do those entering other posi- tinons and then returning to teaching. Persistence in teaching 13Wesley Moon, op. cit., p. 74. 20 usually increases with the amount of graduate work done by both men and women.16 Characteristics Of Students Phipps,l7 in Kentucky, made a survey of white college stu- dents to determine peculiar characteristics of students enrolled in teacher training curricula. He found that nearly twenty-five percent of these students had mothers Who taught school, and one in eight had fathers who taught at sometime during their profes- sional careers. About twenty percent of these students had bro- thers and sisters who at sometime or another were preparing to be teachers. About four-fifths of the teacher candidates held church membership. Other data in this study tend to support the notion that education students are Of as good academic quality as other students. The teacher candidates in the above mentioned study se- lected teaching primarily on the basis of altruistic and selfless motives. Thirty-eight percent of these students elected to enter teaching after they came to college. These peOple would have decided to train for teaching much sooner if they had received more effective vocational guidance in high school and college. Former experiences related to teaching were found to be positive influences affecting the decision to teach. Most of these students in Phipps' study had little knowledge Of what teaching meant or Ibid. 17Curtis Phipps, Op. cit., pp. l45ff. 21 had to Offer until after they entered college.18 When this study was made, there were only a few teacher candidates who failed to enter the teaching profession in Kentucky. Phippslg concluded that failure to enter teaching cannot be attri- buted to the associations, curricula, or functions of teachers. In the New York City area, George Lapidus2n completed a study in which he compared education students with non-education students. On entrance examinations at Brooklyn College he found that females majoring in elementary education were generally in- ferior to other female students. However, females majoring in secondary education were not inferior to other female students. Of the males majoring in education, only those majoring in science The education showed any superiority over non-education students. college scholastic records of all the education students was above the fiftieth percentile. Lapidus further stated: In the present study, the differential selection of vocational objectives by students appeared to be related more significantly to vocational interest and personality characteristics than to intellectual or sociological fac- tors.21 Many studies have been made refuting the above statement. 18Ibid. 191bid. 20George Lapidus, "A Comparison of Education and Non- Education Students with Respect to Their Choice of Vocational Objectives...." (Dissertation, New York: New York Universzity, 1955) . pp. 189ff. 21Ibid., p. 205. 22 Henman and Holt22 found that of 16,350 cases in their study, eighteen percent of the seniors in high school who had selected teaching as their vocational goal were of unfavorable scholastic ability. Learnedzfi found that students in Pennsylvania preparing to be teachers were more deficient in general education background than students preparing for non-teaching positions. Preconceptions Most young peOple hold vivid preconceptions of the voca- tions for which they plan to prepare. Many studies have been con- ducted to determine the preconceptions of teaching held by high school and college students who plan to enter the teaching profes- sion. 24 Leila Stevens used the projective technique in an Open- ended questionnaire study of high school seniors to seek out the attitudes Of these students toward teachers and teaching as a «r career. She found that those students who planned to teach regard the school and its social milieu as attractive. They did not 22V. A. C. Henman and F. O. Holt, "A Report on the Admin- istration of Aptitude Tests to 34,000 High School Seniors in Wisconsin in 1929 and 1930," Bulletin of the University of Wis- c0nsin, NO. 1786 (June, 1931), passim. 23W. S. Learned, "Tested Achievement of Prospective Teachers in Pennsylvania," Thirty-First Annual Report, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1936, pp. 31-51. 24Leila Stevens, "The Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward Teaching as a Career," (Dissertation, Madison, Jis.: University of Wisconsin, 1954), passim. 23 consider school work difficult, but they regarded teaching as chal- lenging, varied, giving happiness to the teacher, and they made fewer remarks about the effects of teaching on the teacher himself. Those students who planned to teach were most highly motivated by opportunity for service. They were motivated to a lesser degree by aptitude motives and least of all by enjoyment of intellectual life. Most of these students thought teachers' salaries were too low, but all were poorly informed about the beginning salaries Of teachers. A large percentage of them had incorrect ideas about the cost of a college education.25 In a study completed in 1954, Brand26 attempted to dis- cover the preconceptions of prospective teachers concerning the attitudinal and/or social role of the teacher. The "Survey of Teaching Practices" was administered to one-hundred students in Minnesota colleges. The results of this test show that these prospective teachers have the following traits or attitudes: 1. As teacher candidates progress in their training, they become more group-centered and informal «in their vieWpOints re- garding teaching practices. 2. College seniors are more prone to favor the group- centered and integrated approach to teaching than are teachers already in the field. 251bid. 26Werner E. Brand, "Opinions of 1Drosnective Teachers with Respect to Teaching Practices," (Dissertation, Jreeley, Colo.: COlOredo State College of Education, 1954), pp. ii-iv. ii_,, n —_\A 3. The problems of most concern to prospective teachers are (1) planning of classroom work, (2) motivating pupils, and (3) dealing with pupil cliques. 4. Attitudes are influenced very little by majoring in specific subject areas. 5. Prospective elementary school teachers are more inte- grative in attitude than prospective secondary school teachers. .6. The more intelligent prospective teachers are more integrative in attitude than are the others. 7. Prospective teachers in state teachers colleges be- come more integrated in attitude than peOple in liberal arts colleges. In a study conducted by Richey and Fox27 3,917 students from 100 high schools were questioned about the teaching profes- sion. The students were, in general, improperly informed about teaching. Of this group thirteen percent had given serious atten- tion to teaching, but only two percent had decided to prepare for the profession. Girls fOund teaching more attractive than did the boys, but even then forty percent of the girls thOught teaching would be a deterrent to marriage. The main disadvantages to teach- ing, as seen by these students, were low salaries, lengthy prepara- tion, and too many social restrictions placed upon the teacher. William Nuttingze :nade .-. study of the attitudes of 3,140 27Robert Richey and William Fox, "Teacher Supply and De- mand," Review of Educational Research, XXII (1952), 219-223, 28William C. Nutting, "Teacher Supply and Demand," Review of Educational Research, XXII (1952), 219-223- “54‘ 25 students from grades six through fourteen. In addition to the students, there were 351 teachers included in the study. He also conducted seventeen group interviews in regard to attitudes to- ward the teaching profession. In most cases the subjects ques- tioned had little Opportunity to become informed about teaching and teacher supply and demand problems. Most of them saw teaching as uninteresting, financially unattractive, and low in prestige. Reasons for Entering or Leaving The following section summarizes research pertaining to (1) reasons why teachers leave the profession and (2) reasons for not entering the profession once a person has completed his train- ing for teaching. In a doctoral study, Vernon Mork surveyed high school and college students who had already chosen teaching as their voca- tional objective to see if he could determine their reasons for choosing teaching. By means of a questionnaire he found that the following reasons were most often given: 1. Always enjoyed working with children; 2. Always enjoyed working with youth; 3. Always enjoyed a particular subject or activity; 4. Influenced by enjoyable experiences with young people in out-of—school activities; 5. Influenced by my mother; 6. Had a great ambition to help raise moral standards and help develOp the younger generation; 7. Influenced by tggchers who did not talk to me about teaching. 29Vernon N. Mork, "An Analysis of Influential Factors Related to How and When Certain High School and College Students Selected Teaching as a Career," (Dissertation, Grand Forks, N. D.: University of North Dakota, 1954), passim. 26 Another study}n showed that the influential persons in caus- ing young peeple to decide to enter teaching were teachers. The most influential experiences were those ones with groups of child- ren. The most commonly stated personal reasons for entering teach- ing were an opportunity to serve mankind, an opportunity to grow professionally, and an Opportunity to work with young peOple. The main reasons given for not entering the teaching pro- fession were: "(1) low salaries; (2) lack of information about teaching; (3) undue amount of public pressures; (4) too many par- ent and community responsibilities; and (5) high teacher load."31 Anthony LaBue3? conducted a study in which he surveyed people who began a teacher training curriculum but did not persist after the saphomore year in college. The greatest number of women who failed to persist in the teacher education course of study did so because of low academic standings. Also a large number trans- ferred to different institutions. Some felt they lacked the capa- bilities to become a good teacher. Other comments these pe0ple made were as follows: no interest in teaching; desire to take more courses in major field of study; disapprove of scheduling practices in art education; admission tests showed unfitness; advised by education professors not to continue in preparation to teach; education courses have little content of worth; many of 30$e1mer Ostlie, Op. cit., pp. 80f. 511bid. 52Anthony C. LaBue, "An Analysis of Some Factors Associ- ated with Persistence of Interest in Teaching as a Vocational Choice," (Dissertation, Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University, 1954), passim. 27 my friends dissatisfied with my choice; and no desire to explain things to others. The majority of women who left the profession were house- wives. Others were scattered among diversified types of semi- professional positions.33 The reason most often stated by the male subjects in this study was "low salaries." Others mentioned were as follows: change of vocational goal; transfered to another college; felt that education courses were not valuable enough in terms of time spent on them; admission tests showed unfitness; more interest in major area of study than in teaching; personal feeling of inade- quate capabilities to teach; and entered military service.34 The men who did not persist in teaching were engaged in such vocations as college teaching, recreation, industry, business, semi—professional work, and a number were still undecided about their choice of a vocation.35 Garwood implies that although a sufficient number of teachers are trained, we lose them because of low salaries. Based on the number of teachers who leave the profession each year, he says, "No other profession has as great a turnover as the teach- "36 ing profession. 35Ibid. 34Ibid. 351bid. 36John D. Garwood, "Plenty of Teachers -- at a Price," School Executive, LXXV (Feb., 1956), 58. 28 In 1944 superintendents Of schools were asked this ques- tion: "In your Opinion what are the reasons why teachers have been leaving the profession?"37 They gave the following replies: Low salaries 80% Better Opportunities in other fields ‘ 78% Betgggtgpportunities in other school 54% Insecurity Of tenure 38% Restrictions on social habits 18% Poor living conditions 18% Restrictions on marriage 14% Poor working conditions 6% Lack of professional status 3% Disciplinary problems 2% Work not appreciated 2% Unsuited to teaching 2%38 Restrictions on religion Recommendations Many educators and laymen have suggested many kinds Of measures to prevent the wholesale exodus Of teachers from the teaching profession. Since it would be an unending task to sum- marize all Of them, the author has included one which is quite comprehensive. During 1955 86,696 students graduated from American colleges with an A. B. degree (or its equivalent) and teaching certificates. Of this number 29,896 did not accept teaching posi— tions. TO correct the loss of certified teacher candidates this study suggests that the following steps should be taken: 1. Provide adequate salaries; 37"Why Teachers Leave," The Nation's Schools, xxx1v (Sept., 1944), 52. 381bid. 2. Provide satisfactory working conditions; 3. Give teachers community status; 4. Colleges must make every possible effort to place those who are prepared to teach; 5. Make teacher education curricula available to all college students; 6. Make scholarships available to teacher candidates.39 Summary and Conclusions In this chapter we have attempted to review some Of the re- search that is related tO the problem Of teacher supply and demand. The chapter began with a review Of the history Of the problem Of teacher supply and demand. After presenting the back- ground Of the study, an examination was made Of supply and demand problems in other major professions. Most Of the chpater was devoted to the problem of teacher supply and demand and its related facets. The areas reviewed in connection with this were: (a) the persistence of teachers and teacher candidates in their choice Of teaching as a vocation; (b) the characteristics Of students who train to be teachers; (6) the preconceptions held by high school students and also teacher can- didates with regard to various phases 6} teaching; and (d) the reasons most often given for entering the teaching profession and also reasons given for leaving the profession. The final section Of this chapter was a brief review of suggestions that have been made by members of the profession, and also laymen, as to how the problem Of teacher supply and demand can best be handled. 39Raymond C. Gibson, loc. cit. 30 Many research studies have been reviewed, but as yet no study has been examined which deeply attapks the problem Of why teacher candidates fail to enter the teaching profession. These studies, however, have been helpful in suggesting hypotheses which can be tested in this dissertation. Ideas for testing these hypotheses have also been acquired through analysis Of these related studies. CHAP ER III THE hETHOD OF THE STUDY . Construction Of the Instrument After a review of the literature related to this study and after a statement Of hypotheses, the investigator was confronted with the task of constructing a suitable instrument which would produce the data needed to test each hypothesis. Since the subjects Of this study were spread over a wide geographic area, the questionnaire seemed to be the most effective instrument to employ in gathering the needed data. The instrument in its final form is a combination Open- end, closed-end questionnaire. The investigator felt this type of instrument would be most easily answered by the subjects of this study. The closed-end items on the questionnaire generally take the form of multiple choice or "yes-no" answers. The Open-end items provided Opportunities for the respondents to add to stated lists of answers in various questions. One of the problems confronted in constructing an effec- tive instrument was that Of having a form which both those who did and those who did not enter the teaching profession could an- svner. It would have been fairly simple to design a questionnaire ‘which could have been answered by one or the other of these groups. 32 To construct the instrument, it was necessary to devise ways to test each hypothesis. The following is a review of the hypotheses and the items on the final questionnaire which were designed to test them: 1. Those persons who have inadequate counseling and ad- vice while in training take positions other than teaching. Adequate advice would include: a. b. Placement aid by the college. Continuity of enrollment advisors (Having had not more than two enrollment officers). Advice concerning areas of majors and/or minors so that the student will not be trained in a teaching subject of over-supply. help in discovering aptitudes for teaching. Willing assistance by individual instructors. Pleasant interviews with school administrators during one's search for a position. In order to test this hypothesis, the questionnaire 1 included these items: How were the services of the Placement Bureau when you were seeking a teaching position? Did the Placement Bureau keep you informed about teach- ing positions available? Were you made aware of where to look for current posi- tions that were available? Did you return your completed forms to the Placement Bureau prior to graduation? The above items were designed to test part a. of this hypothesis. To test parts b., c., and d., the questionnaire 33 contained these items: tion: How many enrollment officers did you have at M-S.U.? While at M.S.U. did your enrollment officer ever advise you to major in a specific area? Did any person connected with the teaching profession ever try to help you determine whether or not you would do well in teaching? If' es, what was this person's position? While at M.S.U., did your major professor ever advise you not to enter teaching? Did he warn you against preparing to teach in a teach- ing area that was ”overcrowded”? Part e. of the first hypothesis was tested by this ques- In general, did you find that your instructors at M.S.U. were willing to give you time for advice and help with your problems? To test part f., these items were included: Were you interviewed by a school administrator? By how many school administrators were you interviewed? For the three (3) (or less) administrators that you remember best, indicate the response which you feel best fits the administrator(s) in your mind: Were your questions answered satisfactOrily? «r Did you feel that a just amount of interest was expressed toward you? Were you favorably impressed by the way the interview was conducted? Did you feel you gained the needed information about the position offered? Were there any shortcomings on the part of any of the administrators who interviewed you? What were these shortcomings? 2. Those persons whose student teaching assignment did 34 not include the following experiences take positions other than teaching: sis: a. Having taught in a major or minor subject area of personal competence. b. Having had previous training in coping with prob- lems related to discipline. c. Having had complete charge of one or more class— rooms for at least three weeks of the assignment. d. Having had a pleasant relationship with supervis- ing teacher(s; and college coordinator. e. Having had a sense of personal enjoyment with the student teaching experience. f. Having had previous experiences with groups of children. The following question tested section a. of this hypothe- Did you do your student teaching in either a major or minor area in which you felt you were adequately pre- pared? To test part b., these items were composed: In any courses which you took prior to student teaching, was the topic of child behavior or discipline studied? To what extent was this study effective in helping to prepare you to meet such problems in the classroom? Parts 0., d., c., and f. were tested by these questions: During your student teaching experience, how many weeks did you-have complete charge of one or more classrooms? How would you characterize your experiences with your supervising teacher? How would you characterize your exPeriences with your college coordinator? 35 How would you characterize your student teaching experi- ence? *- Had you had experiences with groups of children prior to your student teaching experience? The preceding two hypotheses and the one which follows are concerned with matters over which educational institutions have some control. 3. Those persons who have had teachers or instructors who fail to meet the following criteria take positions other than teaching: a. f. Maintains neatness of dress and appearance. Maintains a democratic rather than authoritarian attitude in the classroom. Has a c00perative and respectful attitude toward other members of the teaching profession. Possesses the necessary actual public schoolroom experience. Offers practical experiences which prove to be beneficial in actual classroom teaching. Expresses a wholesome attitude about working conditions. Most of these criteria are covered in the questionnaire by one or two items as follows: Criteria a.: How would you characterize the teachers and instructors you have had with regard to their general appearance? Criteria b.: Did your teachers and instructors maintain a democratic attitude in the classroom, as opposed to an authoritarian 36 attitude? Criteria c.: How would you characterize the attitudes of your teachers and instructors toward other members of the teaching pro- fession? How would you characterize the respectfulness of your teachers and instructors toward one another? Criteria d.: Did you feel that your College of Education instructors possessed the necessary public school experience to prop- erly qualify them to be effective in teacher training? Criteria e.: How would you rate the experiences offered you by your College of Education instructors? Did these experiences prove of benefit in actual classroom application? Criteria f.: Did your College of Education instructors ever lead you to think that your social status as a teacher would be anything other than desirable? How would you characterize your teachers' and instructors' attitudes about their work? The next four hypotheses are ones over which educational institutions have little, if any, control. 1. Those persons who decided to train to be teachers during their first two years in college take positions other than teaching. + To test this hypothesis, this question was included in the questionnaire: When did you make your first decision to prepare to be a teacher or fulfill the requirements for a teaching certif- icate? 2. Those persons who maintain a grade point average of 37 3.00 or more during their undergraduate years take positions other than teaching. To test this hypothesis, the author examined the scholas- tic records of the subjects of this study. These records were obtained from the Office of the Registrar. 3. Those persons who are married at the time of gradua- tion take positions other than teaching. The question designed to test this was: Were you married when you graduated from Michigan State University? 4. Those persons whose friends and/or relatives were un- favorably disposed to teaching as a career take positions other than teaching. To test this hypothesis, the following items were included: Was your mother ever a school teacher? About how many years did she teach? Was your father ever a school teacher? About how many years did he teach? Were any of your brothers or sisters ever a teacher? Did you have any friends or relatives who tried to per- suade you not to teach or take a teaching position? If you did, who were they? 9 Did you have any friends or relatives who tried to per- suade, or encourage, you to take a teaching position? If you did, who were they? Another question somewhat related to this hypothesis is: Did public Opinion toward teaching influence your decision about taking a teaching position? If yes, how did it influence you? The third group of hypotheses consists of some hunches or guesses that either the investigator or local educators had 38 concerning various aspects of the general problem of this dis- sertation. 1. Those persons who take the teacher training curriculum in order to qualify for a State of Michigan scholarship take posi- tions other than teaching. This hypothesis was tested with the following items: While an undergraduate at M.S.U., did you ever have a scholarship? Was this scholarship awarded to you to help you train to be a teacher? Which years did you use this scholarship? Could you have attended college without the aid of this scholarship? Would you have enrolled in the teacher training curriculum if you had not had this scholarship? Did the availability of a scholarship have anything to do with your decision to train for teaching? If yes, would you say this was the main reason you chose the teacher training curriculum? 2. Those persons who show greater ability on their col- lege entrance examinations take positions other than teaching. To test this hypothesis, it was necessary to refer to the personal records of each person who responded with a completed questionnaire. This information was obtained through the Records Office. The test scores used for this portion of the study were those from "The American Council Psychological Examination" and the "Michigan state University Reading Test, Form Am A total score of eight or higher on either test was considered as repre- senting "higher ability." 39 "The American Psychological Examination" measures one's ability to think quantitatively. It measures a person's abilities in the areas of scientific and technological curricular areas as well as areas of language, literature, social studies, etc. The total score on this test yields a score which is an indication of one's general college ability. The "Michigan State University Reading Test" measures one's general reading (recognition) vocabulary and general reading com- prehension. The total score gives an indication of one's general reading ability. 3. Those persons who feel they did not have a good know- ledge of their major and/or minor subject areas at graduation take positions other than teaching. To test this hypothesis the questionnaire contained these items: What was your major(s) at Michigan State University? What were your minors at Michigan State University? Did you feel you had a good knowledge of your major sub— ject(s) when you graduated from Michigan State University? Did you feel you had a good knowledge of your minor sub- jects when you graduated from Michigan State University? 4. Those persons who take the teacher education curricu- lum, who from their freshman year never intended to enter teaching, but who entered the program for specified personal reasons take positions other than teaching. The items included in the questionnaire to test this hy- pothesis are stated below: During your undergraduate years, did you from your 4O Freshman year plan to enter teaching? If 22, which one or more, of the following statements apply to you? a. I never intended to enter the teaching pro- fession. b. I got a teaching certificate as an insurance measure against the future. c. I thought that the teacher training curriculum would give me excellent training for parenthood. d. None of these, but instead, this one: . . . . Although the remaining items on the questionnaire were not related to a specific hypothesis, they were included for varied reasons. The purpose of the first question was to determine which of the respondents entered teaching and which respondents did not enter teaching the Fall after graduating from Michigan State Uni— versity. The item was also placed first on the instrument to get the respondents immediately involved in the completion of the questionnaire. The item reads as follows: Did you or did you not accept a teaching position the ‘ Fall after graduating from Michigan State University? Items concerned with reasons why respondents did not take I teaching positions followed this question. These items appear to be the most significant ones included in other studies of this nature. They are included in the sub—items below: Which would you give as your main reason(s) for not tak- ing a teaching position the Fall after you graduated from M.S.U.? a. The teaching salaries offered me were inadequate. b. I was drafted into the armed forces. 0. I continued my education as a graduate student. d. I was expecting a child. e. Homemaking responsibilities. Another question not related to an hypothesis was included to discover those areas of work, other than teaching, which res- pondents entered. This question was stated as follows: What position did you assume after graduating from M.S.U.? 41 Related studies show variation in the age of graduates, sex, and the percentage of persons holding elementary or secondary certificates who failed to enter teaching. Questions included to test for similar variance in these respects were: Which teaching certificate did you receive? What is your present age? Which sex are you? The Trial Questionnaire The trial questionnaire was first submitted to the members of the investigator's advisory committee to check the communicabil- ity of the items on the instrument and also to see whether the items included would yield the data needed to test the individual hypotheses. After the committee approved the form and content of the trial questionnaire, the instrument was administered to gradu- ates of Michigan State University not among the group selected as subjects for this study. The pre-test was conducted with former graduates to find out whether the instrument was communicating to those who would need to complete the questionnaire. It was administered to fif- teen graduates who had trained for teaching. The author then dis- cussed with each person various parts of the questionnaire, noting changes the subjects felt would make the instrument clearer. ltems were changed on subsequent forms until no new corrections or additions were suggested by five of the fifteen people. After all corrections had been made, the questionnaire was again referred to the guidance committee before submission to the \ 42 printers. An experienced lay-out man carefully designed the final form of the instrument to give proper attention to eye appeal, format, and artistic design. Two thousand cepies of the final form were then lithographed. This number of cepies was printed to allow for follow-up letters which included an additional copy of the instrument. Despite the careful proof reading of the final question- naire by members of the guidance committee and others interested in the study, a typographical error was detected after the instru- ment had gone to the press. On item number 45, the words "student teaching" had been mistakenly contracted to "studenting." To cor- rect this error, mimeographed correction slips were included with each questionnaire. These slips read, "Erratum: The word 232‘ denting on question number 45 should read student teaching." Administering the Final Instrument Every care was taken to assure a good return on the initial mailing of the questionnaire. Each of the subjects was assured that his response would remain anonymous and in no way would his name be connected to the findings of the study. To facilitate checking the names of those who responded, the return enve10pes were number-stamped under the postage stamp. Assigning each per- son a number also made tabulating data on IBM cards much easier. The first mailing of the questionnaire was followed in three weeks, and again in six weeks, by a follow-up letter and an additional cOpy of the questionnaire. These were sent to those 43 who had not yet responded to previous mailings. The sample to whom this questionnaire was sent represent a universe in that all of those who certified for teaching in the fiscal year 1956-1957 were used in this study. The questionnaire, however, was not sent to persons whose addresses at the time were outside the continental United States. It was not necessary to use any other sampling procedure since all graduates receiving Provisional Teachers Certificates in l956-I957 were included in this study. The subjects to whom the questionnaires were sent resided in many states other than Michigan. The majority, however, were residents of Michigan. The total group consisted of 787 persons -- 260 males and 527 females. TABLE 1 indicates the number of persons who were residing in states other than Michigan at the time the questionnaire was mailed. The final instrument1 was distributed at three different mailings. The first mailing, March 31, 1958, went to the uni- verse of 787 persons. By the end of three weeks, 503 had returned questionnaires -- nearly a sixty-four percent return on the first mailing. On April 21, 1958, a follow-up letter, questionnaire, and stamped return envelope was sent to those who had not yet 1See Appendix I. 44 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSE OUTSIDE MICHIGAN §tate “ Number Residing Arizona 1 Arkansas 1 California 18 Colorado 2 Connecticut 1 Delaware 1 Florida 6 Georgia 1 Illinois 23 Indiana 14 Kansas 1 Kentucky 1 Maryland Massachusetts 3 hinnesota hissouri New Jersey New Mexico New York North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Texas Virginia Washington Wisconsin 1 A 2 1 2 1 6 1 14 2 1 7 2 4 1 8 9 Total 15 45 responded to the study. Three weeks later a total of 673 ques- tionnaires had been received, representing close to an eighty-six percent overall-return, or a twenty-two percent return for the second mailing. On May 12, 1958, the final mailing was sent to those who had not responded to the previous mailings. When the returned questionnaires were sent to the Tabulating Office, 723 instruments had been returned, thus realizing approximately a ninety-two percent return for the three mailings. Of this number 488 were returned by persons who took teaching positions the F111 after they graduated from Michigan State University; 177 were sent by persons who failed to take teaching positions; thirty-seven were returned because the subjects had moved and left no forward- ing address; eight were returned unanswered; four were returned by persons who had not received a teaching certificate; and nine had to be discarded because of spoiled responses on the completed forms. This left an eighty-five percent return of usable ques- tionnaires. * Procedures Used in Treating the Data and Scoring the Instrument As each instrument was received, it was assigned a control number’and was coded for IBM key punch Operators. The Open-ended items were surveyed in order to set up categories for coding the responses. Question number three ("What position did you assume after graduating from M.S.U.?") was coded according to the following 46 categories: 1. Homemaker 2. Military serviceman 5. Graduate student 4. Personnel worker 5. Professional -- other than teaching, such as statistician, researcher, social worker, engineer, airline hostess. 6. Musician or artist 7. Scientist 8. Businessman or salesman 9. Industrial manager, etc. 0. No response X. Clerical worker Y. Substitute teacher. For "others" in questions sixteen and seventeen, which re- fer to friends or relatives who tried to persuade graduates to teach or not to teach, the following categories were established: 4. Friends who were not college graduates 5. Counseling and guidance personnel 6. High school teachers 7. Other relatives 8. A very close friend 9. A former employer or businessman O. No response X. College instructors. Categories for question nineteen ("What was your major(s) at M.S.U.?") were as follows: 1. Science 2. Business 3. Mathematics 4. Agriculture and agricultural engineering 5. Economics 6. Elementary education 7. Music 8 . English 9. History 0. No response 1. Social studies, political science, and sociology 2. Speech and/or speech correction 3. Industrial arts ‘4. Health, physical education, and recreation 5. Home economics, home management and child development, and textiles 6. Arts 7. 8. 9. O. 47 Special education Foreign languages Journalism No response. The categories used to code question twenty ("What were your minors at M.S.U.?") were as follows: 1. 2. 5. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 0. 10 2. 3o 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 0. Science Social Studies, political science, and sociology Art Music Economics Agriculture and agricultural engineering Foreign languages English History No response Speech and/or speech correction Farm shOp Mathematics Home economics, home management and child develOpment. and textiles Industrial Arts Health, physical education, and recreation BuSiness Driver education Journalism No resyonse. Question twenty-five was, "Did any person connected with the teaching profession ever try to help you determine whether or not you would do well in teaching?" Since the second part of this question was designed to discover the positions of those who znight have helped the reSpondent in this manner, the categories tised in scoring this question were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. A supervising teacher during student teaching A college methods of teaching instructor An elementary or high school teacher A foundations of education instructor An instructor in one's major field An enrollment officer A college coordinator of student teaching A member of a board of education 48 9. A member of the Counseling and Guidance Center 0. No response. Question thirty-seven, designed to find the shortcomings of school administrators who had interviewed the respondents, was scored according to the following criteria: 1. He was too rushed and had little time for questions on my part. 2. He was too eager to have me accept the position. 3. He showed little interest in me and acted as if he were doing me a favor by listening to me. 4. There was an observable personality clash between me and the administrator. 5. He treated me as inferior (lower than himself) -- rude. 6. He tried to oversell his community and school system. 7. He asked personal questions which had no relevance to the position sought. 8. He failed to acquaint himself with my folder prior to the in- terview -- he was late. 9. He lacked knowledge of the specific phases of the educational system or educational problems in his district or county. 0. No response. X. He would not commit himself on the extent of the duties con- nected with the position sought. Y. He could not answer questions concerning the availability of housing in his community. The categories used for question fifty-seven referred to the age of the reapondents. They were as follows: 1. Twenty or younger 2 . Twenty-one 5. Twenty-two 4. Twenty-three 5 . Twenty-four 6 . Twenty-five 7. Twenty-six 8 . Twenty-seven 9. {Ewenty-eight or older 0. No response. On any item which a reSpondent checked more than one an- swery 'the investigator scored that response which was least detri- mental _to the person or experience involved in the question. 49 Method of Analyzing Data The statistical method used to analyze the data related to the hypotheses of this study was the nonparametric :2 test for two independent samples, a method chosen because the "scores" ob- tained on the instrument were not drawn from a pOpulation distri- buted in any certain way, but simply represented a ranking of the subjects according to their response to discrete categories. In addition, this method was used because the hypotheses under test state that the two groups (those who took teaching positions and those who did not) differ in regard to certain characteristics. The formula used to compute x2 is as follows: 2 22:: 22:: (Oij - Eij)2 x = Eij where Oij = observed number of cases categorized in ith row of jth column Eij = number of cases expected under (the null hy- pothesis] ... to be categorized in ith row of jth column ii: ‘§:% directs one to sum over all i=1 j: (r) rows and all (k) columns, 1.1., to sum over all cells.2 All of the data gathered were organized and entered in ccnrtingency tables3 where one variable was whether or not the subjects taught the fall after graduation, and the other variables 2Sidney Seigel, gomparametric Statistics: for the Behav- ioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956), p. 104. 3See Appendix II. 50 were the reSponses of the subjects to the specific question being analyzed. The x2 was then computed. If the chi-square ob- tained from the Table of Critical Values4 was significant at the .05 level of confidence (P), the null hypothesis ( that there is no difference between the two groups) was rejected. Since chi-square gives no indication of the direction of significance, it was necessary to critically analyze each contin- gency table to see if significance was in a positive or negative direction concerning the hypothesis under test. Because many of the hypotheses in this study have sub- categories a decision to accept or reject a major hypothesis had to be made in terms of the significance of the items testing the sub-categories. This meant that some hypotheses could be rejected or accepted with reservations, i.e., certain subecategories could prove to be significant or insignificant while the Opposite was true of the other cazegories tested. Items included in the questionnaire which were not pertin- ent to the testing of the hypotheses of this study were, for the znost part, analyzed simply on a percentage of resyonse basis. All data submitted to the x2 test were figured only in terms of those persons who responded to amparticular question un- less otherwise indicated . Summary 'Chapter three reviewed the methods employed in gathering 4S. Seigel, o . cit., p. 249. 51 data for this study. After construction and administration of the questionnaire was discussed, the returns and manner of coding the 9- data gathered was reviewed. Finally the statistical method and manner of analyzing the data were discussed in detail. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS CF THE DATA The significant purpose for this study was that of deter- mining the reasons why Michigan State University graduates who cer- tified for teaching did not enter the teaching profession and that of determining what positions they assumed other than teaching. In this chapter the discussion pertains to the analysis of the data gathered from the questionnaire. In analyzing’the data it was necessary to examine all responses to each question pertinent to the various hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. In the first analysis of the data, the only variables which were controlled for were those of "did teach'I and "did not teach." Because of the highly significant chi squares in certain areas, it was deemed desirable to employ more rigid controls in a further analysis of the data. Such variables as: male, female, secondary candidates, elementary candidates, science and vocational zaajors, other subject majors, married, single, and those who enter- exi the military service were controlled for in the final analysis ofT'the data.1 It was not necessary to control for all of these variables for all respondents. Fog instance, there was no advan- tage in controling subject major areas for elementary candidates. 1See TABLE 74. 52- 53 It was also unfeasible to control for marriage, or subject major, for male candidates who earned the elementary certificate, as their total number was too small to produce a reliable chi square. Generally, X2s were calculated when the expected frequen- cies were believed to be higher than five. In many cases the X25 were computed even when expected frequencies of less than five were obtained. when an item proved significantly related at the .05 level of confidence, and any of the expected frequencies were below five, an asterick was included after the X2 in the accompanying tables. It is not possible, from the tables, to tell whether or not an insignificantly related item has expected frequencies of less than five. In this final analysis of the data all of the X25 were computed on the electronic computer, kISTIC, at Michigan State University. Hypotheses Over which Educational Institutions Have Some Control First Major Hypothesis The first major hypothesis tested was, those persons who Lhave inadequate counseling and advice while in training take posi- tions other than teaching. The first criterion for ”adequate advice" was placement aid.txy the college.3 This is one of the sub-categories of this 2See TABLES 2 and 10-29. 3See TABLES 2 and 10-15. hypothesis which did prove to be related to the hypothesis for some of the respondents. It was significantly related for all of the women at the .001 level of confidence. The secondary women were the main contributors to the significant relationship of this item for female respondents. For the men, this was not a rele- vant item. When all of the X23 were grouped together there was a significant relationship for all respondents. It should be noted, however, that the women were the main contributors to this rela- tionship. Another interesting point is, that though this item tends to support the hypothesis, there were more of those who did not teach who replied "don't know" to this item than would normally be expected. So whether or not the services of the Placement Bureau were adequate or inadequate has not really been established by the reSponses to this question. The second item under test here had to do with information about available teaching positions.4 This was positively signifi- cant for most women reapondents, except for the secondary married women" The main contributor to the significant relationship of this item seems to be the single women. The direction of the reSponses for the women tend to positively support the hypothesis beiJn; tested, except in the case of the married women, who show a greater tendency to say "don't know" when they do not teach. The item was positively related for all men, with the secondary civil- ians and the secondary science men being the main contributors for ASee SABLES 2 and 11. the men as a whole. When all of the respondents were grouped to- gether there was a significant relationship between their responses and the hypothesis and the direction of their responses was posi- tive. Again, however, the few significant groups mentioned above had Xzs large enough to make the X2 for all respondents appear re- lated to the hypothesis. Item number three under the first criterion had to do with whether or not the respondents were made aware of where to look for positions that were available.5 Again, this item was positively related for all respondents, but when one looks at it more closely it seems that there were just a few respondents who made this a significantly related item. The group contributing the most to the relationship of this item was elementary single women. One of the expected frequencies for this group was 2.0 which might cast some doubt as to whether or not the item is as related as it appears to be. This item was also related to the hypothesis for all single Women and all elementary witn the elementary single women contributing most to its women, 'relationship. This item revealed no relationship to any of the male re- spondents. It is therefore with some reservations that the inves- tigator'accepts this item as relevant and supporting the hypothesis for all elementary, all secondary, and all respondents in general. The next item tested was concerned with whether or not 5See TABLES 2 and 12. respondents returned their placement forms to the Placement Bureau.6 The X2 for all respondents was related at the .001 level of confidence. The direction of the relationship was positive, supporting the hypothesis under test. This item was, however, not relevant for male subjects nor was it so for all of the female sub- jects. In analyzing the data more critically this item was related for all the women with the following classes of women contributing to that relationship: elementary single women, all single women, secondary women majoring in areas other than science and vocational subjects, all secondary women, and all elementary women. The second criterion for ”adequate advice" under the first major hypothesis was having had not more than two enrollment offi- cers. The data yielded by the question designed to test this item did not produce a X2 that was related at the .05 level of confi- 7 dence. The third criterion tested concerned the effectiveness of student counseling in regard to teaching majors. The questions designed to test this item did not produce a relevant X2. Ap- parently, advice about areas to Major in and warnings against pre- jparing for overcrowded areas had little effect upon a person's decision about teaching. The fourth criterion for the first major hypothesis was 6566 TABLES 2 and 13. 7See TABLES 2 and 14. 8See TABLES 2 and 15-16. help in discovering aptitude for teaching. .According to the data gathered to test this item there is no relationship between help in discovering teaching aptitude and the decision to accept a teaching position.9 A list of the people whom the respondents indicated gave them assistance in discovering teaching aptitude is included in TABLE 18. In the College of Education, some have thought that major professors influence students in their decisions about entering the teaching profession, especially those students in secondary education. There was some suspicion that major professors often advised students ngt_to enter teaching. According to the data ob- tained in this study, there is little validity in this assump- tion.10 For the total group of reapondents the item appears to be significantly related at the .05 level of confidence. It is, how- ever, negatively related -— meaning that there are more who are advised not to enter teaching by their major professors who actu- ally enter in spite of the negative advice. i closer look at the data reveals that the significant relationship of this item is de- rived primarily frOm secondary male candidates. In their case the direction of the relationship is negative. There are expected frequencies of less than five in the contingency table, which casts some doubt on the validity of the X28 obtained on this item. 9See TABLES 2 and 17-19. 10566 TABLES 2 and 19. The fifth criterion tested pertained to assistance by in- dividual instructors. The question testing this criterion con- tained two separate lists of responses: one to indicate how often the instructors were willing to give assistance and the other to indicate how many of them were willing to give assistance. In neither case did the X2 approach the .05 level of confidence for any group.11 The sixth and final criterion tested under the first hy- pothesis was related to pleasant interviews with school adminis- trators during one's search for a position. First the subjects were asked whether a school administra- tor interviewed them.12 There was naturally a high correlation between being interviewed and accepting teaching positions. This question was not designed to test the hypothesis, but was a lead- in question for others which followed which were related to inter- views with school administrators. The only groups for whom this item was not related were secondary married women, secondary married civilian men majoring in science and vocational subjects, and single men majoring in other subject areas. The direction of all of the significant re- lertionships was positive, supporting the hypothesis. Another item, which did not actually test the hypothesis, tnrt was related at the .02 level of confidence and which proved to 11563 TABLES 2 and 20-21. 12 See TABLES 2 and 22-25. 59 be of interest, was the number of placement interviews by stu- dents.13 This suggests that the number of persons taking teach- ing positions increases proportionately with the number of inter- views. However, a closer look at the data reveals that the secon- dary women seem to contribute most to the relationship of this item. There is no relationship among elementary candidates or among the male respondents. Each respondent was asked to think of three administra- tors who interviewed them and answer several questions accordingly. The questions were first analyzed in terms of separate administra- tors "A," "B," and "C." When this examination was completed, some of the cells of the contingency tables were too small to analyze. Hence all of the responses for the three administrators were com- bined, and the date were treated as "an administrator." In reply to the question concerning satisfaction about the way the administrators answered teacher candidates' questions, the data proved to be of no relationship at the .05 level of con- fidence for all respondents. This item was relevant only for secondary women who majored in science and vocational subjects.14 The feeling that the administrator displayed a just amount of interest toward an interviewee appears to be a relevant item only for secondary women who majored in science and/or vocation- al. subjects.15 Even the X2 obtained for them, however, was derived 13366 TABLES 2 and 23. 14See TABLES 2 and 24. 15368 TABLES 2 and 25. L— ,, , , ,, massif % 60 from a contingency table containing an expected frequency of less than five. This item does not, therefore, seem to be related to the hypothesis being tested here. When the subjects were asked whether they were favorably impressed by the conduct of the interview, the reSpondents who took teaching positions were critical of the interview situation. The X2, however, was not high enough to be related at the .05 level of confidence. The only persons for whom it seemed to be related were the married women, but here again elementary married women were the main contributors to the relationship of the item and their contingency table contained expected frequencies of less than five, thus yielding a questionable X2.16 The question concerning helpful information gained during the course of the interview was of no significant relationship to any of the groups analyzed in this study.17 When asked whether there were any shortcomings on the part of the interviewing administrators, responses gave little, if any, indication that such shortcomings had anything to do with deci- sions about taking a teaching position. The secondary women seemed to indicate that it was a related reason. It was, however, neg- atively related to the hypothesis and the contingency table con- tained eXpected frequencies of less than five. Their responses indicate that more of those who entered teaching, than of those who did not, felt that the administrators had shortcomings. For 16See TABLES 2 and 26. 178ee TABLES 2 and 27. the other respondents this was not a relevant item.18 For the preceding question a list of shortcomings was com- piled from the questionnaires of the reapondents. They are in- cluded in TABLE 29 and might prove of interest to those who have the task of interviewing teacher candidates. The findings discussed above give no consistent statisti- cal basis for accepting the first hypothesis. We must, therefore, accept the null hypothesis and reject the hypothesis under test. The data concerning the services of the Placement Bureau and those related to pleasant interviews with school administrators indicate that these areas may have some influence in causing cer- tain respondents to choose not to teach. TABLE 2 RELATION Ow INADEQUATE COUNSELING AND ADVICE TO iCCEFTAVCE OF TEACVING I‘OSI",‘1C'NS CRITERIi 1 Y2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ‘ ICANT TICN 1. Placement aid by the college: a. Services of 'lacement Bureau: ‘ All single women 12.33%? .01 Yes + All Secondary women 36.37 E .001 Yes + All Elementary women 33.97*£ .001 Yes + All women 70.34 g .001 Yes 4 Secondary civilian ' men 2.03 - .50 No All Secondary men 3.75 : .20 No All men 3.74 .20 No Total secondary 40.12 .001 Yes + Total elementary 30.13* .001 Yes + Total respondents 70.25 | .001 Yes + 18368 PABLES 2 and 28. 62 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION b. Information about available teaching po- sitions: Secondary married women 3.22 .20 No All married women 6.40 .05 Yes + All single women 16.94 .001 Yes + Secondary other women 8.97 .02 Yes + All Secondary women 27.82 .001 Yes + All Elementary women 8.81* .02 Yes + All women 36.63 .001 Yes + _Secondary other civilian men .49 .80 No ’ Secondary civilian men 6.54 .05 Yes + Secondary married men 1.18 .70 No Secondary single men 1.14 .70 No Secondary science men 8.23 .02 Yes + Secondary other men '15.? .95 No All Secondary men 2.32 .70 No All men 7.11 .05 Yes + Total secondary 30.14 .001 Yes ( Total elementary 8.77* .02 Yes + Total respondents 38.91 .001 Yes + 0. Awareness of where to look for available positions: Secondary married women .48 .50 No Elementary married women .041 .90 No All married women .107 .80 No Secondary single women .18 .70 No Elementary single women 23.34* .001 Yes + All single women 14.39 .001 Yes + Secondary science women 3.79 .10 No Secondary other women .32 .70 No All secondary women 2.63 .20 No All elementary women 12.50 .001 Yes + Secondary science civilian men .97 .50 No 63 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA 2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION Secondary other civilian men 1.18 .30 No Secondary civilian men .59 .50 No Secondary science married men .074 .80 No Secondary married men .85 .50 No Secondary single men .061 .90 No Secondary science men .92 .50 No Secondary other men .13 .80 No All secondary men 1.58 .30 No All men 044 070 No Total secondary 14.31 .001 Yes + Total elementary 12.45 .001 Yes + Total respondents‘ 26.76 .001 Yes + d. Returned Placement Bureau forms: 1 Secondary married women 1.53 .30 No Elementary married women .41 .70 No All married women 1.94 .50 No Elementary single women 4.39% .05 Yes + All single women 4.91* .05 Yes + Secondary other women 7.88* .02 Yes + All secondary women 10.67 .01 Yes + All elementary women 6.46 .02 Yes + All women 17.13 .001 Yes + Secondary science civilian men .097 .80 No Secondary other civilian men .78 .50 No Secondary civilian men .86 .50 No Secondary married men .061 .90 No Secondary other men .46 .50 No Secondary men .86 .50 No All men ' .30 .70 No Total secondary 11.53 .01 Yes + Total elementary 7.76 .01 Yes + Total respondents 19.29 .001 Yes + TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA 2 P SISNIF- DIREC- x ICANT TION 2. Number 01 enrollment officers: * Secondary science married women .030 .90 No Secondary other married women .25 .70 No Secondary other single women .082 .80 No Secondary married women .30 .70 No Elementary married women .65 .50 No All married women .95 .70 No Secondary single women .090 .80 No Elementary single women .57 .50 No All single women .14 .80 No Secondary science women .11 .80 No Secondary other women .13 .80 No All secondary women .36 .70 No All elementary women .028 .90 No All women .38 .90 No SeCOndary science married civilian men .58 .50 No Secondary other married civilian men .052 .90 No Secondary civilian science men .12 .80 No Secondary civilian other men .060 .90 No Secondary civilian men .18 .95 No Secondary science married men .23 .70 No Secondary science single men .026 .90 No Secondary other married men .052 .90 No Secondary other single men .11 .80 No Secondary married men .18 .70 No Secondary single men .14 .70 No Secondary science men .073 .80 No Secondary other men .035 .90 No All secondary men .11 .95 No All men .20 .70 No Total seCOndary .47 .80 No Total elementary .009 .95 No Total respondents .48 .95 No 65 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION 3. ‘AdVice concerning mayors 1 and minors: ‘ a. Enrollment Officer's advice to major in a l specific area: Secondary married women 2.06 .20 No All married women 2.69 .20 No Secondary single women .13 .80 No Elementary single women .67 .50 No All single women .64 .50 No Secondary science women .93 .50 No Secondary other women .60 .50 No All secondary women 1.32 .30 No All elementary women 3.35 .10 t No All women 3.66 .10 No Secondary science civilian men .028 .90 No Secondary other civilian men 1.34 .30 No Secondary civilian ‘ men .76 .50 No Secondary science married men .047 .90 No Secondary other single men 3.36 .10 No Secondary married I men .33 .70 No Secondary single men 3.13 .10 ' No Secondary science men . .088 .80 No Secondary other men .30 .50 No All secondary men .66 .50 No All men .39 .70 No Total secondary 1.97 .50 No Total elementary 1.70 .20 No Total respondents 3.67 .30 No b. Warning against pre- paring for overcrowded .area: All married women .45 .70 No Secondary single women ‘ .0007 .95 L No TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION All single women .017 .90 No Secondary other . women .17 .70 No All secondary women .67 .50 No All elementary women 1.17 .30 No All women .25 .70 No 'Secondary science - civilian men .28 .70 Ho Secondary civilian men .55 .50 No Secondary married men .86 .50 No Secondary single men .50 .50 No Secondary science men .24 .70 No Secondary other men 1.36 .30 No All secondary men 1.48 .30 No All men .28 .70 No Total secondary .073 .80 No Total elementary 2.04 .20 No Total respondents 2.11 .50 No 4. Help in discovering teach- ing aptitudes: By persons connected with teaching: Secondary other married women .009 .95 No Secondary other single women .008 .95 N0 Secondary married women .019 .90 No Elementary married women .083 .80 No All married women .10 .95 No Secondary single women .025 .90 No Elementary single women .0006 .98 No All single women .002 .98 No Secondary science women .49" .50 No Secondary other women .046 .90 No All secondary women .36 .70 No All elementary women .21 .70 No All women .57 .80 No Secondary science married civilian men .63 .50 No 67 TABLE 2--Continued fi— CRITERIA 2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- X ICANT TION ,— Secondary science sin- gle civilian men .19 .70 No Secondary other mar- ried civilian men 2.13 .20 No Secondary science civilian men .31 .70 No Secondary other civilian men .0008 .98 No Secondary civilian men .31 .90 No Secondary science married men .001 .98 No Secondary science single men .30 .70 30 Secondary other single men .11 L80 Ho Secondary married men .018 .90 No Secondary single men .004 .95 No Secondary science men .13 .80 No Secondary other men .i2 .70 mo All secondary men .55 .8C No All men .045 .90 NO Tot;l secondary .91 *.70 mo Total elementary .007 ".95 No Total restondents .92 .90 No b. Advice by mayor fro- ‘ fessor not to enter teaching: ‘ All secondary women 1.84 .20 No All elementary women .16 .70 No ‘ All women .55 .50 No Secondary science ‘ men 3.15 .10 No ‘ Secondary other men .83 .50 No 7 All secondary men 4.37* .05 Yes - ‘ x11 men 4.22* .05 Yes — Total secondary 5.85* .02 Yes - ‘ Total elementary .16 .70 No Total respondents 6.01 .05 Yes — ‘ 5' Willing assistance by irldividual instructors: 8-. How often willing: Elementary married women .31 .90 No ill married women .018 .99 No All single women .83 [.70 No 68 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA X2 P 1 SIGNIF- DIREC- 'ICK”T TION Secondary soience 1 women .65 .80 No 7 Secondary other 1 women .80 .70 No All secondary women .28 .90 No All elementary women 2.43 .30 No All women 2.19 .50 No Secondary civilian men 1.61 .50 No 1 Secondary married men .017 .99 No ‘ Secondary single men .18 .95 Ho Secondary science men .61 .80 No Secondary other men 2.24 .50 No All secondary men .76 .70 No All men .25 .95 No Total secondary 1.03 .95 No Total elementary 1.72 .50 No Total respondents 2.75 .90 No b. Number who where wil- ling: Secondary married women .O19 .99 No Elementary married women 1.25 .70 NO All married women .36 .90 No Elementary single women 1.03 .70 No All single women .71 .70 no Secondary solence women .45 .70 No Secondary other women 2.27 .50 No All secondary women .035 .99 No All elementary women 1.90 .50 No All women 1.93 .80 No SeCOndary science civilian men .071 .98 No Secondary civilian men 2.59 .30 No Secondary science married men .12 .95 0 Secondary married men 1.45 .50 No Secondary single men 1.82 .50 No Secondary science men .031 .99 No Secondary other men 3.13 .30 No All secondary men .54 .30 No 69 TABLE 2--Continued [CRITERIA X2 13 sxcr-mr- DIREC— . ICANT TION All men 1.95 .50 no Total secondary .67 .98 No Total elementary 1.79 .50 No Total resbondents 2.46 .90 No 6. Pleasant interViews with school administrators: Whether or not one was interviewed: Secondary science ' married women 1.80 .20 No Secondary other married women 2.24 .20 N0 Secondary other single women 12.73* .001 Yes + Secondary married women 4.04 .20 No Elementary married women 9.90 .01 Yes + All married w0men 13.94 .001 Yes + Secondary single women 15.09% .001 Yes + Elementary single women 6.09% .01 Yes + All single women 21.18 .001 Yes + Secondary science women 8.05* .01 Yes + Secondary other women 14.97 .001 Yes + All secondary women 23.02 .001 Yes + All elementary women 15.99 .001 Yes + All women 39.01 .001 Yes + Secondary science married civilian men 3.11 .10 No Secondary science single civilian men 13.64% .001 Yes + Sec0ndary other mar- ried civilian men 8.57 .01 Yes + Secondary science civilian men 15.58 .001 Yes + Secondary other civilian men 4.63 .05 Yes + Secondary civilian . men 18.01 .001 Yes + Secondary science married men 6.46* ~02 Yes + ’17 70 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA x2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION Secondary selence single men 16.69 .001 Yes + Secondary other married men 8.57 .01 Yes + Secondary other single men .62 .50 No Secondary married men14.62 .031 Yes + Secondary single men 6.05 .02 Yes + Secondary science men 23.15 .001 Yes + Secondary other men 9.01 .01 Yes + All secondary men 20.67 .001 Yes + All men 21.71 .001 Yes + Total secondary 43.69 .001 Yes + Total elementary 28.01 .001 Yes + Total respondents 71.70 0001 Yes + b. Number of interviews: All secondary women .28 .01 Yes + All elementary women 1.09 .50 No All women 6.81 .01 Yes + Secondary science civilian men .57 .50 No Secondary other civilian men 1.06 .50 No Secondary civilian men .008 .95 No Secondary science married men .oo5 .95 No Secondary science single men .007 .95 NO Secondiry other mgr iad men .27 .70 70 Secondary other single men 5.43 10 No Secondary married men .12 .80 No "econdiry single men ‘ .91 .51 No Jecondary science men .009 .95 No secondary other men 2.71 .10 No All secondary men .83 .50 No All men 1.42 .50 No Total secondary 9.11 .02 Yes + Total elementary 2.10 .20 No Total respondents 11.21 .02 Yes + 71 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION 0. Questions satisfact- orily answered by administrators: Secondary married women .025 .90 No All married women .54 .70 No All single women 1.28 .50 No Secondary science women 4.96* .05 Yes + Secondary other women .062 .90 No All secondary women 1.58 .50 No All elementary Women 1.92 .20 No All women 5.5 .20 No Secondary science married civilian men 2.07 .20 No Jecondary science civilian men .11 .80 No Secondary other civilian men .20 .70 No ‘ Secondary civilian men 1 .51 .90 No Secondary science married men 5.42 .10 No ‘ Secondary science ‘ single men .81 .50 No 7 Secondary married ‘ men 5.54 .10 No 7 Secondary single men 1.65 .20 No 1 Secondary science ‘ men .65 .50 No Secondary other men .50 .70 No All secondary men . 5 .70 No All men .024 .90 ”0 Total secondary 2.51 .70 No Total element ry 1.81 .20 No Total respondents 4.12 .50 No d.; Interest expressed to- ward candidate by ad- ministrators: Secondary married women .74 .50 No All married women 2.44 .50 No All single women .000 .9 No Secondary science women . 5.99% .02 Yes + 72 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGiNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION Secondary other women .000 .9 No AIl secondary women 5.99* .05 Yes + All elementary women .74 .50 To All women 6.75 .10 No Secondary science married civilian men 2.07 .20 No Secondary other sing- le civilian men .50 .70 Ho Secondary science civilian men 1.40 .50 No Secondary other civ- ilian men .51 .50 No Secondary civilian men 1.91 .50 No Secondary science married men 2.05 .20 No Secondary other single men .55 .70 No Secondary married men 1.82 .20 No Secondary single men .58 .50 No Secondary science men .76 .50 No Secondary other men .60 .50 No All secondary men 1.56 .70 No All men 2.25 .20 No Total secondary 7.55 .20 No Total elementary .85 .50 No Total respondents 8.20 .20 No e. Favorable impression ‘ of interview situa- ‘ tion: Secondary married women 1.09 .50 No Elementary married women 4.50* .05 Yes + All married women 5.55 .05 Yes + Secondary single women .15 .80 No All single women .24 .70 No Secondary science women 21.75 .20 No Secondary other 7 women 3 .56 .90 to All secondary women '2.09 .50 ”o 73 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA 2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION All elementary women 2.26 .20 Mo All women 4.55 .50 No Secondary science married ciVilian men .45 .70 no Seconiary other single civilian men 5.02 .10 No Secondary science civilian men .56 .50 No Secondary other 7 civilian men 3.22 .10 No 1 Secondary civilian men 5.78 .20 No Secondary science I married men .97 .50 No Secondary other single men .46 .50 No Secondary married men 1.27 .50 to Secondary single men .65 .50 No Secondary scie,ce men .81 .50 No Secondary other men .82 .50 No All secondary men 1.65 .50 No All men 1.51 .50 No Total secondary 5.72 .50 No Total elementary 1.60 .50 No Total respondents 5.52 .50 No f. Needed information about position gained in interview: SeCondary married w0men .42 .70 No All married women 1.75 .20 No Secondary single women 1.71 .20 No All single women .18 .70 No SeCOndary science women 1.21 .50 No Secondary other women .58 .50 do all secondary women 1_97 .20 No All elementary women .01 .95 NO All women 2.28 .10 No 74 TABLE 2-—Continued . CRITERIA . X2 P SIGNIF— DIREC- ICANT TION Secondary selence married civilian men .14 .80 No Secondary science civilian men .006 .95 No Secondary other civilian men .72 .50 No Secondary civilian men .75 .70 No Secondary science married men .56 .50 No Secondary science single men .15 .73 No Secondary married ; men i1.11 .50 No Secondary single men I .010 .95 No Secondary science 1 men 1 .027 .90 No Secondary other men ‘ .005 .95 No All secondary men .052 .99 No 1 All men 1 .055 .90 No Total secondary £2.0‘ .70 No Total elementary 1 .042 .90 No Total respondents E 2.04 .80 No 3. Shortcomings on the 1 part of school admin-E istrators: 7 Secondary married ! women i .56 .50 No All married women } .95 .50 No Secondary other 5 women E 5.95% .05 Yes — All secondary women ; 1.48 .50 No All elementary women’ .090 .80 No All women . .71 .50 g No Secondary science 3 i civilian men 5 .97 ‘ .50 i No Secondary other 3 i civilian men 3 .41 .70 No Secondary civilian ; men , .51 .70 No Secondary other single men .000 1.00 No Secondary married men .43 .70 No Secondary single men .022 .90 No 75 TABLE 2--Continued CRITERIA r2 P SIGNIF— DIREC- ‘ ICiNT TION Secondary science men .92 .50 No ‘ Secondary other men 1.56 .50 No All secondary men 2.48 .50 No All men .011 .90 No Total secondary 5.96 .50 No Total elementary .11 .80 No TOtal respondents 4.07 .50 No *Expected frequencies below five. Second Major Hypothesis The second hypothesis tested was concerned with those per- sons vvhose student teachingLassignment did not include specific Those experiences and the items designed to 19 test ‘them are analyzed in this next section. true 8 of exyeriences . The first type of experience had to do with assignment in a maiacar or minor subject area of personal competence. This item appears to be related for all respondents. However, when looking more critically at the data one finds that this is relevant only fer xno:5t of the secondary male respondents. It is not relevant for the single secondary men nor for men who majored in areas other than sc:ience and/or vocational subjects. The direction of the re- latioriszkiip was positive for those for whom this was a significantly related item. 20 ‘____________ 1 9See TABLES 5 and 50—57. 12 0See TABLES 5 and 50. if" ~7 The subjects were asked whether any of the courses which they took prior to student teaching dealt with problems of child behavior and discipline. Although their responses to this ques- tion were not related at the .05 level of confidence, there were a few groups for whom this approached a significant relationship. These were the secondary women who majored in areas other than science and/or vocational subjects and secondary men who were mar- ried and who majored in science and/or vocational subject areas. The indication was that for these groups more who did teach had training in these areas than of those who did not teach.21 In reply to the question about the study of child behavior and cliscipline the subjects were asked to indicate how effective thejr :felt this study was in terms of their ability to meet such prol>lxsms. For the elementary people, and the group as a whole, In a critical analysis one this appeared to be a related item. sees that elementary married women carry the main weight of the relationship as far as the X23 are concerned. This item was not relevant for any of the male respondents and for those females who indicated it was relatedit was negatively related to the hy- POthesis. That is, proportionately, more of those who did not teach felt that this training was very effective than those who did teach. This may be due to the fact that when these question- naires were completed, those who accepted teaching positions had been teaching for nearly One year, while those who did not accept N 21 See TABLES 5 and 51. a teaching position did not have experience in testing their own beliefs about child behavior. The third criterion tested under the second major hypoth- esis concerned the length of time that a person had been able to have complete charge of one or more classrooms during his student teaching. The hypothesis stated that a person ought to have at least three weeks of this extended experience. For the entire group this was not a related item at the .05 level of confidence. However, for all elementary respondents this was a related item at the .05 level of confidence. It was, however, negatively re- lated to the hypothesis in that more of those who did not teach a said that they had more than five weeks of complete charge of Classroom while those who taught indicated that they had less than . 2 five weeks of complete charge of a classroom. 3 The fourth criterion tested under the second major hypoth- 9513 is concerned with relationships among student teachers, super- ViSin-g teachers and college coordinators. The data obtained suggest that there is no significant P°Sitive relationship between pleasant experiences with the super— vising teacher and entrance into the teaching profession. This factor is also not significant as it relates to the college co— ordinator. The secondary single men responded in such a manner as to make the item concerning experiences with supervising teachers relevant at the .05 level of confidence, but was negative in x 22See TABLES 5 and 52. 23See TABLES 5 and 55. 78 direction. There were proportionately more of them who felt their experiences with their supervising teacher were always enjoyable who did not teach than of those who did teach.24 The validity of the X2 obtained for this group, however, may be questioned as there were expected frequencies of less than five in the contin- gency tables. Having had a sense of personal enjoyment in student teach- ing was the fifth criterion tested under this major hypothesis. There was apparently no significant relationship between this factor and acceptance or rejection of teaching positions. For secondary single men a X2 was obtained that was significantly re- lated at the .02 level of confidence. There were, however, ex- pected frequencies of less than five and the direction of the re- lationship was curvilinear making it impossible to draw significant conclusions supporting the hypothesis.25 The final criterion tested under this second major hypoth- esis -- previous experiences with groups of children -— proved to be unrelated to all groups except secondary single men who majored in areaS'other than science and/or vocational type subjects. It was related for this group at the .05 level of confidence, but the direction of the relationship was negative. In other words, there were more who did not teach who said they had previous experiences with groups of children than those who taught. 24See TABLES 5 and 54-55. 25See TABLES 5 and 56. 26 See TABLES 5 and 57. 79 TABLE 3 RELATION OF STUDENT TEACHINS EXPERIENCES .TO ACCEPTANCE OF TEACHING POSITIONS CRITERIA' X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION 1 . Opportunity to teach in major or minor subject area of competence: Secondary married women 1.21 .50 No Secondary single women 1.82 .20 No Secondary science women .75 .50 No Secondary other women .91 .50 No All secondary women 1.96 .20 No All women .82 .50 No Secondary science civilian men 8.65* .01 Yes + Secondary other civilian men .50 .70 No Secondary civilian men 6.75 .01 Yes + Secondary science married men 4.47* .05 Yes + Secondary science single men 2.78 .10 No Secondary other single men .22 .70 No Secondary married men 4.70 .05 Yes + Secondary single men 2.64 .20 No SeCOndary science men 7.19 .01 Yes + Secondary other men .69 .50 No All secondary men 7.88 .02 Yes + All men 6.46 .02 Yes + Total secondary 9.84 .02 Yes + Total respondents 7.28 .05 Yes + 2.. Training in coping with discipline problems: a. Study of child be- havior and discipline: All married women .44 .70 No All single women .65 .50 NO Secondary science women .11 .80 NO Secondary other women 5.18 .10 No All secondary women 2.55 .20 No All elementary women .58 .50 No All women 5.11 .50 No Secondary science civilian men 1.75 .20 No Secondary other civilian men .78 .50 No Secondary civilian men .74 .50 No 80 TABLE 5--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- TCANT TION secondary soience married men 5.02 .10 No Secondary science single men .79 .50 No Secondary married men 1.14 .50 No Secondary single men .46 .70 No Secondary science men 5.62 .10 No Secondary other men 1.05 .50 No All secondary men 4.67 .10 No all men 1.28 .50 No Total secondary 7.20 .10 No Total elementary .51 .70 No Total respondents 7.51 .20 No b. Effectiveness of the study of cnild be- havior and discipline: Secondary married women 1.81 .50 No All married w0men 6.08 .05 Yes - All single women 1.24 .50 No All secondary women 1.54 .50 No All elementary women 10.50 .01 Yes - All women 11.64 .05 Yes - Secondary science civilian men .045 .98 30 Secondary other civilian men .55 .70 No Secondary civilian men 1.79 .50 No Secondary married men 1.01 .70 No Secondary single men .29 .70 No Secondary science men .16 .95 No Secondary other men .756 .90 No All secondary men .66 .80 Yo All men .59 -80 N0 Total secondary 2.00 .80 No Total elementary 10.88 .01 Yes - Total respondents 12.88 .05 Yes - 5. Complete charge of class- rooms for three weeks or more: Secondary married women 5.65 .20 No Elementary married women .78 .90 No All married women 4.10 .50 No TABLE 5--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF— DIREC- - ICANT TION Secondary single women .092 .99 No Elementary single women 4.86 .20 No all single women 5.59 .50 No Secondary science women 1.89 .70 No Secondary other women 4.45 .50 No All secondary women 6.01 .20 no A11 elementary women 6.02 .20 No All women 12.05 .10 No Secondary science civilian men 1.28 .80 No Secondary other civilian men 5.20 .20 No Secondary civilian men .95 .90 No Secondary science married men ' 4.64 .20 No Secondary married men 2.82 .70 No Secondary single men .84 . 5 No Secondary science men 2.79 .70 No Secondary other men 5.57 .50 No All secondary men 1.09 .90 No All men 1.08 .90 No Total secondary 7.10 .50 No Total elementary 8.67 .05 Yes - Total respondents 15.77 .10 No 4. Pleasant relationships with supervising teachers and college coordinators: a. Experiences with supervising teachers: Secondary married women .56 .90 No Elementary married women .50 .90 NO All married women 1.2 .70 No Secondary single women 1.22 .70 No Elementary single women 2.55 .50 No All single women 1.80 .50 No Secondary science women 1.99 .50 No Secondary other women 5.47 .10 No All secondary women 4.45 .20 No All elementary women .72 .70 No All women 4.89 .10 Yo Secondary civilian 3041 .20 N0 82 TABLE 3--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- . ICANT TION Secondary married men 1.65 .50 No Secondary single men 6.654 .05 Yes - Secondary science men .50 .90 No Secondary other men .98 .70 No All secondary men .74 .70 No All men 1.50 .50 No Total secondary 5.19 .50 No Total elementary 1.41 .50 10 Total respondents 6.60 .50 N0 Experiences with college coordinators: Secondary married women .26 .90 No Elementary married women 1.10 .70 No All married women .21 .90 No Secondary single women 2.70 .50 No Elementary single women 1.86 .50 No All single women 2.65 .50 No Secondary science women .24 .90 No Secondary other women .12 .95 No All secondary women .26 .90 No All elementary women 2.48 .50 No All women 2.74 .70 No Secondary science civilian men .75 .70 No Secondary other civilian men 4.45 .20 No Secondary civilian men 4.41 .20 No Secondary science married men 1.01 .70 No Secondary married men 1.74 .50 No Secondary single men 1.64 .50 No Secondary science men .74 .70 No Secondary other men €4.12 .20 No All secondary men £3.41 .20 No All men {2.50 .50 No Total secondary 55.67 .50 No Total elementary 12.19 .50 No Total respondents 5.04 .70 No TABLE 3--Continued CRITERIA x2 W SIGNIF- DIREC- ' ICANT TION , 1 Secondary married men 1.63 .50 20 Secondary single men 6.6}! .05 Yes - Secondary science men .30 .90 No Secondary other men .98 .70 do All secondary men .74 .70 No All men 1.50 .50 No Total secondary 5.19 .30 No Total elementary 1.41 .50 10 Total respondents 6.60 .50 No b. Experiences with college coordinators: Secondary married women .26 .90 No Elementary married women 1.10 .70 No All married women .21 .90 No Secondary single women 2.70 .30 No Elementary single women 1.86 .50 No All single women 2.65 .30 No Secondary science women .24 .90 No Secondary other women .12 .95 No All secondary women .26 .90 No All elementary women 2.48 .30 No All women 2.74 .70 No Secondary science ‘ civilian men .75 .70 No Secondary other ‘ civilian men 4.45 .20 No 1 Secondary civilian \ men 4.41 .20 No ‘ ' Secondary science ‘ married men 1.01 .70 No ‘ Secondary married men 1.74 .50 No ‘ Secondary single men 1.64 .50 No ' Secondary science men. .74 .70 No 1 ‘ Secondary other men {4.12 ‘.20 No ' All secondary men !3.41 1.20 No { All men |?.3o :.50 No : Total secondary 33.67 &.50 ; No 5 Total elementary 42.19 .50 I No Total respondents 5.04 .70 ‘ No l 83 TABLE 3--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION 5. Personal enjoyment with the experience: All married women 1.18 .50 No All single women 5.10 .10 No All secondary women 1.49 .50 No All elementary women 1.98 .50 No All women .50 .80 No Secondary civilian men .97 .70 No Secondary married men 5.59 .20 No Secondary single men 8.85* .02 Yes ( All secondary men 5.48 .10 No All men 5.48 .10 No Total secondary 6.97 .20 No TOtal elementary 1.68 .50 No Total respondents 8.65 .20 No 6. Previous experience with groups of children: Secondary other single women 1.68 .20 No Secondary married women .014 .90 No Elementary married women .077 .80 No All married women .091 .98 No Secondary single women .23 .70 No Elementary single women .002 .98 No All single women .25 .90 No Secondary science women 1.56 .50 No Secondary other women .92 .50 No All secondary women .0005 .99 No All elementary women .079 .98 No All women .080 .99 No Secondary science married civilian men .0003 .99 No Secondary other married civilian men 1.26 .50 No Secondary science civilian men .22 .70 No Secondary other civilian men ' .16 .70 No Secondary civilian men .58 .90 No Secondary science married men .026 .90 No Secondary science single men .68 .50 No Secondary other married . men 1.26 .50 No Secondary other single men 5.98 .05 Yes — Secondary married men .45 .70 No 84 TABLE 5--Continued CRITERIA 12 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ‘ ICANT TION Secondary Single men 4.66 .10 No Secondary science men .71 .70 No Secondary other men 5.24 .10 No All secondary men 5.95 .50 No All men .12 .80 No Total secondary 5.95 .50 No Total elementary .075 .80 No Total reSpondents .20 .95 No *Expected frequencies below five. Third Major Hypothesis The third major hypothesis tested in this study was as follovvs: Those persons who have had teachers and instructors who fail 't<> meet certain selected criteria take positions other than 27 teaching. The first criterion tested under this hypothesis was the maitheanance of a neat appearance by previous teachers of the r95P9¢1dents. This item was not related at the .05 level of con- fiden£ge for all of the respondents when they were treated as a comPC>Sj:te group. When one looks at the X25 for separate groups, it SeEflns that the secondary women considered this a related item. Their .X2 made this a related item for all women. The direction 0f tllenir reSponses was curvilinear with the men supporting the ' . . 28 hypothesis and the women refuting it. ___‘____.~‘k¥ 27See TABLES 4 and 58-46. 2 8See TABLES 4 and 58. _ .___,_i 85 The second criterion tested under this hypothesis was the majjitenance of a democratic attitude in the classroom, as Opposed to ad: authoritarian attitude. There was no relationship for the resgn>ndents as a whole between this item and the hypothesis when the .(35 level of confidence was assumed. There was one group for whcun ‘this was a significantly related item and their responses posi:ti;vely supported the hypothesis tested. This group was sec- ondary men who majored in areas other than science and vocations. It W115; relevant for them at the .05 level of confidence. The item also. expproached a significant relationship for all secondary respon- dentss, but this was due largely to the contributions made by the men mentioned above.29 The criterion concerning the coogeratiVo and respectful attj;t11des of teachers and instructors toward one another has no Sigztifdcant relation to one's decision about teaching. The X s on these two items were too low from which to draw significant coru:ltisions, and therefore would not support the hypothesis under test.30 The fourth criterion tested dealt with whether or not the resbflDzidents felt their College of Education instructors possessed the lleeeded public school exgerience to qualify them for effective traiJlinng of prOSpective teachers. The X2 for the respondents as a wklcfile was related only at the .20 level of confidence making \ '29 Sec TABLES and 39. 30See TABLES 4 and 40-41. 86 it: oi'no importance as far as this study is concerned. There are, however, several control grOups for whom this was a relevant item. In Jnost of these cases the contingency tables contained expected freaqizencies of less than five. Some would therefore question the . validity of these X23. In all cases the direction of the relation- flaigx was negative, thus refuting the hypothesis. The groups who obtaaiJned significantly related X2s were as follows: elementary marxriAed women, secondary single women, and secondary married men who xnzijored in science and/or vocational subjects. These groups als<> lielped to make the X2s for the following larger groups appear related: married women, all women, and secondary married men who majored in science and/or vocational areas.51 When askhd how they would rate the experiences offered thenz by their College of Education instructors the respondents in thine study did not indicate that these experiences were signif- icamltfily practical or significantly impractical.52 When the subjects were further questioned as to the useful- ness <>f the experiences offered them, in relation to their proven benffifi:t in the classroom, the X23 obtained for the entire group 0f respondents, for all elementary, and for all secondary was rele‘raxflh but was negative in that more of those who taught felt tha“ 3.958 than most of the experiences proved to be beneficial. Uporl Einalyzing the data mere closely one sees that this item was —________¥p 51See TABLES 4 and 42. 32See TABLES 4 and 45. 87 t :*_:“:‘:::11Ot relevant for male respondents. It was relevant for the fol- lowing female respondents: all single women, with the elementary single women contributing most to the relationship; secondary women, with secondary science and vocational women contributing mOSt to the relationship; and for all women, with the secondary women influencing the X2 the most.53 The final criterion pertained to ideas held by respondents _ about the attitude toward the teaching profession of previous w— teachers and instructors. ‘ The data obtained on this item revealed little, if any, relation to the hypothesis and thus would not support the major hypothesis. It seems, therefore, that students' decisions to i accept or reject teaching positions were not influenced by the attitudes of their teachers and instructors toward either the work- ing conditions of teachers or the social status of teachers. The single women who majored in science and/or vocational areas in- ' dicated that their teachers' and instructors' attitudes about the status of teachers were related to their decisions. .Their respon- ses to this item were related at the .05 level of confidence. The relationship, however, was negative in that more of those who did not teach said that none of~their College of Education instructors ever lead them to think that their social status as a teacher would be anything other than desirable, while those who taught said they were lead to believe their social status might not be N 33 See TABLES 4 and 44. 88 desirable. 34 THE IHFLUENCE 0F “TXCTER CHiRtCTERISTICS ON ACCEPTAVCE OF TEQCVING DOSITICWS 1 CRITERIA 2 P ’Ts GVIF- DIREC- ‘ X FICANT TION l 1 1 . Neathess of dress and I k appearance: All married women .91 .70 No All single women 2.15 .30 No Secondary science women 5.79 .10 No Secondary other women 3.35 .20 No I All secondary women 7.76 .05 Yes - ‘ All elementary women 1.87 .50 To All women 9.63 .05 Yes - Secondary civilian men 1.79 .50 No ? Secondary science men .41 .90 Mo Secondary other men 4.12 .20 No All secondary men 3.34 .20 No All men 4.39 .20 No } Total secondary 11.10 .05 Yes ( 7 Total elementary .92 .70 No Total respondents 12.02 .10 No 2.. Democratic vs. author- itarian attitude in class- room: Secondary married wowen 2.08 .50 No Elementary married women .075 .bO No All married women .85 .70 No Secondary single women 3.65 .20 No Elementary single women .18 .70 No All single women 1.25 .70 No 7 Secondary science women 3.40 .20 No ‘ Secondary other women 1.37 .70 No All secondary women 4.13 .20 No All elementary women 1.87 .50 No All women 6.00 .20 No Secondary science civilian men .063 .90 No Secondary other civilian men 3.06 .10 No 1 Secondary civilian men 3.12 .30 No \ 34 See TABLES 4 and 45-46. 89 TABLE 4--Continued -Av'w V , rwr—v ' CRITERIA 2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ' X ICANT TION Secondary science married men -43 .70 No Secondary science single men .47 .50 No Secondary other married men 1.78 .20 “0 Secondary other single men 2.27 .20 No Secondary married men .47 .50 No Secondary single men .23 .70 No Secondary science men .37 .70 No Secondary other men 3.94 .05 Yes + All secondary men 4.31 .20 No All men .031 .90 No Totaf secondary 8.44 .10 No Total elementary .92 .70 No Total respondents 9.36 .20 No 3. Cooperative and respect- ful attitudes toward other members of the profession: a. Attitudes of former teachers toward col- leagues: Secondary married women .081 .80 No Elementary married women .065 .80 No All married women .012 .95 No Secondary single women .095 .80 No Elementary single women .66 .50 No All single women .008 .95 No Secondary science women .27 .70 No Secondary other women .43 .70 No All secondary women .70 .80 No All elementary women .39 .70 No All women 1.09 .80 NO Secondary science civilian men 1.21 .30 No Secondary other civilian men .76 .50 No Secondary civilian - men 1.61 .30 No Secondary science married men .37 .70 No 90 TABLE 4--Continued CRITERIA K2 P SIGNIF- )IREC- ‘ ICANT TION Secondary science single men .17 .70 No Secondary other married men 2.69 .20 No Secondary other single men .20 .70 No Secondary married men .23 .70 No Secondary single men .004 .98 No Secondary science ‘ men .024 .90 No 1 Secondary other men .59 .50 No i All secondary men .61 .80 No i All men 2.02 .20 No ' Total'secondary 1.31 .90 No Q Total elementary .097 .80 No 3 Total reapondents 1.40 .95 No i b. Respectfulness of 1 teachers toward one 2 another: I Secondary science ‘ married women .0001 .99 No ' Secondary other married women .002 .98 No ; Secondary married 3 women .0003 .99 No ; Elementary married 1 women .030 .90 No ; All married women .030 .99 No I Secondary single 1 women . 52 . 50 No ? Elementary single women .58 .50 No All single women 1.21 .30 No secondary science women .004 .98 No Secondary other women .025 .90 No All secondary women .029 .99 No All elementary women .61 .80 No All women .63 .98 No Sec0ndary science civilian men 2.10 .20 No Secondary other - civilian men 1.37 .30 No SeCOndary civilian men 3.47 .20 No 91 TABLE 4--Continued CRITERIA 2 P SIGNIP- DIREC- X ICANT TION Secondary science married men .46 .70 No Secondary science single men .093 .80 No Seco dary other ' single men .25 .70 No Secondary married men .033 .90 No Secondary single men .34 .90 No Secondary science men .55 .80 No Secondary other men .50 .50 No all secondary men 1.05 .80 No All men .016 .90 No Total secondary 1.07 .98 No Total elementary .004 .95 No Total respondents 1.07 .99 No 4. Public schoolroom exper- ience of College of Education instructors: Secondary married women 5.26 .20 No Elementary married women 8.96% .05 Yes - All married women 8.67% .05 Yes - Secondary single women 8.44% .05 Yes Elementary single w0men .39 .95 No All single women 6.33 .10 No Secondary science women 6.39 .10 No Secondary other women 6.82 .10 No All secondary women 9.04* .05 Yes — All elementary women 1.95 .70 No All women 9.44* .05 Yes - Secondary science civilian men 7.82% .05 Yes - Secondary other civilian men 3.77 .30 Ho Secondary civilian men 5.84 .20 . No Secondary science married ‘ men 6.68 .05 Yes - Secondary science single . men 3.93 .20 No Secondary other married men .31 .90 No Secondary other single men 3.80 .20 No Secondary married men 5.61 .20 No Secondary single men 7.64 .10 No Secondary science men 4.37 .30 No Secondary other men 2.09 .70 No All secondary men 3.21 .50 No 92 TABLE 4--Continued CRITERIA V2 r [SIGRIF- Puma- ” ICANT TION All men 3.43 .50 No Total secondary 12.25 1.10 No Total elementary 2.37 .50 No Total respondents 14.62 .20 No 5. Practical experiences offered and their useful- ; ness: E a. Experiences offered: 5 Secondary science married women 5 .62 .50 No Secondary other married women i .28 .70 "o 1 Secondary married . 2 women i .90 .70 No i Elementary married 5 women £1.31 .30 No i All married women :2.21 .70 No Secondary single women .034 .90 No Elementary single women 1.92 .20 No All single women 1.95 .50 No 3 Secondary science women .35 .70 Ho 1 Secondary-other women 2.70 .20 No l All secondary women 3.05 .30 No i All elementary women 3.2} .20 No 4 All women 6.28 .20 No ‘ Secondary science \ married civilian { men .42 .70 No Secondary science l single civilian 3 men 2.29 .20 no ’ Secondary other i married civilian ‘ men .016 .90 No Secondary other ' single civilian men .050 .90 No Secondary science civilian men 2.71 .30 No Secondary other civilian men .083 .50 N0 Secondary civilian men 2°79 1.50 NO 93 TABLE Anew CRITERIA 2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- X ICANT TION Secondary science 7 married men 2.32 .20 No f Secondary science y single men 3.38 .10 No Secondary other . 7 married men .016 .90 No ‘ Secondary other single men .31 .70 No Secondary married men 2.33 .50 No Sedondary single men 3.69 .20 No Secondary science men 1.77 .20 No SecOndary other men .10 .80 No All secondary men 1.87 .50 No All men 3.11 .10 No Total secondary 4.92 .30 No Total elementary 3.72 .10 No Total respondents 8.64 .20 No b. Usefulness of exper— iences: Secondary married women 3.21 .10 No Elementary married women 1.22 .30 No All married women 4.43 .20 W0 Secondary single women 2.50 .20 30 Elementary single women 4.47% .05 Yes — all single women 5.48 .02 Yes - Secondary science women 8.72* .01 Yes - Secondary other women 2.16 .20 No All secondary women 8.79 .01 Yes - all elementary women 5.69 .10 No All women 14.48 .01 Yes - Secondary science civilian men .053 .90 No Secondary other civilian men 1.24 .30 No Secondary civilian men .39 .70 No Secondary science married men .014 .95 Ho 94 TABLE 4--Continued CRITERIA 2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- K 104nm TION Secondary soience single men .15 .70 No Secondary 3ther mar- ried men .55 -50 N0 Secondary other . single men .56 .80 No Secondary married men .072 .80 No Secondary single men .14 .80 No Secondary science men .14 .80 No Secondary other men 1.76 .20 No 111 secondary men 1.90 .50 Co All men .37 .70 No Total secondary 10.69 .02 Yes - Total elementary 9.23 .01 Yes - Total respondents 19.92 .001 Yes - 6. lnstructors' attitudes toward their work: Secondary married women 1.67 .20 No Elementary married women .043 .90 No All married women 1.71 .50 No Secondary single women 2.32 .20 Yo Elementary single women .43 .70 no all single women .51 .50 No Secondary science women .081 .80 No Secondary other women .078 .80 No All secondary women .002 .98 No All elementary women .12 .80 W0 All women .12 .95 No Secondary science married civilian men .028 .90 No Secondary other married civilian men .088 .80 No Secondary science civilian men .90 .50 No Secondary other civilian men .007 .95 No Secondary civilian men .91 .70 No Secondary science married men 1.04 .50 No Secondary science single men 1.32 .30 No Secondary other married men .088 .80 No 95 TABLE 4--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIC—NIF— 1312ch ICANT TION Secondary other single_ men .76 .50 No Secondary married men .73 .50 No Secondary single men 2.47 .20 No Secondary science men 1.26 .30 No Secondary other men .19 .70 To All secondary men 1.45 .50 No All men 1.69 .20 No Total secondary 1.45 .70 No Total elementary .32 .70 No Total respondents 1.77 .80 No Status of teachers as por- trayed by College of Education instructors: Secondary married women 1.05 .70 To Elementary married vomen 1.82 .50 No All married women .22 .90 No L Secondary single women 2.08 .50 No I Elementary single women 1.08 .70 No i ‘ All single women 2.38 .50 To 5 1 Secondary science women .99 .05 Yes } — | Secondary other women 1.69 .50 No 5 All secondary women - 2.90 .30 No i All elementary women 1.06 .70 Yo ; All women 2.25 .50 No . Secondary science civilian - men 1 .75 . 50 NO 2 Secondary other civilian ’ men 3.13 .30 No Secondary civilian men 4.20 .20 No I Secondary science married 3 men 2.87 .30 No i Secondary science single 5 men 1.58 .50 So : Secondary other married men 1.89 .20 No Secondary other single men 3.48 '.20 No Secondary married men 4.23 .20 No Secondary single men .52 .80 No Secondary science men 1.64 .50 No Secondary other men .15 .95 No All secondary men 1.33 .70 No All men 1.93 .50 No Total secondary 1.24 .70 No Total elementary .48 .80 No Total respondents 1.72 .80 No \ * Expected frequencies below five. 96 Hypotheses over which Educational Institutions Have No Control The first hypothesis to be tested in this category was as follows: Those persons who decided to train to be teachers ' daring their first two years in college take positions other than "teaching. The X2 obtained for the group as a whole was related at the .05 level of confidence. It was negatively related to the hypothesis implying that ”ore of those who taught made their de- cisions to enter teaching during their first t:o years in college. This item was not releVant for the elementary respondents, so the main contributors to the relationship of the item for all respondents Was the secondmry group. The male subjects for whom this was ; relevant item, n-meiy the second ry men Jhc majored in areas other than science and vocations, revealed a positive direc- tion of responses which would support the hypothesis under test. The responses of the females, however, were generally negatively related to the hypothesis. This item was not relevant for the female respondents. They did carry enough weight to cause the X2 for the total respondents to be negative with respect to sup- porting the hypothesis.35 r 35 See TABLES 5 and 47. 97 MBLE 5 HHICH A PERSON TEKCHIVG AND RELATICN OF THE TIL AT (i CHIWG PCSITIONS 1E ,DECIDES TO THAI" F ACCEPTANCE OF TE A ‘CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ' ICANT TION Y - Secondary other married women ‘ .41 .70 no , Secondary other single women .0000 .99 No Secondary married women 3.39 .10 No Elementary married women .12 .80 No All married women 3. 51 .20 No Secondary single Women .027 .93 No Elementary single women .007 .95 No All single women .034 .99 No Secondary science women 3.24 .10 No Secondary other women .22 .70 No All secondary women 3.46 .20 No All elementary women .13 .95 No All women 5.59 go50 1 N0 Secondary science married - CiVlli1n men 1.51 i-30 1 N0 1 Secondary other married civilian men 11.45 ‘.001 ; Yes + Secondary science civilian men 2.28 ’.50 1 no Secondary other civilian men 11.65 .001 Yes + Secondary civilian men 13.93 .01 Yes + Secondary science married men .003 .98 No Secondary science single men .48 .50 No Secondary other married men 11.45 .001 Yes + Secondary other single men 1.38 .30 No Secondary married men 7.84 .01 Yes + Secondary single men 1.86 .50 No Secondary science men .48 .80 No ‘ Secondary other men 9.61 .01 Yes + All secondary men 10.09 .02 Yes + All men 2.63 .20 To Total secondary 13.55 .02 Yes - Total elementary .52 .50 No Total respondents 14.07 .05 Yes - 1f 1 98 Those persons who maintain a grade point average of 3.00 gr more during their undergraduate years take positions other than teaching. It has often been thought that we were losing the best students in education to other vocational areas. If this is the case, it must be for reasons other than that stated in the hypoth- r . 2 . eels, for the A obtained on the grade point averages of the 36 subjects involved in this study was not relev:nt. Those persons who are married at the time of graduation take positions other than teaching, was very significantly sup- ported by the data, which revealed that considerably more mar- ried graduates failed to enter teaching than unmarried. This is due to the fact that large numbers of women respondents indicated that they became honemzkers after graduation}7 The fourth major hypothesis tested under the present cat- egory was as follOWs: Those zersons whotewiriends and/or rel; atives were unfavorablv disgosed to teachin§_as a career take positions other than teaching.3B A number of items included on the questionnaire related to this hypothesis. Some, however, were more closely related to the hypothesis than were others. The first question that was re- lated to this hypothesis was designed to determine if friends and/ or relatives caused the respondents to rejhct teaching as a 36See TABLE 69. 37809 TABLES 66,67 and 73. 38 See TABLES 6 and 48-55. 99 profession. They apparently do not, for no group had a signif- icantly related X2 on this item.39 The second question asked the subjects if public Opinion influenced them in their decision to accept or reject teaching. This item was not related for the group as a whole. It was rel- event for secondary civilian men who majored in science and/or vocational areas and also for all men who majored in science and/or vocational areas. Many have thought that public opinion about teaching has a great effect on a person's decision to teach or not to teach. The data gathered in this study do not support such opinions. The data were seldom relevant and were negatively related to the hypothesis. They seem to indicate that those who teach are in- fluenced more by public Opinion than those who do not teach, but they also indicate that the kind of public Opinion which had the greatest influence was that opposing the teaching profession.40 Another assumption commonly held is that there exists a direct relationship between a student's decision to enter the profession and the fact that he comes from a family of teachers. Again, the findings do not support this notion. There seems to be little, if any, connection between fam- ily members who teach, their length of service, and the decisions of the respondents to teach or not to teach. Dhe contingency 39See TABLES 6 and 48. 40566 TABLE 6 and 49-50. 100 tables which are concerned with the amount of time a parent spent in teaching do not yield valid X25, as several of the cells have expected frequencies'of'less than five. There were a few groups for whom this relationship was relevant. Elementary married women produced a related X2 when asked if their mothers ever taught school. It was negatively related to the hypothesis, however, and tends to refute it. Enough secondary civilian men and male respondents in general in- dicated that they had siblings who had taught to produce a related X2. Again the direction of the relationship was negative tending to refute the hypothesis under test.41 TABLE 6 THE INFLUE“CE OE PRIE”DS iND/OR RELATIVES ON ONE'S DECISICV TO REJECT TEACHING CRITERIA x2 P SIGTIF- DIREC- ICKNT TION 1. Friends and/or relatives Opposed to teaching: Secondary married women .001 .98 No All married women .33 .50 No Secondary single women .0002 .99 No Elementary single wenen 2.32 .20 No All single women 1.19 .30 No Secondary science wOmen .0001 .99 No Secondary other women .042 .90 No All secondary women .048 .90 No All elementary women .11 .80 No All women .16 .95 No Secondary other married civilian men .016 .90 No Secondary science civilian men 1.26 .30 No Secondary other civilian men .54 .50 No 41 See TABLES 6 and 51-55. H 101 TABLE 6--Continued CRITERIA 2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- X ICANT TION Secondary civilian men 1.80 .50 No Secondary science married men 1.34 .30 No Secondary science single men .56 .50 No Secondary other married men .016 .90 No Secondary other single men .66 .50 No Secondary married men 1.36 .70 No Secondary single men .035 .90 No I Secondary science men 1.86 .20 No ' Secondary other men .45 .70 No All secondary men 2.31 .50 30 All men .15 .70 No Total secondary 2.36 .70 No ; Total elementary .010 .95 No , Total respondents 2.37 .70 No 2. Public opinion and de- ' cisions to teach: Secondary married women 1.46 .30 No All married women .45 .70 No Secondary single women 3.01 .10 N0 Elementary single women .031 .90 No All single women 1.76 .20 No Secondary science women .27 .70 10 Secondary other women 3,17 .10 No All secondary women 2.87 .10 No All elementary women .66 .50 To All women 2,55 .30 No Secondary science civilian men 7.51 .01 Yes N.A. Secondary other civilian . men .0005 .99 No Secondary civilian men n.39 .05 Yes N.A. Secondary science married men 2.84 .10 No Secondary science single men 2.58 .20 No Secondary married men .37 .70 No Secondary single men 1.74 .20 No Secondary science men 5.19 .05 Yes N.A. Secondary other men .40 .70 No All secondary men 1.80 .20 No All men 1.11 .30 No Total secondary 4.67 .10 No Total elementary 1.02 .50 No Total respondents 5.69 .20 No 102 TlBLE 6--Continued CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICAWT TION 3. Whether or not ones mother was a teacher: Secondary m rried women 2.73 .10 No Elementary married women 3.55 .10 No All married wo en 6.28 .05 Yes - Secondary Single women .44 .70 N0 Elementary single women .047 .90 No All single women .070 .90 No Secondary science Women 1.38 .30 No Secondary other women .002 .38 No g All secondary women 1.38 .70 No ; All elementary women 2.76 .10 No 4 All women 4.14 .30 Ho 1; Secondary science civil- 1 ian men .047 .90 no Secondary other civilian men 1.21 .30 No 7 Secondary ciVilian men .74 .50 No E Secondary science married men .34 .70 No SeCondiry science single men .0002 .99 No * Secondary other Single i men 1.91 .20 {o 1 Secondary married men .70 .50 No ‘ Jecondary single men .76 .50 No .eccndary scienCe men .21 .70 No ; ~.econdary other men 1.92 .20 No h ill seCondary men 1.52 .30 No L all men 1.62 .50 No t Dotal secondary 2.90 .50 No : Total elementary 3.10 .10 No ; Total respondents 6.00 .30 No 3 4. Whether or not one's t father was a teacher: d All married women 1.55 .20 No v Secondary sixgle women .45 .70 No S Elementary single women 2.68 .20 No 111 single women 2.75 .10 No Secondary science women .42 .70 No :Zecondary other women .15 .70 No .&11 secondary women .50 .50 No All elementary women 1.08 .30 No All women 1.58 .50 Mo Secondary science civilian men .50 .50 No Secondary civili;n men .93 .50 No 103 TABLE 6--:ontinued CRITERIA 2 P Sldfiir- DIREC- ICANT TION Secondary science married men 1.25 .30 No Secondary science single men .19 .70 No Secondary married men 1.09 .30 No Secondary sinyle men .45 .70 No Secondary scienCe men .32 .70 No Secondary other men 1.47 .30 N0 All secondary men 1.50 .30 No All men 2.0? .20 No Total secondary 2.c0 .50 No Total elementary .5? .50 No Total respondents 2.57 .50 do 5. Whether or not one's siblings were teachers: All married woren .96 .50' No Secondary single women .85 .50 No Elementary single women .48 .50 No All single women 1.42 .30 No Secondary science Women .93 .50 No Secondary other women 1.4; .30 No All secondary women .11 .80 No All elementary women .048 .90 No All women .16 .95 Ho :econdary science civilian men 2.44 .20 No Secondary civilian men 4.20 .05 Yes - Secondary science married men .76 .50 No Secondary science single men 2.58 .20 “0 Secondary married men 2.05 .20 No Secondary single men 1.28 .30 No Secondary science men 2.87 .10 No Secondary other men 1.94 .20 No All secondary men 4.81 .10 No All 'zir-zn 5.73 .02 Yes - Total Secondary 4.92 .20 No Total elementary .002 .98 No Total restondents 4.92 .30 No N_-_~___—. ...... .._ 104 Exploratory Hypotheses The final groups of hypotheses tested in this study were 13r0posed by the author of this study, by educators in the area, 311d by colleagues. Those persons who take the teacher training curriculgm_in Elffléer to qualify for a State of Michigan scholarship take positions crtller than teaching. Several lead-in questions were asked before 'bliea crucial question was nosed which would test this hypothesis. ’Dkle: lead-in questions were unrelated insofar as this hypothesis 113 concerned. They enabled the investigator to ask this question: "VVcnild you have enrolled in the teacher training curriculum if ' ‘ycni had not had this scholarship?" The responses to this item vvexre not related at the .05 level of confidence, and would there- 9 fore not suprort the hypothesis/1“ ‘_ » TABLE 7 RELATION OF 3UALIFYI“G EC? ST‘TE OF VICHIGAN SCHOLARSFIPS AND ACCEPTANCE OF TEACHING POSITIONS CRITERIA x2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICAWT TION 1 - Whether or not one ever had a scholarship: Secondary married women .12 .80 No Elementary married women .51 .70 No All married women .43 .90 No Secondary single women .005 .95 No ‘ Elementary single women 2.98 .10 No :_ All single women 1.50 .50 No ‘ Secondary science women .60 .50 No i Secondary other women 1.82 .20 N0 \ 42 See TABLES 7 and 56-59. 105 TABLE 7--Continued CRITERIA x2 p SIEfifF- DIREC- ICANT TION All secondary women 2.42 .30 No All elementary women .64 .50 No All women 5.06 .50 No Secondary science civilian men 1.12 .50 No Secondary other civilian men .27 .70 No Secondary civilian men 1.39 .50 No Secondary science married men .11 .80 No Secondary science single men .12 .80 No Secondary other single men .07 .80 Ho Secondary married men .51 .70 No Secondary single men .20 .70 No I Secondary science men .000 H.00 No } Secondary othernmen .06 .90 No All secondary men .06 .98 No All men .002 .98 No Total secondary 2.48 .70 No Total elementary .62 .50 No Total respOnients 3.10 .70 No 2. Whether or not one would have enrolled in teacher education without the scholarship: All females 2.27 .50 No All males 2.55 .50 No Total secondary 2.58 .50 No Total elementary 2.09 .50 No Total respondents 4.47 .50 No 3. The avialability of a scholarship as it relates to decisions to teach: All married women 2.64 .20 No All single women .53 .50 No All women .27 .70 No All men 1.17 .30 No Total secondary 2.50 .20 No Total elementary .024 .90 No Total respondents 2.32 .50 No \ The second major hypothesis in this eXploratory group was as fcfillows: Thosegpersons who show greater ability on college 106 entrance examinations take positions other than teachig. Some have speculated that the better students to not take teaching positions. We found earlier in this study that there is little, if any, relationship between higher grade point averages and rejection of teaching. Now the data that have been gathered on entrance examination scores indicate that there is no signif- icant relatiowship between these scores and rejection of teaching, at the .05 level of confidence. Due to the insignificantly re- lated X2 we must reject the hypothesis and accept the null hypoth- esis, that there is no difference.43 The next exploratory hypothesis tested in this study was stated thusly: Those persons who feel they did not have a good Knowledge of their major and/or minor subject areas at graduation take positions other than teaching. Apparently a good knowledge of major and minor subject areas has little effect on one's decision to acoept or reject teaching. A good knowledge of one's major subject was related for none of the respondents in this study. A good knowledge of minor subject areas was related in a positive nature for secondary mar- ried women, for secondary single men who major in science and/or vocational areas, and for secondary single men. It was related in a negative reSpect for secondary married men who majored in science and/or vocational subjects.44 433cc TABLE 72. 44See TABLES 8 , 60 and 62. -n—. ««A—<———-n‘ 4‘” “W' 107 TABLE 8 hNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR :ND MINOR SUBJECT AREAS AT GRADUATION AS IT AFFECTS DECISIONS TO TEACH CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION Major subject(s): Secondary married women .52 .50 No Elementary married women .51 .70 No All married women .85 .70 No Secondary single women .28 .70 No Elementary single women .56 .50 No All single women 1.0} .50 No Secondary science women .47 .50 No Secondary other women .017 .90 No All secondary women .49 ’.80 No All elementary women .87 .70 No All women 1.56 .90 No Secoudary science single civilian men .72 .50 No Secondary other married civilian men .12 .80 No Secondary science civilian men .028 .90 No Sec0ndary other civilian men .20 .70 10 Secondary civilian men .23 .90 No Secondary science married men .76 .50 No Secondary science single ‘ men 1.22 .50 No Secondary other married men .12 .80 No Secondary other single men .74 .50 No Sec0ndary married men .026 .90 No Secondary single men 1.96 .50 No Seconlgry science men .022 .90 No Secondary other men '.75 .50 No All seCOndary men .97 .70 No All men .24 .70 No TOtal secondary 1.46 .90 NO Total elementary 2.91 .10 No Total respondents 4.57 .50 No 23. Minor subjects: Secondary married women 5.74 .02 Yes + Elementary married women .055 .90 No all married women 5.77 .10 No Secondary single women .090 .80 No Elementary single women .065 .80 No All single women .080 .80 No Secondary science women .052 .90 No TABLE 8--Continued 108 CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ICANT TION Secondary other women 2.56 .20 No All secondary women 5.08 .20 No All elementary women .098 .98 No All women 5.18 .70 No Secondary science married f civilian men .91 .50 No {_ Secondary other married _ civilian men .016 .90 No t‘ Secondary science civilian ;_ men .52 .50 No Secondary other civilian '. men .085 .80 No ‘2 Secondary civilian men .60 .80 No Secondary science married men ’ 3.85 .05 Yes - Secondary science single men 5.88 .02 Yes + Secondary other married men .016 .90 No Secondary other single men .47 .50 No Secondary married men 2.55 .20 No Secondary single men 6.55 .05 Yes + Secondary science men .001 .98 No Secondary other men .54 .70 No All secondary men .54 .90 No All men .054 .90 No Total secondary 5.42 .50 No Total elementary 2.10 .20 No Total respondents 5.52 .50 No Some data that were uncovered in testing di(i prove related to the hypothesis. These data relxation of subject matter areas, for majors and ceIP1Sance and/or rejection of teaching positions. a c=12..::'vilinear relationsnip between major area of acceptance of teaching p031tions. this hypothesis pertain to the minors, to ac- When all maJor subJect areas were grouped into major . n 2 Ola-$sifications, to facilitate the computation or X , there was study and 109 Physical science majors showed a greater tendency to take positions other than teaching. So did the miscellaneous group which included such majors as: agricultural; industrial arts; home economics; journalism; special education; and health, physical education and recreation. Those who majored in the social sciences and the arts tended to show a greater propensity to take teaching positions. These results are probably due to the fact that there are more opportunities outside the teaching profession for those who majored in areas other than the social sciences or the arts.45 The relationship of minor subject areas to acceptance of teacning positions was also releVant. There was little difference between the two groups who minored in the physical sciences, but the preportion of those who did not teach was greatest anong those who minored in the social sciences and miscellaneous areas. Those who minored in the arts showed a greater tendency to enter teach- ing than any of the other minor groupings.46 The fourth and final hypothesis under the exploratory category tested in this study was the following: Those persons who take the teacher education curriculum, who from their freshman year never intended to enter teaching, but who entered the pro- grwn for Specified personal reasons take positions other than teaching. To test this the reSpondents were asked if they planned to enter teaching from the time they were freshmen in college. The 45 46 See TABLE 61. See TABLE 65. 110 Liresponses indicate that this item is relevant for all respondents when they are treated as a single group. The direction of these relationships is negative, howev~r, which means their responses do 2 not support the hypothesis. Others who produced relevant X s that were negatively related to the hypothesis are secondary mar- ried women, secondary married men majoring in science and voca- tional subjects, and all second ry men. There were groups for whom this was a significantly related item whose responses tended to support the hypothesis in a positive fashion. They were the secondary single women, seccndary civilian men who majored in subjects other than science and/or vocational areas, and all secondary men who majored in areas other than science and vocational subjects.47 The female respondents are the only group who revealed a relevant number of specified reasons for their initial entrance to the teaching curriculum. It seems that more of those who taught said that they, from their freshman year, did not plan to teach than those who did not enter the teaching profession. Like- wise, more of those who did not teach indicated their reasons for entering the teaching curriculum were as follows: (1) I got a teaching certificate as an insurance measure against the future; and (2) I thought that the teacher training curriculum would give 48 me excellent training for parenthood. 47See TABLES 9 and 64. 4 3See TABLES 9 and 65. 111 TABLE 9 ORIGINAL INTENT TO TEACH AS IT nELlTES TO DECISICNS TO ENTER TEACHING CRITERIA X2 P SIGNIF- DIREC- ' . ICANT TION 1. Planned to enter teaching from freshman year: Secondary other married ! women 1.19 .30 No ' Secondary married women 7.22 .01 Yes - Elementary married women .34 .70 No [ All married women 2.60 .20 No Secondary single women 6.29 .02 Yes + I Element ry single women .11 .80 No All single women 3.22 .10 30 Secondary science women 2.06 .20 No ' Secondary other women 1.15 .30 No : All secondary women 3.21 .30 No ' all elementary wonen 1.36 .30 No 1 All women 4.57 .30 No . Secondary science married ' civilian men 1.61 .30 No Secondary science civilian 3- men .62 .50 No SeCOndary other civilian men 6.00 .02 Yes + Secondary civilian men 6 62 .05 Yes + Secondary science married men 3.90 .05 Yes - Secondary science single men , .009 .95 No Secondary other single men 1.08 .30 No Secondary married men .14 .80 No Secondary single men .089 .98 No Secondary science men 2.35 .20 No Secondary other men 4.41 .05 Yes + All secondary men 6.76 .05 Yes - All men .028 .90 N0 t Total secondary 9.97 .05 Yes + 1 Total elementary 1.40 .3 No Total responients 11.37 .05 Yes - i 2" Reasons for taking teach- ; er education when not in- E tending to enter teaching: ' All married women 3.75 .20 No All single women 2.81 .30 No All secondary women 5.52 .20 No 3,},“Tx‘P—Vy ' . -‘ ‘ -,‘vw4szitions. This factor was listed third in this study by respon- <1er1tss and included'l7.8 percent of those who did not take teaching PL)sj;tions. The percentage of all respondents who were drafted, liOMHexrer, was only about 5 percent. This is considerably lower than it IIELS been on a national basis in the past few years. Those not taking teaching positions indicated that they asstunead the following pOSitions: Homemaker, graduate student, milifitziry serviceman, professions other than teaching, clerk, bus- ineiSSUlan or salesman substitute teacher, scientist, and personnel agent . 50 Perhaps one category that need clarification is that of 50See TABLE 67. 114 l'professions other than teaching." This included such vocations as: statisticians, researchers, social workers, engineers, and airline hostesses. as in previous research related to teacher supply and demand, there is a significant relationship between male and fe- male subjects and their decisions about taking teaching positions. The X2 obtained on this phase of the study was related at the .001 level of confidence. The direction of the relationship indicates that the proportion of males not teaching is considerably higher than males teaching. The prOportion of females not teaching, how- ever, is lower than those teaching.51 Those who failed to take teaching positiOns comprised 26.6 percent of all of the respondents in this study. approximately 19.6 percent of those who did not teach were secondary teacher candidates, whereas about 6.5 percent were elementary teacher . 52 candidates. These percentages are considerably lower than those re- ported in the NatiOnal Education association studies and the 55 studies reviewed by Maul and others. These and other studies Often report low salaries as a mayor contributor to decisions 51 52 See TABLE 68. See TABLE 69. 53See the studies by Maul and the N.E.A. which were refer- red to in Chapter I and II. National Education Association Research Division, "The Postwar Struggle to Provide Competent Teachers," National Educa- tion Aesociation Research Bulletin, iXXV (Oct., 1957), 114. 115 l ‘ gainst teaching. Since salaries were not related in this study, the smaller percentages of thOSe not teaching may be a resultant factor. 54 Wesley Moon in his study concluded that age at gradua- 1 tion might be a significant factor related to acceptance of teach- i‘ ing positions. This was checked in the present study and found i to be unrelated.55 ‘ : The direction of age as it relates to entrance into teach- F- ing or failure to enter the profession was curvilinear and render- l ed no pattern that would be of much relevance. hore of those stu- dents who were twenty-two years old or younger and twenty-six years old accepted teaching positions, while those who were twenty-three to twenty-five and twenty-seven or older failed to take teaching 56 '3 positions. Summary and Conclusions In this chapter the investigator attempted to analyze critically the data gathered in this study in terms of its relation to the hypotheses to be tested. For the universe, from which the data were gathered, there appears to be little difference between the group who took teach- ing positions after graduation and those who did not. Even though other educators and investigators have assumed the hypotheses tested 54 55 Wesley Moon, op. cit., passim. See TABLE 70. 56See TABLE 70. is: 116 to be worthy of further research, they have little or no signif- icant relationship for the universe questioned in this study. On the basis of the findings one would have to reject the general hypothesis of this study that persons who do not teach after graduation from Michigan State University have traits which will not be evident among these persons who teach after graduation. Some relevant data were uncovered in this study which may have implication for those concerned with teacher training and teacher placement. These conclusions will be discussed in the final chapter. CHAPTER V I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The subject of teacher supply and demand has been studied considerably since torld War II. Most studies, however, have attempted to determine the reasons why teachers leave the teaching profession. Few studies have been conducted on reasons why certi- fied teachers fail to enter teaching after graduating from college. The purpose of this study was to determine the reasons given by Michigan State University graduates certified to teach for not entering the teaching profession; to discover positions they aesumed; to analyze statistically influential factors causing them to enter areas other than teaching; and to compare various aspects of these findings with the reaponses made by those who did enter the teaching profession. To do this it was, first of all, necessary to review the literature, research, and unpublished studies related to the sub- ject. From these studies, educatLOnal seminars, conferences, and committee meetings, a number of hypotheses were prOposed which were incorporated in this study. The general hypothesis which this study was designed to test was as follows: Persons who do not teach after graduating from Michigan State University have traits which will not be 117 mensflmuuubli fwd“... 3.. _ evident among these persons who teach after graduation. rhe various major hypotheses and their sub—categories were primarily composed of implications and conclusions posed in other research studies related to the present project, or else proposed by educators in the area. after the hypotheses had been prOposed, the investigator had to develOp a suitable instrument fOr testing them. This was completed with the aid and counsel of various members of the in— vestigator's guidance c0mmittee and other colleagues. 5 trial questionnaire was administered on an interview basis to improve the reliability and validity of the final in- strument. The final form of the instrument was then sent to 787 graduates of Michigan State University who had certified to teach in the State of Micaigan during the fiscal year July 1, 1956, to June 30, 1957. When the completed questionnaires were returned, they were tabulated on International Business Machines to obtain the data needed to test the hypothesis. The data were then subjected to the X2 Test for Two Independent Samples on NISTIC, Michigan State University's electronic computer. Even though the major hypotheses and their sub-categories had been considered significant in other studies, they did not prove to be so with the universe tested in this study. On the basis of the X2s obtained, the major hypotheses and the general hypothesis had to be rejected and the null hypothesis accepted. dome assumptions can be made on the basis of the findings of this 119 study. First, for the teacher candidates at Michigan State University, it appears that the methods employed in the College of Education, the attitudes of College of Education instructors, the content of education courses, and the attitudes and pressures of friends and/or relatives have little effect on a person's decision to teach or not to teach. It, therefore, appears that what we do with teacher can- didates has little influence on their decisions to accept or re- Ject teaching as a profession. Their decisions are more the result of pure circumstance. Despite the fact that the hypotheses in general did not prove to be releVant, some data gathered may prove useful to those concerned with teacher training and teacher placement. In all of these cases the related data proved to be significantly relevant at the .05 level of confidence. Though the services of the Placement Bureau appeared in- adequate for the uniVerse when treated as a single group one finds that upon closer examination it appears to be inadequate mostly for the female respondents. The nature of their responses indi- cate that they lacked interest to the extent that they just failed to aVail themselves of the Bureau's services. This is no doubt due to the fact that a large portion of the female respondents were married and probably not interested in securing a teaching position. Generally Speaking, all respondents revealed that pleas- ant interviews with school administrators were much to be desired if they were to enter teaching. For some of the women the number 120 of interviews conditioned their desires to teach. It seems that acceptance of teaching pdsitions increases in direct proportion to the number of interviews secondary women have. It might, therefore be desirable to require teacher candidates to have a minimum number of interviews. In terms of pleasant interviews, school administrators might well heed the list of shortcomings compiled in this study. As an example: they might practice showing more interest in the subdects they interview; they ought to be well versed on conditions and problems in their own school districts; they should not at so rushed and permit their interviewees ample time for questions they would line to ask; and they should have all of the duties con— nected with a position definitely in mind and present them honest- 1y. The relation of sturent teaching experiences to acceptance or rejection of teaching has little influence on a person‘s deci- sion concerning this matter. Usually items that droved relevant were releVant for small segments of the total universe. ‘eaching assignments in a subject matter area of competence was significant- ly related for secondary male respondents. The relationship was so significant for this group that they were able to produce a releVant X2 for the total iniverse. If we as educators are en- COuraging specialization at the secondary level of teaching, it night be important for us to see that all secondary candidates are :llcwed to student teach in at least one subject matter area of personal Competence. The respondents in this study seemed to indicate that the 121 effectiveness of the material or methods presented in courses de- signed to study child behavior and discipline, as well as certain experiences offered by College of Education instructors, were inadequate when applied to classroom situations. Even though this did not seem to affect their decisions about teaching, it suggests that we as educators might well analyze the content of these cour- ses and the methods employed to see if more practical approaches to these problems might be realized. A considerable number of married students failed to enter teaching. Some of them were expecting chiliren and could not ac— cept positions, but others did not deSire to teach. Society must find ways for inducing this latter group into teaching in order to keep up with out needs. The findings of this study indicate that factors considered releVant to the retention of teacher candidates in the teaching profession vary in different universes and what may be pertinent to the universe studied here may be different in other areas of the country. decommended Research This investigator believes that further research needs to be done in the area of teacher supply and demand to provide more adequate recommendations to te cher education institutions re- garding selection of teacher candidates and improvement of train- ing proceiures. It is recommendednthat research be conducted in the areas 122 listed below. 1. That this study be duplicated in other leading teacher educa- tion institutions to determine-regional differences in the factors contributing to rejection of the teaching profession. 2. That additional researcn be conducted in student teaching as it relates to student desires to enter teaching. 3. That research be conducted on desirable course content for more effective preparation a;d retention of teacher candidates. 4. That research be conducted on desirable qualifications for education instructors and effective methods of teaching ed- ucation courses. 5. That a follow-up study be conducted on the respondents of this study to determine the nature of their persistence in teaching. APPENDIX I MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OIAGIICIETIMANDAPPHBDSCIENCBOMSTLANSING COLLEGE 0! EDUCA'HON 0 DEPARTMENT OP TEACHER EDUCATION Dear Alumnus: Of all the peeple who have been certified for teaching at Michigan State ‘University, I have chosen you to help me make a study of the attitudes and opinions of teacher candidates. YOu are one of a number of selected persons who are being asked to participate in this study, so if it is to be a suc- cess your response is needed. You are aware, I am sure, of the problems we face in trying to supply an adequate amount of qualified teachers to our schools. Whether you did or ~' , did not enter teaching, you can supply us with valuable information which 7 -11 will help us determine why so many of our graduates fail to enter teaching. To learn these things, I am asking you to check the enclosed form. The form.has been constructed so that you can complete it with little effort. Ybu may find that you need not answer every item on the ferm. Pilot test studies have indicated that it only takes a few minutes to complete this form. Your name will in no way be connectedkwith your reaponse, so feel free to be frank in your reaponse and comment freely. You may have a capy of the findings of this study if you so indicate on your completed form. YOu will find a stamped and addressed envelope enclosed for your convenience in returning your completed form. So that we can process these findings within a prescribed work schedule and use these findings to bring about changes in our teacher training program, we would be grateful to you if these forms are returned within two weeks. The success of this study depends, of course, on your cOOperation in com- pleting and returning this form. Sincerely yours, E. Harold Harper Enclosures Instructor - 124 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY oracncuummmsamcnomunsmc COLLIGB O! EDUCATION 0 DEPARTMENT 0! TEACHER EDUCATION Dear Alumnus: Three weeks ago today I sent you a form for persons certified to teach. I have already received a good response to this survey. Possibly through an oversight or misdirection on.my part I have not received your com- pleted fonm. I mm, therefore, enclosing another for'your completion and return. ‘ If this study is to be a success, we will need the response of each person. I am, therefore, anxious to have you complete this form and return it as soon as possible. YOur cOOperation will be greatly ap- preciated and I feel our efforts will be profitable to you, to your alma mater, and to future teacher candidates. YOu.may have a copy of the findings of this study if you so indicate on the returned form. Sincerely yours, E. Harold Harper Enclosure Instructor . 125 I“ 3‘." / HELP}: Don’t leave me out on the limb! You who haven't responded yet ~4 I need your response to make our study a success. If you did not teach I especially need your reSponseL Let's have some of that M.S.U. Spirit and have 100% of you cooperating to make this study a success. If you will take 15 minutes to sit down and fill out this form and return it to me in the enclosed stamped e.velope, I promise you I’ll quit bothering you. Sincerely, E. Harold Harper 126 Instructor we. I . 'n A ‘ . dummy? Where do may go Unis form was designed to Ire/p as find oat Wnat gon tnink aoont tne training gan reeeioed at Mie/rigan State and also t/re reasons for gear entering or fit entering tear/ring after graduation. DIRECTIONS: Please circle the letter in front of the answer( 5) which you think most nearly represents your own opinions or experiences. 1 . Did you, or did you not accept a teaching position the Fall after graduation from M.S.U.? a. Did b. Did not DIRECTIONS: If your answer to number 1 was did not, please proceed with the following items. If your answer to number 1 was (lid, you may skip the next two items and go on to number 4. 2 .09 r'A .U‘ C) >1 . Circle the letters in front of the statement( 5) below which you would give as your main reason(s) for not taking a teaching position the Fall after you graduated from M.S.U. . The teaching salaries offered me were inadequate. b. I was drafted into the armed forces. I continued my education as a graduate student. . I was expecting a child. Homemaking responsibilities. 23 no.9 What position did you assume after graduating from M.S.U.? ____ _ _ Which teaching certificate did you receive? a. Secondary Provisional b. Elementary Provisional When did you make your first decision to prepare to be a teacher or fulfill the requirements for a teaching certificate? Before high school During high school c. After graduation from high school, but before entering college (1. During freshman year in college 6. During sophomore year in college f. During junior year in college g. During senior year in college S7?” . Was your mother ever a school teacher? a. Yes b. No If yes, about how many years did she teach? a. Less than 3 years b. 3 to 5 years c. 5 to 10 years (1. More than 10 years c. Not sure Was your father ever a school teacher? a. Yes b. No (2) SD If yes, about how many years did he teach? Less than 3 years 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years More than 10 years Not sure seep-s . Were any of your brothers or sisters ever a teacher? a. Yes I). No While an undergraduate at M.S.U., did you ever have a scholarship? a. Yes b. No DIRECTIONS: If your answer to number 9 was yes, please proceed with the following items. If your answer to number 9 was no, you may skip the next five items and go to number 15. 10 p—n to . Was this scholarship awarded to you to help you train to be a teacher? a. Yes b. No . Which years did you use this scholarship? a. Freshman b. Sophomore 0. Junior (1. Senior Could you have attended college without the aid of this scholarship? a. Yes b. No c. Not certain Would you have enrolled in the teacher training curriculum if you had not had this scholarship? a. Yes b. No 0. Not certain Did the availability of a scholarship have anything to do with your decision to train for teaching? a. Yes b. No If yes, would you say that this was the main reason you chose the teacher training curriculum? a. Yes 1). No During your undergraduate years, did you from your Freshman year plan to enter teaching? a. Yes b. No If no, which one or more, of the following state- ments apply to you. 14 ,_. a. I never intcndcd to enter the teaching profession. b- lgot a teaching certificate as an insurance meas- are against thc future. 0. I thought that the teacher training curriculum would givc mc excellent training fof parenthood. (1. None of these, but instead this one: . Did you havc any friends or relatives who tried to persuade you not to teach or take a teaching pesmon.’ 7 a. Yes b. No ifyes, which one( s )? Mother Father - A brother or sister who was a teacher . A brother or sister who was not a teacher - A grandparent - An aunt or uncle > A college roommate . A group of college friends who were enrolled in t 6 teacher training curriculum :2“??? of college friends who 'were not en— el( in the teacher traimng curriculum A friend who was teaching at the time A friend who had previously taught A husband or wife Others: - I 1 7* , roe r-r-rcb use p—po 3 .——_,:4:#- Did If“ 7. " " " ’ ‘ Persdfdlehave a Y friends or relatives who tried to POSitiOHP 0r enCourage you to take a teaching a. Yes b- No If Yes, which 0116(5)? 3.. Mother ‘ Father c. dimmer or SiSter who was a teacher mther 0r sister who was not a teacher grandparent An aunt or uncle A COljege r00mmate t grtoup 0f college friends who were enrolled in . eaCher training curriculum rollgerglip of college friends who were not en- A f _ 1n the teacher training curriculum A Send Who Was teaching at the time A hrlend Who had previously taught quand Or wife Others: \ k.— I . 8. dD1d_ public 0 eClSion ab a. Yes b. No 71 PIQQW‘FDCL :5? :—‘_;r"_-'- pinion. toward teaching influence your out taking a teaching position? I \J A V ... [U .— [0 lg lo .03 2 CC 9° u— "H yes, which statement applies to you? Public attitude against the teaching profession influenced my decision not to teach. . Public attitudc which upheld the teaching pro— fession influenced my decision to tcac i. . Neither of thcsc. \Vbat was your major( s) at M.S.U.? ... .__- v f“. . \Vhat were your minors at M.S.U.? . How many enrollment officers (lid you have at 1) M.S.U. 21. One b. Two c. Three d. Four or more ‘. While at M.S.U. did your enrollment officer ever advise you to major in a specific area? a. Yes l). No While at M.S.U. did your major professor ever ad- vise you not to enter teaching? a. Yes b. No . Did he warn you against preparing to teach in a ..9 teaching area that was “overcrowde a. Yes b. No ‘. . Did any person connected with the teaching pro- fession ever try to help you determine whether or not you would do well in teaching? a. Yes b. No If yes, what was this person’s position? (Example: high school math teacher, college methods of read— ing instructor, etc.) . In general, did you find that your instructors at M.S.U. were willing to give you time for advice and help with your problems? (Circle an answer in both columns.) Always willing I. All of them were Usually willing 2. Most of them were Sometimes willing 3. Some of them were Seldom willing 4. Few of them were Never willing 5. None of them were sears» . How were the services of the Placement Bureau when you were seeking a teaching position? a. Adequate b. Inadequate 0. Don’t know — doesn’t apply. Did the Placement Bureau keep you informed about teaching positions available? a. Yes b. No 0. Don’t know — doesn’t apply 29. \Vcrc you madc aware of where to look for current positions that wcrc available? a. Yes l). No . Did you return your completed forms to the Place- mcnt Bureau prior to graduation: c: A v a. Yes b. No . Wcrc you interviewed by a school administrator? LJ p—r a. Yes b. No DIRECTIONS: If your answer to number 31 was yes, please proceed with the following items. If your answer to number 31 was no, you may skip the next six items and go to number 38. 32. By how many school administrators were you in— terviewed? a. Less than 3 b. 3 to 5 c. 5 to 10 d. More than 10 DIRECTIONS: For the three (or less) administrators (“A”, “B”, “C” below) that you remember best, circle the response which you feel best fits the administra- t0r( s) in your mind. 33. Were your questions answered satisfactorily by: Administrator “A” a. Yes b. No Administrator “B” a. Yes b. No Administrator “C” a. Yes b. No 34. Did you feel that a just amount of interest was ex- pressed toward you by: Administrator “A” a. Yes b. No Administrator “B” a. Yes b. No Administrator “C” a. Yes b. No 35. Were you favorably impressed by the way the in- terview was conducted by: Administrator “."A a. Yes I). No Administrator “B” a. Yes b. No Administrator “C a. Yes b. No 36. Did you feel you gained the needed information about the position offered by: Administrator “A” a. Yes b. No Administrator “B” a. Yes b. No Administrator “C” a. Yes b. No 37. Were there any shortcomings on the part of any of the administrators who interviewed you? a. Yes b. No If yes, what were these shortcomings? 38. Did you feel you had a good knowledge of your major subject“) when you graduated from M.S.U.. a. Yes b. No 0. Not all of them 3 9° Did you feel you had a good knowledge of your minor subjects when you graduated from M.S.U.? a. Yes b. No c. Not all of them 4 .0 Did you do your student teaching in either a major or minor area in which you felt you were ade— quately prepared? a. Yes b. No 41. In any courses which you took prior to student teaching was the topic of child behavior or disci- pline studied? a. Yes b. No If yes, to what extent was this study effective in helping to prepare you to meet such problems in the classroom? a. Very effective b. Somewhat effective c. Not effective — __ Ky} 42. During your student teaching experience, how 43. 4 46. 47. 4 r“ 9. many weeks did you have complete charge of one or more classrooms? None Less than 3 weeks 0 3 to 5 weeks (I. 5 t0 7 weeks e. More than 7 weeks .5"? How would you characterize your experiences with your supervising teacher? a. Always enjoyed b. Enjoyed most of the time c. Seldom enjoyed d. Never enjoyed How would you characterize your experiences with your college coordinator? a. Always enjoyed b. Enjoyed most of the time c. Seldom enjoyed d. Never enjoyed How would you characterize your studenting ex» perience? a. Always enjoyed b. Enjoyed most of the time c. Seldom enjoyed (1. Never enjoyed Had you had experiences with groups of children prior to your student teaching experience? (Exam— ples: Sunday School teaching, playground super— vision, group leading for Boy Scouts, etc.) a. Yes b. No How would you characterize the teachers and in structors you have had with regard to their general appearance? a. All of them were neat 1). Most of them were neat 0. Some of them were neat (1. Few of them were neat e None of them were neat Did your teachers and instructors maintain a dem- ocratic attitude in the classroom as opposed to an authoritarian attitude? a. All of them did h. Most of them did c. Some of them did (l. Few of them did e. None of them did flow would you characterize the attitudes of your teachers and instructors toward other members of the teaching profession? a. Always cooperative b. Cooperative most of the time c. Seldom cooperative (1. Never cooperative 50. 91 w :1 CR 56. 58. Do How would you characterize the respectfulness of your teachers and instructors toward one another? a. Always respectful b. Respectful most of the time c. Seldom respectful (1. Never respectful How would you characterize your teachers and in— structors attitudes abOut their work? a. Always wholesome b. Wholesome most of the time c. Seldom wholesome (I. Never wholesome Did you feel that your College of Education in- structors possessed the necessary public school ex— perience to properly qualify them to be effective in teacher training? a. All of them did 1). Most of them did 0. Some of them (lid (1. Few of them did e. None of them did f. Don’t know How would you rate the experiences offered you by your College of Education instructors? :1. Always practical b. Practical most of the time c. Seldom practical (1. Never practical Did these experiences prove of benefit in actual classroom application? a. All of them (lid b. Most of them did c. Some of them did (l. Few of them did e. l\one of them (lid Did your College of Education instructors ever lead you to think that your social status as a teacher would be anything other than desirable? a. All of them (lid l). .\lost of them (lid c. Some. of them (lid (l. Few of them did e. None of them did \Verc you married when you graduated from M.S.U.? a. Yes l). No \Vliat is your present age? \Vhich sex are you? a. .\lale l). Female you desire a summary of the findings of this study? a. Yes b. No lf yes. we will need your name for mailing pur~ poses l‘hank you for your cooperation. QPPENDIX II 129 TABLE 10 HOW WERE THE SERVICES OF THE PLiCEMENT BUREAU WHEN YOU WERE SEEKING A TEACHING POSITION? 1. —...—.._. 1 POPULATION . DID TEXCH ’11 DID NOT TEACH - RESPO'SES* 1 2 T 1 2 3 «OMEN: Secondary science: Married 7 3 4 2 1 10 Single 34 3 9 O O 4 Secondary other; Married 7 1 5 5 1 14 Single 42 11 12 6 O 6 Elementary: Married 23 1 14 2 O 22 Single 107 9 51 4 2 1O MEN: Secondary science mar— ried: Military 0 O O 4 O 3 Civilian 35 3 1O 1O 2 6 Secondary science single: Military 1 O O O 2 O 4 Civilian 25 3 1O 6 1 4 Secondary other mar- ried: Military 0 O O O O O Civilian 1O 6 2 5 1 8 Secondary other single: Military 0 O O 6 1 5 civilian 11 1 9 6 1 0 Elementary 7 O 2 2 O 1 * 1. ldequate 2. Inadequate 3. Don't know - doesn't apply 130 "ABLE 11 DID THE "LACEMENT BUREAU KEEP YCU IN- FORMED ABOUT TEACHING POSITIONS AVAILABLE? EOFULATION DID TE\CH DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 5 1 2 3 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 5 6 5 2 5 7 Single 55 8 4 0 O 4 Secondary other: Married 3 5 7 5 5 12 Single 59 16 10 5 4 3 Elementary: Married 17 9 12 6 0 8 Single 109 20 58 4 6 6 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O O 6 O 1 Civilian 55 7 A 11 5 3 Secondary science § single: ' Military 0 O O 2 1 5 Civilian 28 6 4 4 1 5 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O O O Civilian 9 7 2 3 4 7 secondary other single: Military 0 o O 7 1 2 Civilian 11 2 8 6 1 0 Elementary 8 O 1 2 O 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 3. Don't know — doesn't apply 131 TABLE 12 WERE YOU HIDE AWARE OF WHERE TO LOOK FOR CURREFT POSITIONS THAT WERE AVAILABLE? lOPULATICN DID TEACH 11 DID NOT TEACH RE'PONSES* 1 2 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 11 2 8 5 Single 41 4 4 0 Secondary other: Married 9 4 14 5 Single 52 12 ! 9 5 Elementary: Married 26 11 i 16 6 Single 159 22 6 10 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 6 1 CiVilian 38 8 14 4 Secondary science single: Military 0 0 4 2 Civilian 35 3 9 2 SeCOndary other married: Military 0 O 0 0 Civilian 16 2 11 4 Secondary other single: Militiry 0 0 7 3 Civilian ‘ 15 5 7 0 Element ry 7 2 2 1 1. Yes 3. No 132 PIBLE 13 DID YOU RETUEN YOUR COMPLETED FORMS PHE PLACE ENT BUH_AU PRIC. TC GRAJU1TION? PCPULADILN DID TEACH ] DID NOT TEACH 7“CHSES* 1 2 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 11 2 1O 3 Single 41 5 5 1 Secondary other: Married 10 3 12 8 Single 62 3 11 1 Elementary: Married 31 7 18 6 Single 149 14 12 4 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 7 O Civilian 4O 6 17 1 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 6 O Civilian 36 1 9 2 Secondary other married: 1 Military 0 O - 0 Civilian 1'.’ 1 11 4 Secondary other single: Military 0 V 9 1 Civilian 18 3 7 0 Elementary c O 1 2 1 l * 1. Yes 2. No 155 TiYLE 14 :;w M2WY 3*?O1LV“N? CFDICE>S DID YOU HnVE AT M.3.U.? POPULATION DID dEACH DID NOT TEACH RESFONSES* 1 2 ‘fi_ 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 8 6 7 6 Single 30 16 5 1 Secondary other: Married 7 9 '6 - 11 Single 35 30 7 5 Elementary: Married 22 17 16 8 Single 109 57 9 7 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 4 5 Civilian 52 14 12 6 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 5 1 Civilian 26 12 7 4 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O Civilian 1O 8 8 6 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 4 6 Civilian 11 1O 4 5 Elementary 5 4 2 l * 1. TWO or less 2. Three or more 134 TABLE 15 NHILE AT M.S.U. DID YOUR ENROL KENT OFFICER EVER ADVISE YOU TO MAJOR IN A SPECIFIC AREA? POPULATION DID TEACL #_LL DID NOT TElCfi’ RESPONSES* i 1 2 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 4 9 1 2 Single 9 36 1 3 Secondary other: Married 4 9 4 16 Single 16 49 2 10 Elementary: Married 6 33 1 23 Single 53 132 2 15 MEN: ‘ Secondary science ‘ married: Military 0 O 2 5 Civilian 1O 36 A 14 Secondary science single: Military 0 O O 6 Civilian 6 51 1 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O Civilian O 18 2 13 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 2 8 Civilian a 13 O 7 Elementary 5 6 2 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 135 TABLE 16 DID HE WARN YOU AGAINST PREPARIIG TO TEACH IN A TEACHIUG AREA THAT WAS OVERCROTDED? POPULAIIQN DID TEACH ejf**gg;D NOT TEACH RESP6N5E3* 1 2 ‘ 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 1 12 O 13 Single 4 42 O 4 Secondary other: Married 2 11 2 18 Single 10 1 54 2 10 Elementary: Married 1 37 O 23 Single 5 162 O 16 MEN: Secondary science married: j Military 0 O 1 6 1 Civilian 3 42 2 16 1 Secondary science single: Military 0 O O 5 Civilian 5 55 1 10 Secondary other ' married: 1 Military 0 3 0 O O Civilian 1 17 1 14 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 2 8 Civilian 3 18 3 5 Elementary 4 5 O 5 * 1. Yes 2. No 136 TABLE 17 DID ANY PERSON CONNECTED WITH THE TEACHING PROFESSION EVER TRY TO HELP YOU DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD DO WELL IN TEACHING? POPULATION DID TEACH '1] DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 ‘ 2 ‘ 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 4 1O 4 9 Single ‘ 22 22 2 2 Secondary other: Married 5 7 8. 12 Single 28 57 5 7 Elementary: Married 16 22 11 13 Single 62 102 6 1O 1 1 MEN: ‘ Secondary science ‘ married: ‘ 1 Military 0 o 5 2 Civilian 20 25 6 12 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 1 5 Civilian 16 21 5 6 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O Civilian 5 13 5 9 Secondary other single: . Military ' O O 6 4 Civilian _ 1O 11 5 4 Elementary 4 5 O 3 * 1. Yes 2. No 137 TABLE 18 PERSONS WHO HELPED STUDENTS TO DETERMINE APTITUDE FOR TEACHING EDUCATOR DID TEACH [ DID NOT TEACH 1 1 N % of N1 1 N % of N2 1. High school or 1 elementary teachd er : 59 27.4 28 35.0 2. Supervising teacher for stu- dent teaching 53 24.7 15 18.8 3. Enrollemnt ‘ officer 16 7.4 11 13.8 1 4. Method of teach- ? ing instructor 32 14.9 . 8 10.0 5. College coordin- ator of student teaching 17 7.9 6 7.4 6. Major instructor 22 10.2 4 5.0 7. Counseling and 1 guidance center 4 1.9 4 5.0 8. Foundations of education in- structor 12 5.6 5 5.8 9. Members of boards of educa- tion 0 0 1 1.2 Total 215 ‘ 80 138 TABLE 19 WHILE AT M.S.U. DID YOUR MAJOR PROFESSOR EVER ADVISE YOU NOT TO ENTER TEACHING—T" POPULATION DID TEACH |[ DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 NOMEN: Secondary science: Married 1 13 0 13 Single 0 46 0 4 Secondary other: Married 0 13 0 20 Single 4 60 O. 12 Elementary: Married 1 38 0 24 Single 2 164 1 16 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O O 7 Civilian 4 42 0 18 Secondary science single: ' Military 0 O O 6 Civilian ' 2 36 0 11 Secondary other married: - Military 0 0 0 0 Civilian 0 18 0 15 Secondary other single: Military 0 0 0 10 Civilian 1 20 0 7 Elementary 0 9 0 3 * 1. Yes 2. No 139 TABLE 20 HOW OFTEN DID YOU FIND YOUR INSTRUCTORS AT M.S.U. HELP AND ADVICE? WILLING TO GIVE POPULATION DID TEACH _1[ DID NOT TEACH r _3E3P0NsES* 1 2 3 1 2 3 WOMEN: Secondary science: 'Married 2 8 3 4 8 1 Single 14 22 8 2 1 1 Secondary other: Married 3 10 0 5 11 3 Single 20 37 6 5 6 1 Elementary: Married 12 20 6 6 14 4 Single 32 89 37 3 10 3 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 0 0 6 1 O Civilian 14 25 7 5 1O 3 Secondary science single: . Military 0 0 0 g 4 2 0 Civilian 16 17 5 g 5 5 1 Secondary other ; married: . 1 Military 0 O O O O O Civilian 1O 7 1 5 8 2 Secondary other single: Military 0 0 O 2 7 1 Civilian 9 9 5 3 3 1 Elementary 1 6 2 1 1 1 * 1. Always willing 2. Usually willing 3. Less than usually willing 140 TABLE 21 HOW MANY OF YOUR INSTRUCTORS AT M.S.U. WERE WILLING TO GIVE HELP AND ADVICE? POPULATION DID TEACH [I DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 1 8 3 2 8 3 Single 4 20 14 1 1 1 Secondary other: Married 3 6 2 4 11 4 Single 17 32 7 1 9 2 Elementary: Married 6 16 8 6 9 8 Single 15 75 54 1 7 8 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 0 0 3 3 1 Civilian 8 25 8 2 1O 4 Secondary science single: Military 0 0 0 1 5 0 Civilian 6 16 8 3 5 1 Secondary other married: Military 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civilian 6 7 3 0 1O 2 Secondary other single: Military 0 1 O 0 4 3 1 Civilian 9 7 3 2 3 1 Elementary 1 5 3 O 1 1 * 1. All of them were willing 2. Most of them were willing 3. Less than most of them were willing TABLE WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY A 1A1 22 SCHOOL ADMIHISTRATOR? POPULATION DID TEACH ’fl’ )ID NOT TEACH ESPCMSES* 1 2 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 9 5 5 8 Single 38 7 2 1 Secondary other: Married 8 5 7 13 Single 50 15 5 9 Elementary: Married 26 11 7 17 Single H36 27 1O 7 t MEN: ; Secondary science E married: 5 Military 0 C 1 2 5 Civilian 35 1O 10 8 Secondary science ‘ single: 1 Military 0 O f 2 4 Civilian 33 ' 5 f 3 7 Secondary other ' married: l Military 0 ' 0 1 0 0 Civilian 15 3 1 5 10 Secondary other ' single: Military 0 0 3 2 Civilian 15 6 6 1 Elementary 3 1 2 1 * 1. Yes .'.- o l'! O BY HOW MANY SCHOOL ADDITISTRATORS EERE YCU INTERVIEWED? POPULATION WOMEN: Secondary science: Married Single Secondary other: Married Single Elementary: Married Single DID TEACH [I DID NOT TEXCH 1 2 RESPONSES* f 1 2 2O 82 —‘0\ WW O\N mg b-O MEN: Secondary science married: Military Civilian Secondary science single: Military Civilian Secondary other married: Military CiVIlian Secondary other single: Military Civilian Elementary NO £3 n'\) ._l v40 \NKNU“ WC N O\N\N * 1. Less than three 2. Three or more 143 TABLE 24 WERE YOUR QUESTIONS SATISFACTORILY ANSWERED BY THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS? POPULATION JDID TEACH I[ DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* L, 1 2 _ 1 7’2 WOMEN: ‘ Secondary science: Married 15 5 5 3 Single 82 11 3 2 Secondary other: Married 10 3 12 3 Single 80 19 7 1 Elementary: Married 36 8 9 3 Single 241 29 14 3 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 2 2 Civilian 64 13 13 6 Secondary science single: Military 0 0 3 1 Civilian 54 14 7 0 Secondary other ' 1 married: ‘ Military '0 0 0 0 Civilian 29 9 6 3 Secondary other single: Military 0 9 12 0 Civilian 29 7 11 3 Elementary 14 3 5 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 144 TABLE 25 1 DID YOU FEEL THAT A JUST AMOUNT OF INTEREST i WAS EXPRESSED TOWARD YOU BY THE ADMINISTRATOR? POPULATION DID TEACH |13 DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* '1 2 . 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 16 4 A 4 Single 81 1O 4 1 Secondary other: Married 9 4 11 4 Single 80 21 7 1 Elementary: Married 38 6 9 3 Single 247 32 15 2 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 3 1 Civilian 64 13 13 6 Secondary science single: . Military 0 O 4 O Civilian 57 12 6 1 Secondary other married: Military 0 O 0 0 Civilian 28 1O 6 3 Secondary other' single: Military 0 O 8 4 Civilian 26 10 9 5 Elementary 15 2 5 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 145 TABLE 26 WERE YOU FAVORABLY IMPRESSED BY THE WAY THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED? POPULATlON DID TEACH H DID NOT TEACH 1 RESPONSES* 1 1 2 1 2 1 WOMEN: ‘ Secondary science: Married 14 5 4 4 ‘ Single 71 19 4 1 Secondary other: Married 9 3 1O 5 Single 68 34 1O 2 Elementary: Married 36 6 7 5 Single 222 56 13 4 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 2 2 Civilian 58 19 15 7 Secondary science single:, Military j 0 O 3 1 Civilian . 47 21 4 3 Secondary other I married: Military ‘ O O O O Civilian 25 12 5 4 Secondary other - ' single: 3 Military 0 O 8 1 Civilian 25 11 6 8 Elementary 13 4 5 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 146 TABLE 27 I DID YOU FEEL YOU GAINED THE NEEDED INFORMATION 1 ABOUT THE POSITION OFFERED? POPULATION DID TEACH 7“ DID NOT TEACH . RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 WOMEN: ' Secondary science: Married 15 3 7 1 Single 76 17 2 3 Secondary other: Married 9 4 9 6 Single 75 27 6 2 Elementary: Married 37 6 9 3 Single 241 36 16 1 MEN: ' Secondary science married: Military 0 O 2 2 Civilian 59 18 16 6 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 3 1 Civilian 52 16 6 1 Secondary other ' married: Military 0 O O O Civilian 27 11 ' 5 4 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 9 O Civilian 2d 8 1O 4 Elementary 15 2 5 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 147 TABLE 28 WERE THERE ANY SHCRTCOMINGS CN THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATORS WHO INTERVIEWED YOU? EOEULATION DID TEACH ._Jl DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 . 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 6 3 3 Single 15 18 1 2 Secondary other: Married Single 28 Elementary: Married 5 19 3 Single - 53 77 1 7 —.b MEN: Secondary science married: Civilian . 14 2O 7 2 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 1 1 Civilian 15 16 O 3 Secondary other married: Military 0 o Civilian 12 3 A 4 NO \NO Secondary other single: Military Civilian Elementary W4C) U'lxlO “vb-KN WNW Yes 148 TABLE 29 SHORTCOMINGS OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS INTERVIEWING TEACHER CANDIDATES SHORTCOMINGS COUNT PERCENT 1. Showed little interest in me -- doing me a favor -- racially prejudiced 42 22.5 2. Laoked knowledge of the specific phases of the educational problems 27 14.4 3. Too rushed -- no time for questions 23 12.3 4. Would not commit himself on extent of duties connected with position 23 12.3 5. Treated me as inferior (lower than he) -- he was rude 17 9.1 6. Tried to oversell his community and school system 16 8.6 7. Too eager to have me accept the position 15 8.0 8. Could not answer questions about housing 8 4.3 9. asked personal questions not relevant to the position sought 7 3.7 10. Failed to acquaint himself with my folder before the interview -- he was late 5 2.7 11. Observable personality clash 4 2.1 Total 187 100 149 TABLE 30 DID YOU DC YOUR STUDENT TEACHING IN EITHER A MAJOR OR MINOR SUBJECT AREA IN WHICH YOU FELT YOU WERE ADEQUATELY PREPARED? 1 1 POPULATION . DID TEACH Hi DID NCT TEACH 1 RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 1 WOMEN : 3 Secondary science: 1 Married 12 2 12 1 Single 42 4 2 2 Secondary other: Married 12 1 13 6 Single 50 15 9 3 Elementary: Married Does Not Apply Single Does Not Apply MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 6 1 Civilian 43 3 13 5 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 5 1 Civilian 34 3 7 3 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O Civilian 17 2 12 3 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 7 3 Civilian 17 5 5 2 Elementary Does Not Apply 7 I * 1. Yes 2. No 150 . TABLE 31 IN ANY COURSES YOU TOOK PRIOR TO STUDENT_TEACHING WAS THE TOPIC OF CHILD BEHAVIOR AND DISCIPLINE STUDIED? 1i POPULATION DID TEACH If DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 VOMEN: Secondary science: Married 11 3 11 2 Single 40 6 4 0 Secondary other: Married 11 2 19 1 Single 48 17 1O 2 Elementary: Married 34 3 22 2 Single 141 26 15 2 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 7 O Civilian 32 14 15 3 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 5 1 Civilian 27 11 9 2 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O Civilian 15 3 11 4 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 8 2 Civilian 2O 1 7 0 Elementary 7 2 2 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 151 TABLE 32 TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THIS ITVDY OF CHILD BEHAVIOR \FD D SCIPLINE EFFECTIVE? POPULATION DID TEACH *]I' DID NCT mEACH RESDONSES* 1 2 ”OMEN: 3 1 2 3 Secondary science: Married 0 9 3 3 7 2 Single 5 ' 2O 17 1 1 1 Secondary other: Married 2 7 2 2 9 8 Single 4 25 2O 0 6 3 Elementary: Married 3 19 12 9 9 4 Single 18 87 37 3 1O 2 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O O 2 4 1 CiVilian 5 15 12 2 7 6 Secondary science single: Military 0 O O O 3 2 Civilian 2 17 1O 1 5 3 Secoudary other married: Military 0 O O O O O Civilian O 11 5 2 5 4 Secondary other single: Military 0 O O O 6 2 Civilian 3 9 8 2 1 4 Elementary 2 3 2 1 1 O * 1. Very effective 2. Somewhat effective 3. Never effective 152 7 TABLE 33 DURING YOUR STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCE HOW MANY WEEKS DID YOU HAVE COMPLETE CHARGE OF ONE OR MORE CLASSROOMS? POPULATION DID TEACH U7 DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* WOMEN: Secondary science: Married Single Secondary other: Married Single Elementary: Married Single 2 3 4 1 2 3 12 69 mo \00 WW 5.; 13 13 28 18 33 1O 25 max ON hm ._be ...; mm -‘0\ 0&5 \NCD \NCD MEN: Secondary science married: Military Civilian Secondary science single: Military Civilian Secondary other married: Military Civilian Secondary other single: Military Civilian Elementary NO \J'IO NwO NO U10 \N C’ +30 O\O —3U10 NO 5W OI‘UA O'\l\) ION ._ANN C\f\) \J'lW NNU'I * 1. Less than three weeks 2. Three to five weeks 3. Five tO seven weeks 4. More than seven weeks 153 TABLE 34 HCN WOULD YOU CHAéACTEEIZE YOUR EY PEN IE -'CES WITH YOUR SUPERVIS INC 'PE WR? :OPULATION _____DID TE EACH ‘H DID “OTUTE’SCH __ . RESPONSES f ______ "'1'" " "'2‘"— ‘ ’ "" "‘ ' "' ‘ 1 2 "“ " .__-n-o-fi» w _ ...... ..--..-.--__.....-.... N: rulary scienge: rried 3 S 1 4 7 2 ngle 27 13 5 2 2 O ndary'other: rried 5 J :1 7 6 6 .ngle 35 23 7 5 4 3 Lentary: Irried -5 9 3 14 7 2 .llgle 1-JC 19 12 12 2 2 ._m.-.._-_-_-_,__.4_--,a._.-4_...__- _———.-—»«-—-—~_——- .__ >ndary science ried: ilitary ‘ 0 U 6 U 1 ivilian SO 12 1 11 5 2 ondary science gle: ’ ilitary u u O 8 U 0 ivilian 25 12 J 5 4 1 ondary other ried: .ilitary O ’3 0 O 1‘ J ivilian 9 6 f 3 5 2 ondary other .gle: [ilitary U =3 0 9 1 O :ivilian 15 6 O 4 r 1 2 ementary 5 J C) '1 1 1 __ -..-.- -_L__-_ It I. .....-______ * 1. Always enjoyable 2. Enjoyable most of une time 3. Enyoyable less than most of the time 154 TABLE 35 HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH YOUR COLLEGE COORDINATOR? POPULATION DID TEAgfiI’ _][;"‘"SID NO?"IEIE§"’ __REspON§E§¥ 1 2" 3 _ 1 1 2 ;_ .__... L“... __ ._~_ 1 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 5 7 2 4 7 Single 16 22 8 2 1 1 Secondary other: Married 4 6 3 Single 23 23 19 Elementary: Married 15 15 6 10 Single 59 N |\)\O bx] \J" \D \N CD a: Ana #:0\ OMB MEN: Secondary science married: Military Civilian 2 Secondary science single: Military Civilian 1 Secondary other married: Military Civilian Secondary'other single: Military Civilian Elementary AC 0 ~42. to tary O 0 lian 3 13 tary 7 2 Nxfl-fl -XI\)\N 157 TABLE 38 IHOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE TEACHERS AND INSTRUCTORS YCU ”AVE HAD WITH REGARD TO THEIR GENERAL APPEARA“CE? 'EOPUIIATION ______;' firi‘i’ficfi‘: “ 1] 9:11 WOT TEACH RESPOVSES* 1 2 1L-.-3.---- 1 2 3 _ fl: ndary science: rried 3 d 3 4 9 O ngle 3 34 :3 1 3 O ndary other: rried 2 8 3 5 12 3 ngle 9 JO 16 4 6 2 entary: ,rried 11 26 2 6 17 1 Angle 26 117 23 2 14 1 >ndary scienCc Pied: Llltary O O O 2 5 O Lvilian 16 28 2 3 14 1 Judary science gIe: ilitary O L) O O 5 1 ivilian 6 31 1 4 7 O ondary other ried: ilitary O O i) O (J O ivilian 6 12 3 2 12 1 ondary other gle : Lilitary O O O 1 8 1 fivilian 5 1:1 2 O 6 1 1mentary 2 7 O O 2 1 ¢_ _ __ l .... * 1. All of them were heat 2. Most of them were neat 7 Less than most of them were heat DID YOUR TEACHERS 158 TABLE 39 AV? DEMOCRATIC ATTITUDE INSTRUC“ORS MAINTAIe A OFPOSED TO AT AUT“ORITARIAN ATTITUDE? ovum-TION __ “ngimgygg :;:'j| DID 1101: 'T‘E "In“ '— ___“____fl_ _§;§TONSES* ‘“ ' ' .... ..-..2.._£;_L ..... .1.__IL_..2__ 3 dary science: ried 2 6 5 3 8 2 gle 1 31 13 O 5 1 dary other: ried 4 9 3 2 15 3 gle 9 40 16 4 6 2 ntary: ried 11 26 2 6 17 1 319 26 117 ’3 2 14 1 .- ..__i__ ;_ _.__- __ I_ ._l..n___.__ dary science ed: ! itary 0 l 0 () 2 5 O ilian 16 g 28 :2 3 14 1 ndary science 5 le: 1 litary O | O O o 5 1 rilian 6 ; 31 1 4 7 o :dary other 3 ed: ' Itary O J O O O o 'ilian 6 12 O 2 12 1 Ldary other he: .Itary lo () O 1 8 1 'ilian 5 14 2 O 6 1 mtary 2 7 O O 2 1 w, -ni- fl___,UL___m_w_- * 1. All of them did 2. Most of them did 3. Less than most of them did 159 TABLE 40 ‘HOW TOULD YOU CHATACTWdIZE THE ATTITUDES OF YOUR TEACHERS AYD INSTRUCTORS TOWATD OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TEACEIVG DROFESSION? OPULATIgy ___ DID TEAQ§_ fl ‘ITUID_QOT TEACH P_-_._.-u- ESPONSEST _ ' . . 1 -__1L__ 2 ..--..1..-....-___.1..._.. 1’ 2 dary science: ried 3 11 2 11 gle 7 38 O 4 dary other: ried 1 11 4 16 gle 1O 55 2 1O ntary: ried 14 25 9 14 ,gle 3O 133 2 15 .dary science ed: .itary 1 O 3 4 1 5 'ilian 1O 36 2 14 ldary science .6: .itary O O 2 4 'ilian 11 7 2 9 1dary other .ed: .itary 1 U 0 O rilian f 7 11 2 13 ldary other 1 .e: i 1 .itary 1 O O | 3 7 rilian i 6 ' 15 5 4 entary " 3 1 6 O 3 l _-_._i- 6_ _ -' fi— * 1. Always coo erative 2. Other than alwiys COOperative 160 TABLE 41 HOW WOULD YOU CNARACTERIZE THE RES‘ECTFULNESS OF YOUR TEACHERS «YD INGTDUCTO?S TOWARD OWE ANOTHER? EflLEATIO§_Nhfl_ —f5ffi'TEAE?- I —DID mom TEACH :=_ _ RES? q_§ss: 1 2 1 2 tary science: Pied 5 d 5 8 :le 15 3O 1 3 Lary other: ried d 9 6 13 :10 15 SO 2 . O 1tary: . l ried 17 22 11 ' 13 gle 54 112 13 __ _ 1.- lary scienc. ad- I - . l Ltary O O 5 4 ilian 13 55 a 3 15 lary science i ltary U 0 i 4 2 ilian 14 24 ' 3 1 8 iary other 1 3d: : ltary U 0 E 0 O Llian 2 15 i 5 12 iary other ! ;tary O o i 2 8 ilian 7 14 9 2 atary 3 L 5 Q l 5 * 1. Always respectful 2. Other than zlwavs respectful 1]) YOU FEEL THAT YOUR COLLEGE OF EDVCATICU INsflqUCTOQS .POSSESSED THE NEC'SSA”Y DU?LIC SCHOOL EXPERIENCE 161 TABLE 42 To PROPERLY QUALIFY THEM IN TEACHER TRAINIDG? TO BE EFFWCTIVE :OPULATION DID TD A011 1 DI 0 110’“ TE ACH RESPONSES* 1 2 5 4 1 2 ' 3 4 i: adary science: cried 3 3 5 3 8 2 2 1 ngle 25 13 7 1 4 o o o ndary other: cried 5 5 : 1 11 3 3 2 ngle 26 18 19 2 5 4 2 3 entary: rried 21 9 9 O 19 4 0 1 male 61 55 26 6 8 6 2 1 1.. _ .__..-J___._._. ...-_._.__,...._ ...... ._ ...- -__. ...... ndary science ied: litary O O F O 7 O O O vilian 15 13 6 2 14 1 2 1 ndary science '16: . litary O O O O 5 O 1 O vilian 18 13 5 1 7 2 O 2 »ndary other 'ied: .litary O O O O O O O O .villan 9 6 2 1 6 3 5 1 rndary other 1 gle: .litary " O O O 6 3 O 1 Lvilian a 9 2 2 4 2 1 0 meat ary 7 2 O O 1 O 2 O * 1. All or most of them did 2. Some of them did 3. Few or none of them did L. Don't know HOW WOULD YOU BY YOUR COLL fo'PULATION _ I: idary science: cried Igle 1dary Other: rried Isle entary: rried ngle l_—- ndary science ied: Ilitury \vilian undary science :16: .litary .vilian 1ndary other 'ied: .litary Lvilian >ndary other gle: ilitary ivilian nentary fiATE T”? PI‘U‘ H‘IAJ 162 TXBLE 45 EXFERI?”CE? OF EOHCQ“TO" INST2U3TORS? -F?E?ED YOU ”a -_fl * 1. I '— 0 Practical most of the . Practical less than flOJt of the time time or more -‘I.i_.1:..2.ID TEE-10H 11211.92). wc-rfima ___ RESQONSES*M‘* ... 1 2 -11. 1 2 __ 5 8 7 6 21 24 3 1 7 6 12 7 18 1;: 3 9 22 17 17 7 ad 78 12 5 J..- - - .. -..--- .. - .__. # _..__.._._._ O O 7 O 26 19 12 6 1 i I U U 4 2 14 23 7 4 i o o o o 5, a 10 7 a 1 'J U 5 5 '1 7 4 3 7 2 2 1 163 TABLE 44 ID (DRE EXPERIENCES OFFERED BY YOUR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION INSTRUCTOFS PROVE OF BEVEFIT IN ACTUAL CLASSROOM APPLICATION? @PULA‘P‘ON DID T311911. [[ ”)ID NOT TEACH ______ RESPONSES* 1 ‘ 2 1 2 i: :7 adary science: cliel O 13 8 ngle 6 39 2 2 ndary other: rried 3 10 5 14 ngle 5 59 2 ‘0 entary: rried 14 25 '2 12 ngle 42 124 3 8 hdary science ied: litary O O 3 4 ,Vilian 12 33 4 14 ndary soience ;le: .litary O O 2 4 .Vilian U ! 29 2 7 1ndary other ' E ried: ' ' Llitary 0 ' v 0 0 Lvilian 5 ! 13 ' 6 9 Dndary other I file: ilitary 0 J 4 6 .vilian .1 17 5 nentary' 3 6 2 1 * 1. Most or all of them did 2. Less than most of them did HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTEEIZE YOU? AND INST7UCTORS' 164 TABLE 45 ATTITNDES ABO”T TEACHERS' PERI? WORK? fOI—‘ULATION ‘ DID TEACH ' 11 )ID 11017 TEACH RESPONSES: 1 2 1 “— 2 1: *“ adary science: cried 5 9 5 9 1sle d 38 1 3 ndary other: cried 3 10 2 18 ugle 16 49 5 7 entarJ: rried 9 30 ' 5 19 ”€19 32 135 g 2 14 .... ... __ LL ndary science 1 ied: litary . O 1) 7 6 1 vilian 16 29 6 12 ndary science le: litary 1 O O 2 4 vilian ’15 23 2 9 ndary otnzr lei: 1 litary O O E O O vilian 4 14 4 11 ndary other 1e: .litary D O 1 9 .vilian 6 14 2 5 :entary 2 7 O 3 * 1. Always wholesome 2. Other than always wholesome 165 TABLE 46 111D YOUR COLLEGE OE EDUCATION IVSTJUCTORS EVER LEAD YOU TO THINK THAT YOUR SOCIAL STATUS AS A TEACHE? WOULD BE AUYTUIUG OTHER ’I‘HAT'T DESIRABLE? QPULATION DID TEACH [I DID 1:013 TEACH 339901181331- '""'""'“ 1 2 3 _ 1 2 3 .dary sc ience: riea 1 4 7 o 1 10 Igle 6 26 14 O 2 2 Idury other: -ried 1 3 d 1 9 8 1313 i 2 36 26 2 4 6 antary: fried 1 16 21 1 7 16 Isle 11 56 95 2 4 10 i ndiry science E 16.1.: litary i v O U 0 3 4 vilian | 8 17 19 1 9 8 ndary science 1 :le: ! : .litary ! o o o _ 2 2 .vilian 5 18 13 1 3 _ 6 >ndary other 1 .i811: Llitary a O i) 1) C: O ivilian 1 13 .1 O 8 7 ondary other gle: ilitary u o O 4 1 i lVilinfl 4 6 '11 O 5 j mentary 2 3 O_ _ 1 * 1. Most or all of them ii: R. Some or few of them 11d ')J) ”L13 t 16E: Y ‘N I on U I‘ n I- -.1..'. ..A :3 [1 WI? VI 1 T D ‘JI‘lt'N In . . CR FULFILL THE RESUIREMENTS FOR A TEACHING CERTIFICATE? EPULAI‘ICN )ID TEACH [I DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 :N: 1ndary science: eried 9 6 3 1O .ngle ' 24 22 2 2 >ndary other: eried 6 7 7 13 .ngle 27 38 5 7 Ientary: eried 11 27 6 18 Lngle 67 100 7 1O :— -- i Judary science ried: ilitary O O 2 5 ivilian 21 26 9 9 3ndary soience gle: , ilitary O O 3 3 iVilian 2O ' 19 4 7 andary other ; ried: ilitary O O O O ivilian 6 11 14 1 3ndary other ale: ilitary O O 5 5 Lvilian 6 15 3 l 4 Dentary 2 6 1 2 * 1. During freshman or SCphcmore year in college 2. Any other time 167 TABLE 48 1)ID YOU HAVE ANY FRIENDS OR RELATIVES WHO TRIED TO PERSUADE YOU 1‘70”? TO TEACH OR TAKE A TEACHITG POSITION? :OPULATION DID TEACH ll DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 i: Ddary science: rried 3 11 2 11 ngle 4 42 O 4 ndary other: rried 1 12 3 17 ngle 1O 55 2 10 entary: rried 1 3O 1 23 ngle 25 141 5 12 I,— 1ndary science 'ied: .11 t-Iry 0 O 1 6 Lvilian 13 33 3 15 >ndAry science 319: ilitary 0 U 1 5 ivilian 1O 27 2 9 Dndary other ried: ilitary U 0 0 ivilian '0 10 7 8 0ndary other gle: Lilitary 1- C 4 6 iiviliah 6 15 3 4 :ment :ry 2 7 O 3 I; * 1. Yes 2. No 168 TABLE 49 DID PUBLIC OPINION TOWARD TEACHING INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION ABOUT TiKING A TEACHING POSITION? POPULATION DID TEACH; fl DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 1 13 2 11 Single 9 36 O 4 Secondary other: Married 0 13 2 17 Single 9 44 1 11 Elementary: Married 4 35 2 20 Single 4 131 3 13 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 1 6 Civilian 2 44 3 15 Secondary science single: Military 0 O O 6 Civilian 3 35 4 7 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O Civilian 5 13 2 13 Secondary other Sin le: Military 0 O O 10 Civilian 2 19 2 5 Elementary 2 7 O 3 * 1. Yes 2. No 169 TABLE SO WHAT TYPE OF PUBLIC OPINION INFLUENCED YOU IN YOUR DECISION ABOUT ENTERING TEACHING? RESPONSE DID TEACH DID NOT TEACH TOTAL Against the teaching profession 57 9 66 Upholding the teaching profession 2O 5 25 Total 2 77 14 91 X = 061 P = .50 170 TABLE 51 WAS YOUR MOTHER EVER A SCHOOL TEACHER? POPULATION . DID TEACH fl DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 ‘ 1 2 WOMEN: " Secondary science: Married 4 10 5 8 Single 15 31 3 1 Secondary other: Married 2 11 9 11 Single 22 43 1 11 Elementary: Married 9 3O 11 15 Single 45 122 5 12 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O O 7 Civilian 1O 36 4 14 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 2 4 Civilian 9 29 2 9 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O Civilian 2 16 1 14 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 1 9 Civilian 8 13 5 Elementary 1 8 1 2 * 1. Yes 2. No 171 TABLE 52 HOW MANY YEARS DID YOUR MCTHER TEACH? RESPONSE DID TEACH DID NOT TEACH TOTAL Less than 3 years 27 1O 37 3 - 5 years 21 8 29 5 - 10 years 24 11 35 More than 10 years 52 18 70 Total 124 47 171 2 X = .39 p = .95 172 TABLE 53 WAS YOUR FATHER EVER A SCHOOL TEACHER? POPULATION DID TEACH jI DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 2 12 2 11 Single 5 41 1 3 Secondary other: Married 1 12 3 17 Single 9 56 2 10 Elementary: Married ‘ 2 37 2 22 Single 17 149 4 13 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O O 7 Civilian 8 37 2 16 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 2 4 Civilian 5 33 1 10 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O Civilian 1 17 1 14 Secondary other single: Military c O o 1 10 CiVIlian 5 16 1 6 Elementary 2 7 O 3 2. No 173 TABLE 54 HOW MANY YEARS DID YOUR FATHER TEACH? RESPONSE DID TEACH DID NOT TEACH TOTAL Less than 3 years 11 5 16 3 - 5 years 4 2 6 5 - 10 years 6 1 7 More th:n 10 years 37 13 50 Not sure 3 1 4 Total 61 22 83 x2 = .93 P = .50 174 TABLE 55 WERE ANY OF YOUR BROTHERS OR SISTERS EVER A TEACHER? POPULATION DID TEACH fl; DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* ‘1 2 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 1 12 1 12 Single 7 38 3 1 Secondary other: Married 1 12 1 19 Single 10 53 1 11 Elementary: Married 9 3O 4 19 Single 20 146 1 15 MEN: Secondary science married: Military O O 1 6 Civilian 7 38 5 13 Secondary science single: Military O O 2 4 Civilian 3 35 2 9 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O Civilian 2 16 4 10 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 1 9 Civilian 4 17 5 Elementary 1 8 1 2 * 1. Yes 2. No 175 TABLE 56 WHILE AN UNDERGRADUATE AT M.S.U. DID YOU EVER HAVE A SCHOLARSHIP? POPULATION DID TEACH IL. DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* “’T’ “' 2 “"‘1“ 1 2 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married 4 1O 6 7 Single 18 28 2 Secondary other: Married 5 7 4 16 Single 25 41 4 8 Elementary: Married 12 26 6 18 Single 45 121 8 9 MEN: Secondary science married: Military 0 O 4 3 Civilian 13 33 4 14 Secondary science single: Military 0 O 5 3 Civilian 13 25 2 9 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O 0 Civilian 3 15 4 11 Secondary other single: Military 0 O 2 8 Civilian 7 14 3 4 Elementary 3 6 1 2 * 1. Yes 2. No 176 'TABLE 57 WOULD YOU HAVE ENROLLED IN THE TEACHER TRAINING CURRICULUM IF YOU HAD NOT HAD THIS SCHOLARSHIP? POPULATION DID TEACH ggfl’ DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 3 1 _ 2 _ 3 WOMEN: Secondary science: Married ' 2 O 2 7 O 0 Single 13 O 4 2 O 0 Secondary other: Married 4 1 O 4 0 Single 23 O O 3 O 1 Elementary: Married 10 1 1 6 O 0 Single 34 5 4 6 O 2 MEN: Secondary science married: ’Military 0 O O 3 1 O Civilian 8 2 3 3 O 0 Secondary science single: Military 0 O O 3 O O Civilian 8 3 3 1 0 1 Secondary other married: Military 0 O O O O O Civilian 3 O O 4 0 0 Secondary other single: Military 0 O O 2 O O Civilian 6 O 1 2 O 1 Elementary 3 O O 1 O O * 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not certain - 177 TABLE 58 DID THE AVAILABILITY OF A SCHOLARSHIP HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOUR DECISION TO TRAIN FOR TEACHING? iOPULATION— DID TEACH H DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 EN: Dndary'science: arried 1 3 0 7 ingle O 16 O 2 ondary other: arried O 5 O 4 ingle 2 23 O 4 mentary: arried 2 1O 0 6 ingle 5 39 O 6 L— ondary science ’ried: [ilitary O O 0 4 :ivilian 2 11 O 3 :ondary science Lgle: [ilitary O O O 3 :ivilian 0 13 0 2 :ondary other cried: I lilitary O i O O O Jivilian O 3 O 4 zondary other ugle: Military 0 O 0 2 Civilian O 7 O 3 ementary 0 3 0 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 178 TABLE 59 WAS THE AVAILABILITY OF A SCHOLARSHIP THE MAIN REASON YOU CHOOSE THE TEACHER TRAINING CURRICULUM? RESPONSES QID‘TEACH DID NOT TEACH TOTAL :8 4 1 5 > 12 5 17 otal * 16 6 22 x2 = .20 P = .70 179 TABLE 60 DID YOU FEEL YOU HAD A GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR MAJOR SUBJECT(S) WHEN YOU GRADUATED FROM M.S.U.? OPULATION DID TEACH I] DID NOT TEACH. RESPONSES* 1 2 . 1 2 dary science: ried 9 4 1o 3 816 31 15 3 1 dary other: ried 12 1 14 6 gle 45 20 9 3 ntary: ried 23 13 17 7 .gle 9O 73 11 6 ldary science .ed: .itary O O 7 O rilian 39 7 16 2 ldary science Le: Litary O O 3 3 Iilian 26 12 6 5 ldary other Led: litary O O O O vilian 13 15 1O 5 Ddary other Le: litary ' O O 5 5 vilian 14 7 4 3 entary 4 4 3 O i 1. Yes 2. No or not all of them 180 TABLE 61 RELATION OF MAJOR SUBJECT AREAS TO ACCEPTING TEACHING POSITIONS 739R DID TEACH DID NOT TEACH TOTAL :al sciences 39 26 65 . sciences 170 44 210 - 210 47 248 .laneous 118 65 183 “28 “ 182 710 X2 = 25012 P = 0001 181 TABLE 62 DID YOU FEEL YOU HAD A GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF YOUR MINOR SUBJECTS THEN YOU QPULATION DID TEACH DID NCT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 E2“ dary science: ried 1 8 6 5 10 gle 15 31 3 1 dary other: ried 6 7 4 15 gle 25 4O 3 8 ltary: ried '27 1O 17 7 fie 83 84 9 8 [ary scienbe ! 2d: 1 .tary O 0 7 O .lian 22 24 11 7 tary science : .tary O O 2 4 lien 17 11 2 9 .ary other d: tary O O O O lian 1O 8 8 7 ary other . I tary 1 U 0 4 6 lian .11 1O 3 4 tary i 5 4 3 O * 1. Yes 2. No or not all of them 182 TABLE 63 dELATION OF MINOR SUBJECT AREAS TO ACCEPTING TEACHING POSKTIONS fihoas DID TEZcH DID NOT TEACH TOTAL cal sciences 240 69 309 .1' so iences 360 142 502 493 90 583 llaneous 103 49 152 T196 1350 1ST: . 2 p = .001 X = 34.48 183 TABLE 64- DURING YOUR UNDERGRADUATE YEXRS, DID YOU FROM YOUR FRESHMAN YEAR PLAN TO ENTERING TEACHING? LOPULATION DID TEACH I[ DID NOT TEACH RESPONSES* 1 2 1 2 : dary science: ried 3 11 1O 3 316 24 22 1 3 deny other: ried 4 9 1O 1O Ele 34 31 2 10 ntary: ried 29 9 19 4 gle 106 62 11 6 If iary science 3d: Ltary O O 6 1 Ilian 2O 26 11 7 [ary science .tary '0 0 3 3 .lian 14 22 3 7 tary other 2d: ' .tary O 0 O 0 .lian 8 1O 2 13 .ary other ,tary O O 3 6 .lian 8 13 0 5 .tary 5 4 2 1 * 1. Yes 2. No 184 TABLE 65 HAT WAS YCUR ORIGINAL REASON FOR ENTERING THE TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM? EQPULATICN DID TEACH ;] DID NOT TEiCH RESPONSES! l 1 2 3 1 2 —3' Idary science: fried 2 6 1 O 3 1 Igle 5 1O 2 O 3 O Idary other: *ried 1 5 1 1 7 2 Lgle 5 20 2 1 9 2 :ntary: 'ried 1 2 O O 4 3 .gle 12 20 13 1 4 3 dary science { ed: itary O O O O 1 1 ilian 3 8 O 1 1 1 dary science e: itary O O O 2 1 O ilian 3 8 1 O 5 O iary other 3d: itary O O 0 O O O Llian O 5 O 2 3 O [ary other .tary O O O 2 4 O .lian O 5 O O 2 O Ltary 1 C) i O 0 1 O * 1. I never intended to enter the teaching profession. 2. I got a teaching certificate as an insurance mes- sure against the future. 3. I thought that the teacher training curriculum would give me excellent training for parenthood. REASONS FOR NOT ENTERING TEACHING 185 TABLE 66 IASCN OUNT is 01“ DID NOT __TE!ICH ,1» OF UNIVERSE pmemaking re- ponsibilities 63 41.4 9.5 'aduate studey rntinued 47 30.9 7.1 ’afted into litary service 27 17.8 431 ,laries 15 9.9 2.5 tal 152 100 ---- TABLE 67 POSITIONS ASSUMED BY THOSE :HO DID NOT TEACH EITICN CUN‘T" '5 CF DID NOT TEACH ~19 0W. ERSE“ nemaker 49 31.0 7-7 aduate student 31 19.6 4.7 litary service- 1 24 15.2 3.6 erssions Ier than teach- ; 19 12.0 2.9 arical 17 10.8 2.6 Iinessman or Lesman 9 5.7 1-4 astitute teach- 7 4.4 1.1 Lentist 2 1.3 .3 'sonnel 1 ---- '2 :al ‘PTEB :fifij "" 186 TABLE 68 RELATION OF SEX TO ACCEPTING TEACHING POSITIONS I DID TEACH DID NOT TEICH TOTAL 158 75 213 .8 345 99 444 483 174 657 x2 = 12.34 p - .001 ~ TABLE 69 RELATION 0F SECO“DARY 1ND ELEMENTITY TETCHEE CANDIDATES‘ DECISIONS ABOUT TEICHINC EIFICATE ID TEACH DID-NCT'TEACE'“”‘FTOTAL lary 270 130 400 Itary 218 43 261 488 173 661 X2 = 20.98 P = 0001 TABLE 70 RELATION OF AGE T0 ACCEPTAVCE 0F TEKCHING TOSITIONS : DID TEACH Dffi NOT TEACH ifififiIT' rounger 24 8 32 199 48 247 127 57 184 52 14 46 17 11 38 18 5 23 20 11 31 .lder 48 22 7O “‘28? 176 661 X2 = 11.68 F = 020 187 TABLE 71 RELATION OF GRADE POINT AVERAGE TO ACCEPTANCE OF TEACHING POSITIONS :DE POINT AVERAGE DID TEACH DID NOT TEACH TOTAL or better 124 50 174 3.00 364 127 491 488 T77 663" x2 = .54 p = .50 TABLE 72 RELATION OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION SCORES TO ACCEPTANCE OF TEACHING POSITIONS EERIA IDID—TEXCET——fl-DID—NCT_TETCR——_TOTEL' 1 of 8 u 10 80 36 116 3 below 8 408 141 549 488 CTTT' ‘555 x2 .. 1.39 P - .30 TABLE 73 WERE YOU HARRIED THEN YOU GRADUATED FROM M.S.U.? :ONSE DID TEAC DID-NET“TETC"‘“TOTKL‘ 134 96 230 346' 77 423 480‘ 173‘ 653" x2 a 42.47 P - .001 188 TABLE 74 VARIABLES CONTROLLED FOR IN THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 88 Did not Elementary teach Did teach Did not Civilian] teach . Did teach Single Did not military teach Did teach Others Did not Civilian teach Married 3:: zgich Military J teach se°°ndar¥ Did teach Did not Civilian teach :~ Did teach. ”ingle Did not Military teach Science & 3:3 2::0h Vocational Civilian teach b . Did teach .arried Did not Military teach =£r===========h=i Ir Did teach DidJEBt Single teach Elementary gig 2::Ch Iarried teach - _____ 1- _k, __ Did teach Did not Single teach Did teach Others Did not Married teach Did teach Secondary Did not Single teach I . Did teach Deience & . Vocational Dld not ‘ harried teach Did te&Ch l BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Arvil 3., Robert A. Davis, and Palmer 0. Johnson. Educa- ional Research and Aggraisal. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott 00., 953- . ell, William G. Form and Style in Thesis Writing. Boston: oughton Mifflin Co., 1954. s, Dwight K. and Leonard 0. Andrews. Guidin Your Student aacher. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954. Carter V. and Douglas E. Scates. Methods of Research. New >rk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954. William G. and Paul K. Hatt. Methods in_§9cia1 Research. 1w York: McGraw-Rill Book Co., Inc., 1952. Inn, Ernest and Patricia S. West. They Went to College. New Irk: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1952. ., Marie, et. 81. Research Methods in Social Relations. 1. I, II. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951. , Walter S. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: e Macmillan Co., 1950. , M. J., E. C. Denny, and Arthur P. Coladarci. Statistics g_Teachers. rev. ed. New York: The Dryden Press, Inc., 56. 3. Robert. They Went to College. Minneapolis: The Univers- r of Minnesota Press, 1941. Stanley L. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton: .nceton University Press, 1951. 1. (3. Measurement in TodayLs Schools. New York: Prentice- 1’ Inc., 19470 Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral ,ences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1930: . 189 190 , Dewey B., et. a1. Predicting Success in Professional chools. Menasha, Wis.: George Banta Publishing Co., 1949. ian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, ndDissertations. rev. ed. Chicago: The University of hicago Press, 1955. r, Helen M. Elementary_Statistica1 Methods. New York: enry Holt and 00., 1945. ey, Frederick L. The Elements of Research. 5rd ed. New ark: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950. 3, Dael. America's Resources of Specialized Talent. New York: irper & Brothers, 1954. Periodicals r, Henry H. "An Educational 'Bottleneck'," School Life, {XVII (May, 1955), cover and 127. r. "The Ante Gets Higher and Higher," Business Week, No. 134 lay 7. 1955). 98ffo ’. "Teacher Supply and Demand," Review of Educational :search, XXII (1952), 219-225. ’. "Why Teachers Leave," The Nation's Schools, XXXIV (Sept., ’44), 320 Id, John D. "Plenty of Teachers - at a Price," School gecutive, LXXVI (Feb., 1956), 58f. ., Raymond C. "Shortage of Teachers or Imagination?" Higher :ucation, XII (Nov., 1955), 41-45. , Seymour M. and F. Theodore Malm. "First Jobs and Career .tterns," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, XIV .pril, 1955) , 247-261. Ray C. "A Turn for the Best?" The American School Board urnal. (April 1, 1957), (Mimeographed excerpts distributed College of Education, Michigan State University). Ray C. "Ready, Able, but Unwilling," National Education [sociation Journal, XIV (May, 1955), 298ff. Ray C. "What Happens to Our New Teacher Candidates?" prnal of Health - Physical Education - Recreation, XXVI etc, 1955), 31f0 191 r, Herrymon. "Twenty Minutes to a Career," Fortune, LIII larch, 1956), 116ff. _ 1&1 Education Association Research Division. "The 1956 aacher Supply and Demand Report," The Journal of Teacher munch. VII (March. 1956). 33-79. 181 Education Association Research Division. The Postwar .ruiggle to Pr‘ovide Competent Teachers, XXXV ( Oc't., 1957), ms n. ' g5 William C. "Teacher Supply and Demand," Review of Educa- onal Research, XXII (1952), 219 ~22}. , Selmer. "Motivation for Entering Teaching," The Journal ‘Teacher Education, VII (March, 1956), 80f3 ps, Beeman N., Edward Bonk, and J.R. Mitchell. "Can We duce Teacher Turnover?" Phi Delta Kapan, XXVIII (April, 57) . 272-274- , Jay L. "How Stable is the Teaching Profession?" The tions Schools, XXXV (Feb., 1945), 30f. Albert J. "Occupational Mobility of Professional Workers," erican Sociological Review, XX (Dec., 1955), 693-700. , Robert and William Fox. "Teacher Supply and Demand," view of Educational Research, XXII (1952), 219-223. er, Robert C. "Teacher Certification, Supply' and Demand," giew of Educational Research, XXV (June, 1955), 193-205, Publications of the Government,Learned Societies, and Other Organizations sociation for Student Teaching, guidance in Teacher Educa- yg. Thirty-sixth yearbook. Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Associa- >n, Iowa State Teachers College, 1957. 1, W. S. "Tested Achievement of Prospective Teachers in xnsylvania," Thirty-First Annual Report, Carnegie Foundation 3 the Advancement of Teaching, 1956. L1 Education Association Research Division. The 1954 Teacher uggy and Demand Stuty. Washington: The Association, 1954. L1 Education Association Research Division. The Status of L American Public - School Teacher. Washington: The lociation, 1957 . 192 zy, Robert W., Beeman N. Phillips, and William H. Fox. Factors that the High School Students Associate with Selec- ion of Teaching as a Vocation," Bulletin of the School of ggcation. Bloomington, Ind.: The Indiana University Press, XVIII (March, 1952). 'Unpublished Material , Norman D. "The DevelOpment and Initial Validation of an nstrument Designed to Appraise Certain Aspects of Teacher 3b Satisfaction." Unpublished dissertation, The University E Minnesota, 1955. , Werner E. "Opinions of Prospective Teachers with Respect > Teaching Practices." Unpublished dissertation, Colorado sate College of Education, 1954. son, Harold S. "The Preconceptions of Prospective Teachers.” Ipublished dissertation, New York University, 1955. Anthony C. "An Analysis of Some Factors Associated with .rsistence of Interest in Teaching as a Vocational Choice." LPUbliSth dissertation, Syracuse University, 1954. .8, George. "A Comparison of Education and Non-Education xudents with Respect to Their Choice of Vocational Objectives." .published dissertation, New York University, 1955. Wesley G. "The Relation of Certain Factors to Persistence in e Teaching Profession of Houghton College Graduates Prepared r Teaching." Unpublished dissertation, The University of ffalo, 1952. Vernon N. "An Analysis of Influential Factors Related to w and When Certain High School and College Students Selected aching as a Career." Unpublished dissertation, University North Dakota, 1954. , Curtis._ "The Characteristics of Students in Teacher ucation and the Factors Influencing Their Occupational oices." Unpublished dissertation, University of Kentucky, 55. s, Leila. "The Attitudes of High School Seniors Toward aching as a Career: A Projective Technique Study." Unpub- ahed.dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1954. 195 Other Sources igan Department of Public Instruction. Personal interview with Eugene Richardson who is in charge of certification for the State of Michigan. April, 1957. igan State university. Personal interview with Dean'Ernest Kelby, Visiting Distinguished Professor. Spring Term, 1957. 'Lgan State University. Personal interview with Leland Dean, Assistant Dean of the College of Education in charge of Student lffairs. Winter Term, 1957. .gan State University. Assisting on a follow-up study for the '1acement Bureau which included sections pertinent to the tperations of the College of Education. Fall Term, 1956, inter and Spring Terms, 1957. WHY CERTIFIED TEACHERS FAIL TO ENTER THE TEACHING PROFESSION E. HAROLD HARPER, Ed.Do Michigan State University, 1958 During the post-war years much attention has been directed to the need of supplying adequate numbers of trained teachers for the schools of America. These studies have attempted to discover ways and means of attracting new teachers and retaining those who are trained. Very little attention has been directed to the dis- covery of the reasons why certified teachers fail to enter the profession. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to determine the reasons given by Michigan State University graduates, certified to teach for the fiscal year, 1956-1957, for not entering the teaching profession; to discover positions they assumed; to analyze statistically influential factors causing them to enter areas other than teaching; and to compare various aspects of these findings with responses made by those who dig_enter the teaching profession. Procedure. 1. A general hypothesis was assumed, e.g., persons who do not teach after graduating from Michigan State University have traits which will not be evident among those persons who teach after graduation. ’s 4. Several sub-hypotheses were also prOposed which were related to the general hypothesis. A questionnaire was developed and administered to the 787 graduates who certified for teaching in hichigan. Data from returned questionnaires were tabulated on IBM and subjected to a X2 Test for Two Independent Samples. . Calculations were made on hichigan State University's electronic computer, LISTIC. Findings. 1. There was no relevant difference in those who taught and those who did not teach in relation to the hypotheses tested. Certain sub-categories of various hypotheses proved to be related reasons for accepting or rejecting teach- ing positions. They are listed below. a. Services of the Placement Bureau were inadequate for certain female respondents. b. There was a direct relationship between the num— ber of interviews some of the women had and their acceptance of a teaching position. 0. School administrators who interviewed these peOple displayed certain undesirable characteristics. d. There was a significant relationship between the length of time secondary men had cOMplete charge of a class in student teaching and acceptance of teaching positions. 3 Certain groups who taught tended to feel more often than those who did not teach that their College of aducation instructors had insufficient public school eXperience and offered them ex- periences that did not prove effective in class- room situations. Other findings are as follows: a. A greater preportion of those who do not teach than those who do teach are married. Those who major in physical sciences and voca- tional areas tend to take positions other than teaching. Those who minor in social sciences and vocational areas tend to take positions other than teaching, whereas those who minor in the arts have a greater tendency to take teaching positions. The positions assumed by those who do not teach are listed in rank order below; (1) Homemaker 7,7g (2) Graduate Student 4.7g (5) Military Serviceman 5.6% (4) Professions other than teaching 2.9% (5) Clerical . 2.6% (6) Businessman or salesman 1.4% (7) Substitute teacher 1.1% (a) Scientist -3% 4 (9) Personnel .2% Conclusions. The data do not do not support the hypotheses of the study. It appears, therefore, that it does not really mat- ter what we do with teacher candidates for they will enter teach- ing regardless of the kinds of experiences they have or the pres- sures that are brought to base upon them, and their decisions to reject teaching seem to be the result of circumstance. Certain findings of this study have implications for those concerned with teacher training and teacher placement. ROOM “)1; val-i ROOM USE 0N1. Y_ ..... ”1117177191711[WWWJMQWIWS