';-‘fi’fifiaflm‘hfim‘3.“:I‘I"{~$*i'!-ii-Z~viz‘t“ARA:Icw'»HO'Im 5.1-:5‘3'w ' 2: ‘ -. '. ' A SURVEY OF DRIVER EDUCATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE STATE or MINNESOTA Thesis for the Degree of PILD. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HOWARD E. MATTHIAS , 1971 Michigan State University ‘1' M l: 3 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A S'RVEY CF DRIVER LDUCATICN P3CGR.X5 IN THE PUBLIC HIGH SCJCL'CLS OF THE STyTxl CF l'fIT‘I'FJEJE-;»CITA presented by Howard E. Matthias has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for r‘h D. degreein Education Date April 8, 1971 0-7639 ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF DRIVER EDUCATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA BY Howard E. Matthias Purpose The purpose of this study was: (1) to survey the literature concerning studies of driver and traffic safety education programs; (2) to ascertain the State of the Art of driver education programs in Minnesota public high schools for the year 1969-70; (3) to determine a profile of the Minnesota driver education instructor/supervisor; and (4) to determine the instructors' attitudes toward college courses in driver and traffic safety education. Related Literature An extensive search of related literature revealed that considerable information was available concerning driver education programs but little information was avail— able concerning the instructor, his preparation, his teaching task and his performance. Howard E. Matthias Procedures A questionnaire was prepared and sent to every public high school district in Minnesota. Local administra- tors returned 370 of these questionnaires, an 83 per cent return. Individual instructor questionnaires were provided to all active driver educators at the time of the survey. A 90 per cent return was realized when 1,260 instructors returned their questionnaires. Findings The data that was gathered was placed in frequency charts and a narrative was included with each chart. The following is a summary of the major findings of this investigation: 1. Minnesota school districts can generally be characterized as districts with limited enrollment and resources. Their driver education programs were typically offered after school and during the summer and were likely to be taught by part-time driver education instructors. 2. The classroom phase of the program, although generally a required subject, was generally taught as a part of another subject; seldom received credit for gradua- tion; was unlikely to be graded on a similar basis as other subjects; and was most likely to be taught at the ninth grade level. 3. The laboratory program was commonly taught after school, Saturdays and during the summer; seldom used Howard E. Matthias simulation and/or off-street range instruction; and was generally taught by an instructor who had nothing to do with the school day program. 4. Minnesota districts provided minimal financing, textbooks and resources with one-fourth of the districts charging special tuition for the course. 5. Minnesota driver educators were unlikely to have had any course work beyond their basic driver education certification course work; have been teaching for 11.2 years (median) and have received some graduate work beyond their bachelors degrees. Approximately one-half of the instructors were also coaches. 6. Although few instructors met the present certification requirements, most of the instructors were in favor of higher certification and indicated they would take advanced driver and traffic safety courses if offered. Recommendations The study suggested the following needs: increased financial aids for the expansion of local programs; increased and improved administrative and supervisory per- sonnel at both the state and local level; improved communi- cation with district administrators concerning driver education methods, techniques, programs and equipment; expansion of course offerings for driver education instruc- tors, both graduate and undergraduate; and the further develOpment of Traffic and Safety Centers (TASC) capable Howard E. Matthias of providing demonstration programs, consultant assistance, teacher preparation courses, facilities and equipment and in-service training. A SURVEY OF DRIVER EDUCATION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA BY Howard Eszatthias A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Education 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENT S The writer wishes to eXpress his sincere apprecia- tion to many individuals who have assisted in this study. Gratitude is expressed to his committee members for their helpful roles: Dr. Robert Nolan, Dr. Dale Alam and Dr. William Mann. Special appreciation is extended to the chairman of this committee, Dr. Robert Gustafson. His assistance and guidance has been invaluable. Distinctive acknowledgment is eXpressed to Mr. Eugene Bealka and the Minnesota Department of Education. Their c00peration in this study has been most appreciated. Appreciation and acknowledgment are eXpressed to the University of Minnesota Computer Center for their assistance in the preparation of the study and its tabula- tion. Finally, recognition is extended to the author's wife, Lorraine, whose love and encouragement has persisted through these recent years of graduate school and hours spent on this study. This recognition must also extend to my children, Deborah, Ann and Mark. Their patience and assistance have been indispensable in the preparation of this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . II. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . Program Development . . . . . . The Changing Role of Driver Education Minnesota Driver Education DevelOpment Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . . . . Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . Organization of the Remaining Chapters . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . Studies and Evaluations . . . . . Department of Education Study . . . Annual Fact Sheet . . . . . . . Automotive Safety Foundation Study . Traffic and Safety Centers . . . . State Laws, Standards, and Guidelines Certification . . . . . . . . . National Education Association . . . Federal Government Guidelines . . . Minnesota Certification . . . . . Other States . . . . . . . . . State Driver Education Studies . . . Comprehensive Studies by Outside Agencies and/or Individuals . . . . . . on-gOing Programs 0 o o o o o a Higher Education . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page ii NQOquwI-‘H H H 13 l4 14 15 16 17 l8 18 18 19 20 20 21 23 27 28 Chapter III. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY . . . . Selection of Sample . . . . . Preparation of Questionnaire . . Program Questionnaire . . . . Individual Questionnaire . . . Follow-up Letter . . . . . Processing Data . . . . . . summary 0 O O O O O O O C IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA FROM THE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRES . . . . . . . Driver Education Programs . . . School Size . . . . . . . Special Programs . . . . . Finances . . . . . . . . Resources, Credits and Grades . Classroom Phase . . . . . . Laboratory Phase . . . . . Emergency Situations . . . . Simulation . . . . . . . Driving Ranges . . . . . . Staff Administration . . . . Driver Education Instructors/Supervisors Educational Background. . . . Teaching Experience . . . . Driver Education Teaching Inventory Teaching Responsibilities . . Extra-Curricular Activities . . Driver Education Courses and Certification . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . The Major Findings of the Study Conclusions . . . . . . . . Programs . . . . . . . . Instructors . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Research REFERENCES APPENDICES CITED 0 O O O O O O O 0 iv Page 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 35 36 38 38 40 42 44 50 59 69 70 72 74 86 86 94 97 103 108 108 114 119 119 120 122 122 127 131 133 135 140 Table l. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Number of school districts based upon public and parochial-private student enrollment . Driver education programs available to drop-outs . . . . . . . . . . . . Separate driver education program for special education students (EMR) . . . . . . . Separate driver education program for physically handicapped students . . . . School districts charging fees for driver education, amount of fee and type of program 0 O O O O O O O I O O 0 Driver education curriculum guide . . . . Availability of textbooks and instructional materials . . . . . . . . . . . . Schools offering credit toward graduation for driver education . . . . . . . . . Number of credits awarded toward graduation for driver education . . . . . . . . Grading systems in Minnesota driver education programs 0 O O O O I I O O O O 0 Types of grading systems used in Minnesota driver education programs . . . . . . Permanent records maintained in Minnesota driver education programs . . . . . . Classroom, elective or required . . . . . Classroom phase in the school curriculum . . Grade level at which classroom is taught . . Page 39 41 41 41 43 45 46 47 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Table Page 16. Classroom size related to school day, after school and summer programs . . . . . . 55 17. Length of average classroom period . . . . 56 18. Number of classroom sessions per week per student . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 19. Total number hours of classroom instruction . 58 20. Laboratory phase, required or elective . . . 6O 21. Grade level for laboratory instruction . . . 61 22. Laboratory offering in relation to classroom . 62 23. Number of students per on-road vehicle . . . 64 24. Length of laboratory session per student . . 64 25. Number of laboratory meetings per week per Student I O O I O I O C C O O O 66 26. Number of laboratory periods of instruction per Student . . . . . . . . . . . 67 27. Hours of behind-the-wheel driving experience per student . . . . . . . . . . . 68 28. Special unit concerning emergency situations . 7O 29. Simulation in Minnesota high school districts. 71 30. Minnesota districts' feeling toward simulation . . . . . . . . . . . 72 31. Off-street driving ranges in Minnesota high school districts . . . . . . . . . 73 32. Feeling toward off-street driving ranges in Minnesota districts . . . . . . . . 74 33. Driver education instructor/supervisors employed in 1968-69 school year . . . . 76 34. Number of instructors/supervisors summer of 1969 O O C O O O O O O O O O O 77 35. Driver education instructor/supervisors employed in 1969-70 school year . . . . 78 vi Table 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Minnesota instructors not fully certified to present standards (twelve quarter hours) . Salary basis for Minnesota driver education classroom teachers . . . . . . . . . Salary basis for Minnesota driver education laboratory teachers . . . . . . . . Special orientation and in-service training programs 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Highest level of higher education attainment . Major and minor fields of preparation for Minnesota driver education instructors . . College/university where most college prepara- tion in driver education received . . . . Last year receiving college credit for a driver education course . . . . . . . . . College quarter hour credits in driver education 0 O O O O O C O O O O 0 Teacher evaluation of driver education teacher preparation . . . . . . . . Teaching experience of Minnesota driver educa- tion teachers . . . . . . . . . . Driver education involvement during the school year . . . . . . . . . . . The normal teaching load of Minnesota district teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . Time spent in teaching driver education during school day . . . . . . . . . . . Number of days per week taught the summer of 1969 O O O I O O l O O O O O 0 Number of hours per week during summer of 1969 O O O I O O O O O O O O C After school driver education program exPerience . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 80 82 84 85 87 89 90 91 93 94 95 96 98 99 100 101 102 Table Page 53. Saturday driver education program experience . 103 54. Teaching responsibilities during the school year 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 104 55. Extra-curricular responsibilities during school year . . . . . . . . . . . 109 56. Interest level in suggested traffic safety courses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 57. Willingness to take future traffic safety courses . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 58. Driver education instructors' views toward higher certification standards . . . . . 114 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem Driver education, like most areas of education, is being critically analyzed and severely challenged. Dr. Frederick L. McGuire, who has received considerable atten- tion as the writer of the McGuire Report, has been widely quoted and acclaimed by the critics of driver education (8). Thus driver educators have been considerably upset with the resulting publicity associated with the McGuire report and have accepted the challenge to show the effectiveness of their programs. A critical analysis of driver education programs and their teaching personnel is the first step toward a rejection or acceptance of reports such as McGuire's. Program Development Driver education is a relatively new course in the school curriculum. Although some pioneer programs were begun as early as the mid-1930's, it was not until the period following World War II that driver education gen- erally began receiving widespread acceptance in the public school systems of the United States (7). This early 1 development was encouraged by many studies. Favorable state reports in New Hampshire, Oregon, West Virginia, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Vermont, Virginia, and Illinois were given con- siderable publicity (12). All of these studies indicated positive accident and violation reduction for the trained driver as com- pared to the untrained driver. These studies were accepted at face value by most educators, insurance firms, and the general public. Few questions concerning the basic methods of research were raised when they were first completed. The growth of driver education during the post- war period was aided by other factors as well. Insurance companies offered incentives in the form of reduced insurance rates to young drivers satisfactorily completing a course in driver education. This financial reward often resulted in parental pressure for the initiation or expan- sion of driver education programs. Financial assistance in the form of supplementary financial aids provided another motivation to program deveIOpment. Forty states provided financial assistance to public school driver education at the time of this study (13). This aid varied from state to state but provided a valuable boost to driver education programs. Program deve10pment continued at a fast pace throughout the nation during the 1950's and the 1960's. Michigan became an early leader in the development of driver education when it became the first state to claim 100 per cent enrollment in driver education for its public school students (9). Legislation, commonly called the "Michigan Law" was largely responsible. This legislation stipulated that a young person could not receive his driver's license until he was eighteen unless he success— fully completed an approved driver education course. Successful completion allowed him to obtain his license at age sixteen. The strong motivation to drive in our mobile society generally made the two year wait completely unacceptable. The rapid development of driver education was accomplished in spite of some overwhelming handicaps. For example, teachers had to be recruited from other disciplines. Colleges and universities were not prepared to offer teacher training courses. Certification standards were non-existent and few states could offer consultant assistance from their Departments of Education. Textbooks and other resources were extremely limited and of questionable quality. Most initial courses were offered as a portion of other courses. The Changing Role of DEIVer Education Driver education was founded on the basic tenet that a trained driver is a better, safer driver than the "untrained" driver. Programs have prospered because of this belief. In fact, driver education was accepted in the secondary school curriculum on the basis of this phiIOSOphy. Although driver education was freely accepted in the nation's schools, few were subjected to a critical analysis of their content. However, as programs began to grow in number and quality, various phases of driver educa- tion began to be improved. Formalized curriculum planning, teacher preparation, improved course offerings and better organization and administration occurred. The basic function of driver education remained consistent throughout its development. The preparation of trained, knowledgeable drivers able to travel safely in a complex traffic environment was the basic goal. The reduction of automobile accidents has been paramount in the organization of all programs. As important as this goal has been, other outcomes and learnings are now being deemed important as well. Presently, behavioral evaluation is undergoing close scrutiny. All domains of learning are being considered: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Experiences and material are being organized to effect behavioral change. Curriculum development has undergone, and is undergoing, considerable revision in an attempt to further behavioral adjustment. The importance of the automobile, commercial carriers and related forms of transportation to modern life is being stressed. The fact that one of every six small businesses deals directly with the automobile indi- cates the importance of vehicle study (5; 16). An under- standing of the role of the automotive vehicle is con- sidered necessary to a full appreciation of a person's role as owner and driver. Related to this area is Dr. Charles Hartman's emphasis on "traffic citizenship" in his publication, Driver Education in the Schools (3:4). He indicates that the driver education student as a traffic citizen will become a vital part of the entire pattern of life in the nation and the world. He will take his place as a voter, worker, taXpayer, and consumer. As such, he must be prepared to meet his responsibilities concerning related problems associated with the automobile. The "traffic citizen" has many responsibilities, including being a taxpayer. The role of the motor vehicle as a revenue source must be clearly understood by students. This source of revenue can better be appreciated when it is shown that automobile and personal driver's licenses in Minnesota in 1967 brought in revenue in excess of 59,000,000 dollars. Federal excise taxes on vehicles for the same year were in excess of thirteen billion dollars. In addition, state gasoline taxes were in excess of five billion dollars (1:54-55). Pollution and the extensive use of natural resources has been closely allied with the automobile. Traffic citizens are being asked to make critical decisions regarding types of vehicles to use, mass transit in cities, types of fuel, and government restrictions. Thus, driver education must prepare future traffic citizens to make sound decisions in these areas of concern. Many additional problems face future drivers. Congestion, parking problems, traffic engineering, desecration of the nation's beauty, physical fitness, and morality are but a few problems linked closely with the automobile. The need for quality driver education programs is great. Minnesota Driver Education DeveIopment Minnesota has shown a favorable growth pattern in driver education programs. Driver education was intro- duced into the Minneapolis schools as early as 1937. By 1957, 70 per cent of the Minnesota schools offered a pro- gram, and this increased to 98 per cent in 1968 (10:4). Minnesota also compares favorably to other states in the percentage of students completing the approved course in driver education. The national average comple- tion figure was 45 per cent in 1965, whereas Minnesota had a 68 per cent completion for that year (18:47). This has been increased to 72 per cent for the year 1969 (10:5). In terms of numbers of programs and of students, the growth of Minnesota driver education programs has been commendable. However, a serious shortcoming exists. No study to date has attempted to evaluate the program and the teachers involved. To this end, this study has been conducted. Purpose of the Study No evaluation of the driver education program in the state of Minnesota can be made until a comprehensive study of the personnel and programs within the state has been conducted. Therefore, it was the purpose of this study: (1) to contact every public high school in Minne- sota concerning the present driver education program being offered, and (2) to survey driver education teachers in the state employed during the 1969 school year concerning their preparation, experience, and choices of future college courses. Importance of the Study Driver education was initially "sold" to school administrators, school boards, and the general public as a means to save lives, and to lessen injuries and economic loss caused by automobile accidents. Dr. John J. Conger (15:30) joined McGuire and others in questioning the evidence shown. The critics did not question the need for driver education programs but the effectiveness of the present programs. Accident statistics have been widely quoted both in defense of and as criticism of driver education effec- tiveness. The critics of driver education, for instance, will quote the increase in the number of motor vehicle deaths nationally in 1969 from the previous year, 56,400 as compared to 55,300, to indicate ineffectiveness, whereas, those defending driver education and other traffic safety programs will cite the 1970 death toll drOp of 1,100 lives (16:40). In further stressing the importance of the study, it should be pointed out that the number of injured in the United States (4,400,000 in 1968) and the economic loss ($11,300,000,000 in 1968) (1) has been steadily increasing along with the number of drivers and the miles being driven. The number of registered vehicles in 1969 numbered 107 million as compared to 49 million in 1950. Similarly, in our nation there were 108 million licensed drivers in 1969 compared to only 62 million in 1950 (16:41). Opportunities for loss and injury have thus increased. It is encouraging to note that the mileage death rate (deaths per 100,000,000 miles of travel) has drOpped. The national figures showed an improvement of 4.7 to 5.3 when comparing 1969 to 1950 (16:65). In summation, although it appears that automobile fatalities are being lowered, traffic safety problems demand greater attention than ever before. An improved driver education program, conducted by competent driver educators, offers a great potential toward the improvement of the traffic problem. Scope of Study This study encompassed every public high school district in the state of Minnesota. The study was primarily concerned with two aspects of the Minnesota driver education program. One, every instructor was questioned about his basic preparation, advanced preparation, assigned time to driver education, and additional duties. Two, the public school program was surveyed as to the type of program offered by its school(s). The study was concerned with various phases of the program with the recognition that most districts operated different programs during the summer than they did during the school year. Also, the survey divided the program into classroom and laboratory experience. Definition of Terms Certain terms used in this study were defined as follows: Accident: An unplanned event resulting in death, injury, prOperty damage or inconvenience involving the use of a motor vehicle. Advanced preparation: Teacher preparation courses beyond the basic certification courses required by the state of Minnesota Department of Education. 10 Basic courses: Initial courses required for certi- fication to teach driver education in Minnesota. Certification: A legal requirement established by the Department of Education in the state of Minnesota to be met before a teaching license will be authorized in a certain discipline. The present certification standard in driver education is twelve (12) quarter hours: four hours in safety education and eight hours in basic driver educa- tion. Class load: The number of teaching hours, either per day or per week, assigned to a teacher by the employing school district. C1assroom_phase: The portion of the driver educa- tion program that is taught in the classroom setting. Elective: A course offering that may be chosen by the student in addition to other required course offerings. Extra-curricular assignment: An assignment given to a teacher in addition to regular classroom teaching. Full-time driver education instructor: A teacher assigned 80 per cent or more of his teaching load to driver education. Laboratory phase: The phase of driver education employing "real" driving experiences. Included within this definition are simulation, off-street driving ranges, and on-road driving experiences conducted singly or in conjunc- tion with each other. 11 Minimum standards: The minimum number of hours accepted by the state of Minnesota for classroom and laboratory instruction will determine the minimum standards for this study. Present driver education standards conform to national standards: thirty hours of classroom and six hours of practical laboratory experience. Off-street driving range: A multiple-car concept of instruction utilizing a protected area with basic driving designs established for basic driving maneuvers. Part-time driver education instructor: A teacher assigned less than 80 per cent of his teaching load to driver education. Sample: For the purpose of this study, "sample" will refer to the schools and personnel returning the questionnaire to the source. Simulation: A teaching-learning device utilizing electronic driving components, moving pictures, teacher control station in a classroom setting. State supervisor: The State Supervisor of Driver and Traffic Safety Education within the Minnesota Department of Education. School-year prggram: The driver education program taught during regular school hours during the normal school year. Summer program: The driver education program taught in the school district during the summer. This program 12 often differed from the school-year program because of the inclusion of non-public school students, different evaluation systems, and variances in laboratory experiences. Organization of the Remaining Chapters A comprehensive review of literature is reported in Chapter II. The historical aspects of previous studies in driver education are reported as well as current studies in driver education. Studies concerning state-wide programs involving driver education are emphasized. Chapter III further explains the selection of the sample, the preparation of the questionnaire, and the methods used in processing the data. Chapter IV contains factual presentation of the data. A narrative description of the results of the data is in- cluded with individual tables showing the statistical analysis of each of the questionnaire items. This chapter is divided into two major divisions: program developments and individual instructor information. These major subdivisions are further broken down into major categories as shown in the Table of Contents. Based upon the findings of Chapter IV, the conclu- sions and recommendations will be presented in Chapter V. The paper concludes with the references used as resource material for the paper and the basic sources of information used by the author. The questionnaire used for this study is also included. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Pertinent literature that was reviewed concerned program evaluation, teacher certification, and federal and state standards. Additional literature allied to driver and traffic safety education was also read. Important con- cerns such as licensing, legislation and administration were covered. Studies and Evaluations Studies have been conducted in driver education on local, state and national levels. This section has been divided into two parts: Minnesota programs and studies and programs from other states. Literature reviewed relating to Minnesota studies and evaluation concerned (1) a study of driving performance as compiled in 1955 by Mr. J. G. Neal; (2) Annual Fact Sheets compiled by the Department of Education; (3) an evaluation of the state traffic safety program by the Automotive Safety Foundation; (4) the develOpment of Traffic and Safety Centers in Minnesota; and (5) related state laws, standards and guidelines. 13 14 Department of Education Study Mr. J. G. Neal, Supervisor of Health, Physical Education, Safety and Recreation of the Minnesota Department of Education conducted research in 1955 that received con- siderable attention. This study (17), conducted over a five-year period, provided a comparison of driving records of Minnesota high school students with varying degrees of training. Involved in the study were 1,000 untrained drivers, 1,000 drivers who completed classroom instruction only, and 1,000 drivers who completed both classroom and behind-the-wheel instruction. Findings disclosed that only 18.3 per cent of the drivers receiving both behind-the-wheel and classroom instruction were involved in accidents as compared to 36.3 per cent of the untrained drivers. This report received both wide acclaim and severe criticism. Pr0ponents of driver education have widely quoted the favorable two-to- one ratio while critics have severely questioned the selection of the sample used in the study since it did not differentiate such variables as age, sex, driving experience and scholastic ability. Annual Fact Sheet The Minnesota Department of Education has annually prepared a summation of the basic statistics involving driver education (29). These fact sheets, though limited in sc0pe, were studied in relationship to the growth of 15 driver education. Basic figures relating to the number of public schools offering a program, the number of eligible students enrolled, the number of students satisfactorily completing the course, the number of driver education instructors, and basic costs were investigated. The Department of Education also endorsed agree- ments between automobile dealers and schools. Because of this, an account of the number of vehicles and the type of vehicles was available and reviewed as a part of this study. Automotive Safety Foundation Study In May of 1966, the Automotive Safety Foundation, in c00peration with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Public Roads, completed a study for the Minne- sota Highway Department. In addition to staff members of the Automotive Safety Foundation, study consultants were employed in specific areas of concern. Dr. F. R. Noffsinger, formerly of the Northwestern University Traffic Institute, was employed as the consultant for driver preparation and improvement. In the introduction to the unit on driver preparation and improvement it was stated that: "Better drivers violate traffic laws less, and have fewer accidents. Good instruction can produce better drivers" (18:16). The study recognized as strong points of the Minne- sota program the number of public schools offering driver education programs, the percentage of students enrolled, and the public interest within the state as expressed by state legislation. 16 Dr. Noffsinger and Automotive Safety Foundation staff presented the following major recommendations: Upgrading of teacher certification standards. (Since increased to the present twelve quarter hours.) Establishment of a full-time position of Supervisor of Driver and Traffic Safety Education. (Mr. Eugene Bealka was subsequently hired for this position.) Development, through teacher training institu- tions, of instructors and programs for larger schools using simulators and driving ranges. Establish procedures for exchange of informa- tion among driver license examiners, driver evaluators, and driver education teachers. Provide state financial aid in the event local resources prove inadequate to support a full pro- gram of driver education. (No supplementary aid has been provided.) (18:18) Further recommendations were made regarding driver improvement for adults, school bus drivers, and problem drivers. The following observation was made: Research is needed, especially in the field of communications, to make the information and appeals more effective. All other traffic safety functions of the Minnesota state government likewise will benefit from organized research. A consolidated approach is therefore indicated. To this end, it is recommended that a Traffic Safety Center be established at the university or college level. Such a center in Minnesota should coordinate its efforts with other states (18:38). Traffic and Safety Centers Based upon the recommendation of the 1966 Automotive Safety Foundation study, studies were conducted by the Department of Education with the assistance of the Automotive 17 Safety Foundation. Federal funding through the Highway Safety Act of 1966 was obtained for the establishment of four Traffic and Safety Centers (hereafter called TASC centers). These centers are presently located at Mankato, Winona-Rochester, St. Cloud, and Duluth. The Minnesota Department of Education has defined Traffic and Safety Centers as: A Traffic Safety Center is an organizational structure which involves a cooperative effort between (a) a college or university and (b) a public school district. Both educational institu- tions pool their unique capabilities in a coordi- nated effort. That effort seeks to improve and expand driver education for youth and adults while also upgrading the preparation and competencies of those who are or will be teaching driver education (6). State Laws, Standards, and Guidelines Related disciplines of traffic safety in Minnesota were also searched. The Minnesota Motor Vehicle and Traffic Laws (including Motor Vehicle Registration Laws) (28) provided the necessary background information about the legality of approved programs, the registration of driver education vehicles, the legal definitions of certified instructors, and the restrictions pertaining to various licenses. Educational limitations, standards, and guidelines were investigated through the Department of Education (26). Material from the department clarified many definitions, regulations, and concepts used in this study. Facts and 18 Opinions were gained from their interpretation of classroom participation, scheduling restrictions, laboratory limita- tion, and instructor certification. Certification Basic to a study of program and/or instructors in driver education is an understanding of the amount of training and preparation for the teachers and supervisors in the program. Certification standards have been one of the major influences of this training, therefore they were investigated at both the national and state levels. National Education Association The National Education Association provided some guidelines toward certification in their publication Policies and Practices (11). The recommendations for pre- service preparation of teachers included: A four-year program of study at an accredited teacher preparation institution; completion of a minor in safety and driver education or its equivalent; experiences that assist prospective teachers to improve their own driving ability, learn teaching techniques for laboratory instruc- tion, and gain competence through supervised practice teaching (11:5). Federal Government Guidelines The National Highway Safety Bureau in its Highway Safety Program Manual on Driver Education (14) requires the states to meet the following certification requirements for driver education instructors: agency out. 19 Necessary physical and mental capabilities A bachelor‘s degree or equivalent A valid driver's license from the state in which they will teach A satisfactory driving record as defined by state education agency Required courses, totaling at least 12 semester hours, including: Safety education (3) and Driver education and Highway safety (9). Required courses including Specialization in simulation, multimedia, research, teaching materials, and literature in the field Elective courses in the behavioral sciences Additional pre-service preparation with eXperiences in supervised student teaching; teaching specific driving knowledge; advanced skills for handling driving emergencies Direction, where possible, of the prospective driver education teacher's academic preparation to the specific field of driver and highway safety education (14:10-12). Primary responsibilities of the state education and institutions of higher education were spelled Minnesota Certification Minnesota increased certification requirements for driver education instructors in 1968. To become certified as a driver education instructor the following requirements must be met: 1. Every driver education instructor shall have a valid Minnesota driver's license and at least two years of driving experience. 20 2. Teachers shall have successfully completed the following courses or their equivalent for a total of 12 quarter hours (8 semester hours): Principles of Safety Education; Driver Education I and II. 3. A teacher should also have a driving record free from accidents for which he was judged to be at fault or moving violations for the past two years. 4. He must have attended an approved school. A list of schools providing an approved driver education program and authorized instructors was issued to the Driver's License Office, Minnesota Highway Department. Schools on this list may issue an instruction permit and driver's license to each pupil (27:5-6). Other States A comparison of certification standards with other mid-western states showed Minnesota to be somewhat more demanding than Michigan which required less than six points on the driving record and six semester hours of driver education preparation or Wisconsin which required an acceptable driving record and nine hours of preparation. Certification in both Iowa and Illinois require a Driver and Safety Education minor (24 quarter hours), or its equivalent, in addition to an acceptable driving record. This is considerably more demanding than Minne- sota's standards. State Driver Education Studies An investigation of driver education studies carried on in other states was made. This investigation revealed two types of information: comprehensive studies 21 carried on within a state by an outside agency or an individual, and on-going programs conducted by the state education agencies. Comprehensive Studiesgby Outside Agencies and/Cr Individuals Several states have undergone comprehensive studies relating to driver and traffic safety programs. Studies of this nature were commonly contracted to a consulting firm. The Automotive Safety Foundation was a leader in this type of evaluation process, having made studies in several of the states. In most cases, all areas of traffic safety were evaluated with driver and traffic safety educa— tion being one area within the total study. Student enrollment, financial structure, supervision and administra— tion, and legislation were the common areas of concern. Maryland.--The Automotive Safety Foundation com- pleted a study of driver education for the state of Maryland in 1969 (24). This fact-finding study revealed many problems in teacher certification. For example, only three colleges and one university had any course work available. There was an absence of in-service and state-wide workshOps for teachers and there were no means of evaluating the effective- ness of the driver education program. Arizona.--The Automotive Safety Foundation did a similar study for Arizona in 1968 (22). At the time of the 22 study, 9,618 of the 31,046 eligible tenth grade students were not receiving a driver education program. This study also revealed the absence of adequate state-level authority to administer and regulate a uniform and comprehensive state-wide program. State financial support was urged. North Dakota.--Many agencies c00perated in a study of state governmental functions for North Dakota(35). The Automotive Safety Foundation joined the Bureau of Public Roads, U.S. Department of Commerce, and several state agencies in this endeavor. Driver education was studied along with accident reporting, licensing, highway patrol supervision, and highway traffic Operations. The findings revealed that in 1967, all 290 high schools required the minimum classroom course for graduation. One hundred and nineteen of these schools did not have a qualified instruc- tor and only ninety of the schools offered the six hour behind-the-wheel program. Michigan.--Nolan and Gustafson conducted an in- depth study of driver education in the state of Michigan (19). Fifty-seven school districts in fifty-one counties were selected for a concentrated analysis. Personal interviews were conducted with school personnel, students, parents, city officials, and enforcement agencies. In addition, questionnaires were sent to all driver education teachers throughout the state. 23 The findings of this study were critical of the programs for the handicapped and the drOp-out, the grading practices, the lack of credit, the quality of local program, the qualifications and preparation of instructors, and the large number of part-time instructors. Nevada.--The state of Nevada hired a personal con- sultant to study its driver education program. Mr. Amos Neyhart provided this service in 1967. The small pOpula- tion, the distance between cities, and the limited state resources were identified as major concerns (31). On-goinngrograms A letter was sent to the state Supervisor of Driver Education in all fifty states (see Appendix). The letter requested information concerning present programs, certifi- cation, and instructors. Much material was received in response to this request and the information is presented by state. Maryland.--A continuing study being conducted in Maryland by Mr. Victor J. Perini, Jr., Study Director, provided outlines of progress reports, membership rolls of the working committees, outlines of the orientation meet- ings, organizational charts, and various sub-divisions of the study itself. The organization of the task analysis, though based upon a county organizational structure, pro- vided several organizational concepts in program development. 24 New Hampshire.-—A fact sheet, provided by Mr. John Groves, Safety and Driver Education Consultant, stated that starting September 1, 1971, six semester hours would be required for certification. New Hampshire has only seven programs during the regular school day. Alabama.--A Driver Education Handbook was provided by Alabama. This handbook, designed for the driver educa- tion instructor, provided information concerning certifica- tion, licensing requirements, and basic rules. Idaho.--A sheet listing the current instructor requirements for driver education was provided. Eight semester hours in professional education courses and no conviction for a moving traffic violation requiring a revocation or suspension during the preceding 36 months were two of the new requirements. New Jersey.--A summary of driver education statistics for the year 1969 was provided. This complete analysis pointed out that the classroom course was taken at the eleventh grade level and that the licensing age in New Jersey was seventeen. Two hundred and sixty of their 346 programs were taught as a part of health, safety, and physical education. Although the program aspect of driver education was reported well, nothing was revealed about the instructor. 25 T§§3§.--The statuatory authority for driver educa- tion in Texas schools was provided by Mr. Glen Peavy, Supervisor of Driver Education. In addition to standards for teacher certification, the requirements for teaching assistants were also spelled out. Procedural rules and regulations were provided. Wisconsin.--C0pies of the annual driver education report were provided. Basic information concerned granting credit, requiring or electing the course, the level of the offering, and the total number of hours. Separate cate- gories were provided for range and simulation. The annual report used to tabulate state reimbursement was also included. Missouri.--Basic information concerning programs was provided including the fact that 75 per cent of the eligible students were receiving instruction. No information con- cerning instructors was available. Rhode Island.--A fact sheet indicated that driver education was an after school program, that no behind-the- wheel was offered, and that three credits were needed for certification. Nevada.--During the year 1969, Nevada prepared three publications for driver education. Nevada Teacher Certification Requirements listed the basic requirements 26 for all teaching disciplines. Evaluation of the Driver Education Program for the State of Nevada was the published work of the evaluation performed by Amos Neyhart. Driver Education presented recommended practices, guidelines, and exemplars. Connecticut.--Along with the basic fact sheet for the state, a new publication, Developing a Multiple-Car- Driving Range was provided. This booklet contained sound, basic information in range development. South Dakota.--Basic facts were provided by Mr. Wyland Borth, Director, Driver Education. At the time of the information, two semester hours in driver education were required for certification. Mississippi.--State rules and regulations governing the establishment, conduct, and scope of driver education were provided. Mr. Wyatt Tullos, Assistant Supervisor of Driver and Safety Education, also provided general informa- tion concerning the program. Oklahoma.--An annual driver education report was provided for the year 1969. This included reimbursement payments, per pupil costs ($62.76), and information concern- ing driver education vehicles. New Mexico.--A complete list of instructors was included, itemizing the total number of driver education 27 credits, the number of hours needed, and the expiration date of the license for each instructor. The annual report for the 1968-69 school year for the 82 New Mexico school districts was also included. California.--Excerpts from the Vehicle Code, State of California, were provided. Legal restrictions for driver education were spelled out in these excerpts. Mr. John Eales, Consultant in Secondary Education, provided basic information concerning programs. Included in his information were facts about special programs being attempted in San Diego and Los Angeles. The program in Los Angeles concerned work with handicapped students. New York.--Although no information was received concerning specific program or instructor information, two publications were provided; one concerned an analysis of 1969 accident records, and the other gave information con- cerning snowmobiles. Other states.--Maine, wyoming, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Massachusetts did not provide any data but did show an interest in the study and have requested abstracts. Higher Education Dr. William T. Richards conducted a study entitled The Role of Universities in Wisconsin in the Professional Preparation of Traffic and Safety Specialists. This 28 thorough comprehensive study determined the strengths and weaknesses of higher education preparation programs in Wisconsin (20). The findings indicated a strong interest in additional course work by the driver and traffic safety personnel in the field. A total of 62.5 per cent indicated a desire to take additional work with a preference for courses in accident prevention, traffic enforcement, and administration ranked in that order. Dr. Richards, on the basis of his research, recom- mended that the preparation of driver and traffic safety specialists be concentrated in a few select higher education institutions. These schools should develop highly special— ized programs, employ qualified specialists, and concentrate on fewer but more highly trained graduates. m The review of related literature was undertaken to gain a greater understanding of program development, teacher certification, and instructor performance. Information con- cerning driver education programs was readily available in Minnesota and many other states. Teacher certification information was also readily available on the state and national level. Information concerning the individual instructor was more difficult to obtain. Chapter II was divided into several sections. The first section pertained to various studies conducted in 29 Minnesota that have culminated in the formation of Traffic and Safety Centers. The second section concerned certification. Certi- fication guidelines were investigated from a national as well as a state basis. The greatest depth of investigation concerned information from other states. In-depth studies performed by consultants were investigated. Information received from individual states in the form of fact sheets, annual reports, legislative guidelines, and individual pieces of information was all examined. The final study noted was by Dr. Richards. This study was closely related to the Minnesota study and received a close investigation. Chapter III will present the method of procedure for the study. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY This chapter is devoted to the presentation of the sources of data, the methods used in obtaining the data, and the procedures used in evaluating the information. Selection of Sample Every Minnesota public high school district was contacted by mail and asked to fill out a questionnaire pertaining to the driver education program in its district. In addition, c0pies of an individual questionnaire were sent to each district. The number of cepies was based upon the number of driver education instructors employed the past school year. It was noted in the instructions that addi- tional copies of the questionnaire were available if the original quantity was not sufficient. Additional copies were sent to four school districts upon request. A covering letter signed by Mr. Farley Bright, Assistant Commissioner of Education, was sent with each packet of questionnaires. This letter urged an immediate reply from all districts and personnel. All teachers employed by the school district who were currently teaching driver education or had taught 30 31 driver education during the previous school year or summer were provided questionnaires. No attempt was made to contact former driver education teachers. Preparation of Questionnaire The driver education program was divided into two integral parts: the instructor and the instructional pro- gram. Consequently, two questionnaires, one related to each part, were prepared for this study. The development of the questionnaire included the following steps: a. A review of literature. b. Original develOpment of the questionnaire. c. A review of similar studies and additional literature. d. Review by doctoral committee. e. Revision of major tOpics. f. Review by Minnesota Department of Education. g. Addition of information. h. Revision of questionnaire with the assistance of the Computer Center of the University of Minnesota. Program Questionnaire The program questionnaire was basically designed to determine the administrative and functional aspects of the school district's driver education program. Among the objectives of this phase of the study was a determination of the number of full-time programs, summer programs, and 32 after—school programs. Financial aspects of the program were questioned. The structure of the course was investi- gated, with specific questions devoted to grades, credit, class size and related areas. General questions pertaining to the driver education staff and their qualifications were also included. The responsibility of filling out the program questionnaire was given to the superintendent of schools for the local district. It was felt that he could best answer items pertaining to the total number of teachers, finances and future programs. Individual Questionnaire The individual instructor questionnaire was designed to gain information concerning the experience, professional preparation and desire for future educational improvement of the driver educator. Within this sc0pe, information was also gathered as to their present teaching assignments both curricular and extra-curricular. This questionnaire was filled out by the individual instructors and returned separately from the program questionnaire. Follow-up Letter A follow-up letter from the Assistant Commissioner of Education was sent to the various schools that did not return the questionnaire at the designated time of return. This second letter was instrumental in the return of 33 thirty-eight questionnaires. Although this letter was aimed only at the return of the program questionnaire, forty-nine individual returns came in during the same interval. Processing Data The questionnaires were returned to the Department Of Education. The Department Of Education maintained records on the number Of districts completing the program questionnaire and developed a listing Of individuals returning the individual questionnaires. The data were then forwarded to the author. Three hundred and seventy school districts returned the program questionnaire. Three sets Of questionnaires were returned with the notation that the program was no longer in Operation. Based on 447 school districts listed by the Department Of Education, this represented an 83 per cent return. Actual records had not been maintained as to the number Of certified teachers actively involved in driver education for previous years. It was estimated by the Department Of Education that 1,400 teachers had been active in driver education during the previous year (1968-69). Based upon this estimate, a 90 per cent return was obtained since 1,260 instructors returned their individual question- naires. 34 The questionnaires, program and individual, were taken to the Computer Center of the University of Minnesota where frequency tables were made for each question. Each Of the tables showed total numbers and responses for each question. In addition to the frequency findings as established by the computer, a cross tabulation was conducted for all questions within a questionnaire. The use Of the cross tabulation process provided an insight into relationships between items that could only have been estimated before. The data was placed into individual tables for the separate questions in the two questionnaires. Presented are the total number Of responses for each question and the percentage Of active responses. This percentage was figured on the basis of the number Of districts or Of individual instructors who indicated they are actively involved in the area Of concern. The number who indicated they were not involved and those who failed to respond to the question were not figured in the percentage Of response. It should be noted that the number Of "no response" returns for Tables 44, 45 and 46 was greater than for all others. This was attributed tO an error in the collating of the questionnaire at the Computer Center. Thirty-two questionnaires were mailed out with this page Of the questionnaire missing. All tabulations and computer findings were completed before this error was realized. 35 Consequently, percentages for these tables, though computed on the same basis as all others, did not include the same percentage Of the sample checked. Summary Every Minnesota public high school district and every active Minnesota driver education teacher were con- tacted for the purposes Of this study. A program question- naire was sent to each district and an individual instructor questionnaire was provided for each instructor. These questionnaires had been prepared with the assistance of information gained from other studies con- ducted by other states, from a review Of related literature, and with the consultant assistance of the Minnesota Depart— ment Of Education, the Computer Center Of the University Of Minnesota, and the author's committee. An 83 per cent return (370 Of 447) of program questionnaires was Obtained. A 90 per cent return (1,260 Of 1,400) Of individual questionnaires was Obtained from driver educators in the state. The separate questions were analyzed and the data organized into statistical tables which contain both total numbers and percentages. This data is presented in the following chapter. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA FROM THE STUDY QUESTIONNAIRES Chapter IV is devoted tO an analysis Of the data from the questionnaires. In the analysis, each question on the two questionnaires was treated separately. A narrative description Of the analysis was followed by a table presenting the data. In the first section Of the study concerning program information, each table contained 370 responses. This represented the number Of responding school districts. In the tables in the second section concerning individual instructor information, the tables contained 1,260 responses. This was the number Of responding instructors. The percentages were compiled on the basis Of active responses. The number Of "no responses" were not figured into the tabulated percentages. Likewise, if the question was not applicable to the school district or the individual teacher, it was not figured into the tabulation Of per- centages. This chapter is divided into two major divisions: program information and individual instructor information. 36 37 The program data was divided into sections that con- formed tO the original organization Of the questionnaire (see Appendix). The various sections were as follows: 1. School size as measured by the number Of eligible driver education students at the time the questionnaire was gathered (spring Of 1970). Special programs Offered by the participating school districts, including Specific information concerning programs for the dropout, the educable mentally retarded, and the handicapped. Fees and cost of programs. Resources, credits and grades. Curriculum guides, credit, and grades were covered in this portion Of the study. Classroom and laboratory phases of the program. These received attention as separate sections. Each section was further broken down as to program Offerings during the school year, after-school and summer programs. Special laboratory information. The use Of Simulation and Off-street driving ranges was covered in this section. Staff administration functions. Staff designa- tion was determined in addition to the number of staff positions. Certification was included in this section. The second major portion Of the chapter was concerned with the data On individual instructors. These data were subdivided as follows: 1. The instructor's undergraduate professional training, his major and minor, and the number Of credits in driver education. His years of experience as a teacher and as a driver education teacher. 38 3. The teacher's present role in driver education in relation to the various driver education programs. Extra-curricular tasks were also investigated. 4. The teacher's degree Of interest in a series of suggested professional courses in the field Of driver and traffic safety. Driver Education Programs School Size The first area Of concern in driver education pro- grams was the size Of school districts represented in the study. The size was represented by the number of eligible driver education students for the year Of the survey. This was defined as the number Of students enrolled in the grade level where instruction was given in that school system. The data in Table 1 shows that the districts ranged in size from below 25 eligible students to over 5,500 eligible students. Only one district indicated the latter category whereas thirty-three (8.9%) Of the responding districts fell into the 1-25 category. Five school districts (1.1%) indicated over 2,000 students enrolled in driver education. The largest number of districts responding to the survey fell into the 26-200 range. One hundred districts (27%) indicated an enrollment Of 51-100, the largest single category. It should also be noted that 89.1 per cent Of the responding schools had less than 400 eligible students.* * It should be noted that only the most significant findings will be indicated in the narrative. The complete data will be reported in the table following the narrative. 39 TABLE 1.--Number of school districts based upon public and parochial-private student enrollment. Eligible Public Eligible Private, School Driver Parochial Driver 32:32:32 E32323: Number % Number % A. O 7 1.9 261 71.0 B. 1-25 33 8.9 61 16.8 C. 26-50 ' 97 26. 11 3.7 D. 51-100 100 27. 16 4.5 E. 101-200 58 15 8 2.3 F. 201-300 27 7.3 O O G. 301-400 14 3.8 l . H. 401-500 7 1.9 l . I. 501-750 6 1.6 O O J. 751-1000 10 2.7 0 0 K. 1001-1350 2 .5 O 0 L. 1351-1500 0 .5 O 0 M. 1501-2000 0 0 O 0 N. 2001-2500 0 0 0 0. 2501-3000 2 .5 2 .5 P. 3001-3500 0 0 0 O Q. 3501-4000 1 .2 1 .3 R. 4001-4500 0 O S. 4501-5000 0 0 T. 5001-5500 1 . l .3 U. 5501 and above 1 . O 0 NO Response* 2 -- 7 _- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 it Not figured in tabulation of percentages. 40 Each school district was also asked to estimate the number Of parochial-private school students eligible for driver education in their district. Seventy-one per cent (261 schools) indicated they did not have any private- parochial student pOpulation in their district. Of those districts having private-parochial student pOpulations, 98.3 per cent of the responding schools (96) had less than 200 eligible parochial-private students in their district. The one school district with over 5,500 eligible public school students did not provide for parochial- private students. Special Programs Special programs within the existing driver education program were investigated. Areas investigated were the drOp-Out, the educable mentally retarded, and the physically handicapped. Data on these Special programs are reported in Tables 2, 3 and 4. Drop-outs.--The purpose Of Table 2 is to summarize data on programs for drOp outs. Three hundred and ten programs were available for the school drOp-Out. This number represented 84.2 per cent Of the responding school districts. Educable mentally retarded.--Tab1e 3 is organized to reveal facts concerning education programs for the special education student (educable mentally retarded). 41 TABLE 2.--Driver education programs available tO drOp-Outs. Number % Yes 310 84.2 NO 58 15.8 NO Response* 2 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation Of percentages TABLE 3.--Separate driver education program for Special education students (EMR). Number % Yes 29 7.9 NO 339 92.1 NO Response* 2 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation Of percentages. TABLE 4.--Separate driver education program for physically handicapped students. Number % Yes 13 3.5 NO 355 96.5 NO Response* ‘2 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 it Not figured in tabulation Of percentages. 42 Twenty-nine school districts indicated that a Special driver education program was presented to their EMR students. This represented only 7.9 per cent Of the responding school districts. The majority of school districts (92.1%) did not provide such a program. This did not preclude the possibility that a handicapped or EMR student could be trained in the regular driver education program. The question asked if "separate" programs were available. Physically handicapped.--The figures presented in Table 4 show an even greater lack Of separate driver education programs for the physically handicapped. Only thirteen school districts (3.5% Of the responding school districts) indicated that they taught such a program. Finances The study identified the number Of schools that charged a fee for driver education and the amount charged. The programs were classified as school year programs, after- schOOl programs, and summer programs. Table 5 presents data to show that 41 schools charged separate fees for the driver education programs Offered during the regular school days. This number represented 14.3 per cent Of the total number Of school districts represented in the survey. One school district indicated a fee of $45-50. 43 .OODSHSOHOO mums mommHsooumm OHOmon Hmuou osu Eoum OODOOHDQSm mums OHQOOHHmmm nos was OmOOQmOH oc HO Hones: was ¥ o.o0H osm o.OOH chm o.OOH chm mqéeos I- ms nu mm I- ms .mHnmoHHaaa 302 I: s It m IT M smmcommom oz m. N o. o o. o o>onm was Ho.mmm v. H m. N o. o oo.mmIHo.omw m. m m. H v. H oo.omTHo.mvw m. m o. o o. o oo.mquo.ovw m. N m. N v. H oo.ovIHo.mmm m. N m.H m w. H oo.mmIHo.omw m.H m m. N o. o oo.omTHo.me N.v HH m.N OH m.H v oo.mNTHo.ONm m.H m m.H m o.N m oo.ONIHo.me m.m OH m.m NH w.H v oo.mHIHo.0Hm m.v NH o.m 5H o.m m oo.OHIHo.mm m.e NH o.n ON m.v mH mmmH no mm «.ms mHN m.ms smm s.mm mam mcflnuoz w umbesz m Honsdz w uObEsz musom Hoocom MOHsmmm OOkuso huoumHOQmH ammo mmo newcommom mo OOHmudo Emumoum Hoonom mcHuso EooummmHU Hoonom umHsmom .Emumoum mo camp was new no ucsoam .SOHDOOSOO HO>HHO Mom meow mchumno mDOHuumHU Hoozomll.m MHmmB 44 Eighty-three districts charged laboratory fees for programs after school hours. This total represented 24.5 per cent Of the total number Of schools teaching after school programs. Twelve schools (3.7%) charged $25.00 or more and two schools (.6%) charged over $50.00 Sixty-nine schools charged tuition fees for programs taught completely outside regular school hours. This total represented 24.6 per cent Of the total number Of schools. It should be noted that 263 schools (85.7%) did not charge any special fees during the school year program. In a similar vein, 257 schools (75.5%) did not charge fees for their programs involving laboratory instruction after school. For programs conducted completely outside the regular school hour day, 219 schools (75.4%) did not charge fees for their programs. Resources, Credits and Grades Certain aspects Of the driver education program were checked in relationship to the administration Of the program. Aspects Of the program concerning curriculum guides, textbooks, credit, grades and permanent records were investigated. These data are reported in Tables 6 through 12. ‘ Curriculum guides.--Table 6 summarizes responses showing the availability of curriculum guides as follows: Ninety-three schools indicated that they had a written 45 curriculum guide (25.0%). Thirty schools (8%) indicated a curriculum guide was being constructed. Sixty-seven per cent Of the schools (245) did not have a curriculum guide for their school district. TABLE 6.--Driver education curriculum guide. Responses Number % Yes, we have one 93 25.0 One is being prepared 30 8.0 NO, we have none 245 67.0 NO Response* __2 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation Of percentage. Textbooks and materials.--The second area concerning resources for the driver education program was based on the availability Of textbook resources for all students. Data presented in Table 7 shows that 333 schools (91%) indicated the availability Of textbooks for all students. Only four school districts (.6%) indicated the lack of such resources. Thirty-one schools (8.4%) indicated that textbooks were not available for every student. ‘Credit.--The number Of schools Offering credit toward graduation was determined. If credit was Offered, 46 TABLE 7.--Availability Of textbooks and instructional materials. Responses ' Number % Yes 333 91.0 NO 4 .6 Not enough for every student 31 8.4 NO Response* __2’ —— TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation of percentage the responding schools could check several possibilities as to how this credit was given. The different phases Of the program were categorized according to credit being given. Information was also Obtained on the amount Of credit given. This information is summarized in Tables 8 and 9. The data contained in Table 8 reveals that 274 districts (75%) did not Offer any credit toward graduation for driver education. Seventeen schooldistricts (4.2%) provided credit for the complete course (classroom and laboratory) only. Two school districts (.5%) granted credit for separate phases. Seventy-five districts (20.3%) provided credit for the classroom phase only. Table 9 contains information concerning the amount Of credit given toward graduation. Forty-seven schools 47 TABLE 8.--Schools Offering credit toward graduation for driver education. Number % Classroom and Laboratory 17 4.2 Classroom and Laboratory Separately 2 .5 Classroom Only 75 20.3 NO Credit 274 75.0 NO Response* __3. -— TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation of percentage. TABLE 9.--Number Of credits awarded toward graduation for driver education. Number % One-fourth Credit 47 13.2 One-half Credit 18 4.9 One Credit 4 1.1 More than One Credit Available 1 .4 NO Credit 298 80.4 NO Response* __2 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation Of percentage. 48 (13.2%) provided one-fourth credit. Four schools (1.1%) provided one full credit. Eighteen schools (4.9%) provided one-half credit. One school district (.4%) indicated more than one credit was available. Grading system.--The grading system used in the driver education program is shown in Tables 10 and 11. The numbers in Table 10 Show that in sixty-two school districts (16.8%) no grades were given for any portion of the driver education program. Thirty—one districts (8.3%) indicated that both the classroom and laboratory phases must be com- pleted before a grade was given. Seventy-two schools indicated that the classroom and laboratory phases were graded separately. These districts represented 19.4 per cent of the total. TABLE 10.--Grading systems in Minnesota driver education programs. Number % Complete Classroom and Laboratory 31 8.3 Classroom and Laboratory Separately 72 19.4 Classroom Only 203 55.0 Laboratory Only 2 .5 NO Grades 62 16.8 TOTAL 370 100.0 49 Two hundred and three schools (55%) graded the classroom phase but not the laboratory phase. Two schools (.5%) graded the laboratory phase but not the classroom. Classification Of the types Of grading systems used appears in Table 11. This classification revealed that in Sixty schools (16.5%) no grades were given for the entire program. In 199 districts (54%) letter grades were given in their programs. Two schools (.5%) indicated that letter grades were given for the laboratory phase and pass-fail for the classroom phase. Forty-seven districts (12.3%) indicated pass-fail grades for the laboratory phase and letter grades for the classroom phase. TABLE ll.--Types Of grading systems used in Minnesota driver education programs. Number % NO grades given 60 16.5 Pass-fail 62 16.7 Letter grade 199 54.8 Pass-fail in Classroom, Letter in Laboratory 2 .5 Pass-fail in Laboratory, Letter in Classroom 47 12.3 TOTAL 370 100.0 50 Permanent records.--School districts were asked if permanent records were maintained concerning students satisfactorily completing the driver education program. Data in Table 12 show that 98.1 per cent Of the districts maintained such records. This included all but seven Of the responding school districts. TABLE 12.--Permanent records maintained in Minnesota driver education programs. Number % Yes 363 98.1 NO 7 1.9 TOTAL 370 100.0 Classroom Phase The classroom and the laboratory phases were treated separately in this study. This was done because of the variance in the two programs. For example, scheduling and staffing were Often treated quite differently in the two phases. Tables 13-19 summarize information concerning various aspects of the classroom program. The classroom program, elective or required was analyzed. Its place in the curriculum, the grade level at which it was taught and its relative size was reported. The length Of the class 51 period, the number Of classroom sessions per week and the total number Of classroom hours taught were also summarized in the tables. Elective or required.--The initial question, con- cerning the classroom phase Of the program, pertained to the Offering of the classroom phase as an elective or as a required subject in the curriculum. Table 13 presents facts showing sixty-nine schools (18%) Offered the classroom phase Of the program as an elective and that the majority Of schools, 300 (82%) required the classroom phase Of the program. TABLE l3.--C1assroom, elective or required. Number % Required 300 82.0 Elective 69 18.0 NO Response* 1 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in the tabulation of percentage. Classroom phase in school curriculum.--The relation- ship Of the driver education classroom phase to other subjects was investigated. The study determined the number 52 Of districts teaching the classroom phase as a separate subject and also those teaching the course as a part Of another course Offering. Table 14 contains facts showing that 172 school districts (46.3%) Of the responding schools taught the classroom phase as a separate subject and 197 school districts (53.7%) Offered the classroom phase as a part of another course Offering. TABLE l4.-—C1assroom phase in the school curriculum. Number % Separate Subject 172 46.3 Unit within another Subject 197 53.7 NO Response* 1 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * . Not figured in tabulation Of percentage. Grade level.--Minnesota Department Of Education regulations indicate that students should be scheduled into classroom instruction during that period Of time in which they reach their 15th birthday (24:5). However, responses showed a wide variation in the grade level in which the classroom phase Of the course was Offered. Data summarized in Table 15 show that the majority Of school districts, 185 (52.3%) Offered the program to their ninth grade 53 students during the school day. One hundred and eighteen school districts (33.2%) Offered this program at the tenth grade level. The remainder Of the schools spread their program among various grade levels. TABLE 15.--Grade level at which classroom is taught. Grade Level Taught Number % Grade Nine 185 52.3 Grade Ten 118 33.2 Grade Eleven 1 .3 Grade Twelve 0 0 Grade Nine-Ten 20 5.6 Grade Ten-Eleven 2 .6 Grade Nine-Ten-Eleven 3 .8 Grade Ten-Eleven-Twelve 12 3.5 Grade Nine-Ten-Eleven-Twelve 14 3.7 Not Offered* _15 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation Of percentages. Classroom size.--Education has always been concerned with the size Of the classroom. Driver education is no exception. The study, therefore, was designed to include a determination of the average class size Of the school districts in Minnesota. 54 The sizes Of the classrooms were determined from estimates given by schools Of the average class sizes during the school year, after school, and during the summer. Classroom sizes in Minnesota school districts are shown in Table 16. During the normal school day, 296 of the 323 responding school districts (92.1%) maintained a class size below 35. One school indicated a class size Of over 150 and three school districts (9%) taught large sections Of 76-100. Eighty per cent Of the school districts did not Offer after school classroom programs. Of those Offering this type of program, a wide variation in responses was noted. The largest number Of responding schools (14) fell in the categories l-20 and 26-30 (23.6%). Responses to questions about summer school programs showed that 77.8 per cent Of the districts did not Offer the classroom phase Of the program. Eighteen school districts (22.3%) maintained class sizes of 1-20, seventeen (21.2%) averaged 26-30, and four districts (5%) averaged 126-150 enrollments. Length Of classroom period.—-The study investigated the length Of the average classroom period for the various programs, i.e., regular school day, after school, and summer programs. Variations within a category as well as variations between the different types Of programs are Shown in the following table. TABLE 16.--C1assroom size related to school day, after school and summer programs. School Day After School Summer Average Class Sizes Number % Number % Number % 1-20 32 9.9 14 23.6 18 22.3 21-25 96 29.8 4 6.7 12 15.0 26-30 122 37.7 14 23.6 17 21.2 31-35 46 14.9 7 11.8 11 13.7 36-40 5 1.4 8 13.3 3 3.9 41-45 9 2.7 1 1.7 4 5.0 46-50 6 1.7 4 6.6 4 5.0 51-75 3 .9 2 3.2 5 6.3 76-100 3 .9 2 3.2 1 1.3 101-125 0 3 4.6 1 1.3 126-150 0 0 4 5.0 151 or more 1 .3 l 1.7 0 Not Offered* 40 -- 295 -- 278 -- NO Response* 7 -- l6 -- 12 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 370 100.0 '1: Not figured in tabulation of percentage. The statistics in Table 17 indicate some Of these variations. During the school day, 228 Of the responding districts (70.0%) used class periods of 51-60 minutes. The 56' other popular period length was 41—50 minutes used by 86 responding districts (26.2%). The after school programs, though far fewer in number, presented an even greater variation in programs. Twenty-one districts (36.9%) maintained 51-60 minute class periods. Three districts (5.3%) taught classroom periods Of over 120 minutes. Summer programs showed a movement toward longer classroom periods. Thirty-eight districts (47%) taught sessions lasting from 91-120 minutes, and 13 additional districts (16%) utilized sessions of longer than 120 minutes. TABLE 17.--Length Of average classroom period. School Day After School Summer Number % Number % Number % 20-30 Minutes 2 .7 l 1.8 0 .0 31-40 8 2.8 0 .0 0 .0 41-50 86 26.2 4 7.1 2 2.5 51-60 228 70.0 21 36.8 21 25.9 61-75 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 76-90 1 .3 8 14.0 7 8.6 91-120 0 .0 20 35.0 38 47.0 Longer than 120 0 .0 3 5.3 13 16.0 Not Offered* 41 -- 298 -- 276 -- NO Response* 4 , -- 15 -- 13 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation Of percentages. 57 Classroom sessions per'week.--The number Of class periods per week for classroom instruction was determined by the study. School day, after school and summer programs were again utilized. The data in Table 18 summarizes the considerable variance. The highest incidence was in the number Of schools that Offered a program each day Of the week. .One hundred and eighty-five school districts reported such a program during the normal school day. This represented 57.4 per cent Of the responding school districts. The remaining school districts reported programs that were Spread primarily over the following periods: once a week (34 schools, 11.1%) twice a week (55 schools, 17%), and three times a week (43 schools, 13.1%). A wide variation of after-school Offerings was noted, with the largest response being the five-day-a-week response. Seventy-two districts taught the classroom phase during the summer, and 69 of these (95.5%) taught the classroom phase every day Of the school week (five days a week). Total hours of classroom instruction.--The minimum standard for classroom hours in Minnesota is thirty hours. The study Of the number Of classroom hours taught by the various districts revealed some interesting variations. These variations are indicated in Table 19. One school 58 TABLE l8.--Number Of classroom sessions per week per student. . School Days After School Summer Sess1ons per Week Number % Number % Number % 1 34 11.1 7 14.3 0 0 2 55 17.0 12 24.5 1 1.5 3 43 13.1 10 20.2 1 1.5 4 4 1.1 4 8.2 l 1.5 5 185 57.4 16 32.7 69 95.5 6 1 .3 0 .0 0 .0 Not Offered* 43 -- 306 -- 285 -- NO Response* 5 -- 15 -- 13 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 370 100.0 * Not figured in tabulation Of percentages. TABLE 19.--Tota1 number hours Of classroom instruction. School Days After School Summer Number % Number % Number % Less than 29 1 .3 2 3.7 1 1.6 30 105 32.5 39 72.4 48 66.6 31-36 126 39.0 10 18.5 17 23.0 37-45 68 21.3 1 1.8 4 5.6 46-50 11 3.6 l 1.8 1 1.6 61-90 9 2.4 l 1.8 1 1.6 91 or more 3 .9 0 .0 0 .0 Not Offered* 41 -- 301 -- 285 -- NO Response* ..6 -e .15 e- .13 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 270 100.0 370 100.0 * The number Of districts not resPonding or indicating this phase Of the program was not Offered was subtracted from the total before percentages were tabulated 59 district revealed it did not teach the minimum.requirement Of thirty hours of classroom instruction. One hundred and five school districts (32.5%) taught the minimum program Of thirty hours during the school year. One hundred and twenty- six school districts (39%) taught between 30-36 hours. Sixty-eight districts reported 37-45 hours of instruction during the school year. These schools accounted for 21.3 per cent of the reporting school districts. Although only 54 districts reported teaching class- room instruction after school hours, 39 (72.4%) taught the minimum program (30 hours). The number reporting below minimum programs increased to two school districts (3.7%). Ten schools were in the 31-36 hour bracket (18.5%). The summer school program surveyed revealed one school teaching below the minimum. Forty-eight (66.6%) taught the minimum program and seventeen (23%) taught 31-36 hours. Only six school districts (8.8%) reported teaching more than 36 hours during the summer phase Of the program. Laboratory Phase The laboratory phase of the high school driver education program was analyzed as a separate section Of this study. As in the previous section, the laboratory phase was analyzed according to the various programs Offered by Minnesota school districts. Most of the basic information in the previous section was repeated for the laboratory section. 60 Tables 20 through 27 include informationconcerning the laboratory phase as an elective or a required subject, the grade level at which it is Offered, and its relationship to the classroom Offering. In addition, the number Of students in the vehicle, the length Of the class period, and the number of periods Of instruction are revealed in the tables. Finally, the actual number of hours Of instruction is shown. Required or e1ective.--The first determination that was made concerned the placement of the subject (laboratory phase) as a required course or as an elective. Table 20 presents facts showing that 96 of the responding school districts (26.5%) required the course. The remaining 267 school districts (73.5%) Offered the course as an elective. Seven schools did not Offer the laboratory phase. TABLE 20.--Laboratory phase, required or elective. Number % Required 96 26.5 Elective 267 73.5 Not Offered* 7 _- TOTAL 370 100.0 * A Not figured in tabulation of percentage. 61 ‘Grade level.--It was noted in the section concerning the classroom phase that it is recommended by the Minnesota Department Of Education that this course be taught during the tenth grade. As in the classroom programs, the grade level in which the laboratory phase was Offered showed a considerable variance. Statistics in Table 21 indicate that the largest number Of school districts Offered the course at the tenth grade level with 121 school districts (41.8%) presenting the program during that year. Four districts (three in the eleventh and one in the twelfth) restricted the course to another grade level (1.7%). The remaining districts, 162 of them (56.5%) Offered the program in a combination of grades. TABLE 21.--Grade level for laboratory instruction. Number % Grade Ten - 121 41.8 Grade Eleven 3 1.4 Grade Twelve 1 .3 Grades Ten, Eleven 23 9.6 Grades Ten, Eleven, Twelve I 139 46.9 Not Offered* 82 -- NO Response* ...1 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not figured in the tabulation of percentages. 62 Laboratory relation to classroom.--The study was concerned with the laboratory Offering in relationship to the classroom Offering. The possible methods Of relating the phases were indicated in the study. Table 22 presents figures showing that the majority of the school districts provided the entire classroom pro- gram first. Only eleven schools (3.8%) Offered a concurrent program although eighteen others (5%) Operated a joint program with other scheduling. TABLE 22.--Laboratory Offering in relation to classroom. Number % A. Concurrently with Classroom 11 3.8 B. Immediately After Classroom 45 12.6 C. Anytime After Classroom 206 56.1 A and B 9 2.5 A and C 9 2.5 B and C 60 16.7 A, B and C I 19 5.8 Not Offered* 10 -- NO Response* 1 -- 'TOTALS 370 100.0 * Not figured in the tabulation of percentages. 63 Two hundred and six school districts indicated that they Offered the laboratory phase any time after the classroom program. This number represented 56.1 per cent Of the school districts. Another 45 districts (12.6%) taught the laboratory phaSe immediately following the classroom phase. Number Of students per vehicle.--Thenumber Of students per on-road vehicle is limited by the size Of the vehicle. Thus, the questionnaire provided responses for only one to four students. Table 23 concerns the number of students in the laboratory vehicle. Although twenty school districts did take out individual students in the laboratory vehicle (5.4%), utilizing two and three students per vehicle was more common. Districts with two students in the vehicle numbered 210 (58.4%) and 127 districts (34.4%) used the ratio of three students per vehicle. Eight districts (1.8%) used four students in the vehicle. Length Of session_per student.--The length of the laboratory class was determined on a per student basis. Information was provided for the school year, after school, and summer programs. The.length Of the laboratory class per student for the various programs Offered during the year is summarized in Table 24. 64 TABLE 23.--Number of students per on-road vehicle. Number % One Student 20 5.4 Two Students 210 58.4 Three Students 127 34.4 Four Students 8 1.8 Not Offered* 4 -- NO Response* 1 -- TOTAL 370 ' 100.0 * Districts failing to respond or not Offering this phase Of the program were not included in the tabulation Of percentages. TABLE 24.--Length Of laboratory session per student. School Day After School Summer Time Interval Number % Number % Number % Less than 20 minutes 7 5.5 2 .8 3 .9 21-30 minutes 41 33.2 59 25.4 82 25.4 31-40 minutes 11 8.8 25 11.6 34 11.3 41-50 minutes 19 15.3 21 9.1 26 8.2 51-60 minutes 41 33.2 94 40.5 118 37.1 61-90 minutes 2 1.6 14 6.4 12 3.6 91-120 minutes 1 .8 13 6.1 26 8.2 121-150 minutes 1 .8 l .4 5 1.5 151-180 minutes 1 .8 3 1.2 11 3.5 More than 180 minutes 0 .0 0 .0 l .3 Not Offered* 234 -- 129 -- 48 -- NO Response* 12 -- 9 '-- -- -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 370 100.0 * v Not included in the tabulation of percentages. 65 During the school day, the length Of the class period was clearly controlled by the standard class period. Thirty minute and sixty minute class Offerings were most common during the schOOl day with 66.4 per cent (82) Of the schools so reporting. The number Of schools Offering the laboratory pro- gram after school was 232 as compared to 124 Offering the school day program. The 30 and 60 minute time segments again prevailed. Three school districts (1.2%) indicated individual instruction of 151-180 minutes per period of instruction. The summer program revealed a greater variation Of instruction time per student. Summer programs were found in 318 districts. Eighty-two districts (25.4%) provided 20-30 minutes of individual instruction and 118 districts (37.1%) Offered 51-60 minutes. One school district reported a program Of over three hours per instruction period, and eleven districts (3.5%) reported programs Of up to three hours. Laboratory meetings per week.--The laboratory phase Offering per week, per student, was analyzed according to the various program Offerings. The results of this analysis are tabulated in Table 25. The schools providing the laboratOry phase of the program during the school year reported a wide range Of 66 TABLE 25.--Number Of laboratory meetings per week per student. School Day After School Summer Sessions per Week Number % Number % Number % One 24 21.6 64 28.4 38 ' 12.0 Two 29 26.2 68 30.2 50 16.2 Three 23 20.7 30 13.7 58 18.7 Four 3 2.7 10 4.3 9 2.9 Five 28 25.2 50 22.2 135 43.5 Six 3 2.7 2 .8 18 5.8 Seven 0 .0 0 .0 l .3 More than Seven 1 .9 1 .4 2 .6 Not Offered* 246 -- 135 -- 52 -- NO Response* 13 -- 10 -- 7 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 370 100.0 *Not included in the tabulation Of percentage. responses to this question. Twenty-four schools (21.6%) indicated classes once a week, 29 (26.2%) indicated classes twice a week, 23 (20.7%) indicated classes three days a week, and 28 (25.2%) provided classes five days a week. Study Of the after-school programs also indicated a wide range Of programs with 64 districts (28.4%) Offering the program once a week, 68 (30.2%) twice a week, 67 thirty districts (13.7%) three days a week, and 50 districts (22.2%) five days a week. The highest incidence Of course offerings during the summer had the students meeting five days a week. This category involved 135 districts (43.5% Of the districts). Laboratory hours of instruction.--The number Of hours Of instruction in the laboratory phase was determined by the study. This information was classified by the total number Of laboratory periods Of instruction per student (Table 26) and the number of hours of behind-the-wheel driving experience for each student (Table 27). TABLE 26.--Number of laboratory periods of instruction per student. School Day After School Summer Periods Number % Number % Number % Less than 5 2 1.7 4 1.6 3 .9 5-6 26 22.4 56 24.2 73 23.4 7-8 19 16.4 49 21.2 71 22.8 9-10 7 6.3 24 10.7 30 9.7 11-12 16 13.8 42 18.5 64 20.5 13-14 9 7.7 26 11.5 31 9.9 15-16 10 8.6 8 3.5 13 4.2 17-18 10 8.6 9 3.8 12 3.8 19 and more 17 14.5 12 5.0 15 4.8 Not Offered* 238 -- 129 -- 49 -- NO Response 16 , _-- .12 A ..-- T 9 .-- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 370 100.0 * Not included in the tabulation Of percentage. 68 TABLE 27.--Hours Of behind-the-wheel driving experience per student. Number % Less than 3 hours 2 .4 3 hours 13 3.6 4 hours 13 3.6 5 hours 2 .4 6 hours 201 56.9 7 hours 71 19.2 8-9 hours 49 13.6 10-11 hours 3 .7 12 or more hours 6 1.6 Not Offered* 7 -- NO Response* 3 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not included in the tabulation Of percentage. The number Of periods per student, shown in Table 27, ranged from less than five to nineteen or more. The presence Of schools in all categories demonstrates the great variety Of laboratory programs in the state. It was noted that the number of schools Offering the laboratory phase Of the program during the school year dropped considerably. Two hundred and thirty-eight schools (64.6%) indicated they did not teach the laboratory phase during the school year. Of those teaching the laboratory phase during the school year, 26 districts 69 (22.4%) taught between 5-6 periods. The school day program, as well as the others, was represented in each classifica- tion. The after school program occurred in many more districts than did the school day program. Forty-nine districts (21.2%) indicated 7-8 hours of instruction. Fifty-six districts (24.2%) taught the minimal 5-6 periods Of instruction. As in the other categories, 5-6 periods Of instruc- tion was most popular for summer programs. Seventy-three districts (23.4%) Operated such a program. It should also be noted that only 49 districts indicated that they did not Operate a summer program. Whereas a great variety of responses was noted in Table 26, most schools provided similar numbers Of hours Of driving experience. The minimum number of hours (6) was the most common program occurring in 201 school districts (56.9%). It was also interesting to note that 30 school districts (8%) indicated they were below the minimum behind- the-wheel standard.* Emergency Situations An important part of the total education of the driver education student is basic knowledge of and * This may be explained, in part, by programs utilizing off-street driving ranges and/or simulators. The number Of on-street hours is decreased when these media are utilized. 70 performance criteria in emergency situations. The study investigated the number of districts incorporating a special unit concerning emergency situations in their program.* Table 28 is devoted to the area of emergency situations as a unit of instruction. Ninety-five school districts indicated no special unit concerning emergency situations was taught. This represented 25.5 per cent Of the total. A total of 267 school districts (74.5%) provided such a unit. TABLE 28.--Special unit concerning emergency situations. Number , % Yes 267 74.5 NO 95 25.5 Not Offered* 7 __ NO Response* 1 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 at Not included in the tabulation of percentage. Simulation The use of driving simulators for instructional purposes in driver education has been gaining in pOpularity it Though emergencies were not identified, such special situations as skids, wheel-drop Off the road, blow-outs, etc. were considered as emergency situations. 71 in many states. The study determined the extent of use Of simulation in school districts in Minnesota. These data are summarized in Table 29. In addition, Table 30 presents the reaction of the various districts toward simulation. Simulation use in Minnesota.--The extent Of use Of simulation in Minnesota high school districts is shown in Table 29. Seventeen districts indicated some use Of simulation in their program. Fourteen Of these districts (3.8%) provided this instruction to all students and three districts (.7%) used simulation, but not for all students. The remaining schools did not use simulation. TABLE 29.--Simulation in Minnesota high school districts. Number % Yes, all Students receive Simulation Instruction 14 3.8 Yes, but not Available to all Students 3 .7 NO 353 95.5 TOTAL 370 100.0 District feeling toward simulation.--An opportunity to indicate the amount Of interest in simulation was pro- vided to the respondents. Figures shown in Table 30 present the interest level Of Minnesota districts toward 72 simulation. Of those responding, 159 districts indicated they were not interested in this type Of program. Thus, nearly one-half (43.2%) of the programs were not interested in simulation at the time Of the survey. Another 166 districts (44.2%) said they were somewhat interested and 30 schools (8.2%) were strongly interested. TABLE 30.--Minnesota districts' feeling toward simulation. Responses Number % A. Not Interested 159 43.2 B. Somewhat Interested 166 44.2 C. Strongly Interested 30 8.2 D. Already use 10 3.6 B and D 3 .8 C and D l .2 NO Response* 1 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not included in tabulation of percentage. Driving Ranges Another instructional method that has found increased acceptance is the use of Off-street driving ranges utilizing multiple car concepts. The study determined Minnesota's acceptance Of this method. Table 31 73 TABLE 31.--Off-street driving ranges in Minnesota high school districts. Number % Yes--All Students Receive Range Instruction ' 57 15.4 Yes--But not Available to All Students 9 2.5 NO 303 82.1 NO Response* 1 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * I Not included in tabulation of percentage. summarizes the number Of districts utilizing this concept and data in Table 32 reflects the district's feeling toward this method Of instruction. District use Of Off-street drivinggranges.--Data in Table 31 indicate the extent Of use Of Off-street driving ranges at the time Of the study. Sixty-six districts indicated that this method Of instruction was available in their district. Fifty-seven (15.4%) indicated that all Of their students received range instruction and the other nine school districts (2.5%) used this method of instruction but not all students had the Opportunity to use the range. Three hundred and three districts (82.1%) did not use Off- street driving ranges. 74 District feeling toward ranges.--Table 32 presents figures that indicate 170 school districts were not interested in the use Of an off-street driving range program. This number represented nearly half (46.4%) of the responding schools. Only twenty-two schools (6%) indicated a strong interest in this type Of program. TABLE 32.--Feeling toward Off-street driving ranges in Minnesota districts. Number % A. Not Interested 170 46.4 B. Somewhat Interested 136 37.2 C. Strongly Interested 22 6.0 D. Already Use 37 10.0 B and D 1 .2 C and D 1 .2 NO Response* 1 3 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 it Not included in tabulation of percentage. Staff Administration An integral part Of any educational system is its administration, supervision and training. The final aSpect Of the driver education program investigated by the study concerned staff administration. 75 Tables 33 through 39 relate to various phases Of the administrative staff functions. The numbers of instructors employed during the various programs (summer and school year) are shown in Tables 33-35. The number Of instructors not fully certified is shown in Table 36. Salary determination is shown for both classroom and laboratory instructors in Tables 37 and 38. The final table in this section (Table 39) concerns the type Of training and Orientation programs in the district. Employment of instructor/supervisors.--Table 33 presents data on the employment Of full-time and part-time instructor/supervisors for the 1968-69 school year. A full-time driver education instructor, as defined earlier, is employed for 80 per cent or more Of his time in driver education. One hundred and nineteen school districts (32.5%) indicated that they have at least one full-time driver education instructor/supervisor in their district. Eighty- five (23.7%) Of these districts indicated that only one person was so employed. Two hundred and forty-three districts (66.6%) did not employ any full-time instructor/ supervisors. One hundred and fifty-two school districts (42.1%) indicated that they did not hire any part-time driver education personnel during the indicated school year. 76 Ninety-six school districts (26.4%) employed only one; and 53 districts employed two (14.5%). Two districts (.5%) indicated the employment of 41-50 instructors on a part- time basis. TABLE 33.--Driver education instructor/supervisors employed in 1968-69 school year. Full-Time Part-Time Number Employed Number % Number % 0 243 66.6 152 42.1 1 85 23.7 96 26.4 2 23 6.6 53 14.5 3 7 1.9 22 6.1 4 2 .6 11 3.0 5 2 .6 3 .8 6-10 0 .0 13 3.3 11-15 0 .0 4 1.1 16-20 0 .0 4 1.1 21-25 0 .0 2 .5 26-30 0 .0 1 .3 31-40 0 .0 l .3 41-50 0 .0 2 .5 Not Applicable* 6 -- 3 -- NO Response* 2 -- 3 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 * Not included in tabulation of percentage. 77 Table 34 presents the information concerning the number Of instructors working during the summer Of 1969. Nearly half (42.2%) Of the reporting districts indicated a one-man Operation. Of the 312 districts employing summer instructors, 92.3 per cent indicated a summer program with less than ten instructors (28%). One district indicated a high Of 41-50 instructors. TABLE 34.--Number Of instructors/supervisors summer Of 1969. Number Employed Number % 0 51 14.1 1 151. 42.2 2 59 16.3 3 30 8.2 4 20 5.5 5 11 3.0 6-10 17 4.7 11-15 11 3.0 16-20 4 1.1 21-25 5 1.3 26-30 1 .2 31-40 2 .4 41-50 1 .2 Not Applicable* 4 -- NO Response* 3 -- TOTAL 70 100.0 * Not included in the tabulation Of percentage. 78 Table 35 presents information concerning the employment Of full-time and part-time instructor/ supervisors for the school year 1969-1970. TABLE 35.--Driver education instructor/supervisors employed in 1969-70 school year. Full-Time Part-Time Number Employed Number % Number % 0 247 68.4 101 27.4 1 ,79 21.8 130 35.0 2 16 4.5 71 19.3 3 9 2.4 20 5.5 4 4 1.1 9 2.9 5 2 .6 8 2.3 6-10 3 .9 13 3.5 ll-15 0 .0 7 1.9 16-20 0 . 4 1.2 21-25 0 .0 l .2 26-30 0 .0 l .2 31-40 1 .3 2 .4 41-50 0 .0 l .2 Not Applicable* 5 -- 2 -- NO Response* .4 --p 0 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 * Not included in the tabulation Of percentage. 79 Two hundred and forty-seven districts (68.4%) had no full-time driver education personnel. Seventy-nine districts (21.8%) hired one. ' Part-time instructors were more numerous, although 101 districts (27.4%) did not hire any during the time interval concerned. One hundred and thirty districts (35%) hired only one person. Two districts (.4%) hired from 31-40 instructor/supervisors and one district (.2%) hired from 41-50. A comparison between Table 35 and Table 33 reveals the following interesting facts. Six fewer schools, 113 in 1968-69 as compared to 119 in 1969-70, indicated the employment of full-time personnel. The biggest increase between 1968-69 and 1969-70 was in the category Of 6-10 full-time personnel. Three school districts indicated 6-10 full-time personnel for the current year (1969-70), whereas, none had SO reported for the previous year. The greatest decrease occurred in the category Of two full- time instructor/supervisors, sixteen districts for 1969-70 as compared to 23 for the previous year. Increase in part-time personnel during the current year (1969-70) was more impressive. The number of schools without any driver education personnel during the school year dropped from 152 in 1968-69 to 101 in 1969-70. Note- worthy increases occurred in those Schools employing one instructor with an increase from 96 to 130. Schools 80 employing two instructors also increased from 53 tO 71. Teacher certification.--The school districts were asked to identify the number Of instructors below the present standards Of twelve quarter hours Of safety and driver education course work. Table 36 presents this minimum certification information as provided by the district administrator. TABLE 36.--Minnesota instructors not fully certified to present standards (twelve quarter hours). Responses Number % 0 273 75.0 1 36 9.9 2 16 4.4 3 15 4.1 4 2 .6 5-7 6 1.6 8-10 5 1.3 11-13 5 1.3 14-16 2 .6 20-22 1 .3 23-25 1 .3 26-55 2 .6 No Response* 6 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 * Not included in the tabulation Of percentage. 81 A majority of the school districts (75%) indicated that their instructors met the minimum requirements according to the standard. Thirty-six school districts (9.9%) indicated that one instructor was below the present standard, and five districts (1.3%) indicated that 8-10 were below present standards. Two school districts (.6%) indicated that 46-55 instructors were below the stated standard. Salary and payment procedures.--The important area Of salary and payment procedures are summarized in Tables 37 and 38. Classroom and laboratory payment programs Were analyzed separately in conjunction with the various pro- grams taught during the school year, after school, and during the summer. The methods Of payment for classroom driver educa- tion personnel are indicated in Table 37. Two hundred and seventy-seven schools (90.5%) paid the classroom teacher on the same basic salary schedule as all other teachers. Eleven schools (3.6%) paid by the hour and six schools (1.9%) provided payment on a percentage basis during the school year. After-school classroom instruction was largely paid by the hour with 70 per cent Of the schools (70 schools) paying by this method. The remaining schools were quite evenly divided among the other methods Of payment listed. TABLE 37.--Sa1ary basis for Minnesota driver education 82 classroom teachers. School Day After School Summer Program Program Program Salary Basis ‘ Number % Number % Number % Same basic salary schedule as other teachers 277 90.5 8 8.0 10 8.2 Percentage Of regular yearly salary 6 1.9 6 6.0 16 ' 12.7 Number of students taught 1 .3 6 6.0 8 6.3 By the day 0 .0' 0 .0 0 .0 By the hour 11 3.6 70 70.0 77 61.0 Basis Of experience in driver education 2 .7 1 1.0 l .8 Other methods 5 1.7 5 5.0 11 8.7 Combinations Of above 4 1.3 4 4.0 3 2.3 Not Offered* 55 -- 255 -- 233 -- NO Response* 9 -- 15 -- ll -- TOTALS 370 100.0 370 100.0 370 100.0 * Districts not responding or not Offering this 3phase Of the program were not included in the tabulation of percentages . Study Of the summer classroom programs revealed a greater dispersion among the methods Of payment. Payment by the hour was still predominant with 77 schools (61%) paying by this method. Sixteen schools (12.7%) paid on 83 the basis Of a percentage Of the instructor's regular yearly salary, and ten schools (8.2%) indicated payment on the same basic salary schedule as all other teachers. Eleven schools (8.7%) indicated payment by methods other than those listed. Methods Of payment for laboratory instruction varied greatly, as shown in Table 38. Of the schools Offering laboratory instruction during the school year, 80 Of the districts (63%) paid their teachers on the same basis as all other teachers. Twenty-nine districts (22.9%) paid their instructors by the hour and seven districts (5.5%) paid on the basis of the number of students instructed. The after school laboratory program was not only the more popular program (241 schools as compared to 127 during the school day), but also had a greater range in payment procedures. The most popular payment procedure was the hourly rate with 199 districts (82.4%) using this method Of payment. Nineteen schools (7.8%) paid on the basis Of the number Of students taught. School districts Offering summer laboratory programs increased to 318 districts in 1969-70. An hourly basis *was again the most common method of payment with 236 districts (74.4%) indicating payment by this method. frwenty-seven schools (8.2%) paid on the basis Of the number <3f students taught and thirteen (4.1%) paid on the basis of :3 percentage of the instructor's regular yearly salary. 84 Eighteen districts (5.6%) paid by means other than those listed." TABLE 38.--Sa1ary basis for Minnesota driver education laboratory teachers. School Day After School Summer . Program Program Program Salary Ba31s Number % Number % Number % Same basic salary schedule as other teachers 80 63.0 6 2.4 7 2.2 Percentage of regular yearly salary 3 2.4 4 1.8 13 4.1 Number Of students taught 7 5.5 19 7.8 27 8.2 By the day 0 .0 0 .0 8 2.7 By the hour 29 22.9 199 82.4 236 74.4 Basis of experience in driver education 2 1.4 1 .6 2 .6 Other methods 3 2.4 7 2.9 18 5.6 Combinations Of above 3 2.4 5 2.1 7 2.2 NOt Offered* 230 120 48 -- -- -- NO Response* 13 -- -- -- 4 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 370 100.0 * Not included in tabulation Of percentage. 85 Training and orientation.--Specia1 orientation and training programs was the last subject area covered. This data is presented in Table 39. Fifty-three districts (14.1%) provided an orientation program at the beginning of the driver education program and 316 districts (85.9%) did not. The frequency Of in-service training programs for driver education instructors is also revealed in Table 39. Two hundred and seventy-seven districts (75.4%) did not pro- vide in-service training programs for their instructor(s), whereas 76 districts (20.6%) provided an annual in-service program. TABLE 39.--Specia1 orientation and in-service training programs. Special Orientation In-Service Training Responses Number % Number % None 316 85.9 277 75.4 Annually 53 14.1 76 20.6 Semi-annually 8 2.2 Quarterly 3 .7 Monthly 3 .7 weekly l .4 NO Response* 1 -- 2 -- TOTAL 370 100.0 370 100.0 * Not included in tabulation Of percentages. 86 Driver Education Instructors/Supervisors This portion Of the study presents the data on the 1,260 individual instructor/supervisor returns. Presenta- tion of the data will be organized into major divisions concerning professional preparation, experience, teaching assignment and concern for future college courses. Educational Background The educational preparation Of the driver education personnel in the state was a concern of the study. Both general and specialized course work was investigated. Table 40 reflects the levels Of higher education attainment for the driver education personnel in the state. Table 41 continues the investigation Of the instructor's higher education background by indicating the major and minor fields of preparation for the reporting instructors. The college/university at which their driver educa- tion preparation was received is reported in Table 42. The last year in which college credit for a driver education course was received is shown in Table 43. The closing tables reveal the total number of college quarter Jhour credits in driver education and an evaluation Of college preparation. Level Of higher education.--Data concerning the educational attainment Of Minnesota driver education per- sonnel is presented in Table 40. NO Minnesota teachers 87 TABLE 40.--Highest level Of higher education attainment. Amount Of Education Number % Less than a bachelor's degree 0 0 Bachelor's degree 134 10.6 Bachelor's degree plus some graduate work 683 54.4 Master's degree 227 17.8 Master's degree plus work toward a higher degree 213 17.1 Doctorate 0 0 More than a doctorate l .1 NO Response* 2 -- TOTAL 1260 100.0 * Not included in the tabulation of percentage., 'were teaching driver education with less than a bachelor's degree. A minimum Of a bachelor's degree was attained by 134 instructors (10.6%). The majority Of instructors, 683 (54.4%) have some graduate work beyond their bachelor's .Hm Hmv va coaumoapm Hm>wuo m.H H m.m m ~.m v m.m m m.n m o.ma NH thH coflumosvm mmmcfimsm vmma musuasoaucs m.~ v m.m Ha m.~ m m.~ q m.a ma m.mm Hm VNHH coauouumwcwscd woolen .Oz womaHv .oz wovtam‘ .oz momtam .oz momlaa .oz woala .oz «.OHHmmd Loz ahaiisamcoamwm Law» Hoozom may aghast man .uaaapa l()5 .wmmucmouod mo coHumadnmu cw copsHocfl uoz .1. awn v ~.m Hm v.m a m.m OH o.m m mam nonuo own 4 cm om o.vH mm N.mH mm n.v NH SOOH mmHosum HmHoom mmH v m.nm mm m.vH mm m.n NH N.v n mmoa mwocmfiom mmm v N.mm ow o.mH mm H.0H mm H.m Hm . mam cowumospm Housmhsm NAH v m.sm mo m.HH om m.sH mm o.s NH smOH moHnBEmnumz omm v H.mm mom o.H m o.H m m. H wmm Hoorom coax uoHcsn mma v o.mv mm H.mm mv o.SH Hm m.~ m whoa wuud Hmfiuumsch HMH v m.AH mm ~.~H 0H «.mH SH o.m s mNHH abounds mm s ~.om om HH OH H.m N o.H H mmHH mcHHHmmcsoo .mocmoHso cm a mm a m H oH N mH m ommH mmmmsmcmq cmHmuom ms 4 o.m~ OH N.N H m.sH m e.m m HHNH cmHHmcm so q m.om 4m v.MH a a.m v m.H H mmHH coHumosom snmucmsmHm mHm v m.m mm A. m H.H m m. m Hes coHumosom um>Huo as v n.mm mm N.MH OH v.oH m m.m v mAHH coHuwoscm mmmchsm N v om H 0.0m H ammH musuHsoHuma NMH v m.mH mm N.@ m m.« m m.m a VNHH :oHumuuchHeoa Hmuoe «mmBWMmmm AOOH-Hm .oz mom-Hm .oz momuHs .oz woa-Ho .oz ..onmma suHHHnHmcoammm . COSCHDCOUII . cm mqmdd. 106 In examining the various disciplines, it is seen that 132 driver educators indicated that they were also school administrators. Twenty-five (18.9%) indicated that they spent 91—100 per cent of their school day as administrators. Fifty-one (38.8%) Spent less than 10 per cent of their time as administrators. Seventy-seven instructors were also business education instructors. The largest classification of these instructors (26 or 33.7% of the total), indicated they spent 91-100 per cent of their time in this instruc- tion. Sixty-seven instructors were elementary education instructors. Forty-three (64.2%) indicated full-time employment (over 80% of their teaching assignment) as elementary teachers. Forty-five instructors were also English teachers. The time Spent teaching English varied considerably. Twenty instructors taught a foreign language. Ninety-eight instructors also worked in guidance and counseling. Forty of them, 41.2 per cent, were full- time guidance workers during the school day, and 32 (31.8%) spent less than 10 per cent of their time at this task. . Data in Table 54 Shows that 131 instructors classified themselves as history teachers in addition to driver education. The amount of time devoted to history ranged considerable. 107 Of the 182 industrial arts teachers that also taught driver education, 124 (68.1%) devoted at least 80 per cent of their school day to the teaching of industrial arts. AS indicated previously, the definition as to junior high was left up to the respondent. Among the junior high teachers reporting, 271 (94.1%) Were full-time instructors within the junior high. Among the 172 persons that combined driver education and mathematics, 110 (64%) spent over 70 per cent of their time with their mathematics instruction. The largest discipline in combination with driver education was physical education. Ninety-five (36.8%) were full-time physical education instructors (by defini- tion). The remainder were evenly distributed over the various time intervals. Full time Specialization appeared more prevalent in the teaching of science as 52.4 per cent of the respon- dents (88) were full-time science instructors as well as driver educators. The second largest discipline represented was that of social studies with 250 instructors included. Eighty- five (34%) were classified as full-time social studies instructors. Other disciplines involved 257 instructors. Thirty <3f these instructors (11.6%) taught these other subjects rmore than 80 per cent of their time. 108 Extra-Curricular Activities Instructors were asked to indicate the amount of extra—curricular time devoted to a selected number of activities listed in the questionnaire. This information provided the number of instructors so involved and the amounts of time (on a percentage basis) devoted to these activities. Table 55 presents this information. As can be readily seen by the data, 590 instructors (46.9%) were also coaches. Four hundred and seventy-two of these coaches indicated they were full-time coaches (at least 80% of their extra-curricular time) for a total .of 80.1 per cent of the coaches responding. Twenty-four instructors were involved in speech activities, fifteen were in dramatics and 136 were asso- ciated with various types of clubs. Twenty-five instructors were also involved with some type of journalism activity. Other activities involved 312 instructors. Driver Education Courses and Certification To gather information on the interest of Minnesota driver education teachers in taking additional driver education courses, a list of fourteen possible subjects ‘was printed on the questionnaire. Each teacher was asked to indicate his interest in these courses by stating they were very interested, somewhat interested, or not interested. .ommucwoumm mo COHumHsnnu cH popsHocH #02 t. 109 o.ooH NHm o.OOH mN o.OOH omH o.o0H mH o.OOH vN c.o0H com Adaoa I H I H I H I H I H I H «oncommmm oz H.hm th o.Nm m o.om Hv o.oN m m.Hv OH n.ob va wooHIHm a.m NH I I m. H I I I I v.m oN womIHm H.ot mH o.m N v.H N I I I I m.v mN momIHh m.N m I I m. H I I I I H.m mH wohIHm m.N m I I I I I I I I m.H. m womIHm w.m SN o.ON m o.HH mH N.NH N m.m N m.m HN womIHv a.H o o.m N m.N v h.@ H H.v H m.H m wocIHm m.N m o.v H m.m NH o.ON m m.NH m m.H HH womeN H.n NN o.v H h.VH ON m.MH N m.NH m v.H m NONIHH «.5 MN o.VN o m.mN ow N.oN a m.0N m N.N mH _ onIH a .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 mEHB mo mmHuwwams EmHHmcusoo mnsHU mOHumEmuo rommdm mchomoo ucwo Mom .umm» Hoonom mCHHSp mOHuHHHonCOQmmH HmHDOHHHsOImuumeI.mm mqm