__-

'w-rvv—uu-

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF THE
MICHIGAN SECONDARY SCHOOL-COLLEGE
AGREEMENT UPON FOUR-YEAR MICHIGAN

COLLEGE ADMISSION OFFICES FROM
1946-1959

Thesis for Ike Degree o‘I Ed. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Melvin Clarence Buschman

1960

IIIIIIMQIIIIIIIIIIIWIIMMz t.

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

An Analysis Of The Effects Of The
Michigan Secondary School-College
Agreement Upon Four-Year Michigan
College Admission Offices From 19146-1959

resented b
P ‘1 CR ‘.- \L\._ W '_

‘9 l (1 \‘fi 1‘7.
Melvin Clarence Buschman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ed.D degree in Education

:1/
/.,,
I”,-
r\ . / % \-—'
J(£/;-. . /‘ ' n '

Major professor

 

Date September 29, 1960

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF THE MICHIGAN SECONDARY
SCHOOL—COLLEGE AGREEMENT UPON FOUR-YEAR
MICHIGAN COLLEGE ADMISSION

(rrIcmns FROM 1946-1959

by

Melvin Clarence Buschman

AN ABSTRACT

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and

Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Administration and Educational Services
(Schoo 'Administration)

   

1960
\‘ //
Approved /\.//(2A”‘ ‘ L4"

 

 

MELVIN CLARENCE BUSCHMAN ABSTRACT

Introduction

 

There has been intense interest shown throughout the
United States in the problem of accreditation for secondary
schools and colleges; the major problem was that of qualifi-
cation of secondary school graduates for admission to
college. Usually universities themselves have policies
that govern the admission of new students. In Michigan there
exists a policy of admission known as the Michigan Secondary
School-College Agreement. This agreement between high
schools and colleges is as follows:

The college agrees to disregard the pattern of subjects
pursued in considering for admission the graduates of
selected accredited high schools, provided they are
recommended by the school from among the more able stu-
dents in the graduating class. This Agreement does not
imply that the students must be admitted to certain

college courses or curricula for which they cannot give
evidence of adequate preparation.

Statement of the Problem

 

The aim of this study was to determine what the effects
of the Agreement have been on admissions in the Michigan
four-year colleges and universities. It was hypothesized
that:

l. The Agreement has had no effect on the college's
admission policies and other institutional
policies, and

2. A selection of college instructors have not heard

of, nor understood the purpose of the Agreement.

MELVIN CLARENCE BUSCHMAN ABSTRACT

Procedure

 

To determine these effects, admission officials at the
colleges and universities were interviewed. A predetermined
set of questions was utilized in the interviews. A question-
naire was sent to a random sample of faculty members of each
institution to determine their understanding of the College
Agreement. One hundred per cent of the twenty-nine colleges
were interviewed and 72.3 per cent return was obtained on

the faculty questionnaire.

was:

Of the admissions officers, 79.3 per cent said the
Agreement had no effect on their admissions policies.

Clearly supporting the first hypothesis.

Of the faculty, 93.0 per cent indicated that there had
been no discussion of the Agreement at faculty meetings, and
94.0 per cent that they had never been consulted about the
Agreement. It seems evident that in these cases institutional

policies were not affected.

Conclusions

 

The function of the Agreement,as originally established,
is no longer applicable to the colleges. They continue to
function very much as they did prior to the advent of the

Agreement.

MELVIN CLARENCE BUSCHMAN ABSTRACT

The amount of faculty involvement in Admission policy
decisions was negligible. The faculty was generally dis-
interested in becoming involved in these matters, feeling
that it was primarily an administrative function.

The general feeling pervading the interviews was that
many good things had been accomplished by the Agreement. By
far the largest percentage of these things happened to the

secondary schools.

Implications

 

Further research is indicated to establish in what ways
the high school-college admissions relationships can be im-
proved. Since the Agreement failed to accomplish its stated
objectives regarding the college admissions procedures, it
is quite proper to suggest something different.

There appear to be three alternatives to be followed:

1. Abandon the Agreement. This would mean that all
features of the Agreement would cease, including those that
were considered valuable by most of the college admissions
officers.

2. Revise the Agreement. Twelve college admissions
officers wanted a revision of the Agreement. Their sug-
gestions ranged from a minor title change to total revision.

3. Abandon the Agreement and substitute in its place

a totally new plan to assist both secondary schools and

MELVIN CLARENCE BUSCHMAN ABSTRACT

college admissions officers. This suggested plan would be
one of devising a state-wide testing program as the basis
for admission. This program should be worked out cooper-
atively between representatives of secondary schools,
officials of the colleges, and the Department of Public

Instruction.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF THE MICHIGAN SECONDARY
SCHOOL-COLLEGE AGREEMENT UPON FOUR-YEAR
MICHIGAN COLLEGE ADMISSION
CWTIQEU3 FROM 1946-1959

by

Melvin Clarence Buschman

A THESIS

Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Administration and Educational Services
(School Administration)

1960

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere gratitude to
those who encouraged and assisted in the completion of this
study. It would have been virtually impossible to develop
this work into its present form without their cooperation.

Special gratitude is due to Professor William H. Roe
for his guidance and cooperation as Chairman of the Doctoral
Committee, who has given wise and patient counsel throughout
the study.

Acknowledgment is due to Professor Walter F. Johnson
for his encouragement and valued suggestions, and to
Professor Wilbur B. Brookover for suggesting the method to
be followed in the data collecting, and many constructive
criticisms during the writing.

Special mention is made to Drs. Clyde Campbell,

H. Weldon Frase, James E. Hoffman, for contributing ideas
to the study.

The writer is indebted to John Patterson and Lloyd
Ritzema, without whose constant stimulation and enthusiasm
this study would not have been completed.

Finally, the writer expresses his gratitude for the
hours of time spend in editing and typing the manuscripts to

Miss Selma Abbasse, and to all of those admissions officers

ii

and faculty members of the four-year colleges in Michigan
who so willingly gave of their time and opinion and made

this total project possible.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . 1
Importance of the Study . . . . . . A
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . 6
The Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 6
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 7
Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . 10
Summary . . . . . . . . . 12
II. HISTORICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND EVENTS
LEADING TO THE MICHIGAN SECONDARY SCHOOL
AGREEMENT. 0 o o o o o o o o o o 13
Background for the Study. . . . . . 13
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 32
III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Interview. . . . . . . . . . . 35
Selection of the Universe . . . 37
Interview of Directors of Admissions. . 38
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 41
Dates of Appointment . . . . . . . 48
Analysis of Interview Data . . . . . 53
smary o o o o o o o o o o o 58
IV. RMWU$(FIMESEEY. . . . . . . . 62
Faculty Participation. . . . . 62
Results of the Interview with Admissions
Officers 0 o I o o o o o o o 69
Related Questions . . . . . . . . 71
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 75
V. RECORDED COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . 77
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 83

iv

Chapter Page

VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . 84
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 85
Implications. . . . . . . . . . 86
Recommendations for Further Research. . 87
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
APPENDIX A 100
APPENDIX B 122

Table

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Test of Independence Between Adrian Listing
Dates of Appointment and Hillsdale Not
Listing Dates of Appointment . . . .

Test of Independence Between All Schools
Listing Dates of Appointment and All
Schools Not Listing Dates of Appointment .

X values for All the Tests of Independence
of Schools Listing Dates of Appointment
and Schools Not Listing Dates of
Appointment. . . . . . . . .

Relationship Between Changes in Admission
Policies and the Type of Institution . .

The X2 Values for All Tests of Independence
Between Public and Private Institutions

Have You Ever Heard of the Michigan Secondary

School-College Agreement? . . . . . .
Medium Sized Institutions . . . .
Large Size Institutions. . . . .

Extra Large Size Institutions.

What Do Ybu Understand the Purposes of the
Agreement to Be? . . . . . . .

Had the Agreement Been Discussed With the
Faculty Before Your Institution Signed
the Agreement?. . . . . . . . .

Have Any Benefits Accrued From Your
Institution Belonging to the Agreement?
What Benefits?. . . . . . . .

Coded Responses From the Interviews of College
Admissions Officers . . . . . .

Coded Responses to the Questionnaire from
College Faculties. . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

50

51

53

54

55

63
614
65
65

66

67

68

123

125

Table Page

15. Test of Independence Between Eastern Listing
Dates of Appointment and Alma Not Listing
Dates of Appointment. . . . . . . . 127

16. Test of Independence Between Central Listing
Dates of Appointment and Northern Not
Listing Dates of Appointment . . . . . 127

17. Test of Independence Between Ferris Listing
Dates of Appointment and Michigan Tech
Not Listing Dates of Appointment. . . . 128

18. Test of Independence BetWeen Suomi Listing
Dates of Appointment and Aquinas Not
Listing Dates of Appointment . . . . . 128

19. Test of Independence Between Olivet Listing
Dates of Appointment and Calvin Not
Listing Dates of Appointment . . . . . 129

20. Test of Independence Between Albion Listing
Dates of Appointment and Marygrove Not
Listing Dates of Appointment . . . . . 129

21. Test of Independence Between Hope Listing
Dates of Appointment and Siena Heights
Not Listing Dates of Appointment. . . . 130

22. Test of Independence Between Public and
Private Institutions Admissions Policies
Regarding Records of Agreement and Non-
Agreement Students , . . , . . , . 130

23. Test of Independence Between Public and
Private Institutions Regarding Changes in
Instructional Policies . . . . . . . 131

24. Test of Independence Between Public and
Private Institutions Regarding the Type
of Change Made in Instructional Policies . 131

25. Test of Independence Between Public and

Private Institutions Regarding the Cause
of Admissions Policy Change . . . . . 132

vii

Figure

2.

10.
11.

12.

13.
14.

16.
17.

LIST OF FIGURES

The Interview Questions. . . .

The Questionnaire for College Faculty and
Administrators . . . . . . . .

Code for Interview Questions . . . . .

Degree of Understanding of Those Respondents
Answering "Yes" to Question 1 . . . .

Degree of Understanding of Those Respondents
Answering "Yes" or "No" to Question 1 .

Degree of Understanding of Those Respondents
from Public Institutions Answering "Yes"
or "No" to Question 1. . . . . . .

Degree of Understanding of Those Respondents

from Private Institutions Answering "Yes" .

or "No" to Question 1. . . . . . .

All Colleges and Universities that Signed
the Agreement . . . . . . . . .

All High Schools that Signed the Agreement

List of Institutions as Sampled Indicating
All Degree Credit Enrollments . . . .

Letter to Admissions Officers Requesting
Interview. . . . . . . . . .

Interview Questions With Total Respondes
Code for Interview Questions . . . . .

Questionnaire for College Faculty and Admin-
istrators with Total Responses.

Cover Letter for the Questionnaire
Reminder Card for the Questionnaire.
Personal Letter to Non-Respondents

viii

Page
40

15
47

56

57

59

60

101
103

107

108
109
114

117
119
120

121

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

There has been intense interest shown throughout the.

United States in the problem of accreditation for secondary
schools and colleges; the major problem was that of qualifi-
cation of secondary school graduates for admission to college.
The history of college admissions in America began
with the entrance requirements and admission at Harvard
College during the seventeenth century. Each prospective
student was examined in the use of classical Latin, and in
the syntax of the Greek tongue. Careful check of the
individual‘s character was also made. Little change occurred
in this policy until the latter part of the nineteenth
century. No general procedure or standard for admission to
college had evolved at this time. In 1895 accreditation of
secondary schools was initiated primarily because colleges
could no longer check on the preparation of their applicants
and they felt it was necessary to find a means of standard-
izing the preparation and of choosing only those students
who were most likely to succeed in college. This provided
a situation whereby colleges and secondary schools could

cooperatively arrive at standards.l

 

1Walter S. Monore, Encyclopedia of Educational Research
(2d ed. rev.; New York: The Macmillan Cdmpany, 19507, p. 262.

1

In 1899 the Committee on College Entrance Requirements
of the National Education Association agreed that it should
carry out "an investigation of the best methods of admission
to college."

The University of Michigan was the first agency in the
United States to establish a plan for accrediting secondary
schools as the basis for admission of students to the
university. The Indiana State Department of Public Instruc-
tion became the first state department of education to
develop an accrediting plan for its public high schools.2

By 1909 the Carnegie unit had been defined and adopted.
Through this period of development, 1886 to 1921, various
accrediting agencies were organized to secure united action
toward uniform entrance requirements. The College Entrance
Examination Board was authorized around 1900, The Middle
States Association in 1921, and The Southern Association in
1930. As various patterns of college entrance requirements
developed, there was a slow shift from almost absolute
prescription to a policy of considerable freedom of elections.
However, most institutions standardized their specific
requirements for freshman admission: 15 Carnegie units--
English 3, Mathematics 2, Social Studies 2, Science 2, and
Foreign Language 2.

The National Association of Secondary School Principals'

bulletin currently carries suggestions for improving secondary

 

2Calvin 0. Davis, A History of the North Central Asso-
ciation, North Central AssocIatIon of Colleges and Secondary

Schools, 1925, p. 286.

 

education, such as desirable standards, policies, and prac-
tices that have developed, and continue to develop, through
the use of modern evaluation techniques. It is generally
admitted that the present traditional standards for secondary
school preparation have not been scientifically tested by
the Association, and that they are largely the outgrowths
of the first standards adopted by the North Central Associ-
ation in 1902.3
Usually universities themselves have policies that
govern the admission of new students. In Michigan there
exists a policy of admission known as the Michigan Secondary-
School-College Agreement. The Agreementl‘L between high
schools and colleges is as follows:
The college agrees to disregard the pattern of subjects
pursued in considering for admission the graduates of
selected accredited high schools, provided they are
recommended by the school from among the more able stu-
dents in the graduating class. This agreement does not
imply that the students must be admitted to certain
college courses or curricula for ghich they cannot give
evidence of adequate preparation.

There appeared to be a definite need for the secondary

schools to find a way, or method of operation, that would

 

31bid., p. 17.

4
Hereafter in this paper the Michigan Secondary School-
College Agreement will be referred to as the Agreement.

5Michigan Secondary School—College Agreement Committee,
Digests of 1955 Reports. A report prepared by Clair L.
Taylor, Superifitendent of Public Instruction, Lansing,
Michigan, 1956, p. 3.

 

permit them the freedom to develop a program for all students
in the community without endangering the chances of the
college bound students being admitted to college. Thus the
Agreement was developed.

Michigan four-year colleges have been members of the
Michigan Secondary School-College Agreement since its
inception late in 1946. Thus the basis for this research
project began on November 7, 1946, when the Michigan Second—
ary School-College Agreement was approved unanimously by the
Michigan College Association at Ann Arbor, Michigan, and by

the Michigan Secondary School Association in December, 1946.

Importance of the Study

 

Up to the present the fate of the College Agreement
has been guided primarily by opinion. The people in contact
with the Agreement were expressing their ideas and feelings
on the subject. These ideas and feelings were based upon
their experience with the Agreement, and not upon scientific
data. Some were suggesting that it be dropped. Others were
saying it should be continued, others that it should be
revitalized. The plan of this research will be to gather
facts on this subject so that informed decisions can be made
on the basis of an organized body of data rather than
opinions and casual observations.

The Agreement has been in effect for thirteen years
and no real evaluation, from the viewpoint of college admis-

sions, has been made. Therefore, an evaluation of the

college's side of the Agreement was needed to give sound
basis for decisions about the continuance, change or dis-
continuance of the program. It is important to ascertain
the kinds and number of adjustments made by the colleges in
fulfilling their part of the Agreement.

If administrators of higher education were to make new
policies or determine the directions of needed changes in
the Agreement, they would need the findings of this study.
College administrators in Michigan, as well as in other
states, who accept students from Michigan high schools have
concerns about admissions procedures. Therefore, they need
objective data to facilitate their decisions on this subject.

The high schools of Michigan have greater concerns
about college admissions, and have a real need to be currently
informed on the subject of preparation of high school students
for admission to college. Information from this study would
prove helpful in making some of the decisions the high
schools need to make regarding their role in the preparation
of these students.

If the colleges and universities of Michigan have
changed their admission policies, what obligations does this
impose upon the high schools? It is known that even though
the colleges try not to interfere with the high schools, it
is inevitable that a certain amount of policy changes have
serious effects upon them. Therefore, if the Michigan
Secondary School-College Agreement did institute certain basic

changes, it would be helpful to determine these changes.

Several outstanding research projects have been con-
ducted leading up to this project. All of them pointing the
way to new research. The Eight Year Study led to the
Michigan Curriculum Study and then to the College Agreement.
It is at this point we now stand ready to investigate the
"effects of the College Agreement upon admissions in Michigan

four—year colleges."

Statement of the Problem

 

The aim of this study is to determine what the effects
of the Agreement have been on admissions in the signatory

Michigan four-year colleges and universities.

The Hypotheses

 

l. The Agreement has had no effect on the college's
admission policies, and other institutional
policies.

2. A selection of college instructors have not heard
of, nor understood the purpose of the Agreement.

To determine these effects, admission officials at the

colleges and universities were interviewed. A predetermined
Set of questions was utilized in the interviews with the
chief admissions officer at each institution. These inter-
views were conducted on each of the Michigan campuses.
Questions and answers were recorded on magnetic tapes. A
request to record the conversation was included in the
appointment requests. A copy of each institutions faculty

directory was secured and used in sending a questionnaire

to a random sample of faculty members to determine how much
they knew about the College Agreement. When the interviews
were completed and the questionnaires returned, this data

was coded. An appropriate coding system was devised and the
Chi Square Test was applied to the coded responses. A
personal letter was sent to a sample of those faculty members

6

failing to return the questionnaire.

Limitations

 

Several limitations became apparent when viewing this
type of study. One limitation was that only four-year
colleges were included in the study; nursing schools and
junior college policies differed from four-year colleges and
therefore were excluded.

Another limitation was the method of collecting data.
Using a tape recorder and a set of questions had its dif-
ficulties. Kahn and Cannell have said:

Most of us, if confronted with a record of some of the

. . . dialogues in which we take part, would undoubtedly
discover discrepancies between what we thought was
happening and what was actually happening . . . even
where the dialogue takes the deliberate form of an
information-gathering interview, with the parties to

it presumably bent upon a common purpose, the difficul-
ties of communication persists. One consequence of

our sophistication about communications is that we have
developed ways and habits of reacting to each other that
are not intended to simplify or facilitate the process.
They are designed, in a large part, to help us protect
ourselves against putting ourselves in an unfavorable
light. They are man's methods of defending himself
against the possibility of being made to look ridiculous

 

6Chapter III goes into more detail.

or inadequate. We recognize that communications from
another person may be an attempt to force or beguile
us in a direction in which we may not wish to go. The
general result of this defensiveness is to mar com-
munications with omissions and inaccuracies. Through
long experience in being communicated with, we learn
to anticipate what is going to be said, and therefore
not listen well. Thus, we may respond not to what is
being said, but to our own thoughts. A person to whom
a communication is addressed is very likely to spend
some of his attention and energy on trying to evaluate
it in terms of the possible motives of the sender or
to its adaptability to his own needs, or including his
need to make a certain impression.7

The tendency to make evaluations is much more likely
in situations where feelings and emotions are deeply involved
as they were in many of the interviews of this study. Kahn
and Cannell state that the:

Evaluative behavior on the part of the interviewer can
be predicted either to inhibit communication by the
respondent or to create forces toward inaccurate or
distorted communication. Thus, if the respondent per-
ceived the interviewer to be approving of an attitude
he has expressed, it can be predicted that the respondent
will be motivated to repeat or over emphasize that
attitude, and to avoid expressing feelings that might
be in conflict with it. To resolve this problem the
interview must be a process in which the forces to
distort or withhold communication have been eliminated
or reduced as much as possible. To the extent that the
interviewer fails to obtain full communication of the
relevant items, the interview content becomes biased
and the conclusions inaccurate. It is a common observ-
ation that an electronic recording of an interview is
characterized by incomplete sengences, thoughts begun
but not finished, and the like.

A final limitation was that the interview usually involved

only one person, and in some instances this person may not

 

7Robert L. Kahn and Charles F. Cannell, The Dynamic of
Interviewing (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957),
p. 5.

8

 

Ibid., p. 8.

have adequately represented the opinions of the entire
institution.

The other method employed in collecting data for this
study was a questionnaire. Limitations of this instrument
are: the check-list form of questionnaire is particularly
dependent upon the list for suggestiveness and for a classi-
fication of the responses, so that the respondent is not so
likely to write in additional items. In fact, items which
he might intend to record, if there were no categories at
all, may be omitted when a list that does not contain them
is given him, either because he deems the given list to be
inclusive of all that is desired, or because he assumes a
mind-set of dependence on the list. One must not overlook
the importance of selecting carefully the group to whom the
questionnaire is sent. This selection involves a good reason
for believing that the people receiving the questionnaire
will be in a position to give the information desired; and,
where all the members of any group do not receive question-
naires, the selection involves sampling problems.9

Parten states:

The appearance of the questionnaire is much more impor-
tant in the mail survey than in the interview, since
the impression gained from a hasty glance at the form
may determine whether or not an attempt will be made

to answer it. Practically all surveyors who have used
the mail technique recommend enclosing a self-addressed

stamped envelope with the questionnaire blank. The
returns from mail questionnaires are usually quite

 

9Carter V. Good, A. S. Barr, and Douglas E. Scates,
The Methodology of Educational Research (New York: D. Appleton-

Century Company, 1941), pp. 339-342.

10
small, it is possible to increase the proportion OIO
returns by using a follow-up as a reminder letter.

The questionnaire is a useful, but overworked and
abused device for securing educational data.ll Many single
questions reflect biased selections of subject matter. Ques-
tion content sometimes carries a bias simply in terms of
the timing of the question. Example: If a community has
just experienced a race riot, questions on ending discrimin-
ation will give loaded results. Seasonal influences like-
wise may seriously bias answers to questions.

Every effort was made to overcome the limitations.

The type of information gathered by the questionnaire in
this research was not too prone to prejudice because of the

simple yes or no nature of the questions.

Definitions of Terms

 

The following list of terms or definitions are used
throughout this study. Therefore, a short explanation of
their meaning is included to make the reading of this report
more understandable.

Admission; acceptance of an applicant for enrollment
in a schobl or other educational institution.

 

Admission Policy; the school policy that controls the
standards for admission into school.

 

 

10Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and Samples (New
York: Harper Brothers, 19507, p. 388.

 

11
Good, Barr, and Scates, op. cit., p. 228.

the

11

Admission Requirements: specification of the educa-
tional and other experiences required of new students
for admission to college; usually stated in terms of
pattern and amount of credits, scores on standardized
psychological and achievement examinations, age, and
sometimes length of residence.

 

Chi Square: (X2) the sum of the quotient's obtained
by dividing the square of each difference between an
actual and a theoretical frequency.

 

Classification Test: the process of grouping statis-
tical data into mutually exclusive categories or classes,
on the basis of attributes or magnitudes.

 

Interview: a consultation or face to face meeting.

 

Policy: a judgment, derived from some system of values
and some assessment of situational factors, operating
as a general plan for guiding decisions regarding the
means of obtaining desired objectives.

Questionnaire: a list of planned, written questions,
reIated to a particular topic, with space provided for
indicating the response to each question, intended for
submission to a number of persons for reply.

 

Random Numbers: digits, so arranged that any number
has an equal chance of being chosen; in practice read
in any predetermined order from a table of random numbers.

 

Respondent: any recipient of a questionnaire who
actually replies to the questionnaire.

 

Selective Admission: admission of applicants to an
educational institution by selection on the basis of
legal residence or of predictive measures, or other
criteria of scholastic aptitude, personal fitness, and
probable future success.

 

Significance: the property of having low probability
of occurrence on the basis of change alone, thereby
likely occasioned by factors other than change.

 

All of the above terms or definitions were taken from

12
same source.

 

and

457.

 

l2Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education (New York
London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1945), pp. 1-

 

12

Public Institution: a college or university that is

 

state supported.

Private Institution: a college or university that is

 

non-state supported.

Summary
An attempt was made in the study that follows to
clearly outline the effects the Michigan Secondary School-
College Agreement policy has had on college admission and
procedural policies and to determine the feeling and opinion
of college admissions officials regarding the value and
usefulness of the Agreement from the higher education point

of view.

CHAPTER II

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCH AND EVENTS
LEADING TO THE MICHIGAN SECONDARY

SCHOOL AGREEMENT

Background for the Study

 

Around the turn of the century the general organization
of American education was frequently characterized as an
"Educational Ladder" consisting of the elementary school
(8 years), the high school (4 years), and the college (4
years). The developing graduate school was an upward exten-
sion of the "ladder." Implicit in this characterization was
the thesis that a child entering the first grade had the
opportunity to climb the successive rungs of the "ladder,"
successful experience at any grade level being adequate
preparation to the next level. Obviously the realization of
this opportunity is dependent upon effective articulation of
the divisions of the educational system.

Reeves and Russell1 indicated a two-fold purpose of
the admission function or the transcendence from one rung

of the ladder to another. First, a sound procedure of

 

1F. W. Reeves and J. D. Russell, College Organization
and Administration (Indianapolis: Board of Education,
Disciples of Christ, 1929), p. 107.

 

 

13

14

admissions protects the institution. Acceptance of new
students with low standards of preparation can crowd insti-
tutions with matriculants, thus increasing the percentage
of inferior students. This leads to attenuation of course
work. Secondly, an admission policy protects the student.
To refuse admission to an unpromising student prevents un-
economic use of his finances, loss of his time and effort,
and the disappointment attendant upon scholastic failure.

State supported colleges and universities have deviated
somewhat from the strict pattern of criteria for admission.
Thurston and Roe state:

One of the most encouraging results of the censorious
look at accreditation and the resultant educator and
citizen involvement was the movement which it triggered
whereby the people of the nation began taking a pene-
trating look at the instructional programs of elementary
and secondary schools. Educators were shaken from their
complacency in regard to real benefits derived from
traditional subjects of the schools. They began to
realize that there is no guarantee a certain school
procedure will result in specific behavior years later.

The search to know more about the effect of schooling
upon youth stimulated a series of promising evaluation
practices throughout the nation such as: The dropout
study, the follow—up study, the opinion survey, testing
program, opinion polls and check-lists, records of
appraisal, and anecdotal records. But most of all it
stimulated the action research movement whereby the
university research specialist teamed with the teacher
and administrator at the local level in a study of the
school curriculum.

Thus, here and there throughout the nation, educators,

particularly secondary educators, began to raise questions

 

1Lee M. Thurston and William H. Roe, State School
Administration (New York: Harper and Brothers,‘Pfib11Shers,

1957), pp. 313-314.

 

15

about the strict college admissions procedures and their
effect on secondary education. Some advocated the admission
of students to college on the basis of ability to do college
work, rather than on amount or nature of secondary school
credits.

The Eight-Year Study3 was the first intensive research
investigation that tended to change the character of college
admissions procedures. It was launched in April, 1930, when
two hundred men and women assembled in the capitol at
Washington, D. C., to consider ways by which secondary
schools of the United States might better serve all of our
young people. The nature of this study was to find out if
it were possible for students to succeed in college if they
did not follow the prescribed courses of foreign language,
mathematics, science, and history.

A part of the Eight-Year Study was a. project of five
years of free experimentation in a limited number of selected
schools which was formulated and presented to the colleges
and was by most of them generously and openmindedly approved.
The new problem included the crystalization of somewhat vague
general aims into definite objectives for particular programs
and specific work units.

Most high schools were unwilling to depart from the

conventional curriculum because of risking the students'

 

3Wilford M. Aiken, The Story of the Eight-Year Study,
Volume I (New Hork and London: ‘Harper Brothers, 19H2I, pp.

1-3.

 

16

chances of being admitted to college. As a result of the

meeting,

the Commission on the Relation of Schools and

Colleges was established. After a year's study, the Com—

mission issued a statement setting forth some areas which

needed exploration and improvement by our schools.

1.

\TI I: W IX)

40

(I)

10.
11.
12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Secondary education in the United States did not
have clear-cut, definite, central purposes.

Schools failed to give students a sincere appreci-
ation of their heritage as American citizens.

Our secondary schools did not prepare adequately
for responsibilities of community life.

The high school seldom challenged the student of
first rate ability to work up to the level of his
intellectual powers.

Schools neither knew their students well nor'guided
them wisely.

Schools failed to create conditions necessary for
effective learning.

The Commission was conscious also of the fact that
the creative energies of students were seldom
released and developed.

The conventional high school curriculum was far
removed from real concerns of youth.

The traditional subjects of curriculum had lost
much of their vitality and significance.

Most high school graduates were not competent in the
use of the English language.

The Commission found little evidence of unity in
work of the typical high school.

Absence of unity in work of secondary school was
almost matched by lack of continuity.

Complacency characterized high schools generally
ten years ago.

Teachers were not well equipped for their respon-
sibilities.

The Commission found only occasional principals
who conceived of their work in terms of democratic
leadership.

Principals and teachers labored earnestly, often
sacrificially, but usually without any comprehensive
evaluation of the results of their work.

The high school diploma meant only that the student
had done whatever was necessary to accumulate the
required number of units.

Finally, the relation of school anfi college was un-
satisfactory to both institutions.

 

u,

Ibido, p. Li-lOo

17

The Commission was charged with answering the following
questions:

1. Is the traditional college entrance program the
only safe and sound plan of preparation for
colleges? Or can boys and girls be equally well
or better prepared for college through a consid-
erable variety of widely different programs, devised
by competent secondary school teachers with their
eyes focused on the conditions and demands of
modern life and the individual capacities and inter-
ests of particular students?

2. Would students coming up through such a hetero-
geneous system be able to hold their own in major
college, or would they be doomed to failure?/

In 1932 a number of leading colleges and universities
agreed to a proposal of the Commission on the Relation of
School and College of the Progressive Education Association
to participate in a bold experiment. The colleges agreed
to accept students from a group of thirty selected secondary
schools without entrance examination and without the usual
pattern of required courses. The only requirements for
admission were to be the recommendations of the principal,

a complete record of the student's academic and extra class
activities, and his scores on scholastic aptitude and achieve-
ment tests given during the secondary school course.

The Progressive Education Association was concerned

with better ways of setting up the secondary school curriculum.

 

I:
’Ibld.

 

6Dean Chamberlain, at 21., Did They Succeed in College
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942), p. 291.

 

l8

Freed from the traditional college entrance requirements,
schools would then be able to build the type of curriculum
they believed to be best. The hypothesis of the Commission
on the Relation of School and College was that there are
other ways of successfully preparing youth for college.

The thirty schools chosen to cooperate in the study
represented various size public and private schools selected
from different sections of the United States. These schools
were eager to inaugurate exploratory studies and changes

which could not be undertaken without the freedom granted

by colleges.8

The curriculum patterns, in no sense standardized or
similar, were developed to provide the type of courses and
experience each school felt would best meet the educational
needs of its students. Some introduced new courses, some
combined existing courses, and others modified teaching-
learning procedures within existing courses. Some schools
set up a core curriculum, while others emphasized the
'problems approach in more conventional courses. Some programs

utilized broad field organization, and others introduced fused

9

C OUI‘SGS .

The programs of the thirty schools, although of widely

(differing patterns, did have something basic in common.

 

7Ibid., p. xix.

8Aiken, op. cit., p. 13.

9Chamberlain, op. cit., p. 77.

19

They emphasized democratic procedures, the problem-solving
approach to learning, teacher-pupil planning, and laboratory-
type learning experiences. They were also uninhibited by

the usual restrictions of course unit requirements found in
conventional secondary school programs.

For a basis of comparison, each graduate of the thirty
schools was matched, with utmost care, with another student
in the same school not participating in the study, and had
met the usual entrance requirements. They were matched on
the basis of sex, age, race, scholastic aptitude scores,

home and community background, interests, and probable

future.11

In the comparison, 1,475 matched pairs were selected,
making up an experimental group and a control group. The
follow-up study revealed that "the graduates of the thirty
schools, as a group, did a somewhat better job than the com-
parison group whether success is judged by college standards,
by students contemporaries, or by individual students."12

The following characteristics of the experimental
students or graduates of the thirty schools were revealed:

1. They earned a slightly higher grade point average
in all subjects except the foreign languages. They

 

10Ibid., p. 78.

11Aiken, op. cit., p. 109.

lerid., p. 112.

20

received slightly more academic honors, and a
higher percentage of non-academic honors.

2. They were more often judged to possess intellectual
curiosity and drive, and to be precise, systematic,
and objective in their thinking. They were also
more often judged to demonstrate a high degree of
resourcefulness in meeting new situations.

3. They did not differ from the comparison group in
number of times on probation, in ability to plan
their time wisely, or in the quality of adjustment
to their contemporaries.

4. They participated more frequently and more often
enjoyed appreciative experiences in the arts, and
participated more in all organized student activities,
except those of a religious or service nature.

5. They were more often judged to have developed clear
ideas about the meaning of education, a better
orientation towards the choice of a vocation, and
a more active concern for what was going on in the
world.

A further investigation was made to discover whether
this creditable showing might be due to the graduates who
had not departed greatly from traditional patterns and ways
of college preparation. Comments of the College Follow-Up
Staff were as follows:

the colleges got from these most experimental
schools a higher proportion of sound, effective college
material than they did from more conventional schools
in similar environments. If colleges want students of
sound scholarship with vital interests, students who
have developed effective and objective habits of
thinking and who yet maintain a healthy orientation
toward their fellow, then they will encourage the
already obvious trend away from restrictions which tend
to inhibit departures or deviations from the conventional
curriculum patterns}!4

As an additionalibature of the study, a special analysis

was made of the graduates of the six schools that departed

 

l3Chamberlain, op. cit., pp. 207-208.

14Aiken, op. cit., p. 113.

 

 

21

most from tradition with the graduate of the six that de-
parted least. The graduates of the most experimental schools
showed a marked superiority over those from the least experi-
mental schools, the difference being even greater than that

existing between the graduates of the total thirty schools

and those of the conventional high schools.15

Some implications of the study were:

1. Principals and teachers must be willing and able to
reconsider and call in question everything they have
been taking for granted. The purposes of the school,
its practices, its organization, its curriculum
should be subjected to the most careful scrutiny.
Change should not be made hastily or piece-meal.
Deliberation preparatory to reconstruction should
involve every teacher.

Participation by parents is essential.

Students have important contributions to make to

curriculum building.

No school or teacher is fully ready for constructive

change until plans for appraising results are

carefully formulated.

7. The school which undertakes thorough-going remaking
of itself is in for the most difficult and, at the
same time, the most tgrilling and profitable experi-
ence in its history.1

(NW-D'UJM

The second study which affected the creation of the
Agreement was the Michigan Study of the Secondary School
Curriculum.17 This study did not make recommendations, but

rather gave structure to the Agreement.

 

15Ibid., p. 114.

16Wilford M. Aiken, "Some Implications of the Eight-
'Year'Study for All High Schools and Colleges," The North
Central Association Quarterly, XVII (January, l943),279-280.

 

l7Theodore D. Rice and Roland C. Faunce, The Michigan
Secondary Study (Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education,

'I945). p. 16.

 

22

The Michigan Study began with the recognition that
current high school programs were not keeping pace with the
dynamic social and economic demands of the culture. It was
felt necessary to study the secondary school curriculum in
order to find ways of dealing with these new problems. An
additional complication was that secondary school programs
had not met adequately the needs of the students, and
colleges would not admit graduates if major program revisions
or changes were made.

The purpose of the Curriculum Study was to help co-
operating secondary schools to discover, develop, and
appraise modifications of new educational programs.

A real limitation to realization of this purpose was
that existing college entrance requirements prevent such
exploration of new programs. Therefore, it was necessary
to find some means of freeing the cooperating schools from
these limitations.

Several conferences were held with the college com-
mittee and a statement of policy concerning admission of
graduates of the cooperating schools to the colleges of
Michigan was developed. The policy reads as follows:18

(Name of Institution) agrees to admit graduates of

schools included in the Michigan Study of the Secondary
School Curriculum in terms of its adopted standards of

admission but without reference to the pattern of sub-
jects they have pursued, provided they are recommended

 

18J. Cecil Parker, Wilmer Menge, and Theodore D. Rice,
The First Five Years of the Michigan Study of the Secondary
school Curriculum 1937-1942 (Lansing: Michigan Study of the
Secondary School Curriculum, State Board of Education, 1942),

pp. 16-31.

 

23

by the school from among the more able students in
the graduating class. It is our understanding that
this agreement includes graduates of the schools in
the years 1940-1950.

The following colleges have agreed, without reservation
to admit graduates of schools included in the Curriculum
Study.

Adrian Hope
Albion Kalamazoo
Alma Marygrove
Calvin Michigan State Normal College
Central State Teachers Nazareth
College Northern State
Detroit Institute of Olivet
Technology Siena Heights
Emmanuel Missionary University of Detroit
College Wayne
Ferris Institute Suomi College
Hillsdale

Colleges that have agreed to the policy with
reservation:

Michigan State University, reservation: We have to
make the exception that students entering technical
curricula must meet specific group requirements.

University of Michigan, reservation: The College of
Literature, Science and Arts agrees to admit graduates
,of schools included in the Michigan Study of Secondary
School Curriculum in terms of its adopted standards of
admissions, but without references to the pattern of
subjects which the students have pursued, provided they
are recommended by the school from among the more able
students in the graduating class. It is expected that
the principals will bear in mind when making recommen-
dations that if students plan to pursue specialized
courses in this college or desire for professional
curricula, the specific preparatory requirements for
such courses may have reasonable assurance of success.
It is also to be understood that such graduates will
be admitted during the early portion of this period
that they have as adequately prepared to do work on the
college level as the students who are admitted from
other schools of the state and country.

Western Michigan University, reservation: In certain
cases of pre-professional students who later plan to
enroll in special technical or professional colleges
it may be necessary to insist on certain college prep-
aratory subjects.

24

The aim of the Curriculum Study regarding education
was to point out that the schools exist to aid students in
the maximum development of their own potentialities within
a democratic society and to contribute to the improvement
of social and human welfare.19

The Directing Committee and staff of the Curriculum
Study held the following principles regarding the nature of
the curriculum: The curriculum consisted of real, basic
experiences of living; such experiences were found in life
today; appropriate experiences cannot be selected except
through consideration of the group at hand, and experiences
required critical interpretation by the individual and the
group.

The Curriculum Study was planned for a period of
twelve years, divided roughly into four parts. The first
period of one year was a period of refining and maturing
plans and reviewing potential contributions from previous
and current studies. The second period of four years con-
sisted largely of the experimental exploration and evaluation
of promising modifications in the secondary program. The
third period of four years was to be one of continuing the
exploration and evaluation and the extension of plans and
ideas in a large number of schools. The fourth period of

three years was planned to be one of summarization and

 

19
Rice and Faunce, op. cit., p. 6.

25

extension of effective practices in secondary education

throughout the state.20

Rice states that:

A follow-up study of selected high school graduates
revealed that the participating schools were not
generally using the Curriculum Study Agreement as a
basis for liberalizing their actual graduation require-
ments, but rather as a means of permitting students who
have not met those requirements to enter college.

There is a necessity on the part of the high schools
and colleges to move toward the accumulation of quali-
tative data regarding graduates who enter higher edu-
cation institutions. This is particularly true if
policies regarding college entrance are liberalized
to permit admission to higher institutions on the basis
of the recommendation of the principal and his staff.

The youth of secondary school age should have work
experience as a concomitant of general or vocational
education. Secondary Schools should build toward the
inclusion of free 13th and 14th grades to facilitate
vocational and pre-professional training and to provide
continued general education.

Specific vocational and college prep courses should
be postponed to the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th grades
in order to be placed as near as possible to the func—
tions for which they are preparatory.

Admission to college should be based upon the recom-
mendation of the high school staff and not simply upon
the course patterns followed. Systematic follow-up
procedures should be carried on by high schools and
colleges. The process of teacher-pupil planning Should
be increasingly characterized procedures in high school
classes.

The guidance function should be built into general
education; teachers should recognize its importance
and become skillful in its techniques; the schedules
should facilitate it; adequate records should be devel-
oped and used; and the teaching process itself should 2

be built upon the child growth and development thesis. 1

 

eoParker, op. cit., pp. 16-17.

1
Rice and Faunce, op. cit., p. 6.

26

The data collected in this follow-up study indicated
one thing clearly; that college admissions policies were in
need of some adjustment. I

In order to further explore adjustments in admissions
policies, a college agreement committee was created and made
representative. The committee was composed of four repre-
sentatives of the Michigan College Association, three from
the Michigan Secondary School Association, one from the
Michigan Association of School Administrators, and one from
the staff of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The signatory colleges enrolled more than four-fifths
of the college students and the signatory high schools
enrolled more than one-fifth of the high school pupils.

The College Agreement was a form of treaty under the
terms of which the signatory secondary school enjoyed an
enlarged sphere of freedom in the education of its pupils,
and the signatory college emancipated itself from an arbi-
trary rule in the admission of its students.22

Michigan high schools had a freer hand than in the
past in following various curriculum paths which they

23

believed led to better schools.

 

22Lee M. Thurston, "The Michigan College Agreement,"
School and Society, Vol. 67 (May 22, 1948), 387.

 

23W. N. Atkinson, "Michigan College Agreement,"
School and Society, Vols. 65-66 (February 22, 1947), 144.

 

27

Out of this committee was formed the Michigan Secondary

School-College Agreement,24 which is stated as follows:

MICHIGAN SECONDARY SCHOOL-COLLEGE AGREEMENT

Approved unanimously by the Michigan College Association
at Ann Arbor, November 7, 1946 and by the Michigan
Secondary School Association in December, 1946.

1.

It is proposed that this Agreement be extended to
include any accredited high school whose staff will
make the commitments noted below in Section Two.
The Agreement is as follows:

"The college agrees to disregard the pattern

of subjects pursued in considering for admission
the graduates of selected accredited high schools,
provided they are recommended by the school from
among the more able students in the graduating
class. This agreement does not imply that stu-
dents must be admitted to certain college courses
or curricula for which they cannot give evidence
of adequate preparation."

Secondary schools are urged to make available such
basic courses as provide a necessary preparation
for entering technical, industrial, or professional
curricula. It is recommended further that colleges
provide accelerated programs of preparation for
specialized college curricula for those graduates
who are unable to secure such preparatory training
in high school.

High schools which seek to be governed by this
agreement shall assume responsibility for and shall
furnish evidence that they are initiating and
continuing such procedures as the following:

a. A program involving the building of an adequate
personal file about each student, including
testing data of various kinds, anecdotal records,
personality inventories, achievement samples,
etc. The high school staff will assume respon-
sibility for developing a summary of these
personnel data for submission to the college.

b. A basic curriculum study and evaluation of the
purposes and program of the secondary school.

 

24
Michigan Secondary School-College Agreement, op. cit.,

pp. 3—4.

28

c. Procedures for continuous follow-up of former
pupils.

d. A continuous program of information and orien-
tation throughout the high school course
regarding the nature and requirements of certain
occupation and specialized college courses.
During the senior year, to devote special
emphasis to the occupation or college of the
pupil's choice.

3. It is further recommended that a joint committee be
established to study applications of new schools and
to recommend certain of these schools to colleges
for inclusion in the agreement; also to determine
from time to time whether the criteria have been
met in the schools on the list. This joint committee
would include three representatives from the Michi-
gan Secondary School Association, four from the
Michigan College Association, and one each from the
Department of Public Instruction and the Department
of Superintendents of the Michigan Education Associ-
ation; representatives to be appointed by the
executive officer of each organization and the
representatives of the Michigan College Association
to represent different types of member institutions.
The joint committee would be served by a part—time
staff supplied from three sources: the Bureau of
Cooperation of the University of Michigan, the
Department of Public Instruction, and the Inservice
committees of various Michigan colleges and
universities.

4. It is understood that high schools which cannot or
will not make and observe the above committments
(See Section Two) will continue to employ the major
and minor sequences for those students who wish to
attend college.
Harold E. Telfer, in his study concerning Comparison
of Curriculum Development in College Agreement and Non-

Agreement Schools, found the followingz‘?5

 

2

5Harold E. Telfer, "A Summary of the Results of a
Doctoral Study Concerning Comparison of Curriculum Develop-
ment in College Agreement and Non-Agreement Schools, 1947-

1957," Colorado State University, March 19, 1959.

29

Favorable:

1.

Schools actively participating in the Agreement

have improved and extended their study of curriculum
needs. This has included summer study, in—service
courses, curriculum workshops, pre-school and post-
school conferences, in all of which more Agreement
than non-Agreement schools, took active part.

Schools actively participating have profited from
reports of the progress of other schools, which
have been made available through the Agreement
Committee.

The majority of Agreement schools have taken part in
Regional Association meetings, which have dealt
directly with mutual problems of the schools. Their
own faculty members have taken active part in plan-
ning and carrying out these meetings. This was

one subject on which most of the school people
interviewed were extremely enthusiastic.

Agreement schools have made more use of consultants
than non-Agreement schools. These consultants have
come from the State Department, universities, and
various special sources to work with teachers on
particular needs and problems of the curriculum.

More Agreement than non-Agreement schools used
parents and other citizens to help in planning for
school needs, although neither group used these
helpers to a great extent.

Schools actively participating have worked toward
providing for needs 0f various students:

a. They have provided selected course offerings for
better preparation of college-bound youth.

b. They have provided vocational and modified
courses for students who do not plan to attend
college.

0. They have provided special help for students
with needs or problems that are different from
the majority.

d. They have expanded and implemented guidance
programs to help them determine the specific
needs and abilities of various individual pupils.

The degree of participation of schools in the Agree-
ment corresponded directly with the degree of devel—
opment being shown:

30

More of the Agreement schools were rated as
doing outstanding work.

Those of the Agreement schools which showed the
greatest enthusiasm for the help given them by
College Agreement membership were the leaders
in making progress.

(1) They sent all or most of their teachers to
regional meetings.

(2) They involved the entire faculty in study
and planning.

(3) They made real effort to apply the results
of their study in improving teaching in the
classroom and in their overall guidance and
leadership of pupils.

(4) They showed the greatest recognition of
their responsibility for helping other
schools.

Unfavorable:

1.

There has not always been enough firmness in main-
taining the terms of the Agreement.

a.

While schools agreed to work toward the four
areas of the Agreement, many had done little

or nothing in some of the areas, and there seemed
to be no effective way of assuring that these
points were being carried out.

The responses of schools to the required written
reports have not always carried enough specific
information to show what the schools are really
doing. Some schools have not even sent in
reports.

Some schools have felt unwilling, or unable, to take
advantage of the opportunities offered by Agreement
membership.

a.

Some have entered only for prestige, and have
not felt they needed to make any improvements.

A number of large schools have felt no need for
membership, because they considered themselves
self-sufficient.

Some very small schools felt that their size,
with resultant lack of funds, staff, and student
body, made it impossible to make changes, no
matter how desirable.

3.

31

d. Certain schools felt that their isolated
locations made it difficult for them to take
advantage of Agreement meetings or to ask out—
side consultanhsto come to them.

e. A very few schools declared the Agreement
meetings to be of no value, and refused to take
part in them.

There is considerable lack of information about what
the Agreement means.

a. Some administrators have not made certain that
their faculty members are fully informed.

b. Some feel that there is a lack of communication
between the schools and the colleges, or that
college faculty members in general are unaware
of the Agreement.

From these results, Telfer recommended the following:

A.

It would be highly desirable if representatives from
the Agreement Committee, or perhaps from the various
Regional Associations could make periodic visits to
participating schools. Many school people expressed
a desire for such visits.

A more strict adherence to the requirements for mem-
bership might be achieved by establishing a reasonable
time limit for putting into practice the necessary
machinery for carrying out the four areas of the
Agreement. Perhaps a probationary status might be
given those who do not make sufficient effort to

live up to the Agreement, before dropping them from
membership.

Regional Association meetings should be continued,
with careful evaluation and improvement of the
programs being carried on regularly.

Perhaps a more specific report form for member schools
could be introduced, which would measure accurately
the progress of the schools in the definite areas

of the Agreement.

More information regarding consultant services might
be made available to the schools.

All Agreement schools should have available more
specific information concerning the role and require-
ments of the Agreement, and all of their teachers
should receive this information.

32

It has been shown that abilities necessary for success
in college can be developed in other ways than simply by
prescribing a relatively fixed curriculum pattern. It
follows that strict reliance on units as a basis for admis—
sion to college cannot be considered a valid procedure. The
empirical data show either that (l) sheer exposure over a
specified period of time to certain courses does not guarantee
the development of basic skills, or (2) that the skills
supposedly developed are not essential to successful work in
college.

A number of colleges have, in keeping with the facts,
made revisions of their entrance requirements. Several have
abandoned patterns of entrance units, and rely upon objective
appraisals of all-around abilities as the primary basis for
admission.

It has been suggested that the college entrance exam-
ination board prepare examinations which would be explicitly
of the "power" type--this is, which would test a student's
ability to deal with scholarly materials rather than largely
his ability to remember certain facts. Such tests would not
restrict the content of high school courses, since ability
to understand, interpret, and use material could be developed

with a variety of materials.

Summary
It has been shown in this chapter the previous research

and events which led to the adoption of the Agreement. This

33

research began with the Eight-Year Study, followed by the
Michigan Curriculum Study, and concluded with the adoption
of the Agreement. This leads us to examine the Agreement

in the light of its effectiveness today.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of the investigation was to determine the
effects of the Michigan Secondary School-College Agreement
upon the admission policies of the signatory four-year
colleges.

Several methods of gathering the data were considered
and rejected. The personal interview and questionnaire were
finally judged to be the best ways to get complete inform-
ation about a general subject with two distinct populations.

Perhaps a comparison of the interview and questionnaire
methods should be made at this point to clarify their func-
tions. Although both the interview and the questionnaire
place heavy reliance upon the validity of verbalized behavior,
there are important differences between the two methods. In
the questionnaire approach, the information one obtains is
limited to the written responses of subjects to pre-arranged
questions. In the interview, the investigator has a flexible
opportunity to solicit information through questions; in
addition, he has the opportunity both to observe the subject
as he responds to questions, and to observe the total

situation to which the subject is responding.1

k

lMarie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook,
figsearch Methods in Social Relations, Part I: Basic Processes
(New York: The Dryden Press, 1951), p. 155.

34

35

Explanations are not difficult to phrase for a survey
type of investigation concerned with matters in which the
respondent can be assumed to be not deeply involved emotion—
ally. When this is not the case, the explanation demands
more careful preparation. When the explanation of the
research purpose is too complex, the situation may be dis-
torted by making the interviewee overly conscious of the

variable under investigation.2

 

Interview

Usually the interview is considerably more flexible
than the questionnaire. In a questionnaire, if the subject
misinterprets a question or records his responses in a
baffling manner, there is little that can be done to remedy
the situation. In an interview there is always the possi-
bility of rephrasing questions to make sure that they are
understood or of asking further questions in order to clarify
the meaning of the subject's response. Its flexibility
makes the interview a far superior technique for the explor-
ation of areas where there is little basis for knowing either
what questions to ask or how to formulate them. The inter—
viewer is in a position to observe not only what the respon—
dent says, but also how he says it.3

The interview is the more appropriate technique for

revealing information about complex, emotionally-laden

 

21bid., p. 355.

3Ibid., p. 157.

36

subjects. This was particularly true of the subject of

"College Agreement" for some interviews. Although both

the interview and questionnaire approach are designed to
create permissive situations which allow the subject to feel
that he is free to express feelings or to report behavior

customarily disapproved, the interview is likely to be more

successful. Not only is the interview more effective than

the questionnaire in producing permissive situations; it
is also more versatile with respect to the atmosphere which

can be created during the measuring situation.

Many college graduates have little facility for

writing and, of those who do, few have the patience or moti-
vat ion to write as fully as they might speak. The burden

of writing or of maintaining interest is sufficiently great
that it limits the number of questions which may be asked,

and the fullness of the responses.
The interviewer has a framework of questions he wants

answered, but the manner in which questions are asked and

their timing is left largely to his discretion. He has

freedom to explore reasons and motives, to probe further in

directions that were unanticipated. He wants definite types

0f information and part of his task is to confine the respon-
dent to discussion of the issues about which he wants

knowledge.5 It was necessary to select a sample likely to

 

ulbid., p. 159.

51bid., p. 159.

37

'produce the most satisfactory data relating to the problem.

'rhis was done.

Selection of the Universe

All of the twenty-nine four-year colleges in Michigan
had signed the College Agreement, and, therefore, were
seelected for the study. This constituted the universe. All
(JI' the admissions officers of the colleges and universities
were chosen as Population A. The office in each institution
that was most concerned about the Agreement was the Office
caf' Admissions. It seemed logical that an interview with
‘triee person in charge of this office should be sought for
the recorded interview.

The second part of the study concerned faculty members
CDf' 'the Agreement colleges and universities. Since this pop-
ulation was very large, it was necessary to take a sample.
Hereafter this will be referred to as Sample A.

College faculty directories were obtained from each
Of' tihe twenty-nine colleges, at the time of the interview,
arnj a random sample of faculty members was selected from
these institutions based upon the following formula:

Schools with 10 or fewer faculty members, a 100%
sample was drawn.

Schools with 11-25 faculty members, a 50% sample
was drawn.

Institutions employing 26-50 faculty members, a
25% sample was drawn.

Institutions employing over 50 faculty members,
a 10% sample was drawn.

38

The actual name of the individual to whom the ques-

tionnaire was sent was selected in the following manner:

for each faculty directory the random table was used. An

eyes-closed pointing of the finger indicated the beginning

random number. The first name in each directory was used

as a starting point and names were counted until the random

number was reached. This name was selected for the sample

and removed from this process, and further counting was done
until the next random number was reached, each time elimin—
ating the name that fell on the random number so that each

name in each directory had equal chance of being chosen.
This process was followed until the percentage sample was

reached. The resulting sample totaled 624 faculty members.

From the 624 questionnaires sent out, 450 were returned.

From the list of colleges and universities that signed

the Agreement, those schools having curricula of a special

nature, i.e., medical, dental, law, et cetera, were elimin-

ated prior to the drawing of the sample. This was done to

put the schools on an equal basis regarding general curricula.

Interview of Directors of Admissions

Letters6 were sent to each of the Directors of Admis-

Eiions asking permission to conduct an interview. In the

maJOI‘ity of cases this privilege was granted graciously. In

eleven cases the letters were returned with refusals or
\ M

6See Figure 11, Appendix A.

39

indications of great reluctance. Eventually, all twenty-
nine interviews were conducted, even though some higher
administrative officers were substituted for the Director
of Admissions.

The questions for the interview7 were so designed that
the answers would provide data relating to the hypotheses.

Questions were tested by interviewing junior college
admissions officers. The Questions were revised and eval—
uated many times, until they were judged to be as reliable
as conditions would permit. The questions were typai on
five by seven cards and a set was typed for each of the
twenty-nine colleges to be interviewed.

A schedule of interviews was arranged, and were con-
ducted during the months of September, October, and November,
1959.

The required equipment needed to conduct the interview
was a magnetic tape recorder, complete with microphone,
extension cord, clear tape, and a typed set of cards con-
taining the questions to be asked the interviewee.

Problems encountered at this point were many. Attempts
were made to arrange these interviews with some emphasis on
efficiency. This meant that institutions located in the
same vicinity were scheduled to be visited on the same trip.
Many of the persons to be interviewed were extremely busy,

which made the selection of dates most difficult. A second

 

7See Figure 1. For Interview Questionnaire showing
complete responses see Figure l2,Appendix A.

40

Figure 1. THE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

This is a research project dealing with admissions to Michigan
colleges to determine what the effects of the Michigan Second-
ary School-College Agreement have been on the twenty-nine
signatory four-year colleges and universities.

1.

Were you on the staff here at at the time your
institution signed the Michigan Secondary School-College
Agreement?

 

a. In what capacity?
b. How would you summarize your admissions policy?

Would you say your admissions policy is any different
from other Michigan colleges?

a. In what way does it differ?
b. Why?

Is your policy of admission more restrictive than other
Michigan colleges?

a. What per cent do you admit from the lower 1/3 of the
graduating class? (high school)

b. What per cent do you admit from the middle 1/3 of
the graduating class? (high school)

c. What per cent do you admit from the upper 1/3 of
the graduating class? (high school)

d. Do you make any exceptions?

e. What exceptions?

Have you collected data that supports this position?
a. Do you still collect this data?

Do you keep records of the College Agreement admissions
separate from the other?

In your opinion what kind of record does the College
Agreement student make generally?

good average poor

How does his record compare with the non-Agreement student?
Do you feel that the member high schools have modified in
any way the preparation of their college bound student as

a result of the College Agreement?

a. If yes, in what way?

10.

11.

12.

13.

l4.

15.

l6.

l7.

l8.

19.
20.

41

Figure l--Continued

 

Has your institution made any recommendations to high
schools for modifying their preparation of students for
college?

In your opinion do you think any changes in college
teaching methods have resulted from the Agreement?

a. If yes, what changes?

Has there been any change in the degree of understanding
between colleges and high schools regarding admission
policies since the Agreement?

a. If yes, in what way?
b. If no, why not?

Have you participated in high school principal-freshmen
conferences?

a. What is your opinion of them?

Has your admissions policy been changed since the begin-
ning of the Agreement?

Do you feel there is any need for change in the Agreement
since it has been operating for some time?

Do you feel that the Agreement was interpreted in
essentially the same way by all Michigan college admis—
sions officers, or have there been differences in inter-
pretation?

a. What were the factors that led to different inter-
pretation?

In general, what is your opinion of the Agreement at
this time?

a. What is of value?
b. What is undesirable?

How is the admission of the marginal student (minimum or
less than minimum qualified student) handled?

Have you met with the high schools in any of the planned
Agreement meetings?

a. How often?
b. When was the latest meeting attended?

What suggestions would you make for changes in the Agreement?
Should the Agreement be continued?

42

problem encountered at this point was the very great reluc—
tance of some of the administrators to have the interview
recorded on tape.

Another major problem was assuring the interviewee of
complete confidence and professional treatment of material
gathered on tape. This assurance was made in the original
letter. In many instances where initial refusals for inter-
views were given, further assurance was given by telephone.
In the most reluctant cases, an on-the-scene discussion was
required before permission was granted to tape the interview.

Twenty-seven of the twenty-nine interviews were obtained
on tape. Two would not consent to have their responses
recorded. Because of the inability to persuade these two
representatives to permit taping, the responses were recorded
in writing by the interviewer.

Several interviewees requested a list of the questions
be sent to them in advance of the interview. If this were
done, it was felt that the data gathered would be biased,
therefore, only the subject of the research was made available
to the interviewee prior to the apointment.

The questions were coded8 to permit easier tabulation.
A panel of judges was selected.9 The judges reviewed each

of the taped interviews and agreed upon objective responses

 

8See FigurejL3,Appendix A.

9Dr. H. Weldon Frase, Mr. Lloyd G. Ritzema, and Dr.
James D. Hoffman.

m1?

 

A3

to insure consistent data. Coded responses were then

recorded10 and statistical methods were applied.

Questionnaire

 

The hypotheses did not lend themselves to satisfactory
solutions using only one data gathering method. To fulfill
the second requirement of the research project, it was nec-
essary to obtain information from the faculties of the
signatory four—year colleges.

It seemed important to select a larger sample of
college faculty members in this situation than would be
possible in the interview situation. As a result, the ques-
tionnaire appeared to be the only feasible way of accomp-
lishing this taks.

The questionnaire was designed to be open-ended. The
advantages of open-ended questionnaires are obvious. The
subjects'responses give a more detailed picture of his atti-
tudes, a picture which is less subject to misinterpretation
than responses to poll-type questions. The open-end question,
by not suggesting responses, allows the subject to respond
in terms of his own frame of reference. The freedom to
respond, in a sense, forces the subject to respond in terms
of the factors which are salient to him. Thus, the open-end
question provides an indicator of the factors which are
prominent in the thinking of the individual about a given

issue.11

 

10See Table 13,Appendix B. llJahoda, op. cit.,p.l73.

44

The distinguishing characteristic of the questions
used in open-end questionnaires is that they merely raise
an issue but do not provide or suggest any structure for
the respondent's reply. Thus, the respondent is given the
opportunity to answer in his own terms, and in his own frame
of reference.12

Open—end questionnaires are more demanding in time
and cooperation from the subject than are poll-type ques-
tionnaires. It limits the use of open-end questionnaires
to rather highly literate persons with strong motivation
to cooperate in a particular study.

The questionnaire13 was designed to gather data that
would prove or disprove Hypothesis Two. The first question
was to provide the necessary information to accomplish this
objective. The questionnaire was restricted to one page in
length for two reasons: (1) this was sufficient length to
accomplish the number one purpose of proving or disproving
Hypothesis Two, and (2) it was not the intent to collect a
lot of information on the variables that might affect the
answers.

The questionnaires were sent to the selected list of

14

college staff members, accompanied by a cover letter, and

a self-addressed stamped return envelope. At the end of

k

12
Ibid.

13See Figure 2. For Questionnaire showing complete
responses see Figure 14, Appendix A.

14See Figure 15, Appendix A.

A5

Figure 2. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COLLEGE FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS

This is a research project dealing with admissions to Michigan
colleges to determine what the effects of the Michigan Secondary
School-College Agreement have been on the twenty-nine signatory
four-year colleges and universities.

1.

Have you ever heard of the "Michigan Secondary School—
College Agreement"?
a. If yes, what do you understand the purposes to be?

 

Have the purposes of the Agreement ever been discussed in
your departmental meetings?

 

Have you made any changes in your methods of teaching as
a result of your institution belonging to the Agreement?
a. If yes, what changes?

 

Has there been any change in institutional policy as a
result of your institution belonging to the Agreement?
a. If yes, in what areas have these changes occurred?

 

To your knowledge was the faculty consulted about the
Agreement before your institution signed the Agreement?

 

Have any benefits accrued from your institution's
belonging to the Agreement?
a. If yes, what benefits?

 

 

46

three weeks time a reminder card15 was sent to those who had
not responded up to this time, and ten days later a second
reminder card was sent. The questions were coded16 to facili—
tate tabulation17 so that statistical methods could be

applied to recorded responses.

Six weeks after the first questionnaires were sent,
and following the second reminder, the sample was closed,
resulting in a 72.3 per cent return. It was felt that an
effort should be made to sample the non-respondents to deter-
mine, if possible, a reason or reasons for this type of
behavior. Therefore, a random sample was made from the 174
then-respondents.

A ten per cent sample was drawn from the 174 non-
:respondents in line with the previously used formula. The
:size of the sample was actually 17.4 non-reSpondents.
lBecause the study concerns people rather than things, it
inas decided to use a whole number, or eighteen. Each of
'the eighteen non-respondents received a personal letter.18
'Ihe number of returned letters was eleven out of eighteen,
<3r 61.2 per cent.

An analysis of eleven responses to the personal letter

21ndicated the following kinds of information: six respondents

‘

15See Figure 16, Appendix B.

16See Figure 3.

17See Table 14, Appendix B.

18See Figure 17, Appendix A.

Figure 3.

Question

47

I.

 

Item 1

Item 2

l-Yes
2-No

l-Thorough understanding
2-Fair understanding
3-Poor understanding
4-No understanding

 

 

 

Question II.
Item 3 l-Yes
2-No
Question III.
Item 4 1-Yes
2-No
Item 5 l-Many
2-Some
3-None
Question IV.
Item 6 l-Yes
2-No

JItem 7

3-Uncertain

l-Curriculum changes
2-Admission changes
3-Other changes
4-None

Question V.

Item 8

l-Yes
2-No

Question VI .

 

Item 9

I tern lO

l-Many
2-Some
3-None

l-Not required

2-More opportunity for college
3-Simplify admissions

4-Better communications
5-Curriculum

CODE FOR INSTRUCTOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE

48

answered "no" to the first question, but gave no reason for

failure to return the original questionnaire. Two respon-

dents did not answer the question asked, but indicated their

reasons for not doing so.

A.

One states, "since I have no responsibility in this
particular area, I forwarded all correspondence
regarding this matter to another person."

The other states, "since I am a teacher and not an
administrator, I felt it unimportant for me to
answer this questionnaire."

Three respondents answered the question. Two gave no

reason for failure to return the original questionnaire, one

indicated a reason.

A.

He said, "I have received so many questionnaires
that I made it a policy not to answer any of them
because of a heavy work schedule and no secretarial

help available."

Dates of Appointment

There were eight schools that indicated dates of ap-

E><>intment for faculty members in their catalogues. Since a

Iraindom selection of faculty from the other twenty—one schools

:1?c>r which this information was not available was made, it was

rieacessary to determine if this information (dates of appoint-

nnernt) would bias the data. A comparison was made of the

EBi4ght
crtiler
tbeziJng

Stirlcxa

schools with this information available, versus eight

schools of comparable size without this information

available.

This comparison was made by means of a X

2 statistic.

each X2 test was programmed the same, it was necessary

49

for only one to be explained. The interpretaion of the other

seven tests are presented in Appendix B.

The X2 statistic used was developed in the following

manne l" 3

Suppose we have two columns and 3 rows. If we let
X11, X12(i = 1,2, l . ., r) be the number of
observations in the 1th row and the first and second
columns, respectively. Thus, we have computed the
total for each row, and then the square of the number
X11 in the first column divided by the total for the
row (X11 + X12).

This last column is then totaled. Then X2 is given
by the following formula:
r

I'
Z X112 P Z Xi1
i=1

 

 

 

x2 __, i=1 (x11 + x12) -
P (1 - P)
I"
Z Xi1
where P = i=1
1"
2. (Xil+X12)
1:1

and X11 means the observation in the th row of the
first column. X 2 means the observation in the 1th
row of the second column.19

The test of independence between a school listing dates
CDI‘ appointment and a school not listing dates of appointment

was compared in Table l.

l9Wi1fird J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Jr., Introduction
to Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,

1951), pp. 189-190.

 

TABLE 1

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN ADRIAN LISTING
DATES OF APPOINTMENT AND HILLSDALE NOT
LISTING DATES OF APPOINTMENT

 

4

 

 

 

 

Adrian Hillsdale Xi 2
a 1
Category Total
1 11 (x11 + x12)
l-l 1 o 1 1/1
1-2 0 2 2 o
1-3 2 o 2 4/2
l-LI 3 1 4 9/4
2'” 1 4 5 1/5
'TOTAL 7 7 14 109/20
X2 = -§9§9 = 2.64
2300

a’Definitions of categories:

1-1 answered yes, thorough understanding
1-2 answered yes, fair understanding

1—3 answered yes, poor understanding

1-4 answered yes, no understanding

2-4 answered no, no understanding

From Table 1 the value for P and X2 was determined

as follows:

51

20 + 20 + 15 + 4 59

 

 

 

 

 

P = A + 0 = 2/2 + 3/4 + 1/5 = 20 = 55
109 109 ' “13 304 400
X2 _ _?U - 53/20 (7) = 20 = '—§5 = §§55-
22 (1 ' 59/20) 29. (-39/20)
20 20
x2 = 6080 = 2.64.
2300

To determine if the results obtained were independent
or not, the X2 tables were utilized. Before using these
tables, it was necessary to determine the degrees of freedom.
The following formula was used to find degrees of freedom.

(r - l) (c - l) = degrees of freedom

where r = rows, and c = columns.

(5 - 1) (2 - l) = (4) (l) = 4 degrees of freedom.

TABLE 2

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN ALL SCHOOLS LISTING
DATES OF APPOINTMENT AND ALL SCHOOLS NOT LISTING
DATES OF APPOINTMENT

 

 

 

Item 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2—4 Totals
IDEItes of
llppointment 2 7 18 28 16 71
1923 Dates of
[\ppointment 3 29 50 313 256 651
TOTAL 5 36 68 341 272 722

Per Cent .40 .194 .265 .082 .059 .099

52

2 (.40) + 7 (.194) + 18 (.265) + 28 (.082) +416 (.059)-71(.099)

 

{-0991 (-9OII

.800 + 1.358 + 4.770 + 2.296 + .944 - 7.029
.0902

 

10.168 - 7.029 _ 3.139

 

.0902 _ .0902
39.7

902/31390.00

X2 = 34.7

The values obtained when testing schools on a one to
one basis are all less than 9.49. Therefore, the hypothesis
of independence should be accepted. When testing all of the
schools with dates of appointment against the remaining
schools without dates of appointment the value obtained
is greater than 9.49. This indicates that on an over-all
basis, dates of appointment bias the data. It is felt that
the bias does not sufficiently influence the findings.
Faculty withdates of appointment (1948 and before) had
slightly more understanding of the Agreement than a random
selection of all other faculty.

In order for the X2 value to be significant at the
five per cent level with four degrees of freedom, the value
of X2 would have to be 9.49 or greater.20

The values for all the tests are shown in Table 3.

20See Tables 12 through 17, Appendix B, for other
tests of independence.

53

TABLE 3
X2 VALUES FOR ALL THE TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE OF
SCHOOLS LISTING DATES 0F APPOINTMENT AND
SCHOOLS NOT LISTING DATES OF APPOINTMENT

 

 

School Name X2
1 Adrian vs. Hillsdale 2.64
2 Eastern vs. Alma 7.31
3 Central vs. Northern 3.19
4 Ferris vs. Michigan Tech 4.69
5 Suomi vs. Aquinas 2.66
6 Olivet vs. Calvin 4.95
7 Albion vs. Marygrove 3.95
8 Hope vs. Siena Heights 8.47

 

As already noted, the X2 value to be significantly
different would have to be 9.49 or greater.

Analysis of Interview Data

It was also decided to employ a two by two classifi-
cation for determining independence of public versus private
institutions. A two-way classification, e.g., hair and eye
color. This classification is used to determine whether the
two characteristics are independent. The term independence
means the distribution of one characteristic is not influ—
enced by the other characteristic.

The characteristics utilized in making the two by two
classification are Items 3, 15, 21, 22, and 28, found in
Table 11L Only Item 3 will be explained and the interpre-
tation of the other four results which are presented in
Appendix B should be guided by this explanation.

2

This two-way classification is done by means of a X

statistic. The development is as follows:

54

Suppose we have two rows and two columns and2
observed frequencies a, b, c, d. Then the X
statistic used in thg test of independence can be
written in the form: A

have

X2 z ( ad - bc —l/2N)2 N
(a+b) (a+c) (b+d) (c+d)

The test of independence between public and private

institutions for Item 3 is shown in Table 4

TABLE 4

'RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHANGES IN ADMISSION
POLICIES AND THE TYPE OF INSTITUTION

 

 

Change in Admission Type of Institution

 

 

 

Policy Public Private
Yes 6 3
N0 3 17
TOTAL 9 20
x2 = .%g§%§0== 5.521

From Table 4 the value of X2 is determined as follows:

 

 

x2 = ( 6x17 - 3x3 - l/2(29)2 29
9 (9) (207 520) f
.g—Q 2.22
= ( 102-9 7 2) 29 = '93 - 2 29
81 (400)
179000

= 32E00 = 5-521

In order for the X2 value to be significant at the five

per cent level, and with one degree of freedom, the X2 value

The derivation of the corrected equations is found
in Dixon and Massey, op. cit., p. 189.

55

would have to be 3.84 or greater. Since the value of X2

obtained is 5.521 the hypothesis of independence is accepted,
i.e., that one charactheristic is not influenced by the

other.

2

The X values for all of the tests are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5

THE X2 VALUES FOR ALL TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE

BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

 

 

Item X2
3 0.5520
15 1.1700
21 0.0027
22 0.0906
27 0.0002
28 0.0824
33 0.0007

 

Note: As already noted, the X2 value to
be significantly different, would
have to be 3.84 or greater.

To clarify the information that is presented in

Table 4, the data from question one, Items 1 and 2 are

illustrated with the use of bar graphs.22

 

22See Figures 4 and 5.

180

160

140

120

Number of Responses

0

Figure 4.

 

Percentage of Responses

56
“H Thorough
E3 Fair
100
E3 Poor
123 No

80

6O

40

20

O

 

/

/

 

\\\\\\\\\x\\\\\\\//

IE @

 

 

 

 

Thorough
or
Fair

Poor
or
No

Degree of Understanding of Those Respondents
Answering "Yes" to Question 1.

Number of Responses

450

400

300

250

200

150

100

75

5O

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

341

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W/

 

 

 

 

 

\N

'63

g 80

O

Q.

U)

0.)

LE

1’...

° 60

CD

A" /

c 91

G)

O

(D

m 40 :::::
20 ¢
0 /

 

 

Fig. 5. Degree of Understanding of Those Respondents

Answering "Yes" or "No"

to Question 1.

Thorough

Fair

Poor
or
No

58

From the graph, the number of responses, using a
percentage base, against Hypothesis Two are twenty-three
per cent, while seventy-seven per cent support the hypothe-
sis. Of course, this is only considering the responses
that first indicated that they had heard of the Agreement.
When the responses of those who have heard of the
Agreement, as well as those who have not, are considered,
the percentage changes to nine per cent against the hypothe-
sis and ninety-one per cent for the hypothesis.
When the responses of public institutions are separated

23

from those of private institutions, the surprising thing
is that the over-all percentage does not change. Ninety-one

per cent still support the hypothesis.

Summary

In this chapter the questionnaire and interview were
discussed as methods employed in data collecting. Their
use was justified and the Chi Square method of item
selection was explained. The selection of Population "A"
to prove Hypothesis One was established, as was Sample "A"
for Hypothesis Two. The method of coding responses of the
interview and questionnaire from these sets are compiled in
Tables 13 and 14 (see Appendix B). Two tests of independence
were made by means of Chi Square tests. One test was on
public and private institution's admissions policies, and

the other was on the schools listing dates of appointment,

 

238ee Figures 6 and 7.

Number of Responses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,3
\fi
25
\\V
//:j; Thorough
47
//
:>:\\Fair
200 100 \\\
\\9
/// a... E
/
x m
g 80
c
o
a
33
m
0 60
o
5:?
100 22: g 91
(D
O
a
80 g: 40
60
40 20
20
O 0
Fig. 6. Degree of Understanding of those Respondents from

Public Institutions Answering "Yes" or "No" to Question 1.

Thorough
or
Fair

Poor
or
No

Number of Responses

150
f/
100 //21
80
60 116
0L

Fig' 7‘
Institutions Answering "Yes" or "No'

 

 

 

 

 

60

l ‘ Thorough

§ Fair 100

a Poor a:
A 80

c

o

a

U)

o

x

No 3
i l 60

o

w

m

4.3

c

o

O

i:
m 40
20
0

 

 

 

7s
a

 

 

 

 

I

to Question 1.

Thorough
or
Fair

Poor
or
No

Degree of Understanding of Those Respondents from Private

61

and schools not listing dates of appointment. A brief
analysis was made of eleven responses to a personal letter
sample.

The various statistical methods were applied to the
data, and the results described. These appear to be rather
conclusive.

Hypothesis One was tested by a two by two tabular
classification. The Chi Square statistic was utilized. The
results were that insufficient reason for rejection was
found. Therefore, acceptance of the hypothesis was in
order, and was described.

Therefore, it is clearly evident that the data
collected and tested proved both hypotheses as stated:

1. The Agreement has no effect on college admissions
policies or other institutional policies.

2. A random selection of college instructors have
not heard of nor understood the purpose of the
Agreement.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

These data, upon which this study is based, were
drawn from twenty-nine four-year colleges and universities
of Michigan. The data were obtained in two ways, one,
utilizing a questionnaire, sent to a sample of the faculty
members at each of the colleges, and, two, by means of an
interview, conducted with an admissions officer at each

institution.

Faculty Participation

 

First, we will analyze the results of the faculty
participation in the College Agreement. A seventy-two and
three-tenths per cent return was obtained on the question-
naire. These totals supplied answers to the following
questions:

1. Had the faculties been informed of the Agreement?

2. Had the faculties understood the Agreement?

3. Had the faculties felt that any benefits had

accrued from the Agreement?

In order to determine if size was a significant
variable in the answers obtained from the above questions,
the colleges were grouped according to size. The following
size categories were used:

62

63

1. Extra Small—-up to 499 student enrollments, (four

institutions).
2. Small—-from 500 to 999 student enrollments,
(eight institutions).

3. Medium--from 1,000 to 2,499 student enrollments,
(seven institutions).

4. Large—-from 2,500 to 9,999 student enrollments,
(six institutions).

5. Extra 1arge-—above 10,000 student enrollments,
(four institutions).

The item from the Questionnaire that gathered the
information on whether the faculties had been informed of
the Agreement was, "Have you ever heard of the Michigan
Secondary School-College Agreement?" Table 6 gives the
details.

TABLE 6

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE MICHIGAN SECONDARY SCHOOL-
COLLEGE AGREEMENT?

 

Extra Extra
Response Small Small Medium Large Large Total

 

Yes 7 28 27 30 86 178
No 13 31 17 25 186 272
Per cent
(Df "Yes" 35.0 47.4 61.3 54.5 31.6 39.5

In two of the five size categories, involving thirteen

Of the twenty-nine colleges, a majority of the respondents

64

said they had heard of the Agreement, but the totals for

all five groups combined showed 178, or 39.5 per cent had
heard of it, whereas 272, or 60.5 per cent of these had not.
Forty—one, or 9.1 per cent of these were aware of the
Agreement and had an understanding of it. If we test this
data using the X2 statistic, size of institution is signifi-

cant as shown below:

x2 = 7 (.35) + 28(,474)33 27'(,613)+g30(5.45) + 86(.3l6)-l78(.34)
C395) C605)

2.450 + 13.272 + 16.551 + 16.350 + 27.176 + 75.799 — 70.310 =

21592 = 22
.239 .97

Since X2 statistic on the total response was signifi—
cant a further breakdown by size category was made. As
indicated below, only the large size category was significant.
This meant that a comparison within the large size category
of public versus private institutions indicates that the
public institutions had a better chance of hearing about

the Agreement.

TABLE 7

MEDIUM SIZE INSTITUTIONS

 

 

 

Answer Public Private Total
Yes 10 17 27
No 4 l3 17

Total 14 30 44

 

65

 

 

 

2
= [(13.10) - (17 4) - 1/2 (44) ] 44
l4-30-l7i27
= 3520 = 0.365
9639
TABLE 8
LARGE SIZE INSTITUTIONS
Answer Public Private Total
Yes 26 4 30
No 12 13 25
TOTAL 38 17 55

 

[(26.13) - (12.4) - 1/2 (55) 12 55
38-l7-30-25

 

30318.75 = 8.08
3876

TABLE 9

EXTRA LARGE SIZE INSTITUTIONS

—-
—

 

Answer Public Private Total
Yes 79 7 86
No 169 17 186
TOTAL 248 24 272

 

[(79 17) - (169. 7)— .1/211272)I2 272
8°°24 86186

= 68 = 0.00164
4I323

66

This evidence supports Hypothesis One, "that a selection of
college faculty members would not have heard of, nor under—
stood the Michigan Secondary School-College Agreement,"
except that some faculty members have heard of the Agreement.
To determine the degree of understanding of the
Agreement, responses to the following question were examined:
"What do you understand the purposes of the Agreement to

be?" Tabulated answers appear in Table 10.

 

TABLE 10
WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSES OF THE AGREEMENT
TO BE?
Extra Extra

Understanding Small Small Medium Large Large Total

 

Thorough 0 l 2 O 2 5
Fair 2 6 2 8 18 36
Poor 3 7 9 15 33 67
No 15 45 29 32 219 340

Per cent of

Thorough and

Fair Understand-

ing 10 11.8 9.5 14.5 7.3 9.1

 

These results lead to the conclusion that the size of
the institution had no bearing on faculty understanding of
the Agreement. In each case, around ten per cent of the
total responses had an understanding.

The results of the question, "Had the Agreement been

discussed with the faculty before your institutions signed

67
the Agreement?,” are shown in Table 11.
TABLE 11

HAD THE AGREEMENT BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE FACULTY
BEFORE YOUR INSTITUTION SIGNED THE AGREEMENT?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extra 177 Extra

Discussed Small Small Medium Large Large Total
Yes 1 10 4 5 ll 31
No 19 49 30 50 261 409
Per cent

Discussed 5.0 16.9 11.7 9.0 4.0 7.0
Consulted

Yes 0 l3 3 3 10 29
No 20 46 41 52 262 421
Per cent

Consulted 0 22 6.8 5.4 3.6 6.5

 

Ninety-three per cent of the faculties had not had
the Agreement discussed, nor had they been consulted before
tnieir institution signed the Agreement. If this is tested
try means of a X2 statistic, as shown below, the data indi-

caites the size of the school is significant if taken by size

 

 

caitegory.
l (.05) + 10 (.169) + 4 (.117) + 5 (.09) + 11 (.04) -.07 (31)
.07 (.93)
.050 + 1.690 + .468 + .45 + .44 — 2.17 = 3.098 - 2.170 = .928
.0651 .0651
14.25
651 /9'2‘8‘—"‘0 . 00

2
X == 14.25 discussed.

68

0 (0) + 13 (.22) + 3 11068) + 3 (.054) + 10 (.036) - .065 (29)

 

 

.06517I493)
0 + 2.86 + .204 + .162 + .360 - 1.885 = 3.586 - 1.885 = 1.701
.06054 .06054

X2 = 27.9 consulted.

It is significant when size of school is considered,
but over-all it is not Significant.

Table 12 indicates the benefits, if any, that accrued
to the twenty-nine four-year colleges that belonged to the

Agreement.

TABLE 12

HAVE ANY BENEFITS ACCRUED FROM YOUR INSTITUTION
BELONGING TO THE AGGREEMENT? WHAT BENEFITS?

 

 

Extra Extra
iBenefits Small Small Medium Large Large Total
.Many 0 0 0 l 0 1
Some 1 3 2 3 8 17
ane 19 56 42 51 264 430
Answer not

IRequired 19 56 42 51 264 430
More Opportuni-

‘ties 0 l 2 l 0 4
S implified

Jdeissions 1 2 0 0 2 5
Better

(Zommunications 0 O 0 3 5 8
Curriculum

Ihnprovement 0 0 0 O l 1

Per Cent of
Benefits 5.0 5.0 4.5 7.2 2.9 4.0

h

69

One member of the large college group said there were
many benefits. Seventeen said there were some benefits; five
said that it simplified admissions, four said that it provided
high school students with more opportunities to attend college,
eight said it provided better communication between high
schools and colleges, and one said that it improved the cur-
ricular offerings of the colleges and high schools.

There seems to be little indication that the Agreement
has been particularly beneficial to the member colleges.
Ninety-five and nine-tenths per cent of the faculty responding
said they did not believe their institution gained any benefits

from belonging to the Agreement.

Results of the Interview With Admissions Officers
Interviews with college administrators supplied totals
jpertaining to the following questions:
1. Has your admissions policy been changed since your
institution Signed the Agreement?

2. If yes, was it changed because of the Agreement?

Edctra Small Size Institutions

One representative of the extra small schools responded
triat "his institution's policy was changed because of the
Ag;reement." The remaining three institutions representatives in
th;is size category said that "their admissions policy had
<fiuanged, but not because of the Agreement." More specifically,
whai: factors caused one school to change? It was a private,
Ixuxochial college, with religious requirements for admission.

Tho rnajors and two minors subjects were needed for admission.

70

(This part was altered to conform with the terms of the Agree-
ment, i.e., no specific pattern of subjects needed. .).l

One representative, who indicated change of policy
which was not suggested by the Agreement, admitted later

that the admissions policy was moderately affected by the

Agreement.

Small Institutions

The representative of one college in the small school
category said that a change in admissions policy had been
made. No information was supplied regarding the nature of
the change, or reasons for the change. It was a private,
church related college, and had followed the usual pattern
of requiring two majors and two minor subjects for admission.

The representative of a second private, church related
college gave contradicting responses. In answer to an early
question, the Agreement was said to have no effect. A later

<1uestion revealed that certain changes in the admission

policies had been made.

Medium Sized Institutions

College administrators in this category reported no

a<imissions policy changes since their institution signed

tide Agreement.

Large Institutions

In the large school category one officer said, "Yes,

(nu? admissions policy admissions was changed because of the

h

1See the Michigan Secondary School-College Agreement.

71

Agreement." This school is a public institution. Three
said they were moderately affected, or little affected, but

not because of the Agreement.

Extra Large Schools

One admissions officer said his institution's policy
was moderately affected, but not because of the Agreement.
Another said that policy was affected, but only partially
due to the Agreement. The remaining two extra large
institutions said there had been no effect on admissions

policies.

Related Questions

 

Extra Small Size Institutions
All of these schools admitted the marginal student.

TWO of these schools placed the marginal student on pro-
bation, while one administered tests prior to admission,
21nd one relied upon the recommendations of a screening com-
rnittee. Two said there was more understanding between high
s<2hools and colleges since the Agreement, one said there
weas clearer understanding, and one gave no reasons. One
pearticipated in conferences with high schools, three did
nc>t participate. None of the school representatives attended
planned Agreement meetings.

Two school officials thought there was need for
(Huange in the Agreement. The others offered no opinion. One

rated the Agreement as undesirable, one said it was desirable.

72

Two gave no answer. One thought the Agreement should be
continued, two said, it should be continued, and one gave

no opinion.

Small Size Institutions

 

Since the Agreement began, seven of these institutions
changed their admissions policy; one official said, "it was
because of the Agreement." All eight of them admitted the
marginal student. Two schools placed them on probation,
three used tests to determine admissions, and three relied
upon the recommendations of a screening committee.

Seven representatives believed there was more under-
standing between high schools and colleges since the Agree—
ment. The other representative saw no improvement in under-
standing. Seven said the Agreement made admissions pro-
cedures more clear.

Four officials had participated in high school prin-
cipal-freshman conferences; four had not. Only one had
attended planned Agreement meetings. No evidence of better
understanding resulted from this attendance.

A need for a change in the Agreement was felt by three
representatives, two believed no change was needed, and the
remaining three officers voiced no opinion. Four of these
school officials said the Agreement was desirable, one
officer said it was undesirable, one had no opinion, and
two did not answer. Four held the Agreement should be con-
tinued, three said it should not be continued, and one

gave no opinion.

73

Medium Size Institutions

 

In three schools in this category, changes were made
in admissions policies since the beginning of the Agreement,
however, representatives indicated changes were not due to
the Agreement.

All of the institutions admitted the marginal student.
Of these, two schools placed them on probation, and five
admitted them only after examinations.

Three institutional representatives credited the
Agreement with increased understanding between high schools
and colleges; four saw no increased understanding. Two
representatives said the admissions procedures were more
clear, and five officials gave no answer. Five officials
said they had participated in high school principal-freshman
conferences, and two said they had not. Three officers had
attended Agreement meetings, while four had not. Four of
the school representatives in this category said there was
need for change in the Agreement, two said there was no
need for change, and one voiced no opinion. Five represen-
tatives believed the Agreement was desirable, one said it
was undesirable, and one did not answer. Three officials
said the Agreement should be continued, and four said it

should not.

Large Size Institutions

 

Five schools had changed admissions policies since the

Agreement was made. Change was attributed directly to the

74

Agreement, in one instance.

All of the institutions admitted the marginal student.
Five admitted them after administering tests, and one
admitted them upon the recommendation of a screening com-
mittee.

A better understanding of admissions procedures was
the result agreed upon by five officials of the schools,
while one officer saw no increase in understanding. Three
professed to be more clear, two said they were more definite,
and one gave no answer. Five representatives participated
in high school principal-freshman conferences; one did not
participate. Five officials attended planned Agreement
meetings, with one not participating. Three officals said
there was need for change in the Agreement; three said
there was no need for change. A total of four representa-
tives said the Agreement was desirable, one said it was
undesirable, and one gave no opinion. Five officials
thought the Agreement should be continued, and one said it

should not.

Extra Large Size Institutions

 

Since the Agreement began, three of these schools
changed their admissions policy, one representative credited
the Agreement with the change. All of the institutions
admitted the marginal student after examinations.

All of the representatives thought there was better

understanding between high schools and colleges since the

75

Agreement. Three officers said the procedures for admission
were more clear; one said they were more liberal. Three

had participated in high school principal-freshman confer—
ences; one had not. All officials said there was need for

a change in the Agreement. Three representatives said the
Agreement should be continued, and one gave no opinion.

Three officers said it was desirable, and one had no opinion.

Summary

The summary is comprised of the total percentage of
responses to the questions relating to the hypotheses.
Seventy-two and four-tenths per cent of the institutions
had changed their admissions policy since the beginning of
the Agreement. One hundred per cent admitted marginal stu-
dents under certain conditions, 20.7 per cent placed them
on probation, 62 per cent did so after satisfactory perfor-
mance on entrance examinations, and 17.3 per cent did so after
favorable action from a screening committee.

Seventy-two and four-tenths per cent said that the
degree of understanding between secondary schools and
colleges improved. Their feelings were that admission
policies were more clear, more definite and more liberal.
Sixty-two per cent had participated in secondary school
principal-freshman conferences and felt that they helped
the understanding.

Forty-four and eight-tenths per cent had attended the

planned Agreement meetings; 55.2 per cent had not.

Fifty—five and two-tenths per cent said there was need for
change in the Agreement, 24.1 per cent saw no need for
change, and 20.7 per cent offered no opinion. Fifty-eight
and six tenths per cent said the Agreement was desirable,
13.7 per cent said it was undesirable. Twenty-seven and
five-tenths per cent offered no opinion. Fifty-five and
two-tenths per cent said the Agreement should be continued;
34.5 per cent thought it should not continue. while 10.3
per cent offered no opinion.

The hypothesis that "The Agreement has had no effect
on the college‘s admissions policies, and other institutional
policies," is supported by the following evidence: 20.7 per
cent of the colleges stated the Agreement had affected their
admissions policy, and 27.3 per cent said the Agreement had
no effect on their admissions policy.

Considering the information obtained from the ques-
tionnaires, the following data supports the above hypothesis.
Seven per cent of the faculty said that the Agreement had
been discussed in faculty meetings. Since 93 per cent
indicated that there had been no discussion of the Agreement
at faculty meetings, and since 94 per cent indicated that
they had never been consulted about the Agreement, it seems
evident that in these cases institutional policies were not

affected.

CHAPTER V
RECORDED COMMENTS

From the twenty—two questions asked of the represen—
tatives of the colleges many interesting comments were
elicited. Examples of these comments are summarized here
in Chapter V rather than listed in their entirety due to
their lengthiness. This summation of comments is included
because of its pertenency to the subject.

These comments centered around these subjects:

1. Changing admissions policies:

Examples: "Our recommendation to our own parochial
high school was to follow the old college

preparatory program."

"Stay away from requirements and educate
the high school senior."

2. Admissions of marginal students.

Examples: "The student must be tested and we
examine, very closely, his academic
patterns."

"We discourage him."

"All marginal students are admitted
through a committee on admissions."

3. Agreement student record.

Examples: "Agreement students who lack background
have difficulty making up subjects
at ."

77

78

4. Participation in high school principal-freshman
conferences.
Examples: "Very beneficial for those attending,
they help the communication between
the high school and the college."

"Every other year but we would like to
have them every year."

"They are our number one device to
accomplish the important job of under-
standing each other."
5. Unfavorable attitude toward attending planned
agreement meetings.
Example: "No, Thank God."
6. Reasons for better understanding between high
schools and colleges.
Examples: "It has given high schools an oppor—
tunity to develop their own program

but in some places it has gone too far."

"We have close correspondence with our
own Christian high schools."

7. The need for change in the agreement.

Examples: "There ought to be a closer check on
whether high schools are applying
college agreement principles.‘

"Most state schools are operating as

if the agreement didn't exist or if all
students were being recommended under
it.

"One phase they could discontinue would
be recommending under the Agreement."

"It has outlived its usefulness."
"It should be revitalized."

"The name needs changing."

79

"The agreement could stress to greater
extent opportunities of the signatories,
instead of the reSponsibilities."

"Reword to avoid misinterpretation."
"Need for restudy."

"If it is to live, give it a shot in
the arm."

"We do not want it."

'"No need for Agreement as far as we
are concerned.‘

8. What is your opinion of the Agreement?

Examples: "It is of little value to our institu-
tion and the schools we serve."

"It is valuable from this respect,
that the colleges are not determining
the high school programs. It allows
the student to develop his own unique
capabilities."

"It gives the high schools an opportunity
to experiment to meet the needs of its
students."
9. Is your admissions policy different from other

Michigan colleges?

Examples: "Yes, we are different from state
subsidized schools but not from the
other private schools."

"We are not as selective as some
others say they are."

"Yes, we disregard high school marks
and require all new students to take
entrance examinations."

"Yes, we are more selective than some
state schools."

"Yes, our admissions criteria are higher."

"Yes, we have had no occasion to reject
anyone until recently."

10.

ll.

12.

13.

80

Do you feel that the member high schools have
modified in any way the preparation of their
college bound student as a result of the Agreement?

Examples: "Yes, it has improved their curriculum,
especially in the last few years."

"High schools did not live up to the
Agreement."

"A small number of high schools have
shown any disposition to dilute their
offerings to take advantage of the
Agreement."

"I don't believe many high schools
were affected by the Agreement."

Was there any change in college teaching methods?

Examples: "Yes, it increased the number of
remedial subjects."

"I don't think so."
"Yes, we now teach communications skills,
remedial reading, and English.
We give more individual attention."
Do you feel that the Agreement was interpreted in
essentially the same way by all Michigan college
admissions officers?‘
Examples: "There were differences, many college
people were cynical, but the secondary

school groups were sincere."

"Yes, but the high school principals
think it is a way to get anyone admitted."

"Yes, but high school principals should
say yes or no and not pass the buck."

Should the Agreement be continued?
Examples: '"There is no particular reason for it."

"By all means."

81

"It should be dissolved."

"Not as far as we are concerned."
"No, we do not need it."

"No it has outlived its usefulness."
"If principals took it seriously."

"If it is encouraging the high schools
to make self-evaluations."

14. Reactions to the tape recorder.

Examples: Twenty-five said that the recorder
did not bother them at all.

"I was a little tense but it helps
one to think."

"My voice was different after recorder
started."

15. Is there anything you would have said if the
recorder had not been used?

Examples: "I would have been more specific in
naming weak high schools.‘

"I am somewhat embarrassed by my
institution belonging to the Agreement."

From the questionnaire that was sent to a selection of
faculty members, came these comments:
16. Have you ever heard of the "Michigan Secondary
School-College Agreement?"
Examples: "Not interested."
"No, not until this questionnaire came."
"I am sorry for disregarding your
insistent requests to fill out this

questionnaire. As you can see, I do
not have much to contribute."

82

"I'm sorry but I have no knowledge of
matters relative to admissions except
we let some very poor students in."

"This is probably too late to be of
much help unless you were trying to
prove that faculty members were almost
abysmally ignorant in this area."

"If this Agreement is something you
think I should know about, I'd
appreciate receiving any pertinent
information."

"I don‘t think We have had any signifi-
cant part in this program."

"Has it been established that this
institution belongs to this Agreement?"

"In departmental meetings such an
Agreement has little relevance for us."

"No, to all of your questions. Why
don't you make your students actually
work? You don't educate them since
John Dewey came on the educational
scene."

"Academically would say definitely no,
too many allowed to enroll who know
nothing and further seem unable to do
anything."

17. Have any benefits accrued to your institution?

Examples: "Yes, very strong students have been
admitted who normally would not
qualify for admission."

"The Agreement seems to be a lost
cause."

"High schools are misusing the Agreement
by applying it to border-line students.

"I presume a few students have been
admitted who might have been excluded,
but the chances are they would have
been accepted on probation anyhow."

83

"No benefits can be stated because
for us the Agreement has remained in
the realm of theory."

"Our institution does not belong to
the Agreement."

"Slightly better understanding of
high school problems."

"No, all benefits seemed to have
accrued to participating high schools."

"Surely some benefits must have accrued
to someone."
Summary
The majority of faculty responses were of an uninformed

nature indicating a lack of communications between adminis—
tration and faculty. Very few had anything knowledgeable
to say about the Agreement. The admissions officers were
well informed but showed evidences of emotion in their

responses to questions about the Agreement.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

Since most colleges have a set of policies governing
the admission of new students, it is desirable to know what
effect the Michigan Secondary School-College Agreement had
upon these policies. To determine this effect, college
admissions officers were interviewed and college faculty
were sampled by use of a questionnaire.

By the use of Chi Square tests, the data collected
by the two methods (interview and questionnaire) were
examined. This enabled the researcher to either accept or
reject the hypotheses. The universe is divided into
Population "A," dealing with the interview, and Sample "A,"
dealing with the questionnaire.

In regard to Population "A," a one hundred per cent
sample was taken. The results indicated beyond reasonable
doubt, acceptance of Hypothesis One that, "The Agreement
has no effect on college admission policies or other
institutional policies."

In regard to Sample "A," 73.2 per cent response of
the sample was obtained. The results indicated acceptance

of Hypothesis Two that, "A random selection of college

84

85

instructors have not heard of nor understood the purpose of
the Agreement."

A further breakdown was decided upon to determine if
size of the institution was a significant variable in the
answers obtained from the pertinent questions. These
results indicates that the size of the institution did

affect the responses in certain areas.

Conclusions

 

The function of the Agreement as originally established,
is no longer applicable to the colleges. The results of this
study revealed that the Agreement had no effect on college
admissions policies. This being the case, the long and
often sought after articulation between high schools and
colleges is not a two-way street, but a one-way street.

The colleges continue to function very much as they did
prior to the advent of the Agreement.

The research shows, also, that the amount of faculty
involvement in admission policy decisions was negligible.

The faculty was generally disinterested in becoming involved
in these matters, feeling that it was primarily an adminis-
trative function.

This is not to say that the Agreement is not beneficial

l

to the high schools, as the study conducted by Telfer demon-

strated. The general feeling pervading the interviews was

 

lTelfer, op. cit.

86

that many good things had been accomplished by the Agreement,
by far the largest percentage of these things happened to
the secondary schools. Certain implications can be drawn

from this study.

Implications

 

Further research is indicated to establish in what
ways the high school-college admissions relationships can
be improved. Perhaps something different should be experi-
mented with in order to discover better means of establishing
articulation. Since the college Agreement failed to accom-
plish its stated objectives regarding the college admissions
procedures, it is quite proper to suggest something differ-
ent. There appear to be three alternatives to be followed
at this point:

1. Abandon the Agreement.

2. Revise the Agreement.

3. Create a totally new plan.

Abandon the Agreement

 

The first of three alternatives is to abandon the
Agreement entirely. This would mean that all features of
the Agreement would cease, including those that were con-
sidered valuable by most of the college admissions officers.
Each institution would be free to follow or not follow
these ideas individually. Five out of twenty-nine wanted
to drop the Agreement; this must be considered in viewing

its present lack of potency.

87

Revise the Agreement

 

As reflected in the coding of the responses to inter-
view questions, many revisions or changes were suggested.
These ranged from minor revisions such as, "change the title,"
to "re-do the entire thing." A sample of the suggestions
is made in Chapter V.

The quotes from some of the admissions representatives,
as found in Chapter V, revealed there were twelve respondents
who wanted to revise the Agreement. The twelve coded
responses indicated the type of change. Eight said to re-
evaluate it and two said to change the title, while one said
to change the objectives, and the other said to have closer

inspection.

A New Plan

 

Abandon the Agreement and substitute in its place a
totally new plan to assist both secondary schools and college
admissions officers. This suggested plan would be one of
devising a state-wide testing program as the basis for
admission. This program should be worked out cooperatively
between representatives of secondary schools and officials

of the colleges.

Recommendations for Further Research

 

There does not seem to be a need for any further
research on the college side of the Agreement. It appears
that the secondary school side of the Agreement would be

rather fruitful for further research. Practically all of

88

the changes occurred at the high school level, and only a
limited area has been investigated. Anyone desiring to do
further research on this subject should be directed to the

programs in the secondary school.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

89

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

Adams, W. F. "Registration Procedures, American Association
of Collgiate Registrars Journal, 22 (1947), pp. 5301
534.

Aiken, Wilford M. "Some Implication of the Eight-Year
Study for All High Schools and Colle es,‘ The North
Central Association Quarterly, XVII January, 1943),
pp. 279-280.

 

. The Story of the Eight-Year Study. New York and
London: ‘Harper Brothers, 1942.

 

Atkinson, W. N. "Michigan College Agreement," School and
Society,Vols. 65-66 (February 22, 1947), p. 144.

 

American Council on Education. Cooperation in Accrediting
Procedures Studies, Series I, V, No. 14 (1944), 56 pp.

 

American Council on Education, Commission on Accreditation
of Service Experiences. Accreditation Policies of
State Departments of Education for the Evaluation of
Service Experiences and United States Armed Forces
Institute Examinations. Washington, D. C.: American
Council on Education, 1946, 64 pp.

 

 

American Council on Education, Cooperative Study in General
Education. Cooperative Study in General Education.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education,
1947, 240 pp.

American Council on Education. Coordination of Accrediting
Activities, Studies Series I, III, No. 9 (1939?, 46 pp.

 

 

. A Guide to the Evaluation of Education Experiences
in the Armed Services. Washington, D. C.: American
CounCIl on Education, 1945, II.

 

Sound Educational Credit for Military Experience—-
A Recommended Program. Washington, D. C.: American
Council on Education, 1943, p. 35.

 

Bail, Milo, "Six Decades of Progress," North Central
Association Quarterly, 30:193-207, 1955.

 

90

91

Barnette, W. Leslie, Jr. "Advanced Credit for the Superior
High School Student," Journal of Higher Education,
28:15-20, 1957.

 

Barrows, T. N., and Spaulding, F. T. Accreditation of
Service Experiences. American Council on Education,
Commission on Accreditation of Service Experiences.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education,

1947, 12 pp.

 

 

Berg, Irwin A., and Larsen, Robert P. "A Comparative Study
of Students Entering College One or Two Semesters
Before Graduation from High School," Journal of
Educational Research, 39:33-41, 1945.

 

 

Bethel, L. L. "The Historical Development and Present Status
of Procedures for Accrediting American Colleges and
Universities." Unpublished Doctorial thesis, Yale
University, 1940.

Blackmer, Alan R. (Chairman). General Education in School
and College. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1952, 142 pp.

 

 

Boardman, Charles, W. "Study of High School-College
Curriculum Articulation in Minnesota," North Central
Association Quarterly, 26:195-201, 1951.

 

 

Bogue, J. P. (ed.). American Junior Colleges. Second
edition; Washington, D. 0.: American Council on
Education, 1948, 537 pp.

 

Broome, E. C. An Historical and Critical Discussion of
College Admission Requirements. Contributions to
Philosophy, Psychology, and Education, Nos. 3-4.
Columbia University, 1903, pp. 1-152.

Brown, E. J. A Study of the Facts and Conditions Involved
in the Problem of College Admissions. Kansas State
Teachers College of Emporia, Studies in Education
No. 4. Kansas State Teachers College, 1931, pp. 8-
45.

 

 

"Methods of Admission and Matriculation Require-
ments," National Education Association Seventh Year-
book. Department of—Superindence. ”NationaI’EducatIon
Association, 1929, pp. 331-358.

 

Brumbaugh, A. J. (ed.). American Universities and Colleges.
Fifth edition; WashingtOn, D. C}: American Council
on Education, 1948, 1054 pp.

 

92

Bunn, John W., and Hyde, Melvin W. "Accrediting Policies
and Procedures," Current Issues in Higher Education 5

(1950), pp. 208-215.

Burns, Norman. "Accrediting Enters a New Phase." North
Central Association Quarterly, 27:293-296, 1953.

Campbell, D. S. Beginning Teachers in the Accredited
Secondary Schodls of the ASsocIation6f_Colleges and
Secondary schools of the Southern States. George
Peabody Cbllege f6r_TeaChers, Division of Surveys
and Field Studies. Nashville: Peabody College for
Teachers, 1931, 34 pp.

 

 

 

Chamberlain, Dean, et al. Did They Succeed In College.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942. USed by permis-
sion of McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., present
copyright owner.

College Entrance Examination Board. Advanced Placement
Program. College Entrance Examination Board, I956,

142 pp.

 

Cook, W. A. "A Comparative Study of Standardizing Agencies,"
North Central Association Quarterly, 4:377-455, 1929.

Cooperative Study of Secondary School Standards. Educational
Temperatures,1940. Washington, D. C.: Government
PrintIng Office, 1939, 24 pp.

 

. Evaluation of Secondary Schools-~General Re ort.
Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1939

1
526 pp.
Evaluation of Secondary Schools--Supplementary

Reprints. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office, 1939.

. Evaluative Criteria, 1940. Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1939, 175 pp.

How to Evaluate a Secondary School. Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1940, 139 pp.

Dammon, C. H. "Admission Without High School Graduation,"
American Association of College Registrars Journal,
19:471-485, 1944.

Davis, C. 0. A History of the North Central Association.

North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools, 1925, p. 286.

93

Dixon, Wilfird J., and Massey, Frank J., Jr. Introduction
to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw4H111”Bo0k

Company, Inc., 1945.

 

 

Donaldson, Birdena E. "The Role of College Accreditation,"
Association of American Colleges Bulletin,39:274—28l,

1953.

Douglas, H. R. "The Relation of Pattern of High School
Credits to Scholastic Success in College," North
Central Association Quarterly, 6:296-297, 193I.

 

Eells, W. C. (ed.). American Junior Colleges. Washington,
D. C.: American Council on Education, 1940, 585 pp.

 

Engineers' Council for Professional Development. Fourteenth
Annual Report for Year Ending September 30,,1946.

Engineers' Council for Professional Development,

56 pp.

Fine, Benjamin. Admission to American Colleges. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1946.

 

 

Fitts, Charles T. "Minutes of the Spring Meeting, Twenty-
Fifth Anniversary of the Western College Association,"
In Proceedings of the Western College Association,

The Associated Colleges, 1949, pp. 50-56.

Fleege, Urban H. "Current Status of Accreditation with
Special Reference to Teacher Education," Educational
Record, 34:305-312, 1953.

 

Friley, Charles E. "National Trends in Accrediting,"
Colleges and Universities, 25:539-547, 1950.

 

Fund for the Advancement of Education. They Went to College
Early. Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1957,

117 pp.

Gardener, D. H. The Evaluation of Higher Institutions v.
Student Personnel Service. Chicago: UfiiversityIdf
Chicago Press, 1936, 235 pp.

 

 

 

Geiger, Albert J. '"An Action Program for the Southern
Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools," In
Proceedings of the Southern Association of Colleges
and Secondary Schools. Southern Association of Colleges

and Secondary Schools, 1951, pp. 72-87.

 

Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education. New York and
London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1945.

 

94

Good, Carter V., Barr, A. S., and Scates, Douglas E. The
Methodology of Educational Research. New York:
D. AppIeton-Century Company, 1941.

Grizzell, E. D. "A Comparison of Standards for Secondary
Schools of Regional Associations," School Life, 13:146-
147, 160, 192 .

 

Haggerty, M. E. The Evaluation of Higher Institutions_lII,
The Educational Program. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1937, 335 pp.

 

. The Evaluation of Higher Institutions II, The
Facult . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937,
218 pp.

Hartford, E. F. What About Accreditation by Standardizing
Agencies? Informal’Report No. 2. southern Association
of Colleges and Secondary Schools, Commission on
Curricular Problems and Research. SouthennAssociation
of Colleges, 1947.

 

Hawkins, E. T. "The Reliability of Secondary School
Evaluations;" Unpublished doctoral thesis, Yale
University, 1942.

Henzlik, F. E. (Chairman). "Sub ect Matter Preparation of
Secondary—School Teachers,‘ North Central Association
Quarterly, 12:439-539, 1938. '

 

 

Hill, H. H. "State High-School Standardization," Bureau
of School Service Bulletin, University of Kentucky,
Vol. 2, No. III (l939),pp. 96.

Hinckley, W. W. Handbook of College Entrance Requirements.
United States Office of Education, Bulletin No. 13.
Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1941.

 

Hodge, Marian W. "Articulation of Secondary and Elementary
Schools," California Journal of Secondary Education,

31:322-325, 1956.

Institute for Administrative Officers of Higher Education.
Proceedings. Volume 16, 1944, pp. 87-99.

 

Jenkins, F. C., and Others. Cooperative Study for the Im—
provement of Education. Commission on Curricular
Problems and Research. Southern Association of Colleges
and Secondary Schools.

 

 

95

H

Jones, Taylor F. '"The New Concept of Accrediting,

EBEEEEEE.
and Universities, 30:5-11, 1954.

 

Juckett, Edwin A. "A Pleasant Brid e in the Hide Park
Schools," Clearing House, 29: 1-83, 1954.

 

Judd, Charles H., and Russell, John Dale. The American
Educational System. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company,

1940, 554 pp.

Justman, Joseph. Intellectually Gifted Accelerants and
Non-Accelerants at—the Brox High SchooI'of Science.
New York: New York City Board of Education, 1953.

 

 

 

 

Kahn, Robert L., and Cannell, Charles F. The Dynamics of
Interviewing. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

1957.

Kandel, I. L. Examinations and Their Substitutes in the
United States. Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-
ment of Teachers, Bulletin No. 28. Carnegie Foundation,

1936, 183 pp.

Karl, Donald S. (ed.). The College Handbook. College Entrance
Examination Board, 1955, 399 pp.

 

 

 

 

 

Kelly, F. J. Collegiate Accreditation_py Agencies Within
the States. United States of Office of Education
Bulletin, No. 3. Washington, D. C.: Government
Printing Office, 1940.

 

 

Koos, Leonard V. The Junior College. Minneapolis, Minn.:
University of Minnesota, 1924, 682 pp.

 

Learned, W. 8., and Wood, B. D. The Student and His Knowl-
ed e. Carnegie Foundation for the AdVancement of
eaching, Bulletin No. 28. Carnegie Foundation,

1936. 183 pp.

Leonard, J. P. "Can We Face the Evidence on College
Enfirance Requirements?," School Review, 53:327-335,
19 5.

Linton, Clarence. A Study of Some Problems Arising in the
Admission of Students as Candidates for Professional
Degree§IinFEducation. Contfibutions to Education,
No.‘285. Teachers College, 1927, pp. 115-124.

 

 

 

Manahan, J. L. "State Standard of High Schools." Unpub—
lished Doctoral thesis, Harvard University, 1918.

96

Marsh, C. S. American Universities and Colleges. Fourth
edition; washington,‘D. C.: American Council on
Education, Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service,
1940, 1120 pp.

 

Marvin, Floyd H. "The Problems of Accreditation," Phi
Delta Kappan, 34:4-5.

 

Mattox, M. E. "Problems of College Admission," College of
Education Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service,
University of Kentucky, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1947), pp. 99-
102.

 

 

 

Maxwell, C. R. "A Report on College Freshmen for the First
Semester of 1928-1929," North Central Association
Quarterly, 4:484-600, 1930.

 

 

Meister, Morris. "Cooperation of Secondary Schools and
Colleges in Acceleration of Gifted Students," Journal
of Educational Sociology, 29:220-227, 1956.

 

Mills, H. C., and Others. Studies in Articulation of High

School and College. Buffalo, N. Y.: University of
Buffalo, 1936.

 

 

Miscampbell, Floydine D. "The Advisory Service of the Com-
mission on Accreditation," Journal of American
Association of Collegiate RegiStrars, 22:471-476, 1947.

 

 

Monroe, W. S., and Foster, I. O. "The Status of the Social
Sciences in the High Schools of the North Central
Association," University of Illinois Bulletin, Vol. 20
No. 18. Bureau of Educational Research Bulletin, No.
13, 1922, 38 pp.

 

Morrison, Henry C. "The Readjustment of Our Fundamental
Schools," School Review, 31:493-510, 1923.

 

Mosso, Asenath. "A Seminar for Superior High-School
Students," School Review, 43:464-470, 1945.

 

National Association of Secondary School Principals,
Bulletin, 17.

Newburn, H. K. '"Extension of the Accredition Functions of
Regional Associations," Association of American College
Bulletins, 37:1951.

 

 

Nightengale, A. F. "Report of Committee on College Entrance
Requirements," National Educational Association--
Addresses and Procedings, 1899, 635 pp.

 

 

97

Nock, S. A. "Admissions of Non—High School Graduates,"
American Association of Collegiate Registrars Journal,
21:390-391, 1946.

North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Scnools,
Commission on Curricula of Secondary Schools and
Institutions of Higher Education. General Education
in the American High School. Chicago: Scott-Foresman

Company, 1942, 319 pp.

. Revised Manual of Accrediting. Chicago: The
Association, 1941.

 

 

 

North Central Association. "Publications of the North
Central Association," North Central Association
Quarterlyy 21:502-503, 1947.

 

 

Osburn, W. J. Overlappings and Omissions in Our Courses
of Study. The Public School, 1928, 167 pp.

 

 

Parker, J. Cecil, Menge, Wilmer, and Rice, Theodore D.
The First Five Years ofythe Michigan Study of the
Secondary Sthool Curriculum 193791942. Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan Study of the Secondary School
Curriculum, State Board of Education, 1942. 16 pp.

 

 

Parten, Mildred. Survey, Polls, and Samples. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1950.

 

Patillo, Manning M., Jr. "Accrediting Program Followed by
the Commission on Colleges and Universities," North
Central Association Quarterly, 30:278-280, 1956.

 

Portland Public Schools. Cooperative Program for Students
with Exceptional Endowment? Portland: The Schools,

1954, 53 pp.

Preinkert, A. H. "Basic Principles Involved in Registration,‘
The American Association of Collegiate Registrars
Journal, 17:305-311, 1942.

 

 

l

 

Pressey, S. L. "Efficiency Engineering in the Educational
Emergency," School and Society, 65:425-428, 1927.

 

Reeves, Theodore D., and Russell, J. D. College Organization
and Administration. Indianapolis: Board df‘Education,
Disciples of Christ, 1929.

 

 

Rice, Theodore D., and Faunce, Roland C. The Mighigan
Secondary Study. Lansing: State Board of Education,

1945.

 

 

98

Rislov, Sigurd. "The Community College," Atlantic Monthly,
199:64-67, June, 1957.

 

Rosenlof, G. W. "Toward Improving the Admission Procedure,"
American Association of Collegiate Registrars Journal,
22:38448, 1946.

Russell, J. D. and Reeves, Theodore D. The Evaluation of
Higher Institutions VI--Administration. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1936, 285 pp.

 

 

. The Evaluation of Higher Institutions VII--Finance.
Chicago: University of—Chicago Press, 1935, 133 pp.

 

 

Saint Xavier College for Women. The Liberal Education of

the Christian Person. Chicago; The College, 1953,
126 pp.

School and Colleges Study of Admission with Advanced Standing.
College Admission with Advanced Standing. The Study,

1956, 107 pp.

Segel, David. Prediction of Success in College. United
States Office of Education, Bulletin No. 15. Washing-
ton, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1934, p. 98.

 

 

 

Shofstall, W. P. "The Achievement of High School and
College Students in the Same Classes," School Review,

43:184-188, 1935.
Smith, G. Kerry (ed.). ‘"News in Brief," Colle e and

_ University Bulletin, 8:3, December 15, 1955.
Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,

Commission on Curricular Problems and Research.
Cooperative Study for'the Improvement of Education.

Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools,
1946, 242 pp.

Spears, Harold. Secondary Education in American Life. New
York: American Bock Company, 1941.

 

 

 

Stocker, C. D. "Teacher Load in Public Secondary Schools."
Unpgblished Doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania,
193 .

Stoke, S. M., and Lehman, H. C. "The Influence of Self-
Interest Upon Questionnaire Replies," School and

Society, September 27, 1930.

 

Telfer, Harold E. "A Summary of the Results of a Doctoral
- Study Concerning Comparison of Curriculum Development
in College Agreement and Non-Agreement Schools, 1947—
1957.

99

Thurston, Lee M. "The Michigan College Agreement," School
and Society, V61. 67 (May 22, 1948), p. 387.

'Thurston, Lee M., and Roe, William H. State School Adminis-
tration. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.

[naiversity of Chicago, Faculty of the College. The Idea and
Practice of General Education. Chicago. University

6f Chicago, 1950, 333 pp.

[baited States Office of Education. Education Directory,
1956-1957. Part 3. Washington, D. C.: Government

Printing Office, 1957, 189 pp.

 

lNaples, Douglas, and Others. The Evaluation of Higher
Institutions IV--The Library. Chicago: University

ofC Chicago Press, 1936, 786 pp.

Vkabb, L. W. (ed.). High School Curriculum Reogranization.
North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools, 1933, 395 pp.

Wemstminster Schools, Atlanta, Georgia. The Atlanta Experi-
menty A Progress Report. Atlanta, Georgia: The

schools, 1956, 16 pp.

Wilxzox, Rothwell. Private Secondary Education in the
Association ofrColleges and Secondary_Schools of the
Southern States. John Hopkins University Press, 1932,

151 pp.

Willgiams, R. L. "Present Practice in Admitting Students by
Transfer in 437 American Colleges and Universities,"
American Association of Collegiate Registrars Journal,

14: 272 274,1939. ,

Yaukey, J. V. "The Validity of Regional Accrediting
Standards for Secondary Schools," North Central
Association Quarterly, 8:495-501, 1934.

Zook, (3. F. and Haggerty, M. E. The Evaluation of Higher
Institutions I--Princip1es of Accrediting Higher
Institutions. Chicago: University 6f:Chicago Press,

1936, 202pp.

 

APPENDIX A

100

lOl

SIGNATORY COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS OF NURSING

 

9w
1. Adrian College, Adrian 21. Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo
2. Albion College, Albion 22. Lawrence Institute of
3. Alma College, Alma Technology, Detroit
4. Aquinas College, Grand 23. Madonna College, Plymouth
Rapids 24. Marygrove College, Detroit
5. Bay City Jr. College, Bay 25. Mercy College, Detroit
City 26. Michigan College of Mining
6. Benton Harbor Jr. College, and Technology, Houghton
Benton Harbor 27. Michigan State College,
7. Calvin College, Grand East Lansing
Rapids 28. Michigan State Normal
8. Central Michigan College College, Ypsilanti
of Education, Mt. 29. Olivet College, Olivet
Pleasant 30. University of Michigan,
9. Dearborn Jr. College, Ann Arbor
Dearborn 31. Muskegon Jr. College,
10. Detroit Institute of Muskegon
Tbchnology, Detroit 32. Nazareth College,
11. University of Detroit, Nazareth
Detroit 33. Northern Michigan College
12. Emmanuel Missionary of Education, Marquette
College, Berrien Springs 34. Port Huron Jr. College,
13. Ferris Institute, Big Port Huron
Rapids 35. Siena Heights College,
14. Flint Jr. College, Flint Adrian
15. Gogebic Jr. College, 36. Suomi College, Hancock
Ironwood 37. Spring Arbor Seminary
16. Grand Rapids Jr. College, and Jr. College, Spring
17. Highland Park Jr. College, Arbor
Highland Park 38. Wayne University, Detroit
18. Hillsdale College, 39. Western Michigan College
Hillsdale of Education, Kalamazoo
19. Hope College, Holland 40. General Motors Institute,
20. Jackson Jr. College, Flint '
Jackson
Schools of Nursing
1. Butterworth Hospital School of Nursing, Grand Rapids
2. Harper Hospital School of Nursing, Detroit
3. Henry Ford Hospital School of Nursing and Hygiene,Detroit
4. Hurley Hospital School of Nursing, Flint
5. Mercy School of Nursing of Detroit, Detroit
This includes units at Mt. Carmel, Detroit; St. Joseph
Fig. 8. All Colleges and Universities that Signed the

Agreement.

102

Fig. 8. (Continued)

Mercy, Detroit; St. Joseph Mercy, Pontiac; St. Joseph
Mercy, Ann Arbor; Leila Hospital, Battle Creek
Mercy Central School of Nursing, 220 Cherry S.E., Grand
Rapids
7. Wayne University College of Nursing, Detroit
8. St. Camillus School of Nursing, Nazareth

103

DIRECTORY OF MEMBER HIGH SCHOOLS ARRANGED BY REGIONS

Central Northern Region

 

 

1. Alma H. S. 28. Ithaca H. S.
2. Alpena H. S. 29. Kalkaska Rural Ag. School
3. Atlanta Rural Ag.School 30. Leland H. S.
4. Baldwin H. S. 31. LeRoy H. S.
5. Benzonia Consolidated Sch. 32. Ludington H. S.
6. Big Rapids H. S. 33. Mancelona Twp. H. S.
7. Blanchard Twp.Rura1 Ag.H.S.34. Manistee H. S.
8. Boyne City H. D. 35. Manton Rural Ag. School
9. Breckenridge H. S. 36. McBain Rural Ag. School
10. Cadillac H. S. 37. MeSick H. S.
11. Central Lake Rural Ag.Sch. 38. Midland H. S.
12. Charlevoix H. S. 39. Mio H. S.
13. Cheboygan H. S. 40. Montague H. S.
14. Clare H. S. 41. Mt. Pleasant H. S.
15. East Jordon H. S. 42. Newaygo H. S.
16. Edmore H. S. 43. Northport Leelanau Twp.
1 . Evart H. S. Cons. H. S.
1 . Frankfort H. S. 44. Oscoda Twp. Unit School
19. Fremont H. S. 45. Petoskey H. S.
20. Gladwin Rural Ag. School 46. Reed City H. S.
21. Grant H. S. 47. Rogers City H. S.
22. Greenville H. S. 48. Shelby H. S.
23. Harbor Springs H. S. 49. Shepherd H. S.
24. Harrison: Hayes Ag. H.S. 50. Sterling H. S.
25. Harrisville H. S. 51. Traverse City H. S.
26. Hart H. S. 52. Tustin: Burdell TWp.Sch.
27. Houghton Lake H. S. 53. Whitehall Rural Ag. Sch.
54. Whittemore: Burleight
Dist. School
East Central Region
1. Akron Community School 11. Deckerville H. S.
2. Bath: James Couzens Ag.Sch.l2. Dryden H. S.
3. Bay City H. S. 13. Durand H. S.
4. Bay City: T.L.Handy H.S. 14. Flint: Bendle H.S.
5. Bay City: St.James H.S. 15. Flint: Central H.S.
6. Brighton H. S. 16. Flint: Kearsley Ag.H.S.
7. Byron Ag. School 17. Flint: Northern H.S.
8. Cass City H. S. 18. Flint: Technical H. S.
9. Chesaninng. S. 19. Flowerville H. S.
10. Croswell: Croswell- 20. Grand Blanc Township
Lexington Rural Ag.Sch. Unit School

Fig. 9. All High Schools that Signed the Agreement

104

Fig. 9. (Continued)

 

East Central Region-~Continued

 

21. Grand Ledge H. S. 33. Okemos Consolidated Sch.

22. Hemlock H. S. 34. Owosso H. S.

23. Holt H. S. 35. Perry Rural Ag. School

24. Imlay City H. S. 36. Saginaw H. S.

25. Lansing: Eastern H. S. 37. Saginaw: Arthur Hill H.S.
26. Lansing: Everett H. S. 38. St. Charles H. S.

27. Lansing: Sexton H. S. 39. St. Johns: Rodney Wilson H.S.
28. Lapeer H. S. 40. Sandusky H. S.

29. Marlett H. S. 41. Ubly H. S.

30. Millington Community Sch. 42. Unionville Community H.S.
31. Montrose H. S. 43. Vassar H. S.

32. North Branch H. S. 44. Williamston H. S.

Southeastern Region

 

1. Algonac H. S. 30. Keego Harbor: W.Bloomfie1d
2. Ann Arbor H. S. H. S.
3. Ann Arbor: University H.S.3l. Lake Orion H. S.
4. Auburn Heights: Avondale 32. Lincoln Park H. S.
H. S. 33. Manchester H. S.
5. Belleville: Van Buren 34. Marine City H. S.
Twp. H. S. 35. Marysville H. S.
6. Berkley H. S. 36. Milan H. S.
7. Birmingham: Baldwin H.S. 37. Monroe H. S.
8. Bloomfield Hills School 38. Mt. Clemens H. S.
9. Capac H. S. 39. New Haven H. S.
10. Carleton: Airport Com.Sch. 40.’ Plymouth H.S.
11. Center Line: Busch H.S. 41. Pontiac Senior H. S.
12. Chelsea H. S. 42. Port Huron H. S.
13. Clarkston H. S. 43. Richmond H. S.
14. Dearborn H. S. 44. River Rough H. S.
15. Dearborn: Fordson H.S. 45. Rochester H. S.
16. Detroit: Denby H. S. 46 Romeo H. S.

17. Detroit: Northwestern H.S.47. Romulus H. S.
18. Detroit: Redford Un. Sch. 48. Royal Oak H. S.
19. Detroit: Wilbur Wright V. 49. St. Clair H. S.
H S 50. St. Clair Shores: Lake-

20. Dexter H. S. View

21. Dundee H. S. 51. St. Clair Shores: So.

22. Ferndale: Lincoln H.S. Lake H. S.

23. Garden City H. S. 52. South Lyon: Lyon Twp.H.S.
24. Grosse Pointe H.S. 53. Van Dyke: Fitzgerald H.S.
25. Hamtramck H. S. 54. Van Dyke: Lincoln H. S.
26. Hazel Park H. S. 55. Walled Lake H. S.

27. Highland Park H. S. 56. Wayne H. S.

28. Inkster H. S. 57. Yale H. S.
29. Inskter: Roosevelt H. S. 58. Ypsilanti H. S.

105

 

 

Hopkins Twp. School
Hudson H. S.

Kalamazoo: Central H.S.
Kalamazoo: Western St.H.S.
Leslie H. S.

Lyons H. S.

Marshall H. S.
Middleville: Thornapple-

Kellogg Rural Ag. Sch.
Morenci H. S.
Nashville: Nashville--

W.K.Kellogg Rural Ag.Sch.
New Buffalo H. S.
Niles H. S.
Olivet: Walton Twp.Un.Sch.
North Muskegon H. S.
Onsted H. S.

Otsego H. S.

Paw Paw H. S.
Portage Twp. H. S.
Portland H. S.
Quincy H. S.
Ravenna H. S.
Reading H. S.
Rockford H. S.
St. Joseph H. S.
Saugatuck H. S.
South Haven H. S.

Three Oaks H. S.

Three Rivers H. S.

Vermontville Rural Ag.
Sch.

Vicksburg Community Sch.

Woodland Twp. School
Zeeland, H. S.

Upper Peninsula Region

 

Ironwood: Luther Wright
H. S.

Kingsford: Edward Kings-
ford H. S.

Marquette: Graveraet H.S.

Mass: Greenland Twp.
H.S.

Menominee H. S.

Munising H. S.

Ontonagon H. S.

Fig. 9. (Continued)
Southwestern Region
1. Addison Community School 32.
2. Allegan H. S. 33.
3. Battle Creek: Lakeview H.S.34.
4. Battle Creek Senior H.S. 35.
5. Belding H. S. 36.
6. Bellevue H. S. 37.
7. Benton Harbor H. S. 38.
8. Buchanan H. S. 39.
9. Byron Center: Byron Twp.Sch.
10. Caledonia Rural Ag. Sch. 40.
11. Cement City H. S. ' 41.
12. Charlotte H. S.
13. Goldwater H. S. 42.
14. Coloma H. S. 43.
15. Comstock H. S. 44.
16. Concord H.S. 45.
17. Coopersville H. S. 46.
18. Delton Rural Ag. Sch. 47.
19. Dimondale H. S. 48.
20. Dowagiac H. S. 49.
21. E. Grand Rapids H. S. 50.
22. East Lansing H. S. 51.
23. Eaton Rapids H. S. 52.
24. Edwardsburg Cons. Rural 53.
Ag. Sch. 54.
25. Galesburg: Augusta Com- 55.
munity Sch. 56.
26. Grand Rapids: Godwin Hts. 57.
H. S.
27. Grand Rapids: Kelloggs- 58.
ville H. S. 59.
28. Grass Lake H. S. 60.
29. Hickory Corners: W. K.
Kellogg Cons. Ag. Sch. 61.
30. Hillsdale H. S. 62.
31. Homer Community Sch. 63.
1. Baraga H. S. 9.
2. Bergland H. S.
3. Crystal Falls H. S. 10.
4. Dollar Bay: Osceola Twp.
H. S. 11.
5. Escanaba H. S. 12.
6. Harris: Bark River-Harris
H. S. 13.
7. Iron Mountain H. S. 14.
8. Iron Mountain: Felch Twp. 15.
Sch. 16.

Pickford H. S.

106

Fig. 2. (Continued)

17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

 

Upper Peninsula Region--Continued

 

Powers: Powers-Spalding H.S.
Rock H. S.

St. Ignace: LaSalle H. S.
Sault Ste. Marie H. S.
Stephenson H. S.

Trenary H. S.

Wakefield H. S.

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11.. :j :a 13::
School Enrollment School Enrollment
lQ% Sampled 25% Sampled
Albion College 1366 Adrian College 724
Calvin College 2015 Alma College 675
Central Mich. Univ. 6572 Aquinas College 894

Detroit Insti. of Tech. 2685 Emmanuel Missionary Col.922

Eastern Mich. Univ. 6229 Hillsdale College 688
Ferris Institute 2483 Kalamazoo College 679
General Motors Insti. 2549 Madonna College 343
Hope College 1311 Mercy College 600
Lawrence Insti. of Tech.1942 Nazareth College 411
Marygrove College 1040 Olivet College 459
Michigan Tech 3055 Siena Heights College 526
Michigan State Univ. 21874 50% Sampled

 

Northern Mich. College 2121 None —--

University of Detroit 10809 100% Sampled

 

University of Michigan 28117 Suomi College 146
Wayne State University 20326

Western Mich. Univ. 9814

 

Fig. 10. List of Institutions as Sampled
Indicating all Degree Credit Enrollments

Source: Hazel C. Poole and Leah W. Ramsey, United States
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1959.

108

For many years it has been my privilege to serve as a high
school counselor and principal. The institutions with which
I have been associated have worked very diligently to follow
the suggestions of the Michigan Secondary School—College
Agreement. There has been considerable interest evidenced
on the part of college and university officials as to how
the agreement was working with particular reference to the
college admissions offices.

It is my assumption that the college admissions officials
would be interested in knowing more about the impact of the
college agreement. Therefore, I am requesting an interview
with you, or an assistant designated by you, who has been at
your institution during a major portion of the time the
agreement has been in effect.

Realizing how valuable your time is, and in order to enable
me to review our talk, I would like to record our interview
on tape. All information would be kept strictly confidential.
The final report would not contain any reference to individ-
uals by name or place. All responses will be compiled and
treated statistically as a group.

Also, in order to complete the second part of this study,

I will need the use of a faculty directory for your institu-
tion. Would you be so kind as to make one available to me
at the time of my interview.

I would appreciate it if you could see me on October 16, if
this can be arranged on your schedule. The interview should
not take more than thirty minutes.

A summary report will be made available upon completion of
my study.

Sincerely yours,

Mel C. Buschman, Director

M.S.U. Continuing Education Center
MCB:sa

Address: 148 Ransom, N.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Fig. 11. Letter to Admissions Officers Requesting
Interview.

109

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS WITH TOTAL RESPONSES

This is a research project dealing with admissions to Michi-
gan colleges to determine what the effects of the Michigan
Secondary School—College Agreement have been on the twenty-
nine signatory four-year colleges and universities.

1.

Were you on the staff here at

at the time your

institution signed the Michigan Secondary School-College

Agreement?

1. Yes - 21

2. No - 8

a. In what capacity?

Registrar - 11
Admissions Officer — 3
Others - 7

Not required - 8

would you summarize your admissions policy?
Greatly affected - O

Moderately affected — 6

Little affected - 6

Not affected - 19

No answer - 1

Would you say your admissions policy is any different
from other Michigan colleges?

1.
2.

a.

Yes

- 21

No - 8

In what way does it differ?

J:UHDFJ§ U1£xnnJH
‘<.'
0

Curriculum requirements — 6
Religious requirements - 6
Scholastic requirements - 11
Financial requirements — 2
Not required - 4

'Nature of school - 11

Policy of admission - 12
Physical facilities - 1
Notrequired - 5

Is your policy of admission more restrictive than other
Michigan colleges?

1.

2.
3.
4.

Yes

- 9

No — 10
Partially - 5
No answer - 5

Fig. 12. The Interview Questions

Fig.

110

12. (Continued)

 

a. What per cent do you admit from the lowerl/3 of the
graduating class? (high school)
1. None - 3
2. Minority — 17
3. Majority - 0
4. No data - O

b. What per cent do you admit from the middle 1/3 of
the graduating class? (high school)
1. None - 2
2. Minority - 10
3. Majority - 8
4. No data - 9

c. What per cent do you admit from the upper 1/3 of
the graduating class? (high school)

1. None - 1
2. Minority - 8
3. Majority - 12
4. No data - 8
d. 0 you make any exceptions?
Yes - 8
No - 5

No answer — 16

hat exceptions?

Aptitude - 9

Personal interview — 0
Not required - 20

U)
unurdz UHUFJU

Have you collected data that supports this position?
1. Yes - 16
2. No - 13

a. Do You still collect this data?
1. Yes - 16
2. No - 13

Do you keep records of the College Agreement admissions
separate from the other?

1. No — 29

2. Yes — 0

In your opinion what kind of record does the College
Agreement student make generally?

Good average poor

1. Excellent - O

Satisfactory - 5

Unsatisfactory — 1

No record — 23

DUO“)

Fig.

10.

11.

111

12. (Continued)

 

How does his record compare with the Non-Agreement student?
1. Better than — O

2. Same as - 7

3. Poorer than — 0

4. None required - 8

5. No answer - 14

Do you feel that the member high schools have modified

in any way the preparation of their college bound student
as a result of the College Agreement?

1. Yes - 13

2. No - 7

3. No answer - 9

a. If yes, in what way?

. Curricular change - 10
Instructor improvement - 1
Improved guidance activities - 2
Notrequired ~ 16

DUJMl-J

Has your institution made any recommendations to high
schools for modifying their preparation of students for

college?
1. Yes - 15
2. No - 14

In your opinion do you think any changes in college
teaching methods have resulted from the Agreement?
1. Yes - 4

2. No - 18

3. No answer - 7

a. If yes, what changes?
1. Different methods - 3
2. Instructor improvement - O
3. Improved guidance activities - 1
4. Not required - 25

Has there been any change in the degree of understanding
between colleges and high schools regarding admission
policies since the Agreement?

1. Yes - 21

2. No - 8

a. If yes, in what way?
1. More clear - 16
2. More definite - 2
3. More liberal - 1
4. No answer - 10

b. If no, why not?

Fig.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

112

12. (Continued)

 

Have you participated in high school principal-freshmen
conferences?

1. Yes - 18

2. No - 11

a. What is your opinion of them?
1. Valuable - 2O
2. Not valuable - 2
3. Unfamiliar - 1
4 No answer - 6

Has your admissions policy been changed since the begin-
ning of the Agreement?

1. Yes - 21

2. No - 8

Do you feel there is any need for change in the Agreement
since it has been operating for some time?

1. Yes - 10

2. No - 9

3. No opinion - 6

4. Eliminate - 4

a. If yes, in what way?

Re-evaluate - 8

Change title - 2

Change statement of objectives - l
Closer inspection of use - 1

Not required - 17

U'l-C'UJMH

Do you feel that the Agreement was interpreted in
essentially the same way by all Michigan colleg admis—
sions offices, or have there been differences in inter-
pretation?

1. Yes - 17

2. No - 8

3. No opinion - 4

a. What were the factors that led to different inter-

pretation?
1. Individual interpretation - 12
2. Not required — 17

In general, what is your opinion of the Agreement at this
time?

Desirable - 17

Undesirable - 4

No opinion - 5

No answer - 3

tWMl—J

Fig.

17.

18.

19.

20.

12.

8..

How

113

(Continued)

 

What is of value?

1. Better cooperation — 3

2. Curricular improvements - 1
3. Entire Agreement - 12

4. No opinion - 5

5. Not required ~ 8

What is undesirable?

Lack of inspection — 2

Lack of determining responsibility - 9
Entire Agreement - O

No opinion - 10

Not required - 8

U'I-DUJIDH

is the admission of the marginal student (minimum

or less than minimum qualified student) handled?

LUMP-4 DUMP-4

Admitted - 29
Not admitted - O
No answer - O

Probation status - 6
Test and interview - 18
Committee recommendations — 5

Have you met with the high schools in any of the planned
Agreement meetings?

1.
2.

a.

Yes - 13
No - 16

How often?

1. Five or more - 10
2. Less than five - 3
3. None - 16

When was the latest meeting attended?
Zero to two years - 10

Three to five years - 2

Over five years - 1

None - l6

IIUJIUI-J

What suggestions would you make for changes in the
Agreement?

WKUOVDl-J

1.
2.
3.

Re-evaluate Agreement — 8
Stress responsibilities - 1
More guidance ~ 1

None - 8

No answer - 11

hould the Agreement be continued?

Yes - 17
No - 10
No opinion — 2

114

Question I.

 

Item 1 1-Yes
2-No

Item 2 1-Registrar
2-Admissions Officer
3-Others
4-Not required

Item 3 1-Great1y affected
2-Moderate1y affected
3-Litt1e affected
4-Not affected
5-No answer

Question 11.

 

Item 4 l-Yes
2-No

Item 5 l-Curriculum require-
ments
2-Religious require-
ments
3-Scholastic require-
ments
4-Financia1 require-
ments
5-Not required

Item 6 l-Nature of school
2-Policy of admission
3-Physica1 facilities
4-Not required

Question III.

 

Item 7 1-Yes
2-No
3-Partially
4-No answer

Item 8 1-None
2-Minority
3-Majority
4-No data

Item 9 l-None
2-Minority
3-Majority
4-No data

Item 10

Item 11

Item 12

Question

l—None
2-Minority
3-Majority
4—No date

1-Yes
2-No
3-No answer

l-Aptitude
2-Personal interview
3~Not required

IV.

 

Item 13

Item 14

Question

l-Yes
2—No

l-Yes
2-No

V.

 

Item 15

Question

1-Yes
2-No

VI.

 

Item 16

Question

l-Excellent
2-Satisfactory
3-Unsatisfactory
4-No record

VII.

 

Item 17

Question

l-Better than
2-Same as
3-Poorer than
4-None required
5-No answer

VIII.

 

Item 18

l-Yes
2-No
3-No answer

Fig. 13. Code for Interview Questions

115

Fig. 13. (Continued)

 

Item 19 1-Curricular change
2—Guidance procedures
3-Improved teaching

methods
4-Not required

Question IX.

 

Item 20 l-Yes
2-No

Question X.

 

Item 21 l-Yes
2-No
3—No answer

Item 22 l-Different methods
2-Instructor improve-
ment
3-Improved guidance
activities
4-Not required

Question XI.

 

Item 23 l-Yes
2-No

Item 24 l-More clear
2-More definite
3-More liberal
4-No answer

Question XII.

 

Item 25 1-Yes
2-No

Item 26 l-Valuable
2—Not valuable
3-Unfamiliar
4-No answer

Question XIII.

 

Item 27 l-Yes
2-No

Item 28 l—Because of Agreement

Question XIV.

 

Item 29

Item 30

l-Yes

2-No

3-No opinion
4-Eliminate

1-Re-eva1uate

2-Change title

3-Change statement of
objectives

4-Closer inspection
of use

5-Not required

QuestioanV.

 

Item 31

Item 32

l-Yes
2-No
3-No opinion

1-Individual inter-
pretation
2-Not required

Question XVI.

 

Item 33

Item 34

Item 35

1—Desirab1e
2-Undesirab1e
3-No opinion
4-No answer

l-Better cooperation

2-Curricular improve-
ments

3-Entire Agreement

4-No opinion

5-Not required

l-Lack of inspection

2-Lack of determining
responsibility

3-Entire Agreement

4-No opinion

5-Not required

Question XVII.

 

Item 36

2-Not because of Agreement

3-None required

l-Admitted
2—Not admitted
3-No answer

116

Fig. 13. (Continued)

 

Item 37 l-Probation status

Question

XIX.

 

2-Test and interview
3-Committee recommen-
dations

Question XVIII.

 

Item 38 l-Yes
2-No

Item 41

1-Re-evaluate Agreement

2—Stress responsibi—
lities

3-More guidance

4-None

5-No answer

 

Item 39 1-Five or more
2-Less than five
3-None

Item 40 l-Zero to two years
2-Three to five years

 

3-Over five years
4-None

 

Question XX.
Item 42 l-Yes

2—No

3-No opinion
Question XXI.
Item 43 1-Yes

2-No

3-No answer
Question XXII.
Item 44 l-Yes

2-No

3-No answer

117

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COLLEGE FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS
WITH TOTAL RESPONSES

This is a research project dealing with admissions to Michi-
gan Colleges to determine what the effects of the Michigan
Secondary School-College Agreement have been on the twenty-
nine signatory four-year colleges and universities.

1. Have you ever heard of the "Michigan Secondary School-
College Agreement?"
1. Yes - 178
2. No - 272

a. If yes, what do you understand the purposes to be?
1. Thorough understanding - 5
2. Fair understanding - 36
3. Poor understanding - 68
4. No understanding - 341

2. Have the purposes of the Agreement ever been discussed
in your departmental meetings?
1. Yes - 31
2. No - 419

3. Have you made any changes in your methods of teaching as
a result of your institution belonging to the Agreement?
1. Yes - 11
2. No - 439

a. If yes, what changes?
1. Many - O
2. Some - lO
3. None - 440

4. Has there been any change in institutional policy as a
result of your institution belonging in the Agreement?
1. Yes - 28
2. No - 420
3. Uncertain- 2

5. To your knowledge was the faculty consulted about the
Agreement before your institution signed the Agreement?
1. Yes - 29
2. No - 421

6. Have any benefits accrued from your institutions belonging
to the Agreement?
1. Many - l
2. Some - 17
3. None - 432

Fig. 14. The Questionnaire

 

Fig.

14.

a.

118

(Continued)

 

If yes, what benefits?

Not required - 432

More opportunity for college - 4
Simplify admissions - 5

Better communications - 8
Curriculum - 1

U'IJTUOMI-J

119

For many years it has been my privilege to serve as a high
school counselor and principal. The institutions with which
I have been associated have worked very diligently to follow
the suggestions of the Michigan Secondary School-College
Agreement.

I am conducting a research project to determine how the
admissions officers of the colleges were affected by this
same agreement. To make the study complete, I need to know
the role college instructors have played in relation to
the college agreement.

You will find enclosed a questionnaire dealing with this
subject. I would be most appreciative if you would answer
these few questions now, and return the completed question—
naire in the enclosed envelope as soon as possible.

For a research project to have real meaning, it is important
that the data be complete. In order to get valid answers

to this problem, it will be necessary to have all the ques-
tionnaires returned.

If you are interested in the results of this study, an
abstract will be sent to your college admissions office.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Respectfully,

Mel C. Buschman
Director of the Project

Enclosures (2)

Fig. 15. Cover Letter for the Questionnaire

120

Dear Professor:
During the past few weeks you received a questionnaire
dealing with the Michigan Secondary School-College Agreement.

As yet I have not received your reply. Would you kindly
fill it out and return it to me.

If you have already returned the above, please disregard
this notice.

Thank you,

Mel C. Buschman

Fig. 16. Reminder Card for the Questionnaire

121

Dear Professor:

How does a researcher approach a person like yourself when
he needs to find out information to complete his study? A
questionnaire dealing with the Michigan Secondary School-
College Agreement was sent to you in the fall, and you have
been contacted at least twice since that time.

There are probably many different reasons why the non-
respondents did not answer my questionnaire, such as illness,
out of the country, felt it unimportant, or assumed that
they should know about the Agreement and didn't, and were
embarrassed to say so.

I want to assure you again, with all of the professional
ethics I can muster,that your answers are absolutely con-
fidential.

I do, however, need an answer to at least the first question
on the questionnaire. Would you be so kind as to return
this information in order for me to complete the study.

Sincerely yours,

Mel C. Buschman
TEAR OFF

Have you ever heard of the "Michigan Secondary School—College
Agreement?"

a. If yes, what do you understand the purposes to be?

 

 

 

 

Fig. 17. Personal Letter to Non-Respondents

APPENDIX B

122

MHEI3

CODED RESPONSES FROM INTERVIEWS

 

10

Ques-

tion

 

mqqqqmqqdq
HMNNNHNNNN

8NHNHHNNNN

mHHNHHqfiqfi
QHHHHHNHMH
qumdmmdmw
WSW-3333330!
mmmmmmmmmm
:HHNHNNHHH
MHHNHHNHHH
mammmmmmmm
Hmmmmmmmmm

O (HMS mmmmmm
l'_"

mmmqmmmmmm
wmmqmmmmmm
NNNNHMMHNM
\ONNr-imr-{r-l-II'CU—If
mmmmaaamm:
:HHHHHHNHH
mmqummqmm
NNHJHNHMMM
HHHNHHHHHH

E
gammqmmswm

H
OIand

M3

:qqddasqadzqquqqdqa
mmmmmammammmmmmmmmma

HNHNr—{t—{HHHHNNNNHHNHNH

sqmnaaqqmaqqqdaqqzq:
mmamaammaammmmammmmm
mmmmmmqmmqmqmmmqmmm:
33mmqqzquzzqzzzdzm:
mmmmmmmmmmmwmmwmmmmw
WHHRflNNHNNHNHNNNHHHH
NHHNHNNHNNHWHNNNNHHH
mammaammmammammamaam
mammaammmammammamaam

:NNJNNJMJMMHNSJMNMJM

JMMJMMJNJHNHMJJNMNJJ
JWNJNNJNJHHHNJJNNNUJ
NHNNNJMHJHHNJJSNMHHH
_MHHHHNJHNNNJNJHNNHHW
mmmmmmmmmmmmamdammma
NHHNHHNHHHHNHNHHNNHH
3:1” 10:33:: MMJJJSJNJJJ‘J
HHHHMHJHquNHMJJJJJM
HHHHHHNHHHNHHHNNNNNH

HCUMJLOKQNQCNOHNMJ LUKONCDO
r-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir-ir-lr-iu—h—i

 

c3
‘1'
equIJd

stoouos

 

TABLE l3-Continued

 

 

20 21 22

19

l8

l7

l6

15

14

13

12

11

ues-
tion

«TNCUCMNHNNCUCU
MNNNHNNNNN

(\lt-ir-{Nr—ir-ir-{v—lt—ir-i

HJHmJNJHHH
OMHHHHHHNH
:r

mHHHHHHHHH
mHHHHHHHHH
[\NNNNNHNNN
QHHHHHHHHH
LflLfl-If'd'il'LDNt—ILDLD
dmmmdmmmam
MHHHHJNHHH

WHNNHNNHNH

HNHHNHHNNN
Ommmafimmam
m
mmHmHHmHHm
mammmmmHmm
NHHNHHHHNH
QHHHHHHHHH
mHHHHHHHHH
JHNHHNJHHH
MHHHHHNHHH

E
gHCUO/WJ'LOKONCDON

 

H
OIand

M4

CUN(\JN(\JC\JC\IN*C\JNC\JCU (vacuum—1m
HNNNNNWN*NNNH CUr-{NNNN

NHHHNNHHMNNHNNr—{HNNHM

:ndmflamamzmmmazmmmmm
:HHJJNddqdqqdddzsdja
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmma
NHHNNHNNNNNNNNNNNNNH
mmmammmmmammammmmaam
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
mmfimmmqmmmqudmdmmnd
mmmmmmqqammmqamqmmmm
:aaaammaaammmaammqam

WNNNHr—QHHHNHNNNNNHNHN

MHHHHHNHHMHHNHHMHMNH
mmamamammammmammmmm:
JJHNHNMHMHJMNJMMJNMH
mmammmmmmmmmammmmmmm
HHHHNHHNHHHNHNHHNWHH
HHNJJHNHHHHMJHHJJHH:
HHNHNHNNHHHNNHNNNNHN
anadqaafiaqdndfiddafim
HHHHNNHHHHNNWNHNHHHH

HNMJLOKOIFCDO‘,OHNMJLC\KO
t—Jr—lu—ir-h-{r-l

 

stooqos

 

TABLE 14

CODED RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE FROM COLLEGE FACULTIES

Ques-
tion
Item
Ans-
wer

 

 

 

 

125

d) ONKOOUVIJOQ'KO
Swnei
:

OOOMOONOO

OOOOOOOOO

CDO\\DOII\(I) mii'Ln
Nmt-i
r—i

OOOMOONOr—l

(\ICUr-ILINOCU-S‘CUt—l

NNMJMJHKOO
CD Fir-4

:1“: NCOONKO mm
H

(“Mr-10010:? (Ur-l
r-l

OOOHOHOHO

ONMOMHMNF
KO \OM

«DNMJ‘NFCDNCR
:' riH

:NM-d'mKOme
OIand

bxomlzLnUNOKUSAananmM0d3m\murgp
H H

OHNOOOOOOr—{OOOOOOOOOH
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

bmomlnLhU\OKubAOndeanOdDU\mutgp
H H

OHNOOOOOOHOOOOOOO C30!"1

:wmmmmmmstmmwmmqug
H H

MHMHoooooomoHOOOOHOO

:TUNEKMW)?CB:PRP~QHOOJKnnaDfllwkugz
H

m(mamariHCDrHDCDOCDCMHriocvCUHJT

OOHNHOOOWOHOHOOOOOHW

r-h—IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

HMOr—ir—lmde’Jr—iNNMJQr—INNN
H H H

\OKOGDN¥#CUrdQHflOOQhHrHWHNCDQ'NWUbr

l

mnmzanDS4DChO
rrHriHr4r+Hrim

 

 

eqenlaa

stooqog

TABLE l4-Continued

 

 

 

 

ues-
tion
Item

 

10

 

l

Ans-
wer

 

OOOHOOOOO

r-{CUOr—IOONCUO

OOOr‘OOHOO
OOOOOHOOr—l

sswomMp
#4 b-
H

m
H

52

[\NKOO LOW

78
52

L0
H

11

r—ir-iOMOr-lmmr-i
Or—iOOOOOOO

\OCDKOmLflF
S

m—d‘KO
[\Lfls-i

Nr-iO-d‘Or—IKOOO

Lf\\O\O\O LOKO CNS" LO
Q [\Lflr-i
r—i

HOOOOHOOO
CUMOKOOOHOr—l
OOOr—IOr—ir-iOO
OOOOOHOOO

mKOKDKD mil-\(D-j' Ln
0 [\Lnr—l
r—l

MMONONMOr—i

r—ENO’WJ LOKONCDQ

 

DIand

126

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOHOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOr—io
OHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

t~dN0:rmunouMKDngwvnKMOGDmunoma
.a

expuljinuwouum)swndwanOGDKHndm:
H H m

Or—{CUOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOHO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

r-i

(Ur—{LOOHOOOOOCUOOOI—IOOMOO

[\oo mmmmmm [\\O NMMKO moommmg
H H

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OHNOOOOOOHHOOOHOOOHu—l
OOHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOO

[\(X) Lnnmnmmm [\KO 0] MMKO [\(sz mm:-
H H (\J

Or-IMHOOOOOr—lr—IOOOHOOOr-{O

r—ICUm-‘d'LOKOF-(DOOHNMJmKO
rueriHrariH

GQBAIJa

[\CIDONO
r-lr-ir-IN

stooqog

 

127

TABLE 15

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN EASTERN LISTING DATES OF
APPOINTMENT AND ALMA NOT LISTING DATES OF APPOINTMENT

 

 

 

 

 

Eastern Alma X 2
Category I II Total 11
(X11 + X127

1-1 0 o o o
1—2 1 3 u 1/h
1-3 2 u 6 4/6
1-4 5 o 5 24/5

2-4 0 2 2 0
TOTAL 8 9 17 71/12

 

2 11664 _
X = _ . 1
"I396 7 3

TABLE 16

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN CENTRAL LISTING DATES OF
APPOINTMENT AND NORTHERN NOT LISTING DATES OF APPOINTMENT

 

 

 

 

 

Central Northern X 2
Category I II Total 11
W
1-1 0 1 1 o
1-2 2 o 2 4/2
1-3 A 3 7 16/7
1-4 2 3 5 u/5
2—u o 1 1 0
TOTAL 8 8 16 178/35
x2 _ 22890

-'_7T7O = 3.19

128

TABLE 17

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN FERRIS LISTING DATES OF
APPOINTMENT AND MICHIGAN TECH NOT LISTING DATES OF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPOINTMENT
r W
Ferris Michigan Tech x112
Cat r T t l ~fifi
eg" y I II 0 3' (X11 + X12)
1-1 0 O O O
1-2 1 2 3 1/3
1—3 2 O 2 4/2
1—4 O O O O
2—u 3 3 6 9/6
TOTAL 6 5 11 23/6
2 258
x =.___ z
55 4.69
TABLE 18

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN SUOMI LISTING DATES OF
APPOINTMENT AND AQUINAS NOT LISTING DATES OF APPOINTMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

m =— 4 J
Suomi Aquinas X 12
Category -——Ef——' II Total 1 r
(X11 + X12)
1-1 O O O O
1-2 1 2 3 1/3
1-3 1 O 1 1/1
1_u O 1 1 O
2.24 2 1 3 “/3
TOTAL A u 8 8/3
X2 = 16 = 2.66

129

TABLE 19

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN OLIVET LISTING DATES OF
APPOINTMENT AND CALVIN NOT LISTING DATES OF APPOINTMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Olivet Calvin X 2
Category I II Total i1
Till + X12)
1-1 O O O O
1-2 O 1 1 O
1-3 2 1 3 4/3
1-4 2 2 u 4/4
2-4 1 1 2 1/2
TOTAL 5 5 10 10/6
2 198
X - =
m “095
TABLE 20
TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN ALBION LISTING DATES
OF APPOINTMENT AND MARYGROVE NOT LISTING DATES
OF APPOINTMENT
+ W : v=:r==
Albion Marygrove X 2
Category I II Total ilfir
1-1 1 O 1 1/1
1-2 0 O O O
1-3 3 1 u 9/A
1—4 2 2 A u/A
2—4 3 3 6 9/6
TOTAL 9 6 15 23/u
X2 = 304

130

TABLE 21

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN HOPE LISTING DATES OF
APPOINTMENT AND SIENA HEIGHTS NOT LISTING DATES
OF APPOINTMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r ‘——-+_._ L331~ x L xjfi
Hope Siena Heights X 2
Category I II Total 11
(X11 +712)
1—1 O O O 0
1-2 0 O O 0
1-3 0 2 2 O
1-4 3 1 u 9/A
2-4 a 2 6 16/6
TOTAL 7 5 12 59/12
2 720
X x _
"85 _ 8.47
TABLE 22

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
AND PRIVATE INSTITUTION'S ADMISSIONS POLICIES
REGARDING RECORDS OF AGREEMENT AND NON-
AGREEMENT STUDENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

===========_. Item 15
Category #1 t Type oTfiTnstitution
Public Private
Yes 0 O
NO 9 20
TOTAL 9 20
x2 _ 210.25

_ "‘T80‘ = 1.17

131

TABLE 23

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
INSTITUTIONS REGARDING CHANGES IN INSTRUCTIONAL

 

 

 

 

 

POLICIES
II Item 21,: 51
Category Type of Institution
Public Private
Yes 1 3
No 7 11
TOTAL 8 14
NO answer I 6
2 11
X z z
m 0.00272
TABLE 24

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
INSTITUTIONS REGARDING THE TYPE OF CHANGE MADE
IN INSTRUCTIONAL POLICIES
Item 22

 

Type of Institution

 

 

 

Category
Public Private
Yes 1 3
No 8 17
TOTAL 9 2O
2 1630

X = ISOOO = 0.0906

132

TABLE 25

TEST OF INDEPENDENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
INSTITUTIONS REGARDING THE CAUSE OF ADMISSIONS

 

 

Category

POLICY CHANGE
Item 28

 

Type of Institution

 

 

IfiPublIEL Private
Yes 2 2
No 4 11
TOTAL 6 13
Not required 3 7

 

2 386
X = 11'68‘6‘" = O.O82LI

IGRN STRTE UNI V.

IIIIIIIII 2IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISIIIII IIII7IIIIIIIIIIIII7IIIIIS