A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OPINIONS CONCERNING EDUCATION OF HIGH SCHOOL NONGRADUATES AND PARENTS OF HIGH SCHOOL NONGRADUATES IN SIX MICHIGAN COMMUNITIES Thesis for Degree of Ed. D. Michigan State University WALTER C. HEISLER 1956 This is to certify that the thesis entitled "A Comparative Study of Opinions Concerning Education _, of High School Nongraduates and Parents of high School 1Nongraduates in Six Michigan Communities" presented bg Walter. C. Heisler has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. degree in Educational Administration WM.W Major profesun' I Date January 30 , 1956 0-169 -M‘ rn‘ 54w .._. . i f\ ‘5 magma av ‘5 HMS 8: SOIS' BOOK BIHOEBY LIBRARY BINDE RS I L-—— #‘m 1__ A COMPA-RA4TIVE STUDY OF OPINIONS CONCERNING EDUCATION OF HIGH SCHOOL NONGRADUATES AND PARENTS OF HIGH SCHOOL NONGRADUATES IN SIX MICHIG AN COMMUNITIES BY WALTER Cfvi-IEISLER A. THESIS Submitted to the School of 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 College of Education 1956 («II—fl AB S TR AC T This thesis tested the hypothesis that adults who failed to complete high school, and/or had children who failed to complete high school, had different Opinions about education and the school from those who completed high school, and/or had children who c ompl eted high 5 chool . This hypothesis was tested in six communities where certain selected questions were asked regarding people's opinions about the following educational areas: value of education, the teacher, the high school program, teaching methods, the elementary school, reasons for leaving school, and the general effectiveness of the school. Comparisons were made between three distinct pairs of sam— ples: first, a sample representing all adults who finished high school was compared to a sample of adults who failed to complete high school; second, a selected sample of high school graduates was com- pared to a selected sample of drop-outs who had similar character- istics in sex, age, occupation, place of residence, and income; and third, a sample of selected adults who had had no children drop out of high school was compared to a selected sample of adults who had had at least one child dr0p out and who also had similar characteris- tics in sex, age, occupation, place of residence, and income. The findings showed that, although there were substantial dif- ferences between the drop-outs and graduates with respect to the socioeconomic variables investigated, the differences between the drop- outs and the graduates in all three samples with respect to Opinions about education were relatively small. The most significant difference. iii between the two groups was in the larger number of "don't know" responses among the drop-outs. The data showed, among other things, that dr0p-outs and par- ents of droP-outs were somewhat more inclined than graduates: (I) to favor having more children acquire a secondary and college edu- cation; (2) to fail to see the necessity for more money for the school; (3) to favor hiring more men teachers in English; (4) to be less con— cerned about low salaries for teachers; (5) to prefer a subject-matter centered school program as opposed to a project centered program; (6) to desire less freedom for children in school affairs; (7) to favor raising the compulsory limit for school attendance; and (8) to feel that children did not receive enough individual attention. There was no statistically significant difference between the selected dr0p-out and the graduate samples with respect to: (1) rec- ognition ofthe need for special help for slow learners; (Z) attitudes about homework; (3) revision of the curriculum; (4) extracurricular activities; (5) the elementary school; and (6) citizenship training. Adults who failed to complete high school predominantly said they quit for economic reasons; however, the reasons given by par- ents for their children‘s failure to complete school usually indicated a general dislike for school. The findings seem to imply that school personnel need to rec— ognize that they are responsible for the fact that so many students fail to complete high school: first, because they have not deve10ped adequate interpersonal relationships with the potential drop-out or his parent; and second, because they have not developed the kind of school program (in cooperation with parents) which will more ade- quately serve the needs of all youth. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the contri- bution, inspiration, time, energy, interest, and thought given to it by many pe0ple who aided the author from its conception to its com- pletion. The author owes a deep debt of gratitude to Dr. Clyde Campbell, who spent many hours reading copy and making suggestions. Sincere thanks are also expressed to Dr. C. V. Millard, Dr. Milton Rokeach, Dr. Milosh Muntyan, Dr. Ed. Pfau, Dr. Harry Sundwall, and Harold L. Dahnke for their help. The author also wishes to thank Dr. Leo Haak of the Michigan Communications Study for his assistance in making the data available; and Dr. Francis Chase and the Midwest Administration Center, Uni- versity of Chicago, for permission to use the data. The assistance in typing and the encouragement of the author's wife Edith was of inestimable help. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING . .......................... Basic Assumptions .................... The Hypothesis ...................... Scope of the Study .................... Location and type of community ......... vape of school system ............... Size and type of sample .............. The opinion areas .................. Source of data ..................... Importance of Study ................... Extent of drop-outs ................. The drop-outs‘ effect upon school finances ....................... The drOp-out and school-community UleJUJUONNNN relations ...................... A high level of objectivity is maintained . . . Definition of Terms as Used in the Study Early school leaver or school leavers Opinions and attitudes ............... Holding power and holding power index . . . . Summary .......................... 10 ll 13 13 13 l3 l4 l4 CHAP TER II . METHODOLOG Y USED Source of the Data The Methodology Used in This Study THE SOURCE OF THE DATA AND The rationale ..................... The raw data ..................... The Michigan Communication. Study ..... DeveloPment of the Opinionaire ........ Choosing the sample ................ Use of data ...................... Further use of Opinionaires ........... The five communities ............... Present study uses all schedules ....... Data are inspected for pertinence ...... Useful questions are selected ......... Individual communities combined as one p0pulation .................. Data are classified, reclassified, tabulated, and punched using IBM machine 8 ...................... The comparative groups are identified ...................... Matching samples are drawn .......... The sample of parents of drop-outs is also matched ................. Chi square test is used ............. Same table used throughout remainder of study . ..................... ooooooooooooooooooo vi 16 16 16 17 l7 l9 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 25 25 26 29 30 33 CHAPTER Page Summary ........................... 34 III. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE ....................... 36 Increased Interest in Dr0p-outs Produces Much Research .................... 36 Federal agencies ................... 36 Professional associations and societies . . . . 38 State agencies ..................... 39 Local school systems . . .............. 40 Many aspects of the drop—out problem explored ....................... 40 Selected Research Findings .............. 41 Retardation, school achievement, and intelligence ..................... 41 Courses, and courses of study .......... 42 Psychological ...................... 43 Geographical location ................ 43 Nationality and racial stock ............ 43 Special services .................... 44 Selected Recommendations from the Literature ........................ 44 Summary ........................... 47 IV. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CONTROLLED SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLES TO DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL ..................... 49 Introduction ......................... 49 The Community Differences .............. 50 A review of selected research .......... 50 The analysis of the data .............. 53 CHAPTER V. The analysis of the data .............. Age .............................. A review of selected research .......... The analysis of the data ............... Occupation .......................... A review of selected research .......... The analysis of the data .............. Income . . . . ........................ A review of selected research .......... The analysis of the data .............. Place of Residence (rural-urban) .......... A. review of selected research .......... The analysis of the data .............. Summary .......................... The total adult community (”community adults ” sample) ................. The matched adult group ("selected adults” sample) ................. The matched parents of drop-outs group ("selected parents" sample) ........ THE RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER SELECTED SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLES TO DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL ..................... 84 84 85 86 CHAPTER Introduction ........................ Home Ownership .................... A. review of selected research ......... The analysis of the data ............. Number of Children .................. A review of selected research ......... The analysis of the data ............. What Grade is Child in School? .......... The analysis of the data ............. The Relationship of Dr0p-outs to Other Children in the Family .............. A review of selected research ......... The analysis of the data ............. Number of Organizational Memberships . . . . A review of selected research ......... The analysis of the data ............. Contact With the School ............... A review of selected research ......... The analysis of the data ............. The Relationship of ”Don't Know“ Re- sponses, and Amount of Verbalization to Dr0pping Out of School ............ A. review of selected research ......... The analysis of the data ............. Summary . ......................... The total adult community ("community adults ” sample) ................. ix Page 100 100 101 104 104 105 105 105 108 110 110 110 115 115 115 1.17 117 CHAPTER Page The matched adult group ("selected adults” sample) .................. 118 The matched parents of drop-outs group (”selected parents" sample) ......... 118 VI. THE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OPINIONS REGARDING THE VALUE OF EDUCATION ...................... 121 Introduction ......................... 1 21 The Value of Education ................. 122 A review of selected research .......... 122 The analysis of the data .............. 126 Summary . .......................... 139 VII. THE. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OPINIONS REGARDING THE SCHOOL TEACHER, TEACHING METHODOLOGY, AND SCHOOL PROGRAM ........... ,. . . . 141 Introduction ......................... 1 41 The School Teacher ................... 141 A review of selected research .......... 141 The analysis of the data .............. 146 Teaching Methodology .................. 165 A review of selected research .......... 165 The analysis of the data .............. 174 The School PrOgram ................... 194 A review of selected research ......... . 194 -° ' The analysis of the data .............. 199 Summary ........................... 215 xi CHAPTER Paoe VIII. THE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OPIN— IONS REGARDING THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THE REASONS FOR LEAVING SCHOOL, AND THE GENERAL EFFEC- TIVENESS OF THE SCHOOL ............. 217 Introduction ......................... 21 7 The Elementary School ................. 217 A review of selected research .......... 217 The analysis of the data .............. 220 The Reasons for Leaving School .......... 229 A review of selected research .......... 229 The analysis of the data .............. 241 The General Effectiveness of the School ..... 259 A review of selected research .......... 259 The analysis of the data .............. 260 Summary ........................... 269 IX. THE SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................. 275 Summary ........................... 275 Implications for Education ............... 283 Suggestions for Further Research ......... 290 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................... 29.3 APPENDIX .................................. 310 TABLE III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII . XIV . XV. LIST OF TABLES Percentage of Pupils Who Attain Various Grade Levels from Certain Studies Sum- ma rized by Douglas s ................. Number of Pupils Out of Every One Hundred in the First Grade Staying in School in Indiana ........................... Number of Interviews on Each of Sixty- seven Questions ..................... Name of Community .................... How Far Did You Go in School? ........... Would You Mind Giving Us Your Age? ....... What Is Your Husband's (your) Occupation? Approximately What Was Your Total Family Income Last Year? .................. Place of Residence (rural-urban) ........... Do You Own or Rent Your Home? .......... Number of-Children (Do you have any children ?) ......................... Where is Child in School Now? ............ Relationship of Drop-outs to Other Children in the Family ...................... Number of Organizational Memberships (To what organizations do you belong?) ....... Page 24 52 56 61 64 72 78 83 89 n 4 r -. 320?; .' (I) K In K. Y‘ Q 0 V; o ‘. _-< Q xiii TABLE Page XVI. Type of Contact with the School? (What does your husband do for a living? What do you do? Do you have any child- ren or grandchildren in school now? Do you have any close Personal friends who are closely connected with the school?) ..... 111 XVII. Average Per Cent of Sample Answering "Don't Know” on Forty-six Questions, and Per- centage of Responses on Seventeen Open- Ended Questions ...................... 116 XVIII. As You Know, the Law Requires that All Pupils Stay in School Until They Are Sixteen, but Then Some Drop Out Before They Graduate. Do You Think a Greater Effort Should be Made to Keep All Pupils in School Until They Graduate? ........... 127 XIX. About What Proportion of the Pupils Who Graduate from Your High School Do You Think Should Go On to College? .......... 128 XX. What Do You Think of the Present Costs of Running Your School? ................ 131 XXI. Who Is the Superintendent of Your School? ..... 132 XXII. Who Is the Principal of Your High School? ..... 133 XXIII. Who Is the President of Your Board of Education ? ......................... 134 XXIV. Do You Remember Receiving a Booklet About Your Public Schools Within the Last Month or Two? .................. 136 TABLE XXV. XXVI. XXVII.. XX VIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. xxxu. XXXIII , xxxxv . Did You Read It? (Asked only when appro- priate. See Table XXIV.) .............. Do You Usually Vote in School Elections, or Did You Vote in the Last School Election? What Kind of a Person Would You Hire if "You" Were Hiring a High School Teacher? ......................... About What Proportion of the Teachers in Your High School Come Fairly Close to This Desc ription ? ................... In General, Would You Prefer Your Children (if you had any) to be Taught by a Man or Woman in the Following Subjects in High School? English? ............... In General, Would You Prefer Your Children (if you had any) to be Taught by a Man or Woman in the Following Subjects in High School? History? ............... In General, Do You Think Teachers' Salaries are Too High, About Right, or To'o Low? Do You Believe, in General, the Wife of a High School Teacher Should Work for Pay 'Outside the Home? ................... Do You Believe, in General, the Wife of a High School Teacher Should Work for Pay Outside of the Home? Why? ........... What Do You Think High School Teachers ”Should" Do During the Summer? ........ xiv Page 137 138 148 152 154 155 157 158 159 163 v v- ' v a... 0-. TILL 331's; ~- v v“ D. T ' ‘ bu . “‘1.“ . . 3...,“ .‘~)..‘“\. 30 \v .4 ‘ ‘ '4 ‘-.'_J ‘o- ~«- :- ‘f‘ ~ V 'v ...... ,g -, , , ' d 0 ..‘ v .‘_. A \v ”.1! A “V \ .. u“ ‘0, l r, I ufinec. DO ' l A. .g \ V 0. p- A u c ‘0 ~ I ‘9' ‘L \‘ TABLE XXXV. XXXVI. XXXVII. XXX VIII . XXXIX. XL. XLI. XLII. XLIII, XV Page Do You Think Most High School Teachers Should Plan to Move On to Another Com— munity After Teaching in Your Community for a Few Years? .................... 166 Which Method is Most Like the Method Used in Your High School? .................. 176 In General, Which Method Do YOu Believe is Better in High School? ................. 177 Do You Believe Your School Gives as Much Attention as it Should to Slow Learners? . . . . 178 Do You Believe Your School Gives as Much Attention as it Should to Fast Learners? . . . . 180 Have You Had, or Do You Have, a Child Who Could Benefit from Special Help in Reading? . . ....................... 181 What Do You Think Should be Done with Any Pupil Whose Ability to Read, Write, Spell, and Do Arithmetic is Not All it Should Be When He Enters High School? . . . . 182 Do You Believe More Homework, About the Same, or Less Homework Should be Required of High School Pupils Than is Now Required? .......... . ......... 185 Do You Think Pupils Should be Required to Memorize Such Things as the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, Parts of the Constitution, and Lincoln's Gettys- burg Address? ....................... 186 , '- I ,|. . L'g'. .} \' 3...} OOUJJ. IOU" - - v .1 . At»;..( a 'Q' u'. - . in" r ‘|h~‘| 3 , n" " ' s '- | ..-. \ . , “‘ ‘lIJ* s'n- -. ‘ "‘ t . ‘P‘ . A . Jud..- _" \U - .. NHL‘vg OMAN... .. v‘v. "“g u . - ‘- 113i m. .‘T‘- a...) 9-. ““L u.-.‘ \l, o"_’ v I '4, 4—K: -..I ~I 3' ’ ' “V ‘- f. TABLE XLIV. XLV. XLVI. XLVII. XL VIII. XLIX. L1 L11. LIII LIV, About How Many Pupils Do You Think a Teacher Can Teach Successfully in a High School Class? .................. . How Much Freedom Do You Think Pupils Should be Given in Managing Their Own Affairs Through Student Government and Similar Activities? ................. What Do You Think Can be Done to Keep Students in High School? ................ What Do You Believe Should be Given More Time and Attention in Your Schools? . . . What Do You Believe Should be Given Less Time and Attention in Your Schools? . . . OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Which Do You Think Should Receive the Most Time and Attention, State and Local Government, or Federal Govern- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Should They Teach About Important Generals of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? ....... How About History of Labor Unions? ......... What Do You Think About the Time Given to What to D ramatic s ? What Do You Think AbOpt the Time Given to Athletic 5 ? xvi Page 187 190 192 200 203 205 206 207 209 210 211 .2; l‘ I V. “I V I - I) 3'. 320 A O . v .o C.» V ‘: F rm y.‘ . --.. .. hut...“ r.llr0 D .0 VK- _. ,3“ )0. J‘ ‘ I" ' an. I. ‘ ‘ ' u‘“, 33 XV. 005. . , w 3-1:. \J_ ‘ , " O 173v?” D 1- . I .rx 9 . .H 5.41:" t . 'X . c... t so. Cost ‘11 ' t’29 \l “h. a', ~~ \.... U“; 'V.~ 9 0. fins. 9' ’_‘ \ o .d. a o 7. wt: v ‘ I f 7 W . ‘de. ‘ . M H a. ‘ u . a\ A A \ w . I... ' ~‘fl ‘ g '9 .,. I a... . l ‘- ~ O..' :‘.‘ I " ” ..’ .‘l" fici‘g ‘lv, ‘ 'I r . «_! v... I 'Q \.,~‘ ‘ A. é; TABLE LV. LVI. LVII. L VIII . LIX. LX. LXI. LXII. LX111, LXIV. va LXVI. What Do You Think About the Time Given to Clubs and Organizations? ............. If Something Had to be Cut Out of Your High School in the Future to Save Money, What do You Think Should be Dr0pped? Do You Think that the Work of the Elementary School Teacher is as Important, More Important, or Less Important than the Work of the High School Teacher? ......... Why Do You Think that the Work of the Elementary School Teacher is as Impor- tant, More Important, or Less Important than the Work of the High School Teacher? In General, Are You Satisfied with the Discipline in Your Grade School? ......... What Methods of Discipline Do You Think Should be Used in the Grades? ........... What Method do You Think "Should Not" be Used in the Grade School? ............ What do You Consider the Desirable Number of Pupils per Room in Grade School? ............................ Why Did You End Your Schooling at That Why Did You End Your Schooling at That OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO Why Did He End School at This Point? Why Did She End School at This Point? xvii Page 212 213 222 223 226 227 230 232 244 247 252 255 .‘,.— no..- v v" '0‘ m. ,1 . ,— main. . . , V . -.‘u\_ TABLE LXVII. LXVIII. LXIX. LXX. In General, Are You Satisfied or Dissatisfied with Your High School? ................ What Do You Think About the Way Children are Taught Today ? .................... In General, What Do You Think About the Way They Teach in High School? .......... On the Basis of Your Observation of Pe0p1e Who've Been Out of School a Few Years, How Well Would You Say Our Schools are Doing Their Part of Citizenship T raining ? xviii Page 262 264 267 270 -- F UV r . ‘_',\t';\ k ’I‘-‘¢-.‘.--, . win T F'Iv--‘ n "95 Ada-VJ L y ‘ I "LIT: '3 3.; ' F‘ . u,“ . p ‘A “f4 " ~¢v " n v c‘ ‘ . ‘H‘ r. ‘ ‘ s i‘.. '\‘ in“... ‘ "C ‘ ~‘ u. ‘ .~‘.|-‘. :1— . A I 1.. . ~.‘ . “‘C._ ‘ ‘r . u ‘— ~‘" I; .v- . ‘ ~ 4.. er. a ..‘ 1‘ I. 1‘.‘ . '. “p... . '- n. a- . .,‘ . -.Q‘ ”9-" A ' 1 .7 a, s ‘ >-. O..‘. u ‘. ~ .. f‘n .‘ "- r. ‘ "'1‘ 1. ' ‘4 . I . P‘s i. F‘ . O.‘r: '. .5 -" . ._ . ‘~:\P.__ . .J.“ .' .. ‘4‘- ,l '2 w, A F. g‘ "\ .l~. . CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING The purpose of this study is to establish whether people, who have graduated from high school and have children who have grad- uated from high school, have significantly different Opinions about education than pe0ple who did not graduate from high school and have Children who did not graduate from high school. I. BASIC ASSUMP TIONS There are always underlying assumptions, stated or implied, that serve as a point Of departure for the proof that is to be sub- mitted in any research. These are the assumptions that undergird this particular presentation: 1. That the public secondary schools have an obligation to Provide an education to all youth who are normal in their intellectual aJld physical development. 2. That people's Opinions affect their behavior toward educa- tion and the school. 3. That a study of Opinions about education can help to show the reasons for children dropping out of school. 4. That finding the causes for children dr0pping out of school may be a step in the direction of eliminating such causes. ' o .t. ...__,. - . ».. \ ...- . '. ‘9 . d-.§|.'. . l I ,. . ~ .1, ..-- J. ‘T‘:Ff' .“ '6 '- . - ‘9 b. “E G _ 0‘ \ ~ , ¢_E -..' ._‘. l“‘u~ A VI. .~ \t- I." _ ..~. ‘1‘ ‘ ‘|A~ . . n. ,1 - ‘ b a“- ‘c.—' ' P o In.» ‘ ‘ “es- .. , ‘ ‘n. V‘ . ‘ ‘A.. h ' 21,." c ‘ C ,y.‘ . I-e :. ' K 1‘”; - a. ‘fi‘ '1- ‘ : a5“.— ‘Nv \ . ‘ \I...‘ ,3 . " ~'_ ‘-.,4“ ; “ 0 ~. . . :.,' .- ‘,. \' f. A. ‘_ J ‘tf II. THE HYPOTHESIS The hypothesis of this study is that adults who have failed to complete high school will have Opinions about education and the school differing from those who have completed high school. Further, that parents whose children have failed to complete high school will have Opinions about education and the school differing from those whose children have completed high school. 111. SCOPE OF THE STUDY Lgcation and type of; community. The communities in this Study were selected because of their relative nearness to Lansing and because of their geographical distribution. They were likewise Chosen because they had normal population characteristics for a rural tfading center, as well as some small industry; they were far enough from a large city so that relatively few adults worked outside the Community; and they had pOpulations between 2,000 and 5,000. Type of school system. All these communities have medium- Sized schools with enrollments from 275 to 575, with a substantial number of students being transported by school bus. No recent conflict of a serious nature involving education had Occurred, nor was there evidence Of possible conflict in the immediate future. Size and type of sample. The total number Of interviews was 760. with a range from a low of eighty-five interviews in the two Smaller communities to a high of 250 interviews in the largest com- munity. A. 5 to 10 per cent random sample was selected in each .. -y. j~ ',< t :4 .‘ ' ' ‘. 1 . ‘u. -‘.~.I ,. a n V .. ‘ O . - .J'e ‘ ‘ .‘ ‘: ...Avk- w... .- "‘ '\*-v-‘ .r - - ‘wt -.. . a. - . ‘ en T""Obv \ . l wt. 7- .1. _ .. ”e N”, 1 Q 6 "'< ’ u A" .‘“».. ~ ‘ ' I 1 F‘: )- .. . ‘tt{ ‘.‘.“. r7 ' ‘at .p . city and was checked for validity in terms of age and occupation against United States Census figures for that community. The Opinion areas. A. series of questions was asked about each of the following tOpics to attempt to get an adequate picture 01' peOple's attitudes concerning: 1. The value of education. 2. The teacher. The high school prOgram. The teaching methods. The elementary school. The reasons for leaving school. «10014:- The general effectiveness Of the school. Source of data. All material in this thesis was developed from materials collected by the Michigan Communications Study. The relationship of this study to the Michigan Communications Study and the methodology used will be treated in a separate chapter in this presentation. IV. IMPORTANCE OF STUDY The significance of this study can be expressed in part by a st"‘ltel'nent in a recent bulletin of the Department of Education of the State Of Minnesota: Few people can be found today who question the belief that it is the function of the public secondary school to provide education fol“ all of the children Of all the people.1 \ 1George Edberg, M. Stout, and G. Varner. A Guide for the Study of Holdin Power in Minnesota Secondary School. Minnesota Secondary Schools Improvement Seriez; VBulletin NO. 21. State Department of Ed- ucation, St. Paul: 1952. p. 4. There has been an abundant amount of literature in profes- sional journals dealing with the drOp-out problem. Even President Eisenhower recently showed concern over the seriousness of the drOp-out problem when he said: All of us recognize the urgency of solving such serious educa- tional problems as shortages of teachers and school facilities and the loss of needed, trained manpower through illiteracy and school drOp-Outs. The facts show, however, that we are falling behind, rather than catching up.2 Dr. James B. Conant as president of Harvard University likewise attested to the seriousness of the problem when he asserted, To the extent that we now fail to educate the potential talent of each generation, we are wasting one of the country's greatest In the world today, a highly industrialized nation simply Yet no one familiar with the 3 assets. can not afford this type of waste. situation would deny that such a waste occurs. The gravity of the problem is well documented in the recent rfi‘port by the National Manpower Council of Columbia University, WhiCh further emphasizes the role that an adequate secondary educa- tion could play in helping to meet the need for more trained tech- niCians in American economic society. In spite of quite general agreement, that all children should haVe the benefit of a secondary education, it is necessary to report that great numbers of educable youth are failing to complete high sch001. \ "Michigan White House Conference on Edu- 2 Clair L. Taylor. No. 2. Michigan State Uni- catiomu School of Education Quarterly. versity, E. Lansing: April 1955- P- 6- 3New York State Education Department. Improvement of Hold— .Lng‘iower Through A. Continuous Study of Youth in 8211001. The Uni- Versity of the State of New York Press. Albany: 1952. p. 5. 43. C. Watkins. The Neglect Of Skilled Labor. Fortune Magazine. March 1955. pp. 52-55. u I . 0‘ w-se’ 'I.- I j ’.‘...*,. ....;...o - \ . ' - . ".10” ° '~ "'- .. . .3 a. g- - 0 v‘ . I --~‘ I - ' gl- a 1"13810Ia kL-«Ias ‘ . ‘ Q I .. . . .. . X.‘ ", 'T ‘ J. o ’J -. m. :va. . V- - O t 1'. .‘;I'~;v~ u». I.” 1,. --.....a.. \J..... .u. . r... -.. .t.‘ "" q- 0}. ., . . ~~no U. .ant :. In. . a .. ‘ O0. . v. ." O . l 9 -. ‘;-‘ u' L . . "“‘ ~' C .0 0 MAC qg-Ce‘: .. s )0. . . , -. . . .-- ,4 - ..Q ‘ 32. H up“. - - rlJ.‘. 14‘? ‘a .4 -~ '0. :Igdfu . \U.“. ‘V‘“"-. l .‘\. .\ L: ‘ -~.,, - I , ~¢:_. \AO'J- .. _ a.. J. . l \ A '> “-‘q_..|u 1.. ‘ t c. ' a A ~' “HQ. - ‘. v- . ..‘J.- ‘- .4 ‘ “. a} - O “ -..{- .i‘ r. _ A .‘J'A'. m A. \ ' Y Q, h T ._ ’ a ‘ . TEE: A; b ‘J‘ . f; ‘u gilt... ‘ -J‘-C-F ., _. . , . ‘3‘... -u‘. C, P ‘ . . M4. C‘f—r ,‘ ‘. ‘4. .s‘. I Q _ '-‘ u-"L _ .__' : ‘. \ - t. an L 4 b‘ ._ ’V . ~ n... ‘ V C‘ _ . “‘ 'v N m. 1,_ ,3 . ‘. TT‘F. ° " .~‘§ F 1“ Fm; ‘ a F \a O n‘. vI‘ ‘ ,i-v-s .‘ c P. A“ . x \ l " . u U“ " y -\. I Extent of drop-Outs. In discussing such a tOpic as drOp-outs the question might be appr0priately asked: Are drop-outs on the increase? It is gratifying to report here that since the beginning of the twentieth century, American educators have made progress to- ward the goal of providing an adequate secondary education for all American youth. This is shown in Table I, which is reproduced from a book by Douglass, summarizing the leading research on the number of drop—outs in the United States prior to 1938.5 This table shows that at the time of Thorndike's study only 8 per cent of the students who entered first grade were in the twelfth grade in 1907, twelve years later; whereas in Foster's study 46 per cent of the students who entered first grade were in the twelfth grade in 1936. From 1936 to the present time there has been a rather slow, but steady, increase in the number of first-grade children who com- plete high school. One typical sample of this is shown in Table II, 5Aubrey A. Douglass. Modern Secondary Education. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston: 1938. p. 49. Based upon data reported in the following: E. L. Thorndike. Bureau of Education Bulletin. No. 4. Bureau of Education. Washington: 1907. p. 47. Leonard P. Ayres. Laggards in Our Schools. Charities Publishing Company. New York: 1909. pp. 71. 7 George D. Strayer. "Age and Grade Census of Schools and Colleges." Bureau of Education Bulletin. No. 5. Government Printing Ofine. Washington: 1911. p. 144. H. R. Bonner. Bureau of Education Bulletin. No. 11. Gov- ernment Printing Office. TWashington: 1920. p. 31. F. M. Phillips. Bureau of Education Bulletin. No. 38. Gov— ernment Printing Office. Twashington: 1924. p. 9. E. M. Foster. ”School Survival Rates." School Life. Vol. 22. No. 1. September, 1936. p. 13. I “’I‘flo-‘ya- 'r‘ _ I F ." . 5 9.. ' " 1 I ( r-:\4u.‘5.. ~ ‘1 I I rm“. - " D . ‘ D u -..t__ . ,_ ‘b. I . . I._ “ Vb" I.“ I . ’A i " C ‘ . J I ‘A p v V o l . 1 ,- ‘U ‘n ‘0 TABLE I PERCENTAGE OF PUPILS WHO ATTAIN VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS FROM CERTAIN STUDIES SUMMARIZED BY'DOUGLASS Grade T;::n- Ayres Strayer Bonner Phillips Foster 1907 1909 1911 1920 1924 1936 l 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 100 100 100 * * * 3 100 100 100 * * n 4 90 100 100 * * * 5 81 100 95 86 100 100 6 68 90 74 73 83 94 7 54 70 63 64 71 85 8 40 50 51 58 63 81 9 27 40 39 32 34 74 10 17 20 22 23 26 62 ll 12 12 18 17 18 52 12 8 10 14 14 15 46 .__.———— .—_—— ._— __.__.___.—'-— f» I; .'5 .4J .cJ a. TABLE 11 NUMBER OF PUPILS OUT OF EVERY ONE HUNDRED IN THE FIRST GRADE STAYING IN SCHOOL IN INDIANA. . Year Entered School Grade 1933- 1934- 1935- 1936- 1937- 1938- 1939- 1940- 1941- 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 88 87 89 88 86 88 91 91 9o 3 86 86 88 86 85 88 92 9o 87 4 86 85 85 84 85 88 91 88 85 5 85 83 84 84 86 88 89 85 83 6 83 82 83\ 83 84 85 87 84 81 7 83 81 83 83 83 83 86 83 80 8 78 78 8o 78 77 78 8O 78 76 9 8o 79 77 77 78 78 80 79 77 10 68 65 66 66 66 68 69 7o 68 11 53 54 56 57 57 58 6o 61 59 12 46 47 52 52 52 54 57 55 53 taken from the Indiana Research Bulletin of the Department of Public Instruction of Indiana. The holding power rate has increased in Indiana from 46 per cent in 1945-46 to 53 per cent in 1953-54. This trend has been rather general throughout the United States. However, there is a very great variation among the states as shown by the Federal Se- curity Agency Bulletin. It shows that Indiana ranks in the upper third Of the states with a holding rate of 54 per cent (twelfth grade to 100 per cent in fifth grade).7 The range for all states in the year 1945-46 was from a high of 73 per cent in Montana to a low of 20 per cent in Alabama. Although much prOgress has been made in keeping youth in school, the goal of providing every youth with at least twelve years of school is far from being reached, for today it is generally ac- cepted that about 50 per cent of the potential high school graduates in the United States fail to get their diplomas. John Lagemann in The Nation's Business says, Out of every one hundred youngsters in our public schools only fifty finish high school, twenty go to college, ten graduate from college. Today, when management, government and labor are crying out for peOple who've learned to use their heads, that represents a dismal waste of human resources.8 6 Beeman N. Phillips. Holding Power of the Schools of Indiana. Indiana Research Bulletin. Vol. 1. NO. 2. Department of Public In— Struction. Indianapolis: May 1954. p. 2. (mimeographed) 7Walter H. Gaumnitz and Ellsworth Tompkins. Holding Power a«mi Size of High Schools. Federal Security Agency. Circular 322. U. S. Office of Education. Washington: 1950. Table No. l. p. 4. 8John Ford Lagemann. "A Red Rose from Teacher." 1:13— Eifll's BUSipeSS. ‘August, 1952. (reprint) . ' ' .0-9 «5 p . ‘ ‘.~1\.\ ~'. ... I... - s . ‘_. ‘ , . , | "'3 T...‘Jt. .. . .‘ . ‘ ‘. b .'~u " . ' , 37 4 6.16.31, a Q" as - - . u- N. ,... 13‘.,'.. 5.... 54.1.2.5 .. l:< . . ‘ _ D“ “ a r. -. A 1 . --.1«.t‘ P’t-u.‘ a ' \u . ." '3. :4 P, xv “" I ‘ea v‘ . .J. G V . r . «‘ -g. ' A“ was .. ' ‘ . ,‘r‘ 5‘ .‘r v... .l . . ‘ .,~-- . A p. . 0...... “.ng , . . '0 -. '3»... 9 a . i..- ' v . . ‘ 9‘ JV, . . . “2.. . . . , ‘-:I '-'t 0,, . -A a " “AC <1 64‘ _. ‘ . . . ‘< o r. J -~. .tg.‘r .._ '9 "n. ’_ n“. r s...‘_"? ' ..._ . «.4 r .. CA .. a. 0"- ‘M H. ‘c. ‘ a “ \" - ' ., "v . I. A" ‘11 ‘. .‘ y '~ L‘! v '-.,>-. . , ~ ‘. I O 'u-‘ -- 4. -. . A . ’ ‘--o ‘ \.'«‘\_ ‘ “. 4' a .Q 2'. V‘.- '5 ‘ I In the state of Michigan the percentage of youth who graduate from high school is somewhat higher than the percentage for the nation as a whole, but it is far from being as high as many persons assume. The Holding Power Committee of Grand Rapids, Michigan, says, Educated people sometimes get the impression that all the child- ren of all people finish high school. This, of course, is not true. In the state of Michigan about 55 per cent of first graders and 69 per cent of ninth graders finish high school.9 The drOp-outs' effect upon school finances. This study, by means of intensive, comparative analysis of opinions, should provide material which will help school people to understand more adequately why young people leave school; but that is not all. The youth of today are the adults of tomorrow. The 50 per cent of our youth who are leaving school early are undoubtedly forming Opinions about the effectiveness of education as a result Of their failures. The data in this study show, on page 131, that persons who completed high school are more inclined to support it financially. Most re- search findings indicate that dissatisfaction with the school, in one form or another, is a most potent reason for dropping out of high school. Johnson and Legg state, in their. report of a survey of school leavers in Louisville, Kentucky, ”Sixty-seven per cent of all non- graduates interviewed . . . left school wholly or partly because of . . , 10 dissatisfaction w1th some phase of school life." In these days g 9Holding Power Committee of the Grand Rapids Board of Edu- cation. Holding Power in the Grand Rapids, Miihigan Public Schgols. K-14. Board Of Education, Grand Rapids, May 1953. p. l. (mimeOgraphed) loElizabeth Johnson and Caroline Legg. "Why Young People Leave School." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary SChool Principals. (Reprint) U. S. Government Printing Office. No- Vember 1948. Washington: 1949. p. 17. 10 when financial distress is almost a universal condition among our schools, any effort which will improve the willingness of citizens to support public education should not be overlooked. The drop-out and school-community relations. School peOple are generally agreed that adult lay citizen participation in planning and executing the school program is a desirable goal. Home-school cooperation is a goal recognized by most school people and many citizens. Clyde Campbell, in his book, states that, Educational leadership in the future will be exercised not only within the school but also within the community by individuals and groups that are actively involved in solving community problems.11 The “drop-out“ finds himself neither inclined nor prepared to fulfill this role. The data in this study show on page 109 that drop—Outs are not as likely to belong to organized community groups. Efforts to get the adult who dropped out of school to partici- pate in solving school problems are more difficult. Hazel Gabbard, in her book Working With Parents, says, Another group of parents who are frequently on the fringes of the school are those whose early experiences as children in school were unhappy. Then there are some parents who shy away from schools be- cause as children they were made to feel inferior by teachers. She appropriately continues, The attitudes of parents regarding school are so basic to plan- ning a program of work with parents that the school cannot overlook the emotional experiences which parents have had as children in school.12 11Clyde M. Campbell. Practical Application of Democratic Administration. Harper and Brothers, New York: 1952. p. 304. 12Hazel F. Gabbard. Working With Parents. Bulletin 1948. N0. 7. Federal Security Agency. U. S. Printing Office. Washing- ton: 1949. pp. 2-3. 11 Several research methods combined. Not only does this study investigate Opinions about the school, but it takes on further impor- tance because it makes a statistical comparison of opinions of drOp- outs with the Opinions of non-drop-outs. Furthermore, it holds cer- tain sociological variables constant and thus goes beyond what is suggested by Harold Hand in his book on school surveys in that it looks at the individual "segments" of these communities. Just as there are individual differences among students in a school, there are individual differences in the various segments in a community. An administrator or teacher can more effectively work with the ”individually different" segments in the community if he knows how they differ in respect to their attitudes or opinions about the school, and education in general. This study in reality combines features of the ”inventory of Parent Opinion“ which Hand helped make so popular; the typical drop- out Study such as Dillon conducted; and as far as practical the St"itiS-tical analysis as used in Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck's book Wing Juvenile Delinquengy. A high level of objectivity is maintained. This study takes on an added importance because it deviates quite markedly from the usual drop-out study, or survey of parental opinion. These devia- tlons can be listed as follows: \ 13Harold C. Hand. What People Thinkvaout Their Schools. WOrld Book Company. Yonker-on-Hudson, New York: 1948. 219 pp. Early School Leavers. Publication No. 14Harold J. Dillon. October 1949. 94 pp. 401- National Child Labor Committee, New York: 15 Unraveling Juvenile Delinquengy. Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. 1951. 399 pp. Hal‘vard University Press. Cambridge: ‘ o 3,. . - . a. , . -r “J . .\...‘1. Not d o .1. .. \ . r. . .0 hit Jun. M..au( 611v A‘ “A... ' :0.,..' WE'VE; -b‘-.. . , ‘ "' " t..-.._'.| , V s .“b " ‘OC‘Q{65.‘\ . ' 1 e . ..‘ -a9§-.9‘ ,, ,.,_ 0'- . “- vU;.I‘.)~pU .',..‘. “‘3 "‘|- w ‘ F ..‘ - n.» I‘ 5 ‘ . "' "v- s. . . , _ 1 \ r ~“‘tu.a.tt du’1, ‘ . n ‘ . on. k 3,- ' .. . 0E ultu--..C‘ v Eli‘- ; a... ,- ‘ “-U... :.a_t;u ‘f““§a““ _. . O~.l.»' E _. d I I F- - V F‘\" v- - . “Quiet: ‘I l a. 9 q; ‘n - “ a» A: a"~ct' 7‘ v - '1 ... ...J o. ‘ u 4‘. b . . h ‘d: UE.'I: 'vt “’§ .14. . v p o... A n l 1 J _,. ‘5 ‘r- - 41" q .. w ”"J. ‘ ' ‘1 l ‘_ ' 5 ‘x 1.3. .3‘ h. N ‘v- n “-1. r . ‘U4 .7. .» ' “,4 .: ' h v "‘-'.'“1'- .I I s u. v. . -..9- a... . -._1 =0 5 'o . a. ‘. , ‘ui .,( v- \ § . ._ .- . 12 1) Previous drop-out studies interviewed recent drop-outs to find out why they left, what they wished they had received from school, and material of this type; but this study is primarily inter- ested in what the adult drop-outs and /or parents of a drop-out or dr0p-outs think about the school. This use of only adult opinion in this study gives it a certain validity that was not possible in many holding power studies. By way of example, the recent drop-out, who is frequently rather immature, is inclined to be defensive about his contacts with the school. This is well illustrated by a statement in the Grand Rapids Holding Power Committee report: Extensive analysis of the reasons students give for leaving will not be made, because the Committee feels that a dr0p-out's reasons stated at the time of leaving are not of much value. In- terviews at a later date with dr0p-outs have proved to us that defensiveness is high at the time of leaving by the student even if he is aware of his own motives for leaving.1 2) In most drop-out studies the drop-out has been aware that he was being interviewed because of his drop-out status, while in this study the participant was interviewed as a part of a total popu— lation and the emphasis was upon general school improvement rather than personal experience. This helped the participant to be less self- conscious in his answers. 3) This study used trained interviewers selected by the Sociology Departments of Michigan State University and Central Michigan College, thus assuring an objectivity that was seldom pos- sible where local teachers, principals, or counselors were used to do the interviewing . 1él—Iolding Power Committee of the Grand Rapids Board of Ed- ucation. Holding Power in the Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Schools. K-14. Btod of Education, Grand Rapids: May 1953. p. 8. r . . F‘. u “ ‘u‘ -a...‘ l .- o ' p» n . n .. r I 4 '....F.: “.6. oau‘. | - ‘F\ ._ ‘ "3 .‘4 a . on J" . ,., . .. u. p., , ,. - o r —‘ -. .-. -...t.f...¢.. .. ‘ u t... I . ; ‘ w' . ’7- .... N1! a 3“. ‘ur ('- . . . . a a .‘..' "‘ .F' 0- r- v n " "‘h ‘lbt an »... . V “‘Y"\" , " UL! ..~. . . 4, a .. z~~.‘ .4“ ~6v“ ’ ......_ . 0 - _ u, . C. .'D ‘ I 'P .v“. F‘-.. ‘4. “‘4 i or ' | .~.'_ "'la ’ h. Jr-ut... w; | >a._. I. v . - ".-_ 4‘" _ ‘ . "“oy \APA..._ .‘ ~L..._,'. r}:- ~ " - -‘ .‘, ‘ x “"5. ‘1 H“ \ .'~- .‘i.,,"‘r .u‘. c H ‘ .- . '- I Q . ~ h‘- .‘_ .' h ‘ I! ‘§-_ . . .' - "‘~J a sit, .‘u - \. \ »,' ..‘1 7 r "J, v. | ‘tr; ‘ \ \.‘ . v- I. J *‘_ “l — A“ l 1‘ 1“ V r. .- . .p ,‘ - 'al ’. AJ‘ . t a in \ . ~-'. .‘ _ . .‘Ifi ‘ .. -.. . ”a \ . ‘.L‘. “a I. ‘- F‘- J . u . ".. 13 4) This study in no way duplicated any of the previous drop- out studies that had been completed in any of the communities. 5) The data in this study were based upon six communities, and the differences between communities were not stressed. This helped to make the authorities in the individual communities less defensive, and more inclined to c00perate in gathering the data, and accepting the finding 5 . V. DEFINITION OF TERMS AS USED IN THE_STUDY A. drop—out is defined as a child who voluntarily A. stu— Drop-out. fffi withdraws from school before graduation from high school. dent is not a drop-out who discontinued his program because of commitment to an institution, transfer to another school, illness, death, draft, or exclusion because of delinquency. On the other hand, employment, marriage, and military enlistment are considered as voluntary school leaving in this study. Early school leaver or school leavers. When the term "early s(311001 leaver” or "school leaver" is used it shall be considered as SYnohynuous with drop-out except that students who leave school for W reasons are usually included. However, in this study ”ea-Ply school leaver" and "drOp-out" will be used as though they Were synonymous, since it is virtually impossible to distinguish be- tWeen voluntary and nonvoluntary school leaving. Opinions and attitudes. The terms ”opinions" and "attitudes" Shall, for all intents and purposes, be considered as synonymous. The Participants were asked for their opinions about the school. These opinions are the expression of a feeling or attitude toward ’ q '0. ':"”""' a .. ‘ 'vilgdt. .V. '1 . ..u :-‘_." r. O it; ‘_ .; :— . .Awn‘h' ." Wu. ‘ J“ n.‘ ‘0 ., -. ...: . . \‘. r. Q.- ~ v .. ...'\'..\G. ‘ .-o;, r V . “ “NvL..':_ ‘ I _ . (9"... r< l I M— -ynUV‘ .‘_,“- a k ‘ ‘ ‘ o“. . "' “'“3 ._. 1m W... . “F . FF ‘- ‘ l . ~ .' ..--. -635” ‘ a A. ‘ . ’71.: F ..- ‘O‘\. I . -' "_“ a . n I.‘ ‘ I "_ ., . ' ..-a A-.‘b-). ~ ‘v v . u.-.‘ 3' - ‘> . ”‘d. a . . .v u. ,_. av‘. A ‘r ‘ -“‘~*. \ 5 ‘ . ‘P - a nan.-. . I ¢ ~_ ‘ -.u‘_ ‘.f‘ ‘ . .A M ‘ \‘ ‘ " :5 h ‘ r . ‘. ., :lL-.:- ‘ ~.’~Eyr -. T - .- 14 the school, its personnel, or its program. Since there is no effort made to probe for intensity of feeling, or to explore the extent of "privateness" which a person holds in his viewpoint, there is no justification for a distinction between attitude and Opinion in this study. Holding power and holding power index. "Holding p0wer" is a term common in the literature which denotes the ability of a school, elementary or high school, to hold its pupils until the com- pletion of a certain grade or graduation. A "holding power index” is a numerical designation, usually in percentages, of the compara- tive effectiveness in this respect. Unfortunately these indexes for high school holding power have not been computed in the same way throughout the country. Some studies compare the percentage of high school graduates to the number of pupils enrolled in the fifth grade, seven years earlier. Others compare grades twelve to one. Others, quite commonly, use grades twelve to eight as the basis for their index. Usually they do not account for transfers due to migra- tion, or public-private school transfers. Neither do they account for failures due to nonvoluntary school leaving such as illness, military draft, et cetera. For the purpose of this study, holding power indexes will always be identified with respect to the years covered, but no effort will be made to show how much control was exercised to exclude the nonvoluntary reasons for leaving school. VI. SUMMARY This study addresses itself to the problems of high school drOp-outs by studying the attitudes of parents to discover if these Parental attitudes could, or in fact do, have a relationship to the . . .-,.., ' 3...... .-. ,. . . ‘ u’u. d... .- .0. . . It. . .F-‘ I r... 0. ...1 . . V -~~.--t.'.,- 5“ . .- .-T.L.C‘ u: N .. n... u ‘- ,..- ....‘. ' ‘ . , ~ u.“ .---‘,," J, ' a ‘ l .; lo'f‘ w. ,. n .-.. -.... H .. I. 'I . ‘ ~ ' fie :‘_“ :‘V- m a. cynv _’ u... I! r-Q— -.‘ w a..a: 5...... ‘ I v- - .- k": :‘DJ‘O ' k . ‘4 , I I. ‘ .'-._' w ‘C‘IS'H ta. - 'V..‘, . ;.. . ‘* - --;¢ .V." 1?“-‘._' II"”"‘J-. .. . H l ‘A . . A‘ " ‘ -.. -‘u: 00 ‘t I .“t 'I ’ 0“ t|ll e..dr .‘;. r. . ‘ ‘ J, . 15 educational achievement of their childrens Comparisons are made between parents who failed to complete high school and/or had child- ren who failed to complete high school, and parents who completed high school and/or had children who all completed high school. All of the data in this study came from interview schedules administered by the Michigan Communications Study, in six relatively small cities in Michigan with a normal rural trading center and a small industry pattern. Questions were asked which showed the dr0p- outs' and non-droP-outs' attitudes toward education, teachers, teach- ing methodology, school programs, elementary education, dropping out of school, and the effectiveness of education. This attempt to throw new light on the problem of keeping these drOp-outs, who represent almost 50 per cent of American youth, in secondary school until graduation was prompted by a gen- eral recognition of the seriousness of the problem by Americans in all walks of life. An effort was made in this study to combine the better fea- tures of several research technics in attacking the problem, and the high level of objectivity maintained throughout the study gives it a certain validity which many previous studies could not attain. CHAPTER II THE SOURCE OF THE DATA. AND METHODOLOGY USED I. SOURCE OF THE DATA. The rationale. The rationale of this study developed from the author's connection with a survey of parent opinion in a city of 50,000 p0pu1ation in 195317 under the au5pices of the School Community De- velopment Study at Ohio State University.18 One of the contemplated areas of investigation for that survey of parent opinion was the re- lationship of educational achievement to opinions about education. The need for further investigation into the relationship between "dropping out of school" and "Opinions about education" were disclosed by this survey. 17Paul A. Miller. “Say Neighbor . . Just How Good Are Warren Schools ?" Warren City School District, Warren, Ohio: 1953. 13 pp. 18 . . . The School Community Development Study 18 one of eight centers which comprise the C00pe‘rative Project in Educational Ad— ministration. This project is supported by the Kellogg Foundation, and certain selected universities. Its purpose is to investigate the duties, responsibilities, and problems of school administrators. For further information, see: The School-Community Development Study. Educational Research Bulletin. Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. pp. 169-196. 19W. C. Heisler and G. S. Hammond. ”Say, Neighbor, Just HOW Good Are Your Schools?" The Nation's Schools. Vol. 52. No. 6. Chicago: December 1953. ppi35-38. -\ . D o a . . . ...v. .3 .... m .., , . ~|o~‘ r ’ 5' -,,. ‘..l s a: ‘ .l q I p. I I F ‘ A . . u r. u .. ,.. a... was A pl .. 4 ' U V‘ .1. D..- 0 '— .v . A \ ~t .do u... . .. 9. . P“ ‘ .. .u ."f Uu Q . v . I ..__ .." .D .. .aa be..(a I'. ' .-'|_. , v- I. ’ -.... a, :1 -... U‘ - A Vagg.‘ O . I u. > u“: 29 p..- A-, . u.. a. ~4.p h v._,.t"g~6.. o ‘a 'v. . . " ‘-.|"~"-v-o .-,..4 - s"..~>. _ . ‘\. ‘ . “‘e 0'. . .V ' ~31 \ . ’v._ . t“.-._ \ ‘at‘ u n. ‘ \ u ' J‘ i R ‘ n L" “ ‘FK (b. C ~ ’- N u . in . .. ‘ 1‘ A Q . F“ ‘4. ‘ 17 The raw data. Fortunately the data for this type of investi- gation were being collected by the Michigan Communications Study-— but for another purpose--and were made available to the author to analyze for this study. In order to help the reader understand more clearly the generalizations for this study, it seems expedient to first describe the objectives and activities of the Michigan Communications Study. In other words, the Michigan Communications Study is the foundation and springboard from which this study is developed. The fMfiichigan Communication Study. This study was a coop- erative project of the Midwest Administration Center, at the Univer- sity of Chicago, one of the eight national centers comprising the CooPerative Project in Educational Administration,* and Michigan State University. The Communications Study had three main areas of investigation: 1. A. Newspaper Content Analysis. To appraise and study school news now being written in Michigan dailies and weeklies. 2. A Community Survey Study. To determine what pe0ple know and think about their schools. . 3. A. Collection of Effective Procedures. For improving com- munication between newspapers and the public, and the school and the public. 4. The Relative Effectiveness. Of selected means of communi- cation between the school and the public.20 *The COOperative Project in Educational Administration, a Project to improve the preparation program for school administrators, Was made possible by a multimillion dollar grant by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (See footnote 18) 20William H. Roe, Leo A. Haak, and Earl A. McIntyre. "Mich- igan Communications Study." Michigan Educational Journal. Michigan State University. E. Lansing: Nov. 1954. (reprint) n.p. . . ' . ._ o’;‘ '. 0. 7 l -v.a~- . ‘-~ . . Aw.u... ;vfl . .......t ..... .. . _ P - .0.-,. a. . , .......... 'J. M "" . . ’0. .9.- - fl zMia: -3 o ._ ". s. .f v 4. uq _ I ‘ '. .' ‘Vfi-uu “ww- ".H be...... ... ' - ’uw. . ‘tu "p .. _ “ A... '0... “ ‘ n.‘ . - ..“.-§' ; . -- ¢ . .1 O . ."E h. . ‘i' .’ ~ ._: o y. u I-_‘- 0‘ N_.~‘-"~ “. ~-.. 4 no . .- . ‘5..\‘ 'I ~¢ “. ‘1 . , a ..H'; ‘ -- w ‘l\ a ‘3: J. '._~ ‘.“:;’ ‘ \‘.‘ l ' 3L 7‘, ~~ " , r22 .J“b..h‘ . :. ' - K \. L ,7: ~_. i v. ' 3‘ 2‘»: o .';, T‘.. \;.. to 18 The results of the Newspaper Content Analysis are summarized in a brochure and have no direct relationship to this study. The ”Collection of Effective Procedures" has resulted in the publica- tion of two booklets.22'Z3 Neither of these two areas has any direct relationship to the present study. The ”Community Survey Study" and the “Relative Effective- ness” areas do have a direct relationship to this study, and the goals were as follows: Community surveys were undertaken for three purposes. (1) To find out how satisfactory the schools and community have com- municated with each other. This was a fact-finding job to de- termine what people know and think about their schools. (2) To stimulate citizens to think about important educational problems. (3) The third, and major reason was to measure the relative effectiveness of the various methods of communication.24 The results of these surveys have been reported through workshops and conferences with educators in Michigan, and will be used as a basis for a booklet on survey technics for educators now in the proc- ess of being written by Leo Haak of the Social Science Department, Michigan State University, who was the consultant and research analyst for the project. A. brief resume of the activities with reSpect 21 ’ David J. Luck. What Michigan New5papers Tell About The School. Research Report No. 10. Bureau of Business Research. Michigan State University. E. Lansing: May 1954. n.p. 22 . Hazel Trumball and Jack Sherman. ”Pipeline to Superin-e tendents." Michigan Communications Study. Michigan State Univer- Sity. E. Lansing: 1955. 23Sylvia Ciernick and Otis Crosby. “Pipeline to Editors." Michigan Communications Study. Michigan State University. E. I«arising: 1955. 24W. H. Roe, L. A. Haak, and E. A. McIntyre. Op. cit., n.p. 19 to the community survey by the Communications Study have perti- nence for the present study. DevelOpment of thev0pinionaire. The first step in conducting the survey was the development of a survey instrument. This was done by an interdisciplinary committee composed of members of the Department of Journalism, the Department of Sociology, and the School of Education at Michigan State University. After eight revi- sions, it was administered in the St. Johns (population 4,950) com- munity to 250 urban and rural adults. (See Appendix, page 311.) All interviewers were carefully selected, trained students from Michigan State University and/or Central Michigan College of Educa— tion. The use of selected college students trained as interviewers was continued in all of the surveys which followed in other com- munities . Choosing the sample. Great care was taken to insure that a representative 5 per cent sample had been drawn in this community and all of the remaining communities. This was done by using city directories and electric and water meter lists, supplemented by tel- ephone directories and new-building permits. Random samples, Controlled for age, occupation, and sex, were drawn, and the result- 1ing lists were plotted on maps to inspect for geographical distribution. If for any reason the person drawn could not be interviewed, then another person from the sample with the same social, economic, and population characteristics was chosen. One hundred and five of these f1I'St interviews were conducted in the rural areas. Use of data. After this phase of the interviewing had been Corl’lpleted, all the data were classified and punched on IBM cards. U H... . 'P , ’ . ‘v4‘ baa .0” \J ‘ ’ohr '5! \| . m ..-.y | I -. ' ‘vu-‘Pp. 'uo.—AU - . I. ‘V F~~ -.~.\ ‘ ‘Jh ...... .“ah 5 , ‘ v.>‘ , in. I S..“.f'.': «as 1 I 1 f I ' Fu- . ie¥ .Ca‘a.‘ or a a “ I b _ u 53¢AC Je sofa: n€~‘_.\ A, U.a‘.-,a. tar‘n '- 4; . c. “ ,‘ ,. t‘dd. q‘t‘ ‘.-" ‘F" I 1 boa“;lh h“ . " f‘ 5 d... s 9 ’\ am \. t' t “A 6;..‘;1h~ ‘ . "Mia: “‘«‘.I“_ v f H . ~1*;: ‘ v. ,. n 20 Then the data were analyzed to see how much the citizens knew about the school (facts), and how they felt about what the school was doing (opinions). This completed the first or preliminary phase of the Community Survey study . Further use: of opifinionaivres. Since the major reason for the surveys was to test ”various methods of communication" a new sur- vey form or opinionaire was to be developed from the origiral which could be used as a ”pretest" and a "posttest." The data from the original survey were studied with this purpose in mind. Each indi- vidual question was carefully analyzed in respect to several stand- ards to be sure that its inclusion was warranted in the survey instrument for use in the other communities. In some cases, questions which did not seem to be adequate were reworded. In other cases, new questions were developed. In accordance with the research design the original survey was extensive in nature, and the later surveys were intensive. A. decision was made to concentrate on factors related to citizenship training and social studies, place less emphasis on some other areas, and eliminate some areas completely. This new schedule, called the Final Revised Schedule for the Five Commufinity Study, was then mimeographed for use in the next phase of the study. (See Appendix, Page .325.) This phase involved 410 interviews in five new communi- ties which had been chosen as centers for further research. ZSLeo Haak. ”The DeveloPment of an Instrument to Deter- mine What PeOple Know and Think About Their Public Schools." Michigan Communications Study. Michigan State University, E. Lansing: September, 1953. (mimeographed) R on "m' p , . "ban phi-a ‘ i ' r ~.,.r,\.” l'5uAv’. “, ' wt :o .6 5....1, ‘y.., ' 'PA -:,;6‘ on 21 The five communities. These five centers were chosen be- cause they had similar population characteristics, were within rea- sonable driving distance from the university, yet represented a wide geographical distribution in central Michigan. The communities selected were: Belding, Bronson, Clare, Reed City, and Rockford. Their populations ranged from 4,436 in Belding down to 1,937 for Rockford. All of the communities were rural trading centers, with some small industry. In all cases there was some commuting to larger industrial centers for employment. Rural residents were interviewed in only two of the above centers--Bronson and Clare. In so far as possible centers were chosen only: (1) if the school situation was relatively stable, i.e. no conflict too recent, or apparently imminent in the near future, (2) if the existing school-newspaper relationship was relatively co- 0perative and friendly, and (3) if the school administrator and the publisher wished to be included and would undertake a school 27 public relations prOgram consistent with this project. The additional interview schedules. After the initial 410 inter- Views had been completed (i.e., 80 in Bronson, 100 in Clare, 100 in BEIding, 65 in Reed City, 65 in Rockford), certain ”means of com- munication" were tested. They were "a direct mail school booklet a'PPI'Oach“ and ”a newspaper approach" and a combination of both methods.28 -\ 26U. S. Department of Commerce. United States Census of Population, General Characteristics, Michigan, 1950. If S? Govvevrn- \ ment Printing Office. Washington: 1952. Report on the 1954 Com— 2 7Michigan Communications Study. Wanna Effects Research Project of the MichigchmEunica- ( fls Study. Michigan State University. E. Lansing: December 1954. mimeographed) 28 . Michigan Communicagions Study. Ib1d., p. 5. " "“. W4. “‘ ¢~~U.-..\..,. ' ‘ 5‘ ‘ . " n “ 'v o'. " ... o ...~.t‘ ‘_lt“{\' "va . - .2..." v a. a . j. ”as. _ "u. a "‘ 0. v . . 1‘. I. V J“..‘ O. .r ‘ ‘ ~.. .. “- ‘ . “Zn"; in: _;. " ”K--. --..‘u "h'D r VV . a "o. “1.4 . i.- ‘- -5 ' A “e. h ‘ J‘ v I ~._\ . u . v . -, ‘ “\ f“- o B.— I u“‘ ‘- of; ‘\. - .vs \ n. - . we a . a... 5‘ -‘ .. U. 9 , . A l \‘. ‘ . V. ~._ '- o " 1.‘ u‘ V‘f - h.‘_ IVA-1,.-. \. c .. T‘ bf. .~. .- “ . . \ a te‘ ‘u‘ n -. .a. -‘\ b.‘ y _ ‘ .n‘. .. . IQ ‘. .. ~. 'I ‘ e Iv .. . 22 Then thirty-five people in each of the communities were re- interviewed with a "Follow-up" survey form which was somewhat simpler than the Final Revised schedule mentioned on page 20. (See Appendix, page 340.) These follow-up interviews showed whether any changes in information, or opinion about the school, had occurred. As a further check, twenty new interviews were conducted in each community as a part of the follow-up study. Present study uses all schedules. The present study made use of parts of the data received in all three of the above-mentioned interview schedules in all six of the communities studied. This was possible since all three schedules had data on the educational level reached by both spouses, and their children. The reasons for ”ter— minating their education when they did," was collected in all of the interviews except those collected during the follow-up study. II. THE METHODOLOGY USED IN THIS STUDY Data are inspected for pertinence. As soon as it was estab- lished by inspection that these data collected for the Communications Study did have relevance for a dr0p-out study, and permission was granted by the administrative committee of the Michigan Communica- tic>115 Study to use these data for the purpose of this study, the 5013 of reorganizing them for the present study was begun. Useful questions are selected. Since many questions which had relevance for the Communications Study had little or no appar- ent relationship to the dr0p-out problem as visualized for this study, many items were eliminated. “S a me " - C3313: 23 Sixty-seven questions were finally selected. Twenty of these were included on the interview schedules used in all six communities and were asked of persons during each phase of the interviewing, so that actually 760 peOple had been interviewed with respect to each of those particular twenty questions. In some cases, questions which were asked on earlier interviewing schedules were not asked on later schedules. In other cases the questions selected had been de- veloped for the later interviewing schedules and consequently were asked of smaller numbers of people. The number of pe0ple interviewed on each of the questions is summarized in Table III, which shows that, of the sixty-seven questions selected, twenty were asked of 760 people, ten were asked of 660 pe0ple, eighteen were asked of 510 pe0p1e, three were asked of 410 people, two were asked of 275 pe0ple, and fourteen were asked of 250 pe0p1e. Since a few schedules were not usable, the actual numbers used were, resPectively, 758, 658, 508, 409, 275, and 250. Individual communities combined as one population. Since the communities were chosen for their similarity, the treatment of the Samples for these individual communities as random samples of the Same p0pulation seemed to be justified and desirable. It is assumed that the samples from these six selected communities have charac- teristics which could logically be expected to be typical of most other Striall towns (population 1,000 to 5,000) in the southern half of Mich- igan's Lower Peninsula. However, attempts to generalize from these data, in resPect to towns with larger or smaller p0pulations, or to Communities of the same size in other geographical areas, should not be made since the sociological, political, and economic character- iStics of towns in southern Michigan are uniquely different from other tOwns in the state and nation. —..p-._. Xv-\I:: a CF w.‘.~,_| _—~- -7 V b v I. a.) I‘HW e , . ' \w‘, ‘ it“vv;‘. : si 0. j‘V' .;. ”Elk: T ,N‘ ”at; .,_l A'.‘ in ._ “-EpI \\\\ H .' V I)- («In L)! 24 TAB L E III NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS ON EACH OF SIXTY-SEVEN QUESTIONS Number of Questions Item 67 20 10 18 3 2 l4 Number of people inter- viewed with prelimi- nary schedules in St. Johns ........... 250 250 250 250 Number of people inter- viewed with first re- vised schedules in five communitiesa' . . . 410 410 410 410 410 Number of pe0ple re- interviewed with follow-up schedules in five communitiesb . 175 175 Number of new people interviewed in five communities with follow-up schedulesc . 100 100 100 100 * Total number of inter- views ........... 935 760 660 510 410 275 250 K Total number of usable interviews ........ 933 758 658 508 409 275 250 § T“ _‘ 3'Includes 100 interviews in Clare and Belding, 80 in Bronson, and 65 in Reed City and Rockford. b . . . . . . Includes 35 interwews in each of five communities. C . . . . . . Includes 20 1nterv1ews in each of five communities. ‘.| 1 d ‘U I . .t L x. C\ , .. 2. D ..\. r .1V 0 L a , PU rt. _. u t. C w. 0 9; Ti \ E e . (J 1 . . .. L o C» .n‘ .u .U a k F \. A. r t u a t v a a .. . o . . L O C '1 e a a.» Nil ‘J i Y a 8 Pt . . t... 4 i i . r 2 t I“ u . .t . PMVU {e C. u . 01. in .. e-.. . l. we». Na pd. e .P‘ .2 t e (r. ck .i. . .. u a ed in u . 2. ii J n n at. O . v F. t u e . Q Co ab AU x?» v. 0 It t t . «J are e .C h u . . a E (I. t 0 . x t \hb“ 1* W h .9 it P“: Atl§ O h 9. v - ..- KI. II I 1 1.1 ii . 1.‘ I 25 Data are classified, reclassified, tabulated, and punched using IBM machines. After the questions had been selected for each of the areas under investigation, the data were organized for tabulation. This involved several steps. Wherever possible the classifications used by the Michigan Communications Study were used. However, their data in the St. Johns study had been coded on four IBM cards; their data for the first interview in the five communities had been coded on two cards; and their data from the follow-up interviews had been coded on a single card. Getting all of this information on one IBM card was accomplished, where possible, by a direct transfer of the data by means of wiring the IBM machine. However, in many cases, the classifications between first and subsequent interviews did not match, so some data were reclassified to match the major por— tion. In still other cases, the classifications were not adequate for the present study, so new classifications were made and the data were recoded for punching on the cards. In still other cases the data for this study had not been previously classified. For instance, the Communications Study had not used the data on why children had quit school so this information was not classified or punched on their Cards. Consequently, there were many occasions when it was nec- essary to work from the original interview schedules to get the data fo r this study. The comparative groups are identified. After the responses t0 the selected questions or items had been entered on a single card, the material was ready for analysis. Needless to say, it would have been possible to have explored thousands of relationships between the SOciological and other variables, and the responses in the interviews to the questions of fact and opinion about the school. But since the primary interest here was the relationship between dr0pping out of e".— - ~a-——_—.————m -._*. A 'r .—-.'-n ‘F t t .\." .15 "JI .\-' 'Ir' . 1| 4 a. C.\..... .. 4 . w. 26 school an Opinions about the school, a decision was made to elimi- nate the effect of the other known significant variables which had been identified in this study by randomly drawing matching samples as explained in the following paragraphs. Before this was done, however, the total sample of 758 was divided into two groups: the drop-outs, and the adults who finished high school or finished other training comparable to high school graduation. These two groups were compared with respect to cer- tain sociolOgical variables such as age, sex, income, et cetera; and with respect to their responses to the questions of fact or opinion selected for this study. These comparisons are shown in the tables in Chapters III and IV on the lines preceded by ”community adults ." ’ Matching samples are drawn. In addition to this separation of drop-outs and graduates, which was a random sample drawn from the complete population of these communities, a sample was selected as mentioned previously to eliminate the effect of certain sociologi- cal variables which could have been expected to make a difference in the responses. These variables were as follows: (1) sex, (2) age, (3) occupation, (4) place of residence, and (5) income. These par- ticular variables were selected because they had been shown to have Stome relationship to certain opinions by the Communications Studies that already had been completed; or because a review of the litera- 1Ilire in reSpect to social class or other population variables could 1ead to the anticipation of some effect by these variables upon Opinion. The relationship of all of these variables to dropping out of school Will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. A. previous analysis by the Communications Study on the re- lationship between religious affiliation and opinion about the school .- ....v. -..-y'U. ‘..- .. ;' 'v-u ~-0‘-.- ..'...:. 4..) Ci:.o . ... . I .. t...ev. ...... to ‘ ‘ 1 .“va— - -..~ -.........:..t‘C 3V ~ ' A g & a.‘ g “. ~ . «J: - son‘.P:: .‘ 9“. -~_: ~ ‘ N: 5.: c r .. ‘ ‘“ ~-J . .v u "" 0' ""i-P o' ‘ ‘IA‘L‘ . A. _ l. I -. c, u '“u - ”5.!" . — ‘JOA ‘ . a, ,3. _ . I " Q.- - .iv a ' .0? n- 9 c .- ...-’. o .‘4 K r. z; “ ) ““ 3 \ .' .. ~ o . 5“ 0.2 .L‘ -’ ~a \ b. tag ‘ , .\_. v. . t. .1. g a,‘,4 . a ‘r. .‘o 5" \ In ‘._\‘ r . a.» ‘. 27 had shown that there were almost no significant differences in the responses between parents of public school children and parents of parochial school children, so this variable was not included. Size of family was not included because it was felt that other controlled variables such as age and occupation exerted strong indirect controls against any distortion of the data by this variable. Matching to control for the above-mentioned variables was accomplished by using the IBM sorter to divide the two basic groups of drop-outs and graduates into smaller matched groups--called cells. For instance, after dividing the drOp-out and high school graduate cells along sex lines, the 386 drop-outs showed up as 187 males in one cell and 199 females in the other cell, while the 372 graduates had 132 males and 240 females in its two cells. These four groups were again subdivided into eight cells according to whether they were over or under forty-five years of age. The next division eliminated occupation as a factor by matching the professional, semiprofessional, proPrietor, official, clerical, sales, and similar or related occupa- tions; and the craftsman, foreman, service, labor, farm, and other Similar or related occupations. The division between rural and urban place of residence gave thirty-two cells. The next breakdown Of the sample separated the communities, placing Bronson, Clare, and Belding in one group; and Reed City, Rockford, and St. Johns in the other group. This breakdown accomplished three things: First, it matched within the high drop-out communities and the low drOp—out communities. Second, it had a tendency to match the 29Leo Haak. "A. Comparison of Differences Between Catholics and Non-Catholics with Respect to Opinions and Information About the SC11001." Michigan Communications Study. Michigan State University, East Lansing: May, 1955. (mimeographed) I II .0 p" . .... .- . . o 1 . " ”I" ~ 1 d... t: . ' . Lia-r; 4. .. «nate O‘-( ‘. n- ‘VV‘1'cn, w.- . we _ ‘1 h.: Cr". H 1 ~' .9 V 1 1X t! h n «is .. e t .. ' 1 di1.t: 1 '1 1" ‘50 . “ (Ir-“n. ”J 5 ”I Fig; N. Effie. ,« . ‘c‘tr .Ao‘: ‘M q ‘t' .14 ‘A “‘I‘-V~‘\ l. _9‘- l.‘ v \ V ' ‘r. In; t, ‘ t‘\ c I . H. I ‘- “E P‘t.»' ~4‘ “ ‘L. 28 farmers in the St. Johns sample and those in Bronson and Clare. Third, it helped to assure a good geOgraphical distribution in the samples. The last breakdown, which made a total of 128 cells, divided the groups in respect to income, with the people earning 4,000 dollars or more, Opposite those making less than 4,000 dol- lars. Each cell on the drop-Out side was then matched with the corre5ponding cell on the graduate side. The side with the lowest number Of cards (interview schedules) in a particular cell determined how many cards were picked at random from the cards in its match- ing cell. When the groups had been .matched, 378 of the original 758 schedules remained, with 50 per cent of them being graduates and the remaining 50 per cent being drOp-outs on all of the matched variables. Where the sample consisted of 658 schedules, 313 re— mained and 157 were high school graduates while 156 were drop-outs. In sample size 508, 255 remained, with 127 graduates and 128 drop- outs. Sample size 409 had 190 remaining, with an even fifty-fifty split. Sample size 273 was divided seventy-eight graduates to seventy-two drop-outs. Sample size 250 had 124 remaining, with an even sixty-two on each side. In the tables. in the following chapters, the comparison of these two groups is presented on the line preceded by "selected adults," which is used to designate the matched samples of adults Who drOpped out or graduated from high school. The significant differences which are found between these two groups can now be a'SCribed primarily to the educational level achieved, rather than the Va~1‘ious sociological variables which have been shown to have a re- 1atifshShip to drOpping out of school in the many other studies quoted in this study in Chapters III and IV. This is particularly true where the differences in Opinion between the drop-out and graduate are . u‘vc .n- , .. -y‘.d‘ ‘ v tan. 0“ 0p. 0. _.... .u ...t ..-.O {.71 ‘ I -‘. 9 a. " c -.,..._ -.. ’ "" ‘o‘.» ,u’ 0 . ._.. new ‘. g _ A .. . .t -,.,. .9: 2., " a"'I ‘aou.. t' I ‘ ‘ t in |_,. . v 1: . ,3 A, “"V' " °'“' ‘4 '51...- l O -._.4 ~ ‘ ‘3‘ : ... .3, I , - ‘l‘ a. J a g .a t, ‘ r A _ " "- a ~;,--, ~ ‘40“\A‘. .‘ t. . V . ., ‘uh: “no r‘.’ ‘.v AD. . ..g .. '.J \ e A "a. L .. k““ . fi’ffi» ‘ ‘ ..¢,.“‘ ‘2 l " . -'-‘ I "‘9'" .. . "v... o ‘i . “ I” \. a r‘~‘\ ‘ I““~. P'A- n.4‘l . Iv.‘ \: h,-_r . .JH‘IJ‘ , ‘ ._ .,..C ‘h. -- , \: Fin“ p “. s t... -._ ‘ I \i' . 3 r “4' ;-. . T"-‘~'e ’. .‘. ‘I ¥ ‘1'» "i“. ‘ ‘.- ‘. -,_‘ I v.‘ " - i v . .“ A _ ._g‘ c 0“ ‘Q‘.- - “ .‘Av-a “ ._‘ ii i.- ._‘l 5- ~uF—b .A‘ ' .. . r . ‘ '-J r ‘w s 7‘: :y . -_‘. 29 approximately as great, after the samples had been matched, as they we re before. The sample of parents of drop-outs is also matched. In ad- dition to the two previously described samples, there were also 149 of these same adults who had said that they had had at least one child dr0p out of school. One part of this study was to discover what, if any, relationship existed between parental opinions about education and a child's tendency to complete high school. This could be done by comparing the Opinions of these parents with the other groups already designated as community adults or the matched adults groups. However, it was felt that the results would be more mean— ingful if these 149 parents were matched with other adults who were like them in most other ways except for the fact that they had had a child drOp out of school. Consequently the same process was used to get a matching sample for this group as was used to match the adults who drOpped out, except that, instead of matching with the Opposite cell, the matching cards for the parents of drOp-outs were randomly selected from the same cell where the drop-out parent was 10cated. If there were not enough cards for adults who had not had a child drop out of school in that cell, then cards were chosen from the opposite cell. If this cell did not have enough adults to match the cards for parents of drop-outs, then the cards were chosen from the classification above, which separated the groups in respect to Community. Unfortunately, this method of choosing a matching sample produced a sample which seemed to lose its similarity to any of the other samples, and consequently has a reduced value to the study. Ho“lever, to have ignored it and to have tried to draw another sam- ple would have violated the principle of random sampling on which this study is primarily based. The uniqueness of this sample and . ‘ ‘| i... ;;e. ‘ ”A {5 l "’ “Os-o 1 may. I t 'r- V‘r.. E ut‘.,,g(~". n‘ , \ ~ _,. ~E-C..t, J t u . ' . .. ‘ . ‘ . T "U "a . 'n. *‘h‘ I”... toad n , 'v. . ALT: \ up .h~ . "~ M” ‘ont LC ‘i . “‘9‘. v.1, ., ~ V “"‘u;.t \; ' ‘ . ' - 'I. ~ 5.: r ._ - e 1 “eC.-k o ~o. $._ ‘ p . .s... ~GR. "_. " s,‘a. V ;. ‘1‘, . ‘0'.’ ‘ § ‘ Ac,:‘b ‘— ‘ ‘ 9‘-.. “a) '- . -.:F<\ g . a 1 £“~.,‘ \ u,-‘ “ ‘ x \ . . «5;. ‘~ . . ‘v N- s ‘.\_ . .‘ . -.. . \ ‘u , , ‘n‘h A .‘ , 30 the reasons for its uniqueness will be further discussed in the fol- lowing chapter. The next step in the research was the counting of the data, which was done on the IBM sorter, and the sums in each category for each sample were entered in tables for comparison with their Opposite number; i.e., the community drop-outs with the community graduates on the lines following ”community adults" in the tables, the selected drop-outs with their matching graduates on the lines following ”selected adults" in the tables, and the parents of drOp- OutS with their matching adults on the lines following ”selected Parents" in the tables. Chi square test is used. In order to show whether the dif- fefences were statistically significant, the chi square test was used. UnfCthunately the data in this study did not lend themselves to any very clear-cut statistical treatment due to three conditions: First, the fact that in some questions the person-being interviewed had been encouraged to reSpond with more than one answer made the total number of responses in relation to the number of persons interviewed add up to more than 100 per cent. Second, although the interviewers were instructed to ”probe" for answers, and not accept ”don't know" resPonses unless it would jeopardize their rapport with the interviewee, there were many ”don't know” responses. Furthermore, these "don‘t know" responses were more frequent among the drOp-out groups than they were among the graduates, as is shown in Table XIV on page 106- Third, when the chi square test is used, the different sized Sa’rhples produce results which can easily lead to false assumptions. This characteristic of chi square (to be influenced bY sample size) is Well stated by William G. Cochran in the *Anfnvals of Mathemfiatical WMf W when he says, .; '1 ,- ..I_- . .l’ . v.- D ‘4 in.» 4'.l.. «o \. ..( u . ...o, 'r '0.....u 'p . W V“. .- M “L. ‘ I u 'Q r. r s- ‘- .. u - _ r \l‘ ‘ u.. ‘ o - p . 0. fi_ 0 “.U‘t: v V- A. H ‘ 3E\\. we: 31 . when x2 is non significant, the amount by which the null hypothesis has been strengthened depends mainly on the size Of the sample. This is one of the principal reasons for such mis- use Of the test as exists. Authors sometimes write as if the validity of their null hypothesis has been greatly strengthened, if not definitely established. . . . TO summarize, the x2 test is helpful primarily in the exploratory stages Of an investigation, when there is no very clear knowledge of the alternative hypothe- sis. It is well to remember that the size of the sample deter- mines whether the test really is a severe test Of the null hy- pothesis.30 Lindquist, in speaking of chi square, also makes the point that, It should be clearly understood that while this test may reveal that there is some relationship between the traits involved, it does not indicate the degree of relationship. That is, a larger x2 in another table (or a correspondingly lower probability that it is due to chance) would not necessarily mean a high relation- ship, but only that we more confidently assert that some rela— tionship exists.31 In this study, the formula x2 = E(Obs - Exp)2/Exp will be used. The printed table of x2 in Lindquist's book will be used to convert the results to percentages showing the relative statistical Significance of the differences.32 Although all percentages of less than 50 per cent will be shown on the tables in this study, a statis— tically significant difference will not be assumed unless the differ- ences are shown to have less than a 5 per cent chance of occurring Strictly by chance. However, there may be some cases where actual 30William G. Cochran. ”The Chi Square Test of Goodness of Fit." The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. Vol. 23. No. 3. September 1952. p. 335. 31E. F. Lindquist. Statistical Analysis in Educational Re- m. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York: 1940. p. 42. 32E. F. Lindquist. Ibid., p. 36. ' v ‘ 4 g 5‘. ' 1... . 1. ‘v- 9 ) .urt“ .29,- 1 5 ‘ ‘1 t ‘u.- _. 1 0. 'A..: :- ' Vnn‘ v ‘1 .r- . 1 :“\c- 1‘ u... a ._a V ,v do a i ‘. “it; 1 A. i 32 differences of more than 5 per cent may be accepted as illustrated by the following statement by Carl R. Doering: . a statistically significant difference is not always actually a significant one. The latter is a difference that is stated by a person Of considerable background of learning and experience in a particular technical field who has noted factors that point to existing differences and to whom the differences which the statistical method has demonstrated are expectable or ”make sense." Moreover, a series of differences all pointing in the same direction may indicate actual significance de5pite the fact that, taken one by one, each of the differences does not achieve a sufficiently high x2 to give it validity from a statistical point of view.33 The foregoing discussion seems to indicate an inadequacy of x2 but it is an acceptable test to show whether the differences be- tween the two basic groups are statistically significant-~since much of this study is exploratory in nature. Attempts to use more com— plicated measures, or additional tests, did not seem to be justified, due to the nature of the data. In the questions where multiple responses were accepted, no test of significance was used, since the results would be even less reliable. Instead of a x2 percentage, the number in the sample is Shown in its place, so that a comparison can be made between it and the number of responses to that question. All x2 percentages were checked and rechecked for accuracy before they were entered on the tables. Although the actual numerical differences between the samples were used to figure x2, the differ- ences shown on the table are in percentages, which show relatively the same ratio of differences. The decision to use percentages in f 33Carl R. Doering. "Explanation of the Statistical Method,” in Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency, by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. Ha~rvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.: 1951. p. 76. —! 33 the tables instead Of the actual numbers rests upon the fact that this makes it easier to compare differences among the samples when there are differences in the numbers in each sample. In fact, the tables were designed so that it is just as easy to compare, for instance, the drop-outs with the parents of drOp-outs, as it is to compare them with the graduates. Although the main emphasis in this study is upon differences between drOp-outs and graduates, there are frequently times when a comparison within groups helps to make the data more enlightening. Same table used throughout remainder of study. The tables _v. v f'v used to present the material in this study are the same for all the Centered within the body of the table are the various Below each classification is the tabula- questions . classifications of the data. tion showing the difference between the graduates and drOp-outs for each of the three groups studied (labeled "community adults," "se- lected adults," and "selected parents"; see page 52). Following the identification of the group will be a figure indicating the total num- ber in that class for that group. This figure will be followed by a figure with one decimal place showing what percentage this is of the total for that group. Then the following two columns show the percentages in that class for the drop-Outs and the graduates, in that order. The last column shows the differences in Percentages betWeen drOp-outs and high school graduates. It is Preeeded by a minus Sign when the percentage for the drop-outs is smaller than that for the graduates. Rather than placing the totals at the end of the chart, theY will be shown first, so that the differences in sample sizes will be known before the data are inspected, since in manY cases the tables w' 111 take more than one page. The x2 for each group, or the ‘ - i- 0,. _ ‘ ‘ ...t ... 1‘ . . , ”HST-TI 3.“ J6 'L “no “‘ c n. J..- - ". ' ‘ ”h“ 9' :Eose: O- . . ‘ v ' 'r s , I. 1“. “A :..\ . (‘ . 'l 5. .' 51x1. 0. ..,. _‘ . 44 “a: ‘. .g _.._ I\eE"hF :& ' ‘a a 3n .. . h ' i-L . ‘0 A. T‘- “"UJ. ! .‘ ‘ V1. p. ‘. ~ 34 number in the sample, when not the same as the number of re- sponses, will be shown at the ends of the tables. III. SUMMARY The rationale of this study was deve10ped with data adapted from a series of surveys (conducted by the Michigan Communications Study) in six relatively small Michigan cities. Most Of the items selected from the Communications Study data had been asked in at least five of the six communities used by that study. For the purpose of this study all data were treated as though they represented a random sample of re8ponses from all adults in small towns in southern Michigan. Drop-outs were compared to graduates in three different sam- Ples representing three different types of populations: First, a sam- ple representing all drop-outs who had reached adulthood was com- Pared to a sample representing all high school graduates. Second, a Selected sample of drop—outs was compared to a selected sample of high School graduates. This sample was selected so that it had sim- ilar Characteristics in sex, age, occupation, place of residence, and income to its matching sample. Third, a random sample represent- ing all parents who had a child drop out of school was compared with a lendow: sample of adults who were chosen to match them on the s . ame above-mentioned variable 5. All the data in this study were punched, reproduced, sorted, collated, and tabulated on International Business Machines. The chi s o o o quare test was used to test for the significance of the differences b . etween the groups being compared, except on questions where mu ° ltlple answers were accepted. The tables used in the following chapters to present the ma- t erial for this study show the data on all three comparative groups i ‘4. ,. ..‘.~ .I'a . t .0 .l A 3,.) 35 (”community adults," ”selected adults,” "selected parents") at once, so that it is possible to compare the drop-outs in any one group with droP-outs in any other group, as well as with the graduates in its own group, or any other group. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE Because of the comprehensiveness of the present study, a major portion of the related research and literature on drop-outs is presented so that it immediately precedes the datum in this study to which it is most clearly pertinent. However, a brief summarization of the research and literature on the drop-out problem is presented on the following pages to give the reader a brief overview of the extent of the research on this subject, and to sketch in certain areas which are not covered in the following chapters. 1. INCREASED INTEREST IN DROP-OUTS PRODUCES MUCH RESEARCH There has been, within the last few years, a growing interest in the drop-out problem that has resulted in a wealth of research and literature on this subject. Federal and state agencies have taken the lead in stimulating interest, research, and action in this field. Universities have aided in the collection and distribution of material, and have encouraged masters and doctoral theses in the area. Local SC11001 districts, large and small, have conducted research studies in their schools. Federal agencies. The Department of Commerce collects data on education with its decennial census. From these data it is possible to get information on school enrollment in the age groups \ : ~U“ a. I 4v-.d. . , . e.....~:"‘-’ 6' I. .I‘.-t-"Awl‘ ‘ . 1'4: 1.. "‘J In..." '- ..“' - ..-‘ 'fi"c .. ....3. it“ a it '. ~ 1 . v - ..~..k¢ "e‘. V e ;- s;.u v5.3“ ..L o....v thue: 1739‘ c A l-h. . I . .- ‘ . *0.‘ .0 .16 C'” . T . l: aii'tx -.' a. . w .. ~M-.Q..\Jr‘ 3f '- *h‘.‘ an"? 3‘“ I V.- 37 between five and seventeen years of age, and the number of years of school completed by all adults. The fact that many other types of information are collected at the same time makes it possible to establish the relationship between these data and educational vari- ables. For instance, it is possible to show that the median number of school years completed by adults over twenty-five years of age in Michigan increased from 8.8 years in 1940 to 9.9 years in 1950.3”1 The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, created April 11, 1953, publishes information about the drOp-out problem which was formerly handled by the Federal Security Agency. Their Biennial Survey is based upon information gathered from over 170,000 educational institutions in the United States and its possessions.3 It includes information on ”holding power" or "retention rates," and many other types of information that are directly and indirectly re- lated to the dr0p-out problem. In addition to the reports on the Biennial Survey, the Office of Education of the Federal Security Agency has directly focused attention upon the drop-out problem by publishing information on state averages.36 Their emphasis upon "Life Adjustment" edu- 37 . . cation, the "community school" concept of education, and their 3 4U. S. Department of Commerce. United States Census of _P_Opulation General Characteristics. Michigan 1950. U. S. Govern- 4m ment Printing Office.» Washington: 1952. pp. 53-54. 3SOi'fice of Education. Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1950-52. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Wasfiifgton; 1954. 36Walter H. Gaumnitz. High School Retention by States. Cir- Clflar No. 398. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office of Education. Washington: 1954. p.19. 3.7Dan J. Hull. Primer of Life Adjustment Education. Amer- ican Technical Society. Chicago: 1949. p. 30. W ""i v- ‘\ ,. . . 45.0,, . :t. 0 ’ .:. . a5?“ " o: .n‘g‘. v,n ‘F ‘ “A c1: 0.I.'. 3562 C'I‘e no» I . \ J. ‘ I f‘ . ' “~00. Pr... 'V-. irate-c A.I 9M: 9 '1‘; 'u... g b 38 efforts to provide leadership in developing and encouraging delin- quency prevention programs have also had their impact. The Department of Labor made a valuable contribution to an understanding of the drop-out problem with its study of "out—of- school" youth in Louisville, Kentucky, conducted by its Bureau of Labor Standards .39 Professional associations and societies. The National Ed- ucation Association has directly encouraged study of the drop-out problem by frequently bringing the latest research findings to the attention of its members by means of mimeographed leaflets as well as other published data. Its affiliated associations have also been quite active; particularly the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the American Association of School Adminis- trators. The secondary principals have published many articles on this tOpic in the Bulletin, and have organized discussion groups at all their recent annual conventions to discuss the drop-out problemfltO The school administrators, through their Educational Policies Com- miSSion, emphasize the need for keeping more children in school in fiv— ‘— 38Helen L. Witmer and Edith Tufts. Delinquency Prevention Pro rams. U. S. Department of Health, Educatioh, andVWelfarev. Children's Bureau Publication No. 350. U. S. Printing Office. Washington: 1954. 50 pp. 39 of 0 Bureau of Labor Standards. Hunting a Career: A. Study M—School Youth, Louisville, Kentucky. U. S. Department of Labo r ' Washington: fl9 :19? 1 f8 pp. 4 Sch ONeal M. Wherry. ”What are the Schools Doing About 001 Leavers." The Bulletin of the National Association of Second- a .__._____.__. V12; School Principals. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Convention. ' 37- No. 194. Washington: April 1953. PP- 52‘54° “a” _..- w 1' = . . ‘..’..-< 3.4-” v- . -< ’7‘— ‘. io‘u. ~ N I . ‘ .i...L . .,_ ._. o o‘ . “'\'r‘ ‘g 'u n. . , . H ‘— . D i A- '01.. r».- W‘ . .....:. MUS”... ”r... u (U u.‘ t. H‘3«.S:.cC :4 ' to . v .‘| ‘65. c :9 ‘« PM . ‘i‘ r ‘i .e, .gl‘J-F‘ r .,_ ‘ A 39 their very popular revised edition of Education for All American Youth--A Further Look, which opens with this statement: Popular education at the secondary level is still in a deve10p- mental state in the United States. Only half of our youth now graduate from high school: of those who do graduate many have not received the education they most needed. . . While the American secondary school is one of the most remarkable insti- tutions ever established by an aspiring society, in many ways it is still as much a hopeful development as a final achievement";1 The National Child Labor Committee has, since its first an- nual meeting in 1905, been an active force for high school continua- tion, and . is increasingly turning its attention to the one child in six who does not enter high school and the fifty per cent of high school entrants who do not remain to graduate.42 State agencies. The Department of Public Instruction in the state of Illinois has been a leader among the various states in spon- soring studies related to the drop-out. Most state departments of education have stimulated research on drop-outs. Many of them have published booklets on how to conduct "drop-out" or "holding power" Studies, or have published the findings of drop-out studies in their State similar to a recent publication of the New York Education Education for All Amer- 41 Educational Policie s Commis sion. Washing- 1Can Youth. National Education Association dfthe U. S. ten: 1952. p. 1. 42Harold J. Dillon. Early School Leavers: A Major Educa- Lign Problem. Publication No. 401. National Child Labor Committee. New York: October 1949. p. 7. 43Charles M. Allen. How to Conduct the HoldinLPgwer Stu£l_y_. Bulletin No. 3. Series A. No. 51. Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion. State of Illinois: May 1949. 128 pp. 40 Department which graphically shows that "Quitting school means: Increased Juvenile Delinquency . . Decrease in Earning Ability . Lack of Trained Manpower." Quite frequently, state univer- sities have published research findings which were conducted in co- operation with state departments of education, state educational 45 associations, or doctoral candidates. Local school systems. Most numerous of all are the studies conducted by local school systems. In most cases these materials are published in mimeographed form for circulation and study by the local staff; however, in many cases these findings are published in magazine articles, or educational journals where they have an in— fluence on even greater numbers of people. Over 250 Many aspects of the drop-outgproblfem explored. books, articles in periodicals, pamphlets, doctoral theses, leaflets, and mimeographed reports on the subject of drOp-outs were examined fOr the present study. Some of these materials dealt with as many as Seventy psychological, sociological, population, or other variables. A Sub Stantial portion of many of these studies are reviewed in Chapters 111 and IV in this study. The significant research which \gg C 44New York State Education Department. DioP-OUtst-be El“Se and Care. The University of the State of New York. Albany: 1 e 955- p. 12. s 456. w. Hall. HStudy of a Group of EarlY LeaVing High Cohool Pupils." Ohio Research Bulletin. Ohio State University5 01L11‘7r1bus: January 1929. 'pp. 6-9. 14-18. 46Blake Clark. ”They Don't Quit School in Denver." Parents' W. February 1951 . ~ on! ‘..i' c. O‘ 1 . 1V. - . . .. ‘b- n,‘ a .. us a.: .Vti‘. N O a; | s. t ,. . v tfnu"\-..c — .. ., ‘ {wrwJ‘ "o h a..._' g.“ . . V‘ n . " G I it "'“'~'- 1t .3. ' v \_I 0,, «A ‘o.. Ci“ .‘V‘C ‘ .Qi bud; I I . . ‘ y‘e'e }‘-"Ih ‘ o“‘ ‘ SCH- . J‘ES 1r 5“ V‘r‘er in VK'E ‘gA‘ ; . 43‘ r: i «- ail”: ,4 l . "i am 41 is not covered in other places in this study can be classified under the following headings: (1) retardation, school achievement, and in- telligence; (2) courses, and courses of studies; (3) psychological; (4) geographical location; (5) nationality and race; and (6) special services. Since there seems to be some very wide differences in the findings, the following conclusions can only be considered as esti— mated averages with respect to the finding from the studies which, in the Opinion of the author, were more carefully done. II. SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS Retardation, school achievement, and intelligence. Studies vrvvvv v show that from 50 to 80 per cent of the students who fail to com- PIEte high school are more than one year retarded. Generally Speaking, this retardation is most frequently due to failure at the elementary level; however, it can be expected that from 50 to 75 per Cent of the students who have attended at least one year of high SChOOI before dropping out will have failed at least one high school Subject, Generally speaking, drop-outs have lower average scores on achievement tests than do graduates. However, this statement should not be interpreted to mean that there are not many drop-outs who Will sCore average or better than average on some or all of any battery of standardized achievement tests. As a general rule, their Scores in the tests of reading and writing are lower than are their other scores, indicating that a lack of training or ability in the cornITiunication skills may be a basic cause for both retardation and dropping out of school. About one-third of the students who C1 . top out of school will normally receive scores which are con51dered . ‘ _ ‘V- - - I u . " hr" We'r'h ' ..a...... H... \ . g ‘ o ‘ ‘p‘v p .0 h' u . l.. ‘ . . V. “" ‘JI'- Actors: - In ‘ ‘ ”; W‘wp. . Q .1. De ‘0, u. . ' , sa"' ff":*r -v n.. ‘ ash.., 3“ .v1‘ ’ " WA - _ "i“ .,,u“(\" U: ,. d .‘V . Q '~ 5 'Nn - N ;-..._ _ g“ ”a . - ..,._ C3“- ‘ h o.‘F‘\ .fl' —_ N I. ‘ " Q. "J‘F. .4.“ r . s. ."W- -‘~ .., ‘ II V 5 1.. .t ., c... . r“:'“ “.—o -.- ‘ .. '1 'Nfi. » -.,g Q 42 at the norm for their grade level on most standardized achievement tests. When drOp-outs are compared to graduates in respect to teachers' marks, it can generally be expected that three-fourths of the drop-outs had received below average marks while in school. This might be considered as evidence that some teachers' attitudes toward certain students result in lower marks for those students. Lower marks, of course, contribute to retardation, which frequently causes students to dr0p out of school. Many studies have been made of scores of drop-out students on intelligence tests. It is quite common to find that 50 per cent have an IQ score of ninety or above. Usually about 30 per cent have an IQ of eighty-five or below. However, from 3 to 8 per cent of all high school graduates today do not score above eighty-five. Courses, and courses of study. More drop-outs fail English than any other subject; social studies courses rank close behind. Since all students are required to take these courses, it is not sur- prising that they are failed more frequently. But as a result 0f the“? findings many educators have maintained that the school should establish more functional, practical courses. Others have maintained that the emphasis in English and social studies should be placed upon Comthunication and socialization rather than memorization and drill. All too frequently when courses of this type are 85158-13115th t9 Sex-ye the needs of youth who are not interested in becoming ”scholars" or going on to college: the)’ have become ”dumping grounds" for all students who did not meet certain academic stand- ards‘ Consequently many students who could have benefited from Such courses have not taken them; since such courses, usually. ha ye no prestige among students. However, many studies have H." \V‘ ~p.0,;.‘_ "».....: AA. "‘Ohau -. . 'Vlb IO\ :3 “I"? is \ a" 1“ yu‘p‘ - . i 7 ““9 e ‘5‘. . :‘E'vo . "to" .‘2 . - o E Q ‘ . '-. , ‘ K oh. “if c 0 '«t "e, 5‘. my. : "'tu‘ a,”- ' a . . .. ,_ . ‘afi.: ‘ ‘ ._nV .; ,. , "w. M“. 'J. \ . - 2‘. . 43 shown that a large pr0portion of the students who dr0p out are taking vocational or general courses (noncollege preparatory). Psychological. Most attempts to isolate certain psychological variables such as "withdrawal," ”aggressiveness," ”immaturity,“ ”insecurity," and so forth have not been successful. Generally, teachers have shown a tendency to rate students who drop out as lacking in initiative, unhappy, and poorly adjusted socially. Much of this evidence is very inconclusive since many of these Opinions of teachers may be the result of "expost facto" reasoning. Further- more, attempts to use standardized personality tests or problem check lists to identify potential dr0p-outs have not been successful. Generally speaking, research has shown that students who indicate a desire to graduate, and who say they want to go to college, are more apt to complete school than those who do not. Likewise, students who are ”proud of their school" and have a "feeling of belonging" are less apt to drop out. geOgraphical logation. The states with the highest drOp-out rates are found in the southern and southeastern states, while those With the best records are located in the northern and particularly the n0rthwest central states. Only 30 to 40 per cent of the fifth graders in many southern states ever graduate, while in the north Some states held more than 70 per cent until graduation. Eationality and racial stock. Studies have shown that, at c . . ertain times and places, certain nationalities and raCial stocks have h . ad more of their children drop out, but there is a noticeable lack Of . agrEQment among the studies with respect to any particular “I 15., d b g \ ..pa fi.‘ .. “E O t .5.“ .C.r_ ‘ ' . .... ." "‘0! ‘r u: at .E .1.. I1‘;':-I9“w:‘rz‘ “'I a. .‘.-“.“'F _.‘. o ,. I\ . V . ‘ 1';:'¢-‘I.' "\ F . no ~u'v Al ‘.‘ .;_‘.. ‘. ‘I-u “urn“ i V ' V v"..~'_‘ - b\_~“. \‘ ‘ . ‘1 fi; .I . 5‘ 'h“ . _ , ‘ v- ..mbuou‘p UL." .- \ ' ‘ “ta ”1‘ ‘ (\"i ' r ¢A¢~n. “\J. I. ‘ “C‘hh- ' , tyku- .V. ::;3 LE" ‘ . L": " C“r-. ' cu -L Qi‘ -H 4 a 'v ,, INN _- ~tu ‘U'HDF ‘- o “ t‘\ ‘1- ..‘ , - ._ u..:htc a -IA a..J“f‘J . ‘- ‘0 4“ g;‘ ‘A . - V o ‘ Q .. _ ._. v ' h ‘- n. . . _ '; I 44 nationality. Consequently, no generalizations can be made with re- spect to this factor. However, almost all the studies which have investigated the drop-out rates of Negro children have come to the conclusion that theypare more inclined to drop out than are white children. This is not surprising since their parents generally earn less money, and do not generally work at "white collar" jobs. Both of these factors are shown in Chapter IV to be significantly related to the drop-out probl em . Special services. Some studies have attempted to show the +7 fifv relationship between schools with guidance services in the high school and a. high holding power ratio; others have attempted to show the relationship between vocational programs, and keeping more boys and girls in school; other investigators have studied the relationship be- tween large schools with many curriculums and the drop-out rate when compared to smaller schools. None of these studies has es- tabliShed a clear-cut relationship between these factors and the drOP“ Out rate. III. SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE LITERATURE Needless to say, the recommendations for reducing the dr0p- out rates from the more than 250 studies which were investigated for this study were many and varied. In some cases the recommenda- ti°ns could be deduced from the finding in the particular StudY being reported. In other cases the investigators took the liberty of making recommendations which could not logically be deduced from their re . o ' Search. Some writers made recommendations for reduc1ng drOp-outs i. .3... .23, 6 Ch“ I ‘ ‘ '1 ..l‘ " ”3731. EM .. ......., , . “ no" "1 ‘ i .33.. “9... ~.. . |' l A, ‘4’.“ 5 .LL U1 L‘huh, e :"'...- o .y .. "_.th "at 1 ‘ I“ Cr; . in. I .-. ,' ' vb. ‘ ‘~ "N'JI-ut ) \val u 1 ' l ".3 'I'. “'4 ‘ i‘vu. _.. .'._ I out . v. , ' . o-"‘ as. A VM‘. A. so._ u, ‘l ‘. .‘. A *i 45 based upon a polling of opinions of principals or other so-called ”educational experts.” Others took their license to write on the subject from the fact that they had been superintendents, princi- pals, or guidance officers in schools where they had an opportunity to be in contact with many students who dropped out of school. And finally, there were those who belonged to Special-interest or pro- fessional groups who were convinced that more use of their specialty would have solved any problem, and this was just as true of the drOp-out problem as it would be of any other. The recommendations made by all of these groups would more than fill a book, and no attempt will be made to mention any but the most common recommendations: 1. The curriculum should be overhauled so that courses are available to meet the needs and interests of every child. 2. Teachers should make more effort to treat every child as an individual, to make him feel that he is important to the School and his fellow students, and to provide for individual differences without segregation. 3- Guidance programs should be established which will provide individual counseling service for all children who are having difficulties, so that they can be helped in understanding their Problems, and given support in reaching their goals. This gui- dance program should extend into the elementary school as Well as the secondary school. 4- Comprehensive cumulative records should be kept which show the boys and girls who are in danger of drOpping out of school. T1lese records would prove invaluable in the prevention of drop- Outs, 5 ~ "Hidden tuition" and other costs which make it difficult for the boy or girl with low economic means to "keep up with the JQes" should be eliminated. 6 The compulsory age limit should be raised. 7 - Continuous research on the drop-out problem should be con— c1“lcted which would help administrators and teachers to understand 0w to meet the drop-out challenge at their particular local level. ) K ...\ .9, .9... i 3 -I . 1 h . Luxuu “W'Lr . | . l 4‘ VP {nu-huu‘gy L5 “‘5' N: 1,3. 3 “V.- \J‘ 'I on... A . )- -V I\ iw-A'J 1, mind“. or ' ‘3 ' '_'1| .t Comm; ’\ \ . ‘ ‘ RI ,itt’f. .mp4. 9. ,., ‘ ..., ' . k a.“ ‘ 0;: Ito: it. Visit... ' x ‘ .h““‘¢uc‘ § t x “ '\ ‘Vp..‘l \. .y ‘ L “t e i. “’1‘ ‘ F.- .. \‘l“"‘.K .‘A'Afi‘v‘s. ~. .\‘J_‘ W...“ v . “t w \\,d M. tr‘v W “b. “ w, .‘v a. H‘ ‘x . ‘1 .“ t‘_r .. ‘s..‘ Q 46 8. Practically all retardation and subject matter failures should be eliminated by better pupil placement and more individualiza- tion of instruction. 9. A democratically developed philosophy of education should be developed by the school staff which would make better pre- pared teachers to meet the challenge of providing every child with four years of apprOpriate secondary education. 10. Marking systems and standards should be set in terms of individual growth rates, rather than group norms. 11. The extracurricular program should be expanded so that all children could feel that they belong, and could receive some rec0gnition. 12. Work programs should be instituted so that students could earn money as well as receive instruction in practical skills in line with their ability. 13. More wholesome contacts should be established with all of the parents rather than just those who voluntarily attend PTA and other school- sponsored activities. 14. The support of labor, business, religious, and civic groups should be enlisted in the problem of keeping youth in school. 15. Help should be provided for children who are ill or handi- capped so that they would not be retarded or fail to complete high school. 16. Discipline should be administered more consistently so that the potential drop-out does not feel that he and others in his group are victims of discrimination. 17. Students who dropped out should be encouraged to continue their education in night school, educational work prOgrams, and the United States Armed Forces Institute. 18. The elementary school program should be improved so that youth would ”learn to like" school, rather than dislike it. 19. Special help should be given in the communications skills to any students whose reading and communication skill are below normal, so that they could read and communicate at their max- imum capacity. 20. Teacher training should be improved so that new teachers would be adequately prepared to meet the challenge of providing every child with a suitable high school education. N t . K ‘t IEV'IE‘IK 01 IL! l u I u . .-.\ ..D‘\ .t ., \ ; ill ‘I o n g“... I... .Ju\ n.‘ ‘ . . .s.., n t“ 7“.I\t‘y ‘i .-.‘ ...t .2.o... .. . a 1 l _..u‘,. 'I ".1. y- -t v ', “Nut: ”.51 J a O~u ~v~ v . 1 ,W- V‘.‘ ‘ , s .u \U-lulI-A-Ad‘ax i w . ‘ ‘I;‘\ c""“ 3‘ ‘7' v--.- ' -1....“ g ‘ \ -§- ‘h- .s r.."‘\' , ,. ...\ "‘h\1 .K'... ‘ ~ 1 , ‘ "“tb ‘ a ‘. ““ IFi.‘ ~1 ~... 4.4““ ' a ‘1‘ ‘ «n, _ ’tv...‘ 47 A. review of the literature on drOp-outs leads to one very significant conclusion: that there is no single, simple, or easy so- lution to the problem. Factors which are important in certain com- munities may be practically nonexistent, or at least noncritical, in other communities. However, each new study gives insight and understanding of that particular community to the people making the study. Frequently, many such studies provide information on which broader generalizations can be made. IV . SUMMAR Y National, state, and local governmental and educational organi- zations have all taken an interest in the drop-out problem and have helped to provide research related to its solution. Research has shown that retardation is closely related to dropping out of school. Although youth who drOp out, as a group. “Sually have lower ratings on intelligence and achievement tests, yet individually in most cases, individual drop-outs have scores no werse than many youth who are able to complete high school. Although many schools have established Special courses in an attenipt to meet the needs of youth who are not adapted to the ”college prep" courses, these courses have not been able to interest Youth in sufficient numbers to prevent a substantial number of drOP" Outs_ Attempts to use standardized psychological tests to discover potential drop-outs have not been successful; however, there is evi- dence that the youth who is unhappy in school and has no desire to go to college is an early drOp-out. Twice as many youth in some northern states, when compared with youth in many southern states, complete school. Negroes 48 generally drop out at a rate faster than do white children, but other- wise research showing that certain nationality or racial stocks are more prone to dr0p out has been quite inconclusive. Most of the recommendations that are set forth to solve the drop-out problem are in keeping with good educational practices. There can be little doubt that if they could become a part of every- day educational practice that drop-outs would be reduced, and all students would benefit from the changes. At any rate, it now seems reasonable to expect that further research on the local, state, and national level can make it possible to develop school programs that will realize the goal of providing every youth with four years of s ec ondary education . CHAPTER IV THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CONTROLLED SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLES TO DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL 1. INTRODUCTION This chapter deals with the sociological variables which were “controlled” to get the matching groups in the "adult drop-outs" and "parents of drop-outs” samples in this study. The presentation 0f the data on these factors accomplishes two things: first, it Shows how these variables were statistically related to dropping out Of School; second, it gives a comprehensive picture of the type of samples that were used to test the hypothesis with respect to the differences between the opinions of drop-outs and graduates, pre— 19 Sented in Chapters VI, VII, and VIII. They are presented in the following order: 1. Name of community. School achievement: How far did you go in school? Sex. Age: Would you mind giving us your age? Occupation: What is your husband's (your) occupation? O‘UliAwN Family income: Approximately what was your total family income last year? 7. Place of residence: Rural or urban. All of the data are presented in tables showing in percentages the difference between the graduates and drop-outs in the three sam- Pies ("community adults," ”selected adults," ”selected parents") 1‘. hat were selected for study. 50 Chi square tests were run, in this and the following chapter, to show whether the differences were statistically significant--except in those cases where the groups were matched to control for the effects of the sociological variables in the "selected adults" and ”selected parents" samples; or the number of reSponses were greater than the total number in the sample, so that a chi square test would not be valid. Preceding the analysis of the data with respect to each vari- able, reviews of some typical findings with respect to this variable and the drop-out problem are presented, to help place the data in their proper perspective. II. THE COMMUNITY DIFFERENCES A review of selected research. Tables I and II on pages 6 and 7 in Chapter I show that the holding power of high schools in the United States has been on the increase since the beginning of the Wentieth century when probably less than 10 per cent of the YOUth attended high school. The Statistical Summary of Education Shows that the ”number enrolled per 100 population, 14-17 years of age" was 6.7 per cent in 1890; 32.3 per cent in 1920; and 76.5 47 per Cent in 1950 in public and nonpublic high schools. The state of Michigan in 1950 (using this same holding power index, youth 14-17 attending public and nonpublic school) had 86.9 per Cent in school. It ranks seventh among the forty-eight states. 4 U . 7Rose Marie Smith. Biennial Survey offiEduiation in the :1tEd States. Chapter 1. 1948-50. U- 5- Department Of Health, P u‘lcation, and Welfare. U. S. Printing Office. Washington: 1953. . 9. 51 By comparison, South Carolina, the lowest ranking state, had a rate of 50.6; Massachusetts had a rate of 102.8, since many out-of—state youth attend private high schools in the state.48 The holding power rate in Michigan since 1930, using the ratio of high school graduates to elementary enrollment of twelve 4 years previous is as follows: 9 1931: 30.2 per cent 1943:. 43.8 per cent 1932: 33.6 " ” 1944: 43.4 " ” 1933: 38.4 ” " 1945: 45.4 " " 1934: 39.6 “ " 1946: 48.0 " " 1935: 38.7 " " 1947: 52.7 " " 1936: 39.6 " " 1948: 53.8 " " 1937: 40.6 " " 1949: 54.6 " " 1938: 43.9 " " 1950: 57.0 " " 1939: 46.2 " " 1951: 57.5 " " 1940: 43.8 " " 1952: 57.0 " " 1941: 43.3 “ " 1953: 58.1 " " 1942: 43.2 " ” The statistic which is most directly comparable to the data in Table IV shows that in Michigan approximately 36 per cent of all the adults over twenty-four years of age had finished high SChoOl; in the urban population, 39 per cent finished; in the rural nonfarm population, 33 per cent finished; and in the rural population, only 23 per cent finished.50 M 48 Walter H. Gaumnitz. High School Retention by States. Cir- g‘f‘lar No. 398. U. s. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. “Ce or Education. Washington: 1954. p. 14. 4 9Department of Public Instruction. Mfihigan High School Power Study. Department of Public Instruction. Lansing, n: 1953. n.p. (excerpt from mimeOgraphed table) Holdin Ce United States Department of Commerce. United States WPopulation, General Characteristics, Michigan. 1950. ShingtOnT T952. pf 54. - 52 TABLE IV NAME OF COMMUNITY Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct. Sample Drop— H.S. , . t. . No P C Out 5 G rads Diff Total Community adults ...... 758 100.1 100.1 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.2 100.1 99.9 Selected parents ....... 298 100.2 100.1 100.0 Bronson Community adults ...... 100 13.2 16.1 10.2 5.9 Selected adults ........ 53 14.1 13.8 14.3 - 0.5 Selected parents ....... 40 13.5 14.8 12.1 2.7 Clare Community adults ...... 119 15.7 16.1 15.3 0.8 Selected adults ........ 55 14.6 12.2 16.9 - 4.7 Selected parents ....... 39 13.1 14.8 11.4 3-4 Belding C01'nnfllslnity adults ...... 120 15.8 18.9 12.7 6.2 Selected adults ........ 76 20.1 22.2 18.0 4-2 Selected parents ,,,,,,, 54 18.2 14.8 21.5 — 6.7 5253.919: Community adults ...... 84 11.1 10.4 11.8 - 1.4 Selected adults ........ 33 8.7 11.1 6.3 4.8 Selected parents ....... 23 7.7 8.7 6.7 2.0 Rockford C°mmunity adults ...... 85 11.3 7.8 14.8 - 7.0 Selected adults ........ 38 10.1 8.5 11.6 - 3.1 elected parents ....... 28 9.4 7.4 11.4 - 4.0 St. Johns Scommunity adults ...... 250 33.0 30.8 35.2 - 4.4 self:Cted adults ........ 123 32.6 32.3 32.8 - 0.5 eleCted parents ....... 114 38-3 39-6 36-9 2‘7 \ COmmunity x2 > 1 per cent. 53 The analysis of the data. The data in Table IV show that the number of persons who completed high school varies quite ex- tensively when the six communities are compared. The figures in the high school and drop-out columns for the complete community sample can be converted to show the following: Bronson: 38 per cent completed high school. Belding: 39 per cent completed high school. Clare: 48 per cent completed high school. Reed City: 52 per cent completed high school. St. Johns: 52 per cent completed high school. Rockford: 65 per cent completed high school. In fact, when the original data are inspected, the actual average per- centages of high school graduates for all six communities is 49 per Cent. Even in Bronson and the surrounding area, the percentage of Persons who completed high school was somewhat above the state average of 36 per cent. There are five factors which may have resulted in a higher educational level for these communities than would normally be ex- Pected. First, the sample includes more females (in St. Johns) than rnales; second, the sample includes fifty—four adults who were under tWenty-four years of age; third, only about 20 per cent of the inter- Views were with adults who lived in rural areas; fourth, adults who Were single, self-supporting, or dependent upon other householders fol‘ living quarters were not interviewed, since either the male or fWhale head of the household was interviewed; and fifth, at least thl‘ee years had elapsed since the 1950 census, during which time many older adults had died, to be replaced with younger adults with more education. In fact, the 1950 census shows that only 34 per 54 cent of the adults in Belding and 39 per cent of the adults in St. Johns had a high school education.51 An inspection of the data for the ”selected adults" and ”se- lected parents" samples, where the sociological variables are con- trolled, shows that the ratio of drop-outs to graduates is randomly distributed among the communities, and that the samples are not unduly distorted in favor of any community. In summary, it can be said that the sample chosen to repre- sent these communities is probably slightly distorted in favor of the high school graduate, but that this distortion should not have any ef- fect upon the comparison of attitudes between graduates and dr0p-outs --particularly when the groups are matched for control of the socio- logical variables in the ”selected adults" and "selected parents" samples. The amount of variation in the educational level of the communities reported here is probably quite typical of what would be found when any (randomly distributed) groups of towns with 1,000 to 5,000 population are compared in southern Michigan. 111. THE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL A review of selected research. The 1950 census shows that, in the state of Michigan as a whole, 20.9 per cent of the adults have 1$83 than an eighth grade education, 21.9 per cent have completed only the eighth grade, 20.6 per cent have some high school training, 21.9 per cent have completed high school, 6.9 per cent have attended 1United States Department of Commerce. United States Cen- iu‘s‘ff Population, General Characteristics, Michgali950. U.FS.—r Government Printing Office. Washington: 1952. pp. 99 and 103. 55 college, and 5.3 per cent have completed college. Only 3 per cent of the 18-21 year old youth were in college in 1890, but in 1950 al- most 20 per cent were in college. The increase of pupils in high school was noted to be from 6.7 per cent of youth 14-17 years of age to 76.5 per cent in this same period (confer ante, page 50). The increase in the number of pupils in elementary school 5-13 years of 5 age was from 16.7 per cent in 1900 to 68.2 per cent in 1950. 4 These averages are substantially lower than would be expected in Michigan since they include the southern states where the average educational achievement is very low. The number of children being kept in elementary school from grades one to eight in Michigan increased 55 from 51 per cent in 1920 to 63 per cent in 1953. The analysis of the data. Table V shows that in these six communities only 7.4 per cent have less than an eighth grade edu- cation, 24.1 per cent have only an eighth grade education, 18.5 per cent have some high school training, 26.6 per cent have graduated from high school, 16.6 per cent have taken training beyond high School, and 5.5 per cent have graduated from college. No doubt the Same five factors which were discussed earlier (confer ante, \ 5 2United States Department of Commerce. Ibid., p. 54. U . 3Rose Marie Smith. Biennial Sun/f] of Education in the I”Inlted States. Chapter 1. 1948-1950. U. S. Department of ealth, Education, and Welfare. U. S. Printing Office. Washington: 1 951’ P. 38. 54 Rose Marie Smith. Ibid., p. 19. 55 Department of Public Instruction. Michigan High School H . Wwer Study. Department of Public Instruction. Lansing, Chlga'ni 7953. (from a mimeographed table) TABLE V HOW FAR DID YOU GO IN SCHOOL? 56 ——V Vfi—v W T Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff . ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults ...... 758 100.1 99.9 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.4 100.0 100.1 Selected parents ....... 298 100.2 100.0 99.9 Beyond High School (professional) Community adults ...... 6 0.8 0.0 1.6 - 1.6 Selected adults . ....... 2 0.6 0.0 1.1 - 1.1 Selected parents ....... 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Beyond High School (college graduate) Community adults ...... 35 4.7 0.0 9.4 - 9.4 Selected adults ........ 16 4.3 0.0 8.5 - 8.5 Selected parents ....... 8 2.7 0.0 5.4 - 5.4 Beyond High School (some college) Community adults ...... 77 10.4 0.0 20.7 -20.7 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 33 8.8 0.0 17.5 -17.5 Selected parents ....... 17 5.7 2.7 8.7 - 6.0 Beyond High School (other training--not college) Community adults ...... 46 6.2 0.0 12.4 -12.4 Selected adults ........ 23 6.1 0.0 12.2 ~12-2 Selected parents ....... 10 3.4 2.7 4.0 - 1.3 TABLE V (Continued) 57 Pct. Pct. T t 1 T t . Sample 130a 13:1 Drop- 11.8. :2: ' C ° Outs Grads 1 ° Twelfth Grade (high school) Community adults ...... 198 26.6 0.0 53.2 -53.2 Selected adults ........ 108 28.6 0.0 57.1 -57.1 Selected parents ....... 44 14.8 4.7 24.8 -20.1 Did Not Finish High School but Took Other Training Community adults . ..... 10 1.4 0.0 2.7 2.7 Selected adults . ....... 7 1.9 0.0 3.7 3.7 Selected parents ....... 7 2.4 0.7 4.0 3.3 Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh Grade Community adults ...... 143 18.5 37.0 0.0 37.0 Selected adults ........ 79 20.9 41.8 0.0 41.8 Selected parents ....... 54 18.1 20.1 16.1 4.0 Eighth Grade Cemmunity adults ...... 186 24.1 48.2 0.0 48.2 Selected adults ........ 91 24.1 48.1 0.0 48.1 Selected parents ....... 111 37.3 48.3 26.2 22.1 Less than Eighth Grade Community adults ...... 57 7.4 14.7 0.0 14.7 Selected adults ........ 19 5.1 10.1 0.0 10.1 Selected parents ....... 47 15.8 20.8 10.7 10.1 k 58 page 53) may have produced a higher educational average in the samples than is actually the case. However, these findings are quite typical of the figures quoted for the state except that the percentage who completed grade school is substantially higher than the state average in 1950. By comparison, the parents of drop-outs had much less edu- cation: none of them graduated from college; only 5.4 per cent took training beyond high school; only 4.7 per cent completed high school; 20.1 per cent attended high school; 48.5 per cent only finished the eighth grade; and 20.8 per cent had less than an eighth grade edu- cation. This points out quite dramatically that there is a high degree of correlation between parents' education and the educational level of their children. In fact, only 10 per cent of these parents of drop- outs had finished high school themselves. The same results have 56, ,58 been found in many other research studies. 57 McGee found that, . seventy per cent [of the fathers] had not gone beyond the eighth grade in school; sixteen per cent entered high school, but did not graduate; nine per cent completed high school and six per cent had formal schooling beyond the high school level.59 56John W. Berry. Secondary and Post Secondary Educational Continuation in a Rural County. Eureka College, Illinois: 1947. pp. 32-33. (mimeographed). 57A. J. Dahlburg. ”Some Do Not Graduate.” Ann Arbor High School. Ann Arbor, Michigan: August 1953. p. 14. 58Raymond S. Orr. "A. Study of Relationships Between Cer- tain Personal Data Factors and Early School Leaving." Guidance News Bulletin. Vol. IX. No. 3. Wyoming State Department of Ed- ucation. February, 1953. p. 7. 59George A. McGee. ”A Study of the Holding Power of the Croton-Harmon High School with Proposals for Improvement." Un- published Ph.D. Thesis. Teachers College, Columbia University: New York: 1952. p.123. 59 A. drop-out study in Lawrence, Kansas, found a correlation of 91 per cent existing between the educational levels of drop-outs and their mothers, and a correlation of 46 per cent between the educational levels of the mothers and fathers, but a correlation of only 11 per cent between the dr0p-outs and the fathers of drop-outs. An inspection of the samples chosen to control for sociological variables shows that they are very much like the divisions in the total community sample. On the other hand, the sample which was chosen to match with the parents of drop-outs had educational char- acteristics which place it about halfway between the drop-out and graduate samples. In fact, this sample comes very close to being like the total undivided sample. Therefore, any differences which Show up in the next chapter between parents of dr0p-outs and its matching sample cannot be said to be due primarily to the different Educational levels of the parents. The major finding in the data presented in this section is the met that there exists a high degree of correlation between parents' education and that of their children. It has also been shown that the educational level of parents in these six communities is quite Similar to that found in the state at large. 1V. SEX A review of selected research. Almost all the research stud- les of drop—outs have found that more boys drOp out of school than \ 60 Stud Office of the Principal. y of Fifty-three Drop-outs from Liberty Memorial High School." August 1951. (mimeographed) p. 3. Liberty Memorial High School. "A Law :- ence, Kansas: 60 girls.6l’62 Dillon found that 54 per cent of the drop-outs in his study were boys.63 A. drop—out study at Ferndale and Alpena, Mich- igan, disclosed that 56 and 59 per cent, respectively, were boys.64'65 The United States Census shows that in Michigan 38 per cent of the females and 32 per cent of the males graduated from high school. The analysis of the data. The data in Table VI show that in the total community there are more women than men dr0p-outs. This is no doubt partially due to the fact that there are more old women alive than there are old men.67 However, there are almost twice as many women high school graduates as there are men. Fifty-five per cent of the females compared to 41 per cent of the males in the community graduated from high school. (It has been pointed out 61Wayne 0. Reed. "Better Education for All Our Children.” School Life. April 1954. p. 102. 62 Federal Security Agency. Why Do B315 and Girls Drop Out of School and What Can We Do About It? Office of Education. Circular 269. Washington: 195053.18. 63Harold J. Dillon. Early School Leavers: PA Major Educva- Lional Problem. National Child Labor Committee. Publication No. 401. New York: October 1949. p. 23. 64Harold E. Vroman. Study of Drop-outs 1948-1949 School Xear, Lincoln High: School, Ferndale, Michigan. (mimeographed) p. 3. 65W. E. Finch. "Alpena High School Follow-up of Drop-outs for the School." The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School As— sociation. Vol. xv'fl. No.4. Lansing: April 1953. p.50. 66 U. S. Department of Commerce. United States Census of Eopulation, General Characteristics, Michigan 1950. U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office. Washington: 1952. p. 54. 67U. S. Department of Commerce. Ibid., p. 51. 61 TABLE VI SEX Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff ' . Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 758 100.0 99.9 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.1 100.0 100.0 Female Community adults ...... 440 58.2 51.5 64.8 -13.3 Selected adults ........ 246 65.1 64.6 65.6 - 1.0 Selected parents ....... 175 58.8 59.1 58.4 0.7 Male Community adults ...... 318 41.8 48.4 35.2 13.2 Selected adults ........ 132 34.9 35.4 34.4 1.0 Selected parents ....... 123 41.3 40.9 41.6 - 0.7 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. 62 before that-these percentages may be high.) When the samples were matched to control the sex variables, the percentage of women who graduated increased about 7 per cent. There is a substantially higher percentage of females among the parents of drop-outs than there is among the drop-outs in the total sample. This would seem to indicate that mothers who failed to graduate are more inclined to be associated with failures to grad— uate among their children than are the fathers who failed to graduate. To summarize, Table VI shows that men have been signifi- cantly more inclined to fail to complete high school than have women. There is an indication that women drop-outs are more apt to have Children who droP out than are the men drop-outs. The matching on sex in the “parent” group seems to have produced a ratio be- tween the sexes which is consistent with the total sample, while the matched adult sample shows 7 per cent more women than the total Sample, Both samples show perfect control for the sex variable. V. AGE A. review of selected research. The holding power indexes for the secondary school, referred to on pages 50 and 51 Of this chapter, seem to indicate that about 10 per cent of the older adults 1“ the st Michigan communities will have a high school education. “1338 same indexes also indicate that, among men and women under thirty years of age, less than 50 per cent will have graduated. How- ever, if the same condition prevails in respect to holding power in Michigan that was true in Indiana, then it is logical to expect that the 13‘1‘1‘centage of high school graduates in towns the size of the ones in this study will be higher; for, in towns of 2,500 to 5.000 P0 . pulfi‘fion, the "township schools in Indiana have a greater holding 63 power than schools . . . in cities with populations between 5,000— 8 30,000, or in cities with populations over 100,000." The number of older folks is greater in the towns in this study than it is in the state of Michigan as a whole. For instance, the United States Census shows that in the state only 7 per cent of the pOpulation is over sixty-five years of age, while in the towns in this study the number of older folks is generally more than double that pe rc entage . The analysis of the data. Table VII shows that persons Sixty-five years or older constituted 16.6 per cent of the population in these communities. Among these older adults, 19.6 per cent graduated from high school, thus making them better educated than the state average for people their age. Twenty-eight per cent of the population in these communities was under thirty years of age, and 70.9 per cent of this group had graduated from high school. The parents of drop-outs are definitely older than any of the Other groups. In fact, 73.8 per cent of the parents who had children drop out were fifty years of age or older. An insPection of the younger group of parents of drOp—outs C118Closes that four parents who were less than thirty-five years of age had had children drop out of school. An investigation of the original interview schedules usually indicated an early marriage. \ 68Beeman N. Phillips. Holding Power of the Schools of Indi- 1. No. 2. Department of 323' Indiana Research Bulletin. Vol. (mimeographed) p. 6. P ublic Instruction. Indianapolis: 1954. United States Census of 69U. S. Department of Commerce. Washington: Po lgspgllation General Characteristics, Michigan, 1950, ‘ pp? 457497111, 113. TABLE VII WOULD YOU MIND GIVING US YOUR AGE? 64 Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. sample No Pct DmP' H’S‘ D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults . ..... 758 100.1 99.7 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.2 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.4 100.0 100.2 Sixty-five and Over Community adults ...... 127 16.6 26.6 6.5 20.1 Selected adults . ....... 46 12.2 15.3 9.0 6.3 Selected parents . . . . . . . 98 32.9 36.9 28.9 8.0 Sixty to Sixty-four Community adults ...... 60 7.8 13.2 2.4 10.8 Selected adults . ....... 22 5.8 7.9 3.7 4.2 Selected parents ....... 45 15.1 13.4 16.8 - 3.4 Fifty-five to Fifty-nine Community adults ...... 47 6.2 8.5 3.8 4.7 Selected adults ........ 28 7.4 9.0 5.8 3.2 Selected parents ....... 27 9.1 10.1 8.1 2.0 Fifty to Fifty-four Community adults ...... 64 8.5 8.8 8.1 0.7 Selected adults ........ 43 11.4 9.0 13.8 4.8 Selected parents ....... 42 14.1 13.4 14.8 - 1.4 Forty-five to Forty-nine Community adults ...... 85 11.2 11.6 10.8 0.8 Selected adults ........ 50 13.3 10.1 16.4 6.3 1 16.1 4.0 Selected parents ....... , 42 14.1 12. \ CO~,V\A .,. “in...“ TABLE VII (Continued) 65 Total Total PCt‘ PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ‘ Forty to Forty-four Community adults ...... 84 11.1 8.0 14.2 - 6.2 Selected adults ........ 42 11.2 13.8 8.5 5.3 Selected parents ....... 16 5.4 8.7 2.0 6.7 Thirty-five to Thirty-nine Community adults ...... 79 10.5 7.3 13.7 - 6.4 Selected adults ........ 39 10.3 11.1 9.5 1.6 Selected parents . ...... 9 3.2 2.7 3.4 - 0.7 Thirty to Thirty-four Community adults ...... 89 11.8 6.2 17.4 -11.2 Selected adults ........ 40 10.6 9.5 11.6 - 2.1 Selected parents ....... 7 2.4 1.3 3.4 - 2.1 Twenty-five to Twenty-nine Community adults ...... 69 9.2 6.2 12.1 - 5.9 Selected adults . . . . . . .. 39 10.3 9-5 11.1 ‘ 1-6 Selected parents ....... 5 1.7 0.7 2.7 - 2.0 Twenty-four or Under Community adults ...... 54 7.2 3.3 11.0 - 7.0 Selected adults ........ 29 7.7 4.8 10.6 - 5.8 Selected parents ....... 7 2.4 0.7 4.0 - 3-3 \ Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. 66 In many cases their children left elementary school because of per- manent illness, or other handicaps, mental or physical. They were included as drop-outs in this study since it was impossible to de- termine to what extent the child was educable or whether the dr0p- out was voluntary. The matching of the "selected adult" group of graduates and dr0p-outs above and below forty—five years of age produced a sam- ple which had more graduates in the forty-five to fifty—five range, and less in the fifty-five and older group. This was balanced by substantially more graduates in the thirty-five and under range, and less in the forty to forty-four range. Although most of the age dif- ferences were eliminated, there is still some possibility for the age variable to operate. The matching group for the parents of drop— outs showed even more tendency to be skewed. There is no way of knowing just how much difference this will make in the final results. Previous studies by the Michigan Communications studies on the effect of age had shown that citizens in the age groups of thirty—five to forty-nine were somewhat ”better informed about their schools." Younger parents (twenty-five to thirty-five) were inclined to be more critical of the school than per- sons from thirty-five to forty-five years of age. Their data also show that persons over sixty years of age are inclined to be less critical of the school than any other age group. People in their fifties were least satisfied with the school.7o'71 70Leo Haak. The Relationship Between Information and Opin— ions on Schools. Michigan Communications Study. MTchigan State University. E. Lansing: April, 1955. (mimeographed) p. 1.2. 71 Leo Haak. The Relationship ovffiAge to Know1e_d&3 and Opin- ion of the School. Mimeographed summary of a paper given before the 59th Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters at Michigan State University. E. Lansing: March 5, 1955. A. i \ ”3‘ "Y 1“ x 4 u. t s - ~‘ C ‘ I 67 If these findings are true there is a possibility that in the matched samples, the drop-outs and parents of drop-outs, percentage- wise will be somewhat less inclined to be critical of the school than would be true if the samples had been better matched on the age variable. However, in spite of all this, the samples as selected do very substantially rearrange the distribution on the age variable, and do eliminate a major portion of the age differences in the two sam- ples. In summary, the data in Table VII show that the citizens in this study are older than the average for the state, and have a higher level of education in all age groups. As expected, substantially more of the older people have dropped out, and likewise have had more children drop out of school. The samples chosen to control the age variable are somewhat skewed, but do substantially reduce the dif- ferences. V1. OCCUPATION A review of selected research. Studies of drop-outs almost unanimously show a direct relationship between occupational levels and completion of high school. This tendency for students who do not graduate to find their way into certain occupations and stay there 72, 3, 4, , 6 _ , is well documented by follow-up studies.. 7 7 75 7 Such findings are to be expected: m v—v— 72Ernst H. Suerken. "When Dr0p-outs Go Job Hunting.” The W. Vol. 27. No. 5. 1953. pp. 268-272. 73Theodosia C. Hewlett. ”What Employers Look for in Young WC>1‘kers." Occupations, The Vocational Guidance Journal. No. 8. Bureau of Labor Stahdards. U. S. Department of Labor. Washing- ton: May 1949. pp. 546-550. 68 Because of their greater immaturity and more limited education they are even less likely than other teen-agers to measure up to the qualifications demanded by prospective employers. Most drop-outs have no occupational goal; their interest is in the immediate future, with its promise . . of financial independence and the coveted status of an adult. These boys and girls, often unfamiliar with any area outside their own neighborhood, are unaware of community resources and servicesxwhich could help them.77 The Virginia State Board of Education in 1948 conducted a survey of the occupations of drop-outs and graduates for the year 1939-40. They found that 16.4 per cent of the graduates went into the "professional" compared to 1.9 per cent for the drop-outs; that the comparison was 6.0 per cent to 2.3 per cent for the ”managerial and related"; 37.3 per cent to 14 per cent for ”clerical and kindred" Occupations. On ”sales and kindred" they were about even with 9.6 to 9.9 per cent. The percentages were reversed in "service" with 6-4 for graduates and 14.4 per cent for drop-outs; in ”agricultural," 5-1 per cent to 8.4 per cent; in "skilled and semi-skilled,“ 17.2 per -\ 74H. L. Fleming. "How to Make and Utilize Follow-up Studies of School Leavers.” The Bulletin of the National Association 0f Secondary School Principals. Vol. 36. No. 185. Washington: March 1952. pp. 74-78. 75 Jack Harrison Pollack. "What Happens when Kids Quit Sch001?" Parents' Magazine. August 1952. p. 45. 6 7 Elizabeth S. Johnson. "Employment Problems of Out-of— School Youth." Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 65. No. 6. U. S. ePartment of Labor. Washington: December 1947. p. 45. 7 c 7U. S. Department of Labor. After Tveen-Agers Quit Sc\hg_0_l. Bulletin No. 150. Superintendent of Documents. U. S. GQVernment Printing Office. Washington: 1952. p. Z. .. ‘ .1. em. 0. '.. k—A PU . "4 I") (if) 9 r - (I) {—7 69 cent to 33.1 per cent; and in the unskilled, the ratio is 2.1 per cent for graduates to 16.0 per cent for drop-outs. DrOp-outs are much more frequent in families at the "lower 79,80,81 end” of the occupational level. Harold Hand found that: Scarcely more than fifty per cent of the adult population is en- gaged in occupations here subsumed under the category of labor, yet seventy-two per cent of the drop outs . . . come from fam— ilies of such workers.82 Douglass quotes a study in Pennsylvania to show that 77.7 per cent of the children in the professional technical occupational grouping will complete high school. His percentages for the other occupational levels are as follows: sales, 60.9 per cent; skilled, 35.8 per cent; farmers, 34.1 per cent; and nonskilled, 12.9 per cent. A recent ,vvr, 78 State Department of Education. Virginia's High School Graduates and Drop-outs of 1939-40. Bulletin State Board of Ed- ucation. Vol. 33. No. 8. Richmond. p. 10. 7 9John W. Berry. Secondary and Post Secondary Educational Muation in a RgriCounty. Eureka College, Eureka, Illinois: 1947. (mimeOgraphed) p. 32. 80 Richard H. Dresher. Factors in Voluntary Drop-outs in ELLPublic secondary Schools of Detroit, Michigan. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State College, June 1953. p. 77. 81 William Lee Gragg. A~ Study of Factors Related to the Wtence of Pupils in Public Secondary Schools. Resume of a 11.13. Thesis on file at Cornell University Library, Ithaca, N. Y.: 1951, (mimeOgraphed) p. 7. 82 Harold C. Hand. Principal Findings of the 1947-1948 Basic ms of the Illinois Secondary School Curriculum; PrOgram. Cir- cular Series A. No. 51. Bulletin 2. Superintendent of Public In- s1:l‘uction. Springfield, Illinoist 1949- P315- 83 Harl Ray Douglass. Secondary Education. The Ronald Press Company. New York: 1952. p.T3o. s x \ 70 study of 2,239 drop-outs in Wyoming shows the occupational grouping of their parents to be as follows: professional, managerial, 14 per cent; clerical, sales, 13 per cent; craftsman, operatives, 23 per cent; service, 11 per cent; agricultural, 26 per cent; and labor, 13 per 84 cent. Archer, in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research, quotes two studies which give information on the drOp-outs of twenty and thirty years ago when many of the persons in this study were in high school. He says: Occupational groups whose children tended to remain in school longer in order of rank beginning with the highest are manage- rial service, professional service, proprietors, commercial ser- vice, printing trades, clerical service, public service, machine trades, transportation service, and building trades. Children of common laborers, miners, and the like tended to leave school. Sons and daughters of parents in the managerial and professional groups were five times as likely to graduate from high school as the children of day laborers. . . . Children whose parents are farmers do not remain as long or attend as well as those from professional parent homes, but their persistence is greater than for those of similar economic levels in urban districts.85 84Raymond S. Orr. "A Study of Relationships between Cer- tain Personal Data Factors and Early School Leaving." Guidance EEWS Bulletin. Vol. IX. No. 3. Wyoming State Department of Ed— llcation: February 1953. p. 7. 8 5Clifford P. Archer. SecondarLEducation. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Edited by Walter S. Monroe. The MacMillan C30rnpany, New York: 1951. p. 1158. Based on the data found in the following two footnotes: G. S. Counts. The Selective Character of American Secondary _Education. Supplementary Educational Monographs. No. 19. Univer— Sity of Chicago: 1922. N.E.A. Department of Superintendence. "Post School Adjust- ments of Drop-outs and Graduates from the Minneapolis Public Schools.” Ninth Yearbook. 1931. 71 The analysis of the data. Table VIII shows that the people in this study who completed high school were five times more likely to become professionals than were those who did not. Although more than 2 per cent of the drop—outs did manage to enter the ranks of the professionals, the data show that less than 1 per cent of the parents of drop-outs managed to achieve professional status. Grad- uates have a two-to-one ratio over dr0p-outs in the managerial and official occupations, and a three—to-one ratio in clerical and sales jobs. Although 10.1 per cent of the drOp-outs did earn their living as managers, prOprietors, or officials, and over 4.3 per cent were in the clerical or sales occupations, the percentages for parents of drOp-outs were only 8.7 per cent in the managerial group and only 2.0 per cent in the sales group of occupations. A few more drop- outs than graduates were in the craftsman, foreman, Operative, and service groups. Although 18.3 per cent of the drOp-outs did become foremen or craftsmen, again only 11.4 per cent of the parents of dr0p-outs were able to do so. Only 38 per cent of the farmers had completed high school, and the farmers among the parents of drop- outs were substantially more numerous (18.1 per cent) than they were in the rest of the total population, where only 11.8 per cent made their living by farming. Among the laborers and those persons who make their living from pensions, relief, or savings, the drOp-outs outnumbered the graduates about five to one.* Some of these dif- ferences can be explained by the fact that the drOp-out pepulation was substantially older than the graduates, but certainly most of the differences cannot be attributed to this fact. Ff f *The number of farmers in these samples is low because no attempt was made to interview farmers in the Belding, Reed City, and Rockford communities. TABLE VIII WHAT IS YOUR HUSBAND'S (YOUR) OCCUPATION? 72 Pct. Pct. T Sample 13:11 3:31 DrOp- H.S. gcftf ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults . . . . . . 758 100.0 99.8 99.9 Selected adults . ....... 378 100.4 100.1 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.3 100.0 100.0 Professional, Semiprofessional Community adults . ..... 62 8.3 2.6 14.0 —11.4 Selected adults . ....... 24 6.4 4.8 7.9 - 3.1 Selected parents . ...... 5 1.7 0.7 2.7 - 2.0 ~ PrOprietor, Manager, Official Community adults ...... 113 15.0 10.1 - 19.9 - 9.8 Selected adults ........ 57 15.1 17.5 12.7 4.8 Selected parents ,,,,,,, 21 7.1 8.7 5.4 3.3 Clerical, Sales community adults ...... 68 9.0 4.3 13.7 - 9.4 Selected adults ........ 25 6.6 5.8 7.4 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 9 3.0 2-0 4-0 " 2-0 Craftsman, Foreman Scommunity adults . . . . . . 128 16.8 18.3 15.3 3.0 Selected adults ........ 78 20.7 20.1 21.2 - 1.1 elected parents ....... 47 15.8 11.4 20.1 - 8.7 Operative C 801mmunity adults ...... 125 16.5 17.1 15.9 1.2 Se ected adults ........ 75 19.9 18.5 21-2- " 2-7 elected parents ....... 52 17.5 18.8 16.1 2.7 \ 73 TABLE VIII (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' . Outs Grads 1 ' Service Community adults ...... 44 5.8 6.7 4.8 1.9 Selected adults ........ 27 7.2 7.4 6.9 0.5 Selected parents . . . . . . . 21 7.1 6.0 8.1 2.1 Laborer Community adults ...... . 37 4.9 7.8 1.9 5.9 Selected adults ........ 21 5.6 7.4 3.7 3.7 Selected parents . ...... 18 6.1 8.1 4.0 4.1 Farm Community adults ...... 90 11.8 14-7 8-8 5-9 Selected adults . ....... 37 9.8 8.5 11.1 2.6 Selected parents ....... 52 17.5 18.1 16.8 1.3 Savings, Pension and Relief Community adults ...... 47 6.1 10.9 1.3 9.6 Selected adults . ....... 13 3.5 4.8 2.1 2.7 Selected parents . ...... 40 13.5 14-8 12-1 2‘7 Not Asked, No Answer §°mmunity adults ...... 44 5.8 7.3 4.3 3.0 SeleCted adults ........ 21 5.6 5.3 5.8 0.5 t’l‘r‘thcl parents ....... 33 11.0 11.4 10.7 0.7 \ Community adults X2 > 1 per cent. 74 On the whole the matching for control of the occupational var— iable produced samples in which the adult drOp-out and graduates seemed to be very much alike. The parents of drOp-outs also seemed to be fairly well matched with only a noticeable distortion in the matching group where we found 8.7 per cent more foremen and craftsmen and 4.1 per cent less laborers than would have been desirable. This distortion can be expected to produce somewhat fewer ”don't knowH responses in the matching group for the parents of dr0p-outs than would be expected from a well-matched sample.” The data from Table VIII on occupations show that persons in these communities with high school educations did get more of what are normally known as the ”white collar“ jobs. Even more inter— esting, however, is the fact that parents of drop-outs were even less inclined to get white collar jobs than the drop-outs, even though 10 per cent of them did graduate from high school. It is interesting to speculate at this point whether this is due to less intelligence, less desire to "get ahead," less interest in education, or failure to provide the "social status" which would have made their children more acceptable to their schoolmates and teachers. Only further investigation can determine whether the following statement is an acceptable answer: The American public schools are . . basic and necessary parts of our democracy. We are convinced that they must . . . pro— vide equal opportunity for every child. This means that those at the bottom can compete through education for life's prizes with those at the top. . . This basic belief . . . is only partly true. The teacher, the school administrator, the school board, as well as the students themselves, play their role to hold people 86Leo Haak. The Relationship Between Information and Opin— £918 on Schools. Michigan Communications Study. Michigan State University. E). Lansing: April 1955. p. 11. (mimeOgraphed) 75 in their places in our social structure. If the American faith in the public school as a democratic force is to become less fictional, we must examine the relevant forces and deter- mine what distorts this picture. . . . The curricula of the secondary schools provide early pathways to success and failure, they operate in a different way on the several class levels. . . It is apparent that the high school curriculum is a mechanism which helps perpetuate our class order.87 VII. INCOME A. review of selected research. The 1950 United States Census for Michigan show that income in the state as a whole was distributed as follows: less than 1,000 dollars, 17.2 per cent; 1,000 to 1,999 dollars, 11.2 per cent; 2,000 to 2.999 dollars, 16.7 per cent; 3,000 to 3,999 dollars, 21.4 per cent; 4,000 to 4,999 dollars, 12.6 per cent; 5,000 to 5,999 dollars, 8.2 per cent; 6,000 to 6,999 dollars, 4.8 per cent; 7,000 to 9,999 dollars, 5.2 per cent; and 10,000 dollars and OVer, 2.8 per cent. Since the research in this study does show an explicit relationship between occupational level and dropping out of School, it can be anticipated that a similar relationship exists between J:nCOIT‘le and education. An analysis of the United States Census re- ) veals that in 1946 nonfarm workers twenty-five to forty-four years of age who had less than seven grades of schooling were earning an average of about 1,600 dollars a year; those who had graduated from \ 87W. Lloyd Warner, Robert J. Havighurst, and B. Martin Loeb. Who . Nan Be Educated. Harper and Brothers, New York. 1944. p, United States Census of 88 U. S. Department of Commerce. _fi fi U. S. Govern- P M1011 General Characteristics, Michigan, 1950. 8111: Printing Office. Washington: 1952. p. 61. 76 high school, 2,400 dollars; and those who had a year or more of 8 college work, 3,000 dollars. 9 Florence Taylor uses United States Chamber of Commerce figures based upon the 1940 census to show: . . incomes over 5,000 dollars or over, 50 per cent . . . had some college education; 39 per cent of those earning 5,000 dol- lars or over had some high school education; and 11 per cent had an eighth grade education or less. The figures are nearly reversed for the group earning 1,500 to 2,000 dollars a year. Over 50 per cent . . . had only an eighth grade education or less; 34 per cent . . . had some high school education; and only a small number had some college education.90 A follow-up study in Virginia exhibited that only 54.3 per cent of its drop-outs who responded to a questionnaire, compared to 65.3 per cent of its graduates, were making more than forty dollars per week.91 The studies quoted above seem to reveal that lack of education is related to low income; other studies allege that low family income causes drop-outs.92'93'94 Studies using the ”social class" index also 89National Education Association of the United States. School DrOR Outs. Research Division. Washington: April 1952. p. 17. (mim- e0graphed) 0 9 Florence Taylor. "Why Stay in School?" Life Adjustment 3%. Science Research Associates, Inc. Chicago: 1954. pp. 13, 14. ngtate Department of Education. Virginia's High School Grad- Eiismd Dr0p-outs of 1939-40. Vol. 33. No. 8. Richmond, Virginia: 1951- p. 13. S 92Harold C. Hand. Principal Findings of the 1947-1948 Basic filmf the Illinois Secondary School Curriculum Program. Superin- Fn ent of Public Instruction. Bulletin No. 2. Series A. No. 51. Spring— 1e1d, Illinois: May 1949. L 93Morris Williams. "What Are the Schools Doing About School PeSVers.” The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School r111cipals. Vol. 37. No. 194. Washington: 1953. p. 54. 94Lyle M. Spencer. "The Drop Out Problem." Guidance News Bulletin. Vol. X. No. 4. Wyoming State Department of Education. April 1954. p. 2. 77 point out the effect of low income. A study by McGuire shows how "peer status," with its dependency upon money, results in drop- outsf)5 Layton found in Detroit that "financial status" was an in- fluence in causing drop-outs.96 The Federal Security Agency uses the "report of the Harvard Committee on the Objectives of a Gen- eral Education in a Free Society" to point out that . nearly all children from the upper-income group go through high school, but that from the middle income group only 60 per cent of the children, and from the lower income group only 30 per cent, go through high school.97 A. study of Negro drop—outs revealed that "two drop-outs in three come from homes of low economic status." The analysis of the data. The data clearly indicate that the P60p1e in this study with incomes of 4,000 dollars and above are Dre—eminently high school graduates. This is even more true at income levels above 8,000 dollars. Drop-outs predominate among the people who earn less than 4,000 dollars. They are especially Predominant in the group who earn less than 1,000 dollars (Table IX). 5Carson McGuire. ”Adolescent Society and Social Mobility." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Chicago. 1949. p. 1. Passim. Warren K. Layton. Special Services for the Drop-out and 11h¥ePotential Drop-out. The ATnerican Child. Reprint available from the National .Child Labor Committee. New York: May 1952. (mimeographed) p. 73. 7Federal Security Agency. Your Community and Its Yougg PeOple. U. 8. Children's Bureau Publication No. 316. U. S. Gov— ernment Printing Office. Washington: 1950. p. 19. 98p. L. Moore. " ”Factors Determining Elimination in the Negro Secondary School." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 38. No. 200. Washington: February, 1954. pp. 46, 47. TABLE APPROXIMATELY WHAT WAS YOUR TOTAL FAMILY INCOME LAST YEAR? IX Pct. Pct. T tal T Sample 130 13:11 Dr0p- H.S. :2: ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 658 100.2 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 313 100.4 99.6 100.1 Selected parents ....... 269 100.2 100.0 100.1 Over 12,000 Dollars Community adults ...... 10 1.6 0.6 2.5 - 1.9 Selected adults . ....... 4 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.0 Selected parents . . . . . . . 1 0.4 0.0 0.8 - 0.8 8,000 to 12,000 Dollars Community adults ...... 47 7.3 2.9 11.7 8.8 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 20 6.4 3.8 8.9 5.1 Selected parents ....... 14 5.2 4.4 6.0 - 1.6 7,000 to 7,999 Dollars Community adults . . . . . . 26 4.0 2.6 5.4 2.8 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 14 4.5 2.5 6.4 3.9 Selected parents ....... 6 2.3 0.0 4.5 - 4.5 6,000 to 6:999vaollvars Community adults ...... 65 10.0 7.9 12.0 - 4.1 Selected adults ........ 34 10.9 10.2 11.5 1.3 Selected parents ....... 13 4.8 5.1 4.5 0.6 5,000 to 5,999 Dollars Community adults ...... 104 15.9 13.8 18.0 - 4.2 Selected adults ........ 51 16.3 18.6 14.0 4.6 Selected parents ....... 25 9.3 9.6 9.0 0.6 4,000 to 4,999 Dollars Community adults ...... 99 15.2 12.0 18.3 6.3 Selected adults ........ 54 17.3 17.9 16.6 1.3 Selected parents ....... 19 7.1 7.4 6.8 0.6 m TABLE IX (Continued) 79 Total Total PCt' Pct. Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ° 3,000 to 3,999 Dollars Community adults ...... 123 18.6 21.4 15.8 5.6 Selected adults ........ 62 19.8 20.5 19.1 1.4 Selected parents ....... 63 23.4 23.5 23.3 0.2 2,000 to 2,999 Dollars Community adults ...... 48 7.2 10.0 4.4 5.6 Selected adults ........ 22 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 34 12.7 8.1 17.3 - 9.2 1,000 to 1,999 Dollars Community adults ...... 44 6.6 10.3 2.8 7.5 Selected adults ........ 18 5.8 7.0 4.5 2.5 Selected parents ....... 36 13.4 16.9 9.8 7.1 Less than 1,000 Dollars Community adults ...... 37 5.5 8.8 2.2 6.6 Selected adults . ....... 10 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.0 Selected parents ....... 31 11.5 14.0 9.0 5.0 . Don't Know Community adults ...... 31 4.7 5.3 4.1 1.2 Selected adults ........ 14 4.5 3.8 5.1 - 1.3 Selected parents ....... 13 4.9 5.9 3.8 2.1 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults . ..... 24 3.6 4.4 2 8 1.6 Selected adults ........ 10 3.4 3.8 2.5 1.3 Selected parents ....... 14 5.2 5 1 5.3 - 0.2 \ \ Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. 80 Again the data Show that the parents of drop-outs are earn- ing less money than the drop—outs. A comparison of the matched groups shows that there is a predisposition for higher incomes to be centered in the graduates in the adult sample; however, the distortion is very small compared with the differences in the complete group. The matching sample for the parents of drOp-outs does show quite a distortion especially in the income ranges below 3,000 dollars, where a substantial per- centage of the drOp-outs are located. Some of this distortion can be accounted for by the fact that in matching this was the last variable. (Confer ante, page 29.) As a final statement about Table 1X, it should be said that the data here only confirm the findings related to Table VIII. In- COme and occupation are quite closely related and are often used as the basic criteria for establishing what is commonly called "social class,” VIII. PLACE OF RESIDENCE (RURAL-URBAN) A. review of selected research. The relatively poorer holding Power rate among rural youth in secondary schools is common knowledge: ". . . all authorities agree as to a 'lag' in rural areas. 9 'H 9 For instance, It has long been known . . . that youth living in urban communi- ties are in school attendance in greater preportion than are those living in non-farm rural communities. . . . In 1940 . the percentages . . . were 85 for city youth, 80 for non-farm \ 99Lloyd Allen Cook and Elaine Forsyth Cook. A Sociological Wm Education. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New Y°rkz 1950. p. 82. T 81 youth, and 69 for farm youth. For 1945, estimated percentages were respectively 83, 80, and 69; for 1949 they were 85, 82, and 75.100 In Ann Arbor, Michigan, the nonresident students comprise 47.3 per cent of the drOp-outs, although they make up only 28.7 per cent of the total student body.101 On the other hand, in Indiana it was found that ”the holding power of high schools in towns and small cities increases when a relatively high percentage of the pupils are transferred in from surrounding rural areas. This does not seem to be typical, however, as most other studies seem 104, 05,106 to find that rural students are more inclined to drop out.103' l 100 Walter H. Gaumnitz and Ellsworth Tompkins. Holding Power and Size of High Schools. Federal Security Agency. Circular 322. Office of Education. Washington: 1950. p. 12. 101A. J. Dahlburg. "Some Do Not Graduate." Ann Arbor High School. Ann Arbor, Michigan: August, 1953. (mimeographed) p. 13. 2 10 Beeman N. Phillips. Holding Power of the Schools of Indiana. Indiana Research Bulletin. Vol. 1. No. 2. Department Of Public Instruction. Indianapolis: 1954. (mimeographed) p. 7. 103M. E. Finch. "Alpena High School Follow-up of Dr0p- Outs for the School." The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Association. Vol. XVII. No. 4. Lansing: April 1953. P. 50. 104G. F. Ekstrom. "Why Farm Children Leave School.” SChool Review. University of Chicago Press. Chicago: 1947. 105William H. McCreary and Donald E. Kitch. "Now Hear Youth." Bulletin of the California State Department of Education. Vol. xxn. No. 9. Sacramento: 1953. p. 28. 106Walter H. Gaumnitz and Grace 5. Wright. Broadening the Eavices of Small High Schools. Federal Security Agency. Bulletin 1948. No. 9. U. 8. Printing Office. Washington: 1948. 82 In fact, research studies in Michigan show that "the rural student . drops out at nearly twice the rate of drop-outs for all other 10 students.” 7 The analysis of the data. There are more dr0p-outs in the rural areas than there are graduates, but three-fourths of the dr0p— outs in this study live in town, according to Table X. The parents of dr0p-outs are more inclined than the adult drOp-outs to live in the country. Undoubtedly some of this is due to the fact that "farm families, with only 9 per cent of the nation's income in 1930, reared l 8 a third of the nation's children." 0 The adult drop-out sample is perfectly matched. The match- ing Sample for the parents of drop-outs again shows more distortion than is desirable, but is not seriously out of balance. The differences in our groups can be summarized as follows: In the rural areas, only 38 per cent of the adult p0pulation were high school graduates, while in the towns 53 per cent had their diplomas. Parents of drop-outs (28.2 per cent) are more often found living in the rural areas than are graduates or adult drop-outs (24.6 per cent). 107The Michigan Committee on School Holding Power. LT: Provin Your School's Holding Power. Superintendent of Public In- St-1‘uction. Lansing, Michigan: 1954. p.10. 108Lloyd Allen Cook and Elaine Forsyth Cook. A Sociological éggroach to Education. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York: 1 950. p. 279. TABLE X PLACE OF RESIDENCE (RURAL-URBAN) 83 Sample Total Total 131:2; 113C; Pct. N . P t.. ' ' ' . o C Outs Grads lef Total Community adults ...... 758 100.0 99.9 100.0 Selected adults . ....... 378 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selected parents . ...... 298 100.1 100.0 100.0 Rural Community adults ...... 151 19.9 24.6 15.1 9.5 Selected adults ........ 68 18.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 77 - 25.9 28.2 23.5 4.7 Urban Community adults ...... 607 80.1 75.3 84.9 - 9.6 Selected adults . . .- ..... 310 82.0 82.0 82.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 221 ' 74.2 71.8 76.5 - 4.7 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. 84 IX . SUMMAR Y The total adult community (”community adults" sample). The following statements can be made about the pe0ple in the six com- munities in this study. 1. 2. 3. Approximately 50 per cent had completed high school. Less than 8 per cent had not completed the eighth grade. More than 22 per cent had taken training beyond high school but less than 6 per cent had graduated from col- lege. A. substantially larger percentage of the women when compared to the men had completed high school. There are more older people in these communities than is true of the state as a whole and these older people had less education than younger adults. People in the "white collar" jobs were high school grad- uates by a ratio of about three to one over drop-outs, while in the laboring class the drop-outs outnumbered the graduates by five to one. Farmers were more apt to have had a high school education than were the laborers, ser- vice workers, or people on pensions or relief. A very definite relationship does exist between income and high school graduation since four times as many- high school graduates as dr0p-outs earned over 8,000 dollars, while at the other end of the scale four times as many drop-outs as graduates earned 1,000 dollars or less. Less than 40 per cent of the adults living in the rural areas were high school graduates, while over 50 per cent of the urban dwellers had graduated. The matched adult ggup ("selected adults" sample). The matehed adult groups had the following characteristics: 1. It is very similar to the community sample with respect to its distribution among the individual communities, in ed- ucational achievement, in occupational distribution, in levels of income, and (rural-urban) place of residence. 85 It differs from the original sample by having more women, and by having more people above age fifty-five than the original. The graduate and drop-out samples were well matched with respect to community origin, sex, occupations, and rural-urban residence. The matching with respect to age and income was somewhat distorted, with drop-outs pre- dominating in the thirty-five to forty-four and fifty-five to Sixty-five age groups, while graduates predominated in all age groups up to thirty-five and from forty-five to fifty-four. Graduates with high incomes (7,000 to 12,000 dollars) were matched with drop-outs with some- what lower incomes (5,000 to 6,000 dollars). The matched parents of drop-outs group ("selected parents" 11213191- 1. This group had the following characteristics: It is very similar to the total community sample with respect to distribution among the individual communities and with respect to sex. It differs from the original group by having: (a) substantially more peOple with only an eighth grade edu- cation or less; (b) a much larger proportion of the people above fifty-five years of age; (c) many more people at the lower occupational levels (including farmers); (d) many less people with incomes above 4,000 dollars; and (e) more rural dwellers. The sample chosen to match the parents of dr0p-outs was well matched with respect to distribution among the individual communities, sex distribution, and rural—urban place of residence. On the other hand, as might be ex- pected, there was a big difference in the educational level of the two groups, with the parents of drop-outs having much less education. There was also a slight tendency for the parents of drOp-outs to be older. The drop-out sample also had slightly lower occupational levels. It had quite a few more people with incomes below 2,000 dollars than its matching sample. CHAPTER V THE RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER SELECTED SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLES TO DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL 1. INTRODUCTION The data on the other sociological factors investigated in this Study are presented in the same manner as were those in the pre— vious chapter. These variables are as follows: 1. Home ownership: Do you own or rent your home? 2. Size of family: Do you have any children? 3. Where is child in school now? 4. Relationship of drop-outs to other children in family? 5. Number of organizational memberships: To what organi- zations do you belong? 6. Type of contact with the school: What does your husband do for a living? What do you do? Do you have any children, or grandchildren, in school now? Do you. have any close personal friends who are closely connected with the school? 7. Average per cent of sample answering ”don't know" on forty-six questions and "percentage of responses" on seventeen open-ended questions. 11 . HOME OWNER SHIP A review of selected research. The relationship between dropping out of school and home ownership has been only partially explol‘ed by other research studies. 87 One statistical fact available from a research study by McGee in the state of New York reveals that "fifty per cent of the graduates and 25 per cent of the non-graduates' families owned their own 109 homes." Another study discovered that in less than ten years after graduation 30 per cent of all former students were buying their own homes. This data reveals . . . less than a 1 per cent difference between male graduates and male drop-outs, and between female graduates and female drop—outs . . . who were in the home-owning or home buying class. If the assumption that frequent moving is not conducive to home ownership is correct, then there is some secondary evidence that drop-out families would not own their own homes to the same extent as the graduates, for there is considerable evidence to indi— lll,112,113 . Cate that drOp-outs are more mobile. Dillon found ”that O 1 9George A. McGee. A. Study of the Holding Power of the CI‘oton-Harmon High School with Proposals for Improvement. Un- Published Ph.D. Thesis. Teachers College. Columbia University: 1952. p.116. State Department of Education. Vi_rginia's High School griduates and Drop-outs of 1939-40. Bulletin State Board of Ed- L1Cation. Vol. 33. No. 8. Richmond: 1951. p. 28. 111 A. J. Dahlburg. ”Some Do Not Graduate." Ann Arbor High School. Ann Arbor, Michigan: August 1953. (mimeographed) P. 12. 112 Holding Power Committee of the Grand Rapids Board of Education. Holding Power in the Grand Rapids, Michigan Public E1001 - K-14. (Progress vRTeport) Board of Education. Grand Rapids, Michigan: May 1953. p. 9. 113 . . . . . . The Governor's Study Commissmn. Migrants in Michigan. Michigan Study Commission on Migratory Labor. Lansing, Michigan: 1954. p. 26. 88 approximately two thirds of the school leavers had three or more transfers, in addition to normal transfers, and that about 17 per cent had five or more transfers." On the other hand, one study Shows that frequency of transfers is not a major contributing cause to the problem of early school leaving in Kentucky. In Detroit, Dresher found that neither “the number of times the family changed residence'l "the number of times the pupil changed school" was a statistically ' O u 16 51gnlficant cause of drop-outs. Most of the "social class" oriented studies of drop-outs Show 1101' that most of the drop-outs come from the "lower classes" who do not own their own homes. Therefore, it could be expected that the drop-outs and parents of drop-outs in this study would be less inclined to own their own homes than the rest of the population. The ana_lysis of the data. Table XI shows that the drop-outs in this study are significantly more inclined to own their own homes; and, furthermore, this is true even in comparison with the matched grOup of adults. Since this latter group was matched on income, sex, Place of residence, age, and occupation, it appears that getting a high Early School Leavers: A Majpr Educa- 114Harold J. Dillon. National Child Labor Commit— ti011811 Problem. Publication No. 401. tee- New York: 1949. p.‘28. 115 . 1 . Stanley Hecker. ”Early School Leavers in Kentucky.” Bul— W the Bureau of School Service. Vol. xxv. No. 4. College of ucation. University of Kentucky. Lexington: 1953. p. 34. "Factors in Voluntary Drop—Outs.“ 116Richard H. Dresher. Vol. XXXII. No. 5. p. 287. T~hELiDiérsonnel and Guidance Journal. 17August B. Hollingshead. Elmtown's Youth. John Wiley and 3°“ New York: 1949. pp. 102, 117. : Inc. 89 TABLE XI DO YOU OWN OR RENT YOUR HOME? Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct Sample DrOp— H.S. ' N . P t. D' . o C Outs Grads lff Total Community adults ...... 658 100.1 100.0 99.9 Selected adults ..... . . . 313 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents . . . . . . . 269 100.1 100.0 100.1 Rent Cemmunity adults . ..... 135 20.7 16.4 24.9 - 8.5 Selected adults ..... . . . 64 20.4 16.0 24.8 - 8.8 Selected parents ....... 37 13.8 13.2 14.3 - 1.1 Own C0mmunity adults ...... 520 78.9 83.6 74.1 9.5 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 247 79.0 84.0 73.9 10.1 Selected parents ....... 231 85.9 86.8 85.0 1.8 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ...... 3 0.5 0.0 0.9 - 0.9 Selected adults . . . . . . .. 2 0.7 0.0 1.3 - 1.3 Selected parents ....... 1 0.4 0.0 0.8 - 0.8 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 5 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 90 school education may actually reduce the chances of home ownership in these communities. Approximately 84 per cent of the drop-outs and almost 87 per cent of the parents of drop-outs Own their own home, yet home ownership in the state of Michigan averages only 55.4 per cent (47.4 per cent urban, 67.1 per cent rural nonfarm, and 75.8 per cent rural farm). 18 This high frequency of home ownership in the two drop-out Populations is an unexpected finding. Since this finding is based upon a carefully drawn 5 per cent random sample in Six scattered Communities, and since the chi square index of statistical significance 15 far above the 1 per cent level, some explanation is necessary. one explanation: The more education, the more mobility: . in 1951, 7 per cent of all male adults moved away from their county . . . in the twenty-five to thirty-five year old group . . . about sixteen out of . . . every hundred men who have only a high school education have been interstate migrants, vs. 29 per cent of those who have had at least one year of col- lege. Of men who complete college 46 per cent move. Of those who worked their way through in a college outside their home state, about 70 per cent don't go back.119 Another explanation: "Rejection rates for draftees in World War II . . . were 33 per cent" for health, mental, and educational 12 deficiencies. A. majority of these rejectees probably were not high school graduates. Yet most of this 33 per cent, quite possibly, 118 Bureau of the Census. U. S. Department of Commerce. §titistical Abstract of the United States. U. 5. Government Printing Office. Washington: 1951. p. 731. 119William H. Whyte, Jr. The Transients. Fortune Maga- zine. May 1953. p.115. 120Educational Policies Commission. Education for All Amer- ican Youth. National Education Association of the U. S. Washington: 1952. p. 15. 91 were able to earn sufficient money because of wartime conditions to get married and buy a home. Likewise, a larger preportion among graduates, when compared to drop-outs prior to the last war, Even in peacetime the Army, Navy, joined the armed forces. and Air Force are concentrating upon enlisting the graduates. In most cases a ”hitch" in the armed forces makes a "lad less likely 122,12 ,12 to settle down in the old home town." 3 4 The fact that the parents of drOp-outs seem to have been able to buy homes as frequently as, if not more frequently than, the other C11‘Op-outs--or the pepulation as a whole—-is rather startling, since it has already been pointed out that they were older, had poorer occu- Pations, and earned less money than the remaining drop-outs (Tables VII. VIII, IX). It is interesting to note that the persons in the match- ing sample for the parents of drop-outs are inclined to own their homes as frequently as either of the other drop-out groups, but this saJ'riple has been shown to have a slight distortion in the following (1) younger, (2) better occupations, (3) better earnings, and (4) more urban residences. Furthermore, and quite significantly, the data in Table x11 show that they had substantially less children. BOA: 0n the whole they are more like the parents of drop-outs on the 21 State Department of Education. Virginia's High School Graduates and Drop-outs of 1939-40. Bulletin State Board of Ed- ucation. Vol. 33. No. 8. Richmond: '1951. p. 8. 22 l Anon. Stay in School. U. 5. Navy Recruiting Service. Washington, D. C. 1954. U SAF R ec ruiting Of- 123 Straight from the Shoulder. Anon. flce‘ Washington, D. C. USAF Recruiting 124Anon. Fact Sheet, Airman Progzam. Office. Washington, D. C. 92 matched variables than they are like any other group in this study. Nevertheless, it does look as though parents of drop-outs and people like them (populationwise) are more inclined to own their own homes. In summary, this statement seems warranted: Even withOut knowing what the money value of these houses are, the drop-outs in these communities can be expected to have different kinds of attitudes about the school than might have been expected if, among the pe0p1e in this study like those in Elmtown, only "35 per cent either own or 2 are buying a home.“1 5 III. NUMBER OF CHILDREN A review of jelected research. Although many educators have I‘ecently conducted studies on the connection between size of family and dropping out of school, they generally have not felt that they had a significant relationship.126'127 But some investigators have found a relationship. Berry found that for small families drOp-outs de- c3I‘eased when the parents were better educated; in middle-sized fam- ilies (four to five children) the increase was less significant; and for farrlilies of six or more children, "no influence of parental education 2 . 1 5August B. Hollingshead. Elmtown's Youth. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York: 1949. pp. 104,116. 126William McCreary and Donald Kitch. "Now Hear Youth." Bulletin of the California State Department of Education. Vol. XXII. N0. 9. Sacramento: 1953. p. 36.- 127 - 11 Stanley Hecker. "Early School Leavers in Kentucky. Edited by Robert L. Hopper. Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service. Vol. XXV. No. 4. College of Education. University of Kentucky, Lexington: June 1953. p. 31. 93 was discernible." Bell, prior to 1938, found that the "percent- age of out-of—school youth . . . who did not go beyond eighth grade" was directly correlated with the "number of children in parental family" as follows: as families increase in size, the proportion who drop-out at the elementary level increases accordingly. There is three times as great a probability that the youth from a family of nine or more children will not go on beyond eighth grade as is the case with youth from a one-child family.lz9 MCG ee found that "in extremely large families six times as many 130 boys leave school as graduate." Bureau of Census figures for 1940 establish that the "number 0f Children ever born per 'mother' of completed fertility" (white, 45‘54 years old) did vary considerably with amount of education; mothers with less than four years of elementary education gave birth to an average of 5.2 children; mothers with five to eight years of elementary education averaged 4.0 children; mothers who attended high school averaged 3.2 children; high school graduates averaged 131 2-6 Children; and College graduates averaged only 2.4. \m 128John W. Berry. Secondary and Post Secondary Educational C:Ol'ltzlnuation in a Rural County. Eureka College, Eureka, Illinois: 1947. (mimeOgrathTevd) p. 33. The Social Aspects of Education. Edited Interstate Printers and Publishers, 180. 129Howard M. Bell. by Othanel B. Smith and others. InC- Danville, Illinois: 1951. p. 30George A. McGee. ”A Study of the Holding Power of the C‘rotOn-Harmon High School with Proposals for Improvement." Un- published Ph.D. Thesis. Teachers College. Columbia University: New York: 1952. pp. 114,115. U. S. Department of Commerce. 131Bureau of the Census. U. S. Government Printing Emcal Abstriivctvof the United States. 1C8. Washington: 1951. P- 21' 94 Most social scientists have observed and lamented the fact that ”the poor and the dumb, have more children than the rich and the smart." But David and Snyder feel that this concern about ”in- tellectual erosion” is unfounded. We see no evidence of a decline in the hereditary "quality" of our species; and we are convinced that if mankind goes to the dogs within the next ten or twenty centuries it is far more likely to do so as a result of inexcusable bungling in the management of social relation- ships than as a consequence of genetic deterioration.132 Another interesting development is discussed in Fortune: "Back in 1925 there were at least 3.5 children in the average com- pleted family," and, currently, the comparable figure is 2.4 child- ren. But a Ga110p pole indicated in 1945, "the American conception of the 'ideal' family Size was changing . .. . a 1941 poll showed 40 per cent of the women, twenty-one to thirty-four wanted only two children,” but by "1945 this had been reduced to 25 per cent . . ., the group favoring four children moved from 21 to 31 per cent." The article continues, . since 1945 . . . women have been making this ideal . . . a reality . all along the income scale . . . the middle classes are approach- ing a new norm . . . with three to four Children.l33 132 Paul R. David and Laurence H. Snyder. "Genetic Variability and Human Behavior." Social Psychology at the Crossroads. Edited by John H. Rohrer and Mizafer Sherif. Harper and Brothers, New York: 1951. pp. 53-83. References are made to'the following sources: Cyril Burt. Intelligence and Fertility. Occasional Papers on Eugenics, 2. Hamilton Hamish Medical Books. London: 1946. R . B. Cattell. Effects of Human Fertility Upon the Distribution of Intelligence and Culture. 39th Yearbook. Nat. Soc. Stud. Edu. Part I. pp. 221-223. Godfrey Thomson. The Trend of National Intelligence. Occasional Papers on Eugenics, 3. Hamilton Hamish Medical Books. London: 1947. 133Fortune Editors. ”Sixty-six Million More Americans-- The Baby Boom and the American Market." Fortune Magazine. January 1953. p. 94, passim. With reference to the following footnote: Clyde V. Kiser and P. K. Whelpton. “Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Families." The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. 22. New York: 1944. pp. 103-4. 11“"! I, .0 K 9.1.7. !‘ 95 This increased "middle class" interest in children is docu- mented, Fortune Magazine says, by an "exhaustive study called Social and Psycholpgical Factors AffectingFertility," conducted in 1947. This Indianapolis study showed that the "relatively fecund" group of husbands whose earnings since marriage . . were above 3,000 (pre-war dollars) had 1.79 children apiece, while husbands who had averaged less than 1,000 dollars had 2.83 children apiece. The average for professional . . . 1.64; for un- skilled laborers . . . 3.10; college graduates had 1.64 children . while husbands who stopped their education after eighth grade had 2.28 children. But more significant was this finding: . the demographers made a momentous discovery; when you consider only couples who successfully plan the number and spacing of their children, all of these relationships are reversed. In the Indianapolis group, about 28 per cent of the "rela- tively fecund" couples were systematically planning their families. Husbands whose average earnings since marriage were under 1,200' dollars had pathetically few children: the average came to 0.68 per husband. Where the earnings had been over 3,000 dollars, however, the average was up to 1.49 children. And among this group of planners, college men had more child- ren than grade-school men; professionals had more than semi- skilled laborers. . . . It would, however, be premature to sug- gest that larger families are already correlated with higher in- comes for the U. S. population as a whole. . . . Some demog- raphers believe that among the younger married couples--those still in their twenties-~1arger families may already be correlated directly with higher income, education, and social status.l34 Another reference to the same research by Burgess and Locke shows that in . native white couples of virtually completed fertility (wife 40—44) 18.8 per cent of the wives are childless and almost one-half (46.8 per cent) have one or two children. . . . About 134 Fortune Editors. Ibid., pp. 165-166. r .1 till I .IW..~ bit-sq 96 15 per cent have three children and 20 percent have four or more.135 The United States Census shows that in 1950 the average household in Michigan had 3.42 persons: "urban," 3.39; "rural non-farm," 3.41; and "rural farm," 3.70.136 The number of related persons per household in 1940 have the following percentages: two or less, 35 per cent; three (probably one child), 22 per cent; four, 18 per cent; five, 11 per cent; six, 6 per cent; and seven or more 137 (probably five or more children), 7 per cent. The analysis of the data. The number of families as shown in Table XII who have had no children (13.3 per cent) is approxi- mately what might be expected when compared with the 18.8 per cent quoted for the Indianapolis study.138 The national average of child- less married women shows that cities of 2,500 to 25,000 have 15.6 per cent; "rural non-farm" have 14.3 per cent; and "rural farm" 1 have 9.0 per cent. 39 135 ‘ Ernest W. Burgess and Harvey J. Locke. _The Family. American Book Company. New York: 1945. p. 497. With refer- ence to the following source: Clyde V. Kiser and P. K. Whelpton. Ibid. 6 13 U. S. Department of Commerce. United States Census of P0pulation General Characteristics Michigan, 1950. U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office. Washington: 1952. p. 55. 13 7Bureau of the Census. U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. U. S. Government Print- ing Office. Washington: 1951. p. 44. 138Ernest W. Burgess and Harvey J. Locke. The Family. American Book Company. New York: 1945. p. 496. As quoted from: Clyde V. Kiser and P. K. Whelpton. Ibid. 139Bureau of the Census. U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Ibid. p. 21. TABLE XII 97 NUMBER OF CHILDREN (DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN?) Pct. Pct. T Sample 13:11 T;::1 DrOp- H.S. gcftf ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 758 100.1 99.8 100.1 Selected adults ........ 378 100.2 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.3 100.0 100.0 No Children Community adults ...... 100 13.3 13.8 12.7 1.1 Selected adults ........ 52 13.8 11.1 16.4 - 5.3 Selected parents ....... 24 8.1 0.0 16.1 -l6.1 One Child Community adults ...... 160 21.1 20.7 21.5 - 0.8 Selected adults ........ 79 20.9 17.5 24.3 - 6.8 Selected parents ....... 67 22.5 18.8 26.2 - 7.4 Two Children Community adults . . . . . . 189 25.0 19.4 30.6 -11.2 Selected adults ........ 89 23.5 20.6 26.5 - 5.9 Selected parents ....... 58 19.5 14.1 24.8 -10.7 Three Children Community adults ...... 161 21.2 20.9 21.5 - 0.6 Selected adults ........ 87 23.0 25.4 20.6 4.8 Selected parents ....... 59 19.8 18.8 20.8 - 2.0 TABL E XII (C ontinue d) 98 Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Four Children Community adults ...... 79 10.4 11.4 9.4 2.0 Selected adults ........ 39 10.3 13.2 7.4 5.8 Selected parents ....... 37 12.5 19.5 5.4 14.1 Five Children Community adults . ..... 34 4.5 6.7 2.2 4.5 Selected adults . ....... 17 4.5 7.4 1.6 5.8 Selected parents . . 25 8.4 12.8 4.0 8.8 Six of Seven Children Community adults ...... 17 2.2 3.3 1.1 2.2 Selected adults ........ 10 2.7 3.7 1. 2.1 Selected parents ....... 13 4.4 6.7 2.0 4.7 Eight or More Children Community adults . . . . . . 18 2.4 3.6 1.1 2.5 Selected adults ........ 5 1.4 1.1 1. 0.5 Selected parents ....... 15 5.1 9.4 0.7 8.7 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 1 per cent. 99 The matched group of adults shows quite definitely that a high school education was inclined to lead to less fertility among women and/or less parenthood among men. In the complete community, adults who finished high school were much more inclined to have two children. They had families of five or more children only about one-third as often as did the drop-outs. The matched adult samples Show a high school education to be even more effective in reducing the size of families. A high school education is shown to be most effective in re- ducing family size among the parents of drop-outs and their match- ing sample. In fact, parents of drop-outs were six times more apt to have more than five Children than were other adults like them in social characteristics. They were fourteen times as apt to have eight or more children. There are two conclusions that can be drawn from the data presented in this section: first, that a smaller number of children are born to adults with high school educations than to people who do not finish high; school; and second, that children who drop out of school more frequently come from families with four or more child- ren than do children who finish high school. Another way of showing the preponderance of dr0p-out children from large families is to point out that 48.4 per cent of the parents of drop-outs had four or more children, whereas only 12.1 per cent of the matching sample had families that large. The use of matching samples to get a more ackeugate‘picture of the relationship between size of family and droppgin‘gwoiitllogbs‘vc‘hool \‘ I an . . - is well illustrated here, when the findings in this, study] are compared . k . L . . \ \ ’ 0 \\. f \ a 100 . 140,141 , to those of Dillon and Hecker. Dillon's study Showed that 51 per cent of the drop-outs in his study came from families with five or more children; yet he said: This information was obtained to determine whether it would indicate a relationship between the size of family and the proba- bility of early school leaving. The evidence seems to point to no relationship.142 Likewise, Hecker found that 50 per cent of his drop-outs came from families with five or more children; yet he erroneously stated, "No relationship exists between the number of Children in a family and 1 the probability of one of the young people leaving before graduation." Again quoting from Now Hear Youth, . . . size of family had little apparent relationship to drop-out rate. One—half of the drop-outs came from families having from one to three children and one-half came from larger fam- ilies.144 IV. WHAT GRADE IS CHILD IN SCHOOL? A review of selected research. The United States Census shows that in 1949 in the United States 55.5 per cent of the women fifteen to forty—nine years old had children under five years of age 40Harold J. Dillon. Early School Leavers: A Malor Educa- Eional Problem. Publication 401. National Child Labor Committee. New York: October 1949. Loc. cit., p. 20. 141Stanley Hecker. "Early School Leavers in Kentucky." Edited by Robert L. Hopper. University of Kentucky, Lexington: June 1953. Loc. cit., p. 31. 142Harold J. Dillon. Loc. cit., p. 20. 43Stanley Hecker. Loc. cit., p. 31. 144 William H. McCreary and Donald E. Kitch. Loc. cit., p. 36. 43 101 in their families as follows: 50.3 per cent in "urban" areas; 63.2 per cent in "rural non-farm"; and 63.1 per cent in "rural farm." This figure has increased 10 per cent since 1940 when the national 145 , average was 45.2 per cent. Census figures also Show that 49.9 per cent of the households in the United States "in 1950 had at least 146 one related child under 18" in the home. In most cases this would mean that these children were still in school. The analysis of the data. Here again the data in Table X111 Show that the drOp-outs had many more of their children out of school than did the graduates. This is partially due to the fact that as a group they are older, but the fact that their children have a greater tendency to terminate their education prematurely should not be overlooked. The extent of leaving school by the Children of drop- outs is well illustrated in the matched group, where it is to be ob- served that almost as many of the drOp-outs‘ children quit school. The total sample shows that about 30 per cent of the families in this study had children of preschool age. The fact that the graduates had substantially more preschool children is probably due for the most part to the fact that as a group they were younger, as shown in Table IV. Only 24.2 per cent of the parents of drop-outs had any child— ren left in school, while 32.9 per cent of the matching sample had children in school. Only 2 per cent of the parents of drop-outs had children of preschool age, while 8 per cent of the matching parents 14:5Bureau of the Census. U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington: 1951. p. 20. l 6 4 Bureau of the Census. Ibid., p. 26. 102 TABLE XIII WHERE IS CHILD IN SCHOOL NOW? Pct. Pct. T Sample 1331 ’13:? Drop- H.S. if}: ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 758 100.3 100.0 100.1 Selected adults ........ 378 100.2 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.2 100.0 100.0 Out of School Only Community adults ...... 217 28.4 44.0 12.7 31.3 Selected adults . ....... 105 27.8 36.0 19.6 16.4 Selected parents ....... 171 57.4 73.8 40.9 32.9 In and Out of School Community adults ...... 92 12.2 13.0 11.3 1.7 Selected adults ........ 55 14.6 16.4 12.7 3.7 Selected parents ....... 53 17.8 24.2 11.4 12.8 In School Only Community adults ...... 120 16.0 10.9 21.0 -10.1 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 54 14.3 11.6 16.9 - 5.3 Selected parents ....... 19 6.4 0.0 12.8 -12.8 Preschool--In and Out of School Community adults ...... 7 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.8 Selected adults ........ 4 0.0 2 1 Selected parents ....... 3 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 103 TABLE XIII (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff . ' Outs Grads 1 ' Preschool and In School Community adults ...... 118 15.7 9.3 22.0 -12.7 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 55 14.6 13.8 15.3 - 125 Selected parents ....... 13 4.4 0.0 8.7 - 8.7 Preschool Only Community adults . . . . . . 99 13.2 7.0 19.4 -12.4 Selected adults . ....... 51 13.5 9.0 18.0 - 9.0 Selected parents . ...... 12 4.1 0.0 8.1 - 8.1 No Children Community adults ...... 97 12.8 13.2 12.4 0.8 Selected adults ........ 51 13.5 10.6 16.4 - 5.8 Selected parents ....... 23 7.7 0.0 15.4 -15.4 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ...... 8 1.1 1.3 0.8 0 5 Selected adults ........ 3 0.8 0.5 1.1 - 0 6 Selected parents ....... 4 1.4 0 0 2.7 - 2 7 Community adults X2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. 104 had preschool children. This difference is probably due not only to the fact that the matching adults had more education, but that they were younger. In summation, Table XIII shows that the drOp-outs and parents of drOp-outs had substantially more children out of school than the families of graduates in this study. However, because of the distor- tion in the matching samples on the age factor mentioned on page 66, any relationship between dropping out of school and where children are in school can be only tentatively accepted. However, the data do seem to indicate that drop-outs and parents of drOp-outs do have a tendency (1)..tog start their families earlier, (2) to allow their child- ren to leave school at an earlier age, and/or (3) to stop having child— ren at an earlier age than do the rest of the population. The fact that the matching samples for the drop-outs and par- ents of drop-outs are not alike in respect to where their children. are in school makes this a potent uncontrolled variable when these two groups are compared in Chapter V for differences in their opinions about the school, since it is logical to expect that parent opinions about the school will change as their children enter, pass through, and leav e s chool . V. THE RELATIONSHIP OF DROP-OUTS TO OTHER CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY A. review of selected research. Most studies that have inves- tigated the relationship of siblings' education to the completion of high school seem to agree with Hollingshead when he compared graduates with early school leavers: "The mean educational level of brothers and sisters . . . was . . . striking in the two groups." T147 August B. Hollingshead. Elmtown‘s Youth. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York: p. 335. 105 The analysis of the data. In this study 95.5 per cent of the high school graduates did not have a child who had dropped out of school, while among the drop-outs only 65.5 per cent were without drOp-out children (Table XIV). Slightly less than one-half of the families who had had any drOp-outs had all of their children drop out. This was relatively true in all of the groups analyzed for this study. In summary, it can be said that the child of a parent who fails to complete high school will be almost eight times as apt to drOp out before completing high school as will the child of a high school graduate. Furthermore, when one child in a family dr0ps out of school, it is almost a fifty-fifty bet that the rest of the children in that family will also leave school early. However, it should be men- tioned that while coding the data for this study it was a common oc- currence to find in those families where some, but not all, of the children dropped out, that it was usually the younger children in the larger families who were able to complete school. VI. NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIPS A review of selected research. Innumerable studies have pointed out that drOp-outs were much less inclined to take part in . . . 148,14 ,150 extracurricular activities when they were In school. 9 148 John Postma. "Holding Power Studies at Battle Creek High School. The Bulletin. Vol. XVII. No. 4. Michigan Secondary School As— sociation. Lansing: April 1953. p. 43. 14C)Harold C. Hand. Principal Findi_ngs of the 1947-48 Basic Studies of the Illinois Secondary School Curriculum Program. Circular Series A. N6, 51. Bulletin No. 2. Supt. ofTublic Instruction. Springfield: May 1949. pp. 23-28. 150Richard H. Dresher. Factors in Voluntary DrOp-outs in the Public SecondarLSchools of Detroit, Michigan. Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon Sfate Collegef June 1953. p. 78. TABLE XIV 106 RELATIONSHIP OF DROP-OUTS TO OTHER CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY Total Total PCt' PCt‘ Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff ° ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 758 100.0 99.9 99.8 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 378 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.3 100.1 100.0 Out of School, ALL of Students Reachigg Ninth-Twelfth Grade Dropped Out Community adults ...... 57 7.4 13.7 1.1 12.6 Selected adults ........ 26 6.9 11.6 2.1 9.5 Selected parents. ....... 57 19.2 38.3 0.0 38.3 Out of School, SOME of Students ReachingNinth- Twelfth Grade Dropped Out Community adults ...... 60 7.8 14.0 1.6 12.4 Selected adults ........ 31 8.2 13.2 3.2 10.0 Selected parents . . . . . . . 60 20.2 40.3 0.0 40.3 In and Out of School, ALL of Students Reaching Ninth- Twelfth Grade Dropped Out Community adults ...... 7 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.2 Selected adults ........ 6 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 4.7 Selected parents ....... 7 2.4 4.7 1.. - I--- . is 41:11.. I; u.|.. .IHb‘ I ,i'ku Wiv. 107 TABLE XIV (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff ' ° Outs Grads 1 ' In and Out of School, SOME of Students Reaching Ninth- Twelfth Grade Dropped Out Community adults ...... 22 2.9 4.9 0.8 4.1 Selected adults ........ 17 4.5 7.4 1.6 5.8 Selected parents ....... 22 7.4 14.8 0.0 14.8 Preschool, In and Out of School, ALL of Students Reaching Ninth—Twelfth Grade Dropped Out Community adults . ..... 3 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.8 Selected adults ........ 3 0.8 1.6 0.0 1.6 Selected parents ....... 3 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 No Drop-outs, No Children Community adults ...... 608 80.6 65.5 95.5 -30.0 Selected adults ........ 295 78.1 64.6 91.5 -26.9 Selected parents ....... 149 50.1 0.0 100.0 -100.0 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. 108 These findings raise the interesting question of whether these stu- dents in adulthood will be less inclined to take part in the civic life of their communities. Ideally at least, the extracurricular activities . are laboratories of democratic living. Here boys and girls learn through practice, the lessons of shared planning, group deliberation, action for the general welfare, and personal reSpon- sibility which are the staff of the democratic fabric. Another interesting question is whether the fact that parents do not take part in the civic life of the community has an effect upon the adjustment of their children. Brown implies that it does, and he recommends that "parents should be'encouraged, in behalf of their children's social deveIOpment, to be active in at least two or three Berry indicates that parental community partici- organizations . ' ' 153 pation is related to post secondary education continuation. The analysis of the data. Table XV shows that drop-outs are less inclined to belong to organizations in the community. Par- ents who have children drop out of school "do not belong" to organ- izations to the same extent as do the other pe0ple in the community. The organizational memberships used for this study included church and labor union memberships in the tabulation. If these two types 151Educational Policies Commission. Learning the Ways of National Education Association of the U. S. and the Democracy. 1940. American Association of School Administrators. Washington: p. 192. 1521. Douglass Brown. "Some Factors Affecting Social Ac- ceptance of High School Pupils." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Uni- versity of Indiana. 1952. p. 194. 153 Secondary and Post Secondary Educational John W. Berry. fl Eureka College. Eureka, Illinois: Continuation in a Rural County. 3317. p. 41. (mimeographed) 109 TABLE XV NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIPS (TO WHAT ORGANIZATIONS DO YOU BELONG?) Total Total PCt‘ PCt' Pct. Sample No . Pct. DrOp- H.S. Diff Outs Grads ' Total Community adults . . . . 658 100.2 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 313 100.2 99.9 100.1 Selected parents ....... 269 100.1 100.0 99.9 None Community adults ...... 142 21.4 29.7 13.0 16.7 Selected adults .' ....... 61 19.5 25.6 13.4 12.2 Selected parents ....... 61 22.6 27.2 18.0 9.2 One Community adults ...... 197—“- 29.8 34.3 25.2 9.1 Selected adults . ....... 97 31.1 34.7 27.4 7.3 Selected parents ....... 95 35.3 36.8 33.8 3.0 Two Community adults ...... 145 22.1 20.5 23.7 - 3.2 Selected adults .. . . . . . . 71 22.7 18.6 26.8 - 8.2 Selected parents ....... 61 22.7 20.6 24.8 - 4.2 Three Community adults ...... 77 11.8 8.5 15.1 - 6.6 Selected adults ........ 40 12.8 12.8 12.7 0.1 Selected parents . . . . . . . 24 8.9 8.8 9.0 - 0.2 Four or More Community adults ...... 88 13.7 4.9 22.4 -17.5 Selected adults ........ 39 12.5 5.7 19.2 -13.5 Selected parents ....... 23 8.7 4.5 12.8 - 8.3 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ...... 9 ' 1.4 2 1 0.6 1 5 Selected adults ........ 5 1.6 2 0.6 1 9 Selected parents ....... 5 1.9 2 2 1.5 0 7 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 10 per cent. 110 of memberships were not included, the groups would be even more out of balance. To summarize, this statement seems warranted: The expe— rience which drop-outs fail to receive in the extracurricular in high school consequently predisposes a lack of participation in the civic life of the community. Furthermore, the lack of participation in the community's organizations on the part of the adults results in less acceptance of their children in the school system, which in turn gives them more inclination to dr0p out. VII. CONTACT WITH THE SCHOOL A. review of selected regearch. William Stanley says of the pe0p1e in the lower economic levels from which this and other studies have shown the great majority of the dr0p-outs are precipitated: "For the most part these children and their families live in a world of their own, socially and culturally isolated from the rest of the , 154 community. " The analysis of the data. Table XVI clearly shows that, al— though the parents of drOp-outs, and adults who did not finish high school, either have or had had as many children in school, they did not have nearly as many friends among the peOple who operate the schools as do the graduates. This fact demonstrates that the drop- outs and the parents of drop-outs are more disposed to rely upon 154William 0. Stanley. "Education and the Marginal Environ— ment." The Social Aspects of Education. From an unpublished manuscript? Edited by Othanel Smith and others. Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. Danville, Illinois: 1951. p. 171. 111 TABLE XVI TYPE OF CONTACT WITH THE SCHOOL? (WHAT DOES YOUR HUSBAND DO FOR A. LIVING? WHAT DO YOU D0? DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN OR GRANDCHILDREN IN SCHOOL NOW? DO YOU HAVE ANY CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS WHO ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE SCHOOL? Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct Sample DrOp- H.S. ' N . P t. ' . o C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 947 187.2 177.8 ' 196.3 Selected adults ........ 463 181.9 170.5 192.8 Selected parents ....... 397 215.1 230.8 198.9 Grandchildren in School Community adults ...... 52 9.9 16.1 3.7 12.4 Selected adults ........ 17 6.7 7.8 ' 5.5 2.3 Selected parents ....... 45 24.5 35.2 13.8 21.4 Had Children in School Community adults ...... 194 37.5 52.1 22.8 29.3 Selected adults ........ 100 39.2 47.7 30.7 17.0 Selected parents ....... 137 74.4 96.7 52.1 44.6 Have Children in School Community adults ...... 228 45.4 36.4 54.4 -18.0 Selected adults ........ 112 43.9 45.3 42.5 2.8 Selected parents ....... 59 31.9 28.6 35.1 - 6.5 112 TABLE XVI (Continued) Total Total PCt‘ PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D’ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Teacher or Administrator in School (including spouse) Community adults ...... 18 3.8 0.4 7.1 - 6.7 Selected adults . ....... 6 2.4 0.8 3. - 3.1 Selected parents ....... 1 0.6 1.1 0.0 1.1 Employed (other) in School (including spouse) Community adults ...... 4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 Selected adults . ....... 2 . .O . - 1.6 Selected parents . . . . . . . 2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 Friends--School Board Members Community adults ...... 35 7.1 3.4 10.8 - 7.4 Selected adults ........ 17 6.7 1.6 11.8 -10.2 Selected parents ....... 11 6.0 5.5 6.4 - 0.9 Friends--Administrators Community adults ...... 54 10.9 6.0 15.8 - 9.8 Selected adults ........ 26 10.3 6.3 14.2 - 7.9 Selected parents ....... 15 8.1 4.4 11.7 - 7.3 Friends--Teachers Community adults ...... 265 52.6 44.2 61.0 -16.8 Selected adults ........ 131 51.4 43.0 59.8 —16.8 Selected parents ....... 102 55.1 51.6 58.5 — 6.9 v—fi V TABLE XVI (Continued) 113 Total Total PCt° PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' FriendS--Other Employees in School Community adults ...... 21 4.2 3. 5.0 1.6 Selected adults . ....... 9 3.5 3.1 3.9 0.8 Selected parents ....... 7 3.8 3.3 4.3 1.0 Former Teacher Community adults ...... 14 2.9 0.8 5.0 4.2 Selected adults . ....... 8 3.2 . 6.3 - 6.3 Selected parents . ...... 6 3.2 1.1 5.3 4.2 No Contact with Schools Community adults ...... 57 11.1 13.1 .1 4.0 Selected adults . ....... 34 13.4 14.9 11.8 3.1 Selected parents ....... 9 4.8 1.1 .5 - 7.4 One or More, No Answvewrs Community adults ...... 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 Selected adults ........ 1 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.8 Selected parents ....... 1.6 1.1 2.1 1.0 Number in community adults sample = 508. Number in selected adults sample = 255. Number in selected parents sample = 185. 114 reports from their children, and less able to hear reports from school personnel in the formation Of their Opinions about the school, thanthe graduates. It also Suggests that the drop-outs and parents Of drop-outs have less opportunity and/or less desire to extend the influence of their opinions about school operations to the persons Operating the schools. The effect of this selective process, which impeded a demo- cratic two-way flow Of information between the home and the school, is well stated by Hamlin: We should be keenly aware that we get different kinds of results from different kinds Of citizens' groups. The organization Of citizens' groups to influence the public schools should not be left to chance. If we are to have truly public schools, the pub- lic must be adequately and fairly represented in the groups that are to shape the schools' future.155 The data here also suggest that "many, probably most, teach- ers are using their profession to 'get ahead in the world,‘ " and therefore have developed most Of their friendships among the pe0p1e "with standards of refinement and ambition," rather than among the parents of lower class children, where their leadership, as well as friendship, would help produce a more wholesome educational at-‘ 156 mosphere for children who are inclined to "leave school early." 155Herbert M. Hamlin. Citizens' Committees in the Public Schools. Interstate Printing Company. Danville, Illinois: 1952. p. 237. 156W. L. .Warner, R. E. Havighurst, and M. B. Loeb. "The Social Role of the Teacher." igadings in Social Psychology. Edited by Newcomb and Hartley. Henry Holt and Company. New York: 1 947. p. 479. 115 VIII. THE RELATIONSHIP OF "DON‘T KNOW" RESPONSES, AND AMOUNT OF VERBALIZATION TO DROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL A. review of selected research. A. booklet by Science Research Associates says that “Americans who have the will to know are the best informed people in the world, yet twenty per cent don't know when polled on any public question."157 The analysis Ofvthe data. The data presented in Table XVII are compiled from sixty-three Of the questions asked in this study.— They are presented because the "don't know" responses and the multiple responses in this survey make interpretation of the differ- ences Of opinion between graduates and drOp-Outs more difficult. The extent and meaning Of these factors are partially clarified in the following discussion. A "don‘t know" response may imply any one or a combina- tion of attitudes: (1) a "don't know" response may mean what it says, that the person does not know; (2) it may mean that the person is not sure, and does not care to guess at the answer; (3) it may mean that the person just does not care to go to the trouble Of mak- ing an answer, particularly where an opinion is asked for; (4) it may mean that the person is not i’nterested--that he doesn't want to waste his time discussing the matter; (5) it may mean that the per- son does not want to say what he thinks because Of embarrassment to himself; (6) it may mean that he does not want to say what he thinks for fear of hurting or offending or shocking the interviewer; (7) it may mean that he does not know what the "culturally approved" 157U. S. Office of Education. Good Schools Dofin't Just I-Elppen. Science Research Associates, Chicago: 1951. p. 8. 116 TABLE XVII AVERAGE PER CENT OF SAMPLE ANSWERING "DON'T KNOW" ON FORTY-SIX QUESTIONS, AND PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSES ON SEVENTEEN OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS Total Total PCt‘ PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. Diff ' ' Outs Grads ' Per Cent Answering_"Don‘t Know" Community adults . . . . . . 46 12.2 16.2 8.2 8.0 Selected adults ........ 46 12.2 15.8 8.7 7.1 Selected parents ....... 46 14.8 16.9 12.7 4.2 Percentage of Respgnses Community adults . . . . . . 17 119.2 115.2 123.1 - 7.9 Selected adults ........ 17 119.9 116.3 123.6 - 7.3 selected parents ....... 17 115.6 113.6 117.6 - 4.0 117 or "respectable" answer is under the circumstances; (8) it may mean that he does not dare to say what he thinks; and (9) it may mean that the interviewer just could not make a valid interpretation of the interviewees response; however, in most cases these types of responses are classified in the "no answer" column. No doubt there are other reasons why some persons respond "don't know" to questions of fact or opinion in an interview; however, the range of responses already enumerated shows that an interpretation Of the meaning of such responses cannot be made with finality. IX. SUMMARY The total adult community ("community adults" sample). The following statements can be made about the peOpIe in the six com- munities in this study: 1. Pe0p1e who graduate from high school are less inclined than drOp-Outs to Own their Own homes. 2. Persons with a high school education are much less apt than drOp-Outs to have large families. 3. DrOp-Outs as a group are almost four times as likely as high school graduates to have all Of their Children out Of school, since they are Older and their children quit school earlier. 4. Whereas less than 5 per cent of the graduates had a Child drop out of school, among the drop-outs almost 45 per cent had at least one child drOp out of school. 5. Persons who did not graduate from high school did not belong to as many civic Organizations as the graduates. 6. Drop-outs have much less contact with the school through friendships with school personnel than do high school graduates. 7. Dr0p-Outs are much less vocal than are graduates about the school. 118 The matched adult group belected adults" sample). The matched adult group had the following characteristics: 1 . In this sample the drop-outs are just as apt to own their own homes as are the drop-outs in the total community, and likewise they are significantly more inclined to own their own homes than are the graduates, They are as inclined to have large families as are the drop-outs in the total sample, and larger families are even more evident when compared with graduates, except at the level of eight or more children. The drop-outs had less children out of school than the drop—outs in the original drop-out group, but there is strong evidence that drop-outs start their families ear- lier and st0p having children at an earlier age than grad- uates. They are just as likely to have children drop out as were drop-outs in the original sample, and they are much more likely to have their children drop out than were the grad- uates. They are as inclined to join organizations as were the dr0p-outs in the total population, and they are much less inclined to join organizations than the graduates. The drop-outs in this sample have more children in school than did the drop-outs in the original drop-out group, and although they have or had many more children in school than the graduates, they do not have as many friends among the school personnel. The drop-outs in this group are as inclined to respond "don't know," and to respond less often, as were the drop- outs in the original sample, and they are much more in- clined to do so than the graduates. The similarity between this matched sample of graduates and drop-outs, and the community sample of graduates and drOp-Outs, where the sociological variables were not held constant, indicates that removing the differences between the two samples with respect to age, place of residence, sex, occupation, and income had almost no perceptible effect upon the variables investigated in this chapter, 119 except for the fact that the drOp-outs in this sample have less child- ren out of school. The matched parents of drOp-outs group ("selected parents" sample). This group had the following characteristics: 1. More parents of droP-outs owned homes than was true of the drop-outs in the original drop-out group, and they had as large a percentage of home owners as did their match- ing sample of adults. 2. They had substantially more children than the original drop-out group and had a much larger proportion of large families than their matching sample. 3. Almost twice as many of the families in this group, com- pared to the original dr0p—out group, had no children left in school; however, 15 per cent of the adults in the match- ing group had never had any children. 4. They joined less organizations than the original group, and they showed a tendency (though not statistically significant) to join less organizations than their matching group. 5. They had had more children and grandchildren in school than the original group, but they did not have as many friends among school personnel as did their matching groups. 6. They were slightly less verbal about the school than the original sample, and they also' replied "don't know" and responded less often than did their matching sample. A. review of the two previous chapters reveals that the per- sons in this study who did not complete high school had been, and are now, at a disadvantage when compared to persons who graduated. They worked harder, but for less money; they owned more homes, but belonged to fewer civic organizations; they had more children, but had fewer friendships among the school personnel who shared the responsibility for educating their children. The data in this study did not show whether these disadvan- tages were the result of lack of education, or whether a lack of 120 education caused the disadvantages; but it did establish that there was a relationship between them. To draw an analogy: it seems that attempts to decide upon first causes in this case are almost as futile as the attempts to decide "what came first, the chicken or the egg." However, there was some evidence that, among all of the variables looked at, a high school education was one of the most, if not the most, powerful factor influencing the economic and social level of the pe0ple herein studied. Most of the factors investigated in this chapter are generally used as criteria for success in the American culture. In almost all cases the dr0p-outs and even more significantly parents of drop-outs were shown to be "less successful" when compared with the grad- uates and parents of graduates in this study. In other words, it seems safe to assume that a high school education is a very impor— tant-element, if not the most important element, in determining "levels of success" in the American culture. 2r CHAPTER VI THE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OPINIONS REGARDING THE VALUE OF EDUCATION 1. INTRODUCTION The material presented in this chapter and the following two chapters will deal with the hypothesis stated earlier: that persons who failed to complete high school (holding constant age, sex, income, occupational status, and place of residence) will have different Opin- ions about education and the school from those who completed high school. Further, that parents whose children failed to complete high school (again holding constant age, sex, income, occupational status, and place of residence) will have different opinions about education and the school from adults whose children did not fail to complete high school. All of the data are presented in tables which are organized in the same manner as were those used in Chapters IV and V. Prior to the presentation of the data, a selected review of the literature and research having a relationship to each topic under in- vestigation is presented. . These reviews in most cases suggest cer— tain generalizations or exploratory hypotheses which are related to the basic hypothesis (i.e., difference between dr0p-outs and grad- uates). Then the analysis of the data is presented to show its re- lationship to these generalizations and/or hypotheses, as well as to the basic hypothesis. 122 Each tOpic selected for investigation includes several questions. The analysis of the replies to each of these questions shows the ex- tent of the difference of Opinion between drop-outs and graduates on that question as it relates to the topic under investigation. The topics which are presented in the following three chapters are: l. The value of education. 2. The teacher. The teaching methods. The school program. The elementary school. The reasons for leaving school. «10‘th The general effectiveness of the school. The first of these, "the value of education," is presented in this chapte r . II. THE VALUE OF EDUCATION A review of selected reseafih. It has been generally accepted by school people that one of the major reasons for drop-outs is the attitude of parents toward education. "I can't do anything with Johnny, because of his home," is commonly heard in many schools. However, R. Sando (in his doctoral thesis) says, "Few Specific studies have been made showing the relationship of parents' Opinions on various school issues to the holding power of schools.” He concludes, how- ever, that, even though most of the evidence is subjective in nature, there is a relationship between parental attitude and a student's con- 1 8 tinuing in school. 5 ———' 158Rudolph F. Sando. "A. Comparative Study of Early School Leavers." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, 1952. (microfilm) pp.1 et seq. 123 Hollingshead says that the "family culture . . . is the most powerful factor . . . which conditions a child's continuation in or withdrawal from school." To illustrate, he ends his Chapter 13 with the following quotation made by an aged janitress: ”Why work so hard tryin' to learn sumpthin' and spend all that money? Go to work and have a good time'. "159 Hollingshead, along with W. Lloyd Warner, Robert J. Havighurst, and Martin B. Loeb, authors of Who Shall Be Educated;160 and Allison Davis, Burleigh B. Gardner, and Mary R. 161 Gardner, authors of Deep South; as well as many other writers on sociological class structure in America seem to support the contention that the "lower class" does not place a high value upon , 1 62 educat1on. This viewpoint is also expressed commonly among educators in their research and writings. Virgil Stinebaugh, in the School Board Journal, says , . the influence of the parents . . . are very important. Un- less learning and education are held in great favor . . . efforts of the school staff to encourage pupils to remain in school cannot be entirely effective.163 159August B. Hollingshead. Elmtown's Youth. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York: 1949. pp. 358 et seq. 160W. Lloyd Warner, H. J. Havighurst, and M. B. Loeb. Who Shall Be Educated. Harper and Brothers, New York: 1944. p. XI. 161Allison Davis, Burleigh B. Gardner, and Mary R. Gardner. Deep South. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1941. 162W. Lloyd Warner, Marcia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells. Social Class in America. Science Research Associates, Chicago: T949. 63Virgil Stinebaugh. "Why Pupils Leave School." The American School Board Journal. Vol. 123. No. 3. The Bruce PablishingfiCompany, New York: 1951. p. 40. n.1, .\ I. ill: r “Illid‘ w \JAC‘ 124 Articles by Weinrich, Snepp, and Butterfield in the Bulletins of the National Association of Secondary School Principals all arrive at the 164,165,166 same conclusion. H. C. Hand gives credit to the sociolo- gists for telling us "that families in the different socioeconomic . . . 16 classes hold quite different expectations in reference to the school." 7 The State Department of Education of Kentucky, in its school at- tendance circular, says, "Over three-fourths of the 18,553 in this age group [speaking of ages 7 to 15] failed to enroll because Of parental indifference, indifference of the child, or miscellaneous causes." Wayne 7.0. Reed, writing in School Life, shows h0w commonplace this attitude is when he says, Those of you who have taught, know how difficult it is to reach the parents of the failing or delinquent child. They don't visit school, they don't want to talk to the teacher, and sometimes they don't want their adolescent boys and girls to be in school. 69 164Ernest F. Weinrich. "How Can a School Increase Its Holding Power of Youth?" The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 36. No. 185. Washington: March 1952. pp. 126 et seq. 165Daniel W. Snepp. ”Why They Drop Out." The Bulletin 0f the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 35- No. 180. Washington: 1951. pp. 138 et seq. 166E. E. Butterfield. "Examining Our Public Relations." The Bulletin of the National Association Of Secondary School Principals. V01. 37. No. 194. Washington: April 1953. pp. 359 et seq. 167Harold c. Hand. Principal Findipgs of the 1947-1948 Wtflesfof the Illinois Secondary School Curriculum Prggram. Bulletin No. 2. Circular Series A. No. 51. Superintendent of Pub- 11C InstructiOn. Springfield: May 1949. p. 17. 168D. J. carty. The Extent and Causes of Non Enrollment in W)" 1946—4'7. School Attendance Circular NOT 4. Superintendent o Pu.blic Instruction. Frankfurt: 1947. P. 8. (mimeographed) 169Wayne 0. Reed. "Better Education for All Our Children." W. Vol. 36. No; 5. Office of Education. 1954. p. 68. 125 George McGee, in his doctoral thesis, found that only 70 per cent of the parents of nongraduating students opposed their leaving school, while 91 per cent of his selected graduates said that their parents would oppose their leaving school.170 Russell Curtis confirmed that parents' attitudes are important when he found that, In those schools which have the greatest drOp-Out rate, there was the greatest tendency for the seniors to rank high on the list the reason, "my parents encouraged me to stay."171 Ray Hill, in summarizing the findings of a drop-out study at Allegan in the Michigan Secondary School Bulletin, says, "Parents and friends were the most important influences in keeping the would be drop-out in school."172 M. Lambert of the N.E.A.. Research Division takes a look at what influence drOpping out of .school has upon adult attitudes, and says, . quitting school has an important public relations implica- tion for all who are interested in building better schools. Those who quit . . . become the citizens of tomorrow. What will be their attitude toward education? These drop—outs are going to be in the drivers seat. They will outnumber the graduates for many years to come . . . they will approve or reject bond is— sues . . . and they will have children who will be tempted to follow their parents' examples.”3 1 O 7 George A. McGee. "A. Study of the Holding Power of the Cro- ton-Harmon High School With Proposals for Improvement." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Teachers College, Columbia University. 1952. p. 131. 171Russell Curtis. "The Reasons for Staying in School as Given by Seniors of the Seven Indianapolis Public High Schools." Un- published Ph.D. Thesis. Indiana University: 1953. p. 245. 2 , 17 Ray Hill. "Summary of the Holding Power Study of Allegan, Michigan, 1951-52." The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Association. Vol. XVII, No. 4. Lansing: April 1953. p. 52. 173 M. Lambert. "Increasing Education's Holding Power." N.E.A. Journal. December 1950. p. 666. 126 The alialysis of the data. The questions which were analyzed in this study to explore whether adults who complete high school and/or have children who complete high school place more value On education than those who failed or had children who failed were as follows: 1. As you know, the law requires that all pupils stay in school until they are sixteen but then some drop out before they graduate. Do you think a greater effort should be made to keep all pupils in school until they graduate? 2. About what proportion of the pupils who graduate from your high school do you think should go on to college? 3. What do you think of the present cost of running your school? Who is the superintendent of your school? Who is the principal of your school? Who is the president of your board of education? «10‘er Do you remember receiving a booklet about your schools within the last month or two? 8. Did you read it? 9. DO you usually vote in school elections? Table XVIII shows that over 70 per cent of the people in the community feel that a greater effort should be made to keep pupils in school. It does not show that the drOp-Outs value education less than the high school graduates. In fact, when other variables are controlled, more of the drop-outs and parents of drop-outs in the sample favored more effort in keeping children in school than did the parents of non-drOp-outs, but not to a degree which is statistically significant. In Table XIX it is again evident that the drop-outs and parents of drOp-Outs were inclined to favor a higher percentage of students TABLE XVIII 127 AS YOU KNOW, THE LAW REQUIRES THAT ALL PUPILS STAY IN SCHOOL UNTIL THEY ARE SIXTEEN, BUT THEN SOME DROP OUT BEFORE THEY GRADUATE. DO YOU THINK A GREATER EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO KEEP ALL PUPILS IN SCHOOL UNTIL THEY GRADUATE ? Pct. Pct. Sample T132811 1:31 Drop- H.S. if}? i ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults ...... 409 100.2 100.0 100.0 Selected adults .' ....... 190 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 155 100.1 100.0 100.0 239. Community adults ...... 77 19.0 17.6 20.3 - 2.7 Selected adults ........ 31 16.3 I 14.7 17.9 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 29 18.7 15.6 21.8 - 6.2 Yes Community adults ...... 289 70.7 70.7 70.6 0.1 Selected adults ........ 138 72.7 75.8 69.5 6.3 Selected parents ....... 103 66.5 71.4 61.5 9.9 More, but Not All Community adults ...... 41 10.0 10.8 9.1 1.7 Selected adults ........ 20 10.5 8.4 12.6 - 4.2 Selected parents ....... 21 13.6 10.4 16.7 - 6.3 Don't Know Community adults ...... 2 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 Selected adults ........ l 1.1 0.0 1.1 Selected parents ....... 2 1.3 2.6 0.0 2 6 Community adults x2 < 50 per cent. Selected adults x2 < 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 128 TABLE XIX ABOUT WHAT PROPORTION OF THE PUPILS WHO GRADUATE FROM YOUR HIGH SCHOOL DO YOU THINK SHOULD GO ON TO COLLEGE? Total Total PCt' PCt‘ Pct. Sample NO Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults ...... 508 100.1 99.9 100.0 Selected adults ........ 255 100.3 100.3 100.0 Selected parents . . . . . . . 185 100.2 100.1 100.0 Less than 20 Per Cent Community adults . ..... 30 6.0 4.1 7.9 - 3.8 Selected adults . ....... 15 5.9 5.5 6.3 - 0.8 Selected parents . ...... 8 4.3 3.3 5.3 - 2.0 About One-fourth (20 to 29 per cent) Community adults . ..... 40 8.0 5.6 10.4 - 4.8 Selected adults ........ 19 7.5 5.5 9.4 - 3. Selected parents ....... 10 5.4 3.3 7.4 - 4.1 About One—third (30 to 39 per cent) Community adults ...... 34 6.8 5.2 8.3 - 3.1 Selected adults ........ 20 7.9 5.5 10.2 - 4.7 Selected parents ....... 11 6.0 5.5 6.4 - 0.9 About One-half (40 to 59 per cent) Community adults ...... 90 17.8 15.7 19.9 - 4.2 Selected adults . ....... 52 20.4 18.8 22.0 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 28 15.1 13.2 17.0 - 3.8 About Two-thirds (60 to 69 per cent) Community adults ...... 11 2.2 2,2 2.1 0.1 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 6 2.4 2.4 2.4 0 Selected parents ....... 4 2.2 3.3 1.1 2.2 it s\u \x‘lulpl' l! .n Hullm‘ Lat. ..v n ‘. wt. 129 TABLE XIX (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. sample No Pct Dmp' H‘S' D'ff . ' Outs Grads 1 ' About Three-fourths (70 to 89 per cent) Community adults ...... 12 2.4 1.5 3.3 - 1.8 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 5 2.0 2.4 1.6 .8 Selected parents ....... 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AllLvNearly All (90 per cent of more) Community adults ...... 55 10.8 12.0 9 5 2.5 Selected adults . ....... 27 10.6 13.3 7.9 5.4 Selected parents . ...... 20 10.8 11.0 10 6 0.4 Condition Stated, Percentage Not Given Community adults . ..... 171 33.5 37.1 29.9 7.2 Selected adults ........ 76 29.8 29.7 29.9 - 0.2 Selected parents . ...... 75 40.6 42.9 38.3 4.6 Don't Know Community adults . ..... 62 12.0 16.1 7.9 8.2 Selected adults ........ 32 12.6 16.4 8.7 7.7 Selected parents ....... 27 14.7 16.5 12 8 3.7 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ...... 3 0.6 0.4 0.8 - 0.4 Selected adults ........ 3 1.2 0.8 1.6 - 0.8 Selected parents ....... 2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 -———~ “- Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 30 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 130 going to college. The differences are statistically significant in the community sample, but not in the other samples. These two tables seem to refute the conclusion so commonly held that adults who dropped out and parents of drop-outs do not value education as highly as do other adults. In fairness to the other studies, it should be pointed out that it is entirely possible that small towns in Michigan may be quite different from towns the size of Elmtown or larger. It should be also pointed out that these questions do not measure "intensity of feeling," nor do they differ- entiate between value of education of "my children" as compared to education for "all children." It is entirely possible that people who favor more education for all children would not necessarily be inclined to exert a greater effort to keep their children in school. Likewise, the people who prefer to restrict educational opportunity might be very insistent that their children be given that Opportunity. Table XX gives further insight into this problem. While al- most 65 per cent of the general population think that the cost of education is reasonable or too low, we find that a significant num— ber of the drOp-outs feel that the cost is too high. This could mean that approximately 5 per cent more of the drop—outs and parents of drOp-outs than of the graduates do not place a high value on educa- tion; but instead it is entirely possible that this represents a feeling among this 5 per cent that they should not have to pay more money fOr something which their neighbor received but they and their child- ren did not. The next three questions indirectly measure the value placed upon education, since it is assumed that people who value education will be more inclined to know the people who play the leading roles in providing it. Tables XXI, XXII, and XXIII all show very conclu- sively that in comparison with the graduates the drop-outs and the 131 TABLE XX WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PRESENT COSTS OF RUNNING YOUR SCHOOL? Total Total Pct. PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. Diff ° . Outs Grads ° Total Community adults ...... 758 100.1 99.9 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.0 100.0 99.9 Selected parents ....... 298 100.1 100.0 99.9 Too High Community adults ...... 96 12.6 17.3 7.8 9.5 Selected adults . . ...... 42 11.1 14.3 7.9 6.4 Selected parents . . ..... 48 16.1 16.8 15.4 1.4 Reasonable (high, but can't be helped) Community adults ...... 428 56.6 50.3 62.9 -12.6 Selected adults ........ 221 58.5 50.8 66.1 ~15.3 Selected parents ....... 157 52.7 52.3 53.0 - 0.7 Too Low, More Money Needed Community adults ...... 70 9.3 5.9 12.6 - 6.7 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 34 8.9 6.3 11.6 - 5.3 Selected parents ....... 24 8.1 5.4 10.7 - 5.3 Don't Know Community adults ...... 158 20.8 25.9 15.6 10.3 Selected adults . ....... 80 21.2 28.6 13.8 14.8 Selected parents ....... 67 22.5 25.5 19.5 6.0 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ...... 6 0.8 0.5 1.1 - 0.6 Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0.0 0.5 - 0.5 Selected parents ....... 2 0.7 0.0 1.3 - 1.3 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 50 per cent. 132 TABLE XXI WHO IS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF YOUR SCHOOL? Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct Sample DrOp- H.S. ' N . P t. ' . o C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 758 100.2 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.1 99.9 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.1 100.0 100.0 Correct Community adults ...... 485 64.2 53.4 74.9 -21.5 Selected adults . . ...... 239 63.3 55.6 70.9 -15.3 Selected parents ....... 164 55.1 47.0 63.1 -16.1 Incorrect Community adults ...... 57 7.6 7.0 8 l — 1.1 Selected adults ........ 27 7.1 6.3 7. - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 29 9.7 10.7 8.7 2.0 Don't Know Community adults ...... 199 26.1 37.3 14.8 22.5 Selected adults ........ 100 26.5 35.4 17.5 17.9 Selected parents ....... 96 32.3 40.3 24.2 16.1 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ..... . 17 2.3 2.3 2.2 0. Selected adults ........ 12 3.2 2.6 3.7 - 1.1 Selected parents ....... 9 3.0 2.0 4.0 — 2.0 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 2 per cent. 133 TABLE XXII WHO IS THE PRINCIPAL OF YOUR HIGH SCHOOL? Sample Total Total 131:2; EC; ' Pc t . N . P t. ‘ ’ ' ' . o c Outs Grads lef Total Community adults ...... 508 100.2 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 255 100.1 100.1 100.0 Selected parents ....... 185 100.1 100.0 100.0 Correct Community adults . ..... 24 4.8 4.1 5 4 - 1.3 Selected adults . ....... 11 4.3 4.7 0.8 Selected parents . ...... 7 3.9 6.6 l 1 5.5 Incorrect Community adults ...... 272 54.4 39.0 69.7 -30.7 Selected adults . ....... 140 55.0 46.1 63.8 -17.7 Selected parents ....... 79 42.6 36.3 48.9 ~12.6 Don't Know Community adults ...... 206 39.8 55.4 24.1 31.3 Selected adults ........ 99 38.8 46.9 ' 30.7 16.2 Selected parents ....... 95 _ 51.4 52.7 50.0 2.7 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults .1 ..... 6 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.7 Selected adults ........ 5 2.0 2.4 1.6 0.8 Selected parents ....... 4 2.2 4.4 0.0 4.4 “ Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 2 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 1 per cent- 134 TABLE XXIII WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF YOUR BOARD OF EDUCATION? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct- Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults . ..... 758 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.1 100.0 100.1 Correct Community adults . ..... 300 39.8 31.1 48.4 -l7.3 Selected adults . ....... 152 40.2 31.2 49.2 -18.0 Selected parents ....... 109 36.6 30.9 42.3 -ll.4 Incorrect Community adults ...... 176 23.2 23.3 23.1 0.2 Selected adults ........ 89 23.6 25.4 21.7 .7 Selected parents ....... 74 24.9 25.5 24.2 1.3 Don't Know Community adults ..... . 276 36.3 44.8 27.7 17.1 Selected adults ........ 131 34.7 42.3 27.0 15.3 Selected parents ....... 112 37.6 41.6 33.6 8.0 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ...... 6 0.8 8 0.8 0.0 Selected adults ........ 6 1.6 1.1 2.1 - 1.0 Selected parents ....... 3 l 0 .0 0. 2.0 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 5 per cent. “X- la 1;. 135 parents of drop-outs are not as likely to know their superintendent of schools, their high school principal, nor the president of the board of education. It is possible to partially explain this lack of knowl— edge about the principal and superintendent by the fact that they have or have had less personal contact with the school Officials since they and their children dropped out. However, with respect to the presi- dent of the school board it has already been established that the drOp-outs are more inclined to own their own homes (confer ante, page 89), and therefore could be expected to know more about their community leaders. Therfore (if the assumption made in the begin- ning of this paragraph is acceptable), there is an indication that drOp- outs and parents of drOp-outs are less inclined to value education than are the high school graduates. If the assumption that people are more inclined to read and remember things which have value for them is accepted, then the information in Tables XXIV and XXV shows that the drop-outs and parents of drop-outs place less value upon education by being less inclined to remember that a booklet about the school had arrived in their mailbox within the previous month. Since the number of people who were asked "Did you read it?" was very small, much signifi- cance cannot be attached to the findings, but the evidence indicates that even when the drOp-Outs remembered receiving the booklet they were not as inclined to read it as were the high school graduates. When the reSponses to the question, "Do you usually vote in the school elections?" are examined in Table XXVI it becomes im- mediately. evident that the drop-outs and parents of drop-outs are not as inclined to vote as are the graduates and parents of graduates. This would seem to indicate that they do not have as much interest in school affairs . 136 TABLE XXIV DO YOU REMEMBER RECEIVING A. BOOKLET ABOUT YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITHIN THE LAST MONTH OR TWO? Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct. Sample Dr0p- H.S. N . P t. ' . o C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 273 100.0 100.0 99.9 Selected adults ........ 150 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents . . . . . . . 85 100.0 100.0 100.0 .1519. Community adults ...... 188 69.5 76.6 62.4 14.2 Selected adults . ....... 101 67.7 76.4 59.0 17.4 Selected parents ....... 49 59.2 69.4 49.0 20.4 Yes Community adults ...... 81 29.0 21.8 36.2 -l4.4 Selected adults ........ 47 31.0 22.2 39.7 -17.5 Selected parents . ...... 34 38.4 27.8 49.0 -21.2 Don't Know Community adults ...... 4 1.5 1.6 1.3 0.3 Selected adults ........ 2 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.1 Selected parents ....... 2 2.4 2.8 2.0 0.8 Community adults x2 > 5 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 5 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 10 per cent. 137 TABLE XXV DID YOU READ IT? (ASKED ONLY WHEN APPROPRIATE. SEE TABLE XXIV) Sample Total Total DP?“ EC; Pct. r p- . . . N . P t. . O C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 26 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 18 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selected parents . ...... 9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes Community adults ...... 15 52.1 37.5 66.7 -29.2 Selected adults ........ 11 54.5 40.0 69.2 -29.2 Selected parents ....... 6 60.7 50.0 ' 71.4 —21.4 Part of It Community adults ...... 3 11.8 12.5 11.1 1.4 Selected adults ........ 2 13.9 20.0 7.7 12.3 Selected parents ....... 1 25.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 .139. Community adults ...... 8 36.1 50.0 22.2 27.8 Selected adults ........ 5 31.6 40.0 23.1 16.9 Selected parents ....... 2 14.3 0.0 28.6 —28.6 Community adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 50 per cent. 138 TABLE XXVI DO YOU USUALLY VOTE IN SCHOOL ELECTIONS, OR DID YOU VOTE IN THE LAST SCHOOL ELECTION? Sample Total Total 131:; SIC; Pct. No. Pct. Outs Grads Diff. Total Community adults ...... 658 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 313 100.1 100.1 100.0 Selected parents ....... 269 100.1 100.1 100.0 No Community adults ...... 345 52.2 59.8 44.5 15.3 Selected adults ........ 168 53.7 63.5 43.9 19.6 Selected parents ....... 153 56.8 64.0 49.6 14.4 Yes Community adults ...... 310 47.4 39.3 55.5 -l6.2 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 144 46.1 36.0 56.1 -20.1 Selected parents ....... 114 42.5 35.3 49.6 -l4.3 Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ...... 3 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 Selected adults ........ l 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected parents ....... 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 2 per cent. 139 III . SUMMAR Y TO summarize the data on the question of whether drop-Outs and parents of dropeouts differ from graduates regarding the value of education, it appears that drOp-Outs and parents of drop-outs: 1. DO value education, both secondary and college, for all children, as highly and perhaps more highly than do the high school graduates. 2. Seem to be less interested in the school, as evidenced by the fact that they do not know the school Officials or bother to read material sent to them about the school. 3. Are not as inclined to make an effort to vote and would be less inclined to vote for more money for the school if they did. Therefore, the data seem to be inconsistent. However, one explanation could very well be that while the drop-out pOpulation values education they are not inclined to spend money or effort for an educational institution which let them "fall by the wayside," and probably has done or will do the same by their children. There is nothing in the data presented here to indicate that they are against education, as seems to be generally accepted in many educational and sociological circles, but rather that they are uninterested-- perhaps apathetic. It is this lack of interest, and/or apathy, which differentiates them from the high school graduate. It is interesting to speculate to what extent failure to vote is related to the fact that most of the drop-outs quit school before they had completed the social studies and citizenship training courses of the secondary school. In other words, lack of training in citizen— ship could partially explain a tendency to fail to vote and a lack of interest in all elections, including school elections. On the other hand, this lack of interest may be due to the schools' "middle class" orientation discussed in the next chapter. 140 Just how much of the difference between drop-outs and grad— uates is due to the fact they they and their children do not have and have not had as much personal contact with the school is an area for speculation. But it is fair to assume that the contacts which they did have were in many cases more unpleasant than those of the graduates. TO the extent that contact with the school is a fac- tor in developing interest, to that same extent lies the possibility that educators can increase the value which adults in a community place upon education by keeping all children in school. CHAPTER VII THE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OPINIONS REGARDING THE SCHOOL TEACHER, TEACHING METHODOLOGY, AND SCHOOL PROGRAM 1. INTRODUCTION The previous chapter showed that drOp-outs, when compared to graduates, placed as much or more value upon education, even though they were not as inclined to vote more money for the school's needs. This chapter looks at their opinions about the teacher, the teaching methodology, and the school program, and throws further light on some of the factors which may be responsible for this ap- parent contradiction. It also presents other data which show that, "on the whole," drOp-outs' and graduates' Opinions are very similar. 11. THE SCHOOL TEACHER A review of selected researg. Over 50 per cent of the ar- ticles and research studies which deal with the drOp-out problem make references to the role of the teacher in keeping children in high school. Hand's statement about the teacher's middle class standards is one of the most common generalizations in the litera- ture: 142 . teachers typically come from middle class families and because of deficiencies in their professional training, strongly tend to judge and shape children by middle class standards. . lower class pupils who are thus unwittingly misunderstood frequently resist the well—intentioned middle class judging and shaping to which they are subjected, and thus touch Off a train of circumstances which not infrequently leads to withdrawal from school.174 Judson White, in his study of attitudes in North Carolina, concludes that, A critical area . . . centers around the teachers‘ understanding of the child. The teacher group apparently needs to change their methods of dealing with the students considerably if they are to be able to convince parents and pupils that they are as proficient in this area as they think they are. The results strongly suggest that they are not.175 He says later, . . there is rather strong indication that the parents of high school students think that the teachers do not have the personal interest in the children that they should have.176 But in spite of this he found that, Only four per cent . . . feel that teachers are paid too much [and] thirty-three per cent feel that teachers are not paid enough.177 174 Harold C. Hand. Principal Findings of the 1947-1948 Basic Studies. Bulletin No. 2. Superintendent of Public Instruction, Spring— field, Illinois: May 1949. pp. 18-19. 175Milburn Judson White. "A. Study of the Attitudes of Pupils, Parents, and Teachers Toward the Personal-Social, Economic, and Professional Services of the Public Schools of North Carolina." Un- published Ph.D. Thesis, University of North Carolina. 1953. p. 58. 176Judson White. Ibid., pp. 139-140. 177Judson White. Ibid., p. 123. 143 Donald Snygg, writing in the School Executive, says, Teachers tend to see themselves at the core of the child‘s ex- periences, giving and receiving friendships. Students of high school age see their teachers in a more impersonal light, much as explorers look upon natural hazards. Teachers have too much power to be comfortable companions or friends.178 Surveys of drOp-outs usually disclose that 5 to 10 per cent of the drop-outs gave as their reason for leaving school that they ”disliked or could not get along with the teacher." Johnson and Legg found that twenty-five drop—-outs out of 209 said they disliked teachers or teaching methods, and quoted students as follows: Teachers never paid any attention to me . . . they were always too busy when I needed help . . . showed no interest in the pupils. . . . The teachers would just throw work at you and not explain.179 This same type of finding was stated differently in the Grand Rapids, Michigan, study, The school leaver's contacts with principals and session room teachers and attendance workers during his last months in school have usually been filled with tension, because most drop-outs are truant and are discipline problems before finally leaving school.180 Dillon found that 5 per cent of the drop-outs disliked a certain teacher,181 and research by F. L. Pond showed substantially the 178Donald Snygg. "The High School Student." The SChoPi Executive. Vol. 74. No. 4. 1954. 179E. Johnson and C. Legg. "Why Young People Leave School." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. November 1948. (Reprint) U. 5. Government Printing Office. Washington: 1949. p. 18. 8 1 0Holding Power Committee of the Grand Rapids Board of Education. Holding Power in the Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Schools. Board of Education. May 1, 1953. p. 8. 181Harold Dillon. Early School Leavers. NO. 401. National Child Labor Committee. New York: 1949. p. 50. .1. I'll 1i 144 182 same results. The California COOperative Study found 50 per cent of the students dissatisfied with school, and included "dislike of sub- 8 ject or teachers" as one of the chief causes of this dislike.1 3 On the other hand, Holbeck, in New Jersey, found that only four out of 150 boys and girls gave "disliked my teachers" as their reason for , 184 . . dropping out. But research in Wyoming by the State Department of Education of ninth grade students showed that "only fifty-two per cent of the boys and sixty—two per cent of the girls said they could , 185 go to a teacher for adVlce." Other studies have looked at the attitude of the parent toward the teacher and found with Dresher in Detroit that a significant "holding power factor" is a "good attitude of parents toward teach- 186 ers." But William Anderson found that "the prestige accorded the teacher by all four classes was high . . ." when he examined the effect Of "social class." However, he did find that there was slightly more tendency for upper class pe0ple to view teaching as 182 F. L. Pond. "Pennsylvania Study of DrOp-outs and the Cur- riculum." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 37. NO. 195. Washington: 1953. p. 86. 183 , . William McCreary and Donald Kitch. "Now Hear Youth." Bulletin of the California State Department Of Education. Vol. XXII. No. 9. Sacramento: 1953. p. 33. 184 . Elmer S. Holbeck. "Seven Ways to Help Prevent Drop- outs." Nation's Schools. May 1950. p. 36. 185Raymond S. er_ "A Study of Personal Data Factors in Relation to Early School Leaving." Guidance News Bulletin. Vol. IX. No. 1. Wyoming State Department of Education. 1952. p. 12. 186 , , Richard H. Dresher. "Factors in Voluntary Drop-outs." The Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. XXXII. NO. 5. Washing- ton: 1954. p, 289. 145 a desirable occupation for their children than for the lower class to do so, but he concluded that this resulted from a realistic attitude on the part of the lower class.187 Some writers like G. W. Akerlund blame teachers for an overemphasis on academic standards: It is not difficult to find teachers who pride themselves on being "tough" academically. The standards of their school are high! NO regard is given to those who drop out. . . .188 But on the other hand, George McGee, after a careful investigation, said that he gained . the distinct impression that teachers should be more "strict." . . . In general, students favored teachers who were very “strict,“ but fair and “made me learn." More non- graduates than graduates thought teachers were "too easy."189 After considering all of the above viewpoints, it seems that most pe0p1e could agree with the Michigan Committee on School Holding Power when they say, The school staff must take a personal interest in the potential drOp-out and his problems. Each student must feel the personal interest of at least one staff person.190 187w1111am F. Anderson. The Sociology of Teaching. 1. A. Study of Parental Attitudes Toward the Teaching Profession. Unpub- lished Ph.D. Thesis, State University of Iowa. 1952. _p. 131. 188 . . George C. Ackerlund. "A. High School Diploma for Whom." The School Executive. November 1953. p. 45. 189George A. McGee. A. Study of the Holding Power of the Croton-Harmon High School with Pr0posals for Improvement. Unpub- lished Ph.D. Thesis. Tefihers College. Columbia University, 1952. p. 195. 190 . . . The Michigan Committee On School Holding Power. Improv- ing Your School's Holding Power. Superintendent Of Public Instruction. Lansing: T1954: p. 6. 146 Those who do not can point to A. Russel Mack‘s report on research in Massachusetts which includes the following statement: "It is in- teresting that dislike for a certain subject or teacher was not given by many pupils as a reason for withdrawal,n191 The analysis Of the data. The questions asked in this study which were analyzed to explore whether the Opinions Of drop-Outs and parents of drop-outs differ from those of graduates in respect to teachers are as follows: 1. What kind of a person would you hire if "you" were hiring a high school teacher? 2. What prOportion of the teachers in your high school come fairly close to this description? 3. In general, would you prefer your children (if you had any) to be taught by a man or woman in the following subject in the high school? History? 4. In general, would you prefer your children (if you had any) to be taught by a man or woman in the following subject in the high school? English? 5. In general, do you think teachers" salaries are too high, about right, or too low? 6. DO you believe, in general, the wife of a high school teacher should work for pay outside of the home? 7. DO you believe, in general, the wife of a high school teacher should work for pay outside of the home? Why? 8. What do you think high school teachers "should" do dur- ing the summer? ' 9. DO you think most high school teachers should plan to move on to another community after teaching in your community for a few years? 191A. R. Mack. IIA Study of Drop-outs." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 38. No. 200. Washington: 1954. p. 50. '-i I‘m-i d': 147 An examination of Table XXVII certainly shows that high school graduates are more verbal than are the drop-outs about what kind of a teacher they would hire. Being "well educated," having "a good personality," and "being of good moral character" seem to receive more attention on the part of all adults than does the teach- er's ability to understand and like children. Table XXVIII shows that when these same peOpIe were asked what proportion of the teachers in their high school satisfied the criteria which they had suggested for hiring teachers, there was a marked tendency for drop-outs and parents of drop-outs to respond "all of them" and "don't know" more often than the graduates. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that drop-outs or parents of drop-outs are more dissatisfied with the teachers, unless a ”don't know" response is accepted as a sign of dissatisfaction. While there is reasonable doubt that "don't know" responses are a sign of dissatisfaction, they do constitute something in the form of an indictment against the school when they show that more than one-third of the citizens who have or had Children in school cannot, dare not, or will not judge the qualification of the teachers. It is good evidence that parents are not as well acquainted with teachers as most educators would probably feel that they should be. In recent years there have been a number of critics of the school who have been inclined to blame poor adjustment to school, particularly of boys, upon the fact that too many teachers were women. If this is true then it could reasonably be expected that the drOp-outs would be less inclined to favor hiring women. When the data in Tables XXIX and XXX showing preferences for teachers of English and history are presented, the fact is that the public as a whole, including drop-outs and parents of drOp-outs, favors hiring men as history teachers and women as English teachers. 148 TABLE XXVII WHAT KIND OF A. PERSON WOULD YOU HIRE IF "YOU" WERE HIRING A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER? Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct Sample Drop- H.S. ° N . P t. ' . o C Outs Grads lef Total Community adults ...... 1812 239.3 212.6 267.0 Selected adults ........ 926 245.8 222.2 268.9 Selected parents ....... 657 220.8 203.9 236.7 Education—~We11 Educated Community adults . ..... 214 28.3 25.1 31.4 - 6.3 Selected adults . ....... 114 30.2 27.5 32.8 - 5.3 Selected parents ....... 69 23.2 16.8 29.5 -12.7 Moral Character, Church Member, Nondrinker, Nonsmoker Community adults ...... 174 23.0 23.3 22.6 0.7 Selected adults ........ 82 21.7 21.2 22.2 - 1.0 Selected parents ....... 80 26.9 25.5 28.2 - 2.7 Personality, Good, Pleasing Community adults ...... 145 19.2 14.7 23.7 - 9.0 Selected adults . ....... 83 22.0 18.0 25.9 - 7.9 Selected parents ....... 47 15.8 16.1 15.4 0.7 Personality, Other Community adults ...... 100 13.2 11.6 14.8 - 3.2 Selected adults ........ 47 12.5 10.6 14.3 - 3.7 Selected parents . ...... 31 10.4 6.7 14.1 - 7.4 W. Vfi 149 TABLE XXVII (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt‘ Pct. Sample No Pct Drop— H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Responsible, Serious-Minded Community adults ...... 120 15.9 13.2 18.5 - 5.3 Selected adults ........ 57 15.1 15.3 14.8 0.5 Selected parents ....... 41 1 .8 12.1 15.4 - 3.3 Knowledge of Subject Community adults ...... 117 15.5 10.6 20.4 - 9.8 Selected adults . . ..... . 61 16.2 12.7 19.6 - 6.9 Selected parents . . ..... 36 12.1 10.1 14.1 - 4.0 Interest in Children Community adults ...... 97 12.8 9.8 15.8 - 6.0 Selected adults . ....... 55 14.6 11.1 18.0 - 6.9 Selected parents ....... 34 11.4 7.4 15.4 - 8.0 Understands Children Community adults ...... 95 12.1 9.5 15.6 - 6.1 Selected adults ........ 54 14.3 11.1 17.5 - 6.4 Selected parents ....... 36 12.1 10.7 13.4 - 2.7 Likes Children Community adults ...... 94 12.5 10.1 14.8 - 4. Selected adults ........ 46 12.2 11.1 13.2 - 2.1 Selected parents ....... 39 13.1 10.7 15.4 - 4.7 150 TABLE XXVII (Continued) Total Total Pet' PCt' Pct. Sample NO Pct Dr0p- H.S. D'ff ' ° Outs Grads 1 ' Ajpearance Community adults ...... 75 10.0 6.2 13.7 - 7.5 Selected adults ........ 41 10.9 7.4 14.3 - 6.9 Selected parents ....... 22 7.4 5.4 9.4 - 4.0 DiSposition Community adults . ..... 70 9.2 9.3 9.1 0.2 Selected adults . ....... 31 8.2 7.9 8. - 0.6 Selected parents . ...... 28 9.4 10.1 8.7 1.4 Disciplinarian (strict) Community adults ...... 70 9.2 9.3 9.1 0. Selected adults ........ 36 9.6 8.5 10.6 - 2 1 Selected parents ....... 26 8.8 12.1 5.4 6 Teaching Ability (natural teacher) Community adults ...... 66 8.8 7.3 10.2 - 2.9 Selected adults ........ 33 8.8 7.4 10.1 - 2.7 Selected parents ....... 19 6.4 6.0 6.7 - 0.7 Experienced, Good Recommendation Community adults ...... 65 8.7 7.5 9.9 - 2. Selected adults ........ 32 8.5 7.9 9.0 - 1.1 Selected parents ....... 19 6.4 4.7 8.1 - 3. 151 TABLE XXVII (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Drop- H.S. N . P t. ' . o C Outs Grads Diff Sample Age or Marital Condition Mentioned Community adults ...... 60 ' 7.9 8.5 7.2 Selected adults . ....... 30 8.0 8.5 7.4 1 Selected parents ....... 25 8.4 10.7 6.0 4 Related to Community, Not a Radical Community adults . ..... 45 6.0 3.8 8.1 - 4.3 Selected adults . ....... 24 6.4 4.2 8. - 4.3 Selected parents ....... 18 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 Fair to All, Not TOO Strict Community adults ...... 37 4.9 5.5 4.3 1 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 24 6.4 7.9 4.8 1 Selected parents ....... 18 6.0 6.0 6.0 0 0 Other--Unc1assified Community adults ...... ' 135 17.8 20.4 15.1 5.3 Selected adults . ....... 60 15.9 16.4 15.3 1.1 Selected parents ....... 53 17.8 18.8 16.8 0 Don't Know, Not Asked, No Answer Community adults ...... 33 4.3 5.9 2 3.2 Selected adults ........ 16 4.3 6.3 2.1 4.2 Selected parents ....... 16 5.4 8.0 2.7 5.3 A Number in community adults sample = 758. Number in selected adults sample = 378. Number in selected parents sample = 298. TABLE XX VIII 152 ABOUT WHAT PROPORTION OF THE TEACHERS IN YOUR HIGH SCHOOL COME FAIRLY CLOSE TO THIS DESCR IPTION ? Pct. Pct. Sample 15:31 Tgti'l Drop- H.S. D'Cftf ' C ' Outs Grads 1 " Total Community adults ...... 758 100.1 99.8 100.0 Selected adults . ....... 378 100.2 99.9 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.2 100.1 99.9 All of Them Community adults ...... 92 12.1 14.5 9.7 4.8 Selected adults ........ 48 12.7 16.9 8.5 8.4 Selected parents ....... 41 13.8 16.1 11.4 4.7 Nearly All (90 per cent or more) Community adults ...... 104 13.8 10.1 17.4 - 7.3 Selected adults ........ 46 12.2 5.8 18.5 -12.7 Selected parents ....... 41 13.8 9.4 18.1 - 8.7 Most Of Them (70 to 89 per cent) Community adults ...... 127 16.8 11.6 22.0 -10.4 Selected adults ........ 67 17.8 12.2 23.3 -11.1 Selected parents ....... 42 14.1 8.1 20.1 -12.0 153 TABLE XXVIII (Continued) Total Total Pet“ PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Dr0p- H.S. D'ff ° ' Outs Grads 1 ° Morithin Half (51 to 69 per cent) Community adults ...... 36 4.8 4.1 5.4 - 1.3 Selected adults ........ 18 4.8 6.3 3.2 3.1 Selected parents . . . . . . . 9 3.1 5.4 0.7 4.7 Half or Less Community adults ...... 77 10.2 9.0 11.3 - 2.3 Selected adults . ....... 45 11.9 . 12.2 11.6 0.6 Selected parents ....... 24 8.1 5.4 10.7 - 5.3 Don't Know Community adults ...... 303 39.9 47.7 32.0 15.7 Selected adults ........ 147 38.9 44.4 33.3 11.1 Selected parents . . . . . . . 132 44.3 51.0 37.6 13.4 Not Asked, NO Answer Given Community adults ...... 19 2.5 2.8 2.2 0.6 Selected adults . ....... 7 1.9 2.1 1.6 0.5 Selected parents ....... 9 3.0 4.7 1.3 3.4 w: I I ._—v Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 1 per cent. 154 TABLE XXIX IN GENERAL, WOULD YOU PREFER YOUR CHILDREN (IF YOU HAD ANY) TO BE TAUGHT BY A MAN OR WOMAN IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS IN HIGH SCHOOL? ENGLISH? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample NO Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff ° ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults . ..... 658 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 313 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ..... '. . 269 100.2 100.1 100.0 Woman Community adults ...... 345 52.6 46.9 58.3 -ll.4 Selected adults ........ 167 53.4 50.0 56.7 - 6.7 Selected parents ....... 126 46.9 47.1 46.6 0.5 Man Community adults ...... 53 8.0 10.6 5.4 5 2 Selected adults ........ 26 8.4 12.2 4.5 7.7 Selected parents ....... 28 10.4 15.4 5.3 10.1 Either Community adults ...... 258 39.1 41.9 36.3 5.6 Selected adults ........ 118 37.7 37.2 38.2 - 1.0 Selected parents ....... 113 42.1 36.8 47.3 -lO.5 Don't Know Community adults ...... 2 0.3 0 6 0.0 0 6 Selected adults ........ 2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 Selected parents ....... 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 Community adultsTXZ > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 5 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 2 per cent. 155 TABLE XXX IN GENERAL, WOULD YOU PREFER YOUR CHILDREN (IF YOU HAD ANY) TO BE TAUGHT BY A MAN OR WOMAN IN THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS IN HIGH SCHOOL? HISTORY? Sample Total Total D1: 2; EC; Pct. No. P t. - ' ' ' . C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 758 100.1 99.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.1 100.0 100.0 Woman Community adults . ..... 84 11.1 11.6 10.5 1.1 Selected adults . ....... 45 11.9 14.8 9.0 . ' Selected parents ....... 37 12.4 13.4 11.4 2.0 Man Community adults ...... 307 40.5 39.9 41.1 - 1.2 Selected adults ........ 152 40.3 41.3 39.2 2.1 Selected parents ....... 106 35.6 35.6 35.6 0.0 Either Community adults ...... 364 48.0 47.9 48.1 - 0.2 Selected adults ........ 179 47.4 43.4 51.3 - 7.9 Selected parents ....... 153 51.3 50.3 52.3 — 2.0 Don't Know Community adults ...... 2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 Selected adults . ....... l 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 Selected parents ....... 1 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.7 Not Asked, No Answer Given Community adults ...... 1 0.2 0.0 0.3 - 0.3 Selected adults ........ 1 0.2 0.0 0.5 - 0.5 Selected parents . . . . . . . 1 0.4 0.0 0.7 - 0.7 Community] adults x2 < 50 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 20 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 156 Generally speaking, there is some justification for the state- ment that women teachers are more inclined to be unsatisfactory to the drOp-outs and parents of drop-Outs-—particularly in English, which is a required subject in all high schools. The data for history, also required in high schools, tend to indicate the Opposite trend, but the data here are not statistically significant. One explanation for this seeming inconsistency could be that persons who drOpped out or had children dr0p out are more dissatisfied with teachers in general than are the graduates, as shown by the fact that in English, where more women teach, the drop-outs and parents Of drop-outs are more in- clined to favor men, and in history, where more men teach, the dr0p-outs and parents of drOp-Outs are slightly more inclined to favor women teachers. The drOp-outs and parents of drop-outs, as shown in Table XXXI, show less tendency to feel that teachers' salaries are "too 10W." Since the drOp-out group was matched with respect to income With graduates, this cannot be due to the fact that the drOp-Outs in the sample had less income themselves. Therefore, it is necessary to find some other reason for this difference. One explanation could be that they do not value education or teaching; however, the data Presented earlier in this chapter seem to make this untenable. An- other explanation, which seems quite logical, could be that they are not disposed to pay more money for people who have already dem- onStrated that they could not help them and/or their children. There is some consolation for teachers, however, in the fact that more than 60 per cent of the people feel that teachers' salaries are too low, While less than 2 per cent feel they are too high. In Tables XXXII and XXXIII the responses with respect to the question of whether the wives Of high school teachers should work are summarized. The drop-outs are definitely less inclined to favor 157 TABLE XXXI IN GENERAL, DO YOU THINK TEACHERS' SALARIES ARE TOO HIGH, ABOUT RIGHT, OR TOO LOW? :7 Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct Sample DrOp- H.S. ' N . P t. ' o C Outs Grads Diff' Total Community adults ...... 508 100.1 100.0 99.9 Selected adults . ....... 255 100.2 100.1 100.1 Selected parents ....... 185 100.0 100.0 99.9 Too Low Community adults ...... 314 62.3 53.6 71.0 -l7.4 Selected adults . . ...... 165 64.8 59.4 70.1 -10.7 Selected parents . ...... 98 52.9 47.3 58.5 -ll.2 About Right Community adults ...... 128 . 25.0 29.2 20.7 8.5 Selected adults . ....... 55 21.6 22.7 20.5 2.2 Selected parents ....... 53 28.7 31.9 25.5 6.4 Too High Community adults ...... 5 1.0 1.1 0.8 0.3 Selected adults ........ 3 1.2 0.8 1.6 - 0.8 Selected parents ....... 4 2.2 1.1 3.2 - 2.1 Don't Know Community adults ...... 54' 10.4 14.6 6.2 8.4 Selected adults ........ 29 . 11.4 16.4 6.3 10.1 Selected parents ....... 26 14.1 17.6 10.6 7.0 Not Asked, No Answer Given Community adults . ..... 7 1.4 1.5 .2 0.3 Selected adults . ....... 3 1.2 0.8 1.6 - 0.8 Selected parents ....... 4 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.0 1' '— -———— Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 20 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 30 per cent. 15 8 TABLE XXXII DO YOU BELIEVE, IN GENERAL, THE WIFE OF A. HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER SHOULD WORK FOR PAY OUTSIDE THE HOME? Total Total PCt' PCt‘ Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff . ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 250 100.2 100.0 100.1 Selected adults ........ 124 100.2 100.1 100.0 Selected parents . ...... 114 100.1 100.0 100.0 Yes Community adults . . . . . . 161 64.0 53.8 74.1 -20.3 Selected adults . ....... 82 66.2 58.1 74.2 -16.1 Selected parents . . . . . . . 61 53.6 50.8 56.4 - 5.6 59. Community adults ...... 75 30.4 37.8 22.9 14.9 Selected adults ........ 36 29.1 33.9 24.2 9.7 Selected parents ....... 46 40.4 40.7 40.0 0.7 Don't Know Community adults ...... 14 5.8 8.4 3.1 . 5.3 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 6 4.9 8.1 1.6 6.5 Selected parents ....... 7 6.1 8.5 3.6 4.9 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 10 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 159 TABLE XXXIII DO YOU BELIEVE, IN GENERAL, THE WIFE OF A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER SHOULD WORK FOR PAY OUTSIDE OF THE HOME? WHY? Sample Total Total DES; EC; Pct. No. Pct. Outs Grads Diff. Total Community adults ...... 271 108.5 107.5 109.1 Selected adults ........ 133 107.4 106.4 108.1 Selected parents ....... 114 100.3 100.1 99.9 If She Likes to, It‘s Up to the Individual Community adults . ..... 72 28.5 21.8 35.1 -13.3 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 31 25.0 21.0 29.0 - 8.0 Selected parents . ...... 1 0.9 1.7 0.0 1.7 They Need the Mpney Community adults ...... 49 19.7 21.8 17.6 4.2 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 28 22.6 27.4 17.7 9.7 Selected parents ....... 27 24.1 13.6 34.5 ~20.9 Depends on Circumstances Community adults ...... 31 12.3 10.9 13.7 - 2.8 Selected adults ........ 15 12.1 8.1 16.1 - 8.0 Selected parents ....... 21 18.4 18.6 18.2 0.4 Not If She Has Children Community adults ...... 56 22.4 21.0 23.7 - 2.7 Selected adults ........ 26 21.0 19.3 22.6 - 3.3 Selected parents ....... 23 20.0 25.4 14.5 10.9 160 TABLE XXXIII (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample NO Pct Drop— H.S. D'ff ' . Outs Grads 1 ' ShvouldfiHave Sufficient Wages Without Her Working Community adults ...... 21 8.6 11.8 5.3 6.5 Selected adults ........ 13 10.5 14.5 6.5 .0 Selected parents ...... .' 13 11.4 11.9 10.9 1.0 She .3157 All She Can Do Without Working, Woman's Place Is In the HOme Community adults ...... 26 10.5 13.4 7.6 5.8 Selected adults . . ..... . 12 9.7 11.3 8.1 3.2 Selected parents ....... 15 13.2 13.6 12.7 0.9 Other Community adults ...... 6 2.5 3.4 1 5 1.9 Selected adults ........ 1 0.8 1.6 0.0 l 6 Selected parents ....... 3 2.7 1.7 3.6 - l 9 Undefined or NO Reason Given Community adults ...... 10 4.0 3.4 4.6 - 1.2 Selected adults . ....... 7 5.7 3.2 8.1 - 4.9 Selected parents ....... 11 9.6 13.6 5.5 8.1 as a Number in community adults sample = 250. Number in selected adults sample = 124. Number in selected parents' sample = 114. 161 having them work outside the home than are the graduates. This tendency is also present in the drop-out sample where the sociolOg- ical variables are matched, and among the parents of drop-outs, although the difference does not reach statistical significance in either case. These findings would seem to indicate the kind of attitude which perhaps can best be described as "Old fashioned."192 But this raises the interesting question of why parents of drop-outs are less inclined than the rest of the drop-outs to believe that a high school teacher's wife should work. When the reasons for the answers were tabulated in Table XXXIII, it is evident that the drOp-outs are more sensitive to money problems than are the graduates. Those who believe that the wife of a high school teacher should work are more apt to say that "they need the money," and those who feel that they should not work are more apt to say that "teachers should have sufficient wages without her working." Furthermore, they are not as likely to say, "It's up to her," as are the graduates, but instead, that "woman's place is in the home." Parents of drop-outs, on the other hand, are not as disposed to think that "they need the money" as are the rest Of the dropr-outs-wor the graduates. And furthermore these parents of drop—outs are more apt to think that "if she has children, she has all she can do without working." The parents of drop-outs, with their relatively lower income and significantly larger family (confer ante, pages 78 and 97) could not be expected to be so acutely aware that a high school teacher's salary is not adequate without his wife going to work, and in view of the personal problems which they have had with their children ngKatharine Hamill. "Working Wife, $96-30 a Week." Fortune Magazine. Time, Inc. April 1953. p. 158 Passim. 162 dropping out Of school, it is not surprising that they are more in- clined to the feeling that a woman should not work if she has child- ren. Furthermore, it should be remembered that drop-outs in the total community are Older than the graduates. Regardless of the causes, there does seem to be a pattern which tends to differentiate between the drop-outs and the graduates. This pattern could more frequently be called "old fashioned" or "traditional," rather than "lower Class," which is described by most sociOIOgists as being more permissive in its attitude toward child--rearing,193 and as more accepting of women as breadwinners. Neither of these "lower class" attitudes is confirmed in this study. The data in Table XXXIV seem to confirm that differences between drop-outs and non-drOp-outs do not seem to be essentially class-oriented. The drop-outs seem to be more favorable to having teachers "rest" and "go to school," while the graduates lean more heavily toward ”doing what they want to do" and "travel,“ but the similarities in the responses are more striking than are the dif- ferences. As an explanation for this, the possibility should not be overlooked that small towns in Michigan may not be as strongly class-oriented or have as much "social distance" between classes-- as most studies elsewhere have reported. Most of these studies of social class were usually done in larger communities, and it should also be pointed out that they are almost ten years Old. The impact 193Martha C. Ericson. "Social Status and Child-Rearing Practices." Readings in Social Psychology. Henry Holt and Com- pany. New York: 1947. p. 501. 94August B. Hollingshead. Elmtown's Youth. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York: 1949. pp. 83-120. 94 TABLE XXXIV WHAT DO YOU THINK HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS "SHOULD" DO DURING THE SUMMER? 163 Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct. Sample Drop— H.S. , . t. . No PC Out 5 G rads Diff Total Community adults ...... 1002 132.3 126.5 137.7 Selected adults ........ 491 130.2 126.6 133.3 Selected parents ....... 384 Vacation, Rest, Relax Community adults . ..... 319 42.0 45.1 38.9 6.2 Selected adults . ....... 160 42.3 43.9 40.7 3.2 Selected parents ....... 136 45.7 46.3 45.0 1.3 Go to School, Study Community adults ...... 310 40.8 42.7 38.9 3.8 Selected adults ........ 151 40.0 46.6 33.3 13.3 Selected parents ....... 119 40.0 44.3 35.6 8.7 Work community adults ...... 81 10.7 10.1 11.2 - 1.1 Selected adults ... . . . .. 34 9.0 10.1 7.9 2.2 selected parents ....... 29 9.8 11.4 8.1 3.3 Work for New Experience Scommunity adults ...... 22 2.9 1.0 4.8 - 3.8 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 11 3.0 1.1 4.8 - 3.7 81thed parents ....... 7 2.4 2.7 2.0 0.7 Work to Supplement Income gommunity adults ...... 29 3.8 3.6 4.0 - .4 elected adults ... . . . . . 9 2.4 1.6 3.2 - .6 Se"leCted parents ....... 7 2.4 2.0 2.7 - .7 M 164 TABLE XXXIV (Continued) Pct. Pct. T Sample 13:31 '13:? DrOp- H.S. 3:: ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Travel Community adults ...... 44 5.9 2.1 9.7 - 7.6 Selected adults ........ 24 6.4 2.1 10.6 - 8.5 Selected parents ....... 13 4.4 3.4 5.4 - 2.0 DO What They Want to DO Community adults ...... 92 12.2 9.5 14.8 - 5.3 Selected adults ........ 43 11.4 8. 14.3 - .8 Selected parents . ...... 26 8.8 8.1 9.4 - 1.3 Other Community adults ...... 88 11.7 8.5 14.8 - 6.3 Selected adults ........ 50 13.3 9.0 17.5 - 8.5 Selected parents ....... 38 12.8 2.7 20.1 -14.7 Don't Know Community adults ...... 15 2.0 3.6 0.3 3.3 Selected adults ........ 7 1.9 3.2 0.5 2.7 Selected parents ....... 8 2.7 4.7 0.7 4.0 Not Asked, NO Answerv Given Community adults ...... 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 Selected adults ........ 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 Selected parents ....... 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 Number of community adults sample 2 758. Number of selected adults sample = 378. Number of selected parents sample = 298. 5111....l417c1 ll... 165 of "these prosperous ten years" could have caused a substantial shift in Opinion in all classes. Table XXXV shows that between 5 and 10 per cent more drop- outs and parents of drop-outs favor having teachers "move on" than do the graduates. This could be interpreted as an indication of lower class attitudes if it had not already been shown that the drOp— Outs in these six Michigan communities more frequently owned their own homes than did the graduates (confer ante, page 89), and there- fore might be expected to value having teachers settle down and own their own homes. The other interpretation, which seems to have somewhat more validity, is that the difference in these responses represents a rejection of teachers-~perhaps due to the fact that teachers had once rejected them. 111. TEACHING METHODOLOGY A review of selected research. Closely allied to the attitudes which adults have toward high school teachers is their attitude to- ward the teaching methods used by the teachers. The growing desire tO keep ”all American youth" in school, plus recent research find- ings have prompted many attempts by educators to change the teach- Frequently these attempts at The ing methodology in today's schools. change have been unsuccessful because of public resistance. "public" did not approve. This lack of approval could in most cases be traced to a lack of understanding of what was being done. The responses which are given by adults to questions such as those examined in this report often show where lack of understanding exists, or in many cases can point to methodological changes that have un- desirable effects which Often outweigh the benefits which were sup— posed to acrue from the change. Frequently, these responses can 166 TABLE XXXV DO YOU THINK MOST HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS SHOULD PLAN TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER COMMUNITY AFTER TEACHING IN YOUR COMMUNITY FOR A. FEW YEARS? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults ...... 508 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 255 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 185 100.0 100.1 100.0 1:19. Community adults . ..... 205 41.4 36.3 46.5 -10.2 Selected adults ........ 99 38.8 35.1 42.5 - 7.4 Selected parents ....... 64 39.6 30.8 38.3 - 7.5 Yes Community adults ...... 181 35.5 38.6 32.4 6.2 Selected adults ........ 101 39.6 43.0 36.2 6.8 Selected parents ....... 67 36.3 39.6 33.0 6.6 It Depends Community adults ...... 105 20.7 20.6 20.7 - 0.1 Selected adults ........ 51 20.0 19.5 20.5 — 1.0 Selected parents ....... 46 24.9 24.2 25.5 - 1.3 Don't Know Community adults ...... 13 2.5 4 5 0.4 4 1 Selected adults ........ 4 1.6 2 4 0.8 1 Selected parents ....... 8 4.4 5 5 3.2 3 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 10 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 167 indicate that the public, or segments of the public, are ready for Changes which the administrators and teachers are afraid to imple- ment. Most modern educators would agree with the following excerpt from Education for All American Youth--A Further Look: The youth entering high school today represent so great a variety of background and ability that teachers should expect them to show a range of reading competence extending from fourth grade through twelfth grade standards. Many high-school students' abilities are such that they will never be capable of going beyond sixth, seventh, or eighth grade reading levels. Teachers cannot justify a school curriculum designed to meet the needs of only the superior ranges of ability; every youth has a right to expect and experience a high-school education adjusted to his needs and the development of his interests and capacities. Standards of student performance will be satisfactory if students are working with materials adapted to their abilities. All teachers are responsible for helping students read and inter— pret textbooks and other materials essential to the mastery of the courses taught. All youth who work to capacity should receive full credit, re- gardless of the level at which they learn. PrOper guidance will prevent them from entering courses beyond their capacities.195 Another fundamental which seems to be generally accepted is stated in Life Adjustment Educatipn for Every Youth: Pupil interest should be the first requisite of activities; not the only requisite, to be sure, but certainly the most essential one. Information should be taught, not as an unrelated assignment, but as a necessary part in the furtherance of some activity which had wakened the interest of the group. Certain subject- matter fields should take their natural place, not solely as 195 '—_—'fi Educational Policies Commission. Education for All Amer- ican Youth. National Education Association of the United States. Washington: 1952. pp. 376 et seq. 168 subjects pursued for themselves, but as the servants Of other activities. And Everett A. McDonald, Jr., quoted in the Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, says essentially the same thing in his presentation at that organization's thirty-seventh annual convention: We desperately need the acceptance of a new philosophy, which absolutely guarantees that there shall be a full program with aims and objectives clearly stated that will provide for the needs and interests of each and every youngster}?7 At Belding, Michigan, an extension class under the direction of Clyde M. Campbell of Michigan State University hints that teachers have already accepted a new philosophy when they say, "The curriculum should be flexible so that the teacher can plan her class program with the children, centering this around their interests."198 All of these statements indicate a desire to remove one of the basic causes of drop-outs, which is retardation. Retardation has been shown to be intimately related to drOpping out of school, and most investigators would agree with William Gragg that "the most significant factor distinguishing the drop-out from the graduate 196Galen Jones and Ramond Gregory. Life Adjustment Educa- tion for Every Youth. Federal Security Agency. No. 22. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington: 1951. p. 99. . 197E. A. McDonald, Jr. "How Can a School Increase Its Hold- ing Power of Youth?" The Bulletin of the National Association of Sec- ondary School Principals. Vol. 37. NO. 194. Washington: 1951. p. 191. 198"Anon." An Adventure in Education. A report of a Mich- igan State University College Extension Course. Michigan State Uni- versity. E. Lansing: 1954. (mimeographed) p. 31. 169 , 19 was retardation." 9 DrOp-outs from Ferndale, Michigan, seemed to be aware of this, for when they were asked what could be done to keep boys and girls in school, their remarks sounded very much like those of the educators quoted above: Give more attention to slow students. . . . Give a student credit for what they can do and not hold them back, because the still won't know any more. . . . More individual instruction.2 0 Surveys of drOp-outs have shown many times that intelligence and reading aptitude are related to retardation and dropping out of 201,202 . school. Consequently, many schools are meeting the problem 20 204 by special help in reading and other remedial classes. 3' All retardation is not the result of low intelligence, but may 205 be due as frequently to a lack of acceptance by other students, 199William Lee Gragg. "Factors Which Distinguish Drop- outs from Graduates." Occupations. The Vocational Guidance Jour- nal. Vol. XXVII. No. 7. National Vocational Guidance Association, Inc. 1954. p. 458. ZOOHarold E. Vroman. Study of Drop-outs 1948-1949 SChOOl Year Lincoln High School, Ferndale, Michigan. (mimeographed) p. 12. ‘ \ 201John W. Berry. Secondary and Post-Secondary Educational Continuation in a Rural County. Efiureka College. Eureka, Illinois. 1947. (mimeographed) 02 2 Hugh Lee Taylor. "Factors that Differentiate School Leavers from Pupils Who Continue in School." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Alabama. 1952. 0 2 3WOrk Conference on Life Adjustment Education. Improving School Holding Power. Federal Security Agency. U. S. Office—fiof Edu— cation. Washington: 1951. Circular No. 291. (mimeographed) p. 69. 204 Oren E. Hammond. "What to DO About High School Drop Cuts?" The School Executive. February 1953. pp. 52 et seq. 205 Douglass I. Brown. "Some Factors Affecting Social Accep- tance of High School Pupils." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Indiana. 1952. p.187. 170 and Charles M. Allen, in discussing the Illinois Holding Power Study, says, The most striking conclusion to be drawn . . . is that a large prOportion of the youth who withdrew had been labeled as failures in the major enterprise of the school--the activity that is built around the clas sroom .206 Many schools have attempted to solve the problem Of the slow learner by special classes, but some educators have been Opposed to such classes. They feel that segregation is bad, and agree with Ruel Tucker, who says: Much has been said and done in the field of segregation. Sepa- ration from the regular classes of students has created more problems rather than fewer and caused many to drOp out be- cause they were "always in the dumb class." We must recog- nize that life situations are made up Of all types of pe0p1e. To segregate slow learners into groups is contrary to their life experiences ahead and often impresses them with additional feelings of inferiority.207 Stanley Hecker came to essentially the same conclusion in his study of Early School Leavers in Kentucky: The desire for smaller classes, more personal Contact with teachers and the opportunity for more individual instruction emphasizes the necessity for provision in the school program for the develOpment of a sense of belonging in each pupil.208 206Charles M. Allen. "What Have Our Drop-outs Learned?" Educational Leadership. Vol. X. No. 6. National Education Associa- tion, Washington: 1953. p. 350. 207Ruel E. Tucker. "What Is a Good Program for a Slow Learner?" The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 36. NO. 185. vWashington: 1952. p. 334. 208 . Stanley Hecker. "Early School Leavers in Kentucky." Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service. Vol. XXV. NO. 4. College of EducatiOn. University of Kentucky, Lexington: 1953. p. 53. 171 Meanwhile, research on teachers' desires in respect to size of classes shows that a majority feel that classes of thirty are too large, that twenty-five pupils is ideal, and that classes with less 209 than thirteen pupils are too small. Many studies have inferred that most of the above-mentioned problems would be solved if the school had more adequate guidance services. A substantial number of persons interested in the drop-out problem have come to the conclusion that, The holding power of the school is determined in a large meas- ure by the effectiveness of the guidance program. A major goal of counseling is to help the individual to deve10p within himself a capacity to cope successfully with his problems.210 The Virginia State Department of Education points tO its research findings, and says: "Analysis of the findings . . . suggests definite needs for improved guidance services in the public high schools of Virginia."211 The United States Office of Education has also called attention to this need in its publication Frustration in Adolescent Youth.212 But a guidance program primarily designed to discover ZogEllsworth Tompkins. What Teachers Say About Class Size. Federal Security Agency. Circular NO. 311. U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington: 1949. pp. 3 et seq. 210U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Why Do Boys and Girls Drop Out of School and What Can We DO About It? Circular No. 269. Office of Education. Washington: 1953, p. “4.6. (reprint) 11State Department of Education. Virginia's High School Graduates and DrOp-outs of 1939-40. Bulletin State Board of Edu- cation. Vol. 33. No.8. Richmond: 1951. p. 44. 12David Segal. Frustration in Adolescent Youth. Bulletin 1951, NO. 1. Federal Security Agency. U. 5. Printing Office. Washington: 1951. pp. 49-50. 172 drop-outs by means Of a testing program alone would be of but little 213,214 value. Several attempts have been made to identify potential drOp-outs by means of psychological tests. They have all met with only limited success, typically similar to that of Edward Cook, who says, The findings of the present study would seem to indicate that a group testing program planned and administered for the purpose Of isolating potential withdrawals could not be expected to provide an absolute demarcation between withdrawals and non-withdrawals. Neither measured intelligence, indicated adjustment to personal and school problems, nor the individual's placement Of himself in a designated social class is by itself an indicator of a poten- tial withdrawal from school. Such test results when integrated and studied with other quantities such as past school records and familyidata then become useful in discriminating between those who are likely to withdraw from school and those who will probably remain in high school until graduation.215 From the material quoted previously in this section it could be deduced that many differences in attitude between the graduates and drop-outs do exist. This conclusion, however, has not always been substantiated by the research studies which analyzed parent opinion toward teaching methodology. Milburn White's study showed that , 213’William McCreary and Donald Kitch. "Now Hear Youth." Bulletin of the California State Department of Education. Vol. XXII. NO. 9. Sacramento: 1953. p. 48. 214William L. Gragg. "A. Study of Factors Related to the Persistence of Pupils in Public Secondary Schools." Resume of a Ph.D. Thesis on file at Cornell University Library. Ithaca, New York: 1951. p. 5. 215Edward S. Cook, Jr. An Analysis of Factors Related to Withdrawal from High School Prior to Graduation. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Georgia. 1953. pp. 105 et seq. 173 Parents eXpressed real satisfaction with teaching techniques and educational procedures. They say that their children spend over an hour per day on homework and the majority of them think that this is about the right amount of time to spend in this man— ner. Interestingly enough, most parents state that the discipline in the schools is about right. At the same time, there is rather strong indication that the parents of high school students think that the teachers do not have the personal interest in the children that they should have.216 Sando, in his study, found that a comparison of the responses of school nonleavers and drop-outs, revealed: (1) drOp-outs were more critical of the lack of "teacher's personal interest in them, and the understanding of their problems by teachers"; and (2) that more drop-outs tended to report "that they received less help from teachers, that they were more dissatisfied with teaching methods, that they had too much work to do, and that they 'did less homework.” On the other hand, he found many cases where the responses between drOp-outs and nonleavers did not significantly differ. This was even more true of the comparison of responses between parents of drop- outs and parents of school nonleavers. His conclusion that "many parents of drOp-outs were uninformed about social relationships which they face in school" is strong evidence that they were even less 217 informed about the more difficult subject of teaching methodology. 216Milburn White. A Study of the Attitudes of Pupils, Parents, and Teachers Toward the Personal-Social, Economic, and Professional Services of the Public Schools of North Carolina. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of North Carolina. 1953. pp,l39 et seq. 7Rudolph F. Sando. "How to Make and Utilize Follow-up The Bulletin of the National Associa- Studies Of School Leavers," No.185. Washing- tion of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 36. ton: March 1952. pp. 69-71. 174 The analysis of the data. From the questions on teaching methodology in respect to this study will come conclusions which substantiate and extend the research done by Sando and others. In other cases the questions asked have but little relationship to the studies quoted, and open new fields for investigation. The questions used to explore the relationship of teaching methodology to the Opin- ions of drop-outs and graduates are as follows: 1. Different ways of teaching are used in Michigan schools. ('A) Some teachers teach about like Mrs. A. She makes assignments from the text and assigns time for the pupils to study. Then she marks each pupil on how he recites when called upon and how he answers on written tests. (B) Others teach like Mrs. B. She outlines the tOpic to be covered and then works outwith the pupils ways of getting information from various sources and experiences, as well as ways of reporting their findings. Which method is most like the method used in your high school? 2. In general, which method do you believe is better in high school? 3. Do you believe your school gives as much attention as it should tO slow learners? 4. Do you believe your school gives as much attention as it should to fast learners? 5. Have you had, or do you have, a child who could benefit from special help in reading? 6. What do you think should be done with any pupil whose ability to read, write, spell, and do arithmetic is not all it should be when he enters high school? 7. Do you believe more homework, about the same, or less homework should be required of high school pupils than is now required? 8. Do you think pupils should be required to memorize such things as the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, parts of the Constitution, and Lincoln‘s Gettysburg address? 9. About how many pupils do you think a teacher can teach successfully in a high school class? 175 10. How much freedom do you think pupils should be given in managing their own affairs through Student Govern- ment and similar activities? 11. What do you think can be done to keep students in high school? The tabulation of the questions "Which method is most like the method used when you were in school?" and "In general, which method do you believe is better in high school? is shown in Table XXXVI and Table XXXVII, respectively. From the previous discus- sion of the findings of the educators quoted in the early pages of this section it could be expected that the drop-outs would be more inclined to favor what is called here the "project-centered" method, since one would expect the "subject matter-centered" method to have been somewhat responsible for their failures. However, the drOp-outs were actually less inclined to favor the project method. One explana- tion for this trend could be that many of the drop—outs never attended high school, as indicated by the data in Table V (confer ante, page 56), and consequently responded with the large number Of "don't knows" shown in both Tables XXXVI and XXXVII. This may also be one more indication of their inclination to have "Old-fashioned or tra- ditional" opinions (confer ante, page 162). Perhaps most interesting is the fact that all groups favor the project method by a substantial majority (Table XXXVII) even though only about 35 per cent had experienced it when they were in school (Table XXXVI). From this it could be deduced that the public in many communities are far more ready to accept the project-centered type of education recommended by many experts than some adminis- trators and teachers are ready to admit. In respect to the question of dealing with slow learners, the data in Table XXXVIII do not show any significant difference between the attitudes of the groups with respect to the neglect Of slow learners. 176 TABLE XXXVI WHICH METHOD IS MOST LIKE THE METHOD USED IN YOUR HIGH SCHOOL? Pct. Pct. T Sample 13:31 T;::1 DrOp- H.S. :2: ° ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 658 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 313 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 269 100.0 100.0 100.0 3' Subject Matter-Centered Community adults ...... 170 25.9 24.3 27.5 - 3.2 Selected adults . ....... 92 29.4 31.4 27.4 4.0 Selected parents ....... 57 21.2 20.6 21.8 - 1.2 B. Project-Centered Community adults . . . . 219 33.4 29.9 36.9 - 7.0 Selected adults ........ 103 32.9 27.5 38.2 -10.7 Selected parents ....... 95 35.3 35.3 35.3“ 0.0 Combination of A and B Community adults ...... 22 3.4 1.8 5.0 - 3.2 Selected adults ........ 10 3.2 1.3 5.1 - .3 Selected parents . . . . . . . 8 3.0 2.2 3.8 - 1.6 Don't Know Community adults ...... 247 37.3 44.0 30.6 13.4 Selected adults ........ 108 34.6 39.8 29.3 10.5 Selected parents ....... 109 40.5 41.9 39.1 2.8 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 5 per cent. Selected parents’ x2 < 50 per cent. TABLE XXXVII 177 IN GENERAL, WHICH METHOD DO YOU BELIEVE IS BETTER IN HIGH SCHOOL? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ° Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 758 99.9 99.8 99.9 Selected adults ........ 378 100.1 100.1 99.9 Selected parents ....... 298 100.1 100.0 100.0 A. Subject Matter- Centered Community adults ...... 136 17.9 21.2 14.5 6.7 Selected adults . ....... 70 18.6 22.8 14.3 8.5 Selected parents . ...... 56 18.8 18.8 18.8 0.0 B. Project-Centered Community adults ...... 536 70.8 62.9 78.7 -15.8 Selected adults . ...... 276 73.0 67.2 78.8 -11.6 Selected parents ....... 192 64.4 66.4 62.4 4.0 Combination of A. and B Community adults ...... 19 2.5 1.0 4 O - 3 0 Selected adults ........ 8 2.1 0.0 4 2 - 4 2 Selected parents ....... 8 2.7 , 1.3 4 0 - 2 7 Don't Know Community adults ...... 63 8.2 14.2 2.2 12 0 Selected adults ...... 24 6.4 10.1 2.6 7 5 Selected parents ....... 40 13.5 12.8 14.1 - 1 3 Not Asked, NO Answer Given Community adults ...... 4 0.5 0.5 0 5 - 0.0 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0 0 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 30 per cent. 178 TABLE XXXVIII DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR SCHOOL GIVES AS MUCH ATTENTION AS IT SHOULD TO SLOW LEARNERS? Total Total Pet“ PCt' Pct. Sample NO Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff ° " Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 250 100.0 99.9 100.0 Selected adults ........ 124 100.1 99.9 100.1 Selected parents ....... 114 100.1 100.0 100.0 Yes Community adults ...... 114 45.6 44.5 46.6 - 2.1 Selected adults ........ 54 43.6 41.9 45.2 - 3.3 Selected parents ....... 44 38.8 33.9 43.6 - 9.7 NO Community adults ...... 105 41.8 37.8 45.8 - 8.0 Selected adults ........ 55 44.4 41.9 46.8 - 4.9 Selected parents ....... 53 46.5 47.5 45.5 2.0 Don't Know Community adults . . . . . . 31 12.6 17.6 7.6 10.0 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 15 12.1 16.1 8.1 8.0 Selected parents ....... 17 14.8 18.6 10.9 7.7 Community adults x2 > 5 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 50 per cent. 179 The public as a whole in these communities seems to be about evenly divided as to the need for more attention to the slow learner, whereas a survey among educators and teachers would probably show that most of them feel that more effort should be expended. If a poll of educators and teachers were taken with respect to whether enough attention is given to fast learners, the number answering in the negative would probably be even greater, yet the data in Table XXXIX show that most of the public feels that the school already gives enough attention to fast learners. On this question, there is a difference between the graduates and the drop- outs and parents Of drOp-outs. The "feeling of being neglected" and of "favoritism" research undoubtedly accounts for this quite substantial difference. Perhaps even more unexpected are the data in Table XL which show that the percentage of drop-outs and parents of drOp-outs who are aware that they have a child who could benefit from special help in reading is no greater than the graduates. Even though this difference is not statistically significant, as; shown by a chill square test, it is certainly established that the parents of drop-outs are not any more aware of their child's need for help than are the parents of graduates, but the fact that almost 20 per cent of the parents of drop-outs do feel that "help in reading" would benefit their child is an indication of the seriousness of the problem. The data in Table XLI show such small percentage differences between the groups that there can be little validity placed upon the findings; however, there does seem to be a tendency for the grad- uates to be more inclined to favor special classes with a different type of education, based upon needs as established by tests for stu- dents whose ability in reading, writing, and Spelling is not up to standard. On the other hand, drOp-outs and parents of drop-outs TABLE XXXIX 180 DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR SCHOOL GIVES AS MUCH ATTENTION AS IT SHOULD TO FAST LEARNERS? Pct. Pct. Sample T132211 iffl D rop- H .S. :2: ° ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults ...... 250 100.0 99.9 100.0 Selected adults ........ 124 100.1 100.0 99.9 Selected parents ....... 114 100.0 100.0 100.0 Yes Community adults . ..... 175 69.9 68.0 71.8 - 3.8 Selected adults ........ 85 68.6 72.6 64.5 8.1 Selected parents ....... 69 60.4 64.4 56.4 8.0 132 Community adults ...... 42 16.5 10.1 22.9 -12.8 Selected adults ........ 24 19.4 8.1 30.6 -22.5 Selected parents ....... 25 22.3 11.9 32.7 -20.8 Don't Know Community adults ...... 33 13.6 21.8 5.3 16.5 Selected adults ........ 15 12.1 19.3 4.8 14.5 Selected parents ....... 20 17.3 23.7 10.9 12.8 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 2 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 2 per cent. 181 TABLE XL HAVE YOU HAD, OR DO YOU HAVE, A CHILD WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM SPECIAL HELP IN READING? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No. Pct. DrOp- H.S. Diff Outs Grads ' Total Community adults ...... 273 100.1 100.0 99.9 Selected adults ........ 150 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 85 100.1 100.0 100.0 No Community adults . . . . . . 186—— 68.5 71.8 65.1 6.7 Selected adults ........ 98 65.5 69.4 61.5 7.9 Selected parents ....... 64 76.0 80.6 71.4 9.2 Yes Community adults . . . . . . 43 15.6 13.7 17.4 - 3.7 Selected adults ........ 26 17.4 18.1 16.7 1.4 Selected parents ....... 14 16.9 19.4 14.3 5.1 NO Child Beyond Kindergarten Community adults ...... 13 4.6 3:2 6.0 - 2.8 Selected adults ........ 8 5.3 2.8 7.7 - 4.9 Selected parents ....... 4 4.1 0.0 8.2 - 8.2 NO Children Community adults ...... 31 11.4 11.3 11.4 - 1.0 Selected adults ........ 18 11.9 9.7 14.1 - 4.4 Selected parents ....... 3 3.1 0.0 6.1 - 6.1 No (excluding "no child beyond kindergarten" and "no Children") Community adults . . . . 186 81.5 84.0 78.9 5.1 Selected adults ........ 98 79.1 79.4 78.7 0.7 Selected parents ....... 64 82.0 80.6 83.3 — 2.7 Yes (excluding “no child beyond kindergarten" and "no children") Community adultS ...... 43 T86 16.0 21.1 - 5.1 Selected adults ........ 26 21.0 20.6 21.3 - 0.7 Selected parents ....... 14 18.1 19.4 16.7 2.7 Community adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 50 per cent. 182 TABLE XLI WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE WITH ANY PUPIL WHOSE ABILITY TO READ, WRITE, SPELL, AND DO ARITHMETIC IS NOT ALL IT SHOULD BE WHEN HE ENTERS HIGH SCHOOL? Sample Total Total Diff. EC; Pct. p- . . . N . P t. . o C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 576 113.2 111.6 114.1 Selected adults . ....... 282 110.1 111.2 109.7 Selected parents . . . . . . . 206 110.0 108.9 110.7 Let Them Go VRight On, Accept Individual Differences Community adults . ..... 36 7.0 9.0 5.0 4. Selected adults . ....... 18 7.1 8.6 5.5 3.1 Selected parents ....... 16 8.7 7.7 9.6 - 1. Give Different Type Of Education, ShOp, Vocational, Etc. Community adults ...... 35 7.0 5.2 8.7 - 3.5 Selected adults ........ 14 5.5 3.1 7.9 - 4.8 Selected parents ....... 12 6.6 8.8 4.3 4.5 Separate Into Special Groups, Special Teacher, Special Rooms Community adults ...... 99 19.8 13.9 25.7 -ll.8 Selected adults ........ 43 16.9 13.3 20.7 - 7.2 Selected parents ....... 20 10.8 11.0 10.6 0.4 Give Special Attention in Class Tutor, Homeissigrlments, 7 Summer School Community adults ...... 151 29.6 32.6 26.6 6.0 Selected adults ........ 74 29.0 37.5 20.5 17.0 Selected parents ....... 51 27.6 29.7 25.5 4.2 Find Out Cause by Testing and Guidance Community adults . . . . . . 17 3.5 1.5 5.4 - 3.9 Selected adults ........ 12 4.8 2.4 7.1 - 4.7 Selected parents ....... 5 2.7 1.1 4.3 - 3.2 183 TABLE XLI (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No P t Drop- H.S. D'ff ' C ' Outs Grads 1 ° Hold Back, Repeat Grade or Subject Community adults ...... 101 19.8 21.7 17.8 3.9 Selected adults ........ 58 22.8 25.8 19.7 6.1 Selected parents ....... 37 20.0 18.7 21.3 - 2.6 Let Them Drop Out, Go to Work Community adults ...... 22 4.4 4.1 4.6 - 0.5 Selected adults . ....... 10 3.5 2.4 5.5 - 3.1 Selected parents ....... 9 4.9 5.5 4.3 1.2 Comment, Fault of Teachers in Grade School Community adults ...... 47 9.4 7.9 10.8 - 2.9 Selected adults ........ 24 9.4 7.8 11.0 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 19 10.2 6.6 13.8 - 7.2 Comment, Fault of Home, Fault of Others Community adults ...... 11 2.1 3.4 0.8 2.6 Selected adults ........ 3 1.2 2.4 0.0 2.4 Selected parents ....... 7 3.8 5.5 2.1 3.4 Other Suggestions Community adults ...... 16 3.2 2 6 3.7 - l 1 Selected adults ........ 9 3.6 2 4 4.7 - 2 Selected parents ....... 6 3.3 2 2 4.3 - 2 1 Don't Know Community adults ...... 38 7.4 9.7 5.0 7 Selected adults ........ 16 6.3 5.5 7.1 - 1 6 Selected parents ....... 21 11.4 12 1 10.6 5 Number in community adults sample = 508. Number in selected adults sample = 255. Number in selected parents sample = 185. 184 seem to favor keeping the child with difficulties in a regular, unseg- regated class, and giving him the necessary attention to let him continue with his classmates. The difference between the groups on the question of whether there is too much homework, shown in Table XLII, certainly does not establish that the drop-out is more apt to feel that there is too much homework. It is significant that only about 13 per cent of the public feel that the school Should require less homework. About 70 per cent of the drop—outs and parents of drOp-outs, like the rest Of the pOpulation, seem to favor either as much or more homework than is at present assigned. Since statistical significance of the data in Table XLIII is very low, there is little validity for the differences between the groups. There is nothing here to indicate that drop—outs and parents of drop- outs do not favor the memorization of patriotic material, at least to the same degree as the rest of the adults in the community. Gen- erally speaking, although educators realize their value, overemphasis upon homework and memorization are generally associated with meth- ods based upon the disproven “faculty theory" of learning. Since the drop-outs are slightly more apt to favor them, as shown in Tables XLII and XLIII, then perhaps it is not stretching the data too far to suggest, again, that here is further evidence of a tendency toward "old fashioned" or "traditional" ideas among the drop-Outs. The similarities in the answers in Table XLIV are much more striking than the differences. The public does not favor smaller classes to the same extent as do the teachers mentioned in the re- search quoted on page 171. Less than 25 per cent favor a class size of twenty-five or less, whereas 50 per cent of the teachers favored a class size of twenty-five or less. This suggests that if smaller classes would help to make it possible to do better work 185 TABLE XLII DO YOU BELIEVE MORE HOMEWORK, ABOUT THE SAME, OR LESS HOMEWORK SHOULD BE REQUIRED OF HIGH SCHOOL PUPILS THAN 18 NOW REQUIRED? Total Total PCt‘ PCt' Pct. Sample No. Pct. DrOp- H.S. Diff Outs Grads ' . Total Community adults ...... 668 101.7 101.1 101.8 Selected adults ........ 322 102.9 102.5 103.1 Selected parents ....... 276 103.0 101.8 103.8 More Community adults ...... 175 26.5 29.9 23.0 6.9 Selected adults . ....... 76 24.3 26.2 22.3 3. Selected parents ....... 77 28.7 28.7 28.6 0.1 About the Same Community adults ...... 777283 v 43T2 38.7 47.6 - 8.9 Selected adults ........ 140 44.7 40.4 49.0 - 8.6 Selected parents ....... 107 39.8 39.7 39.8 - 0.1 Less Community adults ...... 90 13.7 12.3 15.1 - 2.8 Selected adults . ....... 47 15.0 15.4 14.6 0.8 Selected parents ....... 35 13.1 11.8 14.3 - 2.5 Depends on Individual Community adults ...... 27 4.1 4.4 3.8 0.6 Selected adults ........ 16 5.1 5.7 4.5 1.2 Selected parents ....... 16 6.0 7.4 4.5 2.9 Don't Know Community adults ...... 88 13.4 14.7 12.0 2.7 Selected adults ........ 40 12.8 13.5 12.1 . Selected parents ....... 37 13.8 13.2 14.3 -, 1.1 Not Asked, NO Answer Given Community adults ...... 77' 5 0.8 1.2 0.3 0 9 Selected adults ........ 3 1.0 1.3 0.6 0 7 Selected parents ....... 4 1.6 0.8 2.3 - l 5 Number in community adults sample = 658. Number in selected adults sample = 313. Number in selected parents sample = 269. 186 TABLE XLIII DO YOU THINK PUPILS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEMORIZE SUCH THINGS AS THE PREAMBLE TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND LINCOLN'S GETTYSBURG ADDRESS? Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct. Sample DrOp- H.S. . N . P t. . o c Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ..... . 508 100.1 100.1 99.9 Selected adults . ....... 255 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 185 100.1 100.0 100.1 Yes Community adults . ..... 386 75.9 78.7 73.0 5.7 Selected adults . ....... 201 78.9 80.5 77.2 3.3 Selected parents ....... 152 82.2 84.6 79.8 4.8 .1119. Community adults ...... 115 22.8 19.5 26.1 - 6.6 Selected adults . ....... 49 19.2 16.4 22.0 - 5.6 Selected parents ....... 28 15.1 12.1 18.1 - 6.0 Don't Know Community adults ...... 6 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.7 Selected adults ........ 5 2.0 .l .8 2. Selected parents ....... 3 1.7 2.2 1.1 1.1 Not Asked, No Answer Given Community adults . . . . . . l 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 Selected parents ....... 2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 g E Community adults x2 > 20 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 40 per cent. 187 TABLE XLIV ABOUT HOW MANY PUPILS DO YOU THINK A TEACHER CAN TEACH SUCCESSFULLY IN A HIGH SCHOOL CLASS? Sample Total Total ngt' :Cst Pct, r p- . . . N . P t. . o C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 758 100.2 100.0 99.7 Selected adults ........ 378 100.1 99.9 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.4 100.0 100.2 Forty-or More Community adults ...... 76 10.0 10.1 9.9 0.2 Selected adults ........ 32 8.5 7.9 9.0 - 1.1 Selected parents ....... 33 11.1 10.1 12.1 - 2.1 Thirty-five to Thirty-nine Community adults ...... 60 7.9 7.5 8.3 0.8 Selected adults ........ 31 8.2 9.0 ' 7.4 1.6 Selected parents ....... 18 6.1 6.7 5.4 1.7 Thirty to Thirty—four Community adults . . . . . . 154 20.4 16.8 23.9 - 7.1 Selected adults . ....... 83 22.0 19.6 24.3 - 4.7 Selected parents ....... 51 17.2 14.8 19.5 - 4.7 188 TABLE XLIV (Continued) Pct. Pct. T T Sample 13:31 13:11 Drop- H.S. 113C; ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Twenty-five to Twenty-nine Community adults ...... 183 24.4 22.8 25.5 — 2.7 Selected adults ........ 90 23.8 23.8 23.8 0.0 Selected parents ....... 68 22.9 21.5 24.2 - 2.7 Twenty-one to Twenty-four Community adults ...... 50 6.6 4.4 8.8 - 4.4 Selected adults . ....... 25 6.6 6.3 6.9 - 0.6 Selected parents ....... 12 4.1 4.7 3.4 1.3 Twenty or Less Community adults ...... 121 16.0 16.1 15.8 0.3 Selected adults ........ 58 15.4 13.2 17.5 - 4.3 Selected parents ....... 47 15.8 17.4 14.1 3.3 Don't Know, or NO Answer Community adults ...... 114 14.9 22.3 7.5 14.8 Selected adults ........ 59 15.6 20.1 11.1 9.0 Selected parents ....... 69 23.2 24.8 21.5 3.3 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 50 per cent. 189 with the drOp-out, the teacher and educator have a job to do to con- vince parents, and particularly the parents of drOp-outs, that this is needed. When the responses were analyzed the question, "How much freedom should be given students . . . ?" in Table XLV, there is an indication that on the whole drOp-outs and parents of drOp-outs are not as favorable to giving freedom to students as are the rest of the adults. This reaction could result from a feeling that if someone had shown less freedom where they were concerned, they would have completed school; or perhaps it represents a feeling that since they and/or their children were not elected to Offices in the student council, and did not take part in other extracurricular activi- ties, this is a privilege which should have been denied to all students; or perhaps it's that same old tendency toward "traditionalism." This finding will be further documented in the following discussion on the school program or curriculum. The data in Table XLVI summarize the answers of the adults to the questions about what could be done to keep students in school if they had previously indicated that this was desirable (confer ante, page 127). The graduates are more inclined, as usual, to make sug- gestions, while the drOp-outs and parents of drop-outs more frequently respond "don't know." There is no statistically significant evidence in Table XLVI that drop-outs, in comparison to graduates, feel that lowering the cost of education, getting the cooperation of parents, counseling pupils, better teaching, an adapted curriculum, or more out-of-class activities would help to keep children in school. Again, this should suggest that if educators know that such changes are helpful, then they should take steps to see that people who would be most benefited by such changes are aware of them, so that they can help the administrator and school board to gain them for their 190 TABLE XLV HOW MUCH FREEDOM DO YOU THINK PUPILS SHOULD BE GIVEN IN MANAGING THEIR OWN AFFAIRS THROUGH STUDENT GOVERNMENT AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 680 134.6 125.4 143.1 Selected adults ........ 348 136.7 129.9 143.1 Selected parents ....... 231 125.1 119.8 130.8 Little or No Freedom Community adults ...... 12 2.3 3.4 1.2 2.2 Selected adults . ....... 6 2.4 3.9 0.8 .1 Selected parents ....... 5 2.7 3.3 2.1 1.2 Some Freedom, Freedom in Some Areas, Not Too Much Community adults ...... 104 20.7 17.2 24.1 - 6.9 Selected adults ........ 53 20.9 14.9 26.8 -ll.9 Selected parents . . . . . . . 36 19.5 19.7 20.2 - 1.5 As Much as Possible, As Much as Can Handle Community adults ...... 172 34.4 24.7 44.0 -l9.3 Selected adults ........ 93 36.5 26.6 46.4 -l9.8 Selected parents ....... 47 25.3 18.7 31.9 -l3.2 Complete Freedom Community adults . . . . . . 32 6.3 6.0 6.6 - 0.6 Selected adults ........ 12 4.7 3.9 5.5 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 9 4.9 4.4 5.3 - 0.9 Closely Supervised, Well Supervised Community adults ...... 27 5.4 4.5 6.2 - 1.7 Selected adults ........ 13 5.1 4.7 5.5 - 8 Selected parents . . . . . . . 6 3.2 1.1 5 3 - 4 2 ‘ v ‘7 191 TABLE XL V (Continued) Pct. Pct. T t l T t Sample 130a 11:1 Drop- H.S. D'Cftf ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Supervised, Watched, Someone Over Them Community adults ...... 67 13.4 10.5 16.2 - 5.7 Selected adults ........ 36 14.1 12.5 15.7 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 22 11.9 9.9 13.8 - 3.9 Little Supervised Community adults ...... 22 4.4 3.4 5.4 - 2.0 Selected adults ........ 10 3.9 4.7 3.1 1.6 Selected parents ....... 4 2.2 1.1 3.2 - 2.1 Adult Leadership, Direction, Oversee Community adults . . . . . . 40 8.1 4.1 12.0 - 7.9 Selected adults . ....... 27 10.6 4.7 16.5 -11 8 Selected parents ....... 18 9.7 7.7 11.7 - 4.0 Advice in Counseling, Observation+(guidance) Community adults ...... 43 8.6 7.1 10.0 - 2. Selected adults ........ 22 8.7 8.6 8.7 - 0.1 Selected parents ....... 6 3.3 3.3 3.2 0 Other Comment Community adults ...... 89 17.2 22.8 11.6 11.2 ‘Selected adults ........ 37 14.5 18.0 11.0 .0 Selected parents ....... 50 27.1 29.7 24.5 5.2 Don't Know Community adults ...... 71 13.6 21.3 5.8 15.5 Selected adults ........ 39 15.3 27.4 3.1 24.3 Selected parents ....... 27 14.7 19.8 9. 10.2 Not Asked, No Answer Given Community adults ...... l 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... l 0.6 1.1 0.0 1.1 __ Number in community adults sample = 508. Number in selected adults sample = 255. Number in selected parents sample = 185. Community adults ...... Selected adults . ....... Selected parents ....... Community adults ...... Selected adults . ....... Selected parents ....... Community adults ...... TABLE XLVI 192 WHAT DO YOU THINK CAN BE DONE TO KEEP STUDENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL? Sample Community adults ...... Selected adults Selected parents ....... ........ Pct. Drop- Outs 109.3 113.6 106.4 Pct. H.S. Grads Pct. Diff. 116.2 114.8 111.4 Answered "No" or "Don't Know" to Question in Table XVIII Educate Parents, It‘s Up to Parents, COOperation 17.6 14.7 15.2 Parents and School 14.9 14.7 13.9 Convince Pupils Of Importance of Education Selected adults Selected parents ....... Community adults ...... 5.0 6.3 2.5 Counseling, The Personal Approach by Schools Selected adults Selected parents ....... Community adults ...... 5.4 7.4 8.9 By Law, Raise Agg for CompulsoryfiAttendVance Selected adults Selected parents ....... ._4 f f 10.8 6.3 19.0 19.8 - 2.2 17.9 - 3.2 21.8 - 6.6 Between 19.8 -14.9 25.3 -10.6 19.2 - 5.3 11.8 - 6.8 10.5 - 4.2 6.4 - 3.9 7.0 - 1.6 4.2 3.2 2.6 6.3 12.8 - 2.0 12.6 - 6.3 10.3 8.7 193 TABLE XLVI (Continued) Pct. Pct. T t T Sample 13031 ;::l Drop- H.S. 13:: ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Finavngial, Lower Costs, Part-Time Work Community adults ...... 25 6.1 6.3 5.9 0.4 Selected adults ........ 15 7.9 10.5 5.3 5.2 Selected parents . . . . . . . 10 6.4 5.1 7.7 - 2.6 Interest, Better Teaching Community adults ...... 60 14.7 14.9 14.4 0.5 Selected adults ........ 36 19.0 22.1 15.8 6.3 Selected parents ....... 20 12.8 8.9 16.7 - 7.8 Interest, Adapted Curriculum Community adults . ..... 30 7.6 5.0 10.2 - 5.2 Selected adults ........ 16 8.4 6.3 10.5 - 4.2 Selected parents ....... 12 7.7 7.6 7.7 - 0.1 Interest, More Out-Of-Classv Activities Iommunity adults ...... 21 5.8 4.1 6.4 - 2.3 elected adults ........ 9 4.8 5.3 4.2 1. elected parents ....... 4 2.6 2.5 2.6 - 0.1 Other ommunity adults ...... 17 4.2 4.1 4.3 - 0.2 elected adults ........ 10 5.3 5.3 5.3 0.0 elected parents ....... 2 1.3 2.5 0.0 2.5 Don't Know ommunity adults ...... 48 11.1 19.4 2.7 16.7 :lected adults ........ 16 8.4 14.7 2.1 12.6 :lected parents ....... 26 16.6 19.0 14.1 4.9 Not Asked, No Answer Given immunity adults ...... 6 1.5 1.8 . 0. lected adults ........ 1 0.6 0.0 1.1 - 1.1 lected parents ....... 3 1.8 1.3 2.3 - 1.0 Number in community adults sample = 409. Number in selected adults sample = 190. Number in selected parents sample 2 155. 194 children. That parents of drOp—outs would like to see more children complete school is once more evident from the fact that 19 per cent, compared to 10.3 per cent of the other adults mentioned, were in favor of having the compulsory age for school attendance raised. IV. THE SCHOOL PROGRAM A review of selected research. Roald Campbell and John A. Ramseyer say, Those who study the problem suggest that the reasons for with- drawal are not limited to lack of ability to learn. In fact, evi— dence seems to be mounting to show that schools have failed to adjust their programs to the needs of many Of these pe0p1e.218 Very few people would disagree. However, the extent and nature of these changes is a frequent cause for disagreement. Many educators have studied the problem of drop-outs in an attempt to discover what type of program is needed; others have tlready started implementing programs, as is shown by data col- ected by the Committee on the Judiciary Of the United States Senate: The subcommittee found school administrators quite concerned about school drop-Outs and in several communities making ef- forts to find ways and means of keeping potential drop-outs in There is interest in several communities, for example, school. Un- in what it known as the 6-2, 5-3, and 4-4 school program. der this program youngsters are required to attend school 6, 5, or 4 hours per day depending upon the individual case, and per- mitted to work on various jobs in the community on a 2, 3, or 4 hour per day basis.219 2 8 l Roald F. Campbell and John A. Ramseyer. The Dynamics ' School Community Relationships. Allyn and Bacon, Inc. New ark: 1955. p. 84. Juvenile De— 21 9Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate. Washing— iquency. Report No. 61. United States Printing Office. n: 1955. p. 91. 195 Success has already smiled on an attempt to reduce drOp-outs at Croton-Harmon high school, where the holding power rate was in— creased from 71 per cent prior to 1951 to 93 per cent in 1952, largely through program changes: Briefly, the changes consisted of: (l) adoption of a philosophy that the school has the Obligation to try to keep every single youth in school thru graduation or thru age 18; (2) modification of the curriculum and the grouping of classes in the required courses to fit more closely the needs, abilities, and interests of slow learners; (3) the addition of several elective courses in business education, industrial arts, and homemaking of practical value to these potential nongraduates; and (4) increased guidance service.220 No doubt many of these changes grew out of a research finding by G. McGee in his doctoral thesis that "in the non graduate group, almost three fourths of all failures Occurred in the required sub- jects, English, social studies, and general science." 2 Meanwhile, Dr. Shibler, speaking for the staff at Indianapolis, says, We do believe that every child should have the type of education that will help him reach a worthy goal, whether it is tinsmith- ing, studying nuclear physics, or being a Shoe cobbler, an effi- cient housewife, or an engineer.222 ill of these statements seem to document a feeling among educators hat "the curriculum must sooner or later have something in the na- 23 . .1re of a major rebuilding. According to Dr. Hand, even lay peo- le favor a revision of the school program: B7 ZZOGeorge A. McGee. "We Increased Our Holding Power." yE.A. Journal. Washington: November 1953. p. 482. 221 George A. McGee. A Study of the Holding Power of the roton-Harmon High School with Proposals for Improvement. Unpub- Zhed Ph.D. Thesis? Teachers College, Columbia University. 1952. p. 153. ZZZHel‘man L Shibler. ”Attacking the Drop-out Problem." .E.A. Journal. January 1955. p. 26. 223 Warren K. Layton. Special Services for the Drop-out and e Potential Drop-out. The American Child. May 1952. p. 3. 196 Overwhelmingly, the 3,000 parents and 1,300 non parents who took part in the survey demanded more connection between public edu- cation and real life problems. In high school they wanted their children to develop their abilities for earning a living, to prepare themselves for marriage and parenthood, to find out more about the world they're living in, to learn how to handle money, how to "get along with other people," and, as one housewife wrote in her questionnaire, "how to be somebody themselves and not all the time Bob Hope or Elizabeth Taylor."224 Research in Kansas on drOp-outs showed that drop-outs do their poorest work in social studies, English, mathematics, and sci— ence. At the same time, the subjects in which they did their best work were industrial arts, physical education, art, social studies, 225 English, and speech. Data collected in Pennsylvania showed that social studies, English, mathematics, and science were ranked by the drOp-outs as "least good," and that subjects of "greatest good" were industrial, vocational, mathematics, English, business, and sci- ence courses. In St. Joseph, Michigan, "English . . . led the list of subjects which they considered valuable to them Since leaving 2 school." 7 And at Lakewood, "English and mathematics were 224John Kord Lageman. "A. Red Rose from Teacher." Nation's Business. August 1952. n.p. (reprint) 22 5Office of the Principal. "A Study of Fifty-three Drop-Outs from Liberty Memorial High School." Lawrence, Kansas. August 1951. p. 5. (mimeOgraphed) 226 ' ' F. L. Pond. "Pennsylvania Study of Drop-outs and the Curriculum." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 37. No. 195‘. Washington: 1953. pp. 81- 88. 227 "A. Follow-up of the Classes of 1949 and M. R. MacKay. 1950 of the St. Joseph High School." The Bulletin of the Michigan Lansing: April Secondary School Association. Vol. XVII. No. 4. 1953. p. 49. 197 considered the most helpful courses in their present occupation by the largest percentage of students. History was indicated as the least helpful.228 There is generally a difference between boys and girls, with girls preferring English and boys preferring mathematics and Science.229 The research data with respect to school subjects substantiate the findings of Dillon, whose statement aptly summarizes: It will be noted that the subjects mentioned most frequently are the "tool" subjects and are probably closely related to the type of job the individual secured upon first leaving school. Mathe- matics, English, and business subjects would be useful to the former students engaged in sales work and mathematics and shOp subjects to those employed in factories. Because it has been found in other studies that difficulty in getting along with peOpIe is the most frequent cause of losing jobs, the low rating given to social studies courses by these young people should be given serious consideration by the schools since it is an indication that the value of these courses in future work and living relationships is not impressed on students. In fact, many of the social studies courses as presently constituted emphasize historical facts and processes instead of getting at the underlying need to understand the importance of human relationships in every day life and in current political and social developments. Another important aspect of the school program is the extra- curricular. Many researchers have established that drOp-outs take part in substantially fewer extracurricular activities than do other 228 . Benton Yates. "A. Follow-up Study of Drop-outs 1948- 1952, Lakeview Consolidated Schools. (Battle Creek)." The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Association. Vol. XVII. No. 4. Lansing: April 1953. p. 52. 22 . ()F. L. Pond. Op. cit., p. 82. 230Harold J. Dillon. Early School Leavers: A Major Edu— cational Problem. No. 401. National Child Labor Committee. New YOrk: October 1949. pp. 70 et seq. 198 231,232,233,234 . students. Most of the studies found that "four-fifths of the drop-outs do not participate at all in extracurricular activi- ties."235 In Spite of this marked difference in participation in extra- curricular activities, there do not seem to be any very revealing differences between the attitude of drOp-outs and other students toward them. Sando found no significant differences between the attitude of 236 drOp-outs and the nonleavers toward the extracurricular prOgram. His research on this subject is summarized in Now Hear Youth as follows: In general, no significant differences were found between drop- outs and nonleavers in their attitudes toward extracurricular activities. The one noteworthy exception was this: drOp-outs were less proud of their school, presumably because they felt the extracurricular activities somehow were inadequate. It is important to note, however, that both groups expressed a marked degree of dissatisfaction with student activity programs.237 231 2 23 Raymond S. Orr. "A. Study of Relationships Between Cer- :ain Personal Data Factors and Early School Leaving." Guidance flews Bulletin. Vol. IX. No. 3. Wyoming State Department of Edu- :ation. February 1953. p. 9. 233Richard H. Dresher. Factors in Voluntary Drop-outs in _he Public Secondary Schools of Detroit, Michigan. Unpublished Dh.D. Thesis. Oregon State College. June 1953. p. 78. Harold J. Dillon. Ibid., p. 44. 234G. F. Ekstrom. "Why Farm Children Leave School." Lchool Review. December 1947. p. 236. 235A. J. Dahlburg. "Some Do Not Graduate." Ann Arbor ligh School. Ann Arbor, Michigan: August 1953. p. XX. 36Rudolph F. Sando. A. Comparative Study of Early School .eavers. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, 1952. nicrofilm). 237 , , , William H. McCreary and Donald E. Kitch. "Now Hear outh." Bulletin of the California State Department of Education. 01. XXII. No. 9. Sacramento: 1953. p. 41. 199 The analysis of the data. The reSpOnses of the drOp-outs, parents of drop-outs, and graduates with respect to the school pro- gram were compared on the following questions: 1. What do you believe should be given more time and at- tention in your schools? 2. What do you believe should be given less time and at- tention in your schools? 3. Which do you think should receive the most time and attention, state and local government or federal govern- ment? 4. Should they teach about important generals of the Revo- lutionary and Civil wars? How about history of labor unions? What do you think about the time given to dramatics? What do you think about the time given to band? What do you think about the time given to athletics? \OCIDKIO‘U'I What do you think about the time given to clubs and or- ganizations ? 10. If something had to be cut out of your high school in the future to save money, what do you think should be drOpped? In comparing the answers to the question on what should be given more time and attention in the schools in Table XLVII, there appear to be very few differences between groups which can be identified. One would probably be safe in assuming that parents of drop-outs are more aware Of the need for religious and human re- lations training than are the other groups. Their tendency to favor more discipline in the school again shows up in their responses to this question. Graduates are more disposed to say that meeting "individual differences” is important. All groups indicate a desire for more time on communication skills, mathematics, reading, and the vocational subjects, but the 200 TABLE XL VII WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE TIME AND ATTENTION IN YOUR SCHOOLS? Total Total Pet“ PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ° ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 332 132.7 127.4 137.5 Selected adults . ....... 175 141.3 129.1 153.2 Selected parents ....... 148 130.3 130.6 132.8 Religign, Ethics, Morals (good, honorable, honest), Human Relations Community adults ...... 33 13.4 16.8 9.9 6.9 Selected adults ........ 20 16.1 14.5 17.7 - 2.2 Selected parents ....... 24 20.9 25.4 16.4 9.0 Vocational, Business, Typing, Shorthand Community adults . . . . . . 23 9.2 7.6 10.7 - 3.1 Selected adults ........ 14 11.3 6.5 16.1 - 9.6 Selected parents ....... 14 12.3 13.6 10.9 2.7 History, GeOgraphy, Social Studies, Civics, Citizenship, Government Community adults ...... 16 6.4 6.7 6.1 0.6 Selected adults ........ 11 8.9 8.1 9.7 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 10 8.8 10.2 7.3 2.9 Three R's Community adults . . . . . 18 6.9 5.4 8.4 - 3.0 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 10 8.1 6.5 9.7 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 6 5.3 5.1 5.5 - 0.4 Arithmetic, Mathematics Community adults ...... 35 13.9 11.8 16.0 - 4.2 Selected adults ........ 19 15.4 9.7 21.0 —11.3 Selected parents ....... 13 11.5 8.5 14.5 — 0 201 TABLE XL VII (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct, sample No Pct Dmp' H's“ D'ff ' ° Outs Grads 1 ' Reading, Phonics Community adults ...... 44 17.6 16.0 19.1 - 3.1 Selected adults ........ 24 19.3 19.3 19.3 0. Selected parents ....... 17 15.1 10.2 20.0 - 9.8 Spelling,§nglish, Grammar, Writing, Penmanship, Speech Community adults ...... 54 21.5 18.5 24.4 - 5.9 Selected adults ........ 29 23.4 21.0 25.8 - 4.8 Selected parents ....... 20 17.6 16.9 18.2 - 1.3 Fine As Is Community adults ...... 27 10.8 10.1 11.5 - 1.4 Selected adults . ....... 11 8.9 8.1 9.7 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 9 7.9 8.5 7.3 1.2 Discipline, More Emphasis on Study Community adults ...... 23 9.4 11.8 6.9 4.9 Selected adults ........ 10 8.1 11.3 4.8 6.5 Selected parents ....... 12 10.5 11.9 9.1 2.8 Needs of Individual Child, Motivation, Integration, Wide Choice of Subjects Community adults ...... 16 6.3 3.4 9.2 - 8 Selected adults ........ 7 5.7 4.8 6.5 - 1.7 Selected parents ....... 2 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.0 Other, Music, Art, Outside Activity, Etc. Community adults ...... 7 2.8 2.5 3.1 - 0.6 Selected adults ........ 3 2.4 3.2 1.6 1.6 Selected parents ....... 2 1.8 0.0 3 6 - 3 6 Don't Know or Not Asked, NO Answer Given Community adults . ..... 36 14.5 16.8 12.2 4.6 Selected adults . ....... 17 13.7 16.1 11.3 4.8 Selected parents ....... 19 16.8 15.3 18.2 - 2.9 — Number in community adults sample = 250. Number in selected adults sample = 124. Number in selected parents sample 2 114. 202 graduates Show slightly more preference in these areas. The social studies group is also mentioned for more time. When the question about what should receive less attention was asked, the results shown in Table XLVIII indicate that graduates and parents of graduates were much more satisfied with the School than were the drop-outs and parents Of drop-outs. About 40 per cent of the graduates and 20 per cent of the drop-outs indicated that they would not like to see anything receive less attention. This is a ratio of two to one in favor of the graduates. Again the drop-outs respond "don't know" in significantly greater numbers than do the graduates, which probably indicates more than twice as much apathy on their part toward education. "Athletics" was most frequently mentioned to receive less attention by both groups, followed by other extra- curricular activities; music and art were next in line, with the graduates apparently more willing to cut down on all of them than In view of the previous mentioned findings in regard the drop-outs. to the value of history, it is not surprising that it is the only re— quired subject which was mentioned as deserving less time and attention. The data in Table XLIX indicate that possibly one reason that history is not pOpular is because more people, would prefer emphasis upon state and local history over federal history. There is some indication, although statistically insignificant, that the drOp-outs and parents of drop-outs are more inclined to favor emphasis upon state and local than were the graduates. The data in Table L indicate that a majority of the people favor teaching about "important generals," although the drop—outs ire less inclined to agree. In Table LI the drOp-outs are less inclined to favor teaching bout the "history of labor unions," and the group as a whole is 203 TABLE XLVIII WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE GIVEN LESS TIME AND ATTENTION IN YOUR SCHOOLS? Total Total PCt‘ PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. Diff ' ' Outs Grads ' Total Community adults ...... 261 104.7 102.6 106.2 Selected adults ........ 128 103.1 99.8 105.3 Selected parents ....... 119 104.8 103.6 105.5 Nothing Community adults ...... 79 31.2 21.8 40.5 -18.7 Selected adults . ....... 35 28.2 19.3 37.1 -l7.8 Selected parents . . . . . . . 33 29.4 16.9 41.8 -24.9 Social Life, Extracurricular Outside Activity Community adults ...... 19 7.5 4.2 10.7 - 6.5 Selected adults ........ 12 9.7 6.5 12.9 - 6.4 Selected parents ....... 7 6.2 6.8 5.5 1.3 Athletics Community adults ...... 40 16.0 16.0 16.0 0.0 Selected adults ........ 19 15.3 11.3 19.3 - 8.0 Selected parents ....... 23 20.5 13.6 27.3 -l3.7 Play, Recreatiog Community adults ...... 12 4.9 5.9 3.8 2.1 Selected adults ........ 6 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.0 Selected parents ....... 7 6.2 5.1 7.3 - 2.2 204 TABLE XLVIII (Continued) Pct. Pct. t Sample Tlgoal T;::11 Drop- H.S. 3% ° . Outs Grads 1 ° Physical Education Community adults ...... 6 2.4 2.5 2.3 0.2 Selected adults ........ 3 2.4 3.2 1.6 1.6 Selected parents ....... 2 1.7 3.4 0.0 3.4 Mjsic and Art Community adults ...... 11 4.3 1.7 6.9 - 5 2 Selected adults ........ 6 4.9 l 6 8.1 - 6 5 Selected parents ....... 3 2.8 0 0 5.5 - 5 5 History Community adults . ..... 8 3.3 3 4 3.1 0 3 Selected adults ........ 6 4.8 4 8 4. 0 0 Selected parents ....... 2 1.7 3 4 0.0 3 4 Foreign Language Community adults ...... 2 0.8 8 0.8 O 0 Selected adults . ....... 2 1.6 .6 .6 0.0 Selected parents ....... 2 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.0 Other Iommunity adults ...... 17 6.9 7.6 6.1 1.5 Selected adults ........ 4 3.2 3.2 3. 0.0 ielected parents ....... 8 6.9 10.2 3.6 6.6 Don't Know Zommunity adults ...... 67 27.4 38.7 16.0 22.7 elected adults ........ 35 28.2 43.5 12.9 30.6 elected parents ....... 32 27.6 42.4 12.7 29.7 Number in community adults sample 2 250. Number in selected adults sample = 124. Number in selected parents sample 2 114. 205 TABLE XLIX WHICH DO YOU THINK SHOULD RECEIVE THE MOST TIME AND ATTENTION, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample NO Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults ...... 508 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 255 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 185 100.2 100.1 100.1 Federal Community adults ...... 96 19.1 16.5 21.6 - 5.1 Selected adults ........ 44 17.3 14.9 19.7 - 4.8 Selected parents ....... 30 16.2 14.3 18.1 — 3.8 State and Local Community adults ...... 233 45.8 47.9 43.6 4.3 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 114 44.7 48.4 40.9 7.5 Selected parents ....... 85 46.1 49.5 42.6 6.9 Same for Each Above Community adults ...... 170 33.5 32.6 34.4 - 1.8 Selected adults ........ 91 35.7 32.0 39.4 - 7.4 Selected parents, ....... 65 35.1 30.8 39.4 - 8.6 Don't Know Community adults . . . . . . 8 1.5 2.6 0.4 2.2 Selected adults ........ 5 2.0 3.9 0.0 3.9 Selected parents ....... 4 2.2 4.4 0.0 4.4 Ngt Asked, No Answer Given Community adults ...... l 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 1 0.4 0.8 0.0 0 Selected parents ....... 1 0.6 1.1 0.0 l 1 Community adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 50 per cent. SHOULD THEY TEACH ABOUT IMPORTANT GENERALS OF TABLE L THE REVOLUTIONARY AND CIVIL WARS? 206 Total Total Pet‘ PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults ...... 508 100.1 100.1 99.9 Selected adults ........ 255 100.1 100.0 99.9 Selected parents ....... 185 100.3 100.1 100.1. Yes Community adults . ..... 191 37.7 35.6 39.8 - 4.2 Selected adults ........ 88 34.5 32.8 36.2 - 3.4 Selected parents ....... 78 42.2 40.7 43.6 - 2.9 Think 50 Community adults ...... 95 18.8 16.9 20.7 - 3.8 Selected adults ........ 46 18.1 13.3 22.8 - 9.5 Selected parents ....... 26 14.1 12.1 16.0 - 3.9 No Community adults ...... 110 21.7 21.3 22.0 - 0.7 Selected adults ........ 61 23.9 25.8 22.0 3.8 Selected parents 34 18.5 20.9 16.0 4.9 Think Not Community adults ...... 96 18.8 21.0 16.6 4.4 Selected adults ........ 53 20.8 23.4 18.1 5.3 Selected parents ....... 37 20.0 19.8 20.2 - 0.4 Don't Know Community adults ...... 16 3.1 5.3 0.8 4.5 Selected adults ........ 7 2.8 4.7 0.8 3.9 Selected parents ....... 10 5.5 6.6 4.3 2.3 I; Selected adults x2 > 10 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. Community adults x2 > 5 per cent. 207 TABLE LI HOW ABOUT HISTORY OF LABOR UNIONS? Total Total PCt' pCt' Pct. sample No. Pct. Drop“ H‘S‘ Diff Outs Grads ' Total Community adults ...... 508 100.2 100.2 100.0 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 255 100.3 100.0 100.1 Selected parents ....... 185 100.0 99.9 99.9 Yes Community adults ...... 312 61.7 56.6 66.8 -10.2 Selected adults . ....... 152 59.7 54.7 64.6 - 9.9 Selected parents ....... 109 58.9 60.4 57.4 3.0 Think SO Community adults ..... . 57 11.4 9.4 13.3 - 3.9 Selected adults . ....... 34 13.4 11.7 15.0 - 3.3 Selected parents ....... 24 12.9 12.0 13.8 - 1.8 NO Community adults ...... 65'— 12.7 15.0 10.4 4.6 Selected adults ........ 34 13.4 18.0 8.7 9.3 Selected parents ....... 22 11.9 9.9 13.8 - 3.9 Think Not Community adults ...... 40 I 7.9 7 9 7.9 0 Selected adults ........ 20 7.9 6.3 9.4 - 3.1 Selected parents ....... 12 6.5 6.6 6.4 0.2 Don't Know Community adults ...... W31Ffi 775.9 10.5 .2 9.3 Selected adults ........ 14 5.5 9.3 1.6 7.7 Selected parents ....... 16 8.7 9.9 7.4 2.5 Not Asked, No Answer Given Community adults . . . . 3 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 Selected adults . ....... 1 0.4 0.0 0.8 - 0.8 Selected parents ....... 2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 5 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 208 substantially more favorable to a study of the "history of labor unions" than it is to the study of the "important generals." Tables LII, LIII, LIV, and LV all deal with different aspects of the extracurricular prOgram. It appears that a substantial ma— jority of the public feel that the school is spending just about the right amount of time on these activities. Athletics seems to be in the least favorable position, with about 15 per cent of the people favoring a reduction in the time, while about 5 per cent favored an increase. On the whole, the drOp-outs were almost insignificantly inclined to favor less time on extracurricular activities than the graduates. In view of the fact that they and their children probably did not or could not participate as actively as the graduates in these activities, it is surprising that they are not more critical. But this is the type of response that the review Of the research disclosed was very common (confer ante, page 198). The responses to the question, "If something had to be cut out . . . what . . . ?" Shown in Table LVI reiterates what has already been indicated by the previous question. Lay citizens feel that athletics should be the first to go; followed by the category music, art, dramatics; with the other extracurricular activities close behind. The drop-outs are slightly less inclined to favor cutting, but this is because more of them reSponded "don't know." It is rather significant that people are much more inclined to favor cutting in the above-mentioned areas than on teachers, buildings, or transportation. There does seem to be some slight tendency for parents of drOp-outs, when compared to graduates, to be ,more favorable to cutting in these three categories; however, it is quite evident that such small differences are not statistically s ignific ant . 209 TABLE LII WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE TIME GIVEN TO DRAMATICS? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. Diff ' ° Outs Grads ' Total Community adults ...... 508 100.0 100.0 100.0 Selected adults . ....... 255 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected parents ....... 185 100.1 99.9 100.0 TOO Little Community adults ...... 35 7.0 5.2 8.7 - 3. Selected adults . ....... 16 6.3 7. 4.7 3.1 Selected parents ....... 4 2.1 2.1 2.1 0. About Right Community adults ...... 293 58.0 52.1 63.9 -11.8 Selected adults ........ 150 58.9 52.4 65.4 -l3.0 Selected parents ....... 92 49.7 50.5 48.9 1.6 TOO Mpch Community adults . . . . . . 76 14.8 19.1 10.4 8.7 Selected adults ........ 39 15.3 19.5 11.0 8.5 Selected parents ....... 40 21.7 22.0 21.3 0.7 Doe't 1810:” Community adults ...... 103 20.1 23.6 16.6 7.0 ielected adults ........ 50 19.6 20.3 18.9 1.4 ielected parents . . . . . . . 48 26.0 24.2 27.7 — 3.5 No Answer ommunity adults ...... 1 0.2 0.0 0.4 - 0.4 elected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 elected parents ....... l 0.6 1.1 0.0 1.1 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 20 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. TABLE L111 210 WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE TIME GIVEN TO BAND? Total Total Pet“ PCt' Pct. Sample NO Pct Dr0p- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 508 100.1 100.0 99.9 Selected adults ........ 255 100.1 100.1 100.0 Selected parents ....... 185 100.1 100.0 100.0 TOO Little Community adults ...... 28 5.6 4.5 6.6 2.1 Selected adults . ....... 13 5.1 5.5 4.7 0.8 Selected parents ....... 9 4.9 4.4 5.3 0.9 About Right Community adults ...... 401 79.1 77.2 80.9 3.7 Selected adults ........ 203 79.7 75.8 83.5 7.7 Selected parents ....... 142 76.7 73.6 79.8 6.2 Too Much Community adults 33 6.5 6.7 6.2 0.5 Selected adults ........ 14 5.5 5.5 5.5 0.0 Selected parents 17 9.2 8.8 9.6 0.8 Don't Know Zommunity adults ...... 45 8.7 11.6 5.8 5.8 elected adults 25 9.8 13.3 6.3 7.0 elected parents ....... 16 8.7 12.1 5.3 6.8 No Answer immunity adults 1 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 lected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 0.6 1.1 0.0 1.1 ected parents .: .— Comngunity adults x2 > 10 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 50 per cent. 211 TABLE LIV WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE TIME GIVEN TO ATHLETICS? Sample Total Total 131:3; EC; ° Pc t . N . P t. ' ' ° . O C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 508 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 255 100.0 100.0 99.9 Selected parents ....... 185 100.0 100.0 100.0 Too Little Community adults ...... 28 5.5 5.6 5.4 0.2 Selected adults ........ 19 7.5 6.3 8.7 - 2.4 Selected parents . ...... 13 7.0 6.6 7.4 - 0.8 About Right Community adults ...... 364 71.7 70.0 73.4 - 3.4 Selected adults ........ 174 68.2 69.5 66.9 2.6 Selected parents ....... 114 61.7 62.6 60.7 1.9 TOO Much Community adults ...... 82 16.2 16.5 15.8 0.7 Selected adults ........ 42 16.5 15.6 17.3 - 1.7 Selected parents ....... 43 23.3 23.1 23.4 - 0.3 Don't Know Community adults ...... 34 6.7 7.9 5.4 2 5 Selected adults ........ 20 7.8 8.6 7.0 1 6 Selected parents ....... 15 8.1 7.7 8.5 - 0.8 Community adults x2 < 50 per cent. Selected adults x2 < 50 per'cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 212 TABLE LV WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE TIME GIVEN TO CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS? Total Total PCt‘ PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ° Total Community adults ...... 508 100.2 100.1 100.0 Selected adults . ....... 255 100.1 100.1 100.0 Selected parents ....... 185 100.2 99.9 100.1 Too Little Community adults . ..... 38 7.6 5.6 9.5 - 3.9 Selected adults ........ 22 8.6 7.8 9.4 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 10 5.4 5.4 5.4 0.0 About Right Community adults ...... 285 56.4 51.7 61.0 - 9.3 Selected adults . ....... 146 57.3 52.4 62.2 - 9.8 Selected parents ....... 95 51.4 52.7 50.0 2.7 TOO Much Community adults ...... 49 9.7 9.4 10.0 - 0.6 Selected adults ......... 22 8.7 8.6 8.7 - .1 Selected parents ....... 23 12.5 13.2 11.7 1.5 Don't Know Iommunity adults . . . . . . 135 26.3 33.4 19.1 14.3 elected adults ........ 65 25.5 31.3 19.7 11.6 31ected parents ....... 56 30.3 27.5 33.0 - 5.5 No Answer mmunity adults ...... l 0.2 0.0 0.4 - 0.4 ected adults ........ 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 ected parents ....... 1 0.6 , 1.1 0.0 1.1 _— Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 30 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 213 TABLE LVI IF SOMETHING HAD TO BE CUT OUT OF YOUR HIGH SCHOOL IN THE FUTURE TO SAVE MONEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE DROPPED? Total Total PCt‘ Pet“ Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ° ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 488 120.0 115.6 124.0 Selected adults ........ 219 115.7 115.7 115.0 Selected parents ....... 180 115.4 117.0 115.4 Tran8portation (bus, reduce size of service area, field trips) Community adults . ..... 12 2.9 2.7 3.2 - 0. Selected adults . ....... 5 2.7 3.2 2.1 1.1 Selected parents ....... 4 2.6 3.9 1.3 2.6 Buildings, Maintenance, Supplies Community adults ...... 11 2.8 2.3 3 — 0.9 Selected adults ........ 4 2.2 3.2 1.1 2.1 Selected parents ....... 5 3.3 5.2 1.3 3.9 Teachers (number, salaries) Community adults ...... 11 2.8 2.3 3.2 - 0 9 Selected adults ........ 5 2.7 2.1 3.2 - 1 1 Selected parents ....... 6 3.9 6.5 1.3 Vocational Subjects, Home Economics, Shop, Journalism Community adults ...... 15 3.8 2.7 4.8 - 2.1 Selected adults ........ 7 3.7 4.2 3.2 1. Selected parents ....... 2 1.3 2.6 0.0 2.6 Music, Band, Art, Dramatics Community adults ...... 65 16.4 11.3 21.4 -10.1 Selected adults ........ 28 14.7 10.5 18.9 - 8. Selected parents ....... 17 10.0 9.1 12.8 - 3.7 5‘3 214 TABLE LVI (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp— H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Extracurricular Activities (parties, clubs) Community adults ...... 43 10.7 8.6 12.8 - 4.2 Selected adults ........ 18 9.5 8.4 10.5 - 2.1 Selected parents ....... 15 9.7 5.2 14.1 - 8.9 Sports, Athletics (specified Sports) Community adults ...... 106 26.0 25.2 26.7 - 1.5 Selected adults ........ 41 21.6 20.0 23.2 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 44 28.4 24.7 32.1 - 7.4 Other Courses (specified) Community adults . .. . . . . 20 5.0 4.1 5.9 - 1 Selected adults . ....... 8 4.3 3. 5.3 - 2.1 Selected parents ....... 5 3.2 2.6 3.8 - 1.2 Nothing Mentioned Community adults ...... 76 18.8 16.7 20.9 - 4.2 Selected adults ........ 39 20.5 17.8 23.2 - 5.4 Selected parents ....... 37 23.9 23.4 24.4 - 1.0 Other Community adults ...... 17 4.0 5.9 2.1 3.8 Selected adults ........ 9 4.8 8.4 1.1 7. Selected parents ........ 6 3.9 3.9 3.8 0.1 Don't Know Community adults ...... 112 26.8 33.8 19.8 14.0 Selected adults ........ 55 29.0 34.7 23.2 11.5 Selected parents ....... 39 25.2 29.9 20.5 9.4 Number in community adults sample 2 409. Number in selected adults sample = 190. Number in selected parents sample = 155. 215 V . SUMMAR Y In examining the findings with respect to Opinions about teach- ers, the thing which stands out most forcefully is not the difference of attitudes between the drop-outs and the non-drOp-outs, but the The review of the literature and research on this sub- similarities. ject could lead one to believe that drop-outs, who most frequently are found in the lower social classes, would have very different atti- tudes toward teachers either because of their social class or be- This cause of what teachers do to children in their social class. There is very little in the data presented does not seem to be true. in this section that can be classified to show typical “social class" Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that teachers attitudes. would have any more trouble working with and understanding parents These data do suggest, of drOp-outs if they had the desire to do so. perhaps very tentatively, that because teachers have not been inclined to work with potential drOp-outs, adults who drOpped out or had child- ren drop out were more inclined to want to keep teachers‘ salaries low and encourage them to move out of the community more fre- This suggests that the "public relations" aspects Of teachers' quently. relations with the potential drOp-out not only have their impact upon school financing, but upon the welfare of the teachers. Finally, it can be said that the attitudes of drop-outs and >arents of drOp—outs toward teachers do differ from the attitudes of However, these differences are not "social class" oriented, raduates. ad could not be considered as serious impediments for the teacher 10 wants to work more closely with parents! In retrospect, the data on teaching methodolOgy seem to indi- te that there is very little difference between the Opinions of drOp- What little ts and parents of drOp—outs, and high school graduates. 216 evidence of difference there is shows the drop-Outs to be more in— clined to favor more stress upon certain aspects of the teaching proc- ess which most educators feel have been overemphasized in the past. In other words, many methodological changes which educators, teach- ers, and administrators are convinced will help to remedy the drOp- out situation are being introduced into the school without the support of the people who should be most interested in seeing them put into effect. This suggests that school people need to make a real effort. to communicate to the public at large, but particularly to the drOp-out adult, about what the school needs to do to make the education Of his children more effective. Regarding the school program, the drop-outs and parents of drop-outs appear to be much more apathetic than are the graduates. They seem to place more value upon music, art, religion, human relations, and similar subjects. They indicate, in comparison with the graduates, a desire to have more of the subject matter placed on a current, local level. There is nothing to indicate that they are more favorable to extending extracurricular activities, even though the research shows that they have not been able to take part in these activities to the extent that they probably should. The data in this section also suggest that before school Offi- cials attempt to extend the vocational and other studies which are usually recommended to serve the needs of "all American youth," the public should be much better informed as to the need for these subjects, since there is very little indication in any of the responses that there is any desire for more emphasis in these areas. It is a safe generalization that the people of the communities in this study are not aware of a need for a “major overhaul" of the curriculum, and would be quite alarmed if such a program were to be undertaken. CHAPTER VIII THE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OPINIONS REGARDING THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THE REASONS FOR LEAVING SCHOOL, AND THE GENERAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SCHOOL 1. INTRODUCTION This chapter deals with the remaining three topics which were investigated for this study. It compares the drOp-outs' and graduates' Opinions regarding the elementary school, the reasons for leaving school, and the general effectiveness of the school. 11. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The role of the elementary A review of selected research. 238 The school in causing drOp-Outs has generally been recognized. Michigan Committee on School Holding Power leaves little doubt about their feelings when they say, "The elementary prOgram has a decided impact upon whether or not a child remained in school." Soper and Weinrich, whose research covered 29,000 eighth grade pupils, 238 G. F. Ekstrom. "Why Farm Children Leave School." School Review. University of Chicago Press. 1947. 1m- 2 39The Michigan Committee on School Holding Power. proving Your School's HoldinLPower. Superintendent of Public Instruction. Lansing: 1954. p.11. 218 came to the conclusion that the decision to leave school during high school usually had its roots in the junior high and elementary ex- But despite what seems like almost universal perience of youth. agreement that this is true, the United States Senate committee "De- studying juvenile delinquency came to the following conclusion: spite general agreement that much could and should be done to help children who are experiencing problems in the elementary grades, 241 little such help is provided." Conclusive proof of the influence of the elementary school problem upon drOp-outs could rest on the fact that in Wyoming in 1951 "an average of twenty—five per cent of the boys and twenty per cent of the girls did not enter the ninth grade."242 Some investigators emphasize the attitude of the elementary "The elementary teacher who warns her pupils, ‘You'd teacher: better get this or you'll never get thru high school,‘ is contributing 243 to high drop out rates." Others Show that much of the harm done in the elementary school is due to retardation: 240E. Weinrich and W. Soper. "A. Five-Year Study of the University of Adjustment of Rural Schools to the Needs of Youth." 1949. p. 23. State of New York. Bulletin 1379. the Report Juv enile Delinquenc y . 241U. S. Senate Committee. 1955. p. 91. U. 8. Printing Office. Washington: "The Challenge of the Drop-out Prob- Vol. IX. NO. p. 13. No. 61. 242 Raymond S. Orr. em in Wyoming Schools." Wyoming State Department of Education, 1952. "Increasing Education's Holding Power." p. 666. .Guidanc e New 5 Bulletin . 243 M. Lambert. West Virginia Education Association. .E.A.. Journal. 219 Sixty per cent of the early school leavers had failed one or more grades while enrolled in school. Three of every four who had experienced grade failure had failed in the elementary school.244 Dresher says "elementary school failure" is a factor which "has- tens" withdrawal.245 Much more needs to be done to improve the elementary schools, but programs have already been implemented which are designed to help meet the needs of the problem children, who fre— quently leave school as soon as they reach the legal age for quit- 246,247,248,249 . . . In Grand Rapids, ”annual promotion is now a ing city wide policy" and "remedial reading programs for elementary 2 0 school . . . have helped numerous slow readers." 5 ‘In Michigan, 244 Stanley Hecker. "Early School Leavers in Kentucky." Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service. Vol. XXV. No. 4. College of Education. University of Kentucky, Lexington: June, 1953. p. 56. 245 Richard H. Dresher. "Factors in Voluntary Dr0p-outs." The Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. XXXII. No. 5. Washing- ton: January, 1954. p. 289. 246 Virginia Mae Axline. Play Therapy. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York: 1947. pp. 141—159. 24 ' 7Anna Elzi, James Hall, Marie Farrell, and M. Roberts. "Group Behavior of Boys and Girls." Teachers College, Columbia University, New York: 1951. pp. 107-154. 248 : Lowry W. Harding. Functional Arithmetic: Photographic Interpretations. Wm. C. Brown Company, Dubuque, Iowa: 1952. pp. 37-38. 249Dorothy Walter Baruch. New Ways in Discipline. McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc. New York: 1949. pp. 215-235. 250 _ , , Holding Power Committee of the Grand Rapids Board of Education. HoldinLPower in the Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Schools - K-14 May—’1, 1953. Board of Education. pp. 22—23. 220 "the visiting teacher act represented a definite advance and a con- siderable achievement. . . ." Passed in 1943, it permitted the state to match on a fifty-fifty basis the local expenditures for visiting teachers. According to Carr, this act, and smaller classes, are steps in the right direction: Mass child-handling and effective delinquency control simply cannot go together. Yet so far are ordinary community leaders from understanding the technology of delinquency control that it is not uncommon to hear civic clubs plugging for more effective delinquency control one week and for a reduction in school taxes, i.e. bigger classes, the next.251 Finally, there are many who, with Ruth Strang, would empha- size closer home-school COOperation to keep children in school: Of all the bridges between the school and the community, the report to parents is the oldest and most widely used. Depending upon the kind of message it bears, this report builds good will or ill will; it enlists or alienates the cooperation of pupil and parent.252 The analysis of the data. With educators in almost univer- sal agreement that the elementary school does have a marked effect upon the potential drop-out, it could be expected that the drop-out in adulthood would be inclined to have a different attitude toward the elementary school than the graduate. The questions in this study which could expose some of these differences were asked only in the St. Johns community. They were: 251Lowell J. Carr. Delinquent Control. Harper and Brothers, New York: 1950. pp. 284 et seq. 252Ruth Strang. Reporting to Parents. No. 10. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College. Columbia University, New York: 1952. p. 1. 221 1. Do you think that the work of the elementary school teacher is as important, more important, or less im- portant than the work of the high school teacher? 2. Why do you think that the work of the elementary school teacher is as important, more important, or less impor- tant than the work of the high school teacher? 3. In general, are you satisfied with the discipline in your grade school? 4. What methods of discipline do you think should be used in the grades? 5. What method do you think "should not" be used in the grade school? 6. What do you consider the desirable number of pupils per room in grade school? Only one comparison among the questions asked had a chi square level of 5 per cent. All of the remaining questions on which chi squares were run figures 20 per cent or less when tests of sig- nificance of the difference were run, so that the differences could not be considered very significant. Therefore, it can be assumed that either the questions were too general or that the effects of the elementary school. upon pupils, which were discussed earlier in this section, had a tendency to produce the same attitudes among the graduates as they did among the drop-outs. However, the responses to the questions have some important implications for the drop-out problem, if the assumption that the elementary school does contribute to the drop-out problem is correct. The data in Table LVII show that adults in this community do value elementary teachers much more than they do high school teachers. Further, they know why they value them, as is shown by their reSponses in Table LVIII. Educators in this community should find that any efforts to strengthen the elementary school program would be readily accepted by the lay citizens, eSpecially if it is 222 TABLE LVII DO YOU THINK THAT THE WORK OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER IS AS IMPORTANT, MORE IMPOR- TANT, OR LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE WORK OF THE HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER? Sample Total Total DEE; :Cst Pct. N . P t. ' ° D' . o C Outs Grads lff Total Community adults ...... 250 100.2 100.1 100.1 Selected adults ........ 124 100.0 99.9 100.0 Selected parents ....... 114 100.1 100.1 100.0 More Community adults ...... 174 69.4 64.7 74.1 - 9.4 Selected adults ........ 88 71.0 66.1 75.8 - 9.7 Selected parents ....... 73 64.2 61.0 67.3 - 6.3 Less Community adults ...... - 3 1.3 1 7 .8 0 9 Selected adults ........ 2 1.6 .6 .6 0.0 Selected parents . . . . . . . 2 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.0 The Same Community adults . . . . . . 68 27.4 30.3 24.4 5.9 Selected adults ........ 30 24.2 27.4 21.0 6.4 Selected parents . . . . . . . 36 31.5 33.9 29.1 4.8 Don't Know Community adults ...... 5 2.1 3 4 0.8 2 6 Selected adults ........ 4 3.2 4.8 1.6 3.2 Selected parents ....... - 3 2.6 3.4 1.8 1.6 Community adults x2 > 20 per cent. Selected adults x2'> 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 223 TABLE LVIII WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THE WORK OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHER Is AS IMPORTANT, MORE IMPORTANT, OR LESS IMPORTANT THAN THE WORK OF THE HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER? Pct. Pct. Total Total Pct. Sample DrOp- H.S. No. P t. Dif . C Outs Grads f Total Community adults ...... 255 102.1 99.9 103.6 Selected adults . ....... 128 103.5 100.1 106.4 Selected parents ....... 114 101.1 100.1 101.8 A Good Foundation is Needed Community adults ...... 167 66.6 61.3 71.8 -10.5 Selected adults ........ 82 66.2 62.9 69.4 — 6.5 Selected parents ....... 67 58.9 54.2 63.6 - 9.4 Character is Being Built, More Impressionable Community. adults ...... 22 8.6 5.0 12.2 - 7.2 Selected adults ........ 12 9.7 3.2 16.1 -12.9 Selected parents ....... 8 7.2 3.4 10.9 - 7.5 All Teachers are Important Community adults ...... 19 7.7 10.1 5.3 4.8 Selected adults ........ 8 6.5 9.7 3.2 6.5 Selected parents ....... 8 6.9 10.2 3.6 6.6 TABLE LVIII (Continued) 224 Pct. Pct. T Sample 13:31 T531 Drop- H.S. if}? ' ° Outs Grads 1 ' More to be Done Community adults ...... 12 5.0 7.6 2.3 5.3 Selected adults ........ 7 5.7 8.1 3.2 4.9 Selected parents ....... 9 7.8 11.9 3.6 8.3 Young Children Need More Attention, Older Need Less Community adults ...... 14 5.7 6.7 4.6 2.1 Selected adults ........ 8 6.5 6.5 6.5 0.0 Selected parents ....... 10 8.8 8.5 9 l 0.6 Study Habits Deve10p Community adults ...... 9 3.6 2.5 4.6 - 2.1 Selected adults ........ 4 3.2 1.6 4.8 3.2 Selected parents ....... 4 3.6 1.7 5.5 3.8 No Reason Given Community adults ...... 12 4.9 6.7 3.1 3.6 Selected adults ........ 7 5.7 8.1 3.2 4.9 Selected parents ....... 8 7.9 10.2 5.5 4.7 Number in community adults sample == 250. Number in selected adults sample = 124. Number in selected parents sample = 114. 225 based upon the thesis that the foundation is being laid for the mas- tery of tool subjects and character development. The fact that the drop-outs are slightly less inclined to support these findings could be another indication of the apathy of this group which has been referred to earlier in this study. The adults, both drop-outs and graduates, as shown by Table LIX, are satisfied with the discipline in the elementary school. This probably indicates that they do not feel that most teachers, by their disciplinary action-~or lack of it--are causing children to dislike school, drop out, or become delinquent. Other studie3253'254’255 show essentially the same amount of satisfaction with discipline, but on the whole their findings indicate that drop-outs are somewhat more inclined to feel discriminated against. "Strict discipline" is shown by Table LX to be desired equally by both graduates and drop—outs. This is to be achieved by taking away privileges, talking to the child, and parent-teacher conferences, all of which carry more favor among the graduates. Corporal pun- ishment (also mentioned more often by the graduates), keeping after school (favored more Often by the drop-outs), keeping the interest 2 53George A. McGee. A. Study of the Holding Power of the Croton-Harmon High School with Proposals £or_1mp'¥ovement. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Teachers College. Columbia Univer- sity. 1952. 2 4 5 Rudolph F. Sando. A. Comparative Study of Early School Leavers. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of California. 1952. (microfilm) 255Mflbum Judson White, A Study of the Attitudes of Pupils. Parents, and Teachers Toward the Personal-Social Economic, and PEOfessional Services of the Public Schools of North Carolina. Un- published Ph.D. Thesis. University of North Carolina. 1953. 226 TABLE LIX IN GENERAL, ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE DISCIPLINE IN YOUR GRADE SCHOOL? w Sample Total Total DPS“ :cst' Pct. r p- . . . N . P t. . o C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults . . . . . . 250 100.1 100.0 100.0 Selected adults ........ 124 100.1 100.0 100.1 Selected parents ....... 114 100.1 100.0 100.1 Yes Community adults ...... 207 82.8 83.2 82.4 0.8 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 101 81.5 80.7 82.3 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 97 85.1 84.7 85.5 — 0.8 .139. Community adults ...... 14 5.6 5.0 6.1 - 1.1 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 7 5.7 . 4.8 6.5 - 1.7 Selected parents ....... 6 5.4 3.4 7.3 - 3.9 Don't Know { Community adults ...... 29 11.7 11.8 11.5 0.3 Selected adults ........ 16 12.9 14.5 11.3 3.2 Selected parents ....... 11 9.6 11.9 7.3 4.6 Community adults x2 > 50 per cent. f Selected adults x2 < 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 < 50 per cent. 227 TABLE LX WHAT METHODS OF DISCIPLINE DO YOU THINK SHOULD BE USED IN THE GRADES? Sample Total Total DPZt° EC; Pct. r p- . . . N . P t. . o C Outs Grads Diff Total Community adults ...... 320 128.1 123.4 132.3 Selected adults ........ 161 130.0 122.4 137.1 Selected parents ....... 141 124.1 117.2 130.9 Dip—give of Privileges Community adults ...... 52 20.4 11.8 29.0 -17.2 Selected adults . ....... 31 25.0 17.7 32.3 -14.6 Selected parents . . . . . . . 16 14.2 10.2 18.2 - 8.0 Strict Discipline Community adults ...... 60 24.1 24.4 23.7 0.7 Selected adults ........ 30 24.2 19.3 29.0 - 9.7 Selected parents ....... 31 27.3 25.4 29.1 - 3.7 Love and Kindness (atmosphere) Community adults ...... 6 2.4 2.5 2.3 0.2 Selected adults ........ l 0.8 0.0 .6 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 4 3.5 5.1 1.8 3.3 Teacher Talk With Child Community adults ...... 42 16.7 14.3 19.1 - 4.8 Selected adults ........ 24 19.4 16.1 22.6 - 6.5 Selected parents ....... 14 12.5 6.8 18.2 -11.4 Parent-Teacher COOperation, Counseling, Teacher-Pupil Relationship Community adults ...... 22 8.7 6.7 10.7 - 4.0 Selected adults ........ 13 10.5 9.7 11.3 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 6 5.3 5.1 5.5 - 0.4 .7 fi— TABLE LX (Continued) 228 Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Dr0p- H.S. D'ff ' ' Outs Grads 1 ' Keep interest of Children Community adults ...... 12 4.8 5.0 4.6 0.4 Selected adults ........ 6 4.9 6.5 3.2 3.3 Selected parents ....... 6 5.1 10.2 0.0 10.2 Corporal Punishment Community adults ...... 20 8.0 6.7 9.2 - 2. Selected adults ........ 9 7.3 3.2 11.3 - 8.1 Selected parents ....... 9 8.0 5.1 10.9 - 5.8 Extra Work Community adults ...... 7 2.8 2.5 3.1 - 0.6 Selected adults . ....... 5 4.0 4.8 3.2 1.6 Selected parents ....... 3 2.6 3.4 1.8 1.6 Up to Teacher Community adults ...... 30 12.0 10.9 13.0 - 2.1 Selected adults ........ 12 9.7 8.1 11.3 - 3.2 Selected parents . . . . . . . 14 12.3 11.9 12.7 - 0.8 Keep After School Community adults ...... 24 9.7 11.8 7.6 4.2 Selected adults ........ 11 8.9 14.5 3.2 11.3 Selected parents . . 10 8.8 8.5 9.1 - 0.6 Don‘t Know Community adults ...... 30 12.3 17.6 6.9 10.7 Selected adults ........ 15 12.1 17.7 6.5 11.2 Selected parents ....... 17 14.9 15.3 14.5 0.8 Not Asked, No Answer Given Community adults ...... 15 6.2 9.2 3.1 6.1 Selected adults ........ 4 3.2 4.8 1.6 3.2 Selected parents ....... 11 9.6 10.2 9.1 1.1 Number in community {dults sample = 250. Number in selected adults sample = 124. Number in selected parents sample 2 114. 229 of children, love and kindness, and parent-teacher-pupil cooperation were also mentioned. The parents of drOp-out children, interestingly, seemed to be more disposed to feel that teachers should keep the interest of the child, but were less inclined to think that talking with the child has value. Again it should be cautioned that all of the dif- ferences are relatively small due to the small numbers in the sam- ple; and any differences may be due to chance only. This also applies to the data in Table LXI. Table LXI shows that over 80 per cent of the high school grad- uates and 60 per cent of the drop-outs say that physical punishment should not be used as a means of discipline. Ridicule and sarcasm are frowned upon by a substantial number of both groups. The dr0p— outs are apparently less sure of what kind of methods should not be used, since 30 per cent either replied "don't know" or had "no answer." The data on class size shown in Table LXII indicate that well over 50 per cent of the drop-outs and graduates alike favor an ele- mentary class size of less than twenty-seven. However, the parents of drOp-outs indicate, more significantly, a desire for smaller classes --perhaps agreeing with the experts that smaller classes would have helped to keep their child in school. III. THE REASONS FOR LEAVING SCHOOL A review of selected research. Lists Of reasons why children drOp out Of school provide a substantial amount of the research on drOp-outs. The, greater portion of these data consists of a tabulation of the reasons given by students for leaving school, frequently com- piled by a principal or guidance officer at the time of leaving school (exit interviews). Many such lists are compiled during follow-up 230 TABLE LXI WHAT METHOD DO YOU THINK "SHOULD NOT" BE USED IN THE GRADE SCHOOL? Pct. Pct. Sample T132211 T;::1 Dr0p- H.S. Eff: ° ° Outs Grads ' Total Community adults ...... 264 105.8 103.1 107.0 Selected adults ........ 127 102.5 101.6 103.2 Selected parents ....... 118 103.7 103.5 103.6 Physical Punishment Community adults ...... 161 63.8 49.6 77.9 -28.3 Selected adults . ....... 82 66.1 51.6 80.6 -29.0 Selected parents ....... 67 59.2 49.2 69.1 -l9.9 Striking Head, Pulling Ears Community adults ...... 21 8.5 10.9 6.1 4.8 Selected adults ........ 6 4.9 8.1 1. 6.5 Selected parents ....... 7 6.2 6.8 5.5 1.3 Ridigtllegndjarcasm Community adults ...... 22 8.8 8 4 9.2 - 0.8 Selected adults . ....... 10 8.1 9. 6.5 3.2 Selected parents ....... 5 4.4 5.1 3.6 1.5 Shouting, Raising Voice Community adults ..... . 5 2.0 2 5 1.5 1 0 Selected adults ........ 3 2.4 4 8 0.0 8 Selected parents ....... 1 0.9 l 8 0.0 l 8 231 TABLE LXI (Continued) Total Total PCt' Pet" Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ° Outs Grads 1 ' Keep Aftfefl: School Community adults ...... 3 1.3 1.7 0.8 0.9 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 .0 .0 Selected parents ....... 1 0.9 0.0 1.8 - 1.8 Self-Rule Community adults ...... 2 0.8 0.0 1.5 - 1.5 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 2 1.6 0.0 .2 - .2 Selected parents . ...... 1 0.9 0.0 1.8 - 1.8 Plofanity Community adults ...... 1 0.4 0.0 0.8 - 0.8 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Don't Know Community adults ...... 20 8.3 13.4 3.1 10.3 Selected adults ........ 10 8.1 12.9 3. 9.7 Selected parents ....... 15 13.0 16.9 9.1 7.8 No Answer Community adults . . . . . . 29 11.9 17.6 6.1 11.5 Selected adults ........ 14 11.3 14.5 8.1 6.4 Selected parents ....... 21 18.2 23.7 12.7 11.0 Number in community adults sample = 250. Number in selected adults sample = 124. Number in selected parents sample = 114. , 232 TABLE LXII WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE DESIRABLE NUMBER OF PUPILS PER ROOM IN GRADE SCHOOL? Sample Total Total 131:2: :CSt Pct. N . P t. ' ° ' . O C Outs Grads lef Total Community adults ...... 250 100.3 99.9 100.1 Selected adults ........ 124 100.0 99.9 100.0 Selected parents ....... 114 100.2 100.0 100.0 Thirtyeeight or More Community adults ...... 14 5.7 6.7 4.6 2.1 Selected adults ........ 5 4.0 4.8 3.2 1.6 Selected parents ....... 8 7.1 6.8 7.3 - 0.5 Thirty-three to Thirty-seven Community adults ...... 18 7.2 5.9 8.4 - 2.5 Selected adults ........ 10 8.1 6.5 9.7 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 9 8.1 3.4 12.7 - 9.3 Twenty-eight to Thirty-two Community adults ...... 47 18.9 20.1 17.6 2.5 Selected adults . ....... 23 18.5 19.3 17.7 1.6 0‘ l Selected parents ....... 21 18.6 13.6 23. 10.0 TAB LE LXII (Continued) 233 Pct. Pct. Sample T132211 T;::1 Drop- H.S. Eff: . ° Outs Grads ' Twenty-three to Twenty-seven Community adults ...... 76 30.3 26.1 34.4 - 8.3 Selected adults ........ 35 28.2 27.4 29.0 - 1.6 Selected parents ....... 33 29.0 28.8 29.1 - 0.3 Eighteen to Twenty-two Community adults . ..... 57 22.8 23.5 22.1 1.4 Selected adults . ....... 29 23.4 24.2 22.6 1.6 Selected parents ....... 21 18.2 25.4 10.9 14.5 Less than Eighteen Community adults ...... 13 5.2 4.2 6.1 - 1.9 Selected adults ........ 6 4.9 3.2 6.5 - 3.3 Selected parents ....... 6 5.3 5.1 5.5 - 0.4 Don't Know Community adults ...... 25 10.2 13.4 6.9 6.5 Selected adults ........ 16 12.9 14.5 11.3 3.2 Selected parents ....... 16 13.9 16.9 10.9 6.0 Community adults x2 > 50 per cent. Selected adults x2 < 50 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 5 per cent. 234 studies of the students who failed to graduate, using either interviews or mailed questionnaires. Occasionally parents of drop-outs have been polled, and the reasons which they had given for their child's leaving school are tabulated--but most of these lists seem to have been gathered in an almost incidental manner, unless they were a part Of a definite re- search pattern (commonly using Hand's Inventor] of Parent Opinipfin).256 In addition to the above, many lists are compiled by polling teachers, principals, and superintendents of schools on what they think caused children to leave school early. Some doctoral theses contain lists compiled in ways similar to those mentioned above. The data which are presented here cannot be considered rep- resentative of most studies, although it will be typical of many of the studies that are gathered locally and used locally in workshops and staff meetings to help give the teachers more insight into the drop- out problem. Many of these studies find their way into the educational journals and popular magazines, where they are used as arguments to help prove the need for certain educational practices. Some doctoral theses, which in most cases are somewhat more carefully and ob- jectively done, are also included. There is a substantial difference in the findings among the studies, and no effort will be made to eval- uate them in terms of their validity. The data with respect to "reasons for leaving school" suffer from one rather serious limitation: "Many pupils do not know exactly why they leave school or they may not want to divulge the 256Harold C. Hand. "What People Think About Their Schools." World Book Company. Yonker-on-Hudson, New York: 1948. pp. 153-180. 235 2 real reason." James White explains it this way in his doctoral thesis: Considering the usually unhappy circumstances preceding the de- cision to leave school, it is not surprising that the average school—leaver is not the most communicative of former students. Less than 25 per cent of those who received the questionnaire bothered to complete and return them. The remarks of a few of the respondents are probably indicative of one reason why so many others did not answer at a11--they were suspicious of the motive of the questionnaire and probably felt it was an attempt by the school to "trick" them into returning to school. It is unfortunate that such a hostility exists between some drop-outs and the school.258 The research study most often quoted in the drop-out litera- ture is one conducted by Dillon in 1944-1946, under the sponsorship of the National Child Labor Committee. This study deals with many aspects of the drop-out problem. It made use of schOol records and school personnel, trained as interviewers, to collect data on dr0p- outs. The findings in reSpect to the "reasons for youth leaving school" before graduation, were based upon interviews with 957 drop- outs, and showed the reasons for their decision to leave school to be as follows: (1) Preferred work to school, 36 per cent; (2) Needed money to buy clothes and help at home, 15 per cent; (3) Was not interested in school work, 11 per cent; (4) Could not learn and was discouraged, 7 per cent; (5) Was failing and did not want to repeat grade, 6 per cent; 257N. D. Evans. "How to Conduct a High School DI‘OP'Out Study." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 38. No. 200. 1954. p. 34. 258James Lawrence White. A Study of High School Dr0p Outs in Bergen County, New Jersey, and the Relationship of Dr0p Outs to the Guidance Practices with Special Reference to Business and Voca— tifonal Education. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Teachers College, Co- lumbia University. 1952. p. 94. 236 (6) Wanted Spending money, 6 per cent; (7) Disliked a certain teacher, 5 per cent; (8) 111 health, 5 per cent; (9) Disliked a certain subject, 3 per cent; (10) Friends had left school, 3 per cent; (11) Parents wanted youth to leave school, 2 per cent; (12) Could learn more out of school than in school, 1 per cent.259 White's study, mentioned earlier in this section, reported on mailed questionnaires received from 288 drop-outs in Bergen County, New Jersey, in 1949-50. His findings were quite different from those of the previous study. He found that the primary reasons students left school were: (1) Failing grades or subjects and was discouraged, 23.3 per cent; (2) Wasn’t interested in school, 14.9 per cent; (3) Preferred work to school, 14.6 per cent; (4) School did not offer the subjects I wanted, 10.4 per cent; (5) Dissatisfied with courses in general, 6.5 per cent; (6) Couldn't get along with a certain teacher, 5.9 per cent; (7) Wanted spending money, 5.9 per cent; ' (8) Didn't feel school was interested in me, 4.2 per cent; (9) Unable to adjust after transfer, 3.5 per cent; (10) Disliked a certain subject, 3.5 per cent; (11) Parents wanted me to leave school, 3.1 per cent; (12) Didn't have many friends in school, 2.1 per cent; (13) Good summer job became permanent, 2.1 per cent. 260 The principal reasons given for leaving school in Kentucky in 1947 based upon interviews with 440 drOp-outs show still a different pattern: (1) Dissatisfaction with school, 47.7 per cent; (2) Economic need, 19.4 per cent; (3) Lure of job, 11.7 per cent; 259Harold J. Dillon. Early School Leavefs. Publication No. 401. October 1949. National Child Labor Committee. New york. p. 50, 26 0James Lawrence White. Ibid., p. 99. 237 (4) Marriage or pregnancy, 6.6 per cent; (5) And other reasons, 14.6 per cent.‘?‘61 Several research studies are reported by the Research Division of the National Education Association in a publication called Dr0p- 262 outs. One of these studies is one in which James used a pre— pared check list sent to ninety-three schools to gather data on the reasons 841 youth dropped out of school in 1946 in New Mexico. He found that marriage was most important, with 22.6 per cent; that poor work in school, with 23.2 per cent, was second in importance; and that economic need, with 20.9 per cent, was also a major fac- 263 tor. Another study reported in this same publication shows that in Camden, New Jersey, Three main reasons were given for dropping out of school: in 1940-41, 45 per cent were not interested, 29 per cent were dis- couraged, and 7. 8 per cent went to work. In 1945- 46, 43 per cent were not interested, 21 per cent were discouraged, and 11 per cent went to work. 264 Other studies seem to get still different results. Exit interviewers in Austin, Texas, made intensive case studies of school leavers to find "the following factors among drop-outs, in approximate Order of incidence: 261E. Johnson and C. Legg. "Why Young People Leave School." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. November 1948. (reprint) U. S. Government Printing Office. 1949. p. 17. 62National Education Association of the U. S. School Ill-0p- outs. Research Division, N.E.A. April 1952. pp. 8-9. 263 H. W. James. "Children Dr0p Out of School." New Mexico School Review. 27: 4-5, 36: December 1947. 264Howard W. Brown. A. Study of Secondary School Dr0p- outs DurinLthe School Years 1940— 41 and 1945- 46. Camden, New Jersey, Board of Education, Bureau of Research. September 30, 1948. 84 pp. (mimeographed) 238 (1) Broken homes, (2) Financial need, (3) Low test scores, (4) Discouragement over academic prOgress, and (5) A feeling of "not belonging."265 The counselors at Evansville, Indiana, interviewed 254 drop-outs or their parents and found that: (1) Eighty-five disliked school in general; (2) Eighty-three needed money; (3) Thirty-six needed encouragement from the home and/or the school; (4) Twenty-five girls had gotten married or planned to; (5) Twenty had poor health or had illness at home; (6) Sixteen were not interested in certain subjects; (7) Sixteen had not been made to feel a part of the school; (8) Ten were suspended; and (9) Ten joined the armed services.266 School principals in Kansas City, Missouri, gave the following reasons for the withdrawal of 1,214 youth: (1) Entered verified employment, 530 cases; (2) Uninterested, discouraged, or lacked suitable program, 186 cases; (3) Marriage, 130 cases; (4) Specific reason not known, 128 cases; (5) Physically unfit, 76 cases; (6) Enlistment, 53 cases; (7) Whereabouts unknown, 50 cases; and (8) Anti-social behavior, 46 cases.267 26 5Weldom Brewer. "Why Do Students Quit School?" The Texas Outlook. Austin: 1950. p. 8. 266D. W. Snepp. "Why They Drop Out." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 35. No. 180. Washington: 1951. pp. 139-141. 267Holding Power Committee. Nine Out of One Hundred. Holding Power Studies--Bulletin No. 1. Research Department of the Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools. 1951-52. (mimeo— graphed) p. 1 0. 239 Ninety-four superintendents Of schools in cities of Over 50,000 and a few smaller cities in states with a low population gave the follow- ing reasons for school leaving when queried in 1951 by the National Child Labor Committee: (1) Increased employment opportunities, 44; (2) Expectation of draft, 34; (3) Economic need, 10; (4) Indifference, lack of interest, 3; 268 (5) Restlessness, insecurity, social maladjustment, 3. In Massachusetts, the principals gave the following reasons, listed in descending order Of incidence, for leaving school in 1951-52 for 7,496 boys and girls: (1) Preferred work to school; (2) Not interested in school; (3) Needed money at home; (4) Parents want youth to leave; (5) To enter services; (6) Was failing in school work;' (7) Could not learn in school; (8) 111 health; (9) Married; (10) Wanted Spending money; (11) Could learn more out of school; (12) Friends had left school; (13) Withdrawn because of discipline; (l4) Disliked a certain teacher; (15) Disliked a certain subject.Z69 Parlett L. Moore, in a study of drOp-outs in Negro secondary schools in Maryland, gathered evidence which revealed "a marked disagree- ment between the reasons for withdrawal found on school records and 268National Child Labor Committee. High SCEPOI Drop-outs 1111950-61. New York: (mimeOgraphed) p. 4. 269A. R. Mack. ”A Study of Dropouts." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 38. N0. 200, Washington: February 1954. p. 50. 240 those gained from testimony of the drOp-outs interviewed." School records showed that the principal reasons "in order of frequency" were: (1) Over compulsory attendance age (over 16 years of age). (2) Fourteen years of age in high school, indifferent or unable to do high school work. (3) Physical incapacity. But the responses obtained from interviews showed that: Pregnancy alone was responsible for 20.9 per cent of the dr0p- outs interviewed and employment accounted for 16.6 per cent. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ”Being tired of school” and "lack of interest" were given by 5.9 and 5.6 per cent . . . while "economic reasons other than employment" were mentioned by 4.1 per cent . . . and "dislike for school“ and "personal illness" . . . by 3.1 per cent and 3.8 per cent. The remaining 41.9 per cent . . . were distributed among 30 different reasons, each of which accounted for less than 3.0 per cent of all the cases interviewed.270 ’ The lack of agreement in the studies as to the reasons youth quit school leaves much to be desired. The fact that they were done in all parts of the United States, and covered a span of more than ten years, cannot account for such wide differences in results. How- ever, most of them do list reasons which seem to indicate that the school has within its orbit the power to make the changes which 'would keep a substantial number of drOp-outs in school. The Research Division of the National Education Association pretty much sums up the matter in the following manner: No single cause is responsible for students leaving school. The fact is well established that many are forced by straitened finan- cial circumstances in their families to withdraw from school and 270p, L. Moore. "Factors Determining Elimination in the Negro Secondary School." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 38. No. 200. Washington: 1954. pp. 45-46. 241 go to work. Others lack the sympathetic interest and encourage- ment at home-~perhaps from parents of limited education--which motivates many to complete their schooling. A. few withdraw for health reasons. A considerable number, e5pecially of the girls, marry and drop out of school before reaching the final year. But in conjunction with these and similar causes, a substantial reason for pupils leaving school is that they become disinterested in, or discouraged with respect to, its program. Every study of the causes of pupil withdrawals has attested this fact.2 1 The wide differences in the findings should be conclusive proof that drOp-out studies done in one community have only limited value for any other community, because: Each school has its own set of problems and needs that must be met in its own local school prOgram. Each pupil has his own set of individual problems and needs. Local research is neces- sary to find the problems and needs in any given school. The services that the school sets up to provide for individual pupil needs must be adapted to resources and facilities of the school, if the number of drop-outs is appreciably reduced.272 The analysis of the data. The data on why the adults in this study left school are in some ways quite similar to many of the stud- ies quoted earlier in this section. However, there are some differ- ences in the methodology of this study which could be expected to make a difference in the findings. First, the interviewing in this study was not done shortly after the person being interviewed, or his child, had left school. Second, the person being interviewed was not aware (nor, for that matter, was the interviewer) that there was 271Research Division of the National Education Association. 547 Have Gone. N.E.A. Federal Aid Series. No. 3. Washington: March 1948. p. 2. 272Raymond S. Orr. "The Drop Out Problem in Wyoming." Guidance News Bulletin. Vol. X. No. 4. Wyoming State Department of Education. (mimeographed) p. 5. 242 a drop-out study "in the making." Third, the interviewers were not local teachers or other administrative personnel connected with the school. Fourth, the question on why they left school was located in the section on personal data, and was so stated that it seemed to be almost an afterthought on the part of the interviewer. Following the question, "How far did you go in school?" the interviewer asked, "Why did you end your schooling at that point?" The same question was asked about the opposite spouse. It was asked regardless of the educational level already achieved by the interviewee or the spouse. The question on why their children failed to complete high school was asked in essentially the same manner. After the informa- tion on the highest grade completed for each child had been received and entered on the interview schedule, if the child had not completed high school the interviewer would ask, "Why did he [or she] end his schooling at that point?" Prior to the time when the present study was contemplated, the responses in answer to the question, "Why did you. end your schooling at that point?" had already been classified into twelve categories and punched on IBM cards--but not counted or intercor- related with any other variables. The data on when or why the child— ren had ended their schooling had not been classified or used in any way because other data seemed to have much more relevance to the basic objectives of the Michigan Communications Study at that time. When the present study was started, the reasons given for dropping out of school before graduation were examined. It was felt that twelve classifications could not be made sufficiently discriminating to be of much value in this study. Consequently, a new classifica- tion was made with nineteen categories, and all of the responses on why the adult ended his schooling were then reclassified. All of the data on the children were coded using this new classification. 243 However, the old classification on the adult‘s reason for end- ing school was also transferred to the set of IBM cards for this study, since they represented a means of cross-checking the data. They have a strong claim to objectivity, since no one was aware that a drop-out study would be made when the responses were clas- sified. Table LXIII shows the responses to the question, ''Why did you end your school at that point?" as originally classified. It is interesting to note that the high school graduates responded "couldn‘t afford to continue in school" and “lack of interest in school” almost as often as did the drop-outs. Other reasons that were popular with the graduates were “got married," "military service," "still in school,” and, of course, “school completed." The drop-outs more frequently gave as their reasons "went to work," "illness of self," "illness in family," and "school too far." The fact that so few graduates gave ”school completed" or "lack of interest“ as a reason for quitting school probably indicates that a substantial number among that 70 per cent of the graduates would have liked to have continued their. education. This condition, if true, helps to explain why the state of Michigan is able to support three great universities and many other colleges. It suggests that a more aggressive program to extend the opportunities for a college education to more youth would find substantial support, in these six commumities at least. The fact that almost no drOp-outs gave "military service" as a reason for quitting school probably indicates that those who did drop out for military service later completed school. It could mean that the military is not a threat to school holding power in these Communities. Another explanation could be that those who did per- manently terminate their education to enter the armed forces ended l (1. ii it'll. 113.13....16 .I‘KI.1‘C.. 244 TABLE LXIII WHY DID YOU END YOUR SCHOOLING AT THAT POINT? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Dr0p- H.S. Diff ' ' Outs Grads ° Total Community adults ...... 658 100.4 100.1 99.8 Selected adults ........ 313 100.1 99.7 100.0 Selected parents ....... 269 100.3 100.1 100.1 Went to Work Community adults ...... 177 26.8 30.5 23.0 7. Selected adults . ,,,,,,, 81 25.9 26.9 24.8 2.1 Selected parents . ...... 77 28.7 25.7 31.6 - 5. Couldn't Afford to Continue in School Community adults ...... 149 22.7 23.2 22.1 1.1 Selected adults ........ 57 18.2 20.5 15.9 4.6 Selected parents ....... 64 23.8 26.5 21.0 5.5 Lack of Interest in School Community adults ...... 92 14.0 14.7 13.2 1.5 Selected adults ........ 46 14.7 16.0 13.4 .6 Selected parents ....... 25 9.3 11.8 6.8 5.0 Got Married Community adults . . . . . . 59 9.2 4.1 14.2 -10.1 Selected adults ........ 27 8.6 3. 13.4 - 9. Selected parents ....... 14 5.3 2 2 8.3 - 6 1 School Completed Community adults ...... 55 8.5 4.7 _ 12.3 - 7.6 Selected adults ........ 26 8.3 3.2 13.4 -10.2 Selected parents . . . . . . . 26 9.7 7.4 12.0 - 4.6 Illness of Self, Lack of Ability to Continue Community adults . . . . t . 37 5.5 8.5 2.5 6.0 Selected adults ........ 23 7.4 11.5 3.2 .3 Selected parents ....... 18 6.7 7.4 6.0 1.4 fi— fi V— v ' ' ' ' ' 245 TABLE LXIII (Continued) .—_VV 1 __A i Sample Total Total Dif); :CSt Pct. N . P t. ° ' , o C Outs Grads Diff Illness in Family, Had to Care for Member of Family Community adults ...... 27 4.0 7.3 0.6 6.7 Selected adults ........ 15 4.8 8.3 1.3 7.0 Selected parents ....... 20 7.4 8.8 6.0 2.8 School Too Far. Community adults ...... 17 2.5 4.4 0.6 3.8 Selected adults ........ 9 2.9 5. 0.6 r 4.5 Selected parents ....... 10 3.7 5.1 2.3 2.8 Military Service Community adults ...... 17 2.7 0.3 5.0 - 4 7 Selected adults ........ 12 3.8 0.6 7.0 — 6.4 Selected parents ....... 6 2.3 0.0 4.5 - 4.5 Still in School Community adults ...... 13 2.1 0.0 4.1 - 4.1 Selected adults ........ 5 1.6 0.0 3.2 - 3. Selected parents ....... 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 Don't Know Community adults ...... 5 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.9 Selected adults ........ 4 1.3 l 9 0.6 1 3 Selected parents ....... 3 1.1 2 2 0.0 2 2 No Answer Community adults ...... 10 1.6 1.2 1.9 - 7 Selected adults ........ 8 2.6 1.9 3.2 - l 3 Selected parents ....... 4 1.5 .2 0.8 l 4 'Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 2 per cent. 246 up on the casualty lists or that they did not return to these com- munities to live. A comparison of the responses of the drop-outs and gradu- ates makes many of the data quoted in this section from other studies which used only data from drop-outs seem less significant. For instance, the fact that 15 per cent of the drop—outs say they quit because of "lack of interest," doesn't make "lack of interest" a. very good criteria for a "prediction of failure to graduate" if we know that 13 per cent of the high school graduates also say that they had a "lack of interest" in school. "Lack of interest" and "money," which are often shown by other studies to be the most serious ob- stacles to high school graduation, may in fact be only contributing factors, while other factors less frequently mentioned could be more significant. When nineteen categories of responses are used to classify the data, the findings are essentially the same, as is shown in Table LXIV. The use of more categories does permit a more critical analysis. For instance, the "went to work" section in Table LXIII, now classified as ”had to work" or "wanted, went, started to work ." shows that 13 per cent more drop—outs than graduates "had to work," and that5 per cent more graduates than drop-outs said they "went to work" when they finished school. "Lack of money" apparently became a more serious obstacle to continuing beyond high school than it was for those who quit before graduation from high School. The breakdown on "lack of interest" now shows that drop- outs were less inclined to like school, had more trouble learning, and couldn't get along as well with teachers, while the graduates ‘ responded that they didn't want to go on, and were equally uninter- ested in school. 247 TABLE LXIV WHY DID YOU END YOUR SCHOOLING AT THAT POINT? _I Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ' ° Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 658 100.4 100.1 99.8 Selected adults ........ 313 100.1 99.5 99.9 Selected parents ....... 269 100.5 99.9 100.4 Wanted, Went, Started to Work; Worked to Earn Money Community adults ...... 140 21.4 18.8 24.0 - 5.2 Selected adults . ....... 64 20.5 16.7 24.7 - 7.5 Selected parents . ...... 55 20.5 19.1 21.8 - 2.7 Lack of Money, Poor, Financial, fiDepression, '''' Couldn't Afford Community adults ...... 110 16.9 14.1 19.6 - 5.5 Selected adults ........ 45 14.4 14.7 14.0 0. Selected parents ....... 42 15.6 17.6 13.5 4.1 Had to Work Community adults . ..... 78 11.6 18.5 4.7 13.8 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 35 11.2 17.3 5.1 12.2 Selected parents ....... 39 14.5 14.7 14.3 0.4 People Not Expected, Fewer Went Then, Went High Enough, Should Work, Of Age, All There Was, Completed Training V—Vffi— v— v—V—v Community adults ...... 62 9.5 7.0 12.0 - 5.0 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 29 9.2 3.8 14.6 -10.8 Selected parents ....... 29 10.8 8.8 12.8 - 4.0 Got Married Community adults ...... 60 9.3 4.4 14.2 - 9.8 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 27 8.6 3.8 13.4 - 9.6 elected parents . . . . . . . 15 5.6 2.9 8.3 - 5.4 [_— v f v—f f 248 TABLE LXIV (Continued) 7 A . av— _ Pct. Pct. Sample T1331 1::31 Drop- H.S. g2: ° ' Outs Grads 1 ' Didn'tl/Vant to Go On, Wanted to Quit Community adults ...... 33 5.1 3.2 6.9 - 3.7 Selected adults ........ - 17 5.5 4.5 6.4 - 1 Selected parents ....... 8 3.0 2.9 3.0 - 0 l Ilvlness at Home, Death at Home Community adults ...... 28 4.1 7.6 0.6 7.0 Selected adults ........ 14 4.5 7.6 l 3 6.3 Selected parents . . . . . . . 19 7.1 8.8 5 3 3.5 Personal Illness Community adults . . . . . . 27 4.1 5.9 2.2 3.7 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 20 6.4 9.6 3.2 6.4 Selected parents ....... 12 4.5 5.1 3.8 1 3 Lack of Interest, Got Tired of School, Quit Community adults ...... 18 2.7 2.6 2.8 - 0.2 Selected adults . ....... 10 3.2 3.8 2.5 3 Selected parents ....... 6 2.2 2.9 1.5 4 Entered Armed Services Community adults ...... 17 2.7 0.3 5.0 - 4.7 Selected adults ........ 11 3.5 0.6 6.4 - 5.8 Selected parents ....... 5 1.9 0.0 3.8 - 3.8 School Too Far Community adults ...... 16 2.4 4.1 0.6 3.5 Selected adults ........ 7 2.2 3.8 0.6 .2 Selected parents ....... 8 3.0 3.7 2.3 1.4 Didn't Like, Couldn't Get Along with Teacher, Administrator, Knew More Than Teacher Zommunity adults ...... 10 1.5 2.9 0.0 2.9 elected adults ........ 5 1.6 3.2 0.0 3.2 elected parents ....... 3 1.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 l— fi fW ‘— V—v— V— v—‘7 249 TABLE LXIV (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No. Pct. DrOp- H.S. Diff Outs Grads ° Didn't Like, Had Trouble at School Community adults ...... 9 1.3 2.6 0.0 2.6 Selected adults ........ 3 1.0 1.9 0.0 1.9 Selected parents ....... 2 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 Didn't, Couldn't Understand, Learn; Grades Poor, Too Slow, BigTBackward fi fifi Community adults . . . if: 8 1.2 1.8 0.6 1.2 Selected adults . ....... 4 1.3 1.9 0.6 1.3 Selected parents . ...... 4 1.5 2.2 0.8 1.4 Handicapped, Mental, Hearing, Physical, Nerves Community afdults'. ..... 5 ' 0.8’ ' 1.2 0.3 0.9 Selected adults . ....... l 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected parents ....... 4 1.6 0.8 2.3 - 1.5 Moved Community adults ...... 5 0.8 1.2 ' 0.3 0.9 Selected adults ........ 3 1.0 1.3 0.6 0.7 Selected parents ....... 5 1.9 1.5 2.3 - 0.8 Other Unclassified Community adults ...... fl 21V I 3.2 I 2.3 4.1 - 1.8 Selected adults ........ 11 3.5 2.5 4. - .0 Selected parents ....... 7 2.6 2.2 3.0 - 0.8 - No Answer Community adults ...... 2 0.2 0 O 0.3 - 0 3 Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0 O 0.6 - 0 6 Selected parents ....... 2 0.8 0 8 0.8 0 0 Don't Know Community adults ...... 10 1.6 1.6 .6 0 0 Selected adults ........ 6 1.9 1.9 1.9 0 Selected parents ....... 4 1.5 2 .8 l 4 w Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 30 per cent. 250 To digress for a moment, it should be pointed out that a comparison of the data in these two tables (Tables LXIII and LXIV) shows, in a minor way, how some of the differences in the various research studies quoted earlier may be explained. Although the data in both of these tables were objectively and carefully classified along similar lines, an objective analysis of the data in Table LXIII does not always lead to the same conclusions that were made in Table LXIV, even though both of these tables were constructed from the same raw data. It illustrates quite forcefully that an analysis of data for one purpose may not be adequate, or provide "honest an- swers" for another. In other words, classifications which are satisfactory for objectives in one study may not be adequate for other similar studies. This suggests that the lack of similarity in findings in what may seem to be similar studies may frequently be due to differences in the objectives and frames of reference of the person making the study, as well as differences in methodology. And usually the data are not given in sufficient detail, so that they can be reanalyzed in terms of some other frame of reference. Again, with respect to Tables LXIII and LXIV, it should be pointed out that many of the reasons given are for a group of people, who are at least two generations removed from today's children, since over fifty of the persons interviewed now have grandchildren in school. Furthermore, 194 had children in school; 228 have children in school now, which in most cases would indicate that at least seven years has elapsed since they terminated their schooling (confer ante, pages 102 and 111). One of the values of the data in Table LXIV will be to see to what extent the reasons given for the adult's failure to complete school are the same as those given (as a parent) for their children who drOpped out. 251 In this study 149 families had a minimum of one child (either a boy or a girl or both) drop out. Of these families, 136 were asked why their children failed to complete high school. Table LXV summarizes the reasons given for the failure of boys to complete school in the 104 families where boys dropped out, and Table LXVI does the same for the seventy families that had girls fail to complete school. Actually, thirty-eight of these 136 families supplied the data for both Tables LXV and LXVI, since they had at least one boy and at least one girl who dropped out. There- fore, sixty‘six of the 104 families in Table LXV had one or more boys drop out, and the other thirty-eight families had at least one boy and one girl drOp out. Thirty-two of the seventy families in Table LXVI had one or more girls drOp out, and the other thirty- eight families had at least one girl and one boy drOp out. The fact that 104 of the families had boys drOp out, while only seventy had girls drop out is another strong indication that more boys than girls have dropped out in these communities. This same findings is con— firmed when the total responses for boys and girls are compared: there are 127 responses for boys and ninety for girls. .When the graduates and drOp-outs are compared in Table LXV (reasons for boys), it will be noted that almost no high school grad- uates have children who dropped out. In the few cases that there are, the graduates' explanation for their sons' failures are essentially the same as those of the drOp-outs. There is no apparent correlation between the reasons given for parents, as shown in Table LXIII, and the reasons given for their sons in Table LXIV. This indicates that either "times have changed" or that parents have a tepdency to rationalize, either their own failure or the failure of their children, or both. While rationalization undoubtedly does enter the picture, the reasons given in both cases seem to be essentially what might be 252 TABLE LXV WHY DID HE END SCHOOL AT THIS POINT? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D'ff ° ' Outs Grads 1 ' Total Community adults ...... 698 106.6 111.0 100.8 Selected adults . ....... 329 105.9 108.6 101.2 Selected parents ....... 175 64.8 128.6 0.0 Wanted, Went, Started to Work; Worked to Earn Money Community adults ...... 39 5.8 10.9 0.6 10.3 Selected adults . ....... 14 4.5 7.6 1.3 6.3 Selected parents . ...... 39 14.4 28.7 0.0 28.7 Didn't Want to Go On, Wanted to Quit Community adults ...... 20 3.0 5.0 0.9 4 1 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 11 3.5 5.1 1.9 3 Selected parents . . . . . . . 20 7.4 14.7 0 0 14 7 Lack of Interest, Got Tired of School, Quit Community adults ...... 11 1.6 2.9 0.3 2.6 Selected adults ........ 7 2.2 3.8 0.6 3 Selected parents ....... 11 4.1 8.1 0.0 8 1 Entered Armed Services Community adults ..... . 10 1.5 2.9 0.0 2.9 Selected adults ........ 4 1.3 2.5 0.0 2.5 Selected parents ....... 9 3.3 6.6 0.0 6.6 Lack of Money, Poor, Financial, Depression, Couldn't Afford Community adults ...... 9 1.3 2.6 0.0 2.6 Selected adults ........ 5 1.6 3.2 0.0 3.2 Selected parents ....... 9 3.3 6.6 0.0 6.6 Didn't Like, Had Trouble at School Community adults ...... 8 1.2 2.3 0.0 2.3 Select ed adults ........ 4 1.3 2.5 0.0 2.5 Selected parents . . . . . . . 8 3.0 5.9 0 0 5.9 v fiv— v 253 TABLE LXV (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct, Sample No Pct DrOp— H.S. D'ff . ° Outs Grads 1 ' Didn't, Couldn'tllnderstand, Learn, Grades Poor, Too Slow, Big, Backward ' “ Community adults ...... 7 1.1 1.8 0.3 .5 Selected adults ........ 4 1.3 1.9 0.6 1.3 Selected parents ....... 7 2.6 5.1 0.0 5.1 Didn't Like, Couldn't Get Along with Teacher, Administrator, KnngMOrg than Teacher Community adults ...... 7 1.1 2.1 0.0 2.1 Selected adults . ....... 3 1.5 1.9 0.0 1. Selected parents ....... 7 2.6 5.1 0.0 5.1 Personal Illness Community adults ...... 6 0.9 1.8 0.0 1.8 Selected adults ........ 3 1.0 1.9 0.0 1.9 Selected parents ....... 6 2.2 4.4 0.0 4.4 School Too Far Community adults ...... 4 0.6 1 2 0.0 2 Selected adults ........ 2 0.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 Selected parents ....... 4 1.5 2.9 0.0 2.9 Had to Work Community adults ...... 3 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 Selected adults ........ 2 0.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 Selected parents ....... 3 1.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 Illness at Home, Death at Home Community adults ...... 3 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected parents ....... 3 1.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 Got Mafiied Community adults ...... 3 0.5 0.9 0.0 9 Selected adults ........ 2 0.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 Selected parents . ...... 3 1.1 2 0 0 2.2 A V f v v vw if‘vv—v v—v vv 7 254 TABLE LXV (Continued) f —-_A . m Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. D’ff ' ° Outs Grads 1 ' Handicapped: Mental, Hearing, Physical, Nerves Community adults ...... 3 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 Selected adults . ....... 1 0.3 0.0 0.6 - 0.6 Selected parents ....... 3 1.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 Moved Community adults ...... 2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected parents . . ..... 2 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 Didn't Like Pupils, Couldn't Get Along Community adults . . . . . . 1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 Selected adults . ....... 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 1 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.8 People Not Expected, Fewer Went Then, Didn't Send, Went High Enough, Should Work, Of Age, All There Was, Completed Training Community adults . ..... 1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 1 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.8 No Answer, No Child Dropped Out, NO Child, or All Girls Viv if Community adults ...... 554 84.7 71.8 97.5 -25.7 Selected adults ........ 260 83.1 71.8 94.3 -22.5 Selected parents ....... 32 11.8 23.5 0.0 23.5 Don't Know Community adults ...... 7 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.3 Selected adults ........ 6 1.9 1.9 1.9 0. Selected parents . . . . . . . 7 2.6 5.1 0.0 5.1 rL L #L ' A A ——w Number in community adults sample a 658. Number in selected adults sample = 313. Number in selected parents sample = 269. 255 TABLE LXVI WHY DID SHE END SCHOOL AT THIS POINT? fi— Total Total PCt' Pct. Pct. Sample No Pct DrOp- H.S. Diff ° ' Outs Grads ' Total Community adults ...... 679 103.7 105.8 100.6 Selected adults ........ 320 103.5 104.5 100.6 Selected parents ....... 156 57.9 114.8 0.0 Got Married Community adults ...... 17 2.6 3.2 1.9 1.3 Selected adults ........ 11 3.5 3.8 3.2 0.6 Selected parents . ...... 16 5.9 11.8 0.0 11.8 Wanterd,fiWent, Started to Work; Worked to Earn Money Community adults ...... 15 2.2 4.1 0.3 3.8 Selected adults ........ 5 1.6 2.5 0.6 1.9 Selected parents ....... 15 5.5 11.0 0.0 11.0 Didn't Want to Go On, Wanted to Quit Community adults . ..... 8 1.2 2.3 0.0 2.3 Selected adults ........ 2 1.2 1.3 0.0 1.3 Selected parents ....... 8 3.0 5.9 0.0 5.9 Didn't Like, Had Trouble at School Community adults ...... 7 1.1 2.1 0.0 2.1 Selected adults ........ 2 1.2 1.3 0.0 1. Selected parents ....... 7 2.6 5.1 0.0 5.1 Lack of Money, Poor, Financial, Depression, Couldn't Affofirfi Community adults ...... 6 0.9 1.5 0.3 1.?- Selected adults ........ 2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 Selected parents ....... 6 2.2 4.4 0.0 4.4 Didn't, Couldn't Understand, Learn, Grades Poor, Too Slow, Big, Backward 00 Community adults ...... 6 0.9 1.8 0.0 1. Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0.6 0.0 Selected parents ....... 6 2.2 4.4 0.0 4.4 0‘ fi v_' f v—w '— vv—vv 256 TABLE LXVI (Continued) Total Total PCt‘ PCt‘ Pct. sample No Pct Dmp' H‘S' D‘ff . ° Outs Grads 1 ° Lack of Interest, Got Tired of School, Quit Community adults . ..... 5 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 Selected adults ........ 4 1.3 2.5 0.0 2.5 Selected parents ....... 5 1.9 3.7 0.0 3.7 Handicapped, Mental, Hearing, Physical, Nerves Community adults . ..... 5 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0.6 0.0 .6 Selected parents ....... 5 1.9 3.7 0.0 3.7 Illness at Home, Death at Home Community adults ...... 4 0.6 1.2 0.0 1.2 Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0.6 0.0 .6 Selected parents ....... 4 1.5 2.9 0.0 2.9 School Too Far Community adults ...... 4 0.6 1.2 0.0 1.2 Selected adults ........ 2 0.7 .3 0.0 .3 Selected parents ....... 4 1.5 2.9 0.0 _ 2.9 Had to Work Community adults ...... 3 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 Selected adults ........ 2 0.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 Selected parents ....... 3 1.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 Personal Illness Community adults ...... 3 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.9 Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected parents ....... 3 1.1 2.2 0.0 2.2 Didn't Like, Couldn't Get Along with Teacher, Administrator, Knew More than Teaiher Community adults ...... 2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected adults ........ 2 0.7 1.3 0.0 3 Selected parents ....... 2 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 Wf vv f 257 TABLE LXVI (Continued) 7' Br Sample Total Total D52“ EC; Pct. p- . . N . P t. o C Outs Grads Diff' Moved Community adults ...... 2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected adults . ....... 2 0.7 1.3 0.0 1.3 Selected parents ....... 2 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 Didn't Like Pupils, Couldn't Get Along Community adults ...... 1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected parents ....... 1 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.8 People Not Expected) Fewer Went Then, Didn't Send, Went High Enough: Should Work, Of Age,fiAll There Wag, Completed Trainivng vV—fv Community adults . ..... 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Othe r Unclas sified Community adults ...... 1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 1 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.8 No A.nswer,fiNo Child Dropped out, No Child, or All Boys Community adults ...... 588 89.7 81.2 98.1 -16.9 Selected adults ........ 280 89.5 82.7 96.2 -13.5 Selected parents ....... 66 24.3 48.5 0.0 48.5 Don't Know Community adults ...... 2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.6 Selected adults ........ 1 0.3 0 6 0.0 . Selected parents ....... 2 0.8 1.5 0.0 1.5 —— mjj r 1f 1 r I Number in community adults sample 2 658. Number in selected adults sample = 313. Number in selected parents sample = 269. 258 expected in view of the recent changes that have taken place in edu- cation and attitudes toward education. "Wanted to work" is still the most common (perhaps because its the most respectable) reason for leaving school early, but second in importance are those reasons which strongly and definitely indicate a feeling that the school could not or did not meet their child's needs: "Didn't want to go on . . .," "lack of interest . . .," "didn't like school . . .," "couldn't learn .," and "didn't like teacher . . ." are typical of the many re- sponses in this class. "Lack of money" and "entered the armed forces" were frequently mentioned. "Illness of self" and "illness at home," plus physical handicaps, also kept many boys from grad- uating, according to their parents. It is evident from these data that boys are expected to com- plete high school, and that they are not forced or expected either by their parents or by circumstances to go to work until after‘high school has been completed, but that other factors--many of which are school-connected--cause them to drOp out. An examination of Table LXVI (reasons for girls) shows a very high degree of correlation with the findings in Table LXV (rea- sons for boys). There are these two exceptions: First, "got mar- ried" is the main reason given for girls leaving school. Second, girls did not drOp out to join the armed forces. Both of these findings (were not unexpected. Incidently, a comparison with Table LXIV (which combines adult male and female reasons for dropping out) does not indicate that "got married" was any more important as a reason for daughters' leaving school than it was for their mothers. In fact, a re—examination of the original data showed that appfoxi- mately the same percentages of the female drop-outs gave marriage as the reason for quitting school (18 per cent) as was true of the daughte r s . 259 IV. THE GENERAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SCHOOL A review of selected research. Most surveys of opinion about the school include questions that are general in nature in order to test how effectively the school is satisfying the public. Harold Hand begins his book with this statement: Superintendents and boards of education have heretofore been obliged to guess how the parents of the community feel toward the schools. Now any superintendent or board of education that wants to do so can much more reliably estimate what propor- tions of the community's parents are respectively satisfied or dissatisfied in this regard.273 He later shows the reSponse to the question, "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your (child's) (high) school?" from one Illinois town to be: definitely satisfied, 57 per cent; partly satisfied, partly dissatisfied, 28 per cent; definitely dissatisfied, 12 per cent; and no response, 3 per cent. He shows the response to the same question by pupils to be only slightly more critical, so he comes to the following conclusion: "The data . . . appear to support that axiom of public relations which asserts\ that satisfied pupils make for satisfied parents."274 Surveys similar to the one developed by Hand have been used by many schools to study opinion, and the per- 275,276 centages usually range fairly close to the figures just quoted. 273 Harold Hand. "What People Think About Their Schools.‘I World Book Company. Yonkers-on—Hudson: 1948. p. 1. 274Harold C. Hand. Ibid., p. 143. 75Rudolph Sando. "A Comparative Study of Early School Leavers." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of California. 1952. 276W. C. Heisler and G. S. Hammond. ”sa'YI Neighbor, Just How Good Are Your Schools?" The Natipn's Schools. Vol. 52. No. 6, December 1953. p. 36. 260 White found in a survey in North Carolina that the parents' responses to the question, "In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your school?" were as follows: very well satisfied, 36 per cent; satisfied, 46 per cent; about half and half, 13 per cent; dissatisfied, 3 per cent; very much dissatisfied, 1 per cent; and no opinion, 1 per cent.277 In this study also, the parents were slightly less critical than the children Sando's study showed that children who were drop-outs were frequently more dissatisfied with the school than were the nonleavers. And further: "Though the parents of drop-outs were not as critical as their children, they were consistently more critical than the parents of non--leavers."278 All of this seems to indicate that a comparison of the opinions of drop-touts, graduates, and parents of drOp-outs in an evaluation of the general effectiveness of the education system will reveal that the drop-outs and parents of drOp-outs were much less satisfied with the school. The analysis of the data. The responses to four questions are analyzed to establish whether the drOp-outs and parents of drop-outs are more dissatisfied than graduates in the six communities that are the locale for this study. These questions are: 1. In general, are you satisfied with the school? 2. What do you think of the way children are taught today? 3. In general, how do you feel about the way they teach in high school? v v v—vwfi 277Milburn White. A Study of the Attitudes of Pupils: Parent: and Teachers Toward the fisonal-Socialj EcOnomic, Prbfessional S'evrviCes of th: Public Schools of North Carolina. University of Ndrthf Carolina, 1953. p. 126, 8 7 Rudolph Sando. Ibid. 261 4. On the basis of your observations of people who've been out of school a few years, how well do you say our schools are doing their part of citizenship training? In an effort to get a more reliable answer with respect to "satisfaction with the school," the interviewers were instructed to ask the question, then hand the interviewee a card on which the four categories of responses were written, and ask him to state which responses most nearly agreed with his feeling. The first 250 inter- views were done with the following categories on the card: "very well satisfied," "satisfied," "not very satisfied," and "dissatisfied." Because most responses seemed to be falling in the first and second categories, thus decreasing the range which was desired, the cate- gories on the card were changed in the later interviews to read: "no criticism," "a few improvements needed sometime," "some improvements needed now," and "major changes needed at once." An inspection of the results did show that the new categories got slightly more response on both ends of the scale, but since they are both measuring, in a general way, the degree of satisfaction with the school, they are grouped for the purpose of this study as is shown in Table LXVII. Over 80 per cent of the sample indicate that they are satis- fied, which is what could have been predicted from the review of the literature; however, the fact that the graduates show definitely less tendency to reSpond "very well satisfied" or "no criticism" is not in keeping with the finding by Sando, or the generalization made by Hand. This tendency, although not statistically significant, persists with the parents of drop-outs. One explanation could very well be that the goals of education for the graduates are higher, and therefore they would be less inclined to agree that the school was doing a completely adequate job. This explanation has one weakness: 262 TABLE LXVII IN GENERAL, ARE YOU SATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED WITH YOUR HIGH SCHOOL? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Dr0p- H.S. Diff ‘ . Outs Grads ' Total Community adults ...... 758 100.1 99.9 100.0 Selected adults ........ 378 100.1 99.9 100.0 Selected parents ....... 298 100.2 100.0 100.0 A. No Criticism (very well satisfied) Community adults ...... 263 34.5 44.0 25.0 19.0 Selected adults . ....... 120 31.8 37.0 26.5 10.5 Selected parents . ...... 120 40.3 42.9 37.6 5.3 B. A Few Improvements Needed Sometime (satisfiedfi) Community adults ...... 350 46.3 40.1 52.4 -12.3 Selected adults ........ 176 46.6 43.4 49.7 - 6.3 Selected parents ....... 127 42.7 40.3 45.0 - 4.7 C. Some Improvements Needed Now (not very satisfied) Community adults ...... ,123 16.3 11.9 20.7 - 8.8 Selected adults . ....... 69 18.3 14.8 21.7 - 6.9 Selected parents ....... 41 13.8 12.1 15.4 - 2.3 D. Major Changes Needed at Onc:(dissatisfif<§) Community adults . . . . . . 18 2.4 3.1 1.6 1.5 Selected adults ........ 11 2.9 4.2 1.6 2.6 Selected parents . . . . . . . 8 2.7 4.0 1.3 2.7 Don't Know, No Answer Given Community adults ...... 4 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.5 Selected adults ........ 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0,0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 4 Community adults x2 > 1 per cent. Selected adults x2 > 5 per cent. Selected parents x2 > 50 per cent. 263 It has already been shown that drop-outs in this study have generally indicated as much or more desire to extend educational Opportunities for all youth than have the graduates. Another explanation could be that the graduates are generally "more intelligently critical," and therefore would not be as inclined to give the schools a "very well satisfied rating," or have "no criticism." In fact, the analysis of previous data does suggest that graduates are more inclined to ver- balize on almost all of the questions asked in the interview, while the drop-outs indicated a lack of interest or knowledge by a pre- ponderance of "don't knows." In this case, there was no place for verbalization on the part of the graduates, and no excuse for "don't know" from the drOp-outs. The fact that drop-outs do feel significantly noncritical of the school, in spite of what it has done to them (or not done for them), and very probably their children, is testimony to the high value which they place upon it. However, many of the previous data have shown that these feelings are often smothered by apathy. Yet no one will deny that education needs the support of these citizens if it is to rise above the financial and methodological challenges which lie ahead. It is quite apparent that a very little of the right kind of effort on the part of school personnel could make these drOp-out citizens important supporters of a more effective educational pro- gram for all American youth. Table LXVIII, based upon replies from one community only, asks for reaction to the way children are taught. The parents, now, are not as uncritical of education as the responses to the previous question seemed to indicate. When the favorable and unfavorable remarks are totaled, less than 60 per cent of the responses are favorable, more than 30 per cent are critical, and about 10 per cent are "don't know" or "depends." 264 TABLE LXVIII WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE WAY CHILDREN ARE TAUGHT TODAY? Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample DrOp- H.S. . No. Pct. Outs Grads Diff. Total Community adults ...... 275 110.1 105.7 113.8 Selected adults ........ 140 113.1 108.1 117.6 Selected parents ....... 124 109.2 107.1 110.9 Improved Methods Community adults ...... 15 5.8 1.7 9.9 - 8.2 Selected adults . ....... 4 3.3 0.0 6.5 - 6.5 Selected parents ....... 6 5.4 3.4 7.3 - 3.9 Children More Advanced Today! Learn Moie Community adults . ..... 22 8.7 6.7 10.7 - 4.0 Selected adults . ....... 15 12.1 9.7 14.5 - 4.8 Selected parents ....... 11 9.7 8.5 10.9 - 2.4 Program is MorefiVaried Community adults ...... 19 7.5 5.0 9.9 - 4.9 Selected adults ........ 13 10.5 4.8 16.1 --11. Selected parents ....... 10 9.0 3.4 14.5 -11.1 Other, Favorable to Present Community adults . . . . . . 2 0.8 0.0 1.5 - 1.5 Selected adults ........ 2 1.6 0.0 .2 - 2 Selected parents ....... 1 0.9 0.0 1.8 - 1.8 Satisfied Community adults ...... 101 40.6 43.7 37.4 6.3 Selected adults . ....... 42 33.9 38.7 29.0 9.7 Selected parents ....... 46 40.3 44.1 36.4 7.7 No Different Today Community adults ...... 7 2.8 2.5 3.1 - 6 selected adults ........ 3 2.4 6 3.2 - l 6 Selected parents . . . . . . . 3 2.7 1.8 3.6 - 1.8 ~— 265 TABLE LXVIII (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Sample No Pct Drop- H.S. Diff ' ' Outs Grads ' Npt Enough Individual Attention Community adults ...... 7 2.9 5.0 0.8 4.2 Selected adults . ....... 5 4.1 8.1 0.0 81 Selected parents ....... 2 1.7 3.4 0.0 3 4 Less Advanced, Learn Less Community adults ...... 14 5.6 5.0 6.1 - 1.1 Selected adults . ....... 11 8.9 8.1 9 - 6 Selected parents . ...... 6 5.3 5.1 5 5 - 0 4 Not Enough Stress on Fundamentals, Not Taught as Well Community adults . ..... 40 16.0 14.3 17.6 - 3.3 Selected adults . . . . . . . . 18 14.5 12.9 16.1 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 16 13.9 16.9 10.9 6.0 Other, Unfavorable to Present Community adults ...... 23 9.2 8.4 9.9 - 1.5 Selected adults . ....... 16 12.9 11.3 14.5 - 3.2 Selected parents ....... 11 9.7 8.5 10.9 - 2.4 Depends on Conditions Community adults ...... 6 2.5 4.2 0.8 3 4 Selected adults ........ 2 1.6 3.2 0 3.2 Selected parents ....... 2 1.8 1.8 l 8 0.0 Don't Know or No Opinion Community adults ...... 19 7.7 9.2 6.1 3.1 Selected adults ........ 9 7.3 9.7 4. 4. Selected parents ....... 10 8.8 10.2 7.3 2.9 =5 ‘T L4. Nuhlber in community adults sample a 250. Number in selected adults sample 1': 124. Number in selected parents sample = 114. 266 Here the favorable remarks come more frequently from the raduates, while the drop-routs stress the lack of individual attention. 'he drOp-outs, however, again say that they are satisfied more often man the graduates, and, as usual, lead in the number of "don't know" ype of response. Because a statistical. treatment of the data here is not practical, any of the above findings should be held as only tenta- tive. This applies even more definitely to the findings with respect to the parents of drop-outs. However, they do not seem to differ to any great extent from the rest of the drOp-out population, except that once again we find them asking for more stress on fundamentals. Responses to this question seem to indicate that drop-outs and parents of drOp-outs are not as aware of the need for improve- ments in the school as the graduates are. They are apparently satisfied to. let things continue as they are, even though their children did not make the grade. One conclusion which seems to be overdue, in view of the findings here and in the previous data in this study, is this: The school has done a good job of convincirg the drOp-out and parents of drop-outs that their failure to complete school and the failure of their children to complete school is not the fault of the school, but (quite sensibly?) the fault of the individual. Drop- outs and parents of drop-outs don't want to be critical of education, but their requests for "more individual attention" probably are evidence of a. deep-felt need on their part. The responses on the effectiveness of high school teaching, shown in Table LXIX. show that the drOp-outs and parents of dr0p— outs are less inclined to respond, but nevertheless, they are gener- ally as agreeable as the graduates to the way "they teach in high school." The public as a whole seems to be pretty well satisfied. By the nature of their reSponses they indicate that they do not feel too secure in making comments or suggestions for improvement in TABLE LXIX 267 IN GENERAL, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE WAY THEY TEACH IN HIGH SCHOOL? —V_ L A A Pct. Pct. T tal T Sample 130 13:? Dr0p- H.S. g2: ° ' Outs Grads 1 Total Community adults ...... 630 124.5 121.9 126.5 Selected adults . ....... 330 129.7 128.2 130.7 Selected parents ....... 230 124.6 126.5 122.4 Not Satisfactory Community adults . ..... 54 10.7 10.9 10.4 0.5 Selected adults ........ 33 13.0 13.3 12.6 0.7 Selected parents . ...... 17 9.2 8.8 9.6 - 0.8 Pretty Good, Fair, Could be Improved, As Well as The)r Can Community adults ...... 88 17.5 14.6 Selected adults . ....... 51 20.1 18.8 Selected parents ....... 27 14.6 12.1 20.3 - 5.7 21.3 - 2.5 17.0 - 4.9 All Right, Good, Satisfied, No Complaints, Approve vfi v—v'v f v vfiv v Community adults ...... 219 43.1 44.6 Selected adults ........ 99 38.9 38.3 Selected parents ....... 83 44.9 45.1 Exc eptional , V e ry G ood Community adults ...... 21 4.1 4.1 Selected adults ........ 11 4.3 5.5 Selected parents ....... 8 4.4 5.5 Comment, Qualification to Speak Community adult’s ...... 35 6.9 7.9 Selected adults ........ 17 6.7 7.8 Selected parents ....... 14 7.6 8.8 v—i v—vrfw v—v v V— ——v— 41.5 3.1 39.4 - 1.1 44.7 0.4 41 0.0 31 2.4 3 2.3 5.8 2.1 5.5 2.3 6.4 2 4 268 TABLE LXIX (Continued) Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. DrOp- H.S. No. P t. C Outs Grads Diff' Sample ’ f—vv vfiw W Comment, Trendsfi, Comparison with Other Times Community adults ...... 28 5.6 4.5 6.6 - 2.1 Selected adults . . ...... 15 5.9 3.9 7.9 - 4.0 Selected parents ....... 8 4.3 3.3 5.3 - 2.0 Comment, Poor Discipline Community adults . ..... 12 2.4 2.6 2.1 0.5 Selected adults . ....... 9 3.5 3.9 3. 0.8 Selected parents . . ..... 4 2.2 4.4 0.0 4.4 Comment , Other Community adults ...... 105 21.0 15.4 . 26.6 ~11.2 Selected adults ........ 62 24.3 21.8 26.8 - 5.0 Selected parents ....... 34 18.4 18.7 18.1 0.6 Don't Know Community adults ...... 67 13.0 16.9 9.1 7.8 Selected adults ........ 33 13.0 14.9 11.0 3.9 Selected parents . . , . . . . 33 17.9 18.7 17.0 1.7 Not Asked, No Answer Given Community adults ...... 1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 Selected adults ........ 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Selected parents ....... 2 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 Number in community adults sample = 508. Number in selected adults sample = 255. Number in selected parents sample = 185. 269 high school teaching. By and large, the data in this question only further document the findings in Table LXVIII, since the number inter- viewed was substantially larger. Table LXX, dealing with opinions with respect to the effective- ness of the school in citizenship training, shows that 318 responses out of 578 (55 per cent) indicated satisfaction with the school's part in citizenship training, less than 3 per cent indicated dissatisfaction, and the rest were mildly critical or "on the fence." V. SUMMARY The comparison of drop-outs' and graduates' opinions regard- fng the elementary school disclosed almost no statistically significant differences. Both groups felt that elementary teachers were more Important than secondary teachers because of their contribution to character develOpment, and because they "laid the foundation" for all future learning. Both groups favored strict discipline, and indi- cated that they were well satisfied with the way discipline was han- dled. Smaller classes were more frequently requested among the parents of drop-outs than among any other group. The analysis of why all adults said they quit school, and the reasons given by parents why their children drOpped out, disclosed that most adults would have liked to have continued their education, but lack of money, the need to work, dissatisfaction with the school, personal and family illnesses, and many other factors made it im- possible, or undesirable to continue. Perhaps many of them were stating rationalizations rather than facts, but actually less than 10 Per cent of our sample admitted that they "didn't like" or "had :rouble at school," "lost interest" or "got tired of school," or "didn't ‘want to go on." 270 TABLE LXX ON THE BASIS OF YOUR OBSERVATION OF PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN OUT OF SCHOOL A. FEW YEARS, HOW WELL WOULD YOU SAY OUR SCHOOLS ARE DOING THEIR PART OF CITIZENSHIP TRAINING? _A— A Pet. Pct. Total Total Pct Sample DrOp- H.S. ' No. P t. D' . C Outs Grads 1H Total Community adults ...... 578 114.0 112.2 115.2 Selected adults ........ 293 115.1 113.4 116.3 Selected parents ....... 204 110.6 1 11.0 109.7 Unsatisfactory Community adults . ..... 14 2.8 3.0 2.5 0.5 Selected adults . . ...... 7 2.8 2.4 3.1 - 0.7 Selected parents . ...... 4 2.2 0.0 4.3 - 4.3 Fair, Not Very Well, As Wellas Could be Expected, Average Community adults . ..... 99 19.7 16.5 22.8 - 6.3 Selected adults ........ 47 18.5 17.2 19.7 - 2.5 Selected parents ....... 28 15.1 13.2 17.0 - 3.8 Good, A11 Richt, OK, Nearly All Community adults ...... 255 50.0 54.3 45.6 8.7 Selected adults ........ 133 52.2 55.5 48.8 6.7 Selected parents ....... 94 50.8 50.5 51.1 - 0.6 Very Well, Excellent, Fine Job, 100 Per Cent Community adults ...... 63 12.5 10.1 14.9 - 4,8 Selected adults ........ 34 13.3 10.1 16.5 - 6.4 Selected parents ....... 23 12.5 12.1 12.8 - 0.7 1 Comment on Example to Support Answe: 30mmunity adults ...... 23 4.6 4.1 5.0 - 0.9 Belected adults ........ 8 3.2 1.6 4.7 - 3.1 Selected parents ....... 7 3.8 3.3 4.3 - 1.0 v—fifi 271 TABLE LXX (Continued) m Total Total PCt' PCt' Pct. Dr0p- H.S. N . P t. . o C Outs Grads Diff Sample ”_v—V' w—w—f f v ‘— Comments on Reasons; e.g., Family, Armed Services fvv fi Community adults . . . . . . 17 3.4 3.0 3.7 - 0.7 Selected adults ........ 11 4.3 3.9 4.7 - 0.8 Selected parents ....... 5 2.7 3.3 2.1 1.2 Comm ent on T rends vv' Community adults ...... 21 4.2 2.2 6.2 - 4.0 Selected adults ........ 13 5.1 3. 7.0 - 3. Selected parents . ...... 4 2.2 1.1 3.2 - 2.1 D epends on Individual Community adults ...... 18 3.5 3.7 3.3 0.4 Selected adults . ....... 10 3.9 4.7 3.1 1.6 Selected parents ....... 8 4.4 4.4 4.3 0.1 Other Comment Community adults ...... 31 6.2 4.5 7.9 - 2.4 Selected adults . ....... 15 5.9 5.5 6.3 - 0.8 Selected parents ....... 9 4.9 7.7 2.1 5.6 Don't Know Community adults ...... 30 5.8 8.6 2.9 5.7 Selected adults ........ 12 4.7 7.0 2.4 4.6 Selected parents ....... 17 9.2 11.0 7.4 3.6 NO Answer Community adults ...... 7 1.3 2 2 0.4 l 8 Selected adults ........ 3 1.2 2 4 0. 4 Selected parents ....... 5 2.8 4,4 1.1 3.3 C. I Number in community adults sample = 508. Number in selected adults sample = 255. Number in selected parents sample = 185. 272 Although a chi square test showed the responses of the drop- outs and the graduates to be significantly different, a comparison of the reasons given by the drOp-outs with those of the graduates dis- closed that in many cases factors which kept the drOp-outs from completing high school were just as effective in keeping the gradu- ates from continuing their education to the point where more of them would have said "completed education." There is nothing in the re- sponses tabulated here which would indicate that the adults who failed to acquire a high school education placed any less value upon educa- tion than did those who did. Even the parents of drOp-outs did not give reasons that were significantly different from the reasons the graduates gave for failing to continue in school. The reasons parents gave for the failure of their children to complete school, however, showed that the school was not effective or attractive enough to keep their child in school. A. great many of. them stated that their children were not interested, and in many cases disliked certain aspects of the school enough to cause them to drOp out. This same "lack of love" for the school on the part of students undoubtedly helped to develop the desire to go to work; also, many boys found that joining the armed forces was an accept- able substitute, and the girls found their escape by getting married. Just what part rationalization plays in the responses, "illness of self" and "illness in family" as reasons for quitting school are open to conjecture. Financial hardship apparently is not the factor that it once was, for less than 10 per cent of the parents indicated that their children dropped out because of money, or because they had to work. These findings all point to the fact that the day has come foi- schools to make the changes in their respective school systems which will help them meet the needs of all their children. The fact that so 273 many students are reported here to have dropped out because of lack of interest, or even dislike of the school, suggests that major changes in the school program, as well as the teaching methodology, are badly needed before the school will be able to keep children in school long enough to provide them with the education which their parents, time and again, in this study have indicated that they want. The drOp-outs and parents of drOp-outs in this study were generally well satisfied with the school. The similarity between the responses of drOp-outs, parents of drop-outs, and graduates were more striking than their differences. The drop-outs were signifi- cantly less critical in reSponse to the general questions, "Are you satisfied . . . with your school?" They were less verbal in the general questions dealing with the "way they teach" and "citizen- ship training." There is no indication here that they are more critical of the school than are other adults. The fact that they are not quite able to keep up with graduates in saying nice things about the school is not surprising. They didn't spend much time there, and on the whole neither did their children. The fact that they did not say bad things is almost unexplainable. All of this leads to one conclusion: The school, in its relations with its students and parents, has effectively convinced its drop-out victims that there is no salva- tion for their children except more of the same medicine which killed their interest in education in the first place. In view of the large number of statistically significant relation- ships which were found in Chapters IV and V between the sociological variables and dropping out of school, it is rather surprising that drOp-outs and high school graduates thought so much alike on the many questions of opinion which were presented in the preceding three chapters, where these same sociological variables were con- trolled. Even in the many cases where the differences in their 274 opinions reached statistical significance, an inspection of the data showed that the actual differences between the drop-outs and grad— uates were usually less than 10 per cent. What is even more startling is the fact that parents of child- ren who drOpped out, who, in nine cases out of ten, had not graduated from high school themselves, had Opinions about education which were on the whole quite similar to those of people who had had no children drOp out, and in a great majority Of the cases had completed high school themselves. Nevertheless, the drOp-outs in the total community did have different Opinions than did the graduates, at a statistically significant level on two-thirds of the questions asked about education. But with respect to the hypothesis stated at the beginning of Chapter IV, the matched drOp-outs and graduates also differed, but the amount Of difference was not as great as in the total community. On the other hand, the parents of drop-outs, while differing from their matched sample on only about One-quarter Of the questions, were somewhat more inclined to reSpond in a manner similar to the graduates, than either of the other two drop-out groups. Therefore, persons who failed to complete high school (holding constant age, sex, income, occupational status, and place of residence) did have different opinions about education and the school from those who completed high school. Further, parents whose children failed to complete high school (holding the same variables constant) did have some opinions about education which differed from parents whose children did complete high school; but, on the whole, most of the Opinions of the parents of drOp-Outs were very similar to those of similar parents of graduates. CHAPTER IX THE SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH I. SUMMARY The presentation has provided additional research on one of America's most pressing educational problems: how to develop a program of secondary education that will serve the youth of today who are failing to complete high school. The drop-outs of today represent a substantial portion of the breadwinners and taxpayers of tomorrow. If they can be provided with a secondary education, the chances are improved that they will be more able and more willing to pay for the education of their own and their neighbors' children; but, more than that, they will become better citizens and more valuable allies of the school in the preparation of their child- ren and their children's children. To this end this study was dedi- cated. The study differed from other research studies on drop-outs by using data which was gathered without the persons being inter- viewed or the interviewers being aware that the information being gathered was related to a study of drOp-Outs. It used statistical analysis to distill data similar to those found in typical drOp-Out studies and in public Opinion surveys which have recently been con- ducted by a great many school systems and other research agencies. These data were further analyzed so that the effect of certain factors 276 which had been shown by other studies tO be related to dropping out of school were practically eliminated in the findings. The assumption that the Opinions which people hold about edu- cation have an effect upon their behavior toward the school and its program and personnel was considered basic to this study. The hypothesis tested was that adults who failed to complete high school, and/or had children who failed to complete school, will have different Opinions about education and the school from those who completed high school and/or had children who completed high school. This hypothesis was tested in six medium-sized Michigan communities where certain selected questions were asked by the Michigan Communications Study regarding peOple's Opinions about the following educational areas: the value of education, the teacher, the high school program, the teaching methods, the elementary school, the reasons for leaving school, and the general effectiveness of the school. Special attention was given to the relationship of Opinions in these areas to school finance and school-community relations. The findings were based upon comparisons between three dis- tinct pairs of samples: first, a sample representing all adults who drOpped out of high school was compared to a sample of all the adults who finished high school ("community adults“); second, a sample of selected drOp-outs was compared to a sample of graduates who had similar characteristics in sex, age, occupation, place of residence, and income (“selected adults”); and third, a sample of selected parents who had had children drop out of school was com- pared with a sample of selected adults who had not had any children fail to graduate, and who also had similar characteristics in sex, age, occupation, place of residence, and income (”selected parents"). In addition to the sex, age, occupation, place of residence, and income factors which were matched in the two above-mentioned 277 samples, the study also compared differences between the samples with respect to home ownership, size of family, grade placement, sibling relationships, organizational membership, type Of contact with the school, "don't know” responses, and number of responses. The analysis showed that there were substantial differences among the six communities studied with a range from 38 per cent to 65 per cent with respect to the percentage of heads of families who had completed high school. When the educational level of parents of drop-outs was compared to that of other adults in the community it was very evident that adults who failed to complete high school were much more apt to have been the parents of children who did not complete high school. In other words, there appeared to be a high degree of correlation between the educational level of parents and their children. ..The data also showed that the mothers‘ educational achieve- ments had a closer relationship to their children's than did the fathers'; even though a much larger percentage of females than males did complete high school. All of this seems to indicate that keeping both sexes from quitting school will have a tendency to raise the educational level of the following generation, but that female drOp— outs are more influential than are males with respect to the educa- tional levels of their children. As might be expected, the older adults in the community were much more inclined to have dropped out, and have children who dropped out, than were the younger adults. The findings indicated that drOpping out of school had a strong tendency to keep peOple from earning their living by means of "white collar" jobs. While less farmers had graduated from high school than is true of the population as a whole, there were more high school graduates among farmers than there were among the laboring classes. 278 Nevertheless, a comparatively larger percentage of the parents of drop-outs lived in the rural areas. The "laboring class" was much more strongly inclined to have children drop out of school than any other group. Consequently, graduates outnumbered the drop-outs by four to one with earnings of over 8,000 dollars, while at the other end of the scale four times as many drOp-outs as graduates earned.l,000 dollars or less. In view Of the findings with regards to occupation and income, it was rather surprising to find that more drop-outs and, even more definitely, parents Of drOp-Outs owned their own homes than did the graduates. What makes it even more startling is the fact that these same groups had larger families than the graduates. Actually, parents of drOp-outs were six times more apt than other adults to have five or more children. ..More adults who failed to complete high school than adults who did, had no children left in school, largely because their children had quit school; but it is also true that they probably started their families earlier than did the graduates. It was also found that if one child in a family had left school ea’rly, there was a 50 per cent chance that the remaining children in the family had also drOpped out of school before graduation. There was considerable evidence that adults who dropped out of school did not belong to as many community organizations as did the graduates. Furthermore, parents who did not belong to community organizations were more inclined to have their children drop out of school. Even in their contact with the school, the data show that, in spite of the fact that the drop-outs as a group had had more children and grandchildren in school, they still did not have nearly as many friends among the teachers and other school Officials as did other citizens. In view of these findings it is not surprising that drOp-outs 279 and parents of drOp-outs responded ”don't know" and made many less responses to the questions asked than did the others. To summarize the findings up to this point, it can be said that: there can be little doubt that a high school education would have been an advantage to most, if not all, of those who failed to receive one. And further, that it would have been to the advantage of the communities studied if more of their people had had the bene- fit of a secondary education. And still further, that these advantages would become a part of the social heritage of each new generation for many generations to come. For even when such very important factors as sex, age, occupation, income, and place of residence were controlled, the differences between drOp-outs and graduates, and be- tween parents of drOp-outs and other adults, were clearly evident. This shows that the lack Of a high school education was a most powerful, if not the most powerful, factor in determining the economic and social roles which adults played in their community. In the light of the previous findings, it could be expected that substantial differences of opinion about education would exist between drOp-outs and graduates, and between parents Of drOp-outs and other adults. Although there were some statistically significant differences between the groups, on the whole the differences were not great enough to suggest any distinct dissimilarities between them. ‘Although drop-outs and parents of drop-outs were more in- clined than graduates to favor more secondary and college education for all youth, yet they said that they did not vote as Often, and were not as inclined to feel that the school should have more money. Neither did they know their local school personnel and teachers as well as the graduates. With respect to school teachers, graduates were more verbal than drop—outs, but nevertheless, one-third of both groups did not Z80 know whether teachers "measured up" to their standards for hiring teachers. The drop-outs showed a greater preference for men teach— ers of English than did the graduates. Less than 3 per cent of all groups felt that teachers' salaries were too high, yet approximately 10 per cent more graduates than drop-outs thought that teachers' salaries were "too low.” Drop-outs were less inclined to think that wives of school teachers should be expected to work outside the home, and they were more willing than the graduates to have teachers move out of their community after a few years. Almost three-quarters of all adults said they preferred the "project-centered" method Of teaching over the ”subject matter- centered" method, but graduates were more favorable than drOp-outs to the project method. Parents of drOp-outs were no more aware than were the graduates of the need for help for slow learners, but all of the drop-out groups were more inclined than the graduates to think that fast learners received enough attention; furthermore, two- thirds of the graduates thought that fast learners received as much attention as they should. Less than 20 per cent of all adults said they had a child who needed special help in reading; the drop-outs and parents of drOp-outs were no more aware of the need for special help in reading for their children than were the graduates. Neither did they differ in any very significant manner with respect to what 1ihey thought should be done with students who were retarded in the "3 R‘s." DrOp-Outs and graduates were very similar with respect to their attitudes about homework, with less than 15 per cent feeling that there was too much. This similarity also extended to the mem- Orization of patriotic material: less than 20 per cent expressed the feeling that it should not have been required. Likewise, their ideas a-bOut the size Of high school classes were quite similar. 281 All drop-out groups seemed to be more inclined than the graduates to restrict the amount of freedom given youth in manag- With respect to ing their own affairs through the student council. suggestions for keeping students in high school, the graduates were more verbal, making more suggestions that parents and children should be convinced of the importance of education, and that the curriculum should be improved. Among the matched adults, the drOp-outs were more inclined to suggest better counseling of stu- dents, lower costs, and better teaching; while parents Of drOp-outs likewise mentioned counseling, they more definitely favored raising the compulsory age limit for quitting school. If there is a need for any major revisions or additions to the curriculum, then none of the groups studied seemed to be very much The subjects mentioned most frequently as aware of that need. needing more attention were the "communications skills" subjects. Few differences existed between drOp-outs and graduates with re- athletics was mentioned spect to what should receive less attention: People expressed a desire for more most frequently by all groups. emphasis upon local and state history in preference to national his- tory, yet there was very little difference between any of the drop-out Neither was there a dif- groups and the graduates in this respect. ference between the groups with respect to teaching about "impor- tant generals," although the general pOpulation was about evenly Teaching the history of labor unions was divided on this question. favored by most parents, with graduates being more favorable than Most parents felt that the time given to extracurricular drOp-outs. activities was ”about right," with athletics again being more fre- quently accused of receiving "too much" time. a The findings with respect to opinions about the elementary school showed once again that the differences between graduates and 282 drop-outs were usually not significant. Two-thirds of all the citi- zens felt that the work of the elementary teacher was more impor- tant than that of the high school teacher, primarily because "a good foundation is needed," and "character is being built." More than four-fifths were satisfied with the discipline in the elementary school. Drop-outs showed a preference for maintaining “strict disci- pline" in the elementary school by ”keeping the interest of children," and ”keeping after school," while the graduates showed more prefer- ence than drOp-outs for maintaining discipline by ”depriving Of priv- ileges," "talking with the child," and "corporal punishment." All groups agreed that physical punishment should not be used. A. class size in the elementary school of less than twenty-seven was preferred by a substantial majority of all citizens, with parents of drOp-outs being even more favorable to the smaller classes. ~The adults in this study who failed to complete high school said they quit for the following reasons, listed in descending order of importance: went to work, lack of money, had to work, went as far as expected, got married, didn't want to go, illness at home or of self, lack of interest, didn't like school, and school too far away. On the other hand, the youth who quit before graduation were supposed by their parents to have left for the following reasons, listed in descending order of importance: went to work, didn't want to go on, lack of interest, armed forces, lack of money, didn't like school, and couldn't get along at school. The girls were very sim- ilar to the boys with respect to reason for leaving school, except for the fact that the leading reason given by their parents was "got married," and no mention was made of the armed forces. With respect to the general effectiveness of the school, most of the pe0p1e in these communities said that they were satisfied with the school, and drOp-outs were generally inclined to respond more 283 favorably toward the school than were the graduates. However, satis- faction with "the way children are taught" was not as definitely favorable; and drOp-outs were inclined to be critical, primarily be- cause they felt that the school did not give as much ”individual attention to each child" as it should have. All groups showed a reticence to comment on the "way they teach in the high school." The responses with reSpect to how well the school trains for citizen- ship indicate that people in these communities were satisfied with the job the school was doing in this respect. II. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION The findings in this study point to many things that have im- In retrospect, they seem plications for the improvement of education. to indicate that drOp-outs actually valued education more than did the high school graduates. The fact that they were not as apt to vote, or to have voted more money for education, can be eXplained by the fact that more of their children were ”kicked out," "dropped out,” or 'l'flunked out" Of school, so that they in fact would have been Further— paying more money to educate their neighbors' children. more, they were not as apt to belong to the civic organizations in the community which are frequently used by most school officials to Last, but not least, they were not as apt to know ”sell education.” who the school officials were, or to have as many friends among the This lack of contact with peOple who by word school's personnel. of mouth could have helped them ,to see the need for more money should not be underemphasized, as is shown by this statement from a recent doctoral dissertation: 284 Current mass information efforts for school public relations purposes tend to reach those already "friendly" or interested but fail to reach groups not interested, unfriendly, or whose expectations have been violated. The most effective means for reaching groups of individuals are those involving face-to face discourses. 79 The most important persons for maintaining "face-tO-face" contact, and keeping the lay citizens in these communities informed and satisfied were the classroom teachers. They had a great poten- tial, not only because of their numbers, but because they usually had contact with every parent's son or daughter for five days a week. Although there were exceptions, it is quite evident that the teachers in these communities were inclined to give help and bestow friend- ship among the graduates and their children, and to ignore the drop- outs and parents of drOp-outs who were in the greater need of their help and friendship. From the data in- this study, which show very few signs of any major differences of attitude toward education between parents of drop-outs and graduates, it is now evident that teachers could communicate with these parents of drop-Outs if they would. They could help give help, friendship, and leadership to this group which have been shown to be more poorly informed, even apathetic, about education-~and perhaps about many other public issues. Research has shown (confer ante, page 169) that students who drop out are more likely to be failing in the communications skills, yet the data in this study showed that parents of drOp-outs were not any more aware than were the parents of non-drop-outs of the need for improved teaching facilities in these areas. For instance, it is P Z79Edward Pfau. “A Study of Selected Aspects of Oral and Written Communications as These Are a Part of School Public Re- lations Program." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Uni- versity. E. Lansing: 1955. p. 2. (abstract) 285 probably a safe assumption that the school personnel realized that a majority of the students who dropped out were not reading at a satis— factory level, yet they had not adequately communicated this fact to the parents, or these same parents would very likely have said so, and expressed a desire for more help for their children in this area. Unfortunately, this is one very pertinent example of what happens when there is a lack of adequate contact between the school person- nel and the home. Parents were even less informed about many other aspects of the schools' programs and/or needs. There was no evidence that even a sizable minority, drop-outs or graduates, were convinced that the school had a need to improve in any particular area. Certainly if there were improvements needed in the school, and if these im- provements were contingent upon community support, then lack of “face-to-face" contact with all citizens, but particularly with the parents of drop-outs was not good for the school or the student. Furthermore, the school apparently had not accepted its share Of the blame for each child who left school before graduation. It con- tinued to take a "holier than thou," "I can do no wrong" attitude, and made each drop-out and his parent feel that the fault was theirs, rather than something which should be shared between themselves and the school. Students in this study were not expected by their parents to drOp out of school because of financial or other hardship at home. Most Of the parents indicated that conditions at home were not re- sponsible for their children's dropping out. Most parents not only indicated that they had a desire for more education for themselves, but that they would have liked to have seen their children have the benefit of at least a secondary education. The fact that discourage- ment, lack of interest, and dislike in and of school played such a 286 large role in causing students to drOp out should make all Officials give more thought to the problem. The time has passed when school officials can or should be satisfied with their school because a majority Of its citizens have said that they are "satisfied" or "very satisfied," for what these citizens are really saying is that they do not know enough about the school to say anything else, and be prepared to give reasons for their answers. Even drOp-outs, who it could be assumed have had a vastly different kind of personal experience with the school than the graduates, are inclined to respond quite like the graduates when expressing opinions about the school. Actually, what is present in all the citizens in this study is a substantial "lack of Opinion," or apathy about the school, and this "lack of opinion" and/or apathy is more noticeable among the drOp-outs. If the school is to be able to adequately serve all American youth, then certain improvements seem to be indicated by the find- ings in this study. The fact that there was a substantial variation in the percentage of adults who had completed high school in the communities studied is strong evidence that the solutions need to be specific in terms of individual communities; nevertheless, there would be many cases where certain actions would be generally applicable to nearly all communities. In the communities, or neighborhoOds, where larger numbers of parents have not graduated, a program should be designed to reach the nongraduates (particularly the women) with information about the school, and their children's educational needs and problems. The fact that the drop-outs are more inclined to own their homes makes them, as a group, more conscious of "high property taxes," and therefore it is all the more imperative that they be informed about what their school tax dollar ”buys'l for their children. 287 Any such program cannot exclusively utilize existing civic organizations as they are presently Operating, since the people who need to be reached do not belong in any substantial number to these organizations. Among the additional types Of organizations which could be developed to help fill this need are: room mothers' clubs, neighborhood PTA. meetings, and neighborhood study groups conducted in the homes Of the laboring class, low-income parents (particularly younger parents with large families). The fact that approximately 80 per cent of the adults who failed to graduate from high school felt that more effort should be made to keep children in high school should make them receptive to any ef- forts designed to help prevent their children from drOpping out, even if it means raising the cost of education, which they, more than grad- uates, were inclined to feel was too high. It could be suggested here that, since the nongraduates were not as aware as were the grad- uates of the names of their superintendents, principals, or presidents of the school board, more effort of a personal nature on the part of these officials to reach and explain to the nongraduates how and why the school operates could be beneficial to all concerned. This personal, face-to-face method of reaching these peOple is suggested since the findings indicate that adults who failed to graduate are not as inclined to read or remember written material about the school. If more effort by school officials to reach the parents of potential drOp-Outs were successful, then the comparatively poor voting habits of these pe0ple with respect to school elections could undoubtedly be improved. In addition to actions designed to reach the parents Of poten- tial drOp-outs, a prOgram to reach the potential drOp-out himself before he leaves school should be instituted. More effort should be made to interest boys and girls in extracurricular activities. Teachers 288 should be made aware that they have an obligation to give sympathy and help to those youth whose home environment is often quite dif- ferent from their own. The findings with respect to Opinions about school teachers suggest that a greater effort on their part to get acquainted with all of the parents in their school should be made. Home visitation would seem to be a logical way in which this could probably be handled. It might not be too much to suggest that inviting selected groups of parents to meet informally in their home could bring good results. Even an occasional meeting at the teacher's home with selected students might help "bridge the gap" which now seems to separate the teachers from certain groups of students. Whatever method is used to reach the parents and students, it appears that more effort should be made to explain to the adults who drOpped out, and parents of potential drOp-outs, the teaching methodology which is being used in today's schools, since their parents seem to be more inclined to favor a ”subject matter- centered" type of education which, by and large, is not in keeping with better educational practice in the high schools of today. Par- ents of potential drop-Outs should be helped to understand that today's schoOls attempt to meet individual differences. They should be made aware of the special services of the school which have as their pur- pose to help every child to learn to the limit of his capacity, so that they would encourage their children to avail themselves of such courses as remedial reading and remedial English. If such courses are not available in their school system, then their child's need for such courses should be pointed out by school personnel so that parents could assist in marshalling the public support which would make them available to all children. Furthermore, if smaller classes are de- sirable so that teachers can give to each child the individual assistance 289 he needs, then such information should be brought to the attention of all parents. If parents could be made to realize that a better cur- riculum, better teaching, more counseling, and better equipment would help to hold the interest of children, then they would not be as prone to suggest that ”raising the compulsory age” for school attendance was the only answer. The apathy On the part of drop-outs and parents Of drop-outs which was disclosed by the findings on opinion toward the school program should serve as a warning to school administrators every- where, that before any major changes in the school program are attempted, the general public needs a much better understanding of the needs for those changes--particularly by that part of the general public whose children would be most benefited by the changes. Such a program as that outlined above should be started in the elementary school, since the findings indicate that most parents do place a high value upon elementary education; and therefore it should be easier to develop a program at this level which would help them to understand the need for closer school-community COOperation in the education of youth at all levels of education. The findings with respect to why pe0ple quit school indicate that the economic reasons which were given as the primary reason for leaving school by most adults have now been relegated to a sec— ondary role. Most parents indicated that they were economically able to keep their children in school, but that discouragement, lack of interest, and dislike of school played the major role in preventing their children from graduating. Although the reasons for this dislike of and lack of interest in school were not too clear, there were sub- stantial indications throughout this presentation that most parents of drOp-outs felt that their children were not given enough attention-- even to the extent of being discriminated against in favor of other 290 children. If this is true, then more care on the part of teachers to be sure that they are giving as much attention to the children Of laboring class, lower-income parents should help to keep them in school. It appears that removing this feeling from among certain parents and children could be more beneficial than providing special programs for the potential drOp-outs, even though such prOgrams should not be overlooked as a partial solution for keeping all child- ren in school. In short, what is implied by the findings‘of this study is the need for school personnel to recognize that they are responsible for the fact that so many students are leaving school without the training which a secondary education should provide--first, because they have not developed adequate interpersonal relationships with the potential drop-out or his parent; and second, because they have not deve10ped the kind Of school program (in COOperation with parents) which will more adequately serve the needs of all youth. III. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Many, if not most, research studies raise more questions than they answer. Some of the unanswered questions raised by this re- search are: 1. Would the findings of this study, conducted in towns rang- ing in size from 1,000 to 5,000, be confirmed by similar studies in towns under 1,000 and over 5,000? 2. To what extent can the responses given to a question- naire administered in the manner of this study be ac- cepted as representing the true opinions Of adults toward education ? 3. What is the nature of the interpersonal relationships be- tween teacher and pupil, and teacher and parent, which prompts certain parents to indicate that their children do not receive enough individual attention? 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 291 Why do parents of drop-outs seem to be unacquainted, and lack friends, among pe0ple connected with the school? How can certain parents be diplomatically, yet adequately, informed of the need for certain types of training for their children? What are the factors which cause parents to place more value upon the elementary teacher than the secondary teacher? To what extent is the fact that there are more women than men in the public schools responsible for the higher drOp—out rate among boys? Why does the mother's educational level have more in- fluence than does the father's upon the educational level of their children? To what extent do vocational and other so—called prac-- tical educational courses serve to keep children from drOpping out Of school? To what extent, and why, are the English and social studies courses usually required in most schools re- sponsible for students losing interest in school? To what extent is the training which students receive in high school related to the fact that high school non- graduates do not take part in civic organizations in the community? What types of extracurricular activities could be devel- oped to serve the needs of students who are now drOpping out Of schools? What is the relationship of home ownership to willingness to vote more money for school? Why does a secondary education seem to have a tendency to limit the size of families? What factor or factors Operate among the laboring classes to cause some students to complete high school, while other students from similar environments fail? Whatever answers are found to these questions and the many other questions related to the drop-out problem, there is still the 292 need to adapt the findings to each individual school system. Until such time as ways can be found to provide a secondary education for all youth, the necessity for further research and more experi— mentation with programs to improve secondary education are essen- tials which Americans cannot afford to neglect. BIBLIOG R APHY A. BOOKS Axline, Virginia Mae. Play Therapy. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1947. 379 pp. Ayres, Leonard P. 'Laggards in Our Schools. New York: Chariries Publishing Company, 1909. 236 pp. Baruch, Dorothy Walter. New Ways in Discipline. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949. 280 pp. Bell, Howard M. "Factors Related to the Amount of Schooling," The Social Aspects of Education. Edited by Othanel B. Smith T—WT arid other; vDanville, Illinois? Interstate Printers and Pub- lishers, Inc., 1951. 608 pp. Burgess, Ernest W., and Harvey J. Locke. The Family. New York: American Book Company, 1945. 800 pp. Campbell, Clyde M., editor. Practical Applications of Democratic Administration. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952. 325 pp.fi V Campbell, Roald F., and John A. Ramseyer. The Pinamic: of School- Community Relationships. New York: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1955. 205 pp. Carr, Lowell J. Delinquency Control. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. 591 pp. Cook, Lloyd Allen, and Elaine Forsyth Cook. A Sociological Approach to Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. 514 pp. Cunningham, Ruth, and associates. Understanding Group Behavior of Boys and Girls. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teach- evrsVPCvollege, Columbia University, 1951. 446 pp. 294 David, Paul R., and Laurence Snyder. “Genetic Variability and Hu— man Behavior,” Social Psychology at the Crossroads. Edited by John H. Rohrer and Muzafer Sherif. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951. 437 pp. Davis, Allison, Burleigh B. Gardner, and Mary R. Gardner. Deep South. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. 558 pp. Doering. Carl R. l'Explanation of the Statistical Method," Unravel- ing Juvenile Delinquency, by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951. 399 pp. Douglass, A. A. Modern Secondary Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1938. Douglass, Harl Ray. Secondary Educatign. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952. Educational Policies Commission. Learning the Ways Of Democracy. Washington: National Education Association of the United States, 1940. 486 pp. Education for All American Youth--A Further Lgok. Washington: National Education Association of the United States, 1952. 402 pp. Ericson, Martha C. ”Social Status and Child-Rearing Practices.” Readings in SocialfiPsychology. Edited by Newcomb and Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and ’Company, 1947. 688 pp. Glueck. Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck. Unraveling Juvenile Delinguency. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1951. 399 pp. Hamlin, Herbert M. Citizens' Committees in the Publig Schools. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printing Company, 1952. 306 PP- Hand, Harold C. What People Think About Their Schpols. Yonkers- on-Hudson, New York: World Book Company, 1948. 219 pp. Harding, Lowry W. Functional Arithmetiiz _Pho_tgg_r_ajhific Interpreta- tions. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1952. 196 PP- 295 Havighurst, Robert J. Human Development and Education. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1953. 33B pp. Hollingshead, August B. Elmtown's Youth. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949. 480 pp. Krech, David, and Richard S. Crutchfield. Theory and Problems of Social Psychglogy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1948. 639 pp. Lindquist, E. F. Statistical VAnalyFs'is in Educational Research. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940. Roucek, Joseph S., and associates. Sociological Foundations of Edu- cation. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1942. 771 PP. Stanley, William 0. ”Education and the Marginal Environment," The Social Aspects of Education. Edited by O. B. Smith and v—V—vvfi othersjvaanville, Illinois: Tngrstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1951. 608 pp. Sumption, Merle R. How to Conduct a Citizens 5315301 Eryy. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1952. 209 pp. Warner, W. Lloyd, R. J. Havighurst, and M. B. Loeb. Who Shall Be Educated. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944. “The Social Role of the Teacher," Readings in Sogial Psychology. Edited by Newcomb and Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and Company, _1947. 688 pp. Warner, W. Lloyd, Marcia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells. Sociai Class in America. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949. B . PER IODICAL AR TICLES Ackerlund, George C. ”A High School Diploma for Whom?" The School Executive, 72: 43-46, November, 1953. Allen, Charles M. "What Have Our Drop-outs Learned?” Educational Leadership, 10: 347-350, March, 1953. 296 Brewer, Weldon. "Why Do Students Quit School?” The Texas Outlook, 7-10, Angush 1950. 'T‘"* Butterfield, E. E. "Examining Our Public Relations," The Bulletin of the National Association Of Secondary School Principals, 37: 357-363, April, 1953. Clark, Blake. ”They Don't Quit School in Denver," Parents' Maia- zine, February, 1951. w m Cochran, William G. ”The Chi Square Test of Goodness of Fit," The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23: 315-345, September, 1952. "V" Dresher, Richard H. ”Factors in Voluntary Drop-outs," The Per- spnnel and Guidance Journal, 32: 287-289, January, 1954. Ekstrom, G. F. ”Why Farm Children Leave School," School R:vie_v_v, 54: 231-237, December, 1947. Evans, N. D. "How to Conduct a High School DrOp Out Study," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Prin— cipals, 38: 33-41, February, 1954. Finch, M. E. ”Alpena High School Follow-up of Drop-outs for the School,” The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Asso- ciation, 17: 50-51, April, 1953. Fleming, R. L. ”How to Make and Utilize Follow-up Studies of School Leavers," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 36: 74-84, March, 1952. Fortune Editors. ”Sixty-six Million More Americans, The Baby Boom and the American Market," Fortune Magazine, 49: 94-96, 164-168, January, 1954. Foster, E. M. “School Survival Rates," School Life, 22: 13, Sep- tember, 1936. I Gragg, William Lee. ”Factors Which Distinguish DrOp-outs from Graduates,” Occupations, The Vocational Guidance Journal, 27: 457-459, April, 1949. 297 Holbeck, Elmer S. ”Seven Ways to Help Prevent Drop-outs," Na— tion's Schools, 45; 35-36, May, 1950. "'— Hamill, Katharine. "Working Wife, $96.30 a Week," Fortune Mag- azine. 47: 158-168, April, 1953. Hammond, E. Oren. ''What to Do About High School Drop Outs?" The School Executive, 72: 52-53, February, 1953. Heisler, W. C., and G. S. Hammond. ”Say, Neighbor, Just How Good Are Your Schools?" The Nation's Schools, 52: 35-38, Decem- ber, 1953. — Hewlett, Theodosia C. ”What Employers Look for in Young Work- ers," Ocicupations, The Vocational Guidance Journal, 27: 546- 550, May, 1949. Hill, Ray. ”Summary of the Holding Power Study of Allegan, Mich- igan. 1951-52," The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Association, 17: 52, April, 1953. Johnson, Elizabeth 8. ”Employment Problems Of Out-of—School Youth," Monthly Labor Review, 65: 671-674, December, 1947. Lagemann, John Kord. ”A Red Rose from Teacher," Nation's Business, August, 1952 (reprint). Lambert, M. ”Increasing Education's Holding Power," National Edu- cational Association Journal, 633-666, December, 1950. fim Layton, Warren K. ”Special Services for the DrOp-out and the Po- tential Drop-out," The AmericanfiChild, May, 1952. Mack, A. Russell. "A Study of DrOp-Outs,” The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 38: 49- 52, February, 1954. MacKay, M. R. "A Follow-up of the Classes Of 1949 and 1950 of the St. Joseph High School,” The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary-School Association, 17: 44-49, April, 1953. .3 McDonald, Everett A., Jr. "How Can a School Increase Its Holding Power Of Youth?" The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 37: 189-193, April, 1953. 298 McGee, George A. ”We Increased Our Holding Power," National Educational Association Journal, November, 1953. Moore, Parlett L. "Factors Determining Elimination in the Negro Secondary School," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 38: 42-49, February, 1954. Pollack, Jack Harrison. "What Happens When Kids Quit School?" Parents' Magazine, 44 passim, August, 1952. Pond, F. L. ”Pennsylvania Study of Drop-outs and the Curriculum," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 37: 81—88, March, 1953. Postma. John. “Holding Power Studies at Battle Creek High School,” The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Association, 17: 41-44, April, 1953. Reed, Wayne O. ”Better Education for All Our Children," School Life, 36: 67-68, February, 1954. "Better Education for All Our Children," School Life, 36: 102 passim, April, 1954. Roe, William H., Leo Haak, and Earl McIntyre. "Michigan Commun- ications Study," Michigan Educational Journal, pp. 1-3, No— vember, 1954 (reprint). Sando, Rudolph F. ”How to Make and Utilize Follow-up Studies of School Leavers,” The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 36: 66-74, March, 1952. Shibler, Herman L. ”Attacking the Drop—Out Problem,‘l National Educational Association Journal, January, 1955. Snepp, D. W. ”Why They Drop Out," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 35: 137-142, October, 1951. Snygg, Donald. ”The High School Student," The 5:30:31 Executive, 74: December, 1954. Stinebaugh, Virgil. "Why Pupils Leave School," The inner-ican School Board Journal, 123: 40 passim, September, 1951. v v~ v 299 Suerken, Ernst H. "When Drop-outs Go Job-Hunting," The Clearing House, 27: 268—272, January, 1953. fi—_ Tucker, Ruel E. "What Is a Good PrOgram for a Slow Learner?" The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 36: 333-337, March, 1952. Watkins, J. C. "The Neglect of Skilled Labor," Fortune Magazine, 51: 52-55, March, 1955. Weinrich, Ernest F. "How Can a School Increase Its Holding Power of Youth?" The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary—School Principals, 36: 125-130, March, 1952. Wherry, Neal M. "What Are the Schools Doing About School Leav- ers," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary- School Principals, 37: 52-54, April, 1953. Whyte, William H., Jr. ”The Transients," Fortune Magazine, 47: 112-117, May, 1953. Williams, Morris. "What Are the, Schools Doing About School Leav- ers," The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary- School Principals, 37: 54—55, April, 1953. Yates, Benton. "Follow Up Study of Drop-outs, 1948-1952, Lakeview Consolidated Schools," The Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Association, 17: 51-52, April, 1953. C. PUBLICATIONS OF LEARNED AND EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Allen, Charles M. How to Conduct the Holding Power Study, Illinois Secondary School Curriculum PrOgvijamwBulle—tiwn No. 3. Cir- cular Series A, No. 51. Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Illinois: May, 1949. 128 pp. Berry, John W. Secondary and Post Secondary Educfiational Continu- ation in a Rural County. Eureka College, Eureka, Illinois. 1947. 53 pp. 300 Brown, Howard W. A Study of Secondary School Drop-outs During the School Years 1940-41 and T945467 Bear? of Edantion, Bureau of Research, Camden, N. J.; September 30, 1948. 84 pp. (mimeographed). Burt, Cyril. "Intelligence and Fertility," Occasional Papers on Eugenics, 2. Hamilton Hamish Medical Books, London: 1946. Campbell, Clyde M., compiler. An Adventure in Education. A. Mich- igan State University Extension Course, Belding, Michigan: January-March, 1954. 83 pp. Carty, D. J. The Extent and Causes of Non- Enrollment in Kentucky, 1946- 47. School Attendance Circular No. fi4fi Superintendent of Public Instruction, Frankfurt, Kentucky: December 31, 1947. 31 pp. (mimeOgraphed). Cattell, R. B. ”Effects of Human Fertility Upon the Distribution of Intelligence and Culture," 39th Yearbogk, National Society on the Study of Education. Part I, 221-233. Ciernick, Sylvia, and Otis Crosby. Pipeline to Editors. Michigan Communications Study, Michigan State University, E. Lansing: 1955. 59 pp. Committee of the Grand Rapids Board of Education Holding Power HoldingPower in the Grand Rapids, Michgan, Public Schools K-li. Board of Education, Grand Rapids, May, 1953.71 pp. (mimeOgraphed). Counts, G. S. The Selective Character of American Secondary Edu- cation. Supplementary Educational Monographs. No.19. University of Chicago, 1922. 162 pp. Dahlburg, A. J. Some Do Not Graduate. Ann Arbor High School, Ann Arbor, Michigan: August, 1953. 20 pp. (mimeographed). Dillon, Harold J. Early School Leavers: A. Major Educational Prob— lem. Publication No? 401, National Child Labor Committee, New York: October, 1949. 94, pp. Edberg, George, Minard Stout, and Glenn F. Varner. A Guide for the Study of Holding Power in Minnesota Secondary Schools. Minnesota Secondary Schools Improvement Series, Bulletin, No. 21. State Department of Education, St. Paul: 1952. 48 PP- 301 Haak, Leo. The Development of an Instrument to Determine What People Know and Think About Their Public Schools. fiMicfihvlwgan Communications Study, Michigan State University, East Lan- sing: September, 1953. (mimeographed). The Relationship of Age to Knowledge _and Opinion of the School. A. summary of a paper given btgfbre the 59th Acad- emy of Science, Arts, and Letters at Michigan State Univer- sity. March 5, 1955. (mimeographed). The Relationship Between Information and Opinions on Schools. Michigan Communications Study, Michigan Stdte University, East Lansing: April, 1955. (mimeographed). A Comparison of Differences Between Catholics and Non- fimfi Catholics with Respect: to Opinions and Information About the School. Michigan Communications Study. Michigan State Uni- versity, East Lansing: May, 1955. (mimeographed). Hall, C. W. "Study of a Group Of Early Leaving High School Pupils," Ohio Research Bulletin. Ohio State University, Columbus, 8 (January, 1929), 6-9, 14-18. Hand, Harold C. Principal Findings of the 1947-1948 Basic Studies of the Illinois Secondary School Curriculum Program. Illinois Secondary School CurriculumTPEgram, Bulletin No.2. Cir- cular Series A. No. 51. Superintendent of Public Instruction, Springfield: May, 1949. 77 pp. Hecker, Stanley. Early School Leavers in Kentucky. Edited by Robert L. HOpper. Bulfgtin of the BureaurOf School Service. Vol. XXV. NO. 4. College of Education, University Of Ken— tucky, Lexington: June, 1953. 78 pp. Holding Power Committee. Nine Out of One Hundred. Holding Power Studies-~Bulletin No. 1. Research Department of Kansas City, Missouri, Public Schools. 1951-52. 22 pp. Hull, Dan J. Primer of Life Adjustment Education. American Tech- nical Society, Chicago: 1949.30 pp. James, H. W. "Children Dr0p Out of School," New Mexicg School Review, 27: 4-5, 36: December, 1947. 302 Kiser, Clyde V., and P. K. Whelpton. "Social and Psychological Factors Affecting Families," The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 22, New York: January, 1944. pp.fi103-4. Luck, David J. What Michigan Newspapers Tell About the School. Research Report No.10. Bureau of Business Research, Mich- igan State University, East Lansing: May, 1954. 26 pp. McCreary, William H., and Donald E. Kitch. Now Hear Youth. Bulletin of the California State Department of Education. Vol. XXII, No. 9. Sacramento: 1953. 69 pp. Michigan Communications Study. Report on the 1954 Communications Effects Research Prgject of the Michigan Communications Wfiv—v Study. Michigan State University, East Lansing, December, 1954. Michigan Holding Power Study Committee. Michigan Holding Power Study. Bulletin 414. Department of Public Instruction, Lan— sing: 1953. 6pp. Miller, Paul A. Say Neighbor . . . Just How Good Are _Warren Schools? Warren City School District, Warren, Ohio: 1953. 13 pp. National Child Labor Committee. High School DrOp- outs in 1950— 51. A Summary of Questionnaire Replies from 131 City School Superintendents. New York: April, 1951.7 pp. (mimeo- graphed). National Education Association. "Post-School Adjustments of DrOp- outs and Graduates from the Minneapolis Public Schools," Ninth Yearbook, Department of Superintendence. 1931. pp. 189-212. School Drop Outs. Research Division, National Education Association, Washington: April, 1952. (mimeographed) 29 pp. New York State Education Department. Improvement of Holding Power Through a Continuous Study Of Youth in School. The Univer- sity of the State of New York Press, Albany: 1952.56 pp. Drop Outs, the Cause and Cure. The University of the State of New York, Albany: 1955. 9 pp. 303 Office of the Principal. A Study of Fifty- three DrOp- outs from Lib- erty Memorial High School. Lawrence, Kansas: August, VfiF—w 19517 123p. (mimeographed). Orr, Raymond S. "A Study of Personal Data Factors in Relation to Early School Leaving," Guidance News Bulletin. Vol. 1X. No. 2. Wyoming State Department OffEducatiOn. December, 1952. pp. 8-13 (mimeographed). "The Challenge of the Drop-out Problem in Wyoming Schools," Guidance News Bulletin. Vol. IX. No. 1. Wyoming State Department OfFEducation.fiSeptember, 1952. 9-14 (mim- eographed). "A Study of Relationships Between Certain Personal Data Factors and Early School Leaving," Guidance News Bulletin. Vol.IX. No.3. Wyoming State Department of Education, February, 1953. pp. 5- 9 (mimeOgraphed). "The Dr0p Out Problem in Wyoming," Guidance News Bulletin. Vol. X. No. 4. Wyoming State Department of Ed- ucation. April, 1954. pp. 4-5 (mimeographed). Phillips, Beeman N. Holding Power Of the Schools o_f_lndiana. In- diana Research Bulletin, Vol. 17, NO. 2: fiDeparvtrrient—Of Pub- lic Instruction, Indianapolis: May, 1954. 7 pp. (mimeo- graphed). Research Division of the National Education Association. 547 Havg Gone. Federal Aid Series, No. 3. Washington: March, 1948. 21 pp . (mimeog raphed) . Spencer, Lyle M. "The Drop- out Problem, " Guidance News Bulletin. Vol. X. No.4. Wyoming State Department of Education. April, 1954. pp. 2- 3 (mimeographed). State Department of Education. Virginia's High School Graduates and DrOp- outs of 1939- 40. Bulletin State Board of Education, Vol. 33, No. 8. Richmond: June, 1951. 90 pp. Strang,'Ruth. Reporting to Parents. Practical Suggestions for Teach- ing, No.10. Bureau of mPublications, Teachers College, Co- lumbia University, New York: 1952. 108 pp. 304 Taylor, Clair L. "Michigan White House Conference on Education," School of Education Q_uarterly. No. 2. Michigan State Uni- versity, East Lansing: April, 1955. pp. 6-9. Taylor, Florence. Why Stay in School? Life Adjustment Booklet. Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago: 1954. 48 pp. The Michigan Committee on School Holding Power. Improving YOur School's Holding Power. Superintendent of Public Instruction. Lansing: 1954. 15 pp. The School-Community Development Study Staff. The School-Com- munity Development Study. Educational Research Bulletin, Vol. xxxf, N6. 7.fiBureau of Educational Research, College of Education. The Ohio State University, Columbus: October 15, 1952. pp. 169-196. Thomson, Godfrey. "The Trend of National Intelligence," Occasional Papers on Eugenics, 3. Hamilton Hamish Medical Books. LGdonzv I9 47: Trumball, Hazel, and Jack Sherman. Pipeline to Superintendents. Michigan Communications Study, Michigan State University. East Lansing: 1955. 26 pp. U. S. Office of Education Staff. Good Schools Don't Just Happen. Commission on Life Adjustment Education. Science Research Associates, Chicago: 1950. 26 pp. Vroman, Harold E. Study of Dr0p-outs 1948-1949_§chool Y_ear L331- coln High School, Ferndale, Michigan. 13 pp. (mimeographed). Weinrich, Ernest F., and Wayne W. Soper. A Five-Year Study of the Adjustment of Rural Schools to the Needs of Youth. WBullétviwn No. 1379. (Final Report) University of the Statefiof New York, Albany: November, 1949. D. ENCYCLOPEDIA. AND ABSTRACT PUBLICATIONS 5' Archer, Clifford P. "Secondary Education 11: Student Population," EncycloPedia of Educational Research. Edited by Walter 8. Monroe. The MacMillan Company, New York: 1951. pp. 1157-1159. 305 Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. U. 5. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.: 1951. 1047 pp. E . GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS Anon. Fact Sheet, Airman PrOgram. USAF Recruiting Office, Wash- ington, D. C. 4 pp. Anon. Staivin School. U. 5. Navy Recruiting Service, Washington: 1954. 32 pp. Anon. Straight from the Shoulder. USAF Recruiting Office, Wash- ington: 1954. 12 pp. Blose, David T., and William Jaracz. Biennial Survey of Education in the United States. Chapter 2. 1948-50. Federal Secfiufirity Agency, U. S. Printing Office, Washington: 1951. 115 pp. Bonner, H. R. Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1920, No. 11. Board of Education, Washington: 1920. Bureau of Labor Standards. Hugtiriga Career: A—Study of Out-Bf- School Youth, Louisville, Kentucky. U. S. Department of Labor, Washington: 1949. Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate. Jflefifle Delinquency. Interim Report. No. 61. U. 8. Printing Office, Washington: March, 1955. 154 pp. Department of Public Instruction. Enrollment by Grades at Close of Year (1920-1953 inclusive). Department of Public Instruc- tion, Lansing, Michigan. Federal Security Agency. Your Community and Its Young People. Interagency Committee on Youthmploymerit and fieafian. United States Children's Bureau Publication No. 316. United States Printing Office. Washington: 1950. Gabbard, Hazel F. Working with Parents. Bulletin 1948, No. 7. Federal Security Agency, Washington: 1949. 46 pp. 306 Gaumnitz, Walter H. High School Retention by States. Circular No. 398. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Office of Education, Washington: 1954. 19 pp. Gaumnitz, Walter H., and Ellsworth Tompkins. Holding Power and Size of High Schools. Federal Security Agency, CircularfiNo. 322. U. 5. Office of Education, Washington: 1950. 25 pp. Gaumnitz, Walter H., and Grace S. Wright. Broadening the Services of small High Schools. Bulletin 1948, No. 9. Federal Se-f curity Agency, U. 8. Printing Office, Washington: 1948. Hull, J. Dan, and Grace S. Wright. "Offerings and Enrollments in High School Subjects," Biennial Survey of Education in the U. S. Chapter 5. 1948-50: Fedeijal Security Agency.fiU: S. Printing Office, Washington: 1951. 118 pp. Johnson, Elizabeth S., and Caroline E. Legg. "Why Young People Leave School." Reprinted from the Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. 1948. U. S. Department of Labor, Government Printing Office, Washington: 1949. pp. 14-24. Jones, Galen, and Raymond Gregory. Life Adjustment Efliiation f2: Every Youth. Federal Security Agency, Bulletin 1951. No. 22. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 1951. 108 pp. Phillips, F. M. Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1924, No. 38. U. 5. Bureau of Education, Washington: 1924. Rice, Mabel C., and Walter Gaumnitz. "Statistics of Public Second- ' ary Day Schools, 1951, 52," Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1950-52. UPS. Department oFHealth, Edu- cation, and Welfare. Wafishington: 1954. 81 pp. Segel, David. Frustration in AdolesceniYguth. Bulletin 1951, No. 1. Federal Security Agency, U. S. Printing Office, Washington: 1951. 65 pp. Smith, Rose Marie. "Statistical Summary of Education," Biennial Survey of Education in the United States. Chapter I, 1948- 1950. U. S. Dfiepartment of Health, Edufication, and Welfare, Government Printing Office, Washington: 1953. 52 pp. 307 Strayer, George D. "Age and Grade Census of Schools and Col- leges," Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1911, No. 5. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington: 1911. 144 pp. The Governor's Study Commission. Migrants in Michigan. Michigan Study Commission on Migratory Labor. Lansing: 1954. 36 PP- Thorndike, E. L. Bureau of Education Bulletin. No. 4. Bureau of Education, Washington: 1907. Tompkins, Ellsworth. What Teachers Say About Class Size. Cir- cular No. 311, Federal Security Agency, U. 5. Government Printing Office, Washington: 1949. 45 pp. United States Department of Commerce. United States Census of P0pu1ation General Characteristics, Michigan, 1950. United States Printing Office, Washington: 1952. 164 pp. United States Department of Health, Educatién and Welfare. Why Do Boys and Girls Drop Out of School and What Can We Do About It? Circular N.o 260. Reprint, 1953. Office of Education, Washington. 7 2 pp . United States Department of Labor. After Teen-Agers Quit School. Bulletin No. 150. Superintendent of Documents, United States Printing Office, Washington: 1952. 30 pp. Witmer, Helen L. ., and Edith Tufts. Delinquen_y Prevention Programs. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Children' 5 Bureau Publication No. 350. United States Printing Office, Washington: 1954. 50 pp. Work Conference on Life Adjustment Education. Improvi_g School Holding Power. Circular No. 291. Federal Security Agency, United States Office of Education, Washington: 1951. 86 pp. F. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Anderson, William F. "The Sociology of Teaching 1: A Study of Parental Attitudes Toward the Teaching Profession." Unpub- lished Doctor's dissertation, College of Education, State Uni- versity of Iowa, August, 1952 (microfilm). 308 Brown, I. Douglass. "Some Factors Affecting Social Acceptance of High School Pupils." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Indiana, 1952. Cook, Edward 5., Jr. "An Analysis of Factors Related to Withdrawal from High School Prior to Graduation." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Georgia, 1953. ' l ‘4'? Curtis, Russell Webster. "The Reasons for Staying in School as Given by Seniors of the Seven Indianapolis Public High Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Indiana University, 1953. Dresher, Richard H. "Factors in Voluntary Dr0p Outs in the Public Secondary Schools of Detroit, Michigan.” Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Oregon State College, June, 1953. Gragg, William Lee. "A Study of Factors Related to the Persistence of Pupils in Public Secondary Schools." Resume of a Doc- tor‘s dissertation on file at Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York; revised, 1951 (mimeOgraphed). McGee, George A. "A Study of the Holding Power of the Croton- Harmon High School with Proposals for Improvement." Un- published Doctor‘s dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. McGuire, Carson. "Adolescent Society and Social Mobility." Unpub— lished Doctor's dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1949. Pfau, Edward. "A. Study of Selected ASpects of Oral and Written Communication as These are a Part of School Public Rela- tions Programs." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1955. 372 pp. Sando, Rudolph F. "A Comparative Study of Early School Leavers." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of California, 1952 (microfilm). Taylor, Hugh Lee. "Factors that Differentiate School Leavers from Pupils who Continue in School." Unpublished Doctor's disser- tation, University of Alabama, 1952. White , White , 309 James Lawrence. "A. Study of High School Drop Outs in Bergen County, New Jersey, and the Relationship of Drop Outs to the Guidance Practices with Special Reference to Business and Vocational Education." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. Milburn Judson. "A Study of the Attitudes of Pupils, Parents, and Teachers Toward the Personal-Social, Economic, and Professional Services of the Public Schools of North Caro- lina." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1953. APPENDIX 311. Michigan Communications Study - Schedule Social Research Service Eight Draft Department of Sociology and.Anthropology June 26, 1953 Michigan State College 1. School Facilities. * 1.1 where do the children from this neighborhood go to grade school? * 1.2 About haw'many’pupils go to this school? 1.2.1 Is your present grade school satisfactory? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) (Are "you" satisfied with the school building, equipment, and grounds?) 1.2.1.1 If the answer is "No," ask: "In.what way is it unsatisfactory?" TWEEt are things which made you.say that it is unsatisfactory?) *‘ 1.3 About what is the total enrollment in St. Johns High School? f 1.3.1 In addition to the usual classrooms, do you.have, in your high * school, special rooms for: 1 2 3 14 Have Have? DK Is it satisflactory? Agriculture.OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO( “tee-eoooeeoeooeeoeeoeeeeeeee( Auditorilm....................( Business Educ. (incl. typing).( cafetemeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeo.ee( Gynmaium.....................( Guidance Counsellor Office....( Homemaking (or Home Economics)( LiberQOOOeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Medical 01‘ Dan“). Roonheeeeeee 1111313 or Band Rom............ Shopeeeeeooooooeeoeoeeeeeeoeeo VVVVVVVVVVVVVV -Showers....................... VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ( ( ( Science.......................( ( ( ( V TOSCherB. LOWBOOOeeeeeeeeeee 1.3.2 For each room checked in column.1 53k: Is this room satisfactory? 1.3.2.1 If not: ‘Why? I ' : c I 0‘ C l-‘I-g. e. . , on I Coll‘l“. is . . e .... -~.|-.. ..I .,' o-ges o .0t-OQOI op.\.- ' o I... qfi ‘ 0‘,Q‘e. ......n..’.' I '10- I ‘0. III .. 2 .. 312 1.3.3 Otherwise are your hi h school buildings and grounds satisfactory? Yes( ) No( ) DK 1 1.3.3.1 If the answer is ”No," ask: "In what ways are they unsatisfactory??? 2.23211. * 2.1 Since about 1950 has the enrollment in your grade chool decreased( ), stayed the same( ), or increased )? * 2.1.1 What do you think will happen to grade school enrollment in the next five years? dill it decrease( ), stay about the same( ), or increase( )? * 212 How about the enrollment in your high school since about 1950? Did it decrease( ),stay the same( ), or increase( )? * 2.2.1 Nhat do you think will happen to high school enrollment in the next five years? Will it decrease( ), stay about the same( ), or increase( )? * 2.3 At what age may pupils enter school? * 2.3.1 By what age "must" theybe in school? * 2.3.2 At what age may pupils legally and their schooling? 2.14 How does the school find out the number of pre-school children who are not yet in the school? (Under five years) * 2.5 About what proportion of the high school pupils live outside of the St. Johns school district? Record verbatim response. * 2.6 If the St. Johns High School is overcrowded, or becomes overcrowded, what do you think should be done? * 2.7 About what proportion of the pupils who enter your high school graduate? Record gerbatim response . Wav‘——-w-- A *— . -n— - .A_.__..._~ — --.. “m..— ,, —. -3- * 2.7.1 About what proportion of the pupils who do graduate Mm your high schodi go on to college? Record verbatim respoggg. 313 2.8 By the way, how long have you lived in this school district? 3 2.9 Do you have any children? Yes( ) No( ) 2.10 In which grades in your grade school and the St. Johns High School have you had children? Encircle the appropriate grade . None,111,x123h56789101112 Ask only if you4get a "Yes" to 2.9. Now I 'd lib to find out something about your children: Record on back if more children. canons: . 1 ' 2- 3 ' ’4 2 011 Age 2 012 Sex For those in school: 2.13 Grade Udmpleted 7* 2.13.1 Jr. and sr. High c 00 st ents: Ecupation you hepe he will enter: v. For those not in school: mmde completed 2.11:.1 'th did he/she and school at this point? 2.11:.2 Occupation 1,2.lh.3 Where do they live? Ad" ~——.—-_-.~.—-.--_H..——.—_.. -.—-—-.—-~.——--v——— .. _-.e «w - h"- 311; 3. School Programs. 3.1 According to the laws of Michigan what must be taught in all public schools? 3.2 What do you believe should be given more time and attention in your schools? (This includes both in the classroom and outside of it) (What do you believe is left out of the school courses and activities or is under emphasized) 3.3 What do you believe should be given less time and attention? Same probes as above except "over emphasized" for "under emphasized." 3.1.: The schools are frequently urged to add to the subjects taught in high school. Are the following taught in your school? Use column 1 1 2 3 1: Would Would Would Have Eliminate £93) Eggs; A. How to drive-..a'ear.............. I—) .77— ( B. How to dance (social dancing)... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) c. Home making ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) D. International affairs........... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) E. Choosing an Occupation.......... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) F. Religious Education............. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) o. Civilian Defense................ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) a. FirstAid....................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) I. SexEducation................... ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3.11.1 or those which you have, are there any which you think should be eliminated?(Not taught) If the anchor is ’_"yes," as}: Which ones? Use column 2 Yes( ) NO( ).DK( ) 3.11.2 Of those which you do not have, are there any which you favor adding to the school program? E the angwer is "225:" ask: Which ones? Use cplumn g m 1ee( ) No( ) DK( ) -5- 3.h.2.l Of those which you do not have, are there any which you would oppose adding, even if many people wanted them added? If the answer is "193;" ask: Which ones? Use column 11 315 3.5 Do you think most high school pupils spend too much time and energy on dramatics, band, orchestra, clubs, athletics, parties, and other activities outside of the classroom? . Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) If some do and some dontt( )and ask: "What in general do you think is the casefi 3.5.1 If the answer is "Yes," ask: "On which activities?" 3.6 As far as you know are there any evening classes for adults offered by your high school? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) 3.6.1 Are(you)in fs(.vor of your high school offering classes for adults? Yes No 1:. School Teachers. hcl Do you think that the‘work of the elementary school teacher is as important, more important, or less important than the work of the high school teacher? More( ) Less( ) The Same( ) 14.1.1 Why? 11.2 Of the 30 teachers in your high school about how many are: (Well, what would you say. Take a guess.) Under 30? D1“ ) 11.2.1 Fifty and over DK( ) * 11.2.2 About what do you think is the averag age of teachers in your high school? DK ) * 11.3 About how many of the teachers in your high school are college graduates? DK( ) [1.1: Of the 30 high school teachers about how many are men? DK( ) In general, would you prefer your children (if you had any) to be taught by men or women in the following subjects in high school: 1101401 31010”? e e e e e e 0 Men( ) Women( Either( ) h.l:.2 Algebra?....... Men( ; Women( ) ) Either( ) Women( 3 Either( 3 1101403 Hiatory?e e e e e c e M3112 Either( 11.11.11 English?....... Men Women . 6 .. 316 11.5 If you were hiring a teacher what type of person would you employ? 11.5.1 About what proportion of the teachers in your high school come fairly close to this description? DK( ) * 11.6 ghout how much do you think your rade school teacher is paid? ‘ per DK * 11.6.]. On the average how much do you think high school teachers are paid? 3 Jar DK( ) * 11.7 About how many hours per week do you think the average teacher puts in on school work? Hrs. DK( ) 14.8 What do you think most teachers do during the summer? 11.8.1 What do you think teachers should do during the answer? 11.8.1.2 Why, do you say that? * h.9 Do you believe in general, the wife of a high school teacher should work for pay outside of the home? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) * h.9.1 Why? 14.9.2 Do you believe that a married woman teacher whose husband is employed full time, should be paid as much as an unmarried woman teacher with the same qualifications? Ies( ) No( ) DK( ) 11.10 In general, what is done in St. Johns (or in your ommunity) to make teachers feel at home during their first year or so in the community? DK( ) ‘ALu _v - h.lO.1 What is done to encourage teachers to continue to teach in St. J0me? Cr) ‘7- * th'In general, why do teachers move from St. Johns to some other school 317 system? fl... .___ l mu ') * h.ll.l In general, why do men leave the teaching profession? If the re once is “To get more moneyi" then ask: (Is there anything e se) . 13151.... ). 14.12 What else would you like to say about school teachers? 11.13 Have you ever been a school teacher? Ies( ) No( ) 5. Methods 93 Teachgg. Different ways of teaching are used in Michigan schools. (A) Some teachers teach about like Mrs. A, who makes assignments from the text, assigns time for the pupils to study, and then marks each pupil on how he recites when called upon and answers on written tests. (B) Others teach more likelirs. B, who outlines the topic to be covered, then works out with the pupils ways of getting»; infomation from various sources and experiences, as well as ways of reporting their findings. * 5.1 Now, in general, which method is most like the method used in your grade school? A( ) B( ) DK( ) * 5.1.11nyour high school? A( ) B( ) DK( ) * 5.2 In general, which method do you believe is better in grade school? M ) B( ) D1“ ) * 5.2.1 Is your answer the same for the high school? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) * 5.3 In general, about how many pupils are there in a room in your: grade school? DK( ) * 5.3.1 How about the number in a class in high school?_ _tmq ) * 5.1: What do you consider the desirable. manner of pupilar per room in: grade school? DK( -8... * 5.11.1 How about the number( of pupils per class in high school? 318 5.5 Are all children ready to learn to read and write at the same ago? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) 5.5.1 If "No," ask: Why? 5.5.2 Do you believe your school gives as much attention as it should to slow learners? Ies( ) No( ) DK( ) 5.5.2.1 To fast learners? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) 5.6 In general, are upils required to do homework in: grade ”school? Ies( ) No( 8 DK( ) 5.6.1 High school? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) 5.6.2 Do you believe more homework, about the same, or less homework should be required of high school pupils? More( ) About the same( ) Less( ) DK( ) * 5.7 What methods of disci line do you think should be used in the grades?(Keeping order) * 5.7.1 What method do you think "should not" be used in the grade school? * 5.7.2 How do you Judge whether discipline in the classroom is good or is poor? * 5. 7.3 In general, are u satisfied with the discipline in your grade school? Yes( )0 No( DK( * 5.8 If you had a child in the 6th grade what ldnd of information would you like on the report card? A—‘A—A _.A AA * 5.9 As a general rule, are all pupils promoted at the end of the year? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) d it )liv .. 9 .. 5.10 What do you think about the way children are taught today? 319 5.11 Have you ever been or are you now a member of the P.T.A.? Ies( ) No( ) 5.11.1 Have you ever been an officer in the P.T.A.? Ies( ) No( ) 6. Administration. 6.1 How many members are there on your school board? DK( ) 6.1.1 Do you know any member of your school board well enough so that you feel free to talk with him or her about school matters? Ies( ) No( ) 6.1.1.1 If the answer is "Yes,“ ask: "Who?" 6.1.2 What do you think are the most important personal characteristics of a good school board member? * 6.1.3 Who is eligible to serve on the school board? 6.1.1: Are your school board members paid? Iee( ) No( ) DK( ) 6.1.14.1 In case ask: "Do you think the board members shoul be paid?‘1 Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) ' 6.1.5 Are school board meetings open to the public? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) 6.2 What does the State Department of Public Instruction do? O 10 - 6.3 What is the job of the superintendent of schools in St. Johns? 320 6.1: Is there a citizen's advisory comittee for St. Johns' schools? Ias( ) No( ) DK( * 6.5 Who in your community usually takes an active part in school matters? Get as nary names as possible. 6.6 Schools sometimes send out leaflets, pamphlets, or other publications on school roblems. Have you read any of these? Ies( No( ) ”Ki ) 6.? Are you a registered voter? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) 6.7.1 Is your husband (wife) a registered voter? Yes( ) No( ) 6.7.2 Did you vote in the last school election? Yes( ) No( ) 6.7.3 Did your husband (wife) vote in the last school election? Yes(. ) No( 70 . c__0__8tfle * 7.1 Who pays "most" of the money to operate your schools? 'lhe Federal goverrment( ), the State of Michigan( ), the local property taxpayers?( ), DK( ). * 7.2 Does more than half of the property taxes go to the schools? Ies( ) No( ) DK( ) 7.3 Have you had a special election in your school district since 1950 on the question of raising the 15 mill limitation? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) * 7.3.1 What is the total property tax rate here? i mills DK( ) * 7.3.1.1 I‘iow much were your schczol taxes last year? DK * 7.1: Are the St. Johns schools fully paid foreducating the pupils who attend the high school from outside the school district? 1es( ) No( ) DK( ) -11.. * 7.14.1 Who pays the cost of transporting pupils to the St. Johns 321 school from the outside districts. DK( ) 7.5 What do you think of the present costs of running your schools? 7.6 What information would you like to have about costs of schools? 7.7 Do you own or rent your home? Own( ) Rent( ) 8. Evaluation. * 8.1 What things do you think your schools do best? * 8.1.1 What things do you think your schools do least well? "v 8.2 In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your schools: Hand respondent card. Which words more nearly express the way you feel E 3 Very well satisfied Satisfied ( ) Not very satisfied ( ) --D1388t18'fied 8.3 What do you think might be done to improve the schools? 0‘: o I I 1'1“. lull-cl, .. 12 .. 322 8.14 What is your occupation?’ If respondent says she is a house wife’ ask: Do you do other work besides this? 8.11.1 Where do you work? 8.14.2 What is your husband's (wife's occupation?) g If respondent says his wife is a housewife ask: Does she do * other worEBesides ‘I:.hisfi’15 '. ' 8.14.2.1 Where does he (she) work? 8.5 Approximately what was your total family income last year? 8.6 How long have you lived in or near.- St. Johns? 8.6.1 Where did you live before you lived here? 8.6.2 Where were you born? If U.S.A.J "state," otherwise "country." 8.6.2.1 Did you grow up on a farm, in a town of under 2500 or in a city of 2500 and over. Rural( ) Town( ) City( ) 8.6.2.2 Would you mind giving us your age? 8.6.2.3 i??? M( ) F( ) 8.7 How far did you go in school? Grade: 8.7.1 Why did you end your schooling at that point? 8.7.2 Did you like school? 8.7.3 How far did your husband (wife) go in school? 8.8 In what town do you buy most of yOur hardware? 8.8.1 In what town do you attend the movies most often? 8.8.2 In what town do you go to the doctor?............ 8.8.3 In what town do most of your friends live?....... 8.8.1; In what town do you do your banking?............. 8.9 what do you think about the St. Johns community asa place to live? Why? m_- a”. ‘w'_.— ...- A —-‘u--——.w-’¢-~O—4M - 13 - 9. Sources g_f_ Information. 323 9.1 To what organizations do you belong? Get names of all organizations. (Church and church organizations) (Business and Professional) (Civic and Service clubs) (Fraternal or lodge) (Farm) (Labor) (Veteran) (Political) (Any others?) 9.2 Do you have a television set? Ies( ) No( ) 9.2.1 Do you remember any program on the radio or television about schools or education during the last month? Yes( ) No( ) DK( ) 9.2.2 What was the program about? 9.2.3 Are you a regular listener to WKAR? Ies( ) No( ) 9.3 Are(you)a regula; reader of the Clinton County Republican-News? Yes No( 9.3.1 Is there anything more about your schools and education you wish . your local newspaper would publish which it does not now publish? 9.3.2 What other newspapers do you read? 9.1; Do you have a library card or belong to a book club? Yes( ) No( ) 9.5 Are there any magazines which you read fairly regularly? Yes( ) No( ) 9.5.1 If {93: Which ones are they? _._. ‘5- .__ _ ‘ _, ____._..__M,~,_.i--_.__.,_..—~-.‘.---_- —_—-_-.__-, _ - 11, .. 9.6 Do you know anyone who has been connected with the schools in anyway? 321* Yes( ) No( ) 9.6.1 In what way? 9.7 Who is the city manager? 9.7.1 Who is the county agricultural agent? 9.7.2 Who is the county superintendent of schools? 9.7.3 Who is the superintendent of the St. Johns schools? it '31- it it Name of person interviewed? Address No . on sample Date Time : Fran to Interviewer Evaluation : h—h--._.__ .... Final Revised Schedule Michigan Communications Study For the Five Community Study Michigan State College 325 February 22, 19Sh East Lansing, Michigan Time Interview Started 1. School Facilities. 1.1 About how many pupils go to your high school? 1.2 Do you think your high school is overcrowded? If response is overcrowded in any way, ask: 1.2.1 Why do you say that? 1.3 What else can you say about your high school facilities? This includes the buildings, play grounds and equipment? 2. P3211. 2.1 Are there more pupils in our high school now than there were a few years ago? Yes ( ’5 No ( ) DK( ) 2.1.1 Do you think the number will increase in the next few years? Yes( ) No( )DK() 2.1.1.1 Why? -2- 326 2.2 About what proportion of the high school pupils come in from 2.3 the country? Record verbatim.re3ponse. For those who said that the high school was overcrowded and who sayit will continue to increase Lask: ............. What do you think should be done to take care of the over- Alternative Questions crowding in the high school? ‘11:”) For the others, ask: ............. What do you think should be done if your high school becomes 2.11 2.5 overcrowded in the future? What do you think should be done with any pupil whose ability to read, write, spell, and do arithmetic is not all it should be when he enters high school? As you.know, the law requires that all pupils stay in school until they are 16 but then some drop out before they graduate. Do you think a greater effort should be made to keep all pupils in school until they do graduate? Yes ( ) Some more, butnotall( )-No( ) DK() 2.5.1 Fer those who answer "Yes" or "Some more, but not all", ask: What do you think can be done to keep them.in high school? -3- .327 2.6 About what preportion of the pupils who graduate from your high school do you think should go on to college? Record verbatim response. 2.7 By the way, how long have you lived in this high school district? 2.8 Do you have any children? Yes ( ) No ( ) Ask only if you get a "Yes" to 2.8 Now I'd like to find out something about your children: Record on back if more space is needed. Children 1 2 3 h L 5 2.9 'What is His (Her) Age? 2.10 Sex ........ For Those in School: 2.11 ‘Where is He (She) in School? Alternative Questions For Those in College, Get Name of College. For Those not in School: 2.12 How far Did He (She) go in School? For Those who went to College, Get name of College. 2.12.1 Why did He (She) End School at this Point? Child No. l Child No. 2 Child No. Child No. VII-I'M) Child No. 3. 2.13 2.1h For those with children in Public School, ask: I328 In what grades have you had children in the public schools? Encircle Answers Given K 1 2 3 h S 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 2.13.1 For those who began Public School with 9th grade, ask: Where did your children go to grade school? For older respondents whose children are out of school, ask: Do you have any grandchildren in your school now? Yes ( ) No ( ) School Program. 3.1 3.2 Is World History taught in your school? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.1.1 Is Government? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.1.2 How about American or United States History? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) What do you think are the most important things to be taught in a World History class? Should they teach: 3.2.1 Names and dates of im ortant world battles? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.2.2 How about the names and locations of the important countries in the world? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) Nq.( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.2.3 Should they teach facts about the United Nations? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( 3.2.h What else should be taught? .329 3.3 'What do you think are the most important things that pupils in .American history classes be taught? Do you think they should teach: 3.3.1 Major issues in Presidential campaigns? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.3.2 Should they teach about important Generals of the Revolutionary and Civil Wars? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.3.3 How about history of labor unions? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.3.h Should they teach about the rise of the USA as a world powpr?) Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK 3.3.5 "What else should they teach? 3.h ‘What do you think are the things that should be taught in a 3.5 Government class? Do you think they should teach: 3.h.1 The ualifications for candidates for state offices? Yes ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.b.2 Should they teach how to cast a ballot when voting? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.b.3 How about the separation of government into three different, distinct branches, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK 3.h.h,'Whet other things do you think they should teach? 'Which do you think should receive the most time and attention, State and Local Government, or Federal Government? State §.Local ( ) Federal Govt. ( ) Same for Both ( ) DK ( ! Illa, .330 3.6 ‘What do you think about the time given to various activities that the school Sponsors outside the classroom? That is, what do you think about the amount of time given to: Too Much About Right Too Little DK 3.6.1 Dramatics ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 3.6.2 Band ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 3.6.3 Other Music ( ) ( ) ( ) ( Organizations 3.6.h Clubs and WM“ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( > Organizations 3.6.5 Athletics ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 3.6.6 Parties ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 3.7 Do you think any of these activities are important in hel ing the pupil to become good citizens? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( 3.7.1 If Yes, Which ones? h. School Teachers. h.l ‘What kind of a person would you hire if "you" were hiring a high school teacher? h.l.1 About what proportion of the Teachers in your high school come fairly close to this description? DK ( ) . VV V VVV ’402 h.3 h.h h.5 h.6 -7- 331. In general, would you prefer your children (if you had any) to be taught by a man or a woman in the following subjects in high school? b.2.l History..........Men ( ) 'Women ( ) Either ( ) h.2.2 Mathematics......Men ( ) ‘Women ( ) Either ( ; h.2.3 Gowernment.......Men ( ) ‘Women ( ) Either ( 11.2.1; English..........Men( ) Women( ) Either( ) Taking everything into consideration, how old do you think that a person should be before they start teaching in your high school? Record verbatim.response. h.3.l At about what age do you think that most teachers should plan to quit teaching? Record verbatim response. In general, do you think that most teachers spend part of their evenings and weekends grading papers and doing other things connected with their school work? Yes ( ) No ( ) Some Do, Some Don't ( ) DK ( ) What do you think high school teachers "should" do during the summer? Do you.think most high school teachers should plan to move on to another community after teaching in your community for a few years? Yes ( ) No ( ) It Depends ( ) DK ( ) h.6.l Why do you say that? VI!!! lloll 1 Illii I. i It i l h.7 h.8 h.9 .332 On the average about how much do you think high school teachers are paid for the school year? DK ( ) h.7.l In general, do you think teachers salaries are too high ( ), about right ( ), or too low ( )? DK ( ) Have you ever been a.high school teacher? Yes ( ) No ( ) Do you have any close personal friends who are school teachers or closely connected with the schools in some other way? Yes ( ) No ( ) h.9.l If "Yesq, ask: In what ways? 5. Methods of Teaching. (A) (B) 5.1 Different ways of teaching are used in Michigan schools. Some teachers teach about like Mrs. A. She makes assignments from the text and assigns time for the pupils to study. Then she marks each pupil on how he recites when called upon and how he answers on written tests. Others teach like Mrs. B. She outlines the topic to be covered and then works out with the pupils ways of getting information from.various sources and experiences, as well as ways of reporting their findings. Now, in general, which method is most like the method used in your high school? A ( ) B ( ) DK ( ) 5.1.1 'Which method was used when you were in school? A ( ) B ( ) DK ( ) 5.1.2 ’Which method do you think is used most of the time in teaching History and Government in your school? A()B()DK() 5.1.3 In general, which method do you believe is better in high school? A ( ) B ( ) DK ( ) 5.2 5.3 S.h 5.5 5.6 5.7 333 About how many pupils do you think a teacher can teach successfully in a high school class? DK ( 5.2.1 Do you think there are more or less than this number in government classes now in your high school? More ( ) About the same ( ) Less ( ) DK ( ) Do you believe more homework, about the same, or less home- work should be required of high school pupils than is now required? More ( ) About the same ( ) Less ( ) DK ( ) Do you think pupils should be required to memorize such things as, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, parts of the Constitution, and Lincoln's Gettysburg address? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) Do you.think that teachers of Government classes should use movies? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 5.5.1 Should they take pupils on trips to Government offices? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( 5.5.2 Should they have discussions on state and national problems in which there are conflicting points of view? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 5.5.3 Should pupils be required to read current newspapers and magazines in order to kee up with Government in action? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( 3 5.5.h Do you think that there should be Special days in which classes are dismissed for Government days or career days? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 5.5.5 In general, what do you think about the way they teach in high school? Is there a Student Government in your high school? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) How much freedom do you think pupils should be given in managing their own affairs through Student Government and similar activities? .10.. 33b. 6. .Administration. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.h 6.5 6.6 How many members are there on your school board? DK ( ) In.your opinion, who is the best informed person about your high school in this community? DK<> 6.2.1 If one person is named, ask: "Who else?" Record all names given and in the order given. Do you have a citizen's advisory committee for your schools? Yes( ) No( ) DK() Schools sometimes send out leaflets, pamphlets, or other publications on school problems. Have you read any of these? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) ‘Who is the superintendent of your school? 6.5.1 ‘Who is the principal of your high school? 6.5.2 ‘Who is theepresident of your Board of Education? Do you usually vote in school elections? Yes ( ) No ( ) .335 (9 Costs. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.h 7.5 7.6 7.7 ‘Who pays "most" of the money to operate your schools? The Federal government ( ), the state of Michigan ( ), the local property taxpayers ( ), DK ( ) Does more than %, less than %, or about % of your local property taxes go to your schools? Less than % ( ), % ( ), More ( ), DK ( ) About how much did "you" pay in school taxes last year? t DK ( ) If something had to be cut out of your high school in the future to save money, what do you think should be dropped? Are your schools fully paid for educating the pupils who attend the high school from outside the town school district? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( .) What do you think of the present costs of running your schools? Do you.own or rent your home? Own ( ) Rent ( ) If informant lives in a trailer, mark with "T". I336 8. Evaluation. 5.1 In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your high school. Hand respondent card. Which words more nearly eXpress the way you feel? ( ) I have no criticisms of any kind. ( ) I think there are a "few" improvements which could be made in the future. ( ) I think they are doing "many" things well but that there are "some" important problems that should be faced now. ( ) I think "major" changes are needed at once. 8.2 Among the people you know in town there are some people who you consider better citizens than others. How do you judge whether a person is a good citizen or not? 8.2.1 On the basis of your observations of people who've been out of school a few years, how well would you say our schools are doing their part of citizenship training? (In other words we're interested in people who are not "just out of school") 9. 10. -13- L337 Sources of Information. 9.1 9.2 9.3 Are you a regular reader of the .......... Give Name of Paper? Yes ( ) No ( ) 9.1.1 Is there anything more about your schools and education you wish your local neWSpaper would publish which it does not now publish? ’" ... .. 9.1.2 What other newspapers do you read regularly? Indicate with "S" if Sunday paper only. Do you have a television set? Yes ( ) No ( ) 9.2.1 How well do you get the new Michigan State College TV station WKAR? To which radio stations do you listen most often? Personal Information. lO.l ‘Would you mind telling me what Religion you consider yourself? 10.2 To what organizations do you belong? Get names of all organizations. (Church organizations) (Business and Professional) (Civic and Service clubs) (Fraternal or lodge) (Farm) (Labor) (Veteran) (Any others?) ........ .41,- 338 ..... If Respondent is Female, ask: Alternative Questions 10.3 What does your husband do for a living? 10.3.1 If Yes 10.3.2 If'Yes 10.3.3 Yes ( ) No ( ) Do you.work outside the home? 10.3.1.1 What do you do? Do you do anything else on a part-time basis? Yes ( ) No ( ) 10.3.2.1 'What? Does your husband do anything else on a part-time basis? Yes ( ) No ( ) 10.3.3.1 What? ..... If Respondent is Male, ask: 10.3 What do you do for a living? 10.3.1 If‘Yes 10.3.2 If Yes 10.3.3 Does your wife work outside the home? -Yes ( ) No ( ) 10.3.1.1 ‘What does she do? Do you do anything else on a part-time basis? Yes ( ) N0() 10.3.2.1 ‘What? Does your wife do anything else on a part-time basis? Yes ( ) No ( ) 10.3.3.1 What? 10.h Approximately what was your total family income last year? Record verbatim response. 10.5 How long have you lived in or near ? 10.5.1 ‘Would you mind giving us your age? If informant refuses to give age then put your estimate here. 10.5.2 _S_e_>_c_M( ) F() 10.6 How far did you go in school? Grade: 10.6.1 'Why did you end your schooling at that point? 10.7 ‘What do you think about as a place to live? 10.7.1 ‘Why did you say that? - r * % Name of person interviewed? Address No. on sample Date Time interview ended: Interviewer Evaluation: .339 3&0 Final Revised Schedule Michigan Communications Study For the Five Communities Study .Michigan State College Follow-up Survey East Lansing,.Michigan June 21, 195h Time Interview Started 1. School Facilities. 1.1 About how many pupils go to your high school? 2. Pupils 2.2 About what prOportion of the high school pupils come in from.the country? Record verbatim response. 2.h ‘What do you think should be done with any pupil whose ability to read, write, Spell, and do arithmetic is not all it should be when he enters high school? 2.h.1 Have you had, or do you have a child who could benefit from Special help in reading? Yes ( ) No ( ) No children ( ) 2.6 About what proportion of the pupils who graduate from your high school do you think "should" go on to college? Record verbatim. re §EODS e o 2.6.1 About what proportion of the pupils who graduate from.your high school "go on to college"? 3. School Program. 3.1 Is World History taught in your school? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.1.1 Is Government? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.1.2 How about.American or United States History? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.2 What do you think are the most important things to be taught in a World History class? Should they teach: 3.2.1 Names and dates of important world battles? Yes ( ) Think SO ( ) NO ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.2.3 Should they teach facts about the United Nations? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.2.h ‘What else should be taught? 3.3 What do you think are the most important things that pupils in American history classes he taught? 3.3.2 Should they teach about important Generals of the Revolutionary and Civil wars? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.3.3 How about history of labor unions? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.3.h Should they teach about the rise of the USA as a world power? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.3.5 'What else should they teach? 3h1. .3h2 3.h 'What do you think are the things that should be taught in a 3.5 3.6 3.7 Government class? Do you think they should teach: 3.h.l The qualifications for candidates for state offices? Yes ( ) Think SO ( ) NO ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 3.h.3 How about the separation of government into three different, distinct branches, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK 3.h.h 'What other things do you think they should teach? ‘Which do you think should receive the most time and attention, State and Local Government, or Federal Government? State % Local ( ) Federal Govt. ( ) Same for Both ( ) DK What do you think about the time given to various activities that the school sponsors outside the classroom? That is, what do you think about the amount of time given to: Too MUch About Right Too Little DK 3.6.1 Dramatics ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3.6.2 Band ( ) ( ) (. ) ( ) 3.6.h Clubs and Student Organizations ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3.6.5 Athletics ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Do you.think any of these activities are important in.he1 ing the pupil to become good citizens? Yes ( ) No( ) DK ( ) 3.7.1 If Yes, Which ones? 3A3 h. School Teachers. h.1 'What kind of a person would you hire if "you" were hiring a h.2 h.5 h.6 h.7 high school teacher? h.1.1 About what proportion of the teachers in your high school come fairly close to this description? DK ( ) In general, would you prefer your children (if you had any) to be taught by'a man or a woman in the following subjects in high school? h.2.l History.........Men( ) Women( ) Either( ) h.2.3 Government......Men ( ) Women ( ) Either ( ) What do you think high school teachers "should" do during the summer? Do you think most high school teachers should plan to move on to another community after teaching in your community for a few years? Yes ( ) No ( ) It Depends ( ) DK ( ) h.6.1 Why do you say that? On the average about how much do you think high school teachers are paid for the school year? DK() h.7.l In general, do you think teachers salaries are too high ( ), ' about right ( ), or too low ( )? DK ( ) h.7.2 If high school teachers get about $3600 a year on the average, do you think that is too low ( ), about right ( ), or too high( )? DK() 3th. 5. Methods of Teaching. (A) (B) 5.2 5.1: 5.5 Different ways of teaching are used in.Michigan Schools. Some teachers teach about like Mrs. A. She makes assignments from the text and assigns time for the pupils to study. Then she marks each pupil on how he recites when called upon and how he answers on written tests. Others teach like Mrs. B. She outlines the topic to be covered and then works out with the pupils ways of getting information from.various sources and experiences, as well as ways of reporting their findings. 5.1.2 'Which method do you think is used most of the time in teaching History and Government in your school? A()B()DK() 5.1.3 In general, which method do you believe is better in high school? A ( ) B ( ) DK ( ) About how many pupils do you think a teacher can teach successfully in.a high school class? DK ( ) 5.2.1 Do you think there are more or less than this number in government classes now in your high school? More ( ) About the same ( ) Less ( ) DK ( ) Do you.think pupils should be required to memorize such things as, the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, parts of the Constitution, and Lincoln's Gettysburg address? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) Do you think that teachers of Government classes should use movies? 'Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 5.5.1 Should they take pupils on trips to Government offices? Yes ( ) N0 ( ) DK ( ) 5.5.2 Should they have discussions on state and national problems in which there are conflicting points of view? Yes ( ) NO ( ) DK ( ) 5.5.3 Should pupils be required to read current newspapers and magazines in order to kee up with Government in action? Yes( ) No( ) DK( 5.5.5 In general, what do you think about the way they teach in high school? 3A5 5.6 Is there a Student Government in your high school? Yes ( ) Think So ( ) No ( ) Think Not ( ) DK ( ) 5.7 How much freedom do you think pupils should be given in managing their own affairs through Student Government and Similar activities? 6. Administration. 6.1 How many members are there on your school board? DK ( ) 6.3 Do you have a citizen's advisory committee for your schools? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 6.5 ‘Who is the superintendent of your high school? 6.5.1 ‘Who is the principal of your high school? 6.5.2 'Who is the president of your Board of Education? 6.5.3 'Who is the editor of your local weekly newspaper? 7. Costs. 7.1 'Who pays "most" of the money to operate your schools? The Federal government ( ), the state of Michigan ( ), the local property taxpayers ( ), DK ( 7.2 Does more than %, less than %, or about % of our local property taxes go to your schools? Less than % ( ), 5 ( ), More ( ), DK ( ) 7.5 Are your schools fully paid for educating the pupils who attend the high school from outside the town school district? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 7.6 'What do you think of the present costs of running your schools? 31.6 8. Evaluation. 8.1 In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your high school. Hand respondent card. Which words more nearly express the way you feel? ( ) I have no criticism of any kind. ( ) I think there are a "few" improvements which could be made in the future . ( ) I think they are doing "mam" things well but that there are "some" important problems that should be faced now. ( ) I think "major" changes are needed at once. 8.2.1 On the basis of your observations of peeple who've been out of school a few years, how well would you say our schools are doing their part of citizenship training? (In other words we're interested in people who are not "just out of school"). 9. Sources of Information. 9.1 Have you read the fairly regularly over the past three months?—Yes ( ) Nil— ) D'K ( ) 9.1.1 Have you noticed any cha e in the amount of news reported on your schools? Yes ( “3 No ( ) DK ( ) 9.1.2 Have you noticed ansr change in the kind of news reported on your schools? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 9.1.2.1 If "yes" to either of the above 4. ask What differences have you noticed? 31.7 9.2 Have you read any article in a magazine on public schools or education within the past three months or so? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK() 9.2.1 If "yes", In what magazine? 9.3 Do you remember receiving a booklet about your public schools within the last month or two? Yes ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 9.3.1 If "yes", What did you think about it? 9.3.1.1 If appropriate and necessary ask, Did you read it? Yes ( ) Part of it ( ) No ( ) DK ( ) 9.h. Did(you follow ghe ArmyaMCCarthy hearings on the radio or TV? Yes ( ) No DK ( 9.11.1 If "yes", Was it on Radio or TV? * * % a * Name of person interviewed? Address No. on sample Date g Time interview ended: Interviewer Evaluation: .BAS FOR THOSE NOT INTERVIEWED PREVIOUSLY 10. Personal Data. 10.1 Sex: Male( ), Fema1e( ) 10.2 ‘Would you.mind giving us your age? 10.3 How long have you lived in this high school district? ... If a male, ask (If retired, get former occupation): ¥. 10.h ‘What do you do for a living? .... If a female, ask (If husband retired or deceased, get former occupation.anyway): lO.h 'What does your husband do for a living? 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 How far did you go in school? Grade: Do you have any children? Yes ( ) No ( ) 10.6.1 'What is the age of each child? 10.6.2 For each child in school: In what grade is each child? t-O.oloaouooru.- -- . 10.6.3 For each child out of school: ‘What grade did each child complete?3“‘ Have you ever been a school teacher? Yes ( ) No ( ) Do you.have any close personal friends who are school teachers or closely connected with the schools in some other way? Yes ( ) N0() 10.8.1 If "Yesfl, ask: In what ways? "wgh'h' v~ ‘ fir ' - ~—----_.- _‘ -""'-'_._.J— lip. . \n .I. 0..» . t. C . .. A)». . E- I t I“ -- 3‘ fl ‘ I 4 ‘2' ‘1' .. kl 7. #- ‘II|'IIIIIIIIIIII lltillLlHMH 3085 114 H T" "I Ell VIII M“ U" A“ H " m3 H H 1293 0