RECEPTWETY GF MEXECANAAMERiCAN AND MGM) RURAL DISADVANTAGED T9 EDUSATEONAL PROGRAMS Thesis fear the Degree of Ph. 9. MiCH-EGAN STME ifiéi‘éERSETY LLOYD WELBU; mm 1971 ‘ LIBRARY ‘" Michigan State University . ‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled RECEPTIVITY OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN AND AN GLO RURAL DISADVANTAGED TO IEDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS presented by Lloyd Wilbur Tindall has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreeinfiiufiaflm Msjorprofeuor DateWQ, / c7 7/ 0-7639 “~72 ABSTRACT RECEPTIVITY OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN AND ANGLO RURAL DISADVANTAGED TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS By Lloyd Wilbur Tindall Purpose. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. More specifically, the following objectives were sought: (1) To determine if the Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups have a different degree of willingness toward participation in educational programs. (2) To determine if welfare and non- welfare recipients have a different degree of willingness toward participation in educational programs. (3) To determine if occupational considerations affect the willing— ness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. (4) To determine if personal, educational, and social considerations affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. (5) To determine if environmental considerations of the training classes affect the willingness of rural disadvan- taged to participate in educational programs. (6) To determine if self-perceptions affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. (7) To determine if rural disadvantaged have different Lloyd Wilbur Tindall degrees of willingness toward participation in educational programs in relation to the variables of age, residence, miles to high school, miles to community college, educa— tional achievement, number of children, income, size of shopping center, and length of time out of the migrant labor stream. Method. A questionnaire was designed to measure the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. The questionnaire was administered by personal interview to 68 Anglo and 57 Mexican-American rural disadvantaged. The sample was stratified according to the following criteria: sex, age, household status, and income. Half of each ethnic group were receiving welfare, and half were not receiving welfare. An attempt was made to identify barriers which might prevent the rural disadvantaged from participating in educational classes. Possible barriers included occupa- tional considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; self-perceptions; and environmental consid- erations of the training class. The effects of personal and family factors upon the willingness to participate in educational programs were also studied. Comparisons were made between ethnic and welfare groups, including the use of the multivariate analysis of variance statistical technique. Lloyd Wilbur Tindall Findings. The Mexican-Americans were more willing to participate in educational classes than Anglos. However, both Mexican-American and Anglo rural disadvantaged had a desire to participate in educational programs to get a job or a better job. There were no differences in the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational classes on the basis of the welfare status of the respondents. Both Mexican-Americans and Anglos on and off welfare desired to participate in educational programs that would help them get a job or a better job. Occupational considerations, relating to prospective employment of the disadvantaged, affect their willingness to participate in educational training classes. The rural disadvantaged were willing to participate in educational classes that pertained to their personal, educational, and social welfare. The rural disadvantaged tend to perceive themselves favorably in regard to their ability to be hired for a job, run their own business, or be the leader of others. Certain environmental considerations relating to the way classes are taught will apparently affect the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to attend educational training classes. The age, residence, miles to high school, educational achievement, number of children, income, size of town for shopping, and time lived in Michigan do not affect the Lloyd Wilbur Tindall willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. The rural disadvantaged that lived ten miles or less from a community college or university were more willing to attend classes than those living over ten miles. RECEPTIVITY OF MEXICAN-AMERICAN AND ANGLO RURAL DISADVANTAGED TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS BY Lloyd Wilbur Tindall A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1971 Dedicated to my wife, Cleo, and my sons, Stephen and Timothy ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer extends his sincere appreciation to Dr. Raymond A. Garner, Chairman of his Guidance Committee, for his many hours of valuable assistance, encouragement, and guidance in planning and conducting this study. Gratitude is also extended to Dr. J. Allan Beegle, Dr. Frank J. Bobbitt, and Dr. Gunder A. Myran, members of the Guidance Committee. Sincere thanks are extended to the persons who conducted the interviews, and the personnel in the Eight-CAP office at St. Louis, Michigan, for their help in drawing the sample for this study. Thanks are also extended to Montcalm Community College at Sidney, Michigan, for facilities and equipment used in training the interviewers. Special appreciation is also eXpressed to the Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs at Michigan State University for supplying funds for interviewing and computation of the data. A special tribute is extended to my wife, Cleo, for her encouragement, love, and assistance in completion of this task. To my sons, Stephen and Timothy, a special debt of gratitude for their patience, and the many sacrifices they endured for the accomplishment of this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Use of the Study . . . . . . . . . Statement of Problem . . . . . . . Objectives of the Study . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . Nature of Rural Poverty . . . . . General Poverty Conditions . . . Poverty Conditions in the Area of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspirations, Expectations, Attitude Interests . . . . . . . . . . . Participation and Barriers to Participation . . . . . . . Education and Retraining . Ethnic Differences . . . . . . Socio-Economic Differences . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . Possible Barriers to Participation Educational Programs . . . . . . Personal and Family Information . Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . Deve10pment of the Instrument . Trial Test of the Instrument . . Instrument Reliability . . . . Instrument Response Scale . . iv Sr in this and Page iii vi xiii U'IUJUJN H mm“ \l 12 14 18 30 41 45 49 51 Chapter Selecting and Training Interviewers . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assun‘ptions O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Presentation of Findings . . . . . . . . . Personal and Family Data . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational Considerations and Educational Participation . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations and Educational Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Perceptions and Educational Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Considerations of the Training Class and Participation in Educational Programs . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . Tests of Hypotheses . Summary . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Study . BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O , O O O O O APPENDICES A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Guide for Identifying Disadvantaged Head of Household by Family Size and Income . . . Page 62 63 65 66 66 68 68 81 82 99 101 115 117 128 129 148 149 167 168 169 173 175 179 181 187 196 Table 1. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Poverty by Number of Families and Place of Residence in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . Ages of Respondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status . . . . . . . . . . Residences of Respondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status . . . . . . . . Distance to Nearest High School of Ethnic and Welfare Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distance to Nearest Community College of Ethnic and Welfare Groups . . . . . . . . . . Educational Achievement of Respondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status . . . Number of Children of Re3pondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status . . . Income of ReSpondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status . . . . . . . . . . Size of Town in Which Ethnic and Welfare Groups Do Most of Their ShOpping . . . . . . Length of Time Ethnic and Welfare Groups Have Lived Continuously in Michigan . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Work by Themselves Most of the Time . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Doing Manual Labor Most of the T ime O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 vi Page 13 69 69 70 70 72 72 73 75 75 83 84 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Away from Home One Night a Week . . 85 Willingness of Different Welfare and Ethnic Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Traveling in Their Community During the Day but Home at Night . . . . . . . . . . 87 Willingness of Different Welfare and Ethnic Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Away from Home a Week or More at a Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Willingness of Different Welfare and Ethnic Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Working Inside in a Heated Building and Not Outside in the Weather . . . . . . . 90 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Worked Outside Nearly All the Time When the Weather Was Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Seasonal Job Not a Migrant JOb o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 92 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Yearlong Job . . . 94 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job Which Would Require Them to Move to a Small Town or Rural Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job Which Would Require Them to Move to a Medium Size City like Midland or Bay City . . . . . . . . . . 96 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job Which Would Require Them to Move to a Large City like Detroit or Flint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Could Be Boss or Work to the TOp . . . . 98 vii Table 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Page Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would be Both a Farmer and Have a Job in Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Teach Them to Help Keep Them and Their Family in Good Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Learn More about Community Organizations Which They Might Join . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which They Would Learn More about the Way PeOple Live in Their Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn to Speak Better EngliSh . O . . . . O . . O . . . . . 106 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn to Read Faster in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn to Write Better in EngliSh . . O O O . . . . . . . O . 108 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn More about Arithmetic or Mathematics . . . . . . . 109 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn to Read SpaniSh . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . O O 111 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn How to Get Credit to Buy the Things They Need . . . 112 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn How to Buy Clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 viii Table 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn How to Buy Food . . . . . . . . O O . O . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn How to Keep from Being Cheated When They Spend Their Money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Get a Job on a Farm . . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Get a Job Other than Farming . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Get a Job in a Factory . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which They Learn to Operate Their Own Business . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which They Learn to Be Leaders of Other Workers . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in the Clothes They Now Own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How Different Welfare and Ethnic Groups Perceive the Willingness of Other Heads of Family to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Get a Job or a Better Job . . . Perception of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups of the Willingness of a Potential Employer to Hire Them . . . . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which the Teacher Does Most of the Talking . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which the Student Does Most of the Talking . . . . ix Page 114 116 118 119 120 122 123 124 125 127 130 131 Table 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which the Teacher Is an Anglo . . . . . . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which the Teacher Is a Mexican-American . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Training Programs Six weeks in Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Training Programs Three Months or More in Length . . . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Training Programs Six Months or More in Length . . . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Live in Another City While Going to School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Enroll in Classes Which Would Be Given on Their Television Set . . . . . . . Method of Travel Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Get to Classes . . . . . . Season of Year Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Attend Classes . . . . . . Time of Day Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Attend Classes . . . . . . Location Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Attend Classes . . . . . . Day Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Attend Classes . . . . . . . . . Amount of Money Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Would Be Willing to Spend for Tuition and Supplies to Attend Classes . . Page 132 133 134 135 137 138 139 141 142 144 145 146 147 Table 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. Page Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Ethnic Group Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self- Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Total Mean Scores of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Using the Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self-Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . 152 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Age Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self-Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . 155 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Residence Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self-Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . 157 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Miles to High School Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self-Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Miles to Community College Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self-Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 xi Table 66. 67. 68. 69. 7o. 71. Page Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Educational Achievement Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considera- tions; Self-Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . 161 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Number of Children Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considera- tions; Self-Perpeptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . 163 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Income Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self- Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Time Lived in Michigan Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considera- tions; Self-Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . 165 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Welfare by Size of Town in Which Most ShOpping is Done Using the Dependent Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self- Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Guide for Identifying Disadvantaged Head of Household by Family Size and Income . . . . . 196 xii LIST OF FI GURES Figure Page 1. Geographical Location of the Study . . . . . . S3 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Values, goals, aspirations, and expectations of the rural poor have been extensively studied. Special attention has been given to the barriers which inhibit participation of the rural poor in the labor market, and in other facets of the rural society. It is important that the rural poor participate in occupational education classes which will help them get a job or a better job. It seems logical that the next step is to find out what the rural disadvantaged would be willing to do to participate in educational programs which would help them improve their employment status. Barriers may exist which prevent the rural poor from attending classes which would help them get a job or a better job. The Anglo and the Mexican-American migrants are the two major ethnic groups among the rural poor in Michigan. These two groups make up a major portion of the rural poor in this state. A study of factors, which influ- ence what these groups are willing to do in order to secure additional education to improve their employment opportu- nities, should be helpful to educators in planning programs for the rural poor. Some social service workers appear to support a position that many of the peOple they serve cannot be helped, but must remain on the welfare rolls. If this contention exists, it may reflect an attitude which is not supported by fact. Perhaps those on welfare and those off welfare have different concepts of what they would be willing to do in order to obtain employment. Possibly, factors other than welfare status such as age, number of children, education of the head of household, and length of time out of the migrant farm labor stream, might affect the willingness of peOple in rural poverty to participate in educational programs. Although much research has been done on the rural poor, the problem of what the individual is willing to do to participate in educational programs needs to be determined if the rural poor are going to be attracted to such programs. USE OF THE STUDY The findings of this study may be beneficial to vocational educators by helping them initiate and develop educational programs for the rural disadvantaged. Training and retraining are regularly offered as solutions for the problems of these peOple. It appears that ideas of the rural poor have not been taken into consideration when training programs have been develOped. Significant findings as to what these peeple are willing to do should result in 3 a change in occupational education programs for the rural disadvantaged at the secondary and post secondary levels. From this study, it is hOped that guidelines can be develOped to help the rural disadvantaged participate in educational programs that will help them get jobs or better jobs. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The central problem of this study is to gather and analyze data on the rural disadvantaged that could be used in planning educational programs to be initiated in community colleges, in adult classes, in high schools, in Rural Manpower training centers, and in other training institutions to aid the rural disadvantaged in getting jobs. Rural disadvantaged groups considered in this study are the Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups. Each ethnic group is divided into welfare and non-welfare recipients. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The primary purpose is to determine the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. More specifically, the following objectives were sought: 1. To determine if the Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups have a different degree of willing- ness toward participation in educational programs. 4 To determine if welfare and non-welfare recipi- ents have a different degree of willingness toward participation in educational programs. To determine if the occupational considerations affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. To determine if the personal, educational, and 'social considerations affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. To determine if the environmental considerations of the training classes affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. To determine if self-perceptions affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. To determine if rural disadvantaged have differ- ent degrees of willingness toward participation in educational programs in relation to the variables of age, residence, miles to high school, miles to community college, educational achievement, number of children, income, size of shOpping center, and length of time out of the migrant labor stream. 5 DEFINITION OF TERMS Rural disadvantaged. Heads of household living on farms, in a rural Open country area, or in towns of 8000 or less population and qualifying as disadvantaged under the Office of Economic Opportunity poverty guidelines. Educational programs. Schooling in which the rural disadvantaged could participate to help them acquire a job or a better job. Anglo ethnic group. English speaking persons commonly referred to as "Anglos" and "Americans" by the Mexican-American ethnic group. Mexican-American migrant drOp-out. Spanish- speaking Americans of Mexican descent who have drOpped out of the migrant labor stream. To qualify as migrant drop-outs, the persons would have resided over the winter in Michigan with the intentions of getting jobs and not rejoining the migrant labor stream. Occupational considerations. Working conditions which the rural disadvantaged require before accepting employment, such as: problems of travel, type of labor, and location of the job. 10. 6 Personal, educational, and social considerations. Considerations that are related to language skills, mathematics, health, community organi- zations, and money management. Selffiperceptions. Perceptions that the rural disadvantaged have which are related to type of employment they desire, leadership, and self confidence. Environmental considerations of training classes. Conditions which the rural disadvantaged require of a training class, such as: instructor's ethnic group, season in which class is held, length of class, and location of class. Welfare recipients. Persons who are receiving welfare assistance checks at the time of the interview. Barriers to participation. Any considerations which may prohibit or inhibit the rural disadvantaged from participating in educational programs. These might include occupational considerations, personal, educational, and social considerations, self-perceptions, and the environmental considerations of the training classes. Other factors may include age, health, and ambition. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE INTRODUCTION The increasing economic prOSperity in the United States has not been shared equally by all people. Large numbers of persons in rural areas have incomes of $3600 and below. These peOple are labeled as disadvantaged, a rela- tively new term which began to appear in the literature around 1967. Since that time it has become the accepted term when referring to the peOple who are low in income, educational achievement, and social status. A review of the literature of the rural disadvantaged reveals that most of the studies were concerned with identifying rural disadvan- taged. Consequently, most studies have dealt with the problem of defining and confirming the state of the rural disadvantaged. Some studies have been done to determine participation and barriers to participation in educational programs. Very little research has been done which considers what the rural disadvantaged are willing to do to get started on the road to fulfulling their occupational desires. 8 A vast amount of literature exists on the education of the disadvantaged. This review does not attempt to report all of the literature, but to report representative studies in several areas that contributed knowledge about the nature of the rural poor, and different methods which have been tried in searching for solutions to the poverty problem. Those studies which appear to be relevant to receptivity of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs are reported in the six areas of literature categorized below: 1. Nature of rural poverty 2. Aspirations, eXpectations, attitudes, and interests 3. Participation and barriers to participation 4. Education and retraining . Ethnic differences 5 6. Socio-economic differences NATURE OF RURAL POVERTY General Poverty Conditions The existence of rural poverty in America needs to be recognized. The report, The People Left Behind, reveals the serious problems of poverty among rural peOple. It affects some 14 million Americans. Rural poverty is so widespread, and so acute, as to be a national disgrace, and its consequences have swept into our cities, violently. 9 The total number of rural poor would be even larger than 14 million had not so many of them moved to the city. Unemployment and underemployment are major . problems in rural America. The rate of unemployment nationally is about four percent. The rate in rural areas averages about 18 percent. Ferman, Kornbluh, and Haber in their book, Poverty in America, included farm laborers, migratory workers, ex- farmers, ex-coal miners, unemployed timber workers, reser- vation Indians, and migratory farm workers among the rural poor. The migratory farm workers were found among those rural workers having the most serious problems of income, health, and education. It is estimated that one-and-a-half million rural farm families live on less than $250 a month and that 2.8 million rural farm families have no more than $80 a month to pay for all their needs. A half-million rural youth between ages 14 and 24 have never finished grade school; "their vision ends at the edge of a few acres of exhausted land."2 Orshansky believed the nation was taking another look at the poverty profile. She said: 1National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty, The Peop1e Left Behind (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967). P. IX. 2Louis A. Ferman, Joyce L. Kornbluh, and Alan Haber, Poverty in America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965), p. 84. 10 A revolution of eXpectation has taken place in this country as well as abroad. There is now a conviction that everyone has the right to share in the good things of life. Yet there are still many who must watch America's parade of progress from the sidelines, as they wait for their turn--a turn that does not come.3 According to Burchinal, the size of the rural pOpu- lation has not changed greatly in recent years. In 1960, there were slightly over 54 million residents, essentially the same number as in 1950, and projections call for an estimated rural pOpulation of 60 million persons in 1980. By 1980, the rural pOpulation is eXpected to include 20 percent of the national total, compared with almost 30 percent in 1960. The composition and regional distribu- tion of the rural pOpulation is changing greatly. Today, only one—fourth of the peOple living in rural areas are farmers compared to two-thirds in 1910.4 Burchinal reports current farm population to be around 13.4 million persons with an expected drOp to nine million persons by 1980. The present rate of diSplacement of farm workers is about 200,000 per year. He also noted 3Mollie Orshansky, "Counting the Poor; Another Look at the Poverty Profile," in Louis A. Ferman, Joyce L. Kornbluh, and Alan Haber (eds.), Poverty in America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,_l965), p. 42. 4Lee G. Burchinal and Hilda Siff, "Rural Poverty," in Louis A. Ferman, Joyce L. Kornbluh, and Alan Haver (eds.), Poverty in America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965), p. 102. 11 that farm families make up seven percent of the total number of families in the country and 30 percent of the poor families in the nation.5 Potter's study of rural poverty in Montgomery County, Indiana, indicated that the rural poor lack visability, have lower levels of education, and are generally older. He concluded that: (1) Much of the perception of little poverty in the county may be accounted for by its dispersion, par- ticularly in small towns, and by a high incidence of older persons who live alone. Consequently, rural poverty may have little visibility. (2) The low level of education of the majority of the younger heads of poverty families indicated that Montgomery County was not going to see an end to poverty through some natural selection in the near future. (3) The perception of the county as an area with little poverty was inaccurate, and from a social-psycholog- ical point of view it was thought that the residents might prefer this perception, and that this perception may influ- ence action taken to deal with the phenomenon.6 51bid., p. 104. 6Harry R. Potter, Willis J. Goudy, and Calvin J. Larson, "The Situation in an Average Income County" (paper read at the Rural Sociological Society meeting, August 21, 1969, San Francisco, California). 12 Poverty Conditions in the Area of This Study In Michigan, 15.7 percent of all the families received incomes of $3000 and under in 1960. The percent- ages of families receiving incomes of $3000 or less was much higher in the four counties in which this study was con- ducted. These percentages reported by counties are: Gratiot, 22.8 percent; Ionia, 21.0 percent; Isabella, 23.8 percent; and Montcalm, 25.5 percent.7 The Eight-CAP Office of Economic Opportunity located in St. Louis, Michigan, reported the 1969 pOpulation of these four counties as 157,000. Of the 42,967 families in Gratiot, Ionia, Isabella, and Montcalm Counties, 7,230 families were found to have incomes under $3000. In this four county area, it was estimated that 600 Mexican-American families had drOpped out of the migrant labor stream. Of these 600 families, 360 were estimated to have incomes under $3000.8 vredev00gd found that low education, health, gyrations of the national economy, and employment were factors affecting poverty among the rural poor in Michigan. 7Ali Abdul Razaque, William J. Kimball, and Manfred Thullen, Some Dimensions of Poverty in Michigan, Report No. 19 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, September, 1969), pp. 23-24. 8General Records of Eight-CAP Office of Economic Opportunity (St. Louis, Michigan). 13 Other problems that were determined to be unique or more intensified in the rural community included: transportation, inadequate health care facilities, lack of jobs, and isolation of living in a rural setting. The rural people are cut off from the main stream of society and the activities that accompany that main stream.9 The extent of rural poverty in Michigan is revealed in the following table: Table 1. Poverty by Number of Families and Place of Residence in Michigan Urban Rural-non-farm Rural farm All families 1,433,514 398,483 110,294 Poor families 170,797 68,636 18,895 % poor 12% 17% 17% Source: W. E. Vredevoogd, Rural Poverty in Michigan, Report No. 21 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, November, 1970), p. 2. According to findings reported in this table, the urban p0pulation outnumbers the rural pOpulation in Michigan by a ratio of three to one, but the urban poor outnumber the rural poor by only two to one. Only 26 percent of all Michigan families live in rural areas, but 34 percent of all 9W. E. Vredevoogd, Rural Poverty in Michigan, Report No. 21 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, November, 1970), pp. 7-10. 14 "poor" families are concentrated in the rural areas. ASPIRATIONS, EXPECTATIONS, ATTITUDES, AND INTERESTS Many studies have been done relating to aspirations, expectations, attitudes, and interests of the rural disad- vantaged. Generally, the findings reveal that aSpirations exceed eXpectations, and that both aspirations and expecta— tions tend to become more alike as the age of the individual increases. Some researchers recommend that educational leaders consider the interests of the rural disadvantaged to a greater extent when deve10ping programs. Reul supports the contention that research needs to be done to find acceptable educational programs for the rural poor. She suggests that the occupational interests should be considered when planning employment programs for the rural poor. Ruel also believed that peOple at the top of the social and occupational ladder in their rural commu- nities may find themselves at the bottom of the ladder when they migrate to the city. They have less education than most, and are less equipped for a highly competitive situation.10 10Myrtle R. Reul (address to Rural Manpower seminar on Rural Poverty, February 7, 1970, East Lansing: Michigan State University). 15 Slocum found that aspirations of rural peOple are frequently much higher than their expectations. He sug- gested that research on the reasons for this discrepancy might be worthwhile.11 Slocum maintained that aspirations and expectations concerning education and occupations were unquestionably important aspects in the complex of factors which determine whether a specific adolescent living in poverty would be able to rise in affluence. He states: If an individual has low aspirations, he is unlikely to take steps lying within his range of possibilities to make the most of his Opportunities. It must be ac- knowledged that other factors in addition to high aspirations are involved in upward mobility. Thus aspirations and eXpectations must be regarded as only two of a number of important aspects in the solutions to poverty. Dunkelberger made another study of aspirations. He interviewed 965 male heads of household in seven southern states. His investigation, carried out in low income areas of the South, focused on levels and intensity of aspirations of job mobility. Two closely intertwined adult goals, occupations and income, were chosen as the most apprOpriate status attributes for the purpose of measuring intensity of adult aspiration. He found that many men had a high latent aspiration for occupational mobility and that their manifest 11Walter L. Slocum, Aspirations and Expectations of the Rural Poor, United States Department of Agriculture (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, October, 1967), p. l. 121bid., p. 15. 16 level of aspiration would therefore rise in the event that changes occured in their personal situation which removed any of the limitations serving to suppress these aSpirations. He reported that persons dissatisfied with either their job, family income, or family residence had much more intense aspirations, and persons giving or placing priorities to secular values including job, education, community, and recreation over religion and family had more intense aspira- tions. Dunkelberger also found that persons aspiring to blue collar occupations had more intense job mobility aspi- rations than persons aspiring to white collar or farm occupations. He concluded that workers, when they became aware of their limitations, had lowered their level of aspiration to a point consistent with their prospects for achievement. Although their levels of aSpiration were low in terms of the goals desired, the goals themselves were realistic, and desired with considerable intensity.13 An example of the complexity of the aspirations, expectations, and occupational attainment can be seen in Kuvlesky's study when he says: Whatever the intensity of relationship between aspirations and attainment that might be demonstrated through possible refinements, the fact of correlation, 13John E. Dunkelberger, "Intensity of Job Mobility Aspiration Among Household Heads in Low-Income Areas of the Rural South" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1965), pp. 164-169. 17 and in turn predictive quality, does not establish any necessary casual linkage between aspiration and attainment. Kuvlesky summarized that almost nothing is known empirically about the nature or extent of relationship of occupational expectations to long-run occupational status attainment. Attitudes also add to the complexity of eXpectations and aspirations. Taylor and Glasgow, in a study of 1074 employed male household heads classified as rural poor, found that the ages of the respondents were not directly related to attitudes toward their jobs. A prestige hierarchy of occupations was generally perceived. White collar workers typically thought their work was more desirable than average in the community; while laborers less frequently indicated a high evaluation of their job. The authors suggested two action programs: First, fOr those peOple who understand and accept the widespread occupational hierarchy of the nation, systematic vocational training programs for non-farm work is needed. Second, for those peOple in low-income rural areas who do not understand or who reject the widespread occupational hierarchy, a more complex action program is needed. According to Taylor and Glasgow, an educational program aimed at changing their perceptions and goals from 14William P. Kuvlesky, "The Social Psychological Dimensions of Occupational Mobility" (paper read at the National Vocational Technical Education seminar, April 28, 1966, Raleigh, North Carolina). 18 a subcultural to a national orientation must precede a specific vocational training program.15 PARTICIPATION AND BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION Some researchers have found the participation of the poor in society, education, and the labor market to be below average. Others have investigated the barriers that may prevent participation in the labor force or in educational programs. Sawers studied poor whites, blacks, Puerto Ricans, and Mexican-Americans to determine whether the urban poor form a homogeneous labor supply or whether significant racial and ethnic differences in their labor market behavior can be discerned. He found that labor force participation of the poor is heterogeneous, and he suggested that it remained for future researchers to determine whether labor force participation was an exception, or whether the urban poor white, black, Puerto Rican, and Mexican-American are also heterogeneous with respect to other variables.16 15Lee Taylor and Charles W. Glasgow, "Occupations and Low-Income Rural Pe0ple" (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, Agricultural EXperiment Station, December, 1963). pp. 5-6. 16Larry Bruce Sawers, "The Labor Force Participation of the Urban Poor" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969), pp. 105-106. 19 Among the differences in labor force participation, Sawers observed that blacks have lower participation than whites, and Mexican-Americans are more likely to participate than poor white men with the same education. When education was controlled, differences in participation between white and black workers almost disappeared, but not differences between Mexican-American and Anglo workers. Differences in labor force participation were not observed when geographical distribution was controlled. Sawers study revealed that the sub-groups of the poor exhibit different patterns of labor force participation and that the several sub-groups respond to education and to economic environment with different intensities and in different ways.17 In a study among adults residing in low socio- economic communities in North Carolina, Lewis investigated participation orientation toward education and job training. Participation was less among older adults, but greater among those with more education up to the eighth grade. Participation tended to decrease among adults with more than an eighth grade education. High income, job security, and favorable working conditions had little effect upon a respon- dent's participation orientation. Those willing to move were more positive about participation, and those reared in a town or city indicated more interest in education than 17Ibid., pp. 95-106. 20 farm residents. Negroes and Indians indicated more interest in education than whites.18 Less than 20 percent of the adults in the study actually participated in adult education and job training. Lewis stated that adult educators faced a major challenge in the future to deve10p programs that are perceived to be relevant to the needs of adults residing in low socio- economic status communities.19 As expressed by Sexton, the participation of the poor in society will increase as they gain self-confidence. Poor peOple cannot achieve confidence, nor develOp individual and social will, if they remain forever beneficiaries of middle-class benevolence. They have been faced with insuperable barriers, and have naturally concluded that they are doomed to defeat. As they begin to be introduced to the mysteries now known only to professionals many of them will quickly discover confidence in their own ability and the ability of their class, to sweep away the barriers blocking entrance into the society. But most impor- tantly--the non-professionals of today will emerge as the organizers and leaders of the poor tomorrow. University of Wisconsin researchers conducted surveys of adult education participants in the University 18Robert Bruce Lewis, "A Study of Selected Factors Associated With Participation Orientation Toward Education and Job Training Among Adults Residing in Low-Socio-economic Communities of North Carolina" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1969), pp. 76-85. 191bid., p. 92. 20Brendan Sexton, "Participation of the Poor" (paper prepared for Graduate School of Social Work Center for the Study of Unemployed Youth, February, 1966, New York, New York). 21 Extension programs from 1967 to 1969. The study involved all types of peOple with various incomes, but it did not focus on low-income persons. They discovered that adults enrolled in the adult education programs primarily to perform better on the job. The respondents reported that preparation for a second part-time job was the least significant reason for enrollment. University Extension enrollees indicated that they enrolled to become better informed citizens. The survey revealed that almost one-third of the Vocational Technical Adult Education drOp—outs reported a work schedule conflict as the reason for drOpping a course.21 Attendance patterns and drop-outs in adult night school classes were studied by Dickinson and Verner. Sta- tistically significant characteristics were observed between those who persisted and those who discontinued attendance. Age, marital status, number of dependents, occupation, and previous participation in adult education classes were sig- nificant characteristics. Attendance was better in general interest courses than in academic or vocational courses. Courses of ten sessions or less had greater holding power than longer courses.22 21Wisconsin Board of Vocational, Technical and Adult Education, Surveonf Adult Education Participants (Madison: University of Wisconsin ExtenSion Service, 1969): Pp. 3-12. 22Gary Dickinson and Coolie Verner, "Attendance Patterns and DrOp-outs in Adult Night School Classes," Quarterl Journal of Adult Education, Vol. 18, No. 1 Pa 1, 677, p. 32. 22 Booth used the 1967 Census to study non-participants .in adult education programs. The Census figures revealed that the non-participants in adult education programs were likely to be over 45 years of age, have less than a high school education, be in the lower echelon of the labor force--or not working--, and live in a rural rather than an urban setting.23 This lack of participation of the poor was empha- sized by Potter. A point which indicates lack of visability of the poor is their low level of participation. Almost half of the heads of poverty families scored three or less on the Chapin Social Participation Scale, compared to twenty-three percent and eleven percent of the middle and higher income family heads.2 Self-concepts of the disadvantaged may serve as barriers to their education and future employment. Cook compared disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged high school students in different types of rural and urban communities.25 Five areas of differences were revealed: 23Alan Booth, "A Demographic Consideration of Non- Participation," Quarterly Journal of Adult Education, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Summer, 1961), pp. 2234724. 24Potter, "The Situation . . .". 25Keith E. Cook, "Differences Between Self-Concepts of Disadvantaged and Non-Disadvantaged High School Students Within Certain Types of Rural and Urban Communities" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Maine, 1969), pp. 212-213. 23 1. Except for one aspect of self-concept, the disadvantaged students perceived themselves in as positive a way as did the non-disadvantaged students. Indications were that at a low level of awareness, the disadvantaged had more nega- tive self-concepts than did the non-disadvan- taged. 2. The disadvantaged were more defensive, confused, conflicted, and uncertain in their self-reports than were the non-disadvantaged. 3. Subjects in the rural community had more posi- tive self-concepts than those in the affluent suburban community. The data suggested that this was maintained through the employment of more defensiveness. 4. In the community within which the greatest social and economic extremes existed (the rural non-depressed community), the negative impact upon the self-concepts of the disadvantaged was the greatest. 5. The self-concept of the disadvantaged and non- disadvantaged were more alike in the homogeneous communities of low or high income than when compared collectively across all communities.26 According to a report of the Urban Affairs Division of the National Association of Manufacturers two basic requirements of willingness to do the work, and having reasonably good health exist as barriers to hiring the hard- core unemployed. Another major problem centers around transportation of the hard-core employees.27 A manpower report from the Department of Labor to the President in 1968 indicated several factors which act as 261bid. 27National Association of Manufacturers. Effectively Employing the Hard Core (New York, 1968), p. 12. 24 barriers to the employment of the disadvantaged. Although the report is focused mainly on large cities, some of the same barriers confronting urban disadvantaged may exist for the rural poor and may affect their participation in educa- tional courses.28 The report discloses that the factors which produce sub-employment in big city poverty areas are as diverse as the characteristics of the peOple affected. Factors believed to be interrelated, mutually reinforcing, and difficult to handle were social-psychological factors, lack of education and training, ill health, discrimination, and distance from available jobs. Employers' reports concerning men from poverty areas who were placed on jobs and then quit seem to indicate that the work attitudes and lack of motivation of the sub-employed of big cities are major barriers to their regular employ- ment.29 According to findings in this report, the disadvan- taged are not homogeneous and characteristics of the most troubled individuals in this category may not be generally applicable to all disadvantaged. Authors of this report 230.8. Department of Labor, Barriers to Employment of the Disadvantaged, Manpower Message of the President and Rgport on Manpower Requirement, Resources, Utilization, and Trainin (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 19685, pp. 86-87. 29Ibid. 25 contended that the connection between attitudes and work patterns is not fully understood; that attitudes are certainly significant, but it is not yet possible to say what the most relevant attitudes are, nor precisely how they influence actions. Other barriers to employment mentioned in this report included: lack of English and basic education, physical appearance, not knowing how to look for a job, and transportation.30 Campbell and Mulvey investigated perceptions of job Opportunities of low-income persons in a Missouri study. They found low-income groups to be relatively realistic in perception of their skills and types of jobs for which they were qualified, their views of the job market, as well as their hOpes of getting ahead. The biggest problems, concerning the perceptions of job Opportunities among low-income groups, were found to be lack of information and apathy. Campbell and Mulvey reasoned that members of a study group would have to be told about available Opportunities and then encouraged and even prodded into accepting jobs.31 Barriers that prevent inactive work-seekers from taking jobs were studied by Liebhafsky and others. Their study revealed that inadequate education, inadequate skill, 30Ibid., p. 88. 31Rex R. Campbell and Susan A. Mulvey, "Perception of Job Opportunities Among Low-Income Groups in Missouri" (Columbia: University of Missouri, Agriculture Experiment Station, February, 1968), p. l. 26 age in both young and old, discouragement, and discrimina- tion are likely to force withdrawal from the labor market. The authors suggested that employment in low-status occupa- tions and continual fruitless job searches would produce despair. They wrote that: When relatively ineffectual job-hunting processes arising out of a limited perception of employment Opportunity, are coupled with the possibility of despair, withdrawal from the labor force is especially likely. The very fact that rural peOple like to live in the rural setting may be a barrier to their economic improvement. Some economists have long advocated the moving of the rural poor to the urban areas for employment. Others have ques- tioned the continued movement of peOple to centers of heavy pOpulation, and advocate stOpping this flow to urban areas. Fuller and Phipps have taken a stand against migra— tion to urban areas. They contend that American society has started to question the advisability of continuing the process of removing peOple from rural areas and concentrating them on small areas of land. According to Fuller and Phipps, a focus of American society upon economic growth has resulted in the continuing movement of both human and economic resources into clusters of high pOpulation density 32E. E. Liebhafsky and others, "A Methodological Approach to Identification and Classification of Certain Types of Inactive WOrk-Seekers" (Houston: The University of Houston, College of Business Administration, October, 1965), p. 28. 27 areas.33 They maintain that a systematic educational pro- gram should be initiated, and that this educational program should focus on the social and psychological problems that disadvantaged peOple must overcome before they can move upward in the social stratification. They also recommend an educational program to provide necessary knowledge and skills for employment in the emerging occupations.34 Later, Fuller and Phipps reported that families residing in economically depressed rural areas are for the most part, satisfied with their way of life. The vast majority of families residing in econom- ically depressed rural areas are not ready to support major alterations related to motivation for change. These families would prefer, if society would provide them with the Opportunity, to remain in the depressed rural area and the families are willing to accept the fact that they are, when compared with more affluent urban and rural areas, living in a disadvantaged situation. What these families seem to want most is the Opportunity to remain in the region where they presently reside and for society to help them by providing the resource necessary to deveIOp the depressed areas into more viable places in which to live.35 33Gerald R. Fuller and Lloyd J. Phipps, "Development of Human Resources Through a Vocationally Oriented Educa- tional Program for Disadvantaged Families in Depressed Rural Areas," Interim Report No. 2 (Urbana: The University of Illinois, September, 1968). P. 1. 34Ibid., p. 11. 35Gerald R. Fuller and Lloyd J. Phipps, "DevelOpment of Human Resources Through a VOcationally Oriented Educa- tional Program for Disadvantaged Families in Depressed Rural Areas," Interim Report No. 3 (Urbana: The University of Illinois, September, 1968), p. 16. 28 Fuller and Phipps also found that rural disadvan- taged families need more Opportunities for social contacts. They contend that the migration of rural disadvantaged to an urban area may be more frustrating than rewarding. They recommend development of economically depressed rural areas into more viable places in which to live. By doing this, they speculate that the rural poor could adjust their desires upward and not feel that they were being forced by society to sacrifice what they value most in order to exist in American society.36 Baumheier noted that the major impediments to entry into the labor market and employment are lack of skills coupled with a lack of motivation. He discovered evidence that lack of skills and poor motivation represent a vicious cycle. According to Baumheier, the desired job is often beyond the reach of an individual. If he lacks skills, he becomes discouraged, does not seek training, and may cease looking for work. Baumheier's study also revealed other impediments such as age, health, past record of arrests or convictions, personality problems, poor work history, lack of exPerience, and poor educational attainment. He believed that most of the unemployed have more than one impediment and about 50 percent could be brought into the labor market 361bid., p. 17. 29 if a variety of related services were made available.37 Persons offered four reasons for peOple choosing to remain in disadvantaged regions even when Opportunities to participate in the current on-going adult education programs may provide some promise for movement to higher economic and social levels: 1. The peOple may not perceive themselves as disadvantaged. 2. The disadvantaged adults may have a degree of satisfaction with their station in life. 3. They often have psychological barriers to move- ment from one social strata to another. This might be fear of failure or unwillingness to accept more responsibility which a higher strata may demand, and fear of unknown expectations in the job or task of a higher level. 4. The persons may lack the self-confidence to achieve.38 It was speculated by Nichols that vocational programs for the disadvantaged will not succeed unless the disadvan- taged themselves take hold of the Opportunities offered them. He said: In dealing with all of the problems of providing vocational education for the disadvantaged and in all our efforts to communicate with members of the disad- vantaged community, never has there been any mention that their task would be easy. The difficulties 37Edward C. Baumheier and others, A Study: Those Not WOrking in a Tight Labor Market, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (New York: Greenleigh Associates, 1967Y, pp. 97-98. 38Edgar Persons and Gary Leske, "Adapting Adult Education to the Disadvantaged" (paper read at the Training Institute for Rural Disadvantaged, August 17, 1970, Willmar, Minnesota). 30 encountered by educational organizations in implementing programs of vocational education for the disadvantaged are matched only by the difficulties eXperienced by the recipients of the education and training. Taylor and Glassgow confirmed some of the obstacles to occupational training found by other researchers. They also found age, health, lack of training, lack of capital, and lack of Opportunity were blocks to occupational aspira- tions. The authors reasoned that the lack of capital and training could be corrected by society, but that "no Oppor- tunity" suggested an inability of the unemployed to size up accurately the occupational market place and its structure. The thesis that ideologies must be changed before Specific occupational education programs can be implemented was promoted by Taylor and Glassgow.4o EDUCATION AND RETRAINING A great deal of time and money has been spent in retraining programs for the disadvantaged during the past decade. Several researchers have attempted to analyze the outcomes of this huge expenditure of money in terms of what was learned, and the reasons for the failure of many programs. This section of the review has considered some of 39Char1es F. Nichols, "Vocational Education for the Disadvantaged: Seven Years Later," American VOcational Journal, V01. 45, No. 8 (November, 1970), p. 23. 40Taylor, "Occupations and . . .," p. 37. 31 these programs and studies to help define the willingness of persons to participate in educational programs. Konyha investigated the need for retraining of the rural poor. ReSpondents were asked if they would be inter- ested in taking a free training course which would qualify them for a better job. Three conditions were emphasized regarding the training course. The course would be free, would be given locally, and would qualify the respondent for a better job in one or more of the aSpects of higher pay rate, less seasonality, more convenience, and more job per- manence.41 He found no relationship between severity of poverty and the extent of interest in retraining; that older males and females were less interested in retraining than younger males and females; that individuals who experienced more unemployment were more interested in training; that there was no relationship between education and interest in training; that individuals who are more available for re- training, are more interested in retraining; and that interest of workers in retraining is closely associated with their attitudes toward present jobs.42 41Marvin E. Konyha, "Needs and Potentials for Escape From Poverty Through Retraining for Families in the Eastern Corn Belt" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970), p. 15. 421bid.. pp. 177-184. 32 According to guidelines issued by the State University of New York, "nothing succeeds like success" for the occupational training of the disadvantaged.43 The disad- vantaged need success literally on an instant basis. When planned for and accomplished in the training process, success becomes a great positive force in occupational training. These guidelines further bring out an inherent dan- ger in attempting to identify and classify the disadvantaged. The disadvantaged have a history of failure, poverty, suspi- cion, and frustration, and in this frame of reference it is difficult for them to see the relevance of long term goals. The danger lies not in the identification of such negative considerations, but rather in the failure to understand their learning strengths, so instruction can be adjusted to overcome their problems. These guidelines also suggest that the disadvan- taged are a heterogeneous group, and that they bring to training classes a body of survival characteristics that may be the foundation for successful instruction. Each person must be regarded as an individual, and every experienced teacher knows the infinite variety of possibilities for adjusting to individual differences.44 43Guidelines for the Occupational Training of the Disadvantaged, Division of Vocational-Technical Education (Oswego: State University of New York, 1968), pp. 4-5. 44Ibid. 33 Venn, in speaking about education being the bridge between man and his work, states: Today, a person's role in society is determined almost exclusively by his work role. Therefore, occu- pational education is a fundamental necessity for an individual's well-being, since a man who cannot work becomes a drag on society, economically, politically, and, most important of all psychologically. So we arrive at the premise that occupational preparation must now become a fundamental component of each person's educational heritage. We must recognize that man's work is his most important product. Education must truly become the link between man and his work--for everyone.45 Weber studied retraining programs in several Illinois communities. His research revealed that retraining was highly successful if the following characteristics are present: the trainees are young and relatively well educated, the trainees are given a reasonably generous training allow- ance, courses are relatively short, and the occupational training is linked directly to a set of specific employment Opportunities.46 According to Weber, retraining programs need to be within the capability of the trainee, should offer consid- erable adult basic education, and should be followed by an adequate placement service. He found that the problem of 45Grant Venn, "The Bridge Between Man and His Work" (lecture delivered at the Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference on Industrial Education, March 14-17, 1967, Sacramento, California). 46Arnold R. Weber, "Experiments in Retraining: A Comparative Study," in Gerald G. Somers (ed.), Retraining theJUnemployed (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), p. 298. 34 occupational mobility was accentuated by the lack of geo- graphical mobility on the part of the trainees. His findings did not support an expectation that retraining would result in the immediate enrichment of the trainees, as the retrain- ees generally earned only modest wages.47 The Rural Family DevelOpment Program at the Univer- sity of Wisconsin provides a unique program to retrain the disadvantaged. Offered as a combination of televised in- struction, home study, and individualized instruction, this program was initiated in 1969 to set up adult basic education needs in rural communities. Although the program is current- ly being evaluated, Boris Frank, project director of the program, states: We believe RFD has been one of the leaders in crystalizing the life-oriented approach to adult basic education, a philOSOphy that centers adult basic edu- cation around COpin and living skills rather than just literacy training.4g Amanna described the learning motivations of the individuals who were the primary targets of Rural Family DevelOpment as follows: 1. The participant wants factual information which he can apply directly and immediately to solving his problems. He is not interested in deferring gratification. 2. The participant is not interested in learning more than he can apply immediately. 47Ibid., pp. 291-295. 48Boris Frank, "Is RFD Unique?," Rural Family DevelOpment Newsletter, (June, 1971), p. 2. 35 3. The participant is not interested in being tested to see how much he has learned.49 Udvari defined the adult basic education provided through the Rural Family DevelOpment Program as follows: Adult basic education is an instructional process of information and action in the continuing stream of life-long education designed to provide experiences and skills to improve the quality of life of adults who are functioning at a level of performance and participation that does not permit their skillful use of available alternatives and their total involvement in todays complex society.50 Evidently the rural disadvantaged are aware of their need for further educational training programs. Larson and Slocum reported that boys and girls from low income families in rural areas recognize that education is crucial for up- ward occupational mobility, and show evidence of a deter- mination to realize individual potential through educational achievement. They thought some of this awareness comes from the parents.51 While assessing the 1.8 billion dollars that had been Spent on manpower training, Levitan challenges society to deveIOp more effective training programs. He asserted: 49Vincent Amanna, "Objective for Home-Visitors Changes," Rural Family Develgpment Newsletter, (June, 1971), p. 3. 50Stephen Udvari, "RFD and Instructional Process," Rural Family DevelOpment Newsletter, (June, 1971), p. 3. 51Wayne L. Larson and Walter L. Slocum, The Impact of Poverty in Rural Youth, Bulletin 714 (Pullman: Washington State University, Agriculture Experiment Station, September, 1969), p. 1. 36 The experience of the Neighborhood Youth Corp, Job Corp, and Work EXperience and Training Programs indi- cates the difficulty of designing and administering mass projects which lead to economic self-sufficiency of the poor. It is not surprising, therefore, that much of the antipoverty funds has been exPended on traditional relief measures to meet age-old problems. We have the economic resources. The challenge is to develOp effec- tive programs.52 Burkett and Thompson found that many of the people in the low-income, rural areas are not qualified by general education to compete effectively in the outside non-farm labor market. They theorized, in the long run, that probably the most basic educational need of low-income, rural peOple is the improvement of general education to a level at least equivalent to that received by those with whom they will compete in the national labor market. Under a program which provided adult education and assistance in locating jobs for the younger heads of rural households, Burkett and Thompson argued that these young men might be able to move into non- farm work with worthwhile income improvement.53 Bauder and Burchinal reported that low educational levels limit occupational choice, and later advancement; that 52Sar A. Levitan, Antipoverty Work and Training Efforts: Goals and Reality, Policy Papers in Human Resources and Industrial Relations No. 3 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1967), p. 109. 53Keith W. Burkett and James F. Thompson, Low Incomes of Rural People: The Nature and Extent of the Problem in a South-Central Kentucky Area, Research Bulletin 697 Lexington: UniVersity offentucky, April, 1965), p. 49. 37 additional education permits wider job choices, and helps in job advancement. These researchers also found that if farm and other youth today do not have at least a high school education, and preferably specialized training beyond high school, they are severely handicapped in job competition in urban and large metrOpolitan centers. They conclude that the lower educational level and consequent lower occupation- al level of farm migrant parents also characterize their children, but they found that these parents have favorable attitudes toward education.54 Mangum recounts some of the lessons to be learned from government funded programs for the disadvantaged in the cities. He maintains that the first lesson to be learned is the task of how to train those who never had any skills, and second is how to meet the need for basic remedial educa- tion, especially the need for English for Mexican-Americans. He found widespread illiteracy among the employed disadvan- taged. He also found that the disadvantaged were handi- capped by a lack of supportive services. Mangum declares that the disadvantaged are not appreciably different in their yearnings and ambitions from anyone else once the possibilities of upward mobility are S4Ward W. Bauder and Lee G. Burchinal, "Do Rural Pe0ple Succeed in the City," Iowa Farm Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (September, 1964), p. 13. 38 clear and realistic.55 One of the major causes of poverty, according to Thurow, is the lack of education. His poverty model is based on an income of $3000 or less. In 1967, Thurow proj- ected from Census Bureau data to show that the percentage of family heads with less than an eighth grade education would fall from 21.9 percent in 1960 to 15.9 percent in 1970 and to 11.1 percent in 1980, if the economy could generate enough capital to equip a more highly educated labor force. He reasoned that the largest reductions in poverty would occur by improving the lower end of the educational spectrum as the incidence of poverty progressively falls as education rises.56 One of the first experimental and demonstration projects established under the Manpower DevelOpment Training Act was the Norfolk Project to train about 100 intractably disadvantaged Negroes living in the Norfolk, Virginia area. In this project, an attempt was made to discover some of the differentiating attributes of those who rejected retraining Opportunities and those who enrolled in the programs. 55Garth L. Mangum, "Vocational Education for the Disadvantaged: Lessons from Government Funded Programs" (paper read at the National Workshop on Vocational Education for the Disadvantaged, March 12-14, 1969, Atlantic City, New Jersey). 55Lester C. Thurow, "The Causes of Poverty," uarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 81, No. 1 (February, 19 7 pp. 46-47. 39 Although the rejectors and enrollers had similar social and economic backgrounds, the peOple, likely to reject training, had acquired less s0phistication toward employment Opportu— nities. Employment eXperience in the military, association with skilled workers, and work eXperience outside the home community were found to be positive factors in enrollment.57 According to findings in the Norfolk Project, dis- advantaged persons desire education more than is generally realized, but they often feel inhibited about stepping out of the routine in which they find themselves to secure it. They need to be made aware of what is involved in bettering one's self.58 In a study of the 1960 Census, Hathaway, Beegle, and Bryant revealed that the educational level of males is a highly important factor in eXplaining income differences among persons residing in both rural-farm and rural-non-farm communities. In general, the effect of proximity to metro- politan areas upon family income was greater for rural-non- farm than for rural-farm families. The level of educational attainment of adults in rural-farm areas in 1960 was markedly lower than for adults in non-farm areas. They conjectured that some of this difference could be attributed to the high 57Seymour L. Wolfbein, Education and Training for Full Employment (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), pp. 89-91. 531bid., p. 92. 40 prOportion of elderly living in farm areas. Fertility of the rural-farm pOpulation in 1960 was distinctly higher than fertility of the urban pOpulation. Education, income, and proximity to metrOpolitan areas were important factors associated with rural fertility levels.59 Fine listed 12 guidelines for employment of the culturally disadvantaged. His guidelines, which follow, seem to imply factors that affect the willingness of disad- vantaged persons to attend classes. 1. Make a total commitment 2. Put the reins in high level hands 3. Organize a training program for company personnel 4. Pinpoint entry jobs for the culturally disadvantaged 5. Interview, don't test 6. Place the applicant on the job for which he is interviewed 7. Coach to teach and reinforce adaptive skills 8. Distinguish between prescribed and discre- tionary job content 9. Teach specific content skills on the job; teach functional skills off the job but in job environment 59Dale E. Hathaway, J. Allan Beegle, and W. Keith Bryant, People of Rural America (Washington: Bureau of the Census, 1968f: p. 225. 41 10. Keep counseling in the background 11. Contract out; don't try to do it all yourself 12. Advance the worker as soon as feasible60 ETHNIC DIFFERENCES This part of the review focuses on studies of ethnic and cultural considerations which appear to have implications for develOping occupational education programs for the disadvantaged. Hall reported that little is known about skill devel- Opment as a function of ethnic affiliation. He speculated that this possibly may be due to a reluctance to examine ethnic differences, or even to admit that they exist. He recognizes a need for research that is directed toward find- ing out in very simple terms what it is that people do well, and then trying to find some way to use these skills to better advantage.61 In a study involving both Negroes and whites, Mathews found that races differed in occupational selections. He reported: 6oSidney A. Fine, Guidelinesfor Employment of the Culturally‘Disadvantaged (Kalamazoo: The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, June, 1969), p. 28. 61Edward T. Hall, "The Manpower Potential of Our Ethnic Groups" (paper read at the Seminar on Manpower Policy and Programs, January 12, 1967, Washington D.C.). 42 There are significant differences between reasons guiding white and Negro students into occupations. The Negro sample gave more reasons of altruism and fewer reasons of reward than did the white sample.62 Rural Manpower studies reveal that Mexican-American migrants regard the education of their children as their most important need. Education of adult Mexican-Americans was found to have positive values.63 The language barrier and lack of employment mobility were considered as deterrents to being integrated into the labor stream.64 After living and working among Mexican-American migrants, Ruel concluded that it is impossible to work in a helping role with another culture unless the professional person has an understanding and a deep respect for that culture. This does not mean mere tolerance of those who are different. It does not mean artificial respect. It means genuine reSpect.65 62Robert G. Mathews and Lawerence W. Drabick, Reasons for Selection of Expected Occupations: by Race and gex, Educational Research Series No. 7 (Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Departments of Agricultural Education and Rural Sociology, 1965), p. 14. 63Nancy Saldana, Mexican-Americans in the Midwest: An Annotated Bibliography, Special Paper No. 10 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, July, 1969): P. 21. 54Ibid., p. 15. 65Myrtle R. Reul, Socio-Cultural Patterns Among Michigan Migrant Farm WOrkers, Special paper No. 2 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, July, 1967), p. 2. 43 Ruel emphasized the need for understanding the Spanish-speaking migrant worker in Michigan when she said: In order to work with the culture of Spanish- Speaking migrant workers in Michigan it is necessary to understand the concept of "La Raza." Literally translated this means "the race," but it carries the broader meaning of a peOple united by common values and customs. While there are many regional and local, as well as individual differences, the Spanish-speaking person's main concept of self is determined by his identification with "La Raza."55 Ruel listed several ways in which Mexican-American culture may differ from other ethnic groups: the role of the family members, folklore, divorce and common-law marriages, sexual freedom, and modesty.67 Perhaps these differences would also affect the willingness of the Mexican-Americans to participate in educational programs. Choldin and Trout examined the urbanization process of Mexican-Americans in Michigan. Their study was conducted by the use of a sample survey of the state of Michigan excluding the Detroit area. They reported that the migration of Mexican- Americans into the cities of the Midwest is a rather recent phenomenon. Most of the Mexican-Americans in their study came to Michigan from Texas and represented several decades 551bid., p. 3. 67Ibid., pp. 4-9. 44 of migration from the Southwest. They described the overall social process through which these migrants are passing as a process of urbanization. They are leaving one way of life, usually migratory agricultural work, and entering and learn- ing another, urban industrial work.68 Choldin and Trout reported the following findings: 1. The greater the education the smaller the size of household. 2. Low income families with incomes of less than $5000 per year have a higher prOportion of small households. 3. The median level of education was six years and one-fourth of the household heads were immigrants. 4. The mean number of years in the migrant stream is negatively related to increase in occupa- tional status and education. 5. Occupational mobility is inversely related to years in the migratory stream. 6. Dissatisfaction with present employment does not seem widesPread among Mexican-Americans, but a desire and willingness to upgrade employ- ment exists.59 Choldin and Trout concluded with the following recommendations for education and research for Mexican— Americans: 68Harvey M. Choldin and Grafton D. Trout, Mexican- Americans in Transition: Migration and Employment in Michigan Cities (East Lansing: Michigan State University, RuraI Manpower Center, 1969), p. l. 59Ibid., pp. 13-27. 45 l. Job-training programs involving Mexican-Americans, particularly those having a high prOportion of new settlers, should, where feasible, work with them in separate ethnically homogeneous groups and employ as instructors persons of Mexican- American background who are bilingual. 2. Programs which require active participation and commitment from Mexican-Americans should be, whenever feasible, composed exclusively by this group and involve them in positions of authority within it. 3. Future research should be directed at gaining information on unsuccessful and trapped potential settlers from the migratory farm labor stream and that such research should proceed at both ends of the Texas-Michigan migration channel.7o SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES Quiton studied socio-economic factors and their re- lation to the morale of economically disadvantaged adults.71 He found that an individual with low morale is not likely to participate in educational programs to improve his occupa- tional status. According to Quiton, the low-morale person looks at the future with pessimism, seeing it with no promise for himself or for his family. Quiton also observed that economic deprivation among the rural adults is associated with three forms of 7°Ibid., pp. 32-33. 71Vicente Abobo Quiton, "Socio-economic Factors Related to the Morale of Adults in an Economically Disadvan- taged Rural Area" (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Illinois, 1970), p. 2. 46 deprivation, namely: educational deprivation, social depri- vation, and psychological deprivation.72 Quiton also attempted to evaluate the effects of a family centered, vocationally oriented, educational program on the morale and general adjustment of rural adults. The analysis of covariance resulted in F ratios which were not statistically significant at the .05 level. These results indicated that the morale and general adjustment of rural adults were not significantly affected by a family centered, vocationally oriented educational program.73 Fine used the term culturally disadvantaged while referring to the men and women over age 16 that live outside the mainstream of American life in urban ghettos and in isolated rural areas. According to Fine, this group includes both minority members (Negroes, Mexican-Americans, Indians), and many whites. They are functionally illiterate. Their reading ability rarely is above sixth grade. If they are hired as workers, they must frequently be provided with basic education by their employers. They are peOple who have not eXperienced our mainstream culture in terms of buying and maintaining decent housing, eating balanced meals, wearing good clothes, and indulging in recreational pursuits.74 721bid., p. 44. 73Ibid., p. 46. 74Fine, Guidelines for . . ., p. 1. 47 Van Tassel reports guidelines develOped at a seminar in Kentucky for professionals working with persons with special needs. The guidelines state that to ascertain needs, program develOpers must fully understand the cultural, social, and personality system of persons with special needs. Van Tassel also reported that understanding must be achieved in the physical, psychological, and social aspects, or the needs of the disadvantaged will remain hidden. It was held that traditional vocational education programs have not met the needs of disadvantaged youth and adults, since many of them have experienced failure in the system.75 Sewell and Orenstein found that occupational choices of high school seniors varied according to the pOpulation of the communities in which they resided. Rural students are likely to choose occupations which rank below those occupa- tions chosen by students from small and medium-size cities. In turn, students from medium-size cities are less likely to choose professional and managerial positions than those from large cities.76 75Carol Van Tassel, "Guidelines for Professionals Working with Persons with Special Needs" (guidelines devel- Oped from the Seminar for Supervisors and Teacher Educators of Teachers of Persons with Special Needs, June 12-23, 1967, Lexington, Kentucky). 76William H. Sewell and Alan M. Orenstein, "Community of Residence and Occupational Choice," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 1 (March, 1965). p. 555. 48 A San Antonio project, reported by Beck and others, was designed to rehabilitate disabled Anglo and Latin- American welfare recipients.77 They found that successful occupational rehabilitation depended upon previous steady employment, extensive vocational training, and adequate intellectual functioning. The researchers also found that Latin-American ethnic characteristics were not associated with the develOpment of vocational rehabilitation. They further recommended intense case work on a one-to-one basis is needed, as the average client has multi- ple vocational handicaps and liabilities, and the average family has complex problems and inhibitions.78 Lipset and Bendix contend that an individual from a working-class family will typically receive little education or vocational counseling; while he attends school his job plans for the future will be vague, and when he leaves school he is likely to take the first available job he can find. Thus, they maintain that poverty, lack of education, absence of personal contact, lack of planning, and failure to explore fully the available job Opportunities that characterize the working class family are handed down from generation to 77Robert B. Beck and others, The San Antonio Rehabilitation-Welfare Report on Research and Demonstration Project Rd 1513 (Capitol Station: Texas Education Agency, VOcational Rehabilitation Division, February, 1967), p. 79. 781bid. 49 generation. They further contend that the same cumulation of factors, which in the working class creates a series of mounting disadvantages, works to the advantage of a child' coming from a well-to-do-family. The social status of parents and the educatiOn of their children is, therefore, closely related both to the nature of the latter's first jobs and to the pattern of their later careers.79 S UMMARY Most of the research studies dealing with the rural poor have been centered around the identification of the rural disadvantaged, and the description of their problems. The review of literature reveals that many studies have been made to confirm the existence of the rural poor, and to emphasize the nature and extent of rural poverty. Several studies have been focused on participation, and on barriers to participation of the rural disadvantaged. Findings of these studies generally reveal that partici- pation of the poor is low in the labor force, in educational programs, and in society in general. Barriers to partici- pation are inadequate self-concepts, lack of training, poor work attitudes, low levels of motivation, lack of infor- mation, apathy, inadequate job skills, and limitations of 79Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Mobility in Industrial Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959), pp. 197-198. 50 the rural setting. Findings indicate that expectations and aspirations tend to merge as the rural poor grow older. Findings also reveal that perceptions of the rural poor need to be changed from a sub-cultural orientation to a national orientation before specific vocational programs are offered. Several studies have also centered on retraining, and education of the rural poor. Findings indicate that retraining is associated with work attitudes toward present jobs, and education is needed for upward mobility. Basic and remedial education is also needed. Other findings reveal that economic deprivation is associated with poor education, and with social and psychological deprivation. It is further brought out that the socio-economic structure of the rural poor tends to perpetuate itself, and thus the rural disadvantaged are unable to rise above their circumstances. Little has been done to determine what the rural disadvantaged are willing to do to participate in educational programs. This study appears to be unique in that it deals with the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs, and attempts to identify conditions which may act as barriers to attending classes which would help them get a job or a better job. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The steps which were taken to conduct this study are described in this chapter. The sections of this discussion include: (1) selecting the sample, (2) possible barriers to participation in educational programs, (3) personal and family information, (4) hypotheses tested, (5) development of the instrument, (6) selecting and training interviewers, (7) analysis of data, and (8) assumptions. Selecting the Sample In selecting the pOpulation for the study, a search was made for an area which would meet the criteria desired in the sample. The sample was randomly stratified according to the criteria of sex, head of household, age, income, welfare status, ethnic group, and residence. Four sampling criteria required that the pOpulation would include male heads of household 45 years of age or under who classify as disadvantaged under poverty guidelines established by the Office of Economic Opportunity (appendix, Table 71). These poverty guidelines are based on income, adjusted to family size and place of residence. 51 52 Age 45 seemed to be a good cut-off point when sampling, since the problems of persons older than 45 are considerably different from those under that age. Slocum contended that it might be advisable to limit the study of aspirations for economic progress to families in which the head of the family was under 45 years of age. He suggested this cut-off because he believed that it did not seem realistic to anticipate any substantial success with occupational retraining of older persons.1 Another criterion required that half of the persons involved in the study be Anglo, and half be Mexican-American. Still another criterion required that half of each of these two groups would be receiving welfare, and half would not be receiving welfare. It was also required that the respondents would not be in the migrant stream, but would have spent the last winter in Michigan. The area studied was the four-county Eight-CAP area, the Office of which is located at St. Louis, Michigan.2 This area includes the counties of Gratiot, Ionia, Isabella, and Montcalm. The geographical location of the study is shown in Figure 1. Names of peOple to be interviewed were 1Walter L. Slocum, Aspirations and Expectations of the Rural Poor, United States Department of Agriculture (Washifigton: U.S. Government Printing Office, October, 1967), p. 26. 2Eight-CAP refers to the eighth Community Action Program to be formed in Michigan's rural areas. 53 . Isabella County Montcalm County I l l Gratiot County , E123 . Ionia County :5 u N H O Figure 1. Geographical Location of the Study 54 taken from the rolls of the Eight-CAP office. PeOple classified as rural disadvantaged are normally referred to as those living on a farm, in Open-country, or in towns of 2500 or less, and within the Office of Economic Opportunity poverty guidelines. However, for the purposes of this study, the only community excluded from the sampling of this study was Mt. Pleasant with a pOpulation of about 15,000. This meant that a few of those sampled live in towns of approximately 8,000 pOpulation. With the help of the Eight-CAP personnel, a total of 1110 Anglo heads of household, and 180 Mexican-American heads of household were identified. After eliminating all but the male heads of household 45 years of age and under, a list of 157 Anglo heads of household, and 98 Mexican- American heads of household remained. The next step was to find out how many of these persons were receiving welfare, and how many were not receiving welfare. This process revealed that 120 Anglo heads of family were receiving welfare and 37 were not. It also revealed that 67 Mexican- American heads of family were receiving welfare and 31 were not. From these four groups of peOple, a sample was drawn for the actual interviewing. The actual sample was drawn by using a table of random numbers.3 It had been previously decided that an 3W. James P0pham, EducationallStatistics: Use and Interpretation (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), p. 381. 55 attempt would be made to interview at least 30 peOple in each ethnic and welfare group. The number 30 was selected as being statistically sound for the purposes of the study. In the event that the respondent had moved, or could not be interviewed, the interviewers were to select the next random person above 30. Pr0portional numbers were drawn from each county depending upon the total number of qualified respondents in the county. The numbers of Anglos meeting the pOpulation sample requirements in each county were nearly equal. However, nearly all of the Mexican-American sample was drawn from Gratiot County. Mexican-Americans on the Eight-CAP rolls have been identified by Mexican-American coordinators. _Since Gratiot County is the only county of the four-county Eight-CAP area with Mexican-American coordinators, it is the only county of this area in which the Mexican-American pOpulation has been identified. The number of people actually interviewed is summarized below: Mexican-Americans off welfare . . . 28 Mexican-Americans on welfare . . . 29 Anglos off welfare . . . . . . . . 32 Anglos on welfare . . . . . . . . . 36 Total peOple interviewed . . . . . 125 Possible Barriers to Participation in Educational Proggams An attempt was made to identify barriers which might prevent the rural disadvantaged from participating in 56 educational classes. Occupational considerations related to possible future employment might serve as a barrier to such participation. More eXplicitly, the rural disadvantaged may look beyond the training class to visualize working conditions which they do not like, and therefore, may be unwilling to participate in training classes which would prepare them for a job. These occupational considerations include factors such as training for a job in which they would work outdoors or indoors, work seasonally or yearlong, work in a small town or large city, travel to work, or work in the local community. Such considerations pondered upon by the disadvantaged prior to taking classes, may encourage or discourage their enrollment in educational programs. Personal, educational, and social considerations represent another barrier which may hinder participation in educational classes. Such considerations may include inadequate language and mathematical skills, inability to purchase food and clothing wisely, inability to manage money properly, and lack of knowledge concerning community affairs. It is important to determine the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in training classes which concern these personal, educational, and social considera- tions if they are going to be helped to acquire jobs or better jobs. Self-perceptions of the rural disadvantaged may be a 11 57 barrier that affects their willingness to participate in educational training classes. Perceptions toward taking classes which would help them get a job on a farm, in a factory, or help them Operate their own business may affect their willingness to participate in educational programs in these areas. How the rural disadvantaged perceive their own leadership ability and self-confidence may also affect their willingness to participate in educational programs. Environmental considerations of the training class make up another barrier which may affect the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational classes. These environmental considerations of the class include the method of travel to get to class, the length of the class, the location of the class, the time of day the class is held, the day of the week which the class is held, and the teacher's ethnic group. Persons may be unwilling or unable to attend classes because of these environmental considerations. For the purposes of this study, these four possible barriers to participation in educational programs will be referred to as: occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; self-perceptions; and environmental considerations of the training class. Personal and Family Information Selected considerations peculiar to the reSpondents, their homes, and their communities may influence the 58 willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational classes. These considerations include: 1. Age of the head of household 2. Residence of the head of household 3. Miles to the nearest high school 4 . Miles to the nearest community college or university 5. Educational achievement 6. Number of children living at home 7. Income of the head of household 8. Time that the head of household has lived in Michigan 9. Size of town in which the family does most of its shOpping Hypotheses Tested A review of literature indicates that ethnic groups differ in social and cultural backgrounds, in labor force participation, and in the occupations in which they are employed. Many of the rural poor are receiving welfare, yet an examination of the literature reveals a paucity of research related to persons on welfare. Some findings indicate that factors such as age, education, and income affect interest in retraining programs. A search of the literature reveals that knowledge concerning the education of the rural poor is far from complete. Since there appears to be a need to determine relationships between educational participation of the rural poor and their welfare status, 59 their ethnic group and their personal and family situations, the following hypotheses were develOped and tested. 1. On the basis of occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; self—perceptions; and environmental consider- ations of the training classes; the perceived willingness of the Mexican-American ethnic group to participate in educational programs will be different from those in the Anglo ethnic group. 2. On the basis of occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; self-perceptions; and environmental consider- ations of the training classes; the perceived willingness of persons receiving welfare to participate in educational programs will be different from those not receiving welfare. 3. On the basis of occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; self-perceptions; and environmental consider- ations of the training classes; the perceived willingness to participate in educational programs will be different for different age classifications, residence, miles to nearest high school, miles to nearest community college or university, educational achievement, number of children, income, time lived in Michigan, and size of town in which shopping is done. Development of the Instrument The questionnaire was developed after a review of literature, and consultation with those who work with the disadvantaged and are familiar with their needs. The questionnaire was divided into three sections. The first section is designed to provide information about the respondents and their families. This section is also designed to provide information about the location of the family residence in respect to selected community service institutions. 60 Section two contains questions associated with potential barriers to participation in educational programs: occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; self-perceptions; and environmental considerations of the training class. The last section contained Open—ended questions which were designed to provide additional knowledge about the respondents. Questions on job eXpectations and job likes were asked. This section also included a job and migratory history of the rural disadvantaged who were interviewed for the study. Trial test of the instrument. After a preliminary OOpy of the questionnaire had been completed, it was field tested. The field testing was carried out by interviewing both Anglo and Mexican-Americans in the Eight-CAP area, using members of each ethnic group to do the interviewing of their own ethnic group. The questionnaire was not translated into Spanish, but the Mexican-American heads of household were interviewed by bilingual Mexican-American males. At the completion of the trial test, the results were tabulated and analyzed, and final changes were made in the instrument. Instrument reliability. The reliability of the instrument was determined by the use of Hoyt's analysis of variance, an internal consistency type of test which 61 determined the reliability of each sub-scale. Analysis of section two dealing with barriers to educational programs were made. With all sub-scales considered simultaneously, a reliability coefficient of .85 is obtained. The relia- bilities of the four sub-scales are as follows: 1. Questions relating to occupational considerations .55 2. Questions relating to personal, educational, and social considerations .86 3. Questions relating to self-perceptions .49 4. Questions relating to environmental consider— ations of the training classes .73 Instrument regponse scale. An instrument response scale was develOped for questions which dealt with willing- ness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. A reSponse scale of 1-2-3-4-5 was selected. One represents very willing, two represents somewhat willing, three represents do not know, four represents somewhat unwilling, and five represents very unwilling. The responses were placed on three inch by five inch cards which were used by the interviewer. Three different willingness response cards were designed to meet slight variations in question terminology. The three variations of the five measures of willingness follow: CARD ONE 1. I would be very willing 2. I would be somewhat willing 3. I don't know 4. I would be somewhat unwilling 5. I would be very unwilling 62 CARD TWO 1. They would be very willing 2. They would be somewhat willing 3. I don't know 4. They would be somewhat unwilling 5. They would be very unwilling CARD THREE 1. I think he would be very willing to hire me 2. I think he would be somewhat willing to hire me 3. I don't know 4. I think he would be somewhat unwilling to hire me 5. I think he would be very unwilling to hire me The responses to the questions on willingness to participate were obtained in the following manner. The interviewers asked the general question: If free training classes were to be held locally, and if they would help you get a job or a better paying job, would you be willing to attend training classes if they did the following? The interviewer then handed the respondent the apprOpriate three by five card, and asked him to select the measure of willingness which best eXpressed his feeling toward participation in each activity mentioned. Selectipgand Training Interviewers Interviewers were selected from the Eight+CAP area. Four Anglo, and two Mexican-Americans were selected to interview the pOpulation of the study. Each of the interviewers were assigned members of their own ethnic group to interview. A one-day training session was held at Montcalm Community College at Sidney, Michigan, to acquaint the 63 interviewers with the questionnaire, and give them instruction in interview procedures. Weekly conferences were held with the interviewers during the four week interview period, and assistance given whenever needed. Analysis of Data The Michigan State University, Educational Research Department, College of Education research specialists recommended the following plan of analysis and treatment of the data. The interviewers recorded the test responses on data processing score sheets. The score sheets were then machine scored. Data processing cards were punched directly from the score sheets. This method was selected for its speed in processing, and for the elimination of error in transferring data to code sheets, and then to data processing cards. Using the data processing cards, a print-out was made of the reSponses to each question. The responses of the Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups were divided, and within these ethnic groups, the reSponses of the on welfare and off welfare groups were also divided. These responses were analyzed, and the findings reported under the following headings: occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; self- perceptions; and environmental cOnsiderations of the training class. Each of these headings represented a possible barrier to participation of the informants in educational 64 training programs. The statistical approach selected for the tests of the hypotheses was multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The computer program for MANOVA develOped by Finn4 yields a multivariate F ratio, and an univariate F ratio. The multivariate F ratio indicates whether the four dependent variables--occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; self-perceptions; and environmental considerations of the training class--were simultaneously statistically significant at a given level of significance for each hypothesis examined. The MANOVA program also yielded a probability level for each F ratio. The .05 level of significance was selected for the multivariate test. In order to be significant, the probability for rejecting each dependent variable would need to be less than .0125, as there were four variables tested in the univariate test. In the analysis of the independent variables, Scheffe's5 post hoc comparison test was used to determine where the significance occurs when an overall difference is indicated. 4Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Jeremy D. Finn's Multivariance-Univariate and MulEivariate Analysis of Variance and Covariance: A FORTRAN IV Program, OccasionaI Paper No. 9 (East Lansing: Michigan State University, March, 1970). 5Roger E. Kirk, Experimental Design: Procedures for Ehe Behavioral Sciences (California: Brooks Cole Publishing Company, I968), p. 90491. 65 Assumptions 1. It is assumed that the instrument apprOpriately measured the willingness of the rural disadvan- taged to participate in educational programs. 2. It is assumed that the interviewers were suffi- ciently trained to secure reliable responses from the rural disadvantaged surveyed in this study. 3. It is assumed that the stratified random sample drawn from the files of the Office of Economic Opportunity contained a representative sample of the rural disadvantaged. These assumptions seem warrented for the following reasons. As reported previously, the questionnaire was developed after a thorough review of pertinent literature and consultation with those who work with the disadvantaged and are familiar with their needs. The instrument was tested for reliability of the responses. The writer participated in the trial test of the instrument, and accompanied both Mexican- American and Anglo interviewers during the trial test. Reactions of interviewers and interviewees were observed, and necessary revisions were made in the questionnaire and inter- view techniques. Interviewers were given special training in conducting interviews, and in administering the question- naire. It is believed that this procedure helped to secure reliable responses. The pOpulation to be interviewed was carefully selected, and special attention was given to assure randomization of the sample. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this study is to determine the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. In this chapter data are analyzed and presented in relation to the following specific objectives: 1. To determine if the Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups have a different degree of willing- ness toward participation in educational programs. To determine if welfare and non-welfare recipi- ents have a different degree of willingness to- ward participation in educational programs. To determine if the conditions of the job affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to par- ticipate in educational programs. To determine if the non-occupational consider- ations affect the willingness of rural disadvan- taged to participate in educational programs. To determine if self-perceptions affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to 66 67 participate in educational programs. To determine if the environmental considerations of the training classes affect the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. To determine if rural disadvantaged have differ- ent degrees of willingness toward participation in educational programs in relation to the variables of age, residence, miles to high school, miles to community college, educational achievement, number of children, income, size of shOpping center, and length of time out of the migrant labor stream. The analysis of data is based upon the responses of the rural disadvantaged pOpulation to a questionnaire. The analysis follows the methods and procedures described in Chapter III. In this chapter, findings are presented in respect to the following: 1. 2. Personal and family data. Responses to questions which reveal the various degrees of willingness of different ethnic and welfare groups to participate in educational programs. These responses are categorized into four groups: occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social considerations; 68 self-perceptions; and environmental consider- ations of the training class. 3. How age, residence, miles to high school, miles to community college, educational achievement, number of children, income, size of town where most shopping is done, and length of time out of the migrant labor stream affect the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. 4. Tests of hypotheses. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Personal and Familnyata As can be seen in Table 2, the respondents are relatively equally distributed among the different age groups. However, the Mexican-Americans have fewer in the age 27 and under group. The Mexican-Americans are somewhat older than the Anglos. Table 3 reveals the division of re5pondents by residence. About 40 percent of the Anglos live in town, and about 40 percent live in non-farm residences in Open country. Over 80 percent of the Mexican-Americans live in small towns. Mexican-Americans off welfare live in Open country, non-farm residences. Table 4 shows that all but seven of the Mexican- Americans live within five miles of a high school, but that 69 Table 2. Ages of Respondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status Ethnic group and welfare status Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Age on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Up to 27 N 11 13 5 5 % 30.6 40.6 17.2 17.9 28 to 36 N 15 8 10 ll % 41.7 25.0 34.5 39.3 37 to 45 N 10 ll 14 12 % 27.8 34.4 48.3 42.9 Table 3. Residences of Respondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status Ethnic group and welfare status Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Residence on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Small town N 16 12 23 25 % 44.4 37.5 79.3 89.3 Farm N 3 8 2 3 % 8.3 25.0 6.9 10.7 Open N 17 12 6 country % 47.2 37.5 13.8 non-farm 70 Table 4. Distance to Nearest High School of Ethnic and Welfare Groups Ethnic group and welfare status Miles to Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- high school on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare 0 to 5 N 16 10 24 26 % 44.4 31.3 82.3 92.9 6 to 10 N 11 ll 4 2 % 30.6 34.4 13.8 7.1 11 to 15 N 9 11 l % 25.0 34.4 3.4 Table 5. Distance to Nearest Community College of Ethnic and Welfare Groups Ethnic group and welfare status Miles to Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- community on off American American college welfare welfare on welfare off welfare 0 to 10 N 7 5 17 21 % 19.4 15.6 58.6 75.0 11 to 20 N 11 8 7 6 % 30.6 20.5 24.1 21.4 21 to 30 N 18 19 5 l % 50.0 59.4 17.2 3.6 71 Anglos are spread in nearly equal numbers in distances of 0 to 5, 6 to 10, and 11 to 15 miles from the nearest high school. Table 5 reveals that Anglos in the study are almost equally distributed in distances of 0 to 10, 11 to 20, and 21 to 30 miles from the nearest community college or university, but that 66 percent of the Mexican-Americans are located within ten miles of a community college or university. Inspection of Table 6 shows that three Anglos and nine Mexican-Americans have less than four years of education, and that 26 Anglos, and 26 Mexican-Americans have from five to eight years of education. Thirty-nine Anglos and 22 Mexican-Americans have nine to fourteen years of education. As can be seen in Table 7, the Anglos tend to have more children than the Mexican-Americans. The average number of children in the Mexican-American households is 3.72, and the average number of children in Anglo households is 4.38.“ It is also observed that the number of adults who depend upon the head of household for support is 1.26 for the Mexican-Americans, and 1.10 for Anglos. Table 8 reveals that the Anglos and Mexican-Americans off welfare are distributed about equally among three income categories. In the welfare group, it is observed that nearly 64 percent of the Anglos earn less than $3100, and 72 Table 6. Educational Achievement of Respondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status Ethnic group and welfare status Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Education on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare 0 to 4 N 2 1 6 3 years % 5.6 3.1 20.7 10.7 5 to 8 N 17 9 12 14 years % 47.2 28.1 41.4 50.0 9 to 14 N 17 22 ll 11 years % 47.2 68.8 37.9 39.3 Table 7. Number of Children of Respondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status Ethnic group and welfare status Number of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- children on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare 0 to 2 N 12 10 12 8 % 33.3 31.3 41.4 28.6 3 to 5 N 15 15 12 13 % 41.7 46.9 41.4 46.4 6 and over N 9 7 5 7 % 25.0 21.9 17.2 25.0 73 25 percent earn $3100 to $5000. Over 96 percent of the Mexican—Americans on welfare are in these low and middle income categories. Over 31 percent of both Anglos and Mexican-Americans off welfare earn $5001 to $6800. This compares to 11.1 percent of Anglos on welfare, and 3.4 percent of Mexican-Americans on welfare earning $5001 to $6800. Table 8. Income of Respondents Grouped According to Ethnic and Welfare Status Ethnic group and welfare status Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Income on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare 0 to $3100 N 23 12 14 10 % 63.9 37.5 48.3 35.7 $3101 to N 9 10 14 9 $5000 % 25.0 31.3 48.3 32.1 $5001 to N 4 10 1 9 $6800 % 11.1 31.3 3.4 32.1 Mexican-American and Anglo disadvantaged indicated that they would need to earn similar amounts of money in order to take training classes for a job or a better job. They would require the following annual incomes: Mexican- Americans on welfare, $8913; Mexican-Americans off welfare, $9208; Anglos on welfare, $8424; and Anglos off welfare,$9056. 74 Table 9 reveals the size of town in which the rural disadvantaged do most of their shOpping. It is noted that 38 percent of the Anglos and 10 percent of the Mexican- Americans shOp in towns of 2500 and under in pOpulation. Twenty-three percent of the Anglos, and 60 percent of the Mexican-Americans indicated that they sh0p in towns of 2501 to 5000 population. Only three percent of the Anglos, and 21 percent of the Mexican—Americans shOp in towns of over 10,000 in pOpulation. Table 10 indicates that all but two of the Anglos have lived in Michigan for three years or more. Five Mexican-Americans have lived in Michigan for less than one year, and four have lived in Michigan for one to two years. Over 80 percent of the Mexican-Americans have lived in Michigan for three or more years. It was found that 13 Mexican-American heads of household were born in Michigan, 41 in Texas, and one in Mexico. Of the Anglos, 56 were born in Michigan; two in Texas, Illinois, and North Dakota; and one each in Indiana, Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona. The Mexican-American heads of household stated that 35 of their spouses were born in Texas, 14 in Michigan, and two in Mexico. Anglo heads of household said that 46 of their Spouses were born in Michigan, six in Texas and Ohio, five in Illinois, and one each in Tennessee, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Canada. 75 Table 9. Size of Town in Which Ethnic and Welfare Groups Do Most of Their Shopping Ethnic group and welfare status Size of town Anglo Anglo Mexican— Mexican- for Shopping on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Up to 2500 N 12 14 3 3 % 33.3 43.8 10.3 10.7 2501 to N 9 7 19 15 5000 % 25.0 21.9 65.5 53.6 Over 5000 N 8 9 2 3 % 22.2 28.1 6.9 10.7 Over 10,000 N 7 2 5 7 % 19.4 6.3 17.2 25.0 Table 10. Length of Time Ethnic and Welfare Groups Have Lived Continuously in Michigan Ethnic group and Welfare Status Time lived Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- in Michigan on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare 6 months to N l 4 l 1 year % 3.1 13.8 3.6 1 to 2 N l 2 2 years % 3.1 6.9 7.1 over 3 N 36 30 23 25 years % 100.0 93.8 79.3 89.3 ¥ 76 It was found that 28 Mexican-American heads of household grew up in Texas, 11 in Michigan, two in West Virginia, and one in Mexico. Fifty-six Anglo heads of household grew up in Michigan, four in Texas, three in Illinois, and one each in Nebraska, Virginia, North Dakota, and Colorado. Twelve Mexican-Americans have no previous work experience. Twenty-five Mexican-Americans have previous work experience in a factory. Four Mexican-Americans worked as laborers, three in farming, and one each in ShOp work, painting, picking up trash, driving a truck, as janitor, electrician, barber, migrant, beautician, press Operator, on road work, in an office, and in community affairs. Anglos indicated that they have previous work eXperience in the following jobs: farming, 16; mechanic, 10; factory, 8; odd jobs, 7; laborer, 6; construction worker, 6; welding, 5; station attendant, 5; truck driver, 4; press Operator, 4; sales, 3; restaurant worker, 3; electrician, 2; agriculture industry worker, 2; butcher, 2; and one each as bar tender, plumber, wood finisher, grocery clerk, carpenter, farm equipment dealer, tile ditcher, and tree trimmer. Five Anglos have no previous work experience. Mexican-Americans indicated their first full-time jobs were as follows: laborer, 17; factory worker, 10; farming, 3; ShOp work, 2; lumber yard, 2; and one each as 77 law office worker, truck driver, cook, parking lot attendant, construction worker, sales, poultry market, insurance, work for the city, mechanic, and beautician. Four stated they have never had a full-time job. Anglos listed the following as their first full-time jobs: farming, l4; factory, 7; paper route, 5; laborer, 3; mechanic, 2; grocery store, 2; station attendant, 2; dish washer, 2; and one each as lumber yard worker, welder, cab driver, wood working, cook, bar tender, unloading boxcars, car wash, tile ditching, and furniture mover. Fifteen Anglo heads of household indicated that they have never held a full-time job. Michigan was given as the state in which 33 Mexican- American heads of household held their first full-time job. Thirteen held their first full-time job in Texas, and two in Wisconsin. Forty-nine Anglo heads of household held their first full-time job in Michigan, three in Texas, two in Indiana, and one each in Illinois, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Colorado. Mexican-Americans indicated their job five years ago was: laborer, 22; factory worker, 13; army, 4; and student, 2. Other jobs given were: welder, fork-lift driver, landscaping, barber, office work, community assistant, farming, and station attendant. The place of the job held by Mexican- Americans five years ago was Michigan, 45; Texas, 2; and army, 4. 78 Anglos indicated their jobs five years ago were: farming, ll; factory, 6; station attendant, 4; sales, 4; welder, 3; odd jobs, 3; laborer, 2; truck driver, 2; clerk, 2; construction, 2; and one each as butcher, bus boy, mechanic, machine Operator, wood working, tool and die maker, equipment set-up, and army. The place of the job held by Anglos five years ago was Michigan, 48; Illinois, 2; and Texas, 1. Mexican-Americans gave their jobs ten years ago as: laborer, 20; school, 4; factory, 4; truck driver, cook, construction, and farming. The remainder did not have jobs, or were not old enough to be in the labor market ten years ago. The location of the job ten years ago was given as: Michigan, 30; Texas, 2; and one each in Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska. Anglos gave their jobs ten years ago as: farming, 10; factory, 7; sales, 3; and one each for army, poultry processing, wood working, help in tree nursery, station attendant, butcher, cab driver, cook, and part time work. The locations of their jobs ten years ago were: Michigan, 24; Texas, 6; and army, 2. The remainder did not have jobs, or were not old enough to be in the labor market ten years ago. The following are the present jobs held by the Mexican-Americans: factory, 17; farming, 3; and power company, 2. Other jobs given are as follows: yard work, cleaning offices, iron and metal company, laborer, barber, 79 maintenance, college, office, and disabled. Twenty-four said that they did not have a job at present. Anglos indicated that their present jobs are: farming, 7; laborer, 5; factory, 4; sales, 3; truck driver, 2; construction worker, 2; mechanic, 2; and one each as a press Operator, electrician, butcher, lumber yard worker, clerk, and cook. Two were disabled, and 30 said they did not have a job at present. The kind of job the rural disadvantaged expect to have in the future is highly varied. Anglos gave the following jobs as their expected job in the future: mechanic, 7; own business, 5; factory, 5; farming, 4; construction, 4; army, 4; laborer, 3; salesman, 3; grocery store, 2; gas station attendant, 2; welding, 2; tool and die maker, 2; and one each as minister, contractor, electrician, truck driver, lumber yard worker, male nurse, veterinarian, cabinet maker, machine Operator, painter, bar tender, office worker, doctor, cook, repair ShOp, and restaurant. Three persons did not know what job they expected to have in the future. Mexican-Americans gave the following as jobs they expected to have in the future: working in a factory, 20; office work, 4; Operate own business, 2; farm, 2; laborer, 2; body ShOp, 2; and one each as power plant worker, community affairs worker, machinist, gas company, barber, policeman, work in school or college, job out of a factory, working with 80 peOple, and maintenance. Other responses not related to a specific job were: better job than I have now, 5; good job, 4; good paying job, 2; any job I can get; and none. It appears that the Anglos have more Specific jobs in mind when thinking of jobs which they would like in the future. The Mexican-Americans appear to desire a job, and appear willing to accept jobs if offered. The response to what job the rural disadvantaged would expect in the future reveals little change from jobs they would like to have in the future. The following are the jobs that the Mexican-Americans would like to have: factory job, 15; job out of a factory; work in school or college; body ShOp; farm; own business; policeman; painter; carpenter; directing community affairs; laborer; barber; and maintenance. Other reSponses are a good job, 19; anything; and yearlong good job. Anglos would like to have the following jobs: farming, 10; mechanic, 8; own restaurant, 5; own grocery business, 4; welder, 4; construction, 4; sales, 3; truck driver, 3; carpenter, 3; machinist, 2; foreman, 2; veterinary, 2; and one each as factory, heavy equipment, bar business, tool and die maker, male nurse, telephone company, teacher, minister, own a gas station, own garage, doctor, painter, and laborer. Again the Anglos are more Specific in the type of job they would like to have in the future. The Mexican- Americans tend to desire factory work more than Anglos, and 81 although not as Specific as Anglos, they appear to desire good jobs and yearlong jobs. Eighty-seven percent of the Mexican-Americans, and 71 percent of the Anglos have not taken classes for job improvement. Training classes that have been taken by the Mexican-Americans are: business administration, 3; barber; and bookkeeping. Classes taken by Anglos include: mechanic, 3; welding, 2; cabinet making; machine Operator; tool and die maker; basic education; production supervision; and restaurant management. Nine Anglos stated that they have taken On the Job Training Programs. Summagy. Findings reveal that Mexican-American respondents were somewhat older than the Anglos, and tended to live in small towns. Anglos tended to live on farms or in Open country, non-farm areas. Anglo heads of household tended to have larger families than Mexican-Americans. Mexican-American families had more adults that depended upon the heads of household for support. More Anglos were found in the lower income groups than Mexican-Americans. More Mexican-Americans tended to ShOp in larger towns than Anglos. Anglos were found to have lived in Michigan for longer periods of time than Mexican-Americans. Most of the Mexican-Americans were born in Texas, but most of the Anglos were born in Michigan. The jobs Mexican-Americans would like to have, and 82 the jobs they expect to have tended to be the same. Anglos revealed job aSpirationS and expectations similar to the Mexican-Americans, except the Anglos were more specific in kind of jobs they would like and would expect. The Mexican- Americans appear to have a lower perception of job Opportunities than Anglos. A study of the job histories of the respondents revealed that both Anglo and Mexican-Americans have made little occupational advancement since obtaining their first jobs. Nearly half of Anglo and Mexican-American respondents are presently unemployed. Most of the Mexican-Americans and Anglos have not taken classes for job improvement. Occupational Considerations and Educational Participation According to Table 11, both Mexican-American and Anglo ethnic groups are very willing to be trained for a job in which they work by themselves most of the time. There appears to be no difference between those on and off welfare in their willingness to participate in educational programs. Table 12 reveals that nearly 80 percent of all ethnic and welfare groups are willing to train for a job in which they would be doing manual labor most of the time. Table 13 reveals over 44 percent of the Anglos are very unwilling to be trained for a job in which they would be away from home one night per week as compared to about 83 Table 11. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Work by Themselves Most of the Time Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 22 23 22 21 willing % 61.1 71.9 75.9 75.0 Somewhat N 12 6 5 4 willing % 33.3 18.8 17.2 14.3 Don't N l l 1 know % 2.8 3.4 3.6 Somewhat N l 2 l unwilling % 2.8 6.3 3.4 Very N l 2 unwilling % 3.1 7.1 Mean 1.47 1.5 1.34 1.5 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 84 Table 12. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Doing Manual Labor Most of the Time Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican— Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare Off welfare Very N 22 21 14 15 willing % 61.1 65.6 48.3 53.6 Somewhat N 6 6 9 5 willing % 16.7 18.8 31.0 17.9 Don't N 3 3 6 know 8 8.3 10.3 21.4 Somewhat N 2 2 l unwilling % 5.6 6.3 3.4 Very N 3 3 2 2 unwilling % 8.3 9.4 6.9 7.1 Mean 1.89 1.75 1.90 1.89 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 85 Table 13. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Away from Home One Night a Week Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican— willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 8 l4 9 11 willing % 22.2 43.8 31.0 39.3 Somewhat N 3 10 10 willing % 8.3 34.5 35.7 Don't N 3 1 5 4 know % 8.3 3.1 17.2 14.3 Somewhat N 6 l 3 l unwilling % 16.7 3.1 10.3 3.6 very N 16 16 2 2 unwilling % 44.4 50.0 6.9 7.1 Mean 3.53 3.16 2.28 2.04 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 86 seven percent of the Mexican-Americans. The mean score of Anglos on and off welfare is 3.53 and 3.16 respectively compared to 2.28 and 2.04 for the Mexican-American ethnic groups. The Mexican-Americans appear to be more willing than the Anglos to participate in training for jobs which would require them to be away from home one night per week. A closer inspection of Table 13 shows that little variation exists between those on and off welfare in regard to their willingness to participate in educational programs. As indicated in Table 14, over 68 percent of the Anglos and Mexican-Americans are willing to be trained for a job in which they travel during the day, but are home at night. A further examination of Table 14 shows that over 25 percent of the Anglos and seven percent of the Mexican- Americans are not willing to travel during the day. Table 15 reveals that Mexican-Americans appear to be more willing to be trained for a job which would keep them away from home a week or more at a time. Their mean scores are 3.07 and 3.00 as compared with 4.42 and 4.10 for the Anglos. It is observed that 72.2 percent of the Anglos on welfare and 68.8 percent of those off welfare are very unwilling to be away from home a week or more at a time. The data on Mexican-Americans indicates that only 24.1 percent of those on welfare and 26.6 percent of those off welfare are very unwilling to be away from home a week or more at a time in order to obtain employment. Observation of Table 15 also 87 Table 14. Willingness of Different Welfare and Ethnic Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Traveling in Their Community During the Day but Home at Night Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 18 20 12 12 willing % 50.0 62.5 41.4 42.9 Somewhat N 8 2 10 8 willing % 22.2 6.3 34.5 28.6 Don't N 1 1 6 5 know % 2.8 3.1 20.7 17.9 Somewhat N 8 3 1 unwilling % 22.2 9.4 3.6 Very N l 6 l 2 unwilling % 2.8 18.8 3.4 7.1 Mean 2.06 2.16 1.90 . 2.04 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling Table 15. 88 Willingness of Different Welfare and Ethnic Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Away from Home a Week or More at a Time Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 2 6 l 4 willing % 5.6 18.8 3.4 14.3 Somewhat N 3 1 ll 9 willing % 8.3 3.1 37.9 32.1 Don't N 2 l 9 6 know % 5.6 3.1 31.0 21.4 Somewhat N 3 2 l l unwilling % 8.3 6.3 3.4 3.6 Very N 26 22 7 8 unwilling % 72.2 68.8 24.1 26.6 Mean 4.42 4.10 3.07 3.00 Mean based willing, and five representing very unwilling on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very 89 reveals little variation in the mean scores of those on and off welfare. Table 16 provides insights into the problems of training the disadvantaged for indoor jobs. Although the mean scores reveal that both Anglo and Mexican-Americans are willing to work indoors, 26 percent of Anglos off welfare are not willing to work indoors. The largest variation in mean scores between welfare and non-welfare, 1.56 and 2.09, existed in the Anglo group. Table 17 reveals that over 71 percent of those off welfare, and over 82 percent of those on welfare are willing to train for outdoor jobs. However, it is noted that 17 percent of the Mexican-Americans did not know if they wanted to be trained for a job outdoors. According to Table 18, over 30 percent of the Anglos on welfare, and 56 percent of those off welfare are unwilling to accept seasonal jobs compared with only 3.4 percent of Mexican-Americans on welfare, and 10.7 percent off welfare. Further inspection of Table 18 indicates that more Mexican- Americans are undecided about being trained for a seasonal job than are Anglos. It is also noted that little difference exists between mean scores of Mexican-Americans on and off welfare, but that Anglos on and off welfare have mean scores of 2.33 and 3.37 respectively. Anglos on welfare tend to be more willing to be trained for a seasonal job. 90 Table 16. Willingness of Different Welfare and Ethnic Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Working Inside in a Heated Building and Not Outside in the Weather Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 25 19 14 16 willing % 69.4 59.4 48.3 57.1 Somewhat N 7 4 6 7 willing % 19.4 12.5 20.7 25.0 Don't N l 7 2 know % 3.1 24.1 7.1 Somewhat N 3 3 2 3 unwilling % 8.3 9.4 6.9 10.7 Very N 1 5 unwilling % 2.8 15.6 Mean 1.56 2.09 1.83 1.72 Mean based on scale of 1-2—3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 91 Table 17. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Worked Outside Nearly All the Time When the Weather Was Good Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican— Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 27 20 14 13 willing % 75.0 62.5 48.3 46.4 Somewhat N 3 3 10 7 willing % 8.3 9.4 34.5 25.0 Don't N l 4 6 know % 2.8 13.8 21.4 Somewhat N 5 4 l 2 unwilling % 5.6 12.5 3.4 7.1 very N 3 5 unwilling % 8.3 15.6 Mean 1.47 2.22 1.73 1.90 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5‘with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 92 Table 18. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Seasonal Job but Not a Migrant Job Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 15 9 16 ll willing % 41.7 28.1 55.2 39.3 Somewhat N 7 4 7 9 willing % 19.4 12.5 24.1 32.1 Don't N 3 l 5 5 know % 8.3 3.1 17.2 17.9 Somewhat N 7 4 l unwilling % 19.4 12.5 3.6 Very N 4 l4 1 2 unwilling % 11.1 43.8 3.4 7.1 Mean 2.33 3.37 1.72 2.02 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 93 Mexican-Americans appear somewhat hesitant to train for a yearlong job (Table 19). Over 93 percent of the Anglos would take training classes for a yearlong job, but only about 43 percent of the Mexican-Americans are willing to be trained for a yearlong job. It is observed that over 17 percent of the Mexican-Americans gave a "don't know" reSponse to the question of yearlong jobs compared with no Anglos giving a "don't know" response. The table shows that little variation exists between the mean scores of those on and off welfare. Anglos and Mexican-Americans are equally willing to move to a rural area or medium Size city (Tables 20 and 21), but Mexican-Americans are more willing to move to a large city like Detroit or Flint than Anglos (Table 22). As can be seen in Table 22, over 71 percent of the Anglos are unwilling to move to Detroit or Flint compared to 21 percent of the Mexican-Americans. The mean scores within each ethnic group for those on and off welfare Show little difference. By inspecting Table 23, it is revealed that Anglos and Mexican-Americans appear willing to be trained for a job in which they could be boss or work to the tOp. It is noted, however, that about 16 percent of the Anglos on welfare, and 10 percent of those off welfare are unwilling to be trained for jobs in which they could be boss. 94 Table 19. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Yearlong Job Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 35 30 13 12 willing % 97.2 93.8 44.8 42.9 Somewhat N l 9 8 willing % 2.8 31.0 28.6 Don't N 6 5 know % 20.7 17.9 Somewhat N 2 unwilling % 7.1 Very N 2 l 1 unwilling % 6.3 3.4 3.6 Mean 1.03 1.25 1.87 2.00 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 95 Table 20. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job Which Would Require Them to Move to a Small Town or Rural Area Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare very N 24 25 9 15 willing % 66.7 78.1 31.0 53.6 Somewhat N 5 l 7 7 willing % 13.9 3.1 24.1 25.0 Don't N 9 3 know % 6.3 31.0 10.7 Somewhat N l 3 2 unwilling % 3.1 10.3 7.1 Very N 7 3 l 1 unwilling % 19.4 9.4 3.4 3.6 Mean 1.92 1.62 2.31 1.75 Mean based on scale of 1-2—3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling Table 21. 96 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job Which Would Require Them to Move to a Medium Size City like Midland or Bay City Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 12 16 9 8 willing % 33.3 50.0 31.0 28.6 Somewhat N 8 9 12 9 willing % 22.2 28.1 41.4 32.1 Don't N 2 4 7 know % 5.6 13.8 25.0 Somewhat N 3 3 2 2 unwilling % 8.3 9.4 6.9 7.1 very N 11 4 2 2 unwilling % 30.6 12.5 6.9 7.1 Mean 2.81 2.07 2.18 2.00 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5‘with one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 97 Table 22. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job Which Would Require Them to Move to a Large City like Detroit or Flint Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 7 7 8 6 willing % 19.4 21.9 27.6 21.4 Somewhat N l 7 9 willing % 2.8 24.1 32.1 Don't N 2 2 8 7 know % 5.6 6.3 27.6 25.0 Somewhat N 7 4 l 2 unwilling % 19.4 12.5 3.4 7.1 Very N l9 l9 5 4 unwilling % 52.8 59.4 17.2 14.3 Mean 3.83 3.87 2.93 2.61 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 98 Table 23. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Could Be Boss or Work to the Top Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 23 25 13 13 willing % 63.9 78.1 44.8 46.4 Somewhat N 5 4 9 5 willing % 13.9 12.5 31.0 17.9 Don't N 2 6 9 know % 5.6 20.7 32.1 Somewhat N 3 1 l unwilling % 8.3 6.3 3.4 3.6 Very N 3 1 unwilling % 8.3 3.1 Mean 1.83 1.44 1.83 1.93 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 99 Table 24 reveals that about 31 percent of the Anglos are willing to train to be both a farmer and have a job in town. Over 62 percent of the Mexican-Americans are willing to train for a farm and town job. Mexican-Americans appear to be more willing to train for both the farm and non-farm jobs. The mean scores for each ethnic and welfare group were added to find the over-all mean scores for responses to occupational considerations. The responses include the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to: train for a job in which they work by themselves; do manual labor; be away from home one night per week for a job, or be away from home a week or more at a time; travel in their community, but be home at night; train for a job indoors or outdoors; train for a seasonal, or migrant, or yearlong job; train for a job in a rural area, medium Size city, or large city; train for a job to be boss, or work to the top; train for both a farm job and a job in the city. The total mean scores for occupational considerations are 33.81 for both Anglos on and off welfare, 29.39 for Mexican-Americans on welfare, and 29.21 for Mexican- Americans off welfare. Occupational considerations associ- ated with possible future employment appear to have less effect upon the willingness of the Mexican-Americans to attend training classes than upon the Anglos. Summagy. When associated with possible future 100 Table 24. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Be Trained for a Job in Which They Would Be Both a Farmer and Have a Job in Town Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 6 7 2 8 willing % 16.7 21.9 6.9 28.6 Somewhat N 3 3 16 10 willing % 8.3 9.4 55.2 35.7 Don't N 5 5 5 4 know % 13.9 15.6 17.2 14.3 Somewhat N 8 2 1 l unwilling % 22.2 6.3 3.4 3.6 Very N 14 15 5 5 unwilling % 38.9 46.9 17.2 17.9 Mean 3.58 3.47 2.69 2.47 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 101 employment, occupational considerations appear to have less effect upon the willingness of the Mexican-Americans to attend training classes than upon the Anglos. Anglos and Mexican-Americans are willing to train for jobs in which they would work by themselves or work indoors or outdoors. Mexican-Americans appear to be more willing to train for jobs in which they would be away from home one night a week, or a week or more at a time. Mexican-Americans also appear to be more willing to move to large cities to obtain jobs. There appears to be no difference between welfare and non- welfare groups in willingness to participate in training classes. Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations and Educational Participation Table 25 provides insight into the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in health classes. Both the Anglo and Mexican-Americans Show a high degree of willingness to participate in health classes. A difference of less than .5 separate the lowest and highest mean scores in willingness to participate. Upon inspection of Table 26, it is observed that the mean scores for Anglos on and off welfare are 2.14 and 2.35 compared with 1.90 and 2.11 for corresponding groups of the Mexican-Americans. The mean scores indicate that the Mexican-Americans appear somewhat more willing to participate 102 Table 25. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Teach Them to Help Keep Them and Their Family in Good Health Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican— Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 26 19 17 12 willing % 72.2 59.4 58.6 42.9 Somewhat N 9 ll 6 9 willing % 25.0 34.4 20.7 32.1 Don't N 2 5 5 know % 6.3 17.2 17.9 Somewhat N 1 l unwilling % 3.4 3.6 Very N 1 l unwilling % 2.8 3.6 Mean 1.36 1.47 1.66 1.93 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 103 Table 26. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Learn More about Community Organizations Which They Might Join Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican— willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 18 12 14 ll willing % 50.0 37.5 48.3 39.3 Somewhat N 7 10 6 9 willing % 19.4 31.3 20.7 32.1 Don't N 2 2 7 4 know % 5.6 6.3 24.1 14.3 Somewhat N 6 5 2 2 unwilling % 16.7 15.6 6.9 7.1 very N 3 3 2 unwilling % 8.3 9.4 7.1 Mean 2.14 2.35 1.90 V 2.11 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 104 in classes which would help them learn more about community organizations. Small differences exist in the mean scores of those on and off welfare. The data in Table 27 Show that respondents, generally speaking, are willing to take classes in which they would learn more about the way peOple live in their town. Only minor differences in mean scores exist between ethnic groups or between those on and off welfare. A difference of only .23 separates the highest and lowest mean scores among the four groups. According to Tables 28 and 29, all ethnic and welfare groups have a high level of willingness to participate in classes in which they would learn to Speak better English, and to read English faster. The mean Scores for the Anglos on and off welfare are 1.64 and 1.69 compared to 1.41 and 1.61 for the Mexican-Americans. Table 30 reveals that all ethnic and welfare groups appear to have a high desire to learn to write better English. An inspection of Table 31 reveals that over 88 percent of the Anglos and over 65 percent of the Mexican- Americans are willing to take classes in arithmetic or mathematics. More Mexican-Americans--over 24 percent of them compared to 8.3 percent of the Anglos--listed "don't know" as their response to the question. Mexican-Americans off welfare appear to be more willing to take classes in arithmetic than those on welfare. 105 Table 27. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which They Would Learn More about the Way PeOple Live in Their Town Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare very N 17 ll 9 ll willing % 47.2 34.4 31.0 39.3 Somewhat N 4 ll 11 10 willing % 11.1 34.4 37.9 35.7 Don't N 7 l 6 2 know % 19.4 3.1 20.7 7.1 Somewhat N 6 6 2 3 unwilling % 16.7 18.8 6.9 10.7 Very N 2 3 l 2 unwilling % 5.6 9.4 3.4 7.1 Mean 2.22 2.34 2.14 2.11 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 106 Table 28. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn to Speak Better English Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 21 16 l6 l4 willing % 58.3 50.0 55.2 50.0 Somewhat N 6 l3 8 6 willing % 16.7 40.6 27.6 21.4 Don't N 7 l 3 6 know % 19.4 3.1 10.3 21.4 Somewhat N 2 2 l unwilling % 6.3 6.9 3.6 very N 2 unwilling % 5.6 Mean 1.78 1.66 1.76 1.93 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 107 Table 29. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn to Read Faster in English Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare very N 22 l7 14 16 willing % 61.1 53.1 48.3 57.1 Somewhat N 5 11 ll 7 willing % 13.9 34.4 37.9 25.0 Don't N 6 l l 5 know % 16.7 3.1 3.4 17.9 Somewhat N 2 3 3 unwilling % 5.6 9.4 10.3 Very N 1 unwilling % 2.8 Mean 1.64 1.69 1.41 1.61 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4—5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 108 Table 30. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn to Write Better in English Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 22 17 14 15 willing % 61.1 53.1 48.3 53.6 Somewhat N 8 10 10 9 willing % 22.2 31.3 34.5 32.1 Don't N 3 2 4 2 know % 8.3 6.3 13.8 7.1 Somewhat N 2 3 1 unwilling % 5.6 9.4 3.6 very N l l l unwilling % 2.8 3.4 3.6 Mean 1.67 1.72 1.76 2.25 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 109 Table 31. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn More about Arithmetic or Mathematics Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 26 24 10 16 willing % 72.2 75.0 34.5 57.1 Somewhat N 6 5 9 4 willing % 16.7 15.6 31.0 14.3 Don't N 3 8 6 know % 8.3 27.6 21.4 Somewhat N 2 1 unwilling % 6.3 3.6 very N l l 2 l unwilling % 2.8 3.1 6.9 3.6 Mean 1.44 1.47 2.14 1.32 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 110 The data in Table 32 reveal that the majority of Anglos and Mexican-Americans are willing to attend a class to learn to read Spanish, but also reveal that about 25 percent of each group are unwilling to learn this reading Skill. It appears that there may be a considerable number of Spanish-American heads of household who cannot read Spanish or English. According to Table 33, over 73 percent of all groups are willing to take classes on how to obtain credit to buy the things they need. The Mexican-Americans tended to answer "don't know" more often than the Anglos. Thirteen percent of the Anglos on welfare and nine percent of the Anglos off welfare are very unwilling to take classes on credit, while none of the Mexican-Americans are very unwilling to take a course in credit. According to Table 34, over 40 percent of the Anglos off welfare and 16.7 percent of those on welfare are unwill- ing to attend classes on buying clothes. Seventy-five percent of the Anglos on welfare are willing to attend classes on buying clothes. The Mexican-Americans seem to be more willing to attend classes on buying clothes, even though 20 percent gave "don't know" as an answer. Table 35 reveals that 72 percent of the Anglos and 80 percent of the Mexican-Americans are willing to attend classes to learn how to buy food. Twenty-eight percent of the Anglos off welfare were unwilling to attend classes to learn to buy food. The Mexican-Americans appear to be Table 32. 111 Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn to Read Spanish Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare Off welfare Very N 15 13 7 l4 willing % 41.7 40.6 21.4 50.0 Somewhat N 5 8 l3 6 willing % 13.9 25.0 44.8 21.4 Don't N 5 3 3 1 know % 13.9 9.4 10.3 3.6 Somewhat N 7 l 3 4 unwilling % 19.4 3.1 10.3 14.3 very N 4 7 3 3 unwilling % 11.1 21.9 10.3 10.7 Mean 2.45 2.72 2.38 2.14 Mean based on scale of 1—2-3-4-5 with one repreSenting very willing, and five representing very unwilling 112 Table 33. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn How to Get Credit to Buy the Things They Need Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N l9 19 15 ll willing % 52.8 59.4 51.7 39.3 Somewhat N 8 4 8 10 willing % 22.2 12.5 27.6 35.7 Don't N 2 1 6 4 know % 5.6 3.1 20.7 14.3 Somewhat N 2 5 3 unwilling % 5.6 15.6 10.7 Very N 5 3 unwilling % 13.9 9.4 Mean 2.06 1.91 1.69 1.96 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 113 Table 34. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn How to Buy Clothing Ethnic group and welfare status Measure Of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare very N 16 10 14 9 willing % 44.4 31.3 48.3 32.1 Somewhat N 11 7 7 10 willing % 30.6 21.9 24.1 35.7 Don't N 3 2 7 9 know % 8.3 6.3 24.1 32.1 Somewhat N 6 1 unwilling % 18.8 3.4 Very N 6 7 unwilling % 16.7 21.9 Mean 2.11 2.78 1.83 2.00 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 114 Table 35. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn How to Buy Food Ethnic group and welfare status Measure Of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 16 12 11 9 willing % 44.4 37.5 37.9 32.1 Somewhat N 12 9 13 13 willing % 33.3 28.1 44.8 46.4 Don't N 3 2 4 5 know % 8.3 6.3 13.8 13.9 Somewhat N l 7 l l unwilling % 2.8 21.9 3.4 3.6 Very N 4 2 unwilling % 11.1 6.3 Mean 2.03 2.31 1.83 1.93 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 115 somewhat more willing to attend classes on buying food. However, both groups Show a high level of willingness to participate in classes on buying food. Table 36 reveals that about 85 percent of the respondents are willing to attend a class to learn how to keep from being cheated when they Spend their money. Only five of the 125 respondents were unwilling to attend this kind of a class. The total mean scores for personal, educational, and social considerations are 22.72 for Anglos on welfare, 24.18 for Anglos off welfare, 22.21 for Mexican-Americans on welfare, and 22.64 for Mexican-Americans off welfare. The total mean score is found by adding the mean scores of responses to personal, educational, and social considerations. These considerations are the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in classes: to learn more about community organizations; to learn to Speak, read, and write English; to learn more about mathematics; to learn to read Spanish; to learn how to obtain credit; to learn how to buy food and clothing; to learn how to keep from being cheated when spending money; and to learn about health. Summagy. ReSponses to questions relating to personal, educational, and social considerations are very Similar for each ethnic and welfare group. It appears that the rural disadvantaged are willing to take classes in health, English, 116 Table 36. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes to Learn How to Keep from Being Cheated When They Spend Their Money Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican— willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 26 22 19 13 willing % 72.2 68.8 65.5 46.4 Somewhat N 5 4 5 l3 willing % 13.9 12.5 17.2 46.4 Don't N 3 l 5 2 know % 8.3 3.1 17.2 7.1 Somewhat N l 1 unwilling % 2.8 3.1 Very N l 4 unwilling % 2.8 12.5 Mean 1.50 1.78 1.52 1.61 Mean based on scale of 1—2-3-4-5 with one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 117 Spanish, and mathematics. They also appear willing to learn more about buying food and clothing, how to get credit, and how to keep from being cheated when spending money. Self-Perceptions and Educational PartiEipation Table 37 reveals the willingness of the respondents to participate in classes which would help get a farm job. The mean score of the Anglos on welfare is 3.28 compared to 3.53 for those off welfare. This finding indicates that those on welfare are more willing to accept farm work than those who are employed. Little variation in mean scores exists between the Mexican-Americans on and off welfare. The data in Table 38 Show that both the Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups have a high level of willing- ness to attend classes which would help them get a job other than farming. The Anglos, in this instance, are more willing to attend classes than the Mexican-Americans. As can be seen in Table 39, a great difference in mean scores exists between Anglos on and off welfare in willingness of the reSpondents to attend classes which would help them get a job in a factory. The Anglos off welfare have a mean score of 3.91 compared to 2.50 for those on welfare. Anglos on welfare appear to be much more receptive to training for work in a factory than Anglos off welfare. A further look at Table 39 reveals that Mexican-Americans reacted favorably to training for jobs in a factory. 118 Table 37. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Get a Job on a Farm Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 8 8 3 8 willing % 22.2 25.0 10.3 28.6 Somewhat N 5 2 l4 8 willing % 13.9 6.3 48.3 28.6 Don't N 1 2 2 6 know % 2.8 6.3 6.9 21.4 Somewhat N 8 5 5 2 unwilling % 22.2 15.6 17.2 7.1 very N 14 15 5 4 unwilling % 38.9 46.9 17.2 14.3 Mean 3.28 3.53 2.83 2.54 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 119 Table 38. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Get a Job Other than Farming Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare very N 25 22 13 13 willing % 69.4 68.8 44.8 46.4 Somewhat N 6 4 ll 8 willing % 16.7 12.5 37.9 28.6 Don't N 3 2 2 6 know % 8.3 6.3 6.9 21.4 Somewhat N l l l l unwilling % 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.5 Very N 1 3 2 unwilling % 2.8 9.4 6.9 Mean 1.25 1.72 1.90 1.82 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 120 Table 39. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Get a Job in a Factory Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican— willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 18 5 12 9 Willing % 50.0 15.6 41.4 32.1 Somewhat N 3 l 7 4 willing % 8.3 3.1 24.1 14.3 Don't N 2 5 5 9 know % 5.6 15.6 17.2 32.1 Somewhat N 5 2 3 3 unwilling % 13.9 6.3 10.3 10.7 very N 8 l9 2 3 unwilling % 22.2 59.4 6.9 10.7 Mean 2,50 3.91 2.17 2.54 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 121 However, little difference in mean scores is observed between those on and those off welfare. Table 40 indicates that all ethnic and welfare groups have a high level of willingness to attend classes in which they would learn to Operate their own businesses. The mean scores for Anglos on and off welfare is 1.39 and 1.59 compared to 1.69 and 2.03 for Mexican-Americans. Table 41 reveals that both Mexican-Americans and Anglos appear to have a high level of willingness to learn to be leaders of other workers. The mean Scores for the Anglos are 1.86 and 1.87 compared to 1.76 and 1.79 for the Mexican-Americans. Welfare and non-welfare differences were almost nonexistent. Table 42 summarized the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to attend classes in the clothes they now own. Both ethnic groups, whether on or Off welfare, exhibited a high degree of willingness to attend classes in the clothes they now own. Table 43 shows how the rural disadvantaged perceived the willingness of other heads of household to participate in educational programs. Over 40 percent of the Anglos did not know how other heads of family felt, but only 17 percent of the Mexican-Americans said they did not know how other heads of family felt about taking educational classes. Since the mean scores were generally low for both ethnic groups, it appears that both the Mexican-American and Anglo 122 Table 40. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which They Learn to Operate Their Own Business Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 30 25 14 14 Willing % 83.3 78.1 48.1 50.0 Somewhat N l l 10 3 willing % 2.8 3.1 34.5 10.7 Don't N 3 2 5 8 know % 8.3 6.3 17.2 20.6 Somewhat N 1 2 2 unwilling % 2.8 6.3 7.1 Very N l 2 l unwilling % 2.8 6.3 3.6 Mean 1.39 1.59 1.69 2.03 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 With one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 123 Table 41. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which They Learn to Be Leaders of Other Workers Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare very N 24 18 l7 l3 willing % 66.7 56.2 58.6 46.4 Somewhat N 4 7 7 9 willing % 11.1 21.9 24.1 32.1 Don't N 1 2 2 5 know % 2.8 6.3 6.9 17.9 Somewhat N 3 3 l l unwilling % 8.3 9.4 3.4 3.6 Very N 4 2 2 unwilling % 11.1 6.3 6.9 Mean 1.86 1.87 1.76 1.79 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 124 Table 42. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in the Clothes They Now Own Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican— willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 16 25 10 13 willing % 44.4 78.1 34.5 46.4 Somewhat N 12 4 12 6 willing % 33.3 12.5 41.4 21.4 DOn't N 2 7 6 know % 5.6 24.1 21.4 Somewhat N 6 l 3 unwilling % 16.7 3.1 10.7 Very N 2 unwilling % 6.3 Mean 1.94 1.47 1.90 1.97 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 125 Table 43. How Different Welfare and Ethnic Groups Perceive the Willingness of Other Heads of Family to Attend Classes Which Would Help Them Get a Job or a Better Job Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican— Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 11 13 10 15 willing % 30.6 40.6 34.5 53.6 Somewhat N 5 5 13 5 Willing % 13.9 15.3 34.8 17.9 Don't N l9 l4 5 5 know % 52.8 43.8 17.2 17.9 Somewhat N 1 3 unwilling % 3.4 10.7 very N l unwilling % 2.8 Mean 2.31 2.03 1.90 1.85 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 126 groups believed other heads of family were willing to attend educational classes. In this study an attempt was made to determine the perceptions of heads of household toward the willingness of other family members, 16 years of age and older, to take educational classes. The number of family members over 16 and not in school was not adequate for analysis. Table 44 provides insights into the self-confidence of the rural disadvantaged. This table Shows that over 55 percent of the Anglos on welfare and 40 percent of those off welfare did not know if an employer would be willing to hire them. Thirty-one percent of the Mexican-Americans on welfare and 50 percent of those off welfare did not know if an employer would be willing to hire them. The remainder of respondents in each welfare and ethnic group indicated that the employer would hire them. The overall mean scores of each ethnic and welfare group seem to indicate that the respondents hold a positive attitude toward the possibilities of being hired by an employer. The high prOportion who did not know if an employer would hire them may reflect doubts of self-confidence on the part of the rural disadvantaged. The total mean scores for self-perceptions of Anglos are 17.59 for Anglos on welfare, and 18.06 for Anglos off welfare. Mexican-Americans on welfare have a total mean score of 15.3, and those off welfare have a total mean score of 16.8. 127 Table 44. Perception of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups of the Willingness of a Potential Employer to Hire Them Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 8 15 7 7 willing % 22.2 46.9 24.1 25.0 Somewhat N 5 3 12 7 willing % 13.9 9.4 41.4 25.0 Don't N 20 13 9 l4 know % 55.6 40.6 31.0 50.0 Somewhat N 2 l 1 unwilling % 5.6 3.1 3.4 Very N l unwilling % 2.8 Mean 1.53 2.00 2.11 2.25 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 128 The total mean scores were found by adding the mean scores of responses to questions relating to the self- perceptions of the respondents. These perceptions repre- sented the informants personal estimates of their willingness to participate in classes: to get farm or non-farm jobs, to get jobs in a factory, to learn to Operate their own business, to learn to be a leader of others, in the clothes they now own, and the interviewee's perception of other rural disadvantaged people's willingness to attend classes. The interviewee's perception of the willingness of an employer to hire him was also included. Summagy. The rural disadvantaged tend to perceive themselves favorably in regard to their ability to be hired for a job, run their own business, or be the leader of others. In general, only minor differences are observed between ethnic and welfare groups. One exception is that Anglos on welfare appear to be more willing to attend classes to get a job on a farm than Anglos off welfare, and that Anglos on welfare perceive factory jobs as more desirable than Anglos off welfare. Both ethnic groups appear to be receptive to classes to learn how to be leaders, and to Operate their own businesses. The rural disadvantaged also appear to be confident that potential employers would hire them, and they are willing to attend classes in clothes they now own. 129 Environmental Considerations of the Training Class and Partihipation in Educational Programs As reported in Tables 45 and 46, it appears to make little difference to the respondents whether the teacher or the student does most of the talking in class. The Anglos are more willing to attend classes under these conditions, even though Willingness to participate is high in all ethnic and welfare groups. According to Tables 47 and 48, the reSpondents do not seem to care whether the teacher is Anglo or Mexican- American. The Willingness to participate in educational programs, regardless of teacher's ethnic group, is high, but Anglos appear to be more willing in both the welfare and non-welfare groups. By inSpecting Table 49, it can be seen that both Anglos and Mexican-Americans are willing to attend training classes that are six weeks in length. The mean scores indicate that both welfare and non-welfare groups are receptive to such classes, but that Anglos are more willing to attend these classes than the Mexican—Americans. Table 50 reveals that increasing the class length to three months or more has little effect upon the willingness of Anglos or Mexican-Americans to participate in training classes. The mean scores for the Anglos are 1.69 and 1.47 compared to 1.76 and 1.79 for the Mexican-Americans. All 130 Table 45. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which the Teacher Does Most of the Talking Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican— Mexican- Willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 22 23 7 10 willing % 61.1 71.9 24.1 35.7 Somewhat N 9 6 16 13 willing % 25.0 18.8 55.2 46.4 Don't N 2 l 5 3 know % 5.6 3.1 17.2 10.7 Somewhat N l l l l unwilling % 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.6 very N 2 l l unwilling % 5.6 3.1 3.6 Mean 1.61 1.47 2.00 1.93 Mean based on scale of 1—2-3-4-5 With one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 131 Table 46. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which the Student Does Most of the Talking Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican— Mexican- Willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 23 15 4 10 Willing % 63.9 46.9 13.8 35.7 Somewhat N 7 ll 17 11 Willing % 19.4 34.4 58.6 39.3 Don't N 3 3 7 2 know % 8.3 9.4 24.1 21.4 Somewhat N l 2 l unwilling % 2.8 6.3 3.6 very N 2 l 1 unwilling % 5.6 3.1 3.4 Mean 1.69 1.85 2.21 2.36 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 132 Table 47. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which the Teacher Is an Anglo Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 29 31 17 13 Willing % 80.6 96.9 58.6 46.4 Somewhat N 2 l 8 7 willing % 5.6 3.1 27.6 25.0 Don't N 4 4 7 know % 11.1 13.8 25.0 Somewhat N unwilling % very N 1 1 unwilling % 2.8 3.6 Mean 1.39 1.04 1.52 1.89 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 133 Table 48. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Classes in Which the Teacher Is a Mexican-American Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 27 27 14 13 Willing % 75.0 84.4 48.3 46.3 Somewhat N 5 4 10 8 willing % 13.9 12.5 34.5 28.6 Don't N 2 3 5 know % 5.6 13.8 17.9 Somewhat N 1 2 unwilling % 3.4 7.1 Very N 2 l unwilling % 5.6 3.1 Mean 1.47 1.25 1.83 1.86 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 134 Table 49. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Training Programs Six Weeks in Length Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 29 29 14 13 Willing % 80.6 90.6 48.3 46.4 Somewhat N 3 3 9 12 Willing % 8.3 9.4 31.0 42.9 Don't N l 5 2 know % 2.8 17.2 7.1 Somewhat N l l unwilling % 3.4 3.6 Very N 3 unwilling % 8.3 Mean 1.47 1.09 1.76 1.68 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 With one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 135 Table 50. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Training Programs Three Months or More in Length Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 25 23 11 13 willing % 69.4 71.9 37.9 46.4 Somewhat N 5 6 9 9 willing % 13.9 18.8 31.0 32.1 Don't N 2 1 7 5 know % 5.6 3.1 24.1 17.9 Somewhat N 1 1 unwilling % 3.1 3.6 Very N 4 1 2 unwilling % 11.1 3.1 6.9 Mean 1.69 1.47 1.76 1.79 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 With one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 136 mean scores indicate a high level of willingness to participate in educational programs of three months in length. According to Table 51, the willingness of the respondents to participate in training classes of six months or more appears to drOp when compared to classes of six weeks or three months in length. The mean scores for the Anglos, when asked if they would attend for six months or more, are 2.03 and 2.62 compared with 2.41 and 1.86 for the Mexican-Americans. By inspecting Table 52, it can be seen that the Anglos tend to be unwilling to live in another city while going to school. A close inspection of Table 52 shows that about 30 percent of the Anglos would live in another city while going to school compared to over 53 percent of the Mexican-Americans. The mean scores for the Anglos on and off welfare are 3.56 and 3.16 compared to 2.34 and 2.79 for the Mexican-Americans. Upon inspection of Table 53, it can be observed that both the Anglos and Mexican-Americans are willing to participate in education classes which would be given on their television sets. Over 68 percent of the Anglos and over 64 percent of the Mexican-Americans would be willing to enroll in such classes. On environmental considerations, the total mean score for Anglos on welfare is 16.81, for Anglos off welfare 137 Table 51. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Attend Training Programs Six Months or More in Length Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 19 13 10 ll willing % 52.8 40.6 34.5 39.3 Somewhat N 5 2 7 11 willing % 13.9 6.3 24.1 39.3 Don't N 8 8 7 5 know % 22.2 25.0 24.1 17.9 Somewhat N 1 1 unwilling % 3.1 3.6 very N 4 8 5 unwilling % 11.1 25.0 17.2 Mean 2.03 2.62 2.41 1.86 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 with one representing very willing, and five representing very unwilling 138 Table 52. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Live in Another City While Going to School Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican— willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 9 9 10 4 willing % 25.0 28.1 34.5 14.3 Somewhat N 2 2 9 ll willing % 5.6 6.3 31.0 39.3 Don't N 7 7 5 6 know % 19.4 21.9 17.2 21.4 Somewhat N 7 3 1 unwilling % 19.4 9.4 3.6 very N 11 11 5 6 unwilling % 30.6 34.4 17.2 21.4 Mean 3.56 3.16 2.34 2.79 Mean based on scale of 1-2—3-4-5 with one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 139 Table 53. Willingness of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups to Enroll in Classes Which Would Be Given on Their Television Set Ethnic group and welfare status Measure of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- willingness on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Very N 19 18 . 7 9 willing % 52.8 56.3 24.1 32.1 Somewhat N 6 4 12 9 willing % 16.7 12.5 41.4 32.1 Don't N 3 6 7 3 know % 8.3 18.8 24.1 10.7 Somewhat N l 3 2 unwilling % 2.8 10.3 7.1 Very N 7 4 5 unwilling % 19.4 12.5 17.9 Mean 2.19 2.00 2.21 2.46 Mean based on scale of 1-2-3-4-5 With one representing very Willing, and five representing very unwilling 140 15.97, for Mexican-Americans on welfare 18.3, and for Mexican-Americans off welfare 18.18. Although both ethnic and welfare groups are willing to attend classes under various environmental considerations, the Anglos appear to be somewhat less effected by environmental considerations than Mexican-Americans. The total mean scores were found by adding the mean scores of responses to environmental considerations. These environmental considerations are the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in classes in which: the teacher does most of the talking, the student does most of the talking, the teacher is an Anglo, the teacher is Mexican- American, the training class would last for six weeks, three months, or six months, the training class would require the rural disadvantaged to live in another city while going to school, and the training would be given on television. Table 54 indicates that the method of transportation the rural disadvantaged would use to get to class. Although 47 percent of the Anglos would choose a bus, only 13.8 percent of the Mexican-Americans on welfare, and 28.6 percent of the Mexican-Americans off welfare would choose a bus as first choice. Inspection of Table 55 reveals that 47 percent of the Anglos prefer to go to class in the winter. Fifty-one percent of the Mexican-Americans on welfare, and 35 percent of those off welfare also chose winter as their first choice 141 Table 54. Method of Travel Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Get to Classes Ethnic group and welfare status Method of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Travel on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare First choice Own N 12 13 ll 13 car % 33.3 40.6 37.9 46.4 Pool N 5 4 14 7 ride % 13.9 12.5 48.3 25.0 Bus N 19 15 4 8 % 52.8 46.9 13.8 28.6 Second choice Own N 6 2 11 5 car % 16.7 6.3 37.9 17.9 Pool N 18 27 9 13 ride % 50.0 8.4 31.0 46.4 Bus N 12 3 9 10 % 33.3 9.4 31.0 35.7 142 Table 55. Season of Year Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Attend Classes Ethnic group and welfare status Season of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican— year on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare First choice Fall N 7 14 15 10 % 19.4 43.8 51.7 35.7 Winter N 17 15 8 11 % 47.2 46.9 27.6 39.3 Spring N 6 l 4 5 % 16.7 3.1 13.8 17.9 Summer N 6 2 2 2 % 16.7 6.3 6.9 7.1 Second choice Fall N 18 16 5 7 % 50.0 50.0 17.2 25.0 Winter N 8 12 12 7 % 22.2 37.5 41.4 25.0 Spring N 9 3 12 14 % 25.0 9.4 41.4 50.0 Summer N 1 1 % 2.8 3.1 143 of season for attending educational classes. Both ethnic groups appear to choose fall and winter as the best seasons of the year to attend classes. It is observed that 19 percent of the Anglos and 18 percent of the Mexican- Americans are willing to take classes in the spring. Both Mexican-Americans and Anglos appear unwilling to take classes in the summer. Table 56 reveals that the majority of the Anglos prefer to attend classes in the morning as a first choice, and afternoon as a second choice. The Mexican-Americans would tend to go to either afternoon or morning classes. However, afternoon is rated high as both a first and second choice for the Mexican-Americans. Evening classes were selected as first choice by 30 percent of the Anglos, and 14 percent of the Mexican-Americans. Table 57 reveals that the local high school is the first choice of both the Anglos and Mexican-Americans as a place to attend classes. The Anglos preferred the home of a friend, and the Mexican-Americans chose the nearest community college as the next highest first choice. When asked to select the second choice, more Anglos chose the local church, and more Mexican-Americans chose the nearest community college. Table 58 indicates the day of the week that different ethnic and welfare groups chose to attend classes. It was noted that 80 percent of the Anglos, and 19 percent of the 144 Table 56. Time of Day Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Attend Classes Ethnic group and welfare status Time of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican— day on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare First choice Morning N 22 18 12 9 % 61.1 56.3 41.4 32.1 After- N 6 1 14 14 noon % 16.7 3.1 48.3 50.0 Evening N 8 13 3 5 % 22.2 40.6 10.3 17.9 Second choice Morning N 8 7 5 8 % 22.2 21.9 17.2 28.6 After- N l9 17 15 12 noon % 52.8 53.1 51.7 42.9 Evening N 9 8 9 8 % 25.0 25.0 31.0 28.6 145 Table 57. Location Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Attend Classes Ethnic group and welfare status Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Location on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare First choice High N 20 16 15 13 school % 55.6 50.0 51.7 46.4 Community N 6 2 10 8 college % 16.7 6.3 34.5 28.6 Friend's N 8 5 3 4 home % 22.2 15.6 10.3 14.3 Church N 2 3 1 l % 5.6 9.4 3.4 3.6 Community N 6 2 center % 18.8 7.1 Second choice High N 7 6 6 7 school % 19.4 18.8 20.7 25.0 Community N 6 8 12 7 college % 16.7 25.0 41.4 25.0 Friend's N 6 4 4 6 home % 16.7 12.5 13.8 21.4 Church N 10 9 2 4 % 27.8 28.1 6.9 14.3 Community N 7 5 4 4 center % 19.4 15.6 13.8 14.3 146 Table 58. Day Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Choose to Attend Classes Ethnic group and welfare status Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Day on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Mbnday N 9 7 % 2.8 9.4 31.0 25.0 Tuesday N 2 l 7 8 % 5.6 3.1 24.1 28.6 Wednesday N 2 4 5 % 5.6 13.8 17.9 Thursday N l 1 % 2.8 3.4 7.1 Friday N 1 l 1 % 3.1 3.4 3.6 Saturday N 2 1 % 6.3 3.4 No N 30 25 6 ’5 difference % 83.3 78.1 20.6 17.9 147 Table 59. Amount of Money Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Would Be Willing to Spend for Tuition and Supplies to Attend Classes Ethnic group and welfare status Amount of Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- money on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Up to N 3 1 8 3 $ 10.00 % 8.3 3.1 27.6 10.7 Up to N 2 8 l 4 $ 50.00 % 5.6 25.0 3.4 14.3 Up to N 2 2 $100.00 % 6.3 7.1 Up to N 1 2 $200.00 % 2.8 6.3 None N 30 19 20 19 % 83.4 59.4 68.9 67.9 148 Mexican-Americans said it made no difference which day they attended classes. The majority of the Mexican-Americans preferred to attend classes on Monday and Tuesday. Analysis of the second choice of day to attend classes was omitted due to the high percentage of "no difference" responses when the respondents indicated a first choice. As indicated in Table 59, most rural disadvantaged are not willing to spend their own money for tuition or supplies. Eighty percent of the Anglos on welfare, and 59 percent of the Anglos off welfare revealed that they would spend nothing for tuition and supplies. Approximately 68 percent of the Mexican-Americans reSponded the same way. Those off welfare tended to be less willing to spend money for tuition and supplies than those on welfare. Summary. The Anglos are somewhat more willing to attend training classes when environmental considerations are examined. However, both Anglos and Mexican-Americans appear to have a high level of willingness to attend training classes under various environmental considerations. Both ethnic groups tend to show a slight decrease in willingness to attend classes as the class length increases to six months or more. The Anglos appear unwilling to attend training classes if they have to stay in another city while attending classes. The ethnic group to which the teacher belongs appears to have little effect upon willingness to 149 attend classes. 'The Anglos chose bus transportation as the preferred method to get to classes; the Mexican-Americans desired to pool rides. Most of the rural disadvantaged chose to go to class in the fall or winter. The Anglos preferred to go to classes in the morning or evening, while the Mexican- Americans chose to attend in the morning or afternoon. The first choice for location of class is the local high school for all groups. It appeared to make no difference which day of the week the Anglos go to class, but the Mexican- Americans appear to favor classes early in the week. It is also observed that most of the rural disadvantaged will not spend their own money for tuition or supplies. Tests of Hypotheses The hypotheses are tested using the multivariate analysis of variance method outlined in Chapter III. The .05 level of confidence is used to determine significance in the multivariate test. Since each univariate test contributes to the multivariate significance, the level of significance for each of the four univariate tests in .0125. Table 60 reveals that there are no significant F ratios in the interaction between the scores of the Mexican- American and Anglo ethnic groups, and the welfare and non— welfare groups. Ho: 1 is accepted. Ho: 1 On the basis of occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social consider- ations; self-perceptions; and environmental 150 oHH u Houum How Eocmwum mo mmmummo H u mononuommm How Eopmmum mo mwmummo mHH pom v u umme mumwnm>wuasz How Eoommnm mo mwmummo no. NH. no.m .vwmsoo .couw>cm om. moo. vo. mcowummoummlmamm mm. mo. mu. oH. mo.m .UOm tam ..om ..Hmm «m. Ho. vm. .pflmcoo .msooo cowuomumucH Ho. om. Ho.m .oflmcoo .souw>cm om. hm. mo.m mcowummoummlmamm mm. om. om. mm. Ho.mm .oom cam ..nm ..Hmm mm. moo. Hm. .pwmcoo .mnooo mummam3 muonco no. mm. om.moa .pflmsoo .couw>:m ma. mm. Hm.m¢ mcoflummonmmuuawm mooo. mo.o mm. av. mm.am .oom cam ..om ..me mooo. mm.ma H~.kom .nnmcoo .msooo cmomeEQIGMOflxwz .ons¢ can» mmwa m cmnu mmwa m .m .2 mafiasnmnoum mumflum>fluasz sunflnnmnoum mumnum>flco cmmzumm mmag~ag~> mmmau mcflcflmua may no msowumumowmcoo Hmucchouw>sm can «mQOflummoummnmamm umcowumumoflmcoo Hmwoom can .HmcoquOSOM .HMGOmHmm «msowumumpwmsoo Hmcowummnooo mo mmHnMfiHm> unmosmmmo on» mean: msouo cannum an mummamz Mom mocmwum> mo mwmhamcd mumwum>wuasz .oo wanna 151 considerations of the training class; there will be no interaction between welfare and non-welfare, and Mexican-American and Anglo ethnic groups in their willingness to participate in educational programs. In Table 60, the multivariate analysis of variance indicates an F ratio of 6.03 when testing for differences between the Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups. This is significant at the .0002 level of confidence. Ho: 2 is rejected. Ho: 2 On the basis of occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social consider- ations; self-perceptions; and environmental considerations of the training class; there will be no difference between the perceived willingness of the Mexican-American and Anglo ethnic groups to participate in educational programs. An examination of the univariate F ratios in Table 60 reveals that the occupational considerations variable is significant at the .0005 level of confidence. The cell means in Table 61 indicate that on the basis of occupational considerations, the Mexican-American ethnic group is more willing to participate in educational programs than the Anglo group. The cell means for the Mexican-Americans on and off welfare respectively are 29.39 and 29.21 compared 152 Table 61. Total Mean Scores of Different Ethnic and Welfare Groups Using the Variables of Occupational Considerations; Personal, Educational, and Social Considerations; Self-Perceptions; and Environmental Considerations of the Training Class Anglo Anglo Mexican- Mexican- Variables on off American American welfare welfare on welfare off welfare Occupational considerations 33.81 33.81 29.40 29.21 Per., ed., and social consid. 22,72 24.19 22.21 22.64 Self- perceptions 17.59 18.06 15.36 16.75 Environmental considerations 16.81 15.97 18.32 18.18 Mean based on sum of all scores in each variable 153 with 33.81 and 33.81 for the Anglo ethnic group. No differences are found in the personal, educa- tional, and social considerations; self-perceptions; and environmental considerations of the training class variables. It is apparent that the occupational considerations variable is the main contributor to the multivariate significance between the Anglo and Mexican-American differences in willingness to participate in educational programs. A further inspection of the F ratios in Table 60 reveals that there are no significant differences in the multivariate or the univariate tests concerning persons on or off welfare. Ho: 3 is accepted. Ho: 3 On the basis of occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social consider- ations; self-perceptions; and environmental considerations of the training class; there will be no difference between the perceived willingness of persons on and off welfare to participate in educational programs. Because there are no significant differences between the welfare and non-welfare groups in the previous tests,r the on and off welfare test reported in Table 60 is not repeated in Tables 62 through 70. However, it is believed that the welfare variable might interact with some of the nine personal and family data variables. A two-way multivariate run is made using welfare by each of the following personal and family data variables ordered last. 154 a. Age of the head of household b. Residence of the head of household c. Miles to the nearest high school d. Miles to the nearest community college or university e. Educational achievement f. Number of children living at home 9. Income of the head of household h. Time that the head of household has lived in Michigan i. Size of town in which the family does most of its shOpping The next nine hypotheses are derived from Ho: 4. Ho: 4 On the basis of occupational considerations; personal, educational, and social consider- ations; self-perceptions; and environmental considerations of the training class; there will be no difference in willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs between levels of: (a) age (b) residence (c) miles to high school (d) miles to community college or university (e) educational achievement (f) number of children (9) income (h) time lived in Michigan (i) size of town where shOpping is done An inspection of Table 62 reveals that there are no significant F ratios when using age as a variable. Ho: 4(a) is accepted. 155 Umuufleo wanmwum> whomawza mad u Honum How Boommum mo mmmnmmo N u mononuommm Mom Eoommum mo mmmnmma mmm can m n umma mumflHm>wuasz Mom Eoommum mo mwmummo on. vm. mm.m .owmcoo .couw>cm om. ma. mm.m mcoflummoummlmamm no. ow. av. m5. mm.mm .00m can ..pw ..Hmm mm. no. vo.m .pflmqoo .msooo sofluomuwucH mv. om. hm.m~ .pflmcoo .soufl>cm Ho. mm. mo.m mcoflummonmmnmamm mv. mm. NH. NH.N ov.mma .UOm can ..©m ..Hmm mv. on. mo.ma .ofimcoo .msooo mod cmnu mmmH m away mmma m .m .2 huwawnmnoum mumwnm>wuasz muwaflnmnoum museum>wco cmm3umm mmHnmanm> HmmmHo mcflcwmua may no mcoflumumpflmcoo Housmaconw>cm can kmcowummoummumamm .mcoflumumowmcou Hmwoom can .Hmcoflumosom .HmCOmumm «mcofiumumcflmcou Hmcowummsooo mo mmHnmwum> usmocmmmo may mean: 00¢ an wuwmamg How mocmflum> mo mwmhaqu mumwum>fiuasz .mo manna 156 Ho: 4(a) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between levels of age. According to Table 63, there are no significant F ratios in the residence variable. Ho: 4(b) is accepted. Ho: 4(b) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between areas of residence. By inspecting Table 64, it is revealed that no significant F ratios exist in the test of the miles to high school variable. Ho: 4(c) is accepted. Ho: 4(c) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between distances to high school. Inspection of the miles to the nearest community college variable in Table 65 reveals an F ratio of 4.23 which is significant at the .0001 level of confidence. Ho: 4(d) is rejected. Ho: 4(d) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between distances to community college or university. 157 owuquo manmwum> wumwamza mHH u Houum mom Eoomwnm mo mmmummo m u mononuomhm Mom Eocmmum mo mmmummo mmm can m n umma mumwum>fluasz Mom Eoommnm mo mmmummo ow. vm. oo.m~ .pwmsoo .coufl>sm mo. Nv. om.m mcowumwoummnmamm vm. mm. mm. Hm. oH.¢N .UOm new ..pm ..Hmm hm. hm. oa.m~ .oflmcoo .msooo sowuomumucH no. mo. ~H.H .owmcoo .conw>cm Av. kn. mH.GH muonummoummumamm ma. mm.a hm. ow. va.om .UOm can ..pm ..Hmm ma. NH.~ so.moa .6nmcoo .msooo mocmoflmmm can» mmma m away mmwa m .m .2 huwawnmnonm mumwum>wuasz wuwawnmnoum museum>wca cmm3umm mmdnmwum> Hmmmau onwcwmna may mo mGOADMHmowmcou amusmecouw>cm can “meowummouwmnwamm .msowumuwowmcou Hmwoom pom .Hm20wumosom .Hmcomuom «mGOAHMHmpHmcoo HmsOAummsooo mo meQMwum> ucmpsmmwo may mean: mocmpwmmm an mumwam3 How mosmwum> mo mwmhaqu mumwum>fiuasz .mo manna 158 pmuufiEo manmwum> mummamza mad u Houum How Eoommum mo mmmnmmo N u mommnuomhm Hem Eocmmnm mo mwmnmmo mmm can o u umma mumwum>wuasz mom Eoommum mo mmmummo av. mm. mo.m~ .pwmsoo .souw>cm mm. mo. vo.a msowummouwmlmamm ow. mm. mo. mm. ow.oam .UOm can ..pm ..Hmm em. vv. om.a~ .pwmsoo .msooo cofluomumucH ma. ob.a hm.om .Ufimcoo .couw>cm mv. mm. mm.ma chwumwoummnmamm Ho. Hm.~ mm. oH.H ma.mw .oom can ..om ..Hmm No. ma.v m~.vo~ .nnmcoo .msooo Hoonom son: on mafia: GMfiU mme m can“ mmmH h .w .z huHHflnmnoum wumflum>fluasz muwawnmnoum wumaum>wco cmwzuwm moanmwum> HmmmHU mcwcwmua 0:» mo mGOfiumumpflmsoo Hmucmecoufl>cm can “mGOwummonmmnmamm umc0flumuwpwmcou Hmfloom paw .Hmcowumoopm .HMGOmHmm xmcowumumowmcoo HacOwummsooo mo moanmwum> vampcmmwa map means Hoosom coax ou mmawz an mummamz How mocmwum> mo mammamcfl mumanm>fluasz .vo manna 159 Umuuweo manmflum> mummamZH mad u uouum How Eoowmum mo mmmummn m u mommnuommm Mom Eoommum mo mmmumma mmm can m u umma mDMHHm>wan2 How Boomwum mo mmmummo no. Hv. oa.ma .Uflmcoo .coufl>:m mm. mo. vm.a msowummonwmlmamm mm. mm. mm. mv. H5.~m .UOm can ..Um ..Hmm mm. km.a mk.om .cnmcoo .msooo sowuomumucH mo. nH.v mv.vma .owmcoo .conw>cm ha. mh.H vm.om mSOflummoummlmamm Hooo. mm.v hm. om. mm.mn .oom can ..©m ..Hmm mvoo. mm.m mk.on~ .onmcoo .msooo .Haoo .EEoo ou mwafl2 can» mmma m can» mmma m .m .2 aufiawnmnoum mumaum>wuas2 muflafinmnoum mamaum>flco cmmzuwm moanmwum> HmmmHu mcwcwmua wsu mo mcoflumuwowmsoo Hmucwscouw>cm paw «mGOwummoummumamm umcoflumumpwmcou Hmwoom can .HmcoHumosom .Hmcomumm “mCOwumumowmcoo Hmcofiummsooo mo mmahmaum> usmoawmwo may mcflmo mmmaaou >uacsesou ou mwawz 2n mummamz mom mocmwum> mo mammamcd oumeM>wuH52 .mo manna 160 A further inspection of Table 65 reveals an univariate F ratio of 5.67 in the occupational considerations variable. This is significant at the .0045 level of confidence. Scheffe's Post Hoc Test1 is used to find out where the significance occurs. The analysis shows that the difference between the two farthest distances from a community college is not significant. Another test was made of the nearest distance versus the two farthest distances, and this is significant at the .0125 level of confidence. The overall cell means of those living 0 to 10 miles from a community college is 29.25. Those living 11 to 20 miles away have an overall mean score of 32.59, and those living 21 to 30 miles away have an overall mean score of 33.95. The persons living in the 0 to 10 mile range are significantly more willing to participate in educational programs than those living in the 11 to 20 mile range or the 21 to 30 mile range from a community college. Table 66 reveals no significant F ratios in either the multivariate or univariate test on educational achievement. Ho: 4(e) is accepted. Ho: 4(e) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between levels of educational achievement. lRoger E. Kirk, Ex erimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (California: Brooks Cole PubliShing Company, 1968), p. 90-91. 161 omuuwfio manmflum> mummamaa mad u uouum now Eoommum mo mmmuomo m u mwmwsuommm now Eocmmum mo mmmummo «mm can m u puma mumwum>wuas2 Mom Eoommum mo mmmummo om. mm. ma.o~ .pwmcoo .couw>cm mm. mm. mo.m mcofiummoummumsmm on. om. an. mm. mo.bm .UOm paw ..om ..me am. no. om.vm .oflmcoo .msooo sofiuomumucH hm. hm. mm.ma .oflmcoo .couw>cm mm. mm. om.~a mnonummoummumawm mm. vs. Hm. mm. mm.oa .UOm paw ..om ..umm av. ms. vo.mm .oflmcoo .msooo usmEm>mwsom Hmcoflumosom can» mmma m :mnu mmwa m .m .2 wuwaflnmnoum mumaum>fluas2 muaaflnmnoum mumaum>fico cmmzumm mmHnmaum> Hmmmau mswswmua may no mGOwumumpwmcou Hmucmscouw>sm cam «mGOflumwoummnmamm umcowumuwoflmcoo Hmwoom can .Hmcowumosom .Hmcomumm umcowumumpflmcoo Hmcowummnuoo mo moanmwum> ucmocwmmo wsu mcflmo usmEm>mfino¢ ascoflumosom an mummamz How mUGMflHM> mo mammamnd ounaum>fluas2 .oo «Hams 162 An inspection of Table 67 reveals that there are no significant F ratios in the tests using number of children categories. Ho: 4(f) is accepted. Ho: 4(f) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between number of children categories. According to Table 68, there are no significant F ratios in the tests of the income variable. Ho: 4(g) is accepted. Ho: 4(g) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between levels of income. Table 69 reveals that no significant F ratios are found when testing the time lived in Michigan variable. Ho: 4(h) is accepted. Ho: 4(h) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between lengths of time lived in Michigan. As can be seen in Table 70, there are no significant F ratios found when testing the variable of size of town in which most of the shopping is done. Ho: 4(i) is accepted. 163 pmuuflfio wanmwum> mummamza mHH u uouum Mom Eocmmum mo mwmummo N u mommsuommm Mom Eoomwnm mo mmmumma mmm can m u umma mumwum>wuas2 How Eoommum mo mmmummo Hm. oH. mm.m .owmsoo .couw>cm av. as. 05.42 mcoflummoummnmfimm mm. on. oH. mm. ov.oha .oom pom ..©m ..Hmm om. mm. mo.HH .oflmcoo .msooo soauomumucH mm. mm. va.mm .owmsoo .couw>cm mm. Nv.a v~.a~ mcoflummonmmumamm mm. mm. mm. NH. mo.m .oom was ..om ..me no. mo. oH.v .pwmcoo .msooo cwupawno mo umnEsz can» mmma m can» mmma . h .m .2 auwHflnmnoum mumwum>wuas2 huflHwnmnoum wumwum>flca cmmzumm moanmflum> Hmmmau mswcwmue on» no mcowumuwoflmcoo Hmucmecoufi>cm can “macaummoummnmamw «mcowumumpwmcoo Hmwoom can .HMGOwumoopm .Hmcomumm “mcowumumowmcou HMGOwummsooo mo meQMfiHm> ucmpsmmmo on» mean: swupawso mo umnEdz an mummamz Mom wocmwum> mo mwmhamcd wumwnm>fluas2 .ho manna 164 Umuuan magmaum> mnmmamza maa u nonum How Eocmmum mo mmmummo N u mmmmsuomxm mom Eocmmum mo mmwuowo «mm can o u umma manaum>auas2 How Eoommnm no mmmnmmo ha. am.a hm.oo .pamcoo .soua>cm no. av. mm.m mcoaummoummnmamm mm. mm.a no. no. oa.-~ .UOm paw ..pw ..Hmm mm. am. mm.oa .Uamcoo .msooo scauomumuca vm. ma. ~o.m .oamcoo .soua>cm aw. mm.a ov.~m macaummoummumamm oa. on.a ha. om.a mo.m~a .UOm can ..00 ..Hmm mm. no. an.om .pamcoo .msooo mEoosH GOSH wmmH h CNS“ mmmH h .m .2 suaaanmnoum mumaum>auazz suaaanmnoum mumaum>aca cmmsumm mmanmaum> Hmmmao measamua on» «0 mcoauwumoamsou amucmecoua>cm can «mcoaumwouomumamw .mcoaumnmoamcoo amaoom can .aMCOaumosom .achmumm «macaumumpamcoo ams0aummsooo mo moanmaum> pampcmmma may means mEooca an mummamz no“ mocmaum> mo mamwamcd mumaum>auas2 .oo manna pwuuafio wannaum> mummamza 165 maa u uouum n0m Eoommnm mo mmmuomo N u monocuommm How Eonmoum wo mwmuomo mmm cam m u umma mumaum>auas2 How Eoommum mo mmmumma am. om. vh.- .oamcoo .coua>cm on. mm. mm.m mcoaummoummlmamm vm. mm.a av. am. om.oo .00m was ..om ..Hmm ma. ms.a vk.om .oamcoo .msooo scauomumuca mm. oa. mo.mm .Uamsoo .coua>cm mm. mo. aa.a mcoaummonwmlmamm mm. mm. mm. mo. om.m .oom can ..om ..Hmm mm. ao. mm. .pamcoo .msooo cmmanoaz ca nm>aa mEaB can» mmma m can» mmma m .m .2 auaaaamnoum mumaum>auas2 wuaaanmnoum onwaum>aco :mm3umm mmanmaum> ammmao mcacamua may no mcoaumuwoamcou amucmesoua>cm paw “macaumwoummnmamm «msoaumuwoamsoo amaoom can .amc0aumospm .amGOmumm “macauwumoamcou anneaummsooo mo moanmaum> ucwocmmmo may moans cmoanoaz ca om>aa maae an mummamz How mocmaum> mo mamwamcd mumaum>auas2 .mo manna 166 pmuuan wannanm> mummamZa maa n Hounm now Eocmmum mo mmmnoma N n mmmmnuommm How Eopmmum mo mmmumma NMN Ucm m u ummB quHHm>HUHDZ HON EOmummHm m0 mmmhmwa 5N. am.a mv.mv .Uamcoo .coua>cm no. av. m~.m mcoauomoummumamm mm. m~.a mo. vm.~ ma.kma .oom cum ..86 ..umm mo. va.~ oa.ova .vamcoo .msooo cOauomumuca 5N. vm.a Nv.vv .pamcoo .coua>cm mm. om.a vm.s~ maoaummoummumamm mo. Gk.a mv. ms. km.mm .oOm ucm ..om ..umm ma. mo.m mv.mm .camcoo .msooo czou mo muam EMS“ mme .m cmnu mme .m .m .2 suaaanmnoum mumaum>auasz snaaanmnoum mumaum>aco cmmzumm mmanmaum> ammmau mcacamue may mo macaumumpamsou amusmecoua>cm paw «msoaumwoummnmamm «mGOauwuwoamcou amaoom ocm .amc0aumosom .aMGOmHmm “msoaumumoamcoo amGOaummsooo mo moanmaum> ucmpcmmwo may moans econ ma msammosm umo2 noanz ca c309 mo muam an mummamz Hem mosmaum> mo mamwaqu manaum>auas2 .oh manna 167 Ho: 4(i) On the basis of . . .; there will be no difference in willingness to participate in educational programs between sizes of towns in which most shOpping is done. Summary. A difference is found in the willingness of Mexican-Americans and Anglos to participate in educational programs. Mexican-Americans are more willing to participate than are Anglos. It is found that the occupational consid- erations variable contributed most to the difference in willingness to participate between the two ethnic groups. No differences are found between the welfare and non-welfare groups in willingness to participate.in educational programs. There is no interaction between welfare and non-welfare, and Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups. A test of the variables of age, residence, miles to high school, educational achievement, number of children, income, size of town shopped in, and time lived in Michigan reveals no differences in willingness to participate in educational programs. The test of the miles to community college variable reveals a significant difference. It is found that those living 0 to 10 miles from a commumity college are more willing to participate in educational programs than those living 11 to 20 miles or 21 to 30 miles from a community college or university. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The primary purpose of this study was to determine the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. More specifically, the following objectives were sought: 1. To determine if the Anglo and Mexican-American ethnic groups have a different degree of willingness toward participation in educational programs. To determine if welfare and non-welfare recipi- ents have a different degree of willingness toward participation in educational programs. To determine if the occupational considerations affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. To determine if the personal, educational, and social considerations affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. 168 169 5. To determine if the environmental considerations of the training classes affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. 6. To determine if self-perceptions affect the willingness of rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. 7. To determine if rural disadvantaged have different degrees of willingness toward participation in educational programs in relation to the variables of age, residence, miles to high school, miles to community college, educational achievement, number of children, income, size of shOpping center, and length of time out of the migrant labor stream. Summary of Findings Mexican-American respondents were somewhat older than the Anglos, and tended to live in small towns. Anglos tended to live on farms or in Open country, non-farm areas. Anglo heads of household tended to have larger families than Mexican-Americans. Mexican-American families included more adults that depended upon the heads of household for support. More Anglos were found in the lower income groups than Mexican-Americans. More Mexican-Americans tended to shOp in larger towns than Anglos. Anglos were 170 found to have lived in Michigan for longer periods of time than Mexican-Americans. Most of the Mexican-Americans were born in Texas, but most of the Anglos were born in Michigan. The jobs Mexican-Americans would like to have, and the jobs they expect to have tended to be the same. Anglos revealed job aSpirations and expectations similar to the Mexican-Americans, except the Anglos were more specific in kind of jobs they would like and would eXpect. The Mexican- Americans appear to have lower perceptions of job Opportunities than Anglos. A study of the job histories of the respondents revealed that both Anglo and Mexican-Americans have made little occupational advancement since obtaining their first jobs. Nearly half of Anglo and Mexican-American respondents are presently unemployed. Most of the Mexican-Americans and Anglos have not taken classes for job improvement. Anglos and Mexican-Americans are willing to train for jobs in which they would work by themselves or work indoors or outdoors. Mexican-Americans appear to be more willing to train for jobs in which they would be away from home one night a week, or a week or more at a time. Mexican-Americans also appear to be more willing to move to large cities to obtain jobs. Mexican-Americans and Anglos are both willing to train for jobs in which they would be doing manual labor most of the time, or be the boss, or work to the tOp. Mexican-Americans are more willing to 171 train for a job in which they would be both a farmer and have a job in town. An overall view of occupational considerations indicates that the Mexican-Americans are more willing to take training classes for a job or a better job than are Anglos. There appears to be no difference between welfare and non-welfare groups in willingness to participate in training classes. The rural disadvantaged appear willing to participate in educational classes relating to personal, educational, and social considerations. Both the Mexican-American and Anglo ethnic groups said they would be willing to participate in classes on health, community organizations, English reading and Speaking, Spanish, mathematics, credit, buying food and clothing, and Spending money wisely. The rural disadvantaged tend to perceive themselves favorably in regard to their ability to be hired for a job, run their own business, or be the leader of others. In general, only minor differences are observed between ethnic and welfare groups. One exception is that Anglos on welfare appear to be more Willing to attend classes to get a job on a farm than Anglos Off welfare. A second exception is that Anglos on welfare perceive factory jobs as more desirable than Anglos Off welfare. Both ethnic groups appear to be receptive to classes to learn how to be leaders, and to Operate their own 172 businesses. The rural disadvantaged also appear to be confident that potential employers would hire them and they are willing to attend classes in clothes they now own. In this study, environmental considerations were concerned with such factors as instructor's ethnic group, season in which class is held, length and location Of class, time of class, and method Of transportation used to get to class. Both ethnic groups tended to be less willing to participate in educational programs as the class length increases to six months or more. The Anglos appear unwilling to attend training classes if they have to stay in another city while attending classes. The ethnic group to which the teacher belongs appears to have little effect upon willingness Of the respondents to attend classes. Both Anglos and Mexican-Americans are willing to participate in classes which would be given on television. The Anglos chose bus transportation as the preferred method to get to classes; the Mexican-Americans desired to pool rides. Most Of the rural disadvantaged chose to go to class in the fall or winter. The Anglos preferred to go to classes in the morning or evening, while the Mexican— Americans chose to attend in the morning or afternoon. The first choice for location of class is the local high school for all groups. It appeared to make no difference which day Of the week the Anglos go to class, but the Mexican- Americans appear to favor classes early in the week. It is 173 also observed that most Of the rural disadvantaged will not spend their own money for tuition or supplies. Conclusions On the basis Of findings in this study, the following conclusions seem to be justified. 1. The Mexican-Americans are more willing to participate in educational classes than Anglos. However, both Mexican-American and Anglo rural disadvantaged have a desire to participate in educational programs to get a job or a better job. There is no difference in the willingness Of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educa- tional classes on the basis Of the welfare status Of the respondents. Both Mexican-Americans and Anglos on and Off welfare desire to participate in educational programs that would help them get a job or a better job. Occupational considerations affect the willing- ness Of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational training classes. Apparently, the respondents would tend to look beyond the training class to the job which might be Offered; decisions to participate in a class would be determined by the character of the prOSpective employment. 174 The rural disadvantaged are willing to partici- pate in educational classes that pertain to their personal, educational, and social welfare. They are willing to take classes in health, English, and mathematics. They are also willing to take classes on buying food, clothing, and obtaining credit. According to the measures used in this study, the rural disadvantaged tend to perceive themselves favorably in regard to their ability to be hired for a job, run their own business, or be the leader of others. Certain environmental considerations relating to the way classes are taught will apparently affect the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to attend educational training classes. The classes will need to be six months or less in length. Anglos will not attend if the class requires them to live in another city while attending class. Transportation will be a problem of the rural disadvantaged in getting to class. The rural disadvantaged will not spend their own money for tuition or supplies. The age, residence, miles to high school, educational achievement, number of children, 175 income, size Of town shOpped in, and time lived in Michigan do not affect the willingness of the rural disadvantaged to participate in educational programs. The rural disadvantaged that live ten miles or less from a community college or university are more willing to attend classes than those living over ten miles. Implications It would appear that educators should spend more time on job definition in educational classes, eSpecially in those Offered to Mexican-Americans. The Mexican-Americans want good jobs and steady jobs, but they seem to lack a broad view of the occupational Opportunities available to them. Generally Speaking, the rural disadvantaged have not climbed very far up the job ladder since starting their first jobs. Their aspirations and expectations are nearly alike in that they want and expect the same jobs. The rural disadvantaged appear to look beyond available training classes to the types Of jobs they might be doing before deciding whether to enroll in such training classes. Educators will need to furnish much information about the jobs in which their students will be working if the rural poor are going to be attracted to the training classes. Both Anglo and Mexican-Americans would like jobs other than farming, and both may be reluctant to participate 176 in training classes in which farming is the end result of the class. When Offering training classes that would prepare for jobs in factories, the Mexican-Americans are more likely to participate in such classes. Anglos appear to shun classes which would train them for jobs involving travel, especially overnight travel. Both Anglos and Mexican-Americans are willing to take classes in which they would move to a small town or rural community. The Anglos would probably not participate in classes in which they would train for jobs in large cities. Mexican-Americans and Anglos appear to be very willing to attend classes in health, learning more about social and community organizations, buying food and clothing, using credit, and managing money. Educational administrators should consider Offering such courses. Mexican-Americans also show a high degree of willingness to participate in English classes. The review Of literature revealed that participation of the rural poor is low in all areas of society. Participation in classes is, therefore, one way of improving participation in other areas of society, even though the class does not lead directly to a job. It seems that occupational information should be a part of every class whether the class is in English, use of credit, or training for an actual job. It is also Obvious that the classes will have to be provided free of charge. 177 The language barrier made it necessary for the Mexican-Americans in this study to be interviewed by Spanish-Speaking interviewers. Many of the Spanish-Speaking reSpondents could read neither English nor Spanish, and some spoke very little English. It may be necessary to use bilingual instructors for classes in which Mexican-Americans participate. The language barrier may make it imperative that Mexican—Americans be taught in separate classes. Considering the serious limitations of their occupational preparation, the respondents appear to be expecting unrealistically high incomes when they are employed. Occupational education classes are needed to help the rural poor develOp a better understanding of the existing employment patterns, and the concept that higher incomes are usually attained through eXperience and merited advancement over a period of time on the job. Such classes Should bring out that employers are obligated to pay a fair wage, and that employees are entitled to wages commensurate with their training, ability, and performance. Transportation is a major barrier to the education of the rural poor. A high percentage will need bus trans- portation. There appears to be a tendancy for the rural poor to attend classes in the fall and winter. Very few would attend classes which were Offered in the summer. Mexican-Americans also seem to prefer classes early in the week. 178 Respondents are willing to attend classes in the local high schools or community colleges. However, they are reluctant to travel over 10 miles to a class. Anglos would also attend classes in the local church, but the Mexican-Americans did not favor the church as a location for classes. Both welfare and non—welfare disadvantaged were receptive to participation in educational classes. It appears that all but the real hard core welfare cases would attend training classes to help them secure employment. It is apparent from this study that the needs Of the rural disadvantaged should be carefully considered when planning educational programs. Although the rural disadvan- taged appear to have a high degree of willingness to participate in educational programs, over 80 percent of those interviewed have not taken classes which would help them get a job or a better job. Educators need to look at the barriers which inhibit participation Of the rural disadvantaged in educational programs. The findings of this study may not be relevant to all rural poor ethnic groups. However, the findings Of this study should alert educators to possible barriers to partic- ipation of the rural poor in educational programs. If educational leaders ignore such factors as time and location Of class, transportation problems, lack Of reading ability of the rural poor, type of jobs for which the training classes prepare, and the cost of classes, the rural 179 disadvantaged may not enroll in training programs. Educators should also realize that the rural poor are not an homogeneous group, but have varied problems that may inhibit participation in educational programs. Recommendations for Further Study l. The findings of this study reveal that occupational considerations relating to possible future employment affect the willingness of Mexican-American and Anglo rural disadvantaged to participate in educational classes. Studies should be conducted to find other barriers which affect the participation Of the rural disadvantaged in educational classes. This study reveals that the Mexican-American and Anglo ethnic groups have a different degree Of willingness to participate in educational programs. Additional studies need to be made to determine the willingness of other ethnic groups to participate in educational programs. This study reveals no differences in willingness to participate in educational programs between persons on and Off welfare. However, this study was conducted during a period of high unemploy- ment. Future studies dealing with welfare status Should be conducted when unemployment is low. 180 As evidenced when drawing the sample for this study, a majority of those on the welfare rolls are female heads of family. A study should be undertaken to determine the barriers which affect the willingness of female heads of family to participate in educational programs. It is difficult to identify the rural disadvan- taged individuals. Studies need to be under- taken to find ways to make educational programs SO attractive that the rural disadvantaged will want to participate in them. The most effective channels of communication with the rural poor should also be determined. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Amanna, Vincent. "Objective for Home-Visitors Changes," Rural Family Development Newsletter, (June, 1971), p. 3. Bauder, Ward W., and Burchinal, Lee G. "DO Rural PeOple Succeed in the City," Iowa Farm Science, VOl. 19, NO. 3 (September, 1964), pp. 11-13. Baumheier, Edward C., and others. A Study: Those Not Working in a Tight Labor Market, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. New York: Greenleigh Associates, 1967. Beck, Robert B., and others. The San Antonio Rehabilitation- Welfare Report on Research_§nd Demonstratibn Project RD lSiB. CapitOICStatiOn: Texas Education Agency, VOcational Rehabilitation Division, February, 1967. Booth, Alan. "A Demographic Consideration Of Non- Participation," QuarterlyJournal of Adult Education, VOl. 11, No. 4 (Summer, 1961), pp. 223-229. Burchinal, Lee G., and Siff, Hilda. "Rural Poverty," in Ferman, Louis A., Kornbluh, Joyce L., and Haber, Alan (eds.). Poverty in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965. Burkett, Keith W., and Thompson, James F. LOW Incomes Of Rural PeOple: The Nature and Extent of tthrOblem in a South-Central Kentucky Area. Research Bulletin 697, Lexington: University of Kentucky, April, 1965. Campbell, Rex R., and Mulvey, Susan A. "Perception of Job ‘ Opportunities Among Low-Income Groups in Missouri." Columbia: University Of Missouri, Agriculture Experiment Station, February, 1968. Choldin, Harvey M., and Trout, Grafton D. Mexican-Americans in Transition: Migration and Employment in Michigan Cities. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, 1969. 181 182 Cook, Keith E. "Differences Between Self-Concepts of Disadvantaged and Non-Disadvantaged High School Students Within Certain Types of Rural and Urban Communities." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Maine, 1969. Dickinson, Gary, and Verner, Coolie. "Attendance Patterns and DrOpouts in Adult Night School Classes," Quarterl Journal of Adult Education, VOl. 18, No.1 (FaII, 1967!, pp. 24-33. Dunkelberger, John E. "Intensity of Job Mobility Aspiration Among Household Heads in Low-Income Areas of the Rural South." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1965. Ferman, Louis A., Kornbluh, Joyce L., and Haber, Alan. Poverty in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965. Fine, Sidney A. Guidelines for Employment of the Culturally Disadvantaged. Kalamazoo: The W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, June, 1969. Frank, Boris. "Is RFD Unique?" Rural Family Development Newsletter, (June, 1971), p. 2. Fuller, Gerald R., and Phipps, Lloyd J. "DevelOpment of Human Resources Through a VOcationally Oriented Educational Program for Disadvantaged Families in Depressed Rural Areas." Interim Report NO. 2. Urbana: The University Of Illinois, September, 1968. Fuller, Gerald R., and Phipps, Lloyd J. "DevelOpment of Human Resources Through a VOcationally Oriented Educational Program for Disadvantaged Families in Depressed Rural Areas." Interim Report NO. 3. Urbana: The University of Illinois, September, 1968. General Records Of EightCAP Office of Economic Opportunity. St. Louis, Michigan. Guidelines for the Occupational Training Of the Disadvan- taged. Division of Vocational-Technical Education. Oswego: State University of New York, 1968. Hall, Edward T. "The Manpower Potential of Our Ethnic Groups." Paper read at the Seminar on Manpower Policy and Programs, January 12, 1967, Washington D.C. 183 Hathaway, Dale E., Beegle, J. Allan, and Bryant, W. Keith. PeOple of Rural America. Washington: Bureau of the Census, 1968. Kirk, Roger E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. California: Brooks COIe Publishing Company, 1968. Konyha, Marvin E. "Needs and Potentials for Escape From Poverty Through Retraining for Families in the Eastern Corn Belt." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Kuvlesky, William P. "The Social Psychological Dimensions Of Occupational Mobility." Paper read at the National VOcational Technical Education seminar, April 28, 1966, Raleigh, North Carolina. Larson, Wayne L., and Slocum, Walter L. The Impact Of Poverty in Rural Youth, Bulletin 714, Pullman: WaShington State University, Agriculture Experiment Station, September, 1969. Levitan, Sar A. Antipoverty_WOrk and Traininglgfforts: Goals and Reality, POIicy Papersiin Human Resources and Industrial Relations No. 3, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1967. Lewis, Robert Bruce. "A Study of Selected Factors Associated With Participation Orientation Toward Education and Job Training Among Adults Residing in Low-Socioeconomic Communities of North Carolina." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1969. Liebhafsky, E. E., and others. "A Methodological Approach to Identification and Classification of Certain Types Of Inactive Work-Seekers." Houston: The University Of Houston, College of Business Administration, October, 1965. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959. Mangum, Garth L. "VOcational Education for the Disadvan- taged: Lessons from Government Funded Programs." Paper read at the National Workshop on VOcational Education for the Disadvantaged, March 12-14, 1969, Atlantic City, New Jersey. 184 Mathews, Robert G., and Drabick, Lawerence W. Reasons for Selection of Expected Occupations: by Race and Sex. Educational Research Series NO. 7, Raleigh: North Carolina State University, Departments of Agricultural Education and Rural Sociology, 1965. Michigan Employment Security Commission. Mimeo 8220 (Revised January 25, 1971). National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. The PeOple Left Behind. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. National Association Of Manufacturers. Effectively Employing the Hard Core. New York, 1968. Nichols, Charles F. "VOcational Education for the Disadvan- taged: Seven Years Later," American VOcational Journal, VOl. 45, No. 8 (November, 19707. pp. 21-23. Office of Research Consultation, College Of Education. Jeremy D. Finn's Multivariance-Univariate and Multivariate Analysis Of Variance and Covariappe: A FORTRAN IV Program. Occasional Paper NO. 9, East Lansing: Michigan State University, March, 1970. Orshansky, Mollie. "Counting the Poor; Another Look at the Poverty Profile," in Ferman, Louis A., Kornbluh, Joyce L., and Haber, Alan (eds). Poverty in America. Ann Arbor: University Of Michigan Press, 1965. Persons, Edgar, and Leske, Gary. "Adapting Adult Education to the Disadvantaged." Paper read at the Training Institute for Rural Disadvantaged, August 17, 1970, Willmar, Minnesota. POpham, W. James. Educational Statistics: Use and Interpretation. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Potter, Harry R., Goudy, Willis J., and Larson, Calvin J. "The Situation in an Average Income County." Paper read at the Rural Sociological Society meeting, August 21, 1969, San Francisco, California. Quiton, Vicente Abobo. "Socioeconomic Factors Related to the Morale Of Adults in an Economically Disadvantaged Rural Area." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University Of Illinois, 1970. 185 Razaque, Abdul Ali, Kimball, William J., and Thullen, Manfred. Some Dimensions Of Poverty in Michigan. Report NO. 19. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, September, 1969. Reul, Myrtle R. Address to Rural Manpower seminar on Rural Poverty, February 7, 1970, East Lansing: Michigan State University. Reul, Myrtle R. Sociocultural Patterns Among Mighigan Migrant Farm Workers. Special Paper NO. 2, East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, July, 1967. Saldana, Nancy. Mexican-Americans inlthe Midwest: An Annotated Bibliography. Special Paper NO. TO, East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, July, 1969. Sawers, Larry Bruce. "The Labor Force Participation of the Urban Poor." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969. Sewell, William H., and Orenstein, Alan M. "Community of Residence and Occupational Choice," Americanggurnal Of Sociology, VOl. 70, NO. 1 (March, 1965). PP. 551-563. Sexton, Brendan. "Participation of the Poor." Paper prepared for Graduate School of Social Work Center for the Study of Unemployed Youth, February, 1966, New York, New York. Slocum, Walter L. Aspirations and ExPectations Of the Rural Poor. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, October, 1967. Taylor, Lee, and Glasgow, Charles W. "Occupations and Low- Income Rural PeOple." Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, December, 1963. ' Thurow, Lester C. "The Causes Of Poverty," Qparterly Journal Of Economics, Vol. 81, NO. 1 (February, i967), Pp. :7-570 Udvari, Stephen. "RFD and Instructional Process," Rural Family DevelOpment Newsletter, (June, 1971), p. 3. 186 U.S. Department Of Labor. Barriers to Employment of the Disadvantaged, Manpower Message of the President and Report on Manpower Requirement, Resources, Utilization! apdTraining. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 1968. van Tassel, Carol. ”Guidelines for Professionals Working with Persons with Special Needs." Guidelines develOped from the Seminar for Supervisors and Teacher Educators of Teachers Of Persons with Special Needs, June 12-23, 1967, Lexington, Kentucky. Venn, Grant. "The Bridge Between Man and His Work." Lecture delivered at the Twenty-Ninth Annual Conference on Industrial Education, March 14-17, 1967, Sacramento, California. Vredevoogd, W. E. Rural Poverty in Michigan. Report No. 21. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Rural Manpower Center, November, 1970. Weber, Arnold R. "Experiments in Retraining: A Comparative Study," in Somers, Gerald G. (ed.). Retraining the Unemplgyed. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1968. Wisconsin Board Of VOcational, Technical and Adult Education. Survey Of Adult Education Participants. Madison: University Of Wisconsin Extension Service, 1969. Wolfbein, Seymour L. Education and Training for Full Employment. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE PART I. PERSONAL AND FAMILY INFORMATION 1. 4. 10. 11. 2. 3. (identification numbers) Welfare (1) receiving welfare (2) not receiving welfare Ethnic group (1) Anglo (2) Mexican-American Age (1) up to age 27 (2) age 28 to 36 (3) age 37 to 45 Residence (1) small town (2) farm (3) Open country, non-farm Miles to nearest high school (1) 0 to 5 (2) 6 to 10 (3) 11 to 15 Miles to nearest community college, or university (1) 0 to 10 (2) 11 to 20 (3) 21 to 30 Educational achievement (1) 0 to 4 years (2) 5 to 8 years (3) 9 to 14 years Number of children living at home (1) 0 to 2 (2) 3 to 5 (3) 6 and over 187 188 12. Income (1) 0 to $3100 (2) $3101 to $5000 (3) $5001 to $6800 13. HOW long have you lived continuously in Michigan? (1) 6 months to one year (2) one to two years (3) over three years 14. In what town do you do most Of your shOpping? Find the town, determine the size, and record the size. (1) up to 2500 (2) 2501 to 5000 (3) 5001 to 10,000 (4) over 10,000 PART II. WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS Instructions to the interviewer Give card number ONE to the person to be interviewed, and ask them to choose one Of the following five selections for each question that is asked. 1. I would be very willing 2. I would be somewhat willing 3. I don't know 4. I would be somewhat unwilling 5. I would be very unwilling Question If free training classes were to be held locally, and if they would help you get a job or a better payingljopy would you be Willing to attend training classes if they did the following? (Area I Questions relating to occupational considerations) 15. Trained you for a job in which you would work by yourself most of the time. 189 16. Trained you for a job in which you would be doing manual labor most of the time. Trainedpyou for a job in which you would be-- 17. away from home one night a week 18. traveling in your community during the day, but be home at night 19. away from home a week or more at a time Repeat theguestion If free training classes were tO be held locally, and if they would help you get a job or a better paying job, would you be willing to attend training classes if they did the following? 20. Trained you for a job in which you would be working inside in a heated building and not outside in the weather. 21. Trained you for a job in which you worked outside nearly all the time when the weather was good. 22. Trained you for a seasonal job, not a migrant job. 23. Trained you for a yearlong job. Trainedlyou for aljob in which you would have to move to a differentlpiace, andiwhere housing was available-- 24. if the place was a small town or a rural area 25. if the place was a large city like Detroit or Flint 26. if the place was a medium size city like Midland or Bay City 27. Trained you for a job where you could be boss or work to the tOp. 28. Trained you for a job in which you would be both a farmer and have a job in the city. 190 (Area II Questions relating to personal, educational, and social considerations) Re-state the Question If free training classes were to be held locallyy_and if they would help you get a job or a better paying job, would you be willing to attend the following trainipg classes? 29. Classes that would help to keep you and your family in good health. 30. Classes that would help you learn more about community organizations such as the PTA, church groups, and clubs which you might join. 31. Classes in which you would learn more about the way peOple live in your town. Classes in which you would-— 32. learn to Speak better English 33. learn to read faster in English 34. learn to write better in English 35. learn more about arithmetic or mathematics 36. learn to read Spanish Classes in which you would learn more about-— 37. how to get credit to buy the things you need 38. how to buy clothing 39. how to buy food 40. how to keep from being cheated when you spend your money 191 (Area III Questions relating to self-perceptions) 41. Classes that would help you get a job on a farm. 42. Classes that would help you get a job other than farming. 43. Classes that would help you get a job in a factory. 44. Classes that would help you to Operate your own business. 45. Classes for a job in which you are the leader of other workers. 46. Going to class in the clothes you now own. (Hand the person being interviewed card TWO.) 47. How willing do you think the other heads of family which you know, would be to taking a class that would help them get a job or a better job? HOW willing do you think other members in your household would be to takingglasses that WOuId help them get a job or a Better job?-- 48. the male members that are 16 and over, and not in school 49. the female members that are 16 and over, and not in school (Hand the person being interviewed card THREE) 50. Suppose that an employer wanted to hire a person for a job, you liked the job, and really wanted it. Do you think he would hire you? (Area Iv Questions relating to the environmental considerations of the training class) Repeat theguestion (Hand the person being interviewed card ONE) 192 If free training classes were to be held locallyy and if they would helplyou get a job or a better paying job, would you be willing to attend training classes if they did the following? 51. Classes in which the teacher does most of the talking. 52. Classes in which the student does most of the talking. 53. Classes in which the teacher is an Anglo. 54. Classes in which the teacher is a Mexican-American. Training programs in which you would be in class for-- 55. 6 weeks 56. 3 months 57. 6 months or more 58. Classes in which you would have to go and live in another city while going to school. 59. Classes which would be given on your TV set. (The following questions are part of Area IV, however, the person being interviewed will be asked to make a first and second choice in questions 60 through 69.) How would you get to class?-- 60. First choice (1) in your own car 61. Second choice (2) by pooling rides with others in your community (3) by riding in a bus if the bus were free 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 193 In which season of thelyear would you like to go to class?-- First choice (1) fall Second choice (2) winter (3) spring (4) summer What time Of the day would you like to go to class?-- First choice (1) morning Second choice (2) afternoon (3) evening Where would you like the classes to be held?-- First choice (1) at the local high school Second choice (2) at the nearest community college (3) at a friend's home (4) at the local church (5) at the local community center What would be the best day for you to attend c1asses?-- First choice (1) Monday Second choice (2) Tuesday (3) Wednesday (4) Thursday (5) Friday (6) Saturday (7) does not make any difference 70. 194 How much money would you be willing to spend for tuition and supplies to go to class? (1) up to $ 10.00 (2) up to $ 50.00 (3) up to $100.00 (4) up to $200.00 (5) none PART III OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES 1. What kind Of occupation or job do you expect to have in the future? 2. What kind Of job would you like to have in the future? 3. If you were to take more training classes in order to get a better job, how much money would the new job need to pay in order for you to take the class? 4. How many others in your family depend on you for support? Adults Children 5. What classes have you taken for job improvement? 6. What is your previous work eXperience? 7. In what state were you born? Your Spouse? 8. In which community did you Spend most Of your growing up time? 195 9. What was your first full time job? 10. In what state was your first full time job located? 11. What was your job five years ago? Location What was your job ten years ago? Location 12. What is your present job? Location APPENDIX B Table 71. Guide for Identifying Disadvantaged Head Of Household by Family Size and Income Annual net income Family size Non-farm Farm 1 $1900 $1600 2 2500 2000 3 3100 2500 4 3800 3200 5 4400 3700 6 5000 4200 7 5600 4700 8 6200 5200 9 6800 5700 10 7400 6200 11 8000 6700 12 6800 7200 13 9200 7700 Source: Michigan Employment Security Commission, Mimeo 8220 (Revised January 25, 1971). 196