, —.. -qvvu CHARACTERISTICS OF DISADVANTAGED VOLUNTEERS. ‘ AND NON-VOLUNTEERS. EDRA FEDERAL YOUTH, V WORK TRAINING PROGRAM Thesis for The Degree of .Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE uNIVERSITY " ALBERT NRITSEMA ‘ 1957 .3 LIBRARY Michigan State * University \ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Characteristics of Disadvantaged Volunteers and Non-Volunteers for a Federal Youth Work Training Program. presented by Albert H. Ritsema has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. degree in Counseling, Personnel Serv1ces and Educational Psychology [Emu/4a; Major professor Date October 30, 967 0-169 ABSTRACT CHARACTERISTICS OF DISADVANTAGED VOLUNTEERS AND NON-VOLUNTEERS FOR A FEDERAL YOUTH WORK TRAINING PROGRAM BY Albert H a Ritsema Because of increasing concern among the leaders of our nation for those who are economically disadvantaged, numerous federal, state, and local programs have been develOped in recent years to assist them. In this research an effort has been made to identify the characteristics of male students who volunteer to participate in a Federal Youth Work Training Program which is designed for economi- cally disadvantaged students. An attempt was also made to identify reasons eligible students do not volunteer to participate. Review of the literature did not reveal any previous research on this problem. However, the literature did reveal the position by some authorities that lower class people are usually not willing to take action which would improve their situation. This is in contrast to the evidence that some lower class people do volunteer for programs designed to help them. One of the authorities took the position that the lower class people who do take action to ameliorate their situation are those whose reference groups are the upper Classes. Therefore, it was “hypothesized that the advantaged students would be higher than the non-volunteers on selected school performance and related socio- psychological variables. For this research 231 male students in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with birthdates between May 1, 19u9, and November 1, lgug, were studied prior to the time they would be eligible for the Work Train- ing Program. These students were categorized as: advantaged (173 students), disadvantaged volunteers (3n students), and disadvantaged non-volunteers (2H students). Data from school records, questionnaires, and interviews were gathered in Spring, 1965. Analysis of the data revealed the following noteworthy findings: 1. The advantaged students were significantly higher than the disadvantaged students in regard to intelligence quotients; reading achievement; grade point average; school attendance record; self concept of academic ability; perceived parents' evaluations of academic ability; perceived friends' evaluations of academic ability; perceived teachers' evaluations of academic ability; and perceived norms for academic performance as indicated by perceived academic preferences of parents and favorite teacher. 2. The disadvantaged volunteers were not significantly higher than the disadvantaged non-volunteers on any of the variables used in this research. 3. Half of the non-volunteers held part-time jobs outside of the school system. Interviews with the remaining non-volunteers revealed that their reasons for not volunteering were either because they had no knowledge of the program or they were too busy with school work and school activities. Seven recommendations were offered for consideration by the administrators of the program. Implications for further research were drawn. CHARACTERISTICS OF DISADVANTAGED VOLUNTEERS AND NON-VOLUNTEERS FOR A FEDERAL YOUTH WORK TRAINING PROGRAM BY . t)‘ (\Y J Albert H f“ Ritsema A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1967 . ("‘ ’\ I J ‘.‘)vti$ Albert H. Ritsema Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education Final examination: October 30, 1967, College of Education Dissertation: Characteristics of Disadvantaged Volunteers and Non-volunteers for a Federal Youth Work Training Program Outline of Doctoral Studies: Major subject: School Counseling Cognate area: Social Work Biographical and Educational Information: Born: May 15, 1930 Undergraduate studies: Calvin College A e B e in Education June, 1952 Master's program: University of Michigan M.A. in Guidance and Counseling February, 195% Doctoral program: Michigan State University Doctoral candidate: 1962-1967 Professional Experience: Grand Rapids Public Schools School Social Worker 1956-1967 Grand Rapids, Michigan and Counselor Member of The American Personnel and Guidance Association, The Michigan Counselor's Association, The Western Michigan School Social Worker's Association, and the Michigan School Social Worker's Association. AC KN OW LEDGMEN T8 The author is deeply indebted to many pe0ple. Unfortunately, it is not possible to rec0gnize here all of those who have helped to make this study possible. It is apprOpriate, however, to rec0g- nize those who have made special contributions. Dr. James W. Costar, chairman of the author's Guidance Committee and director of this thesis, has provided invaluable counsel and encouragement during the past several years. His counsel and support have been deeply appreciated. The writer wishes to express thanks to the members of his Guidance Committee: Dr. Norman Kagan, who ably served as chairman of the author's Guidance Committee prior to the initiation of this thesis; Dr. Lucille K. Barber, who has been a source of encourage- ment since the beginning of this candidate's doctoral prOgram; and Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover, who has contributed significantly to the develOpment of this study. The author also wishes to acknowledge the contribution made by Dr. Richard C. Rank who served as chairman of the Guidance Committee prior to his appointment to the Faculty of Georgia State University in 1966. A major contribution was made by Dr. Edsel L. Erickson who was on the staff at Michigan State University and presently is on the faculty of Western Michigan University. His professional know- ledge and personal support have been invaluable to the author of this study. Donald Bender, diagnostician for the Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Schools, provided able assistance in the collection of the data. The author is appreciative to him and other employees of the Grand Rapids Public Schools who were helpful in a variety of ways in this thesis. The author wishes to thank Rodney Huntington, student at Western Michigan University, for his able assistance in the analysis of the data for this thesis. Also, a word of appreciation is expressed to Mrs. Robert Cross for her efforts and patience in preparing this manuscript. Finally, the author expresses deep appreciation for the endless hours of proofreading, encouragement and personal sacri- fices of his devoted wife, Wilma Jane. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . Introduction of the Problem. Purpose and Importance of the Study. Theory . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Description of the Program . Plan of the Study. . . . . . Delimitations of the Study . Limitations of the Study . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . General Concern about the Disadvantaged. The Disadvantaged in the Schools . . . . Work-study Pregrams and the Disadvantaged. The Disadvantaged and Opportunities for ASSiStanCQ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e The Concept of the Reference Group . . . . StUdieS Of Self Concept. e e e e e e e e e Level of Aspiration and the Disadvantaged. Summary. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Page 10 11 12 13 1A 15 15 16 l? 19 2O 22 25’ 27 CHAPTER Page III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Site of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Description of the Population. . . . . . . 29 Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . 30 Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Data Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . 31 Statistical Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 32 Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Standardized Test Data . . . . . . . . . 34 School Records Data. . . . . . . . . . . 36 Questionnaire Data . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N0 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Data from Questionnaires and School Records 42 Data from the Interviews . . . . . . . . . 60 V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . 62 The Problem and Methodology. . . . . . . . 62 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Significant Findings Regarding Advantaged and Disadvantaged Smdents e e e e e e 6“ Comparisons between Disadvantaged. Volunteers and Non-Volunteers. . . . . 65 CHAPTER Summary of Responses in Structured Interviews with Non-Volunteers . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Future Research . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES. O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Page 66 66 68 69 70 7k TABLE 4.1a 4.1b H.2a H.Hb n.5b LIST OF TABLES Page Socio-economic Status of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ”2 Socio-economic Status of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers e e e e e e e e e e e e e e “2 Intelligence Quotients of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e “3 Intelligence Quotients of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers e e e e e e e e e e e e e e “3 Reading Achievement Percentile Scores of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students. . . . . . . . “4 Reading Achievement Percentile Scores of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers . . an Days Absent from School of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male StUdentS e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e “5 Days Absent from School of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ”5 Grade Point Average of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male StUdentS e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e “6 Grade Point Average of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers. e e e e e e e e e e e “6 Self Concept of Academic Ability of Advan- taged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students, . . . , . . . 47 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page n.6b Self Concept of Academic Ability of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers e e e e e e e e e e e e ”7 4.7a Perceived Parents' Evaluations of Academic Ability of Disadvantaged Male Students Com- pared with Disadvantaged Male Students. . . H8 n.7b Perceived Parents' Evaluations of Academic Ability of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non- VolunteerS. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Ll8 n.8a Perceived Friend's Evaluation of Academic Ability of Advantaged Male Students Compared With Disadvantaged Male Students. e e e e e #9 n.8b Perceived Friend's Evaluation of Academic Ability of Advantaged Male Volunteers Com- pared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers us n.9a Perceived Teacher's Evaluation of Academic Ability of Advantaged Male Students Com- pared with Disadvantaged Male Students. . . 50 H.9b Perceived Teacher's Evaluation of Academic Ability of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non- VolunteePS. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 50 u.lOa Level of Occupational Aspiration of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 51 u.10b Level of Occupational Aspiration of Disadvan- taged Male Volunteers Compared with Disad- vantaged Male Non-Volunteers. . . . . . . . Sl u.lla Level of Occupational Expectation of Advan- taged Male Students Compared with Disadvan- taged Male Students e e e e e e e e e e e e 52 1+.llb Level of Occupational Aspiration of Disadvan- taged Male Volunteers Compared with Disad- vantaged Male Non-Volunteers. . . . . . . . 52 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE u.l2a H.12b u.13a H.13b n.1ua H.1Hb 4.15a H.15b n.16a 4.16b n.17 Level of Educational Aspiration of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged MaleStUden'tSeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Level of Educational Aspiration of Disadvan- taged Male Volunteers Compared with Disad- vantaged Male Non-Volunteers. . . . . . . . Level of Educational Expectation of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged MaleStuden‘tS............... Level of Educational Expectation of Disadvan- taged Male Volunteers Compared with Disad- vantaged Male NOfl-VOlunteerSe e e e e e e e Perceived Parents' Academic Preferences of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Dis- advantaged Male StudentS. e e e e e e e e e Perceived Parents' Academic Preferences of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers . . . . . Perceived Friend's Academic Preference of Ad- vantaged Male Students Compared with Disad- vantaged M316 StudentS. e e e e e e e e e e Perceived Friend's Academic Preference of Die- advantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers . . . . . Perceived Teacher's Academic Preference of Ad- vantaged Male Students Compared with Disad- vantaged Male StudentS. e e e e e e e e e e Perceived Teacher's Academic Preference of Die- advantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Dis- advantaged Male Non-Volunteers. . . . . . . Summary of Significant Findings . . . . . . . Page 53 53 SC 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. B. C. D. E. P. G. H. Description of the Work Training Program Application Form for Work Training Program Form for Structured Interview Michigan Academic Self Concept Scale Perceived Parents' Academic Evaluations Scale Perceived Friend's Academic Evaluations Scale Perceived Teacher's Academic Evaluations Scale Questionnaire Items Measuring Levels of Occupational Aspiration and Expectation and Educational Aspiration and Expectation Questionnaire Items Measuring Perceived Academic Preferences of Parents, Friends, and Teachers Summary of Means and Medians of All Categories of Students in the Study Page 75 80 82 83 85 87 89 91 92 93 CHAPTER I ' THE PROBLEM Introduction of the Problem Emerging social conditions and problems have caused many prominent educators, sociologists and government leaders to be con- cerned about poverty and its effect upon individuals and society in 2 3, and others have written general. Havighurstl, Conant , Riessman a great deal about this problem. Recently, with federal, state, and local support, numerous educational and economic assistance programs have been developed to aid students characterized as economically disadvantaged. The main purposes of these prOgrams are to minimize the effects of poverty and enable the disadvantaged students to deveIOp those of his capacities which may go unused without such help. Many disadvantaged students avail themselves of such programs. How- ever, there are also many who do not. Caro“ has said that lower class young peOple tend not to take full advantage of opportunities which are available to them. In view of this fact, it is important to both 1Robert J. Havighurst, Education in_Metr0politan Areas (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, l966) 2 . James B. Conant, Slums and Suburbs (New York: No Grew-Hill Book Company, 1961) 3Frank Riessman, The Culturallpreprived Child (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962) uFrancis G. Caro, "Social Class and Attitudes of Youth Relevant for the Realization of Adult Goals", Social Forces, an (June, 1966), p. #92. educators and non-educators that differences between disadvantaged young peOple who volunteer and disadvantaged young peOple who do not volunteer to participate in such programs when they are located in an academic setting be identified. Purpose and Importance of the Study If our society is to accomplish its goals of alleviating poverty and, more specifically, alleviating the negative effect poverty has upon young peOple in school, the deveIOpment of a better understanding of the economically disadvantaged is essential. Since the disadvantaged are not a homogeneous group, it is particularly important that variations in the social-psychological characteristics of the disadvantaged in relation to certain behaviors be identified. The main purpose of this study is to increase the amount of knowledge about the economically disadvantaged which is available. This will be done by examining some characteristics of disadvantaged students who volunteered to participate in a particular poverty pro- gram Operating within an academic setting when compared with disadvan- taged students who did not volunteer for the program. In the criteria5 established by the Federal government for the selection of students for the Work Training Program upon which this study is focused, a recommendation was made that every consideration be given to selecting school youth who have a "personal as well as an 5Program Standard No. 1-65, Subject: "Students for Enrollment (If Youth in Neighborhood Youth Corps Projects." U.S. Department of Inibor Manpower Administration, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Washington, 13.0., July 8, 1965, p. 2. economic need for participation in the program". Students with a personal need are those characterized by: marginal school achievement, language deficiencies, poor school records, frequent disciplinary problems, lack of motivation, and emotional or attitudinal problems requiring personal adjustment assistance. These criteria have strong academic implications and are provided so that disadvantaged students with poor "life chances" will be involved in the prOgram as well as disadvantaged students with more favorable "life chances"6. It is important to know whether students with these personal needs related to academic success avail themselves of such programs to the same extent as other disadvantaged students. In summary, the purposes of this study are: l. to determine what differences, if any, exist between advantaged and disadvantaged youth according to certain variables thought to be related to academic success. 2. to extend the knowledge about the disadvantaged by deter- mining differences between those who volunteer and those who do not volunteer for a Work Training Program located in an academic setting. 3. to discover those factors which cause non-volunteers to refuse to participate in Work Training Programs located in an academic setting. 6"Life chances" are defined in terms of a student's ability and desire to improve his situation through education. In view of the fact that no single formalized theory of human behavior has been applied to the behavior upon which this study is focused, it is necessary to identify several concepts in the literature which may be helpful in understanding the findings of this study. There is a rather common feeling among advantaged peOple that "slaves enjoy being slaves". This attitude has caused some people to raise objections to programs which are designed to aid economically 7, who was cited earlier, has indicated disadvantaged pe0ple. Caro that lower class young peeple tend not to take full advantage of Opportunities which are available to them. Hyman8 in discussing this problem has stated that " . . . an intervening variable mediating the relationship between low position and lack of upward mobility is a system of beliefs and values within the lower classes which in turn reduces the very voluntary actions which would ameliorate their low position". In relationship to these statements, however, there is evidence that many within the lower classes (the disadvantaged) do become involved in programs and activities which are designed to "ameliorate 9 their low position". Hyman attested to this fact when he stated that 7Caro, 22, cit. p. #92. 8Herbert Hyman, "The Value System of Different Classes: A Social-Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification", in Class, Status, and Power. ed. Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953) p. u27. 9Ibid. p. uni. "while the evidence thus far presented provides consistent and strong evidence that lower class individuals as a group have a value system that reduces the likelihood of individual advancement, it is also clear from the data that there is a sizeable preportion of the lower group who do not incorporate this value system". This statement hits at the heart of the problem of this study. What are these variations within the disadvantaged group, and why do they exist? Hymanlo attempts to answer this question by stating that the reference group of the individual may account for this variation within the lower classes. He states that "some of our lower classes may be identifying themselves with upper groups, and absorbing the value system of another class to which they refer themselves". In this study an attempt has been made to utilize Hyman's explanation. It is assumed that the disadvantaged volunteers for the Work Training Program are those who identify with upper groups (the advantaged) to a greater extent than the disadvantaged non-volunteers. In considering the variables which would be appropriate as indirect indices of such identification it was decided to select those which would be most closely related to the academic role of the student - in view of the fact that the Work Training Program is a program associated with secondary schools. The school performance variables are: intelligence, reading achievement level, attendance patterns, and grade point average. The socio-psychological variables are: academic self concept; perceived evaluations of academic ability by loHyman, loo. cit. Q . . , o c l o . . . . l . . o r . . > 0 . n‘ i . . . . v v - 4 . . . , . 5‘ parents, friends, and teachers: occupational aspirations and expecta- tions; educational aSpirations and expectations; and perceived academic preferences of parents, friends, and teachers. Because academic self-concept is a major variable and because recently it has received increased attention, a brief description of it is included in this section (a more complete review is contained in Chapter II). Brookover, Erickson, and Joiner]?1 have derived this concept from studies of "role analysis, reference group theory, and symbolic interactionism". Academic self concept involves an individual's "self-other" relationships and is defined as follows: " . . . behavior in which one indicates to himself (publicly or privately) his ability to achieve in academia tasks as compared with others in the same task". In this study academic self concept was used as an indirect index of reference group identification. It is assumed that disadvan- taged students who refer themselves to the upper classes in the for- mation of attitudes and appraisal of self have taken on positive attitudes toward academic behavior. These attitudes are presumed to lead to greater develOpment of academic abilities, and, consequently, to a more positive academic self-concept. This, it is assumed, is not so true of disadvantaged students who do not refer themselves to the upper classes in the formation of attitudes and appraisal of self. llWilbur B. Brookover, Edsel L. Erickson, and Lee M. Joiner. Self Concept g£_Ability and School Achievement III, East Lansing: Bureau of Educational Research Services, Michigan State University, 1967, p. 5. lzlbid. p. a. Definition of Terms l. Economicallydisadvantgged students refers to male students who are economically disadvantaged (poor) as judged by school personnel (primarily counselors) using criteria provided by the Office of Econo- mic Opportunity described in Appendix A. 2. Advantaged students refers to male students who are not economically disadvantaged as judged by school personnel using criteria provided by the Office of Economic Opportunity. 3. Disadvantaged volunteers refers to those male students who volunteered to participate in the Work Training PrOgram during the first school year after they became eligible by age for the program. 4. Disadvantaged non-volunteers are male students who did not volunteer to participate in the Work Training PrOgram during the first school year after they became eligible by age for the program. 5. Economic assistance programs are programs designed by the United States Federal government in the Economic Opportunity Act of '1964 to enable the economically disadvantaged peOple of our nation to overcome their disadvantaged status with self help programs. 6. Intelligence refers to the most recent score students ob- tained on a standardized intelligence test administered in the school. 7. Reading ability refers to the percentile score students obtained on the most recent reading achievement test administered in the school. 8. Attendance pattern refers to the number of days of absence from school during the lSSB-SS school year. 9. Grade_point average refers to the grades the students obtained in their academic subjects during the 196H-65 school year. 10. Self concept is the image or picture a person has of his own adequacy as a result of social interaction with people who are significant to him. 11. Academic self concept refers to behavior in which a person indicates to himself his ability to achieve in academic tasks as compared with others in the same task. 12. Perceived evaluations of academic ability refers to the stu- dents' perception of the evaluations which parents, friends, and favorite teachers have of their academic ability. These are regarded as the sources of the academic self concept. 13. Occupational aspiration level refers to the socio-economic level of the occupation a student hOpeS to achieve as an adult. 1H. Occupational expectation level refers to the socio- economic level of the occupation a student expects to achieve as an adult 0 15. Educational sepiration level refers to the level of formal education a student hOpes to achieve. 16. Educational egpectation level refers to the level of formal education a student expects to achieve. 17. Perceived academic preferences (low) refers to the lowest academic grades which would satisfy parents, friends, and favorite teachers. These preferences provide norms for students' academic behavior. Hypotheses It is the major research hypothesis of this study that dis- advantaged students who volunteer to participate in academically centered poverty prOgrams are more like advantaged youth than they are like disadvantaged non—volunteers when compared on certain variables related to academic success. More “I specifically, the hypotheses to be tested are: Advantaged students have a higher level of intelligence than disadvantaged students, 32d disadvantaged volunteers have a higher level of intelligence than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher level of reading achievement than disadvantaged students, 229 disadvantaged volunteers have a higher level of reading achievement than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a better school attendance record than disadvantaged students, 223 disadvantaged volunteers have a better school attendance record than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher grade point average than disadvantaged students, gpd_disadvantaged volunteers have a higher grade point average than disadvantaged non—volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher academic self concept than disadvantaged students, ggd_disadvantaged volunteers have a higher academic self concept than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher perceived parents' evaluation of academic ability than disadvantaged students, §2d_disadvantaged volunteers have a higher perceived parents' evaluation of academic ability than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher perceived friends' evaluation of academic ability than disadvantaged students, g§d_disadvantaged volunteers have a higher perceived friends' evaluation of academic ability than disadvantaged non-volunteers. H10‘ H11‘ “12‘ l“ “15‘ 10 Advantaged students have a higher perceived teachers‘ evaluation of academic ability than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher perceived teachers' evaluation of academic ability than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have higher levels of occupational aSpirations than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have higher levels of occupational asPirations than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have higher levels of occupational expectations than disadvantaged students, and_disadvan- taged volunteers have higher levels of occupational aspira- tions than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have higher levels of educational aspiration than disadvantaged students, and_disadvantaged volunteers have higher levels of occupational aspirations than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have higher levels of educational exPectations than disadvantaged students, ang_disadvantaged volunteers have higher levels of educational expectation than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students perceive their parents as having higher academic preferences than do disadvantaged students, ang_disadvantaged volunteers perceive their parents as having higher academic preferences than do disadvantaged non—volunteers. Advantaged students perceive their friends as having higher academic preferences than do disadvantaged students, and. disadvantaged volunteers perceive their friends as having higher academic preferences than do disadvantaged non- volunteers. Advantaged students perceive their favorite teachers as having higher academic preferences than do disadvantaged students, and_disadvantaged volunteers perceive their favorite teachers as having higher academic preferences than do disadvantaged non—volunteers. Description of the Proggam The Work Training Program upon which this study is focused is conducted under Title I-B, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. ll This program (described more completely in Appendix A) is designed for economically disadvantaged students between the ages of 16 and 21. This prOgram makes available jobs within the school system to the participants. Participants are supervised by school staff members. The general purposes of the Work Training Program are " . . . to pro- vide useful work experience opportunities for unemployed young men and women . . . so that their employability may be increased or their education resumed or continued . . ."13 The fact that students are involved in this program is known by other students because the jobs are located within the schools. Plan of the Study The students included in this study are male secondary students in four public high schools in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This city has a population of 177,313, according to 1960 census figures. All male students in these schools with birthdates between May 1, 19u9, and November 1, 19u9, were asked to fill out question- naires in the Spring of 1965. This group of boys included those students who would be eligible for the Work Training Program for the first time in Summer, 1965. Both economically advantaged and disadvantaged boys comprised this group of students. In order to determine who were economically 13Section III, Part B, Public Law 88-“52, 88th Congress, S. 2642, August 20, 196“. 12 disadvantaged school personnel were given the economic criteria established by the Office of Economic Opportunity (Appendix A). Using these criteria all students tested were rated as economically advantaged or disadvantaged. Shortly after the testing was completed the Work Training Program was announced. For this study the disadvantaged volunteers were those who volunteered for the program during the Summer of 1965 or during the 1965-66 school year. The disadvantaged non-volunteers were those who did not apply for the Work Training Program during this same period. Disadvantaged volunteers and disadvantaged non-volunteers were compared on the basis of measured intelligence, reading ability, attendance record, grade point average and scales measuring academic self concept and related socio-psychological variables. Structured interviews were also conducted with the disadvan- taged non-volunteers who did not have part—time jobs outside of the school. ' Delimitations of the Study 1. There are variables in addition to those considered in this study which may be related in some way to volunteering for participation in a Work Training Program located in an academic setting. However, the variables selected were those which seemed most closely related to the theory which provides the basis for this 13 study; namely, disadvantaged volunteers are those who use as their reference group the advantaged students rather than their peers and will, therefore, be more like advantaged students than disadvantaged non-volunteers when compared on those factors thought to be associated with academic success. 2. This study dealt only with males because it was assumed that factors involved in their volunteering to participate in a Work Training Program may be quite different from those of females. 3. The results apply only to the Work Training Program as it Operates in an academic setting in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Although the guidelines for the Work Training Programs are similar throughout the nation, there are local differences in attitudes toward school as well as differences in the interpretations made of the federal guide- lines for selecting the participants which limit one's ability to generalize to other Work Training Programs or other poverty programs. Limitations of the Study» l. The size of the groups was limited by the fact that only those students whose birthdates fell between May 1, 1949, and November 1, 1949, were tested. This was done because school authori- ties felt that it would be unwise to place an excessive demand upon the students, staff, and school facilities for testing purposes. 2. There was also a limited time period during which the students could volunteer to participate in the prOgrams. If students did not volunteer by Spring. 1966, they were labeled as non-volunteers. 14 This was necessitated by the desire to conclude the gathering of data for the purpose of conducting this study. The result was a somewhat arbitrary definition of who was a volunteer and who was not a volunteer. 3. In comparing students on the basis of grade point average it is recognized that there may be differences in the criteria used for assigning letter grades to students. To the degree to which this is so it places a limitation upon the validity of the findings. Summary The main purpose of this study is to extend the knowledge about the economically disadvantaged by identifying those characteristics which distinguish those economically disadvantaged male students who volunteer to participate in an economic assistance program associated with public secondary schools from those who do not volunteer for this program. In Chapter I the purposes of the study were listed. The need and importance of the study were discussed. The theoretical basis for the study was presented along with the hypotheses which were develoPed from the theory. The basic plan of the study was also pre- sented along with delimitations and limitations of the study. In Chapter II the literature pertinent to this study will be reviewed. In Chapter III the design of the study will be described, and the data will be analyzed in Chapter IV. A short summary of the study along with recommendations and implications for further research will be presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE No studies could be found which deal with the specific pro- blem focused upon in this study. However, much has been written regarding the major areas associated with this research. Therefore, the review of the literature includes reviews of: general concern about the disadvantaged, the disadvantaged in school, work programs for the disadvantaged, the attitudes of the disadvantaged toward improvement Opportunities, reference group theory, self concept theory, and level of aspiration. General Concern about the Disadvantaged At the beginning of Chapter I mention was made of the fact that many authorities have become concerned about poverty and its 1 has effects upon individuals and society in general. Havighurst stated that " . . . one aspect of society which everyone agrees is pathological is poverty and its correlates. Along with poverty go unemplOyment, crime, juvenile delinquency, bad housing, broken families and residential segregation". Conant2 has called attention to this acute problem in our society by stating that in a large slum section (125,000 papulation) of one of our large cities about 70% of the young peOple between the ages of 16 and 21 were out of school and unemployed. lHaVighurSt. 22¢ Cite P0 720 2Conant. 32, cit. p. 34. 16 The problem of poverty and resulting deprivation is increasing, according to Riessman3. He has said that in 1950 one child in ten in the is largest cities of our nation was "culturally deprived". By 1960 this figure had risen to one in three who were deprived. By 1970 it is estimated by Riessman that one out of two children enrolled in the public schools in these large cities will be culturally deprived. The Disadvantaged in the Schools The plight of the disadvantaged in the schools of our nation has also received much attention recently. Cole“ has indicated there is some evidence that children from lower socio-economic levels are frustrated by their inability to establish themselves in the school community. Sexton5 has decried the way in which schools have discriminated against the deprived. She has asserted that the resulting failure in the school situation fosters a self concept which is negative. Parsons6 in commenting upon the pressure for achievement in school has stated: "It is understandable that a certain proportion in the disadvantaged positions simply give up and say, 'To hell with it. I'm just going to play because I'm licked before I start. I can't possibly succeed'. And, therefore, they turn to an alternative set of paths, of channels, of satisfaction". 3Riessman. 22, cit. p. 1. “Luella Cole, PsycholoEy 2f Adolescents (New York: Rinehard 5Patricia Sexton, Education and Income (New York: Viking Press, l96l), p. 55,8l. 6Talcott, Parsons, "Youth Behavior and Values", Guidance in American Education, III. ed. Edward Landy and Arthur M. Kroll (Cam- bridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), p. 96. l7 Deutschl7 has pointed out that among children of lower classes there is a high prOportion of school failure, school drOp-outs, reading and learning disabilities as well as life adjustment problems. As a consequence children grow up poorly equipped academically. In addi- tion, the effectiveness of the school as a major institution for socialization is diminished. Priedenberg8 has stated that the most tragic thing which happens to lower class students is that they learn to accept the prevailing judgment Of their worth. Work-study4Programs and the Disadvantaged One Of the identified needs of disadvantaged youth is employ- ment Opportunity. Neffg has stated that among the underprivileged youth Of our nation the meaning of life is defined largely in terms of "job Opportunities and bread and butter values". Burchilllo has indicated that.boys want to grow up to gain the rewards Of manhood as well as to satisfy the expectations of their parents, teachers and friends. He states that all kinds of boys want the status of young manhood which includes a job and money. Some boys 7Martin Deutsch, "The Disadvantaged Child and the Learning Process", Education 22 Depressed Areas. ed. Harry Passow (New York: Bureau Of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 196%), p. 163. 8Edgar z. Friedenberg, The Vanishing Adolescent (New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1959), p. 117. gFrederick C. Neff, "Let Them Eat Cake", The Schools and the Urban Crisis. ed. August Kerber and Barbara Bommerito (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), p. 152. 10George W. Burchill, Work-studprrOgrams for Alienated Youth: A_Casebook (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1962), p. 9. 18 want these as soon as possible. Others are content to wait for these things while taking a slow journey through high school and college. Lower class boys tend to want the job and adult status as soon as possible. Although there is need for jobs, society, according to Goodmanll, has failed by not making available to youth any significant number of worthwhile jobs. Burchilll2 claims job Opportunities for adolescents are scarce and, thus, some young peOple are being squeezed out of those experiences which may be "their only sources of gaining recognition, security and standing with peers, parents, and other adults". Yablonsky13 in considering the effects of poverty and other pathological factors in our society contends that a society which fails to find remedies for its own disorganization and institutiona- lized inequities will probably continue to suffer the consequences. He calls for governmental and private prOgrams which are aimed at reducing social and economic inequalities. 1“ in his concern about alienated lower class youth Havighurst recommends that a government youth employment program be provided which can help reduce the number of alienated lower class youth. He states llPaul Goodman, Growing EB Absurd (New York: Vintage Books, 1960) l2Burchill, op, cit. p. ix. 13Lewis Yablonsky, The Violent Gang (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1962), p. 237. 11+Robert J. Havighurst, "Youth in Exploration and Man Emergent", Man EE.§ World at Work. ed. Henry Borow (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1964), p. 233. 19 the need is for work experience which the private sector of society doesn't seem to wish to provide young people until they are at least 18 years of age. The Work Training Program on which this study was focused, is a government youth employment program established to reduce the negative effects of poverty. As stated in the proposal to the federal government its purpose is: "to reduce the economic factor contributing to the likelihood that the participant would drop out of school and to provide such youth with an employment experience which would increase employ- ability upon leaving school".15 The Disadvantaged and Opportunities for Assistance The literature on the disadvantaged contains statements by recog- nized authorities regarding the tendency among the disadvantaged to do 16 and Hymann nothing to improve their situation. In Chapter I Caro were cited in reference to this position. In addition to them, Hollings— head18 has said lower class youngsters " . . . have limited their hori- zons to the class horizon, and in the process they have unconsciously placed themselves in such a position that they will occupy the same levels as their parents". 15Grand Rapids Work Training Program: A Proposal Under the Economic Opportunity Act of 196a (Neighborhood Youth Corps) Title I. Part B. P. 1. ' l6Caro, loc. cit. l7Hyman, "The Value System of Difference Classes", loc. cit. 13A. B. Hollingshead, Elmtown's Youth (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1999), p. 285. 2O Mizruchi19 found that the objects and activities which the lower classes selected most frequently are those which contribute least to the attainment of success. They evaluated lowly the mechanisms instrumental in success. In these statements the disadvantaged appear to be regarded as a homogeneous group. However, many of the disadvantaged do not fit these descriptions. It becomes important, therefore, to become aware of what these differences among the disadvantaged are. The Concept of the Reference Group The problem of this study as defined in Chapter II is that of distinguishing between the disadvantaged students who do avail them- selves of programs designed to help them and those who do not avail themselves of such programs. The reference group concept was used as a basis for explaining this behavior. Shibutani20 has stated that the concept of the reference group has been useful in accounting for choices made among apparent alternatives. Hymanzl in the original use of the reference group concept spoke of reference groups as points of comparison in forming attitudes and judgments Of one's self. Hyman22 also said in a later article that 19E. H. Mizruchi, Success and Opportunity, (London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 196W), p. 88. 20Tamotsa Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspectives", American Journal 25 Sociology, #0, (May, 1955), p. 562. 21Herbert Hyman, ”The Psychology of Status" Archives 2£_Psycho- logy, No. 269, 1992, p. 9n. 22Herbert Hyman, "Reflections on Reference Groups", Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 2n, p. 38H. 2O Mizruchilg found that the objects and activities which the lower classes selected most frequently are those which contribute least to the attainment of success. They evaluated lowly the mechanisms instrumental in success. In these statements the disadvantaged appear to be regarded as a homogeneous group. However, many of the disadvantaged do not fit these descriptions. It becomes important,.therefore, to become aware of what these differences among the disadvantaged are. The Concept of the Reference Group The problem of this study as defined in Chapter II is that of distinguishing between the disadvantaged students who do avail them- selves of programs designed to help them and those who do not avail themselves of such programs. The reference group concept was used as a basis for explaining this behavior. Shibutani2o has stated that the concept of the reference group has been useful in accounting for choices made among apparent alternatives. 1 Hyman2 in the original use of the reference group concept spoke of reference groups as points of comparison in forming attitudes and 22 judgments of one's self. Hyman also said in a later article that 19E. H. Mizruchi, Success and Opportunity, (London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 196u), p. 88. 20Tamotsa Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspectives", American Journal 2§_Sociology, no, (May, 1955), p. 562. 21Herbert Hyman, "The Psychology of Status" Archives 2£_Psycho- logy, NO. 269, 1942, p. 9n. 22Herbert Hyman, "Reflections on Reference Groups", Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 2a, p. 384. 21 individuals " . . . are complicated and varied in the ways they orient themselves to others in the groups they select". Merton in discussing this concept has stated: "Reference group theory aims to systematize the determinants and consequences of evaluation and self- appraisal in which the individual takes the values and standards of other individuals or groups as a com- parative frame of reference"23 HymanQ”, in trying to explain the voluntary actions of some of the lower class people to ameliorate their low position, has indicated that their reference group may be members of the upper classes. Shibutani25 has said that men " . . . sometimes use the standards of groups in which they are not recognized members. He goes on to state that " . . . reference groups, then, arise through the internalization of norms; they constitute the structure of expectations imputed to some audience for whom one organizes his conduct". Sherif26 discussed reference groups as anchoring points for a person's life to which he ygpgg to attach himself psychologically. He thereby implied the concept that a reference group is not necessarily one of which a person is a member. 23Robert K. Merton, Social Theoyy and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), p. 50-51. 2“Hyman, "The Value System of Different Classes", pp, cit. p. #91. 25Shibutani, pp, cit. p. 565. 26Muzafer Sherif, "The Concept of the Reference Group in Human Relations", Grou Relations 35 the Crossroads, ed. M. Sherif and M. O. Wilson (New Yor : Harper, 1953), p. 207-231. 22 As was indicated previously, there are not studies known to this author which have applied this aspect of reference group theory to the act of voluntary action to ameliorate one's low position in 27 conjecture that the disadvantaged who society. However, Hyman‘s try to ameliorate their position are those who attach themselves psychologically to the upper classes is explored in this study. Studies of Self Concept Much attention has been given in recent years to self atti- tudes and their relationship to human behaviorze. Terms such as: "self regard", "self acceptance", "self image", "self esteem", "self concept", and others have been used in describing these self 29 attitudes. Wylie in her review of studies on self concept has stated that the theories on which previous research has been based are "vague, incomplete, and overlapping, and no one theory has received extensive, empirical exploration". Some writers have thought of the self concept as an underlying structure such as a phenomonological self, as defined by Jersild30 and Maslowal. 27Hyman, "The Value System of Different Classes", 3p, cit. p. 441. 28See Ruth Wylie, 222 Self Concept: §_Critica1 Survey p£_Per- tinent Research Literature, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961) Also, Don E. Hamachek, 223 Self i2 Growth, Teaching and Learning (The Glencoe Press, 1965) 29Wylie, 22¢ Cite Po 3170 30Arthur Jersild, 33 Search 9_f_ Self (New York: Bureau of Publi- cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952) 31A. H. Maslow, "Self Actualizing PeOple: A Study of Psycholo- gical Health," Personality, Symposium No. l. 1950, p. 11-34 22 As was indicated previously, there are not studies known to this author which have applied this aSpect of reference group theory to the act of voluntary action to ameliorate one's low position in society. However, Hyman'sz7 conjecture that the disadvantaged who try to ameliorate their position are those who attach themselves psychologically to the upper classes is explored in this study. Studies of Self Concept Much attention has been given in recent years to self atti- tudes and their relationship to human behavior28. Terms such as: "self regard", "self acceptance", "self image", "self esteem", "self concept", and others have been used in describing these self attitudes. Wylie29 in her review of studies on self concept has stated that the theories on which previous research has been based are "vague, incomplete, and overlapping, and no one theory has received extensive, empirical exploration". Some writers have thought of the self concept as an underlying structure such as a phenomonological self, as defined by Jersild30 and Maslow3l. 27Hyman, "The Value System of Different Classes", 3p, cit. p. 441. 28See Ruth Wylie, The Self Concept: A Critical Surveyp£_§egf tinent Research Literature, (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961) Also, Don S. Hamachek, Tpe_Self ip_Growth, Teaching and Learning (The Glencoe Press, 1965) 29Wylie, 220 Cit. p. 3170 3°Arthur Jersild, I2 Search g£_Self (New York: Bureau of Publi- cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952) 31A. H. Maslow, "Self Actualizing PeOple: A Study of Psycholo- gical Health," Personality, Symposium No. 1. 1950, p. 11-34 23 Piers and Harris32 have expressed concern over whether self concept instruments measure the real or phenomenal self. This concern seems to imply a position that self concept is a thing rather than a process. Tuel and Wursten33 have regarded self concept as an inner, intrapersonal trait which a person brings to the educational setting. Brookover, Erickson, and Joinera“ have expressed concern about the fact that loose definitions of self concept and instruments which are multifactor by definition have led some researchers to discard self concept as a relevant variable in understanding such behavior as achievement or drOpping out of school. The self conception of academic ability which was used in this present study is a result of an articulation of a theoretical basis provided by Mead35 who stated: "There are all sorts of different selves answering to all sorts of different social reactions. It is the social process itself that is responsible for the appearance of the self, it is not there as a self apart from this type of experience". 32Ellen V. Piers and Dale B. Harris, "Age and Other Correlates of Self Concept in Children", Journal p§_Educationa1 Psychological, LV’ 2’ 196”, p. 91-95. 33John K. Tuel and Rosemary Wursten, "The Influence of Intra- Personal Variables on Academic Achievement," California Journal pg Educational Research, XVI, 16, March, 1965, p. 58-64. 3“Brookover, Erickson, and Joiner, pp, cit. p. 19. 35George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 142. 24 Merton36 has stated that it is a generally acknowledged fact that it is the groups of which one is a member that most prominently affect a person's behavior. The social interaction basis Of self concept is also described by Kinch37 when he contends that "the individual's conception of him- self emerges from social interaction and, in turn, guides or influences the behavior of that individual”. The social interaction which provides the basis of self concept is with significant other peOple. Shibutani38 has claimed that "signi- ficant others are those who are actually involved in the cultivation of abilities, values, outlook". Brookover39 has provided four basic assumptions which underlie the formulation of academic self concept theory: 1. Persons learn to behave in ways that each considers appro- priate to himself. 2. Appropriate behavior is defined by each person through the internalization of the expectations of significant others. This hypo- thesizes the process through which each person defines his own motives or self image. 36Robert K. Merton, Social Theopy and Social Structure (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), p. 367. 37John W. Kinch, "A Formalized Theory of The Self Concept," The American Journal p£_Sociology, LXVIII, 1963, p. 481-486. 33$hibutani, pp, cit. p. 568. 39Wilbur B. Brookover, "A Social Psychological Conception of Class- roon Learning", School and Society, LXXXVII, 1959, p. 84-87. 25 3. The functional limits of one's ability to learn are deter- mined by his self conception or self image as acquired in social in- teraction. 4. The individual learns what he believes significant others expect him to learn in the classroom and in other situations. Based upon these four theoretical statements, Brookover, Erickson, and Joiner.“0 formulated three prOpositions: Proposition 1: A functional limit on a student‘s ability to learn in school is set by his "self concept of academic ability"; Proposition 2: A student's self concept of academic ability is acquired in interaction with his significant others through his per- ception of their "evaluations of his academic ability"; Proposition 3: A student's self concept of academic ability is an "intervening variable" between his perceptions of others and his attempts to learn in school. From these propositions, general research Objectives and hypo- theses were formulated. In the longitudinal study and related research which was conducted, general support was provided for these propositions and the hypotheses which were developed from them.‘41 Level of Aspiration and the Disadvantaged In recent literature much has been written about level of aspira- tion, particularly in regard to disadvantaged youth. Gardner"2 has defined ”OBrookover, Erickson, and Joiner, pp, cit. p. 44. l+lIbid. p. 146. l‘2John W. Gardner, "The Use of the Term 'Level of Aspiration'", Psychological Review, 1940, 47, p. 66. 26 level of aspiration as ” . . . a quantifiable indication which an indi- vidual makes concerning his future performance in an activity". Kauslerua has shown that expressing a level of aspiration is a function of a person's frame of reference. Haller and Millernu have referred to occupational aspiration as an attitude which " . . . may be interpreted in terms of a person's self concepts and in terms of his conception of certain roles he anticipates playing or desires to play in the future". Weiner and Murray"5 in comparing the educational and occupational aspirations of lower socio-economic children and their parents with the educational and occupational aspirations of higher socio-economic children and parents found little difference. However, when they were asked how far they expected to go in school the higher socio-economic children and parents had much higher expectations than the lower socio- economic children and parents. In conclusion, it was stated that lower class children and parents express a desire to go to college and ob- tain a professional occupation as a wish, not as an expectation. Riessmanus has said that the aspirations of the deprived remain at the wish level rather than making them a definite intention. “3D. H. Kausler, "Aspiration Level As a Determinant of Performance". Journal p£_Personnel, 1959, 27, 346-51. uuArchibald O. Haller and Irwin Miller, "The Occupational Aspira- tion Scale: Theopy, Structure, and Correlates (Technical Bulletin No. 288, Michigan State UniverSityAgricultural Experimental Station, Depart- ment of Sociology and Anthropology, 1963), p. 15. 45W. Weiner and W. Murray, "Another Look at the Culturally Deprived and Their Levels of Aspiration". Journal pf Educational Sociology, 1963, p. 319-321. ”6Riessman, pp, cit. p. 14. 27 ”7 concluded from his study of 1,000 ninth grade boys: Stephenson " . . . the mobility orientation pattern suggested is one in which aspirations are relatively unaffected by class, and, hence, reflect the general cultural emphasis upon high goal orientations, while plans or expectations are more definitely class based, and, hence, may reflect class differences in opportunity and general life chances". In this study the aspirations and expectation levels are assumed to be an index of the socio-economic level of the reference groups which individuals use in defining their goals. Summary In this chapter works were cited regarding the general concern about the disadvantaged and the plight of the disadvantaged in school. Authorities were quoted who recommended work programs for disadvantaged youth. A brief review of some of the literature regarding the desire of the disadvantaged to improve their situation was included. The con- cept of the reference group as a way of explaining the voluntary actions of the disadvantaged was explored. In conclusion, pertinent literature available regarding the two major variables (self concept and level of aspiration) were reviewed. In Chapter III a description of the design of the study will be presented. 47Richard M. Stephenson, "Mobility Orientation and Stratifi- cation of 1,000 9th Graders". American Sociological Review, 22, 1957, p. 2120 CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY A general outline of the plan of the study was presented in Chapter I. In this chapter more detailed information is given re- garding the site of the study, population, instrumentation, and procedures which were followed in collecting and analyzing the data. Site of the Study This study was conducted in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which has a pOpulation of 177,313, according to the 1960 census. The city contains a variety of ethnic groups, including a non-white pOpulation of about 20,000 most of whom live in the same area of the city. The teen-age children of this area attend the secondary schools which are included in this study. The public school system in Grand Rapids offers instructional programs extending from kindergarten through junior college level. There are about 34,000 pupils and 1,500 professional educators in the system. Grand Rapids also has a non-public school enrollment which is about 35% of the total school enrollment for the city. 29 Description of the Population The pOpulation studied consisted of male secondary students in 4 of the 5 Grand Rapids high schools whose birthdates fell in the period extending from May 1, 1949, to November l, 1949.1 This pOpulation included male students who would be eligible for the first time for the Work Training Program in the Summer, 1965, and during the 1965-66 school year. The total number of males included in this study was 231. Of this number 173 were designated by school personnel as economically advantaged and 58 were designated as economically disadvantaged, using criteria provided by the Office of Economic Opportunity described in Appendix A. Economically advantaged students were included so that the economically disadvantaged would not realize they were the subject of particular interest and to provide a "bench mark" against which to compare the economically disadvantaged on selected character- istics. Of the 58 disadvantaged males, 24 were designated as volunteers and 34 were designated as non-volunteers. This status was determined on the basis of volunteering to participate in the Work Training Pro- gram during the Summer, 1965, and the 1965-66 school year. lOne high school was not included because of the anticipated low number of students eligible for the Work Training Program. Students who were absent from school at the time data was collected and students who did not return to the Grand Rapids school system during the 1965-66 school year were not included in this study. 30 Data Collection Procedures Questionnaires All male students whose birthdates fell between May 1, 1949, and November 1, 1949, were identified from school records by the author of this study. The names of these students were announced the day prior to the day Of testing and on the day Of testing in Spring, 1965. The students were excused from class in order to be tested. This was done within one class period. In three of the schools the cafeterias were used, and in one school the library was used for testing. Students were told that the purpose of the study was to find out what high school students think about themselves, their school work, and their future plans. They were told their answers would not be shown to their teachers or anyone else except the research staff. They were assured their responses would in no way affect their school grades. The students were asked to provide identifying information which included: name, birthdate, sex, name of school, school attended last year, and father's occupation. The questionnaires were administered by the author of this study and his assistant in the Spring, 1965. Only the normal number of students were absent on the day the tests were administered. 31 Interviews An attempt was made to contact the eligible students who did not volunteer for the Work Training PrOgram. Some of them had ob- tained jobs outside of school during the Summer, 1965, or during the 1965-66 school year. The latter were not interviewed. It was felt their reason for not volunteering to participate in the Work Training Program was in most cases simply the fact that they were employed elsewhere. The remaining non-volunteer students were interviewed, using a structured interview form, to ascertain awareness of the Work Training Program and to obtain their stated reason(s) for not applying for participation in the program (Appendix C). Data Analysis Procedures The information from the questionnaires and the school records was quantified and coded for computer analysis by staff members at the Center for Sociological Studies at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan. The IBM 1620 at Western Michigan University was used to analyze the data. Hypotheses l - 10 were tested with the use of the "t" test for uncorrelated data as described by Peatman2. Hypotheses 11 - 15 were tested with the use of the median's test3 by chi-square as described by Siegel“. 2John G. Peatman, Introduction 3p Applied Statistics (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), p. 278-298. 3In this test students are dichotomized as those with scores which exceed the median and those with scores which do not exceed the median o “Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1956), p. 111-116. 32 For all hypotheses a = .05 was chosen as the level of signi- ficance. Statistical Hypotheses Advantaged students have a higher mean score on tests of intelligence than disadvantaged students, ppp_dis- advantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on tests on intelligence than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher mean score on stan- dardized reading achievement tests than disadvantaged students, ppp_disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on standardized reading achievement tests than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a lower mean number of absences from school during the 1964-65 school year than dis- advantaged students, ppp disadvantaged volunteers have a lower mean number of absences from school during the 1964-65 school year than disadvantaged non-volunteers. The advantaged students have a higher mean grade point average during the 1964-65 school year than disadvan- taged students, ppp disadvantaged volunteers have a higher grade point average during the 1964-65 school year than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the self concept of ability scale than disadvantaged students, ppp_disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on the self concept of ability scale than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived parents' evaluations of academic ability than disadvantaged students, ppp_ disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived parents' evaluations of academic ability than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived friends' evaluations of academic ability than disadvantaged students, 339 disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived friends' evaluations Of academic ability than disadvantaged non-volunteers. “10' H12- 13 33 Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived teachers' evaluations of academic ability than disadvantaged students, 229. disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived teachers' evaluations of academic ability than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring level of occupational aspirations than disadvantaged students, ppp disadvantaged volun- teers have a higher mean score on the scale measuring level of occupational aSpiration than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring level of occupational expectations than disadvantaged students, 3 deisadvantaged volun- teers have a higher mean score on the scale measuring level of occupational expectations than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale measuring level of educational aspirations than disadvantaged students, ppp disadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score on the scale measuring level of educational aspirations than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale measuring level of educational expectations than disadvantaged students, ppp_disadvantaged volun- teers have a higher median score on the scale measuring level of educational expectations than disadvantaged non-volunteers. - Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale measuring perceived parents' academic preferences (low) than do disadvantaged students, ppp_disadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score on the scale measuring perceived parents' academic preferences (low) than do disadvantaged non-volunteers. Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale measuring perceived friends' academic preferences (low) than do disadvantaged students, ppdeisadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score on the scale measuring perceived friends' academic preferences (low) than do disadvantaged non-volunteers. 34 Hls- Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale measuring perceived teachers' academic preferences (low) than do disadvantaged students, ppp disadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score on the scale measuring perceived teachers' academic preferences (low) than do disadvantaged non-volunteers. Instrumentation The data for this research was obtained from standardized tests, school records, questionnaires, and structured interviews. Standardized Test Data Hypothesis 1 was tested by use of the most recent intelligence test scores for each individual. For most students group intelli- gence test scores on the Kuhlman-Anderson Test were used. (The Kuhl- man-Anderson Test includes measures of quantitative and verbal intel- ligence. The correlations between the Kuhlman-Anderson and other tests of intelligence range from .62 to .89. Coefficients of reli- ability range from .83 to .92 on test-retest reliability.)5 The scores on the California Mental Maturity Test was used for some students who had not taken the Kuhlman-Anderson Test. (This test includes measures of verbal and non-verbal intelligence. It .was designed to correlate with the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. One study yielded a correlation coefficient of .88 with the Stanford- Binet. Reliability estimates are above .90.)6 5Technical Manual: Kuhlman-Anderson Test, 7th Edition, Per- sonnel Press, Incorporated. Princeton, New Jersey, 1962. 6Oscar K. Euros, The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1959.) 35 The latest test which a few of the students had taken was the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. (This is an individual test which includes a verbal scale and a performance scale. Validity studies show that the WISC and the Stanford-Binet Test correlate fairly highly (.80+) and differ little in ability to predict academic attainment. The split half reliability coefficient is .94 at age 13.5 for the full scale.)7 Hyppthesis 2 was tested by use of the percentile ranks on the national norms on standardized reading tests. The scores on the Iowa Tests of Educational DevelOpment (Test 5 - Ability to Interpret Reading Materials in Social Studies) were used for most students. (This test measures ability to interpret and evaluate representative reading selections taken from social textbooks and references, from magazine and newSpaper articles on social problems, and from the literature of the social studies in general. Correlations of com- posite scores on the Iowa Test of Educational Development with measures on intelligence or scholastic aptitude range from .57 to .85. Split half reliability estimates for Test 5 was .90.)8 The Gates Basic Reading Test scores were used for a few students who did not take the Iowa Test. (This test includes measures of ability to appreciate general significance of reading material, understanding of precise directions, ability to note 7Ibid. 8Manual for School Administrators, Science Research Associ- ates, Chicago, Illinois, 1963. 36 details, vocabulary, and comprehension. Validity estimates using the Stanford Reading Tests ranged from .72 to .84. Reliability estimates using alternate forms ranged from .80 to .90.)9 School Records Data Hypothesis 3 was tested by obtaining the number of days of absence from school during the 1964-65 school year. Hypothesis 4 was tested by obtaining the grade point average on academic subjects. These included: English, social studies, science, mathematics, foreign languages, Speech and debate. The grade point average of each student was computed on the basis of: A-u,B-3,C-2,D-l,andEOPF-0o Questionnaire Data Instruments previously develOped under USOE COOperative Re- 10 were used to assess the academic self concept and search Projects related sociO-psychological characteristics of the male students who were involved in this study. These instruments assess: 1. self concept of academic ability (SCA). 2. perceived parents' evaluations of academic ability (PPEV). 3. perceived friends' evaluations of academic ability (PFEV). 4. perceived teachers' evaluations of academic ability (PTEV). 9Manual and Supplement for the Gates Basic Reading Tests. Bureau Of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961. loBrookover, Erickson, and Joiner, pp, pip,; Wilbur B. Brookover, Don E. Hamachek, Edsel L. Erickson, Self Concept p£_Abilityand School Achievement, II, East Lansing: Bureau of Educational Research Services, Michigan StatE-University, 1965; and Wilbur B. Brookover, Ann Paterson, and Shailer Thomas, Self Concep; pf_Abili3y and School Achievement, 1, East Lansing: Office of Research and Publications, Michigan State University, 1962. ’ 37 5. level of occupational aspiration. 6. level of occupational expectation. 7. level of educational aspiration. 8. level of educational expectation. 9. perceived academic preferences by parents, friends, and teachers. Hypothesis 5 was tested with the use of the Michigan Self Concept of Ability Scalell (Appendix D). This instrument has been shown to measure a major variable contributing to variations in student achievementlz. The reliability and validity of this scale have been demonstrated. Hoyt's analysis of variance reliability coeeficients range from .852 to .865.13 The SCA scale consists of 8 multiple choice items. Each item is scored from 5 to l with the most positive self concept alter- natives receiving the highest values. Each item asks the student to compare himself with others in his social system on the dimension of academic competency. Hypothesis 6 was tested with the use of the scale measuring perceived parents' evaluations of academic ability (Appendix E). Hoyt's analysis of variance reliability coefficients range from .782 to 0849.1“ llIbid. 12Brookover, Erickson, and Joiner, pp, cit. p. 60. 13Ibid. lulbid. p. 61. 38 The PPEV scale consists of 5 multiple choice items. Each item is scored from 5 to 1 with the most positive evaluations receiving the highest values. Each item asks the student to state how he thinks his parents would compare his academic ability with others in his social system. Hypothesis 7 was tested with the use of the scale measuring perceived friends' evaluations of academic ability (Appendix F). Hoyt's analysis of variance reliability coefficients range from .755 to .880.15 The PFEV scale consists of 5 multiple choice items. Each item is scored from 5 to l with the most positive evaluations receiving the highest values. Each item asks the student to state how he thinks his closest friend would compare his academic ability with Others in his social system. Hypothesis 8 was tested with the use Of the scale measuring perceived favorite teacher's evaluations of academic ability (Appen- dix G). Hoyt's analysis of variance reliability coefficients range from .912 to .927.16 The PTEV scale consist of 5 multiple choice items. Each item is scored from 5 to 1 with the most positive evaluations receiving the highest values. Each item asks the student to state how he thinks his favorite teacher would compare his academic ability with others in his social system. lslbid. lslbid. 39 Hypothesis 9 was tested with the use of the following single question item: (Appendix H) "If you were free to choose any job you wanted, what job would you most like to have when you grow up?" 7 O O l , an index of sociO-economic status was Duncan's Scale Value assigned to the responses, with highest score assigned to the highest socio-economic level. (The range was from 1 to 99). Hyppthesis 10 was tested with the use of the following single question item: (Appendix H) "Sometimes what we would like to do isn't the same as what we expect to do. What kind of job do you expect you really will have when you grow up?‘ 18 Duncan's Scale Value was assigned to the responses. Hypothesis 11 was tested by use of the following single question item: (Appendix H) "If you were free to go as far as you wanted to go in school, how far would you like to go?" There were 7 multiple choice re3ponses ranging from: "I'd like to quit right now" to "I'd like to do graduate work beyond college." In scoring this item highest scores were attached to the highest educational level. Hypothesis 12 was tested by use of the following single ques- tion item: (Appendix H) "Sometimes what we would like to do isn't the same as what we expect to do. How far in school do you expect you really will go?" l7Albert Reiss, Jr. p3, pi, Occupation and Social Status (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1961.1 19Ibid. 40 There were 7 multiple choice responses ranging from: "I think I really will quit school as soon as I can" to "I think I really will do graduate work beyond collegev, In scoring this item highest scores were attached to the highest educational level. Hypotheses 13,,14 and 15 were tested by use of the following single question items: (Appendix I) 1. "What would be the lowest grades you could get and still have your parents satisfied with you?" (Hypothesis 13) 2. "What would be the lowest grades you could get and still have your friends satisfied with you?" (Hypothesis l4) 3. "What would be the lowest grades you could get and still have your favorite teacher satisfied with you?" (Hypothesis 15) Ten reSponse options were listed from: "Mostly A's to "My grades do not make any difference to my parents" (friends or teacher). Highest values were assigned to the highest grades. Structured Interviews Appendix C is the form which was used to conduct these inter- views to determine awareness of the Work Training Program and reasons for not volunteering‘for it. Summary In this chapter the site of the study and the population were described. The criteria were presented for designating students in the following categories: disadvantaged and advantaged, volunteers and non-volunteers. The data collection procedures and data analysis 41 procedures were described. The hypotheses were restated in testable form and the instrumentation was described. In Chapter IV the findings of the study will be presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA In this chapter a report and analysis of the data are pre- sented. Data from Questionnaires and School Records First the socio-economic status of the four groups of students were compared. Socio-economic level was determined from the father's occupation or the occupation of whoever supports the family. This information was coded according to Duncanl. Reports of these com- parisons are found in Tables 4.13 and 4.1b. TABLE 4.1a SociO-economic Status of Advantaged Male Students Com- pared with Disadvantaged Male Students - 2 x s _‘s t d.§5 pp Advantaged 45.208 551.038? 22.694 7.4159 229 .0005 Disadvantaged 22.293 112.035 10.585 TABLE 4.1b SociO-economic Status of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers - 2 x s 8 pp t d.pr p‘_ Non-volunteers 22.558 115.042 10.726 -.2256 56 NS Volunteers 21.917 112.341 10.599 Table 4.13 shows that the socio-economic status of the advan- taged students is significantly higher than that of the disadvantaged students. Table 4.1b shows that there is no significant difference between the socio-economic status of the disadvantaged students who volunteered to participate in the Work Training Program and that of the non-volunteers. 1 Reiss, on. cit. fin 43 Hypothesis 1 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher mean score on intelligence tests than the disadvantaged, Eng disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on intelligence tests than the disadvantaged non-volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HA: MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and H : M - M O Volunteers - Non-volunteers HA: MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers a:; .05 TABLE 4.2a Intelligence Quotients of Advantaged Male Students Com- pared with Disadvantaged Male Students .. 2 x s s t d.f. J Advantaged 105.277 130.213 11.411 7.2378 229 <.0005 Disadvantaged(Tota1)93.414 75.931 8.714 TABLE 4.2b Intelligence Quotients of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-volunteers ; 82 s t #d.f.# p Non-volunteers 92.706 92.214 9.603 0.7334 56 NS Volunteers 94.417 54.080 7.354 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will score higher than the disadvantaged students on tests of intelligence is accepted at the .0005 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers will score higher than the non-volunteers on tests of intelligence is rejected. 44 Hypothesis 2 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher mean score on standardized reading tests than the disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on standardIEEH reading tests than the disadvantaged non-volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HA: MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and H M O: MVolunteers = Non-volunteers HA: MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers a .05 .i TABLE 4.3a Reading Achievement Percentile Scores of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students 2.: S2 S t def. _P Advantaged 57.815 680.640 26.089 5.6971 229 <.0005 Disadvantaged(Total)35.448 635.866 25.216 TABLE 4.36 Reading Achievement Percentile Scores of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-volunteers 7? 32 s t d.f. p Non-Volunteers 35.382 705.031 26.552 .0234 56 NS Volunteers 35.542 564.259 23.754 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will score higher than the disadvantaged students on tests of reading achievement is accepted at the .0005 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers will score higher than the non-volunteers on tests of reading achievement is rejected. 45 Hyppthesis 3 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a lower mean number of absences per student from school than disadvantaged students and volunteers have a lower mean number of absences per student from—Ezhool than the non-volunteers. Symbolically, Ho: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HO: MAdvantaged < MDisadvantaged and H0: MVolunteers = MNon-volunteers HA3 MVolunteers < MNon-volunteers .05 TABLE 4.4a Days Absent from School of Advantaged Male Students Com- pared with Disadvantaged Male Students E? s2 s t d.f. p Advantaged 8.763 108.403 10.412 2.3310 229 <.01 Disadvantaged(Total)16.603 1647.121 40.585 TABLE 4.4b Days Absent from School of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers 3: $2 11 S t def. R Non-volunteers 11.676 95.074 9.751 -1.1025 56 NS Volunteers 23.583 3858.862 62.200 The hypothesis that the advantaged students had fewer absences per student than the disadvantaged students is accepted at the .01 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers had fewer absences per student than the non-volunteers is rejected. .46 Hypothesis 4 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher grade point average than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher grade point average than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HA: MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and - MVolunteers = MNon-volunteers A: MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers .05 TABLE 4.5a Grade Point Average of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students .. 2’ x s s t d.f. p Advantaged 2.018 .875 .sss 3.7862 229 <.0005 Disadvantaged(Total) 1.509 .512 .716 TABLE 4.5b Grade Point Average of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Com- pared with Disadvantaged Male Non-volunteers 7(- S: __ S_ _ t def. P Non-volunteers 1.529 .639 .799 -.2503 56 NS Volunteers 1.481 .351 .592 The hypothesis that the advantaged students had a higher grade point average than the disadvantaged students is accepted at the .0005 significance level. The hypothesis that the volunteers had a higher grade point average than the non-volunteers is rejected. H7 Hypothesis 5 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the self con- cept of ability scale (SCA) than disadvantaged students, and dis- advantaged volunteers will have a higher mean score on the—SCA than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HA“ MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and H0: MVolunteers = MNon-volunteers “A: MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers a ;_.05 TABLE l+..6a Self Concept of Academic Ability of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students -' 2 x s s t d.f. <;L_ Advantaged 27.121 2u.979 H.998 1.6872 ‘229 <.05 Disadvantaged 25.897 21.112 9.598 TABLE H.6b Self Concept of Academic Ability of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers E. 32 s t 'd.f. pp Non-volunteers 26.618 20.607 4.539 ~l.u357 56 NS Volunteers 2u.875 20.897 u.571 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher score on the SCA than the disadvantaged students is accepted at the .05 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher score on the SCA than the non-volunteers is rejected. 48 Hypothesis 6 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived parents' evaluation of academic ability (PPEV) than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on the PPEV than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HA: MAdvantaged > M isadvantaged and MVolunteers = MNon-volunteers Az MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers a=§ .05 TABLE 9.7a Perceived Parents' Evaluations of Academic Ability of Advan- taged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students 3? 52 sh“ tg d.f.; p Advantaged 18.630 15.060 3.881 2.7799 229 <.005 Disadvantaged(Tota1) 16.966 17.122 8.138 TABLE 4.7b Perceived Parents' Evaluations of Academic Ability of Dis- advantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-volunteers 71_ 52 s g 1: de. 1.110 Non-volunteers 17.706 11.305 3.362 ~l.6u60 56 NS Volunteers 15.917 24.250 H.925 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher mean score on the PPEV than the disadvantaged students is accepted at the .005 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher mean score on the PPEV than the non-volunteers is rejected. 1+9 Hypothesis 7 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students will have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived friend's evaluation of academic ability (PPEV) than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers will have a higher mean score on the PFEV than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged MDisadvantaged V HA: MAdvantaged and H M 05 Volunteers MNon-volunteers HA5 MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers a .05 .; TABLE n.8a Perceived Friend's Evaluation of Academic Ability of Advan- taged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students :3 52 s ‘ t d.f. p Advantaged 17.757 13.127 3.623 ‘T 2.0130 229 <.05 Disadvantaged(Total) 16.707 7.895 2.810 TABLE 4.8b Perceived Friend's Evaluation of Academic Ability of Dis- advantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers ; S2 S 1: def. __P Non-volunteers 17.118 8.834 2.972 Volunteers 16.126 6.288 2.508 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher mean score on the PFEV than the disadvantaged students is accepted at the .025 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher mean score on the PFEV than the non-volunteers is rejected. 50 Hypothesis 8 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring perceived teacher‘s evaluation of academic ability (PTEV) than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on the PTEV than disadvantaged non- volunteers. Symbolically, Ho: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HA: MAdvantaged > ”Disadvantaged and H0: MVolunteers z MNon-volunteers HA: MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers a'; .05 TmmEufla Perceived Teacher's Evaluation of Academic Ability of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students 3? S2 S t d.f. R Advantaged 18.087 17.0u0 8.128 2.1902 229 <.025 Disadvantaged(Total) 17.138 11.8u0 3.uu1 TABLE 4.9b Perceived Teacher‘s Evaluation of Academic Ability of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers 3? s2 s t d.f. _p~_ Non-volunteers 17.529 11.287 3.360 ~1.0318 56 NS Volunteers 16.583 12.601 3.550 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher mean score on the PTEV than the disadvantaged students is accepted at the .025 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher means score on the PTEV than the non-volunteers is rejected. 51 Hypothesis 9 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring level of occupational aspiration than the disadvantaged students, 322 disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on the scale measuring level of occupational aspiration than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HA3 MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and : M ‘Volunteers = M Non-volunteers H : M > M Volunteers Non-volunteers .05 TABLE 4.10a2 Level of Occupational Aspiration of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students 3:- 32 s t _d.f. p Advantaged 62.936 722.583 26.881 1.1079 229 NS Disadvantaged 58.362 794.165 28.181 TABLE 4.10b Level of Occupational Expectation of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers ._ 2 x s s t d.f. pp Non-volunteers 61.765 913.094 30.217 ol.0964 56 NS Volunteers 53.542 616.694 24.833 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher mean score on the scale for occupational aspirations than the dis- advantaged students is rejected. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher mean score on the scale for occupational aspirations than the non-volunteers is rejected. 2 . . The following numbers of students did not respond to this open-ended question: advantaged (16), disadvantaged (6), non- volunteers (4), and volunteers (2). 52 Hyppthesis 10 consists of the following 2 parts: Advantaged students have a higher mean score on the scale measuring level of occupational expectation than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher mean score on the scale-measuring occupational expectation than disadvantaged non-volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged = MDisadvantaged HA: MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and H : M = M O Volunteers “Non-volunteers . 4 HA° MVolunteers > 1|Non--volunteers a j'.05 3 TABLE 4.11a Level of Occupational Expectation of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students 3: 32 S t d.f. P Advantaged 48.249 881.699 29.693 .1753 229 NS Disadvantaged 47.483 669.623 25.877 TABLE 4.1lb Level of Occupational Expectation of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers - 2 x s s t d-f- A ll Non-volunteers 48.735 731.594 27.048 -.4356 56 NS Volunteers 45.708 604.216 24.581 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher mean score on the scale for occupational expectations than the dis- advantaged students is rejected. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher mean score on the scale for occupational expectations than the non-volunteers is rejected. 3 The following numbers of students did not reSpond to this open-ended question: advantaged (33), disadvantaged (12), non- volunteers (3), and volunteers (9). 53 prgthesis 11 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale measuring level of educational aspirations than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score on the-scale measuring level of education aspirations than disadvantaged non-volunteers. . M = . Symbolically, O Advantaged ”Disadvantaged‘ A: MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and H : M Volunteers MNon-volunteers > MNon-volunteers MVolunteers .05 TABLE “012a Level of Educational Aspiration of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students ,_ Advantaged Disadvantaged Total Above Median 46 15 61 At or Below Median 127 43 170 Total 173 ‘ 58 231 x2 = .0118 d.f. = 1 p < .475 (one tailed test) TABLE 4.12b Level of Educational ASpiration of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers Volunteers Non—volunteers Total _‘ Above Median 2 13 15 At or Below Median 22 21 43 Total 24 34 58 x2 = 4.95, d.f. = 1 p < .025 (one tailed test) in direction opposite of that predicted 54 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher median score on the scale for educational aspirations than the dis- advantaged students is rejected. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher median score on the scale for educational aspirations than the non-volunteers is rejected. Hypothesis 12 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale measuring level of educational expectations than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score on the scale—measuring level of educational expectations than dis— advantaged non-volunteers. : M : . Symbolically, HO Advantaged MDisadvantaged M . H Disadvantaged A: MAdvantaged and O: MVolunteers - MNon-volunteers II: V A: MVolunteers Non—volunteers a .05 TABLE 4.13a Level of Educational Expectation of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students Advantaged Disadvantaged Total Above Median 82 24 106 At or Below Median 90 34 (.124 Total 172 58 . 230 x2 = .69, d.f. = 1 p < .25 (one tailed test) 55 TABLE 4.13b Level of Educational Expectation of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-Volunteers Volunteers Non—volunteers Total Above Median ll 13 24 At or Below Median 13 . 21 34 Total 24 34 58 x2 = .01, d.f. = 1 p < .475 (one tailed test) The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher median score than the disadvantaged students on the scale measuring educational expectations is rejected. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher median score than the non—volunteers on the scale measuring educational eXpectations is rejected. Hypothesis 13 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale for perceived parentS' academic preferences (low) than disadvan- taged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score on the scale—for perceived parents' academic preferences (low) than disadvantaged non-volunteers. HiM : Symbolically, O Advantaged MDisadvantaged HA: MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and H0: MVolunteers : MNon—volunteers H'M >M A' Volunteers Non—volunteers a .05 HA 56 TABLE 4.14a Perceived Parents' Academic Preferences of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students Advantaged Disadvantaged Total Above Median 82 10 92 At or Below Median 91 48 139 Total 173 58 231 x2 = 16.73, d.f. = 1 p < .0005 TABLE 4.14b Perceived Parents' Academic Preferences of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non—volunteers Volunteers Non-volunteers Total Above Median 6 4 10 At or Below Median 18 3O 48 Total 24 34 58 2 x = .92, d.f. = l p < .25 The hypothesis that the advantaged students will have a higher median score than the disadvantaged students on the scale measuring perceived parents' academic preferences (low) is accepted at the .005 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher median score than the non-volunteers on the scale measuring perceived parents' academic preferences (low) is rejected. Hypothesis 14 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale for perceived friend's academic preferences (low) than disadvantaged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score 57 on the scale for perceived friend's academic preferences (low) than non—volunteers. Symbolically, HO: MAdvantaged : MDisadvantaged HA: MAdvantaged > MDisadvantaged and H0: MVolunteers : MNon-volunteers HA: MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers a i .05 TABLE 4.15a Perceived Friend's Academic Preferences of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students Advantaged Disadvantaged Total Above Median 76 19 95 At or Below Median 97 39 136 Total 173 58 231 i 2 _ A _ X ‘ 202”, def. - l p < .10 TABLE 4.15b Perceived Friend's Academic Preferences of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-volunteers Volunteers Non-volunteers Total Above Median 9 10 19 At or Below Median 15 24 39 Total 24 i 34 58 x2 = .13, d.f. = 13 A p .40 The hypothesis that advantaged students will have a higher median score than the disadvantaged students on the scale measuring perceived friend's academic preferences (low) is rejected. 58 The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher median score than the non-volunteers on the scale measuring perceived friend's academic preferences (low) is rejected. Hypothesis 15 consists of the following two parts: Advantaged students have a higher median score on the scale for perceived teacher's academic preferences (low) than disadvan- taged students, and disadvantaged volunteers have a higher median score on the scale for perceived teacher's academic preferences (low) than non-volunteers. H M Symbolically, O: MAdvantaged = Disadvantaged : M > M . A Advantaged Disadvantaged and H ' M - M Volunteers ' Non—volunteers A- MVolunteers > MNon-volunteers .05 TABLE 4.16s Perceived Teacher's Academic Preferences of Advantaged Male Students Compared with Disadvantaged Male Students ,Advantaged Disadvantaged Total Above Median 93 18 111 At or Below Median 80 40 120 Total 173 58 231 x2 = 9.02, d.f. = i p < .005 (one tailed test) TABLE 4.16b Perceived Teacher's Academic Preferences of Disadvantaged Male Volunteers Compared with Disadvantaged Male Non-volunteers Volunteers Non-volunteers ,Total Above Median 7 11 18 At or Below Median 17 23 40 Total 24 34 53 x2 = .0009, d.f. = 1 p < .49 (one tailed test) 59 The hypothesis that advantaged students will have a higher median score than the disadvantaged students on the scale measuring perceived teacher's academic preferences (low) is accepted at the .005 level of significance. The hypothesis that the volunteers will have a higher median score than the non-volunteers on the scale measuring perceived teacher's aca- demic preferences (low) is rejected. TABLE 17 Summary of Significant Findings Variable Mypothesis Significance Level 1. Intelligence MA >'MD p ‘< .0005 2. Reading Achievement MA >MD p < .0005 3. Absenteeism. MA >MD p < .01 4. Grade Point Average MA >MD p < .0005 5. Self Concept of Ability MA >MD p < .05 6. Perceived Parents' Eval- MA >MD P < .005 nations 7. Perceived Friend's Eval- MA >MD p < .05 nations 8. Perceived Teacher's MA > MD 'p < .025 Evaluations 9. Perceived Parents' MA >‘MD p < .0005 Academic Preferences 10. ~Perceived Teachers' . M >M < .005 Academic Preferences A D P Key A = Advantaged D = Disadvantaged V = Volunteers NV = Non-volunteers 60 Data from the Interviews In order to acquire a deeper understanding of why some dis- advantaged students failed to participate in the Work Training Program, interviews were planned with the disadvantaged non-volunteers. It was found that 17 of the non-volunteers had taken part-time jobs outside of the school system.u It was thought that this might be the primary reason for failure to participate in the Work Training Program. There- fore, the interviews were started with the unemployed non-volunteers. In regard to the question: "Are you aware of the Work Training Program?", it was found that 12 answered "yes" and 5 answered "no". Those who answered "yes" were then asked: "Were you aware of the prOgram last year (1965-66)?". Of those twelve, 6 answered "yes" and 6 answered "no". The remaining six were asked "Did you apply for the program last year?". Only 1 answered "yes" and 5 answered "no". (The one who answered "yes" said he didn't get the necessary proof of age and therefore did not complete the application process). 'Pinally, the five who answered "no" to the above question were asked: "Why didn't you apply for the program last year?" All five felt they were too busy with school activities or school work. In summary, it appeared that the unemployed non-volunteers fell into two basic categories: 1) those who did not seem to know about the program or didn't follow through in making application; and 2) those who were too involved in school activities or studies to participate in the Work Training Program. Nothing in the interviews with the a It should also be noted that 2 volunteers did not actually participate in the Work Training Program. Contacts with these revealed that they decided to accept part-time jobs elsewhere. unemployed non-volunteers led the researcher to believe that inter- views with the employed non-volunteers would uncover evidence that they refused to participate in the program for any reason other than the fact that they were already employed. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Problem and Methodology Because of increasing concern among the leaders of our nation for those who are economically disadvantaged, numerous federal, state, and local programs have been developed in recent years to assist them. The main purposes of these programs are to minimize the negative ef- fects of poverty and to enable the disadvantaged to develOp capacities which might otherwise go unused without such help. Some authorities have taken the position that lower class peOple are not usually willing to take action which would improve their situation. On the other hand, there are many who do participate in Special programs designed to help them. Thus, the fundamental questions which were raised in this research were: what are the dif- ferences between students who volunteer to participate in a federally sponsored Work Training Program in an academic setting and students who do not participate in such a program, and why did the non-volun- teers fail to participate? A review of the literature did not reveal any previous re- 1 has stated the position that search on this problem. However, Hyman the lower class peeple who do take action to ameliorate their situa- tion are those whose reference groups are the upper classes. lHyman, "The Value System of Different Classes: A Social- Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification", pp, Cite, p. “41. 63 Based upon this position it was assumed in this research that the male students who would volunteer for a Work Training Program would be those whose reference groups are the upper classes. It was then hy- pothesized that the disadvantaged volunteers would be more like stu- dents in the upper classes (advantaged students) in regard to a variety of school performance variables and academically related socio-psycho- logical variables than disadvantaged non-volunteers. For this research 231 male students in Grand Rapids, Michigan with birthdates between May 1, 19u9, and November 1, 19u9, were studied prior to the time they would be eligible (by age) for the Work Training Program. These students were categorized by their counselors and other school personnel as economically advantaged (173 students) or economi- cally disadvantaged (58 students). Data was collected in Spring, 1965. The disadvantaged students who volunteered to participate in the pro- gram in Summer, 1965, and those who volunteered to participate in the 1965-66 school year were categorized as volunteers (2H students). The remaining disadvantaged students were categorized as non-volunteers (3a students). The data collected was obtained by the use of questionnaires, school records, and structured interviews. Findings First of all, it was found that the advantaged students were clearly in a higher socio-economic status than the disadvantaged students when measured according to the occupation of the person who supports their family. These groups were different at the .0005 level .A-h 61+ of significance. This would seem to indicate that the school personnel were generally accurate in differentiating between economically advan- taged and economically disadvantaged students according to the criteria recommended by the Office of Economic Opportunity (Appendix A). No significant difference was found between the disadvantaged volunteers and the disadvantaged.non-volunteers in regard to socio- economic status. Therefore, in regard to socio-economic status, the disadvantaged were viewed as a homogeneous group for the purpose of this study. Significant Findings Regarding_Advantaged and Disadvantaged Students l. The advantaged scored significantly higher than the disadvan- taged on measures of intelligence. (p4.0005) 2. The advantaged scored significantly higher than the disadvan- taged on tests of reading achievement. (p4.0005) 3. The advantaged had significantly fewer absences from school than the disadvantaged. (p(.Ol) u. The advantaged obtained significantly higher grades than the disadvantaged. (p(.0005) 5. The advantaged scored significantly higher than the disadvan- taged on measures of academic self concept. (p(.05) 6. The advantaged scored significantly higher than the disadvan- taged on measures of perceived parents' evaluations of academic abil- ity. (p<.oos) 7. The advantaged scored significantly higher than the disadvan- taged on measures of perceived closest friends' evaluations of academic ability.