MILLS, Robert Clayton, 1939A SURVEY OF OPINIONS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS TOWARD THE DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
OFFERED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, administration

U n iv e rs ity M ic ro film s . A XEROX C o m p a n y , A n n A rb o r. M ic h ig a n

A S U R V E Y OF O P I N I O N S OF S E C O N D A R Y S C H O O L
PRINCIPALS TOWARD THE DRIVER EDUCATION
PROGRAMS OFFERED

IN T H E P U B L I C S C H O O L S

OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
By
Robert

Clayton Mills

A THESIS
S u b m i t t e d to
Michigan State University
In p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s
f o r the d e g r e e o f
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
College

of Education
1970

ABSTRACT
A S U R V E Y OF O P I N I O N S O F S E C O N D A R Y S C H O O L
PRINCIPALS TOWARD THE DRIVER EDUCATION
P R O G R A M S O F F E R E D IN T H E P U B L I C S C H O O L S
OF T H E S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
By
R obert

C l a y t o n Mills

Statement
It was

of the P r o b l e m

the p u r p o s e o f this

s urvey

(1) to d e t e r m i n e

the o p i n i o n s of s e c o n d a r y sc h oo l p r i n c i p a l s
Michigan toward driver education,
s e c o n d ar y s c hool p r i n c i p a l s
the p r o b l e m s

and

in the st a te of

(2) to d e t e r m i n e what

felt was n e e d e d

to r e s o l v e

of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m as o u t l i n e d

by the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n in Michigan.
The c o m p l e t i o n o f the two g e n e r a l

statements

the a n s w e r i n g of the f o l l o w i n g sp e ci f ic q u e s t i o n s
the o p i n i o n s of s e c o n d a r y

s chool p r i n c i p a l s

m e m b e r s o f the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s t a f f
of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m

required
regarding

toward:

(1)

(2) c o m m u n i t y a c c e p t a n c e

(3) the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in p r o m o t i n g c i t i z e n s h i p a m o n g s t u d e n t s
the status o f g u i d e l i n e s
driver education
education program

and i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e

(**)

in

(5) th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the d r i v e r
(6) the a c c e p t a n c e of the p r e s e n t d r i v e r

Robert
education program
seventeen

(7) r a i s i n g the d r i v e r

l i c e n s i n g a ge to

(8) r e m o v i n g r e q u i r e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s

f r o m the p u b l i c

schools

(9) r e i m b u r s e m e n t

completing driver education

(11)

driver education program,

of regional

coordinators

p r o g r a m in t h e p u b l i c

rates

for students

(10) t h e r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f the

driver education requirements
statewide

Clayton Mills

to d i r e c t

a uniform mandatory
and

(12)

th e e m p l o y m e n t

the driver

education

s c ho o l s .

D e s c r i p t i o n of the M e t h o d s ,
Technique, and Data Used
The research

s u r v e y w as

f ie d s a m p l e of 293 s e c o n d a r y
high schools

l i m i t e d to a r a n d o m s t r a t i ­
school principals

o f the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n .

Each public

high

s c h o o l was o r d e r e d by M i c h i g a n

Education Association geographical
Athletic
sample

Enrollment

Classification.

c o n s i s t i n g of f i f t y p e r cent

high schools

in t h e p u b l i c

r e g i o n a n d by M i c h i g a n
A random stratified
(.50%)

o f t he p u b l i c

in e a c h s t r a t a was t h e n drawn.

P r i o r to m a i l i n g th e d e v e l o p e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
e x p l a i n i n g the
w er e o b t a i n e d

s u r v e y w as

drafted and letters

a letter

of endorsement

f r o m Dr.

Robert

O. N o l a n ,

o f t he H i g h w a y T r a f f i c

Safety

C e n t e r at M i c h i g a n S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y a n d Mr.

Ben Leyrer,

A s s o c i a t i o n of S e c o n d a r y

School

President

Assistant

Director

of the M i c h i g a n

Principals.

Robert
Two weeks

a f t e r t he

initial mailing,

a nd s e c o n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e was
had

procedures

o f t he

to t h o s e p r i n c i p a l s

letter
th at

i n i t i a l m a i l i n g a n d the f o l l o w - u p

a n i n e t y - s i x p e r cent

q uestionnaires was
Responses

to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

T he t a b u l a t e d

categories

that

findings were
areas

included:

metro and non-metro

(1)

county

return of completed

offering credit

o f f e r i n g no

cr e di t

were coded

then listed

of interest,
size

schools,

(*4) s c h o o l s

administrative

(96%)

obtained.

a c c o r d i n g to the c o n t e n t

o f the

experience

for c o m p u t e r

in t a b l e s

and selected
school,

(2)

(3) t o t a l r e s p o n s e s ,

for d r i v e r

education,

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

w h i c h th e p r i n c i p a l
the

a follow-up

f a i l e d to r e spond.
As a r e s u l t

use.

sent

Clayton Mills

(6)

of the p r i n c i p a l ,

l e a r n e d to d r i v e ,

and

(5)

schools

secondary
(7) m e t h o d b y

(8) m e t h o d by w h i c h

s c h o o l o f f e r e d the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e

of d r i v e r

education.
The Major Findings
T he

survey

i n d i c a t e d t ha t

the p r i n c i p a l s

endorsed

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n ,
held varied opinions

c o n c e r n i n g the r e i m b u r s e m e n t

driver education teachers,
education,

academic

status

but

rate,

of driver

a n d i m p r o v e m e n t s n e e d e d in this s u b j e c t .

Data revealed
of a s t a t e w i d e

that

principals

examination

e n d o r s e d t he a d o p t i o n

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

but w e r e

Ro b er t
non-committal concerning mandatory

C l a y t o n M il l s

course requirements

for this subject.
E vi d en t by the n u m b e r o f r e s p o n s e s was the i n te r e s t
and c o n c e r n s ha r ed by the p r i n c i p a l s
p r o g r a m in the

state o f Mi c higan.

for the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

DEDICATION
Thi s d i s s e r t a t i o n is d e d i c a t e d
Mr.

H a r r y G. M i l l s ,

who passed away

Grandfather Mills
h i m the a t t r i b u t e s

all who

of

in S e p t e m b e r o f 1967.

i n s t i l l e d i n t h o s e that

of h o n e s t y ,

and by h i s e x a m p l e m a d e

to t h e m e m o r y

hard work,

loved

and ambition

l i fe b e a u t i f u l a n d m e a n i n g f u l

s u r r o u n d e d him.

ii

to

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t hi s
by the s i n c e r e h e l p ,
m an y

individuals.

impossible,
the

d i s s e r t a t i o n was made possible

guidance,

To l i s t

however,

and

each

special

suggestions

o f f e r e d by

i n d i v i d u a l l y w o u l d be

recognition must

be e x t e n d e d

following:
Dr.

Safety

Robert

Center,

0.

Nolan,

P r o f e s s o r at t h e H i g h w a y T r a f f i c

and academic

s h a l l e v e r be g r a t e f u l
direction and support

advisor,

for his
through

to w h o m t h e a u t h o r

continued encouragement,
all p h a s e s

o f his

graduate

program.
T o the o t h e r m e m b e r s
R ob e rt
Dr.

E.

G u s t a f s o n o f the H i g h w a y T r a f f i c

W i l l i a m M a n n a n d Dr.

Education

of his d o c t o r a l

for t h e i r

and c o n s t r u c t i v e

Louis

sincere

Romano

suggestions,

Patrick

Dr.

Safety Center,

of the

College of

encouragement,

criticisms.

A special kind of acknowledgment
his wife,

committee:

M a r j o r i e a n d sons M i c h a e l ,

m u s t be e x t e n d e d to

David,

Jeffery,

and

fo r t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d c o o p e r a t i o n d u r i n g the

man y m o n t h s

of work involved

continued encouragement
c o m p l e t i o n of this

in t hi s

dissertation.

and sacrifice made

possible

undertaking.
0

iii

Their
the

T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
Page
DEDICATION

ii

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................. H i
LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................. vii
Chapter
I.

T H E P R O B L E M ........................................... I
S t a t e m e n t of the P r o b l e m
..........................
I m p o r t a n c e of the Su r ve y
.........................
S c o p e of the S u r v e y ................................ 8
D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s U s e d .........................9
O r g a n i z a t i o n of the R e m a i n i n g C h a p t e r s
. . .

II.

12

R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E R A T U R E ............................13
Introduction
........................................
R e l a t e d D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n St u d i e s that
I n v o l v e d the S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l
.
.
N a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S af et y S t a n d a r d 4 4
.
.
.
S t a t e of M i c h i g a n D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n L a w
.
.
.
M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n D r i v e r
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m m i n g G ui d e
..................
S u m m a r y .............................................. 26

III,

6
8

M E T H O D S OF P R O C E D U R E .........................
S e l e c t i o n of the S a m p l e ..................
D e s c r i p t i o n of the S a m p l i n g T e c h n i q u e U s e d
.
.
S a m p l i n g D i s t r i b u t i o n by A r e a in the S t a t e
.
.
The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A p p r o a c h .....................3*4
D e v e l o p m e n t of the O p i n i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . .
Pilot S t u d y .............................
M a i l o u t P r o c e d u r e s ................................*40
Follow-Up Procedure . . . . . . . . . .
M et h o d s for A n a l y s i s of the D a t a ............. *41
S u m m a r y .............................................. *42

Iv

13
1*4
22
2*4
25
28
28
33
3*4
36
39
*41

Page
TV.

44

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
Toward Driver^Education Staff Members
. . .
47
T he O p i n i o n s o f S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
Toward Community Acce p t a n c e of
Driver Education
.................................
60
T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
Toward Citizenship Development
A m o n g S t u d e n t s ........................................ 66
T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the A v a i l a b i l i t y o f G u i d e l i n e s and
I n f o r m a t i o n f o r D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n ...............
72
T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of
Driver Education
.................................
8l
T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d A c c e p t a n c e o f the D r i v e r
89
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m .................................
T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the R e m o v a l of R e q u i r e d
Driver Education
.................................
104
The Opinions of Secondary School Principals
T o w a r d R a i s i n g t h e D r i v e r L i c e n s i n g Age
to S e v e n t e e n ....................................... 117
T he O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the R e i m b u r s e m e n t R a t e for
.................................
123
Driver Education
T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d R e s t r u c t u r i n g the D r i v e r
Education Requirements
.......................... 138
T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d th e A d o p t i o n of U n i f o r m S t a t e w i d e
Driver Education Programs
......................
150
T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y Sfehool P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the E m p l o y m e n t of R e g i o n a l
C o o r d i n a t o r s to D i r e c t the D r i v e r
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m .................................
157
R e s p o n s e s by S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d tfie ''Open-ended" S t a t e m e n t s
. . . .
163
S u m m a r y .................................................. 165
V.

SUMMARY,

CONCLUSIONS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

.

.

. 166

S u m m a r y ................................................ 16 6
C o n c l u s i o n s ...........................................181
Recommendations
..................................... 185
D i s c u s s i o n ........................................
187
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for F u r t h e r S t u d y
............... 189
v

Pa ge
BIBLIOGRAPHY

.............................................

P P E N D I C E S ................................................
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.

R e g i o n s o f th e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n
A s s o c i a t i o n ........................
196
Map of M e t r o p o l i t a n and N o n - M e t r o p o l i t a n
C o u n t i e s in M i c h i g a n
...................
S a m p l i n g D i s t r i b u t i o n Map o f P u b l i c
H ig h S c h o o l s S e l e c t e d in M i c h i g a n .
.
L i s t o f S t a t e m e n t s A c c o r d i n g to Co n t e n t
A r e a o f I n t e r e s t .....................
202
L is t o f " O p e n - E n d e d ” S t a t e m e n t s
C o n t a i n e d on the O p i n i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Secondary School Principals Opinion
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .........................
210
Letters of Endorsement and Expl a n a t i o n
.
L is t of the P u b l i c H i g h S c h o o l s S a m p l e d .
F r e q u e n c y o f R e t u r n o f the Q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e s .....................................
Follow-up Letter
..........................

vi

190
195

198
200

208
215
219
236
238

LIS T OP TABLES

Page

Table
1.

Michigan Athletic

2.

Metro Counties

3.

Non-Metro Counties

n.

Michigan Education Association Geographical
Regions Listing Popu l a t i o n and Sample
P e r c e n t a g e s ................................................32

5.

Statements

6.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n
S t a f f M e m b e r s as C l a s s i f i e d b y T o t a l ,
S c h o o l S i z e , and T y p e o f S t u d y ......................48

7.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n
S t a f f M e m b e r s as C l a s s i f i e d by S e c o n d a r y
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e r i e n c e of the P r i n c i p a l ,
M e t h o d by w h i c h the P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d to
D r i v e , a nd W h e t h e r C r e d i t w a s g i v e n for
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .....................................

52

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n
S t a f f M e m b e r s as C l a s s i f i e d b y T y p e o f
P r o g r a m O f f e r e d , and T y p e o f L a b o r a t o r y
I n s t r u c t i o n .................................

57

8.

9.

Enrollment

Classification,

in the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n
In the s t a t e

G r o u p e d by C o n t e n t

.

.

of M i c h i g a n

Area ofInterest

.
.

,
.

.

30
.

.

11

30

45

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to t h e C o m m u n i t y
A c c e p t a n c e o f D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as
C l a s s i f i e d by T o t a l , S c h o o l S i ze , a n d
T y p e o f C o u n t y ............................................ 61

vil

Page

Table
10.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to t he C o m m u n i t y
A c c e p t a n c e of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as
C l assified by Secondary Adm i n i s t r a t i v e
E x p e r i e n c e of the P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by
w h i c h the P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d t o D r i v e ,
a nd W h e t h e r C r e d i t w a s g i v e n for
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .....................................

11.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to t h e C o m m u n i t y
A c c e p t a n c e o f D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as
C l a s s i f i e d by T y p e of P r o g r a m O f f e r e d ,
and T y p e o f L a b o r a t o r y I n s t r u c t i o n .............. 65

12.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to C i t i z e n s h i p
D e v e l o p m e n t A m o n g S t u d e n t s E n r o l l e d In
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by T o t a l ,
S c h o o l S i z e , a n d T y p e o f C o u n t y .................. 67

13.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
Percentages, R e lative to Citizenship
D e v e l o p m e n t A m o n g S t u d e n t s E n r o l l e d In
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by
S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e r i e n c e of
t he P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by w h i c h the
P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d to D r i v e , and W h e t h e r
C r e d i t was g i v e n for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n ,

1*4.

15.

16.

63

. . .

69

Responses of Principals, E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to C i t i z e n s h i p
D e v e l o p m e n t A m o n g S t u d e n t s E n r o l l e d In
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by T y p e
of Prog r a m Offered, and Type of
L a b o r a t o r y I n s t r u c t i o n ..............................

71

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
Percentages, R e l a t i v e to t h e . A v a i l ­
a b i l i t y of G u i d e l i n e s and I n f o r m a t i o n
f or D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by
T o t a l , S c h o o l S i z e , and T y p e o f C o u n t y

. . .

73

.

76

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to th e A v a i l ­
ability of Guidelines and Information
for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by
S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e r i e n c e of
the P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by w h i c h the
P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d to D r i v e , a n d W h e t h e r
C r e d i t was g i v e n for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .
viil

.

.

Pa ge

T ab l e
17.

18.

19.

20.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the A v a i l ­
ability of G u i d e l i n e s an d I n f o r m a t i o n
for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by
T y p e of P r o g r a m O f f e r e d , an d T y p e of
Laboratory Instruction .

78

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the A d m i n i s ­
t ra t i o n of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d
by To t a l , S c h o o l Si ze, and T y p e of C o u n t y

.

,

82

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the A d m i n i s ­
t r a t i o n of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d
by S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e r i e n c e of
the P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by w h i c h the Prin«clpal L e a r n e d to Drive, and W h e t h e r C r ed i t
..................
was g i v e n for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n

85

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the A d m i n i s ­
t r a t i o n of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d
by Type of P r o g r a m O f f e r e d , and Ty p e of
L a b o r a t o r y I n s t r u c t i o n .............................

87

21.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to T h e i r A c c e p t a n c e
o f D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by To tal,
S c h o o l Size, and T y p e of C o u n t y ..................... 90

22.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to T h e i r A c c e p t a n c e
of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by
S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e r i e n c e of the
P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by w h i c h the P r i n c i p a l
L e a r n e d to Drive, a nd W h e t h e r C r e d i t was
g i v e n for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n ......................... 95

23.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to T h e i r A c c e p t a n c e
of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by Ty p e
of P r o g r a m O f f e r e d , and T y p e of L a b o r a t o r y
I n s t r u c t i o n ........................................

24.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the Re m oval of
R e q u i r e d D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d
by T otal, S c h o o l Size, and T y p e of C o u n t y
Ix

.

100

. 105

Table
25.

26.

27.

28.

Page
R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the R e m o v a l o f
R e q u i r e d D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d
by S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e E x p e r i e n c e
of the P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by w h i c h the
P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d to D r i v e , a n d W h e t h e r
C r e d i t w as g i v e n for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .

.

.

.

109

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the R e m o v a l of
R e q u i r e d D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d
by T y p e o f P r o g r a m O f f e r e d a n d T y p e of
L a b o r a t o r y I n s t r u c t i o n ..............................

113

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to R a i s i n g the
D r i v e r L i c e n s i n g A ge to S e v e n t e e n as
C l a s s i f i e d b y T o t a l , S c h o o l S i z e , an d
T y p e o f C o u n t y .....................................

118

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to R a i s i n g the
D r i v e r L i c e n s i n g A g e to S e v e n t e e n as
C l a s s i f i e d by S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
E x p e r i e n c e o f t h e P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by
w h i c h the P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d to D r i v e ,
a n d W h e t h e r C r e d i t w a s g i v e n for
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .....................................

120

29.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to R a i s i n g t he
D r i v e r L i c e n s i n g A g e to S e v e n t e e n as
C l a s s i f i e d by T y p e of P r o g r a m O f f e r e d ,
a nd T y p e o f L a b o r a t o r y I n s t r u c t i o n .................122

30.

Responses of Principals, E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to th e R e i m b u r s e ­
m en t R a t e s for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as
C l a s s i f i e d by T o t a l , S c h o o l S i z e , and
T y p e o f C o u n t y ....................................... 12*4

31.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the R e i m b u r s e ­
m e n t R a t e s for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as
C l a s s i f i e d by S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
E x p e r i e n c e o f the P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by
w h i c h the P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d to D r i v e ,
and W h e t h e r C r e d i t was g i v e n for
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .....................................
x

129

Table

Page

32.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to t he R e i m b u r s e ­
m e n t R a t e s f o r D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as
C l a s s i f i e d by T y p e o f P r o g r a m O f f e r e d ,
and Type of Laboratory
I n s t r u c t i o n ................ 133

33.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to R e s t r u c t u r i n g
the D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s as
C l a s s i f i e d by T o t a l , S c h o o l S i z e , a n d
T y p e o f C o u n t y ...........................................139

34.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to R e s t r u c t u r i n g
the D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s as
C l a s s i f i e d by S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
E x p e r i e n c e of the P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by
w h i c h t he P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d t o D r i v e ,
a nd W h e t h e r C r e d i t w a s g i v e n for
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .....................................

IU3

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to R e s t r u c t u r i n g
t he D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s as
C l a s s i f i e d by T y p e o f P r o g r a m O f f e r e d ,
and Type of L a boratory I n s truction . .

147

35.

36.

.

.

.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the A d o p t i o n
of U n i f o r m S t a t e w i d e D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n
as C l a s s i f i e d by T o t a l , S c h o o l Size,
a nd T y p e of C o u n t y ............................. .

, 152

37.

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to t h e A d o p t i o n
of U n i f o r m S t a t e w i d e D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n
as C l a s s i f i e d b y S e c o n d a r y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
E x p e r i e n c e of the P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d by
W h i c h the P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d to D r i v e , and
W h e t h e r C r e d i t was g i v e n for D r i v e r
E d u c a t i o n .............................................. 154

38.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to t h e A d o p t i o n
of U n i f o r m Statewide Driver Education
as C l a s s i f i e d b y T y p e o f P r o g r a m O f f e r e d ,
a n d T y p e of L a b o r a t o r y I n s t r u c t i o n . . .

xi

.

.

156

Table
39.

40.

41.

42.

Page
Responses of Principals, E x p r e s s e d In
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the E m p l o y m e n t
of R e g i o n a l C o o r d i n a t o r s to D i r e c t
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by T o t a l ,
S c h o o l Size, an d T y p e o f C o u n t y .

.

R e s p o n s e s o f P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the E m p l o y m e n t
o f R e g i o n a l C o o r d i n a t o r s to D i r e c t
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by
Secondary A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Expe r i e n c e of
the P r i n c i p a l , M e t h o d b y W h i c h the
P r i n c i p a l L e a r n e d to D r i v e , a n d W h e t h e r
Credit was gi v e n for Driver E d u c a t i o n .

.160

R e s p o n s e s of P r i n c i p a l s , E x p r e s s e d in
P e r c e n t a g e s , R e l a t i v e to the E m p l o y m e n t
o f R e g i o n a l C o o r d i n a t o r s to D i r e c t
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n as C l a s s i f i e d by T y p e
of P r o g r a m O f f e r e d , a n d T y p e of
L a b o r a t o r y I n s t r u c t i o n ..................

.

F r e q u e n c y of R e c o r d e d R e s p o n s e s to the
"Open-Ended” Statements
...............

xii

.

158

162

. 164

CHAPTER
♦
In 1969,

cost

THE PROBLEM

the National Safety

of 5 6 , 4 0 0 d e a t h s ,
estimated

I

2,000,000

Council reported a total

personal

injuries and an

of $ 1 1 ,8 0 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . 0 0 d o l l a r s

as a r e s u l t o f

motor vehicle accidents.1
In the s t a t e
of S t a t e

of M i c h i g a n d u r i n g 1 9 6 9 , the D e p a r t m e n t

Police reported a total

t h e i r li v es ,

175,400 persons

o f 2, 4 87

were

cost o f $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 d o l l a r s ,

individuals

lost

injured and an estimated
as a r e s u l t

of motor

vehicle accide nt s. 2
During the
of 1 5 8 , 0 1 0

fiscal year ending June

students^

o f age,

1969,

a total

completed an approved d r i v e r education

p r o g r a m in t h e p u b l i c
if 16 y e a r s

30,

schools

to a p p l y

operate a motor vehicle.

of M i c h i g a n a n d w e r e e l i g i b l e ,
for a d r i v e r ’s l i c e n s e to

With this number of young people

b e i n g o f f e r e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in the p u b l i c

iNational Safety Council,
Traffic S a f e t y . National Safety

schools,

the

"The 19 6 9 T r a f f i c S t o r y , "
C o u n c i l , (March, 1970), p.

2 D e p a r t m e n t of S t a t e P o l i c e , M i c h i g a n T r a f f i c
D i g e s t . M i c h i g a n S t a t e P o l i c e , (1969), p T 8.

30.

Accident

3s t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , S u m m a r y o f A n n u a l
R e i m b u r s e m e n t R e p o r t s . S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , F i s c a l
Y e a r R e p o r t , (July l"7 1 9 6 8 t h r o u g h J u n e 30, 1969 ), p. 1.

1

2
type o f c u r r i c u l u m in d r i v e r
t he s e c o n d a r y

school principal

p r o g r a m is b e i n g o f f e r e d ,
T h r o u g h t he y e a r s
i n c l u d e d in t h e p u b l i c
1956 by s t a t e
place.

e d u c a t i o n an d the o p i n i o n of
In the

becomes

law**), m a n y

The r e i m b u r s e m e n t

c u r r i c u l u m In M i c h i g a n
events have

fo r s t u d e n t s

to t h e p r e s e n t

$ 30 . 00 d o l l a r s 6

per student

pro g r a m .

A multiple

reimbursement

taken

from

rate

of up to

c ompleting the driver education

car off-street

s t r u c t e d at M i c h i g a n S t a t e

(since

c o m p l e t i n g an

a p p r o v e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m has i n c r e a s e d
$25 . 00 d o l l a r s ®

Important.

e d u c a t i o n has b e e n

significant
rate

In w h i c h the

increasingly

th at d r i v e r
school

school

driving r a n g e 7 was

U n i v e r s i t y I n 1956,

con­

and a manual

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m m i n g ® w a s

i s s u e d by t h e M i c h i g a n

Department

Includes

of E d u c a t i o n .

T h is m a n u a l

the d r i v e r

^ S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n , S e c t ­
i o n 811 o f Act No. 300 o f the P u b l i c A c t s of 1 9 4 9 , as A m e n d e d
b e i n g S e c t i o n 2 5 7 . 8 1 1 o f t h e C o m p i l e d L a w s o f 1 9^ 8 (State
D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n ) , pT 1.
®State of Mi c h i g a n 68th Le g i s l a t u r e E x t r a Session of
1955, E n r o l l e d H o u s e B il l No. 1 (State D e p a r t m e n t o f
E d u c a t i o n ) , p~. 2~.
6 s t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , S e c t i o n 811 o f Act no. 300
of the P u b l i c Acts of 19 ^9, as A m e n d e d , b e i n g S e c t i o n 2 5 7 . 6 1 1
of the C o m p i l e d La w s o f 1 9 ^8 (State D e p a r t m e n t o £ E d u c a t i o n ,
D e c e m b e r 5 , 1969) , pT 5"!
7 R o b e r t E. B r a z e l l , "A F o l l o w - U p S t u d y o f P u b l i c S c h o o l
D r i v e r T r a i n e e s , R e l a t i n g D r i v i n g P e r f o r m a n c e R e c o r d s to
Selected Academic and T r a i n i n g Factors."
(Unpublished Disser­
tat i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1 9 6 2 ) , p. 3 8 .
^ M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n P r o ­
g r a m m i n g . J a n u a r y 197 0 ( M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n ) ,
p p .1-14 8.

3
education

law,

programs,

and various

suggestions.
vided

r ul e s

of o p e r a t i o n

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

curricular specifications

T h e N a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S a f e t y Act o f 1966 p r o ­

fo r a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s t a n d a r d ,

the r e q u i r e m e n t s

for c o m p l i a n c e ,

c la u se w h i c h

could result
q
Revenue F u n d s .
Supporters
p oi n t

in

4.4,4, w h i c h

and provided

loss

in t r a f f i c

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n is n ot
operate
Many

violations

13

among teenagers

course, while

u s i n g o t h e r d a ta ,

c l a i m t h at

adequately preparing students

to

a motor vehicle.

suggestions,

proposals,

b e e n o f f e r e d by e d u c a t o r s

1966

for a p e n a l t y

of Federal Highway

c o m p l e t i n g an a c c r e d i t e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

safely

specifies

of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ,

to th e d e c r e a s e

c ri t ic s

and

and alternatives

to i m p r o v e

th e p r e s e n t

have

driver

^ P u b l i c L a w 8 9 - 5 6 4 , N a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S a f e t y Act
( I n s u r a n c e I n s t i t u t e for H i g h w a y S a f e t y ), p. 9.

of

10American Automobile Association, Driver Education
S e r v i c e s o f t h e AA A ( A m e r i c a n A u t o m o b i l e A s s n .). M a r c h .
196-9, p. 1.---------^ T r a f f i c Safety A s s o c i a t i o n of Detroit, T r a f f i c
Safety Assoc iatio n B u l l e t i n (Traffic Safety Association
D e t r o i t) , F e b r u a r y , 1962, p. 1.

of

12T h o m a s R. R e i d , L e t *3 M e e t the T r a f f i c S a f e t y
C h a l l e n g e ( Auto M a n u f a c t u r e r ^ A s s o c i a t i o n to A m e r i c a n
D r i v e r and T r a f f i c S a f e t y E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n ) , A u g u s t
21, 1969, p. 3.
■ ^" W h a t t he * M o y n i h a n R e p o r t * R e a l l y S a i d A b o u t
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n , T r a f f i c S a f e t y (June, 196 8), pp. 24-25,
36- 3 8 .

education programs.

1J4

More

semester driver education
off-street

courses,

driving ranges,

paration have been

t i m e b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l , full
simulators,

a nd m o r e

effective

o f f e r e d as s u g g e s t i o n s

multiple

ca r

teacher pre­

to I m p r o v e d r i v e r

education.
With the
$^,738,079.31

expenditure,

by

the s t a t e

d o l l a r s 1 "* d u r i n g t he

of Michigan,

fiscal year

of

1 9 6 9 , the

p r o b l e m o f e f f e c t i v e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n In
the p u b l i c

schools

assumes

In r e t r o s p e c t ,
has not b e e n
tional

encouraging,

but w i l l

upon two basic

of Michigan;

t he

On e p o s s i b l e

of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
s tate

importance*

M i c h l g a n fs t r a f f i c

encouragement?

tion d e p e n d s

tremendous

accident

future offer addi­

a n s w e r to th is q u e s ­

fa c t o r s :

fi rst,

the quality

curriculum being offered

and secondly,

record

the

availability

in th e
o f an

a c c r e d i t e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m fo r t h e y o u n g p e o p l e
near

l i c e n s i n g age.

The

r e s o l v e d by t h e a d o p t i o n
a p p l i c a b l e to s c h o o l s
M i c h i g a n . 1^

first

f a c t o r has b e e n p a r t i a l l y

of guidelines

for m i n i m u m standards

o f f e r i n g a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m In

A s o l u t i o n to the s e c o n d

factor depends

u p o n the

ll4
Highway Traffic Safety Center, How to Improve Driver
E d u c a t i o n In M i c h i g a n ( H i g h w a y T r a f f i c S a f e t y C e n t e r , C o n ­
tinuing Education Service, Michigan State University,
D e c e m b e r , 1966), pp. II-XV.
15

State

Department

of E d u c a t i o n ,

o p . c l t . , p.

2.

^ M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n
P r o g r a m m i n g , J a n u a r y 1970 ( M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n ) ,

f T. b.

5
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in, and the

frequency with which driver

e d u c a t i o n is o f f e r e d to y o u t h o f l i c e n s i n g age.
state l a w 1 ? r e q u i r e d that

In 1956*

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n be m a d e a v a i l ­

able to all y o u t h of l i c e n s i n g age by the p u b l i c sc h o o l s
of Michigan.
To date,

no one has a t t e m p t e d to d e t e r m i n e by a

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sa mple,

the o p i n i o n s o f s e c o n d a r y s ch o ol

p r i n c i p a l s r e g a r d i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s in t h e state
of Mi c hi g an .

F e e d b a c k r e g a r d i n g t h e i r o p i n i o n s o f the

administration of driver education,

therefore,

s y s t e m a t i c a l l y o bt a in e d.

c o n d u c t e d by the

H ig h wa y T r a f f i c
in 1966,

Safety

A sur vey,

C e n t e r at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,

a t t e m p t e d to d e t e r m i n e wh at was n e e d e d to I m p r o v e

d ri v er e d u c a t i o n in M i c h i g a n . 1 ®
views w i t h s e c o n d a r y

T h is

study I n c l u d e d I n t e r ­

s chool p r i n c i p a l s ,

to s c i e n t i f i c a l l y sample,
e m p l o y e d in the p u b l i c

secondary

but did not a t t e m p t

s chool p r i n c i p a l s

s c ho o ls o f M ic h i g a n .

It Is a s s u m e d t h e r e f o r e ,
obtained

has n e v e r b e e n

that m e a n i n g f u l

d a t a w i l l be

fr o m a n o p i n i o n s u rvey d e s i g n e d to i n c l u d e a

s c i e n t if i c s a m p l e of s e c o n d a r y
this survey will be n ef i t

sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s a n d that

d r i v e r e d u c a t o r s by:

a better understanding among secondary

(1) d e v e l o p i n g

sc hool p r i n c i p a l s

E s t a t e of M i c h i g a n 68 th L e g i s l a t u r e , Ex t ra S e s s i o n
of 1955 > E n r o l l e d Ho u se Bi ll No. 1, o p . c i t . , p. 1.
^Highway

T ra f f i c

S a f e t y Center,

loc. cit.

^

6
a nd d r i v e r e d u c a t o r s ,
problems with which

by a s k i n g p r i n c i p a l s

they

are

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ,
knowledge and Impact
systems

(2) p r o v i d i n g

as d e f i n e d by t he o p i n i o n s
(3)

directives,

guidelines,

education,
opinions

and

and Information

effective

In M i c h i g a n t h e o p i n i o n s
n e e d to b e o b t a i n e d ,

opinions

of s e c o n d a r y

to o b t a i n a n d d e f i n e

This

of s e c o n d a r y

school

this

fo r n e w p r o g r a m s ,

research

survey

of t h e P r o b l e m

of this

survey

(1)

to d e t e r m i n e

the

in the s t a t e o f

secondary school principals

and

(2)

to

fe lt w as n e e d e d

of th e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m as

o u t l i n e d by the D e p a r t m e n t
Michigan.

attempts

information.

school principals

to r e s o l v e th e p r o b l e m s

of

in M i c h i g a n ,

M i c h i g a n r e g a r d i n g t he d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ,
determine what

systems.

driver education program

school principals

Statement

opinions

and negative

regarding driver

in o r d e r t o p r o v i d e

the p u r p o s e

to d river

of secondary school p r incipals

a nd g u i d e l i n e s .

It w a s

relative

and their respective

To develop a more

school

of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

school principals

e d u c a t i o n in M i c h i g a n ,

proposals,

In p u b l i c s c h o o l

c l a s s i f y i n g the p o s i t i v e

of s e c o n d a r y

first-hand

of s e c o n d a r y

identifying the status

(4)

the

c o n f r o n t e d In a d m i n i s t e r i n g

of driver education

principals,

to I d e n t i f y

of E ducation

in t h e s t a t e of

7
D a t a r e l a t i v e to t h e s e
opinions of secondary
c e r n i n g th e

statements

school principals

following specific

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s ta f f,

(2)

r e q u i r e d that
to q u e s t i o n s

areas be answered:

community

acceptance

the
con­

(1)
of the

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m b e i n g o f f e r e d in th e p u b l i c
schools,

(3) the e f f e c t i v e n e s s

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in

developing citizenship among those
th e d r i v e r

education program,

a nd i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e

students

enrolled

(*1) t h e s t a t u s

in d r i v e r

of guidelines

education,

(5) the

administration of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n program,
a c c e p t a n c e o f the p r e s e n t
principals,

public

schools,

licensing age to seventeen,

driver education programs

(9) r e i m b u r s e m e n t

completing driver education,

(10)

driver education requirements,

rates

of regional

(11)

a mandatory
schools,

and

to d i r e c t

(12)

the d r i v e r

an accurate

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

state o f M i c h i g a n as o u t l i n e d by

the opinions

s ch o ol p r i n c i p a l s .

This tabulated data will

g u i d e to e d u c a t o r s ,

both

Sta t e D e p a r t m e n t

and uniform

s ch o ol s .

This research survey will provide
a nd e v a l u a t i o n of t h e n e e d s

fo r s t u d e n t s

coordinators

e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in the p u b l i c

f r o m the

the r e s t r u c t u r i n g o f

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in a l l p u b l i c
the e m p l o y m e n t

(6) the

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m by t he

(7) r a i s i n g the d r i v e r

(8) r e m o v i n g r e q u i r e d

in

tabulation

in the

of s e c o n d a r y
s e r v e as a

in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a n d in the

of Education,

responsible

fo r i n n o v a t i o n s ,

8

administration, and changes In the driver education curri­
culum in the public schools of the state of Michigan.

It is

to this objective that the research survey is being conducted.
Importance of the Survey
Heretofore, the State Department of Education has not
exposed secondary school principals to guidelines for admin­
istering a driver education program, yet because of their
role, principals have been assigned the responsibility of
structuring, developing, scheduling, and implementing a
driver education program In their school system.
It Is also theorized that the limited facts available
concerning the opinions of the secondary school principals
toward driver education programs, handicapped driver
educators and officials in accurately assessing the needs
confronting the secondary school principals.
Scope of the Survey
This research survey was limited to a random strati­
fied sample of 293 secondary school principals In the public
schools of Michigan.
per cent

During the 1968-1969 school year, 9^

of all s t u d e n t s

M ic h ig a n were

e n r o l l e d In d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in

In the p u b l i c s c h o o l program.

19
?

The individuals sampled In this research survey repre­
sent 293 public secondary school principals in various
19

State Department of Education, o p . c i t . . p. 1.

9
Michigan public

high schools

athletic purposes

20

c l a s s i f i e d by

size

for

and M i c higan Education Association

g e o g r a p h i c a l r e gions.
D e f i n i t i o n of Terms
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n as u s e d in th i s
to the

i n d i v i d u a l or g r o u p

the m a n a g e m e n t

Used
research survey

of i n d i v i d u a l s

a n d s u p e r v i s i o n of a s e g m e n t

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in a p u b l i c
term may

a l s o a p pl y t o th e v a r i o u s

sibilities

responsible

delegated

the i n d i v i d u a l e n r o l l e d

education

driver education

safety materials,
student

to t h e t a s k s ,

u s e d or p r o v i d e d

in t h e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m .

formally

to t h o s e ar e as

taught

curriculum.

classroom instruction

It

of traffic

in the r e g u l a r l y
consists

scheduled

of t w o p a r t s :

an d p r a c t i c e d r iv i n g .

Information,

All traffic

an d d a t a s u p p l i e d

to t he

in the s c h e d u l e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e w e r e

I n c l u d e d in t h e term,

driver education.

Driving simulator
which enables

students

Is an e l e c t r o - m e c h a n i c a l d e v i c e
in s i m u l a t e d

cars to r e a c t

d r i v i n g s i t u a t i o n s , p r o j e c t e d on a m o t i o n p i c t u r e

20

The

administrator.

and m a t e r i a l s

Driver Education refers
safety

s ch o ol .

of

t a s k s , d u t i e s , and r e s p o n ­

to an i n d i v i d u a l

assignments,

fo r

or s e g m e n t s

high

C u r r i c u l u m in D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n a p p l i e s
activities,

refers

to
s cr e en ,

Michigan High School Athletic Association Bulletin,
D i r e c t o r y I ss u e 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 7 0 S c h o o l Y e a r . V o l u m e X L V I , N o v e m b e r ,
1969, N u m b e r 4-S ( M i c h i g a n H i g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n ) ,
P. 229.

10
W h i l e the

students

programmed Into

re a c t ,

automatic

the f i l m s ,

Metro and Non-Metro
are d e f i n e d as,
50.000

"that

inhabitants

p o p u l a t i o n o f at
or counties
counties
data,

Counties

or m o r e " ,

or

50 , 00 0 ".

contains

c ou n ty w h i c h

la c ks at

cities,

if,

contiguous

a c c o r d i n g to c e r t a i n
in c h a r a c t o r a nd

s t a t e is d e f i n e d

one city

"that

least

inhabitants."
Michigan Athletic

p ub l ic

as,

city.

of 5 0 , 0 0 0 p o p u l a t i o n "

"tw in c i t i e s w i t h a c o m b i n e d p o p u l a t i o n o f at

50.000

city of

i n t e g r a t e d w i t h the c e n t r a l

i n the

l east

one

In a d d i t i o n to t he c o u n t y ,

t he y are e s s e n t i a l l y m e t r o p o l i t a n

A non-metro county

state of Michigan

"twin cities with a combined

counties

are s o c i a l l y a n d e c o n o m i c a l l y

or

In the

containing such described

are t e r m e d m e t r o

checks,

are recorded.

county which

least

progress

high schools

Enrollment

in the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n a r e

a c c o r d i n g to the n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t s
sc h o o l g r a d e s

9-12.

athletic

down of these
Multiple

enrolled

Car Off-Street

classified

Enrollment

be r e f e r r e d to as s c h o o l

classification,

classification

All

in the p u b l i c

The Michigan Athletic

Classification hereafter will
fication,

Classification.

or s c h o o l

categories

A break­

is l i s t e d in T a b l e

Driving Range

specially designed and constructed

size.

classi­

1.

is a n a r e a

for the purpose

of

t e a c h i n g a p o r t i o n o f t he b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e o f d r i v e r
e du c at i on .

This

a r e a is d e s i g n e d to s i m u l a t e

s treet d r i v i n g e x p e r i e n c e s
and m a r k i n g s .

including standard

actual on-thes i gn s ,

signals,

11
T A B L E 1. — M i c h i g a n A t h l e t i c E n r o l l m e n t
Class

Classification

N u m b e r of S t u d e n t s

Class A '

1200 or m o r e

students
s t udents

Class

B

550 to 1199

Class

C

300 to

5^9 s t ud e n t s

Less th a n 300 st u d e n t s

Class D

On-The-Street

Instruction refers

to t ha t p o r t i o n o f the

p r a c t i c e d r i v i n g p h a s e of the c o u r s e d u r i n g w h i c h s t u d e n t s
had a n o p p o r t u n i t y
p ublic

to d r i v e du a l

c o n t r o l l e d cars o n the

st r ee t s and h i g h w a y s u n d e r the d i r e c t i o n an d s u p e r v i s i o n

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n i ns t ru c to r s.
O p i n i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d o c u m e n t

containing a

seri es o f s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h r e q u i r e d a n o p i n i o n r e s p o n s e
the s e c o n d a r y

school p ri n ci p al .

r e s e a r c h su rv ey,

from

For the p u r p o s e s o f this

the t e r m o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e was us e d

i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y w i t h the t e r m d i a g n o s t i c

instrument.

Sc h o o l Y e a r r e f e r r e d to in this r e s e a r c h s urvey is
that p e r i o d o f time b e t w e e n J u n e
of the s u c c e e d i n g year.
r e f e r r e d to as the f iscal

30 of one y e a r a n d J u l y

1

The t e r m s ch o ol y e a r is c o m m o n l y
school y e a r or fi s c a l year.

S e c o n d a r y S c ho o l P r i n c i p a l was the a d m i n i s t r a t o r
d r i e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e for the m a n a g e m e n t an d s u p e r v i s i o n of
the s e c o n d a r y s c ho o l p r o g r a m i n v o l v i n g g r a d e s
9-12, or 10-12.

Th is

7-12,

8-12,

i n d i v i d u a l u s u a l l y wa s th e first

line

a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in a s c ho o l
system.

12
O r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e R e m a i n i n g C h a p t e r s
In C h a p t e r II p e r t i n e n t
Presented

In C h a p t e r

of p r o c e d u r e ,
secondary

(2)

III are th e

in this

survey,

of t h e s a m p l i n g t e c h n i q u e s

a nd

(5)

sampling procedures

C h a p t e r IV c o n t a i n s

an a n a l y s i s

while Chapter V presents
mendations,

(3)

used,

detailed

(4)

a detailed

a r e a in t h e s t a t e

and project

of the d a t a and

the s u m m a r y ,

and d i s c u s s i o n

(1) m e t h o d s

f or o b t a i n i n g t h e

o u t l i n e of the s a m p l i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n by
Michigan,

Is r e v i e w e d .

following:

selection procedures

school principals

descriptions

literature

findings,

conclusions,

of the r e s e a r c h

de sign.

su rvey.

recom­

of

C H A P T E R II
REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE

Introduction
It was
that

evident

at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this

few r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s h a d b e e n

the o p i n i o n s

of secondary

education programs.

Michigan State University,
t io n L i b r a r y ,

However,

at

of Educa­

of M i c h i g a n M i c r o f i l m s

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n th at

on the s e c o n d a r y

it m u s t be n o t e d

ature v a r y i n g in q u a l i t y

driver

Library

the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

d i s c l o s e d no r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s

involved

toward

of the T h e s i s

and the University

focused directly

conducted that

school principals

A search

Investigation

that

existed

of:

driver education,

the

and

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

approach

school principal.
va st

amounts

of lit e r ­

in the I n d i v i d u a l a r e a s

secondary

school p r i n c i p a l s h i p ,

in d e s c r i p t i v e - s u r v e y

studies.
A t h o r o u g h r e v i e w o f the
s urvey has b e e n
s ec t io n s:

conducted and

(1) r e l a t e d d r i v e r

i n v o l v e d the s e c o n d a r y

literature pertinent
Is p r e s e n t e d
education

school principal,

In the f o l l o w i n g

studies
(2)

H i g h w a y S a f e t y S t a n d a r d on D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n ,

13

t o this

t h at

the N a t i o n a l
(3)

the

14
M i c h i g a n D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n Law,
ment

and

of E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m m i n g G ui d e
The

(4) the M i c h i g a n Depart*for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .

f o l l o w i n g q u o t a t i o n by A a r o n and S t r a s s e r 1

e n d o r s e d the i nh e r e n t

i m p o r t a n c e of p r o p e r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n program.
S u c c e s s of the d r i v e r and t r a f f i c s af e ty e d u c a t i o n
p r o g r a m is in large m e a s u r e d e p e n d e n t on p r o p e r
administration.
T h e s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r must
a s s u m e full r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the p r o p e r o r g a n i ­
za t i o n a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of this p r o g r a m a l o n g
w i t h his o t h e r m a j o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e tasks.
More­
over, the a d m i n i s t r a t o r is r e s p o n s i b l e for the
e v a l u a t i o n and s uc c es s of the p r o g r a m con tent and
i n s t r u c t i o n on a c o n t i n u o u s b a s i s . 2
R e l a t e d D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n St u d i e s that
the S e c o n d a r y Sc h o o l PrlTTcs n
In 1958, N o r m a n Key,
American University,
Status

in a st u dy

Washington,

D.

Involved

c o n d u c t e d at the

C . , t i t l e d "The

o f D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n In the U n i t e d St a te s " s a m p l e d

the 48 S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t s

of E d u c a t i o n and 585 h i g h sc hools

by q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
T he p u r p o s e

of Key*s

s ta n d ar d s and p r a c t i c e s ,

study wa s to i de n t i f y

the

bo th a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and

J am e s E. A a r o n and M a r l a n d K, S t r a s s e r , D r i v e r &
Traffic S a f e t y E d u c a t l o n - - C o n t e n t . M e t h o d s , and O r g a n l z a
tlon CThe M a c m i l l a n C o mpany. 1 9 6 6 J. p. 101.
2I b l d .
JN o r m a n K e y , S tatus of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n in the
United S t a t e s (Washi n gt o n, D. C . , N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n on
Safety E d u c a t i o n , N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , I960).

15
Instructional,
programs

then being employed

throughout

On the basis
the h i g h
pal,

schools

th e U n i t e d St a te s .
o f the r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

sampled,

assistant principal,

driver and/or safety
the h i g h s c h o o l s

Key

concluded:

or d e a n w a s

that

responded,

high schools

that

classroom and b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l
Key r e p o r t e d t h e
inh e re n t

difficulty

the p r i n c i ­

responsible

(2)

that

offered

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

of the p u b l i c

(1)

and

credit

(3)

that

toward
47 per* cent

responded offered both a
driver education program.

limitations

in a c c u r a t e

communication between

location observation of conditions

and practices.

limitations were

of s a m p l i n g t e c h n i q u e s

an d the g e n e r a l

Implications
the su r v e y

across

the

from Key's

of o p i n i o n s

la c k of on-

familiarity

Key,

op.

o f the

offered

s t ud y

of s e c o n d a r y

t ha t

in

are r e l e v a n t

to

school principals

In

the type of d river e d u c a ­

tion p r o g r a m o f f e r e d In t h e p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l s ,

4

the use

c ou ntry.

the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n i n c l u d e d :

administrative aspects

He

c o n t r o l l e d by

investigator with driver education programs
the s c h o o l s y s t e m s

t he

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n as d e t e r m i n e d

c l t . , pp.

2,

4

of the s t u d y w e r e t he

and the

the

for th e

approximately

the I n v e s t i g a t o r a n d the a u d i e n c e ,

c o n c l u d e d th at

from

e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in 7 p e r cent o f

66 p e r c en t of the h i g h s c h o o l s
graduation

In d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

5,

12,

55,

16
by th e p r i n c i p a l ,

a nd t h e s t a t u s

e d u c a t i o n as v i e w e d by

the s e c o n d a r y

A study"* in 1965
County Traffic Safety

the C o u n t y ' s

were divided

Committee

involved

spiraling traffic

( M ic h ig a n)

the v o l u n t e e r

toll.

concerned

The

volunteers

one of wh i c h was

Safety Education.

t r a t e d on a s e p a r a t e
a nd s u b m i t t e d

school principal.

and officials who were

into seven groups,

D r i v e r an d T r a f f i c

of driver

c o n d u c t e d b y th e O a k l a n d

e f f o r t s o f 202 c i t i z e n s
about

and acceptance

titled

Each group

concen­

aspect of traffic accident prevention

a report

to t h e t o t a l

c o m m i t t e e at th e c o m ­

p l e t i o n o f the study.
The
Education
were

findings

of t h e D r i v e r a n d T r a f f i c S a f e t y

group included

14 r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ,

g i v e n to p p r i o r i t y .

i nc l u d e d :

(1)

These

t he e m p l o y m e n t

education,

teacher qualification

and

(3)

I n c r e a s i n g the n u m b e r

education from

30 to at

(2) t h e

competencies

least

40 h o u r s ,

improvement

and m u l t i p l e

for:

and

in driver
(4)

Cl)

the
co urse.

increasing

car off-street

driv­

ing r a n g e s

f o r the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e o f d r i v e r

education,

(2)

5

i n c r e a s i n g the d r i v e r

of

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

as a fu l l s e m e s t e r

recommendations

the use of s i m u l a t o r s

coordinator

of c l a s s r o o m h o u r s

teaching of driver education
Also included were

four recommendations

of a c o u n t y

for d r i v e r a n d s a f e t y

f o u r of w h i c h

l i c e n s i n g a g e to

Oakland County Traffic Safety Committee, Summary
Report of R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s All Study Groups (Oakland bounty
T r a f f i c S a f e t y C o m m i s s i o n , 1 ^ ^ 5 ) , p p . 62-79.

17
17, and

(3) o f f e r i n g c redit t o w a r d g r a d u a t i o n for s t u d e n t s

c o m p l e t i n g the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n program.
E a c h of th e se r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 'by the D r i v e r and
T ra f f ic

Sa f et y E d u c a t i o n g r o u p d i r e c t l y e n c o m p a s s e d the

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of d r i v e r education.
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w as
o pinions

Inferred,by these

the n e e d to a c c u r a t e l y

of s e c o n d a r y

sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s

i d e n t i f y the

t o w a r d the d r i v e r

e d u c a t i o n p r ogram.
O f s p e c i a l no te w a s

the s tatementi

The d r i v e r a n d t r af f ic sa f e t y e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m
in O a k l a n d C o u n t y can be no b e t t e r t h a n that
w h i c h the p e o p l e wa nt . . . and that w h i c h the
p e o p l e w a n t de p en d s u p on the i n s p i r a t i o n a l
l e a d e r s h i p p r o v i d e d by the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of
the p r o g r a m . ®
At the r e q u e s t
c o n d u c t e d by

of the G o v e r n o r a 1966 st u dy

the H ig h w a y T r a f f i c

gan S t at e U n i v e r s i t y

S afety C e n t e r at M i c h i ­

that i n v o l v e d 57 sc h o o l d i s t r i c t s

In the state of Mi c hi g an .
identify,

The study was d e s i g n e d to

"What was N e e d e d to I mp r ov e D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n

In M i c h i g a n . "

N u m e r o u s i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e q u e s t i o n e d via

p er sonal I n t e r v i e w t e c h n i q u e s

and q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

In the study we re d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t ea c hers,
cipals,

was

c o u n s e l or s ,

students,

pa r e n t s ,

Included

school p r i n ­

and p o l i c e

and

court officials.
6 I b i d ., p. 63.
7
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , wH o w to I m p r o v e D r i v e r
E du c a t i o n In M i c h i g a n " (Highway T r a f f i c S a f e t y Ce n ter,
M i c h i g a n St a te U n i v e r s i t y , 1966), pp. 139.

18
T he

recommendations

r e p o r t e d by t h e H i g h w a y T r a f f i c

S a f e t y C e n t e r c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l e d th e
Oakland County Traffic
tions I n c l u d e d :
a nd a s s i s t a n c e

(1)

Safety

the

findings

Committee.

Improvement

offered high schools

o f the

These

recommenda­

of th e s u p e r v i s i o n
In the a r e a of d r i v e r

e d u c a t i o n by I n c r e a s i n g the p e r s o n n e l a s s i g n e d

to the

Driver E d u c a t i o n D i v i s i o n of the State D e partment

of

Education,

(2)

I n c r e a s i n g th e m i n i m u m d r i v e r

licensing

ag e t o 17*

(3)

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n to y o u t h u n d e r

ag e

18 o n l y I n s c h o o l s

granting a high school diploma,

(4)

awarding of credit

towards

graduation

c o m p l e t i n g th e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ,
the n u m b e r o f h o u r s
m u m o f 45 h o u r s ,
teachers

(6)

the r e i m b u r s e m e n t

the i n v o l v e m e n t

safety
rate

for s t u d e n t s

area specified

Center Study
pals

increasing

of driver education

oriented

activities,

approved driver education
Each

(5)

f or c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n to a m i n i ­

In m o r e p r o f e s s i o n a l l y

tion a n d t r a f f i c

f or s t u d e n t s

and

driver educa­
(7)

increasing

c o m p l e t i n g an

course.
in the H i g h w a y T r a f f i c

as n e e d i n g i m p r o v e m e n t

affected

Safety

the p r i n c i ­

r o l e in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

Im plied,

by t h e s e

research

to i d e n t i f y

principals

recommendations,
the o p i n i o n s

was

the

importance

of secondary

t o w a r d the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m .

school

of

19
g
Moore

In a 1969 s t u d y

that

Included

s a m p l e o f 120 p u b l i c

and n o n - p u b l i c

of M i c h i g a n

data

pals

schools

from secondary

and other school personnel

techniques

f o u n d that:

(1)

55 p e r

(2)

cent

in class

38 p e r

decisions

concerning

to a g r e a t e r d e g r e e

of t he p r i n ­

co u rs e ,

(3) p r i n c i ­

often involved

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

from smaller high schools,

(4) h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s

cipated

of t h e p r i n c i ­

cent

A and B schools were more

program than were principals
and

Interview

for s u p e r v i s i n g the

cipa ls h a d t a k e n a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

in p o l i c y

school princi­

via personal

Interviewed were responsible

driver education program,

pals

In th e s t a t e

and a questionnaire.

Moore
pals

obtained

a random

In p u b l i c

in p o l i c y

schools

m a k i n g and s u p e r ­

v i s i o n of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t h a n d i d p r i n c i p a l s
public

In non-

s ch o ol s .
Of significance

secondary
that

parti­

to t h e s u r v e y

school principals

were

of o p i n i o n s

the

of

findings by Moore

involved adm i n i s t r a t i v e policy making and s u p e r ­

vision of driver education.
op i n i o n s

of p r incipals

This

c o n c l u d e d t h a t the

In the p u b l i c

driver education directly
decisions.

It was

affected

conclusion

school

toward

their administrative

further endorsed

the n e e d

g
N e v i l L e s l i e M o o r e , "A S t u d y to D e t e r m i n e the
R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , T r a i n i n g , an d T i m e I n v o l v e m e n t o f
T r a f f i c S a f e t y E d u c a t i o n W o r k e r s In S e l e c t e d M i c h i g a n
Schools" (unpublished Dissertation, M i c higan State
U n i v e r s i t y , 19 6 9 ) , p p , 46-51.

20
for r e s e a r c h to I d e n t i f y w h a t s e c o n d a r y
thi n k about

school principals

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m p r e s e n t l y o u t ­

lined by the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t
School

of E du c at i on ,

administrators were

s u r v e y e d by the N a t i o n a l

Safety C o u n c i l at the A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of S c h o o l
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s C o n v e n t i o n h el d in F e b r u a r y , 1970, at
o
A tl a n t i c City, N e w J e rs e y,
I n v o l v e d in the s u r v e y w e r e
4^9 i n d i v i d u a l s

of w h o m 9 p e r cent w e r e sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s .

The su r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e used
sections

that

includedi

the r e s p o n d e n t ,

(1) p r e l i m i n a r y

(2) the a t t i t u d e

dri v er e d u c a t i o n ,

contained

toward

(3) t he a t t i t u d e of the r e s p o n d e n t

in a r a n k order,

and

0*0 the s e l e c ­

of g o v e r n m e n t a l p r o b l e m s that

included:

inflation,

polluti o n,

and the g e n e r a t i o n gap.

Findings

i n f o r m a t i o n about

of the r e s p o n d e n t

toward the future of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,
tion,

four m a j o r

t ra f f i c

i n d i c a t e d that

accidents,

environmental

91 pe r cent of the r e s p o n ­

dents e n d o r s e d hi gh s c h o o l d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n progr a ms .
F i f t y - s i x p e r cent o f the r e s p o n d e n t s I n d i c a t e d that
driver e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d b e f i n a n c e d
funds,

from s ta t e or f ed e r a l

and 72 p er cent of the r e s p o n d e n t s

a probationary

d ri v e r ' s

r e p o r t e d that

li cense s h o u l d be i s s u e d the

you n g driver.
q

K e n n e t h F. L l c h t , "What S c h o o l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s T h i n k
about D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n , " T r a f f i c S a f e t y (National S a f e t y
Council, May, 1970), pp. 2 4-26, 39-^0.

21
B e c a u s e o f the b r e v i t y
Council's

survey

and the

of the Nat i o n a l Safety

l i m i t e d n u m b e r of p r i n c i p a l s

that r e s p o n d e d to t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e
was not

o b t a i n e d . 10

been given
secondary

Further endorsement,

fo r a c o m p r e h e n s i v e
school principals

A v i si t w a s m a d e

survey

of th e o p i n i o n s

of secondary

toward driver education

Michigan.

Mr.

M a l c o m Whale,

Education Division related
research studies had been

conducted

State Superintendent
asse ss

school

in the s t a t e of

D i r e c t o r o f the D r i v e r

c o n d u c t e d that
C it e d,

involved

however,

an Ad Ho c D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n P o l i c y S t u d y

st u dy ,

of

t h at n o d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

secondary school principal.

included

has

of E d u c a t i o n in s e a r c h o f i n f o r ­

principals

This

therefore,

toward driver education.

m a t i o n r e l a t i v e to the o p i n i o n s

R e p o r t 11 t h a t

data

to the D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n D i v i s i o n

of the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

was

representative

one s e c o n d a r y

by Mr.

Whale

Committee

school principal.

in 1964 at th e r e q u e s t
of Public

t he

o f the

Instruction attempted

to

th e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m o f f e r e d in M i c h i g a n

schools.
1 Q I b j d ., p.

40,

^ S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , " T h e R e p o r t
of the A d H o c D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n P o l i c y S t u d y C o m m i t t e e ”
( M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n , S e p t e m b e r , 1964).

22
Reported

in th i s

study was

the

following s t a t e m e n t :

T h e m a j o r f a c t o r b e h i n d the o b s t a c l e s to p r o g r e s s
and th e f a i l u r e to i m p r o v e s t a n d a r d s w h i c h h a v e
o c c u r r e d is the a t t i t u d e of m a n y s c h o o l a d m i n i s ­
t r a t o r s t o w a r d the ( d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ) p r o g r a m .
B e h i n d the a t t i t u d e is t h e d u a l p r e s s u r e u p o n
school administrators from swelling school e n r o l l ­
m e n t s a nd i n a d e q u a t e s c h o o l b u d g e t , p l u s p r e s s u r e
to e m p h a s i z e c o l l e g e e n t r a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s , a n d
to v i e w the a c c i d e n t p r o b l e m as s o m e t h i n g a p a r t
from education.
Mr.

Whale

only i n v o l v e d
tions

stated

th a t,

"principals

on an i n c i d e n t a l b a s i s

presently were

and t h e i r

contribu­

to the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in the s t a t e o f

Michigan have been sadly

overlooked."

e n d o r s e d th e n e e d to s u r v e y
school principals
by c o n c l u d i n g t h a t

t he o p i n i o n s

"research data

menting comprehensive
of this

driver

of 1966,
coming.

13
J

the p a s s a g e

from secondary

school

formulating and imple­

education programs

Safety

Standard

in t h e

U .4.4

of the N a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S a f e t y A ct

a driver education standard
T hi s

of s e c o n d a r y

state."

National Highway
With

further

t o w a r d t he d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m

p r i n c i p a l s w o u l d be i n v a l u a b l e in

public schools

He

standard directly

4.U.J4 w a s

forth-

affected the a d m i n i s ­

t r a t i o n of h i g h s c h o o l d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n by s p e c i f y i n g
1 2 I b i d . , p.
13

9.

I n s u r a n c e I n s t i t u t e of H i g h w a y S a f e t y , N a t i o n a l
H ig h wa y S a f e t y S t a n d a r d s ( W a s h i n g t o n :
Insurance^Ynstitute
for H i g h w a y S a f e t y , 1968) , pp. 9-11.

23
that the S e c r e t a r y of the D e p a r t m e n t

of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

w o u l d not a p p r o v e any s ta t e h i g h w a y p r o g r a m w h i c h d i d not
provide

for c o m p r e h e n s i v e

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s that

Included i
T he i n i t i a t i o n o f a s t a t e p r o g r a m f or d r i v e r
e d u c a t i o n in s c h o o l s y s t e m s or for a s i g n i f i ­
cant e x p a n s i o n an d i m p r o v e m e n t of su ch a
p r o g r a m a lr e a d y in e x i s t e n c e , to be a d m i n i s t e r e d
by a p p r o p r i a t e s c h o o l of f ic i a l s u n d e r th e s u p e r ­
vis i on of the g o ve r n o r .
. . ."I1*
In a d d i t i o n to the g u i d e l i n e s

s p e c i f i e d by the

N a t i o n a l H i g h w a y Sa f e t y Act of 1966,

a p r ogram manual,

Volume

4, d e a l i n g w i t h d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was I s s u e d by
ic
the D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n .
This manual speci­
fies

the r e q u i r e m e n t s

development

f o r the st a t e s

to f o l l o w In the

and r e g u l a t i o n of th e ir d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

programs.
Areas

o u t l i n e d in the m a n u a l

I mp o r t a n t

i s t r a t i o n of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s
course r e q u i r e m e n t s
classroom phase

to the a d m i n ­

I nc l ud e di

(1) the

for b o t h the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l and

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

(2) the m i n i m u m time

d u r a t i o n In w h i c h the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n course m ay be
scheduled,

C3) the p r o c e d u r e s

for m a k i n g t h e d r i v e r e d u c a ­

tion course a v a i l a b l e to s t u d e n t s a p p r o a c h i n g l i c e n s i n g

14
is

I b i d . , p.

9.

N a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S a f e t y B ureau, H i g h w a y S a f e t y
Pro g ra m Ma n u a l . V o l u m e 4, D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n (United S ta t es
D ep a rt m en t of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , F e d e r a l H i g h w a y A d m i n i s t r a ­
tion, W a s h i n g t o n , D, C., J a n u a r y , 1969).

2H

age, and

(4) the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s

of I n s t r u c t o r s

teaching

In the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n pr o gr a ms .
T he r e g u l a t i o n s
implications
b ec a u s e

li s t e d In th e m a n u a l ha v e direct

for the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

the p r i n c i p a l s

tions mu s t

in m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s

c o n s i d e r the p r o v i s i o n s

e d u c a t i o n manual.

Apparent,

need for r e s e a r c h to I d e n t i f y
school p r i n c i p a l s

and reco m m e n d a ­

o u t l i n e d in the d r i v e r

t h e r e f o r e , was
the o p in i o n s

t o w a r d th e p r o v i s i o n s

the e x t r e m e
of s e c o n d a r y

d e l i n e a t e d by

the f e de r al s t a n d a r d on d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
State of M i c h i g a n D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n L a w
Regulations
progr am s

and r e q u i r e m e n t s

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

c o n d u c t e d in the s e c o n d a r y sc h oo l s

of the state

of M i c h i g a n h a v e b e e n d e f i n e d by the M i c h i g a n D r i v e r
E d u c a t i o n L a w w h i c h was e n a c t e d by the 68th L e g i s l a t u r e
in an e x t r a s e s s i o n In 1955
The p r o v i s i o n s

of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

ing re cent a m e n d m e n t s ,

that w e r e of c o n c e r n to this

resea rc h s u r v e y I nv o lv e d:
pro v id e d by the st a te

law, I n c l u d ­

Cl) the r e i m b u r s e m e n t

of M i c h i g a n

for e a c h s t u d e n t

p l e t i n g an a p p r o v e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r og r a m ,
certification requirements
d river e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ,

for t e a c h e r s
and

rate
com­

(2) the

I n v o l v e d in the

(3) the m i n i m u m time

*^S t at e of M i c h i g a n 6 8t h L e g i s l a t u r e E x t r a S e s s i o n
of 1955, o p . c l t . . p. 1.

25
allotment

f o r t h e c l a s s r o o m a nd b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e

of

driver education.
Each

of t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s

directly

affected the adm i n ­

istration of d r i v e r education in the public
The o p i n i o n o f s e c o n d a r y
provisions

school principals

school.

t o w a r d the

in th e M i c h i g a n D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n L a w a r e o f

extreme importance because decisions
e d u c a t i o n are
istrators

high

contingent

upon

the

d i r e c t i n g the p r o g r a m .

c lu d e d th at

regarding driver

feelings

of the a d m i n ­

It is t h e r e f o r e

r e s e a r c h was n e e d e d to d e t e r m i n e

of s e c o n d a r y

school principals

ti on p r o g r a m p r e s e n t l y

con­

the opinions

toward the d r i v e r e d u c a ­

o u t l i n e d by the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

of E d u c a t i o n .
M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n D r i v e r
Education Programming Guide
A driver education programming guide
the M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t
1970 a n d i n c l u d e s

17

I s s u e d by

of E d u c a t i o n took effect July

provisions

for the

1,

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of

driver education.
Of interest
sions

that

t o this

involved:

(1)

driver education program,
experience provided
17

Investigation were

the p r o v i ­

the m i n i m u m

of the

(2)

length

the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

the s t u d e n t

enrolled

In t h e d r i v e r

Mic h i g a n Department of Education, "Driver E d u c a t i o n
Programming" tMIchigan Department of Education, January,
1970), p p . U - 1 0 .

26
education program,

(3)

the

certiflcation requirements

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

instructors,

and r e p o r t s

f o r the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s .

required

and

T he p r i n c i p a l s w h e n m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s
in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

must

(4) t h e r e c o r d s

and recommendations

r e f e r to an d a b i d e by

the

regulations

s p e c i f i e d by the M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t

of

Education.

Therefore

to t h e

It w a s

extremely

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m In M i c h i g a n
of the p r i n c i p a l s

Important

that

the o p i n i o n s

regarding driver education were

ident1 f l e d .
Summary
A r e v i e w of the
I nc l uded:

(1)

i n v o l v e d the

literature presented

related driver education studies

secondary

Highway Safety

school principal,

and

chapter

that

(2) t h e N a t i o n a l

S t a n d a r d on D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n ,

M i c h i g a n D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n La w,
Department

In t h i s

(3)

the

(4) th e M i c h i g a n

of E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m m i n g G u i d e

f or D r i v e r

E du c at i o n .
It w a s

f o u n d that

scho ol p r i n c i p a l
of the

literature

directly

few studies

I nvolved the

and driver education.

A thorough review

d i s c l o s e d no r e s e a r c h

on t he o p i n i o n s

of secondary

secondary

that

focused

school principals

t ow a rd d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s ,
A review of appli c a b l e
Highway Safety Standard

sections

of th e N a t i o n a l

on D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n

a n d the

27
Michigan Driver Education Law
survey were presented with
lined.

that

a p p l y to th is

specific

content

Also presented were pertinent

Michigan Department

research

areas

sections

out­

o f the

of E ducation P r ogramming Guide

fo r

Driver Education.
In C h a p t e r
survey

III the r e s e a r c h

of secondary

design used

in the

s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d .

C H A P T E R III
METHODS OF PROCEDURE

In this

chapter a detailed presentation

r e s e a r c h d e s i g n is

f ound,

the s a m p l e o f p u b l i c h i g h
gan,
(3)

including:
schools

of the

(1) s e l e c t i o n of

in the

state

(2) d e s c r i p t i o n of the s a m p l i n g t e c h n i q u e s
outline

s tate

us e d,

of the s a m p l i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n by a r e a in the

of Michigan,

development

of M i c h i ­

(4)

of the

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

secondary

questionnaire,

(6) m e t h o d s

collected,

(7) s u m m a r y .

and

approach,

school principals

for a n a l y s i s

(5)

opinion

of the d a t a

S e l e c t i o n o f the S a m p l e
The group
survey

of i n d i v i d u a l s

involved

In this

research

comprised a rand o m stratified sample of secondary

sch o ol p r i n c i p a l s

In the p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l s

s tate of M i c h i g a n .

The basic

public high school,

not

I n v o l v e d In this

s a m p l i n g u n i t w as

the

t he s c h o o l d i s t r i c t .
research survey was

a random stratified sample
from the

o f the

t he d r a w i n g o f

of 293 p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l s

583 p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l s

28

l i s t e d In the

1969-1970

29
"Michigan Education Directory
rationale
high

and Buyers

f o r th e r a n d o m s t r a t i f i e d

schools

was

derived

The

of p u b l i c
2
from S a m p l i n g Opinions
by

E. J. S t e p h a n a n d P. J. M c C a r t h y
3
mination
by A r t h u r E. Mace.
Each public high

Guide."1

school

by th e M i c h i g a n H i g h S c h o o l

sample

and S a m p l e - S i z e

in M i c h i g a n ,

Athletic

is

Deter"

classified

Association

as

e i t h e r A, B, C, o r D a c c o r d i n g to t he n u m b e r o f p u p i l s
14
enrolled.
A l s o i d e n t i f i e d in this l i s t i n g w e r e the
Michigan Education Association geographical
A p p e n d i x A,
where

a n d the ty pe

of c o u n t i e s ,

each public high school

A list

of the m e t r o

and the n o n - m e t r o

county

county

regions,

or n o n - m e t r o ,
5
in the s t a t e w a s l o ca t e d ,

schools

schools,

is

metro

f o u n d on T a b l e

on T a b l e

3.

2

Appendix

B

1M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n D i r e c t o r y and B u y e r s G u i d e
( M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n D i r e c t o r y , 701 D a v e n p o r t B u i l d i n g ,
Lansing, Michigan, 1969-1970).

2

E. J. S t e p h a n a n d P. J. M c C a r t h y , S a m p l i n g O p i n i o n s
(John W i l e y , N e w Y o r k , 1 958), pp. 103-118.
3
A r t h u r E. M a ce , S a m p l e - S i z e D e t e r m i n a t i o n ( R e i n h o l d
P u b l i s h i n g Co., N e w Y o r k , 196*4) , p p . 2-3 .
*4
Michigan High School Athletic Association Bulletin,
D i r e c t o r y I s s u e 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 7 0 S c h o o l Ye a r, V o l u m e X L V I . N o v e m ­
b er 1969. N u m b e r A— s ( M i c h i g a n H i g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a ­
tion), p. 229•
5
Michigan Statistical Abstracts (Michigan State
U n i v e r s i t y , G r a d u a t e S c h o o l B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 19 68),
PP. 535-5 36 .

30
TABLE 2.— Metro

Counties

in the s t a t e

of Michigan.

Clinton

Jackson

Macomb

Ottawa

Eaton

Kalamazoo

Monroe

Saginaw

Genesee

Kent

Muskegon

Washtenaw

Ingham

Lapeer

Oakland

Wayne

TABLE 3.— Non- Metro

Counties

in the

state of Michigan.

Alcona

Clare

Keweenaw

Oceana

Alger

Crawford

L ak e

Ogemaw

Allegan

Delta

Leelenau

Ontonagon

Alpena

Dickinson

Lenawee

Osceola

Antrim

Emmet

Livingston

Oscoda

Arenac

Gladwin

Luce

Otsego

Baraga

Gogebic

Mackinac

Presque

Barry

Grand Traverse

Manistee

Roscommon

Bay

Gratiot

Marquette

Sanilac

Benzie

Hillsdale

Mason

Schoolcraft

Berrien

Houghton

Mecosta

Shiawassee

Branch

Huron

Menominee

S t . Clair

Calhoun

Ionia

Midland

St.

Cass

Iosco

Missaukee

Tuscola

Charlevoix

Ir o n

Montcalm

Van Buren

Cheboygan

Isabella

Montmorency

Wexford

Chippewa

Kalkaska

Newago

Isle

Joseph

31
contains

a map of the metro and non-metro

counties

In

Michigan.
The public
strata's

high schools

were then grouped

Into

a c c o r d i n g t o the M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n

geographical

regions

athletic enrollment

and further grouped
classifications

i n t o the

A, B,

four

C, a n d D w i t h i n

each s t ratum respectively.
The p o p u l a t i o n perc e n t a g e
tion A s s o c i a t i o n
Listed
ages

in T a b l e

by si z e,

geographical

r e g i o n w as

then

computed.

3 a r e t he p o p u l a t i o n a n d s a m p l e p e r c e n t ­

a c c o r d i n g to the M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a ­

tion g e o g r a p h i c a l
percentage

for e a c h M i c h i g a n E d u c a ­

regions.

of p u b l i c h i g h

Each

figure

schools

represents

in the s t a t e

the

for each

Michigan Education Association geographical

r e g i o n as

listed in the

and Buyers

"Michigan Education

Directory

Guide."6
A random stratified
of the p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l s
classification

sample representing
in e a c h a t h l e t i c

50 p e r cent

enrollment

a n d in e a c h M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n

geographical region was

t h e n drawn.

The per

cent

of

sample s i z e to p o p u l a t i o n s i z e in e a c h r e s p e c t i v e M i c h i g a n
Education Association

geographical

r e g i o n is i n c l u d e d

in

Table

op.

6 "Michigan Education Directory
cit.

and B u y e r s

Guide,"

32
TABLE 4.— Michigan Education Association geographical
regions listing population and sample percentages.
M EA G e o g r a p h i c a l R e g i o n s

Population

Sample

Region 1

4 .28*

4.43%

Region 2

7 .03%

7.16%

Region

3

7.54%

7.50%

Region 4

4. 4 5%

4.43%

Region 5

7.89%

7 .84%

Region 6

5.31%

5 .46%

Region 7

6.51%

6 .48%

Region

8

6.34%

6.48%

Region 9

8 .74%

8.87%

R e g i o n 10

5. 14%

4 .77%

R e g i o n 11

7. 54%

7 .16%

R e g i o n 12

4.80%

4.77%

R e g i o n 13

6.34%

6.48%

R e g i o n 14

4 .45%

4.43%

R e g i o n 15

3.77%

3.75%

R e g i o n 16

2.05%

2 .38%

R e g i o n 17 a n d 18

7.71%

7 .50%

99.89%*

99 , 8 9 % *

Totals

- 18 Re g io n s

*Due to r o u n d i n g

33
The s a m p l e

d r a w n was

then s u b - d i v i d e d I n t o c a t e ­

gories b a s e d on the M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n
geographical regions with data Identifying the athletic
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f e a c h sc h o o l s e l e c t e d and the m e t r o
or n o n - m e t r o county in w h i c h the sc h o o l s e l e c t e d was
located.

A r a n d o m s t r a t i f i e d s a mp l e of 293 p u b l i c

schools was drawn.

high

This design enabled reliable d e s ­

cr iptive s t a t i s t i c a l

comparisons

to be m a d e

for ea ch o f

the M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n g e o g r a p h i c a l

regions

ou tlined,

of

and fo r the d i f f e r e n t

p ublic h i g h s c h o o l s
ference e n r o l l m e n t

classifications

as d e t e r m i n e d by the a t h e l e t i c

con­

c l a s s if i ca t io n .

D e s c r i p t i o n of the S a m p l i n g T e c h n i q u e Us ed
The s t a t i s t i c a l m e t h o d used In this

r e s e a r c h s ur v ey

to dr aw the s a m p l e of 293 p u b l i c h i g h sc h oo l s
state of M i c h i g a n was
sampling.

In the

the t e c h n i q u e of r a n d o m s t r a t i f i e d

E a c h p u b l i c high sc h o o l

in the state of

M ic h ig a n was o r d e r e d by M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n
geogr ap h ic a l
Association.
and at h l e t i c

r e g i o n a nd M i c h i g a n H i g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c
E a c h p u b l i c h i g h s c ho o l In a g i v e n r e g i o n
classification

of b e i n g selected.

categ or y h a d e q ua l p r o b a b i l i t y

Th is t e c h n i q u e was

d e r i v e d from the

34
7
Statistics
by H a y s ,
g
Inference
by A r m o r e .

t exts,

and S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis

By e m p l o y i n g r a n d o m s t r a t i f i e d
inferences

were made about

high s c h o o l s
basis

the

sampling techniques

t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n of p u b l i c

in the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n

using descriptive

on a p r o b a b i l i t y

statistical procedures.

S a m p l i n g D i s t r i b u t i o n by A r e a
A sample
draw n,

of 293 p u b l i c

u s i n g the

distribution map

techniques

This

hi gh
as

of p u b l i c h i g h

constructed and shows

s a mpling distri b u t i o n map

the s o u t h e a s t p o r t i o n

geographic

schools

in M i c h i g a n w a s

o u t l i n e d ab o ve .
schools

A sampling

s e l e c t e d was

then

selected.

Is f o u n d in A p p e n d i x

C.

the c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f s c h o o l s

of the s ta t e,

the s a m p l i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n map,
large p o p u l a t i o n

in t h e S t a t e

t he d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s c h o o l s

It s h o u l d be n o t e d that

and

of p u b l i c

In

as i l l u s t r a t e d on

directly

high schools

reflects
located

the
in this

area.
Th e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

Approach

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e is a m a j o r i n s t r u m e n t for d a t a g a t h e r i n g in d e s c r i p t i v e - s u r v e y s t u d i e s an d Is
u s e d to s e c u r e i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m v a r i e d an d w i d e l y
s c a t t e r e d so u r c e s .
T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e is p a r t i c u l a r l y
7

W i l l i a m L. Hays, S t a t i s t i c s (Holt, R i n e h a r t and
W in s to n , 1963), pp. 64, 215.
g
S i d n e y J. A r m o r e , I n t r o d u c t i o n to S t a t i s t i c a l
A na l y s i s an d I n f e r e n c e (John W i l e y and S o ns , Inc., 1967)*
pp. 2 3 6 - 2 3 7 , 309.

35
u s e f u l w h e n one c a n n o t r e a d i l y s e e p e r s o n a l l y
all o f the p e o p l e f r o m w h o m h e d e s i r e s r e s p o n s e s
o r w h e r e t h e r e Is n o p a r t i c u l a r r e a s o n t o see
the r e s p o n d e n t p e r s o n a l l y .
This technique may
be u s e d to g a t h e r d a t a f r o m an y r a n g e o f terrl«tory , sometimes I n t e r n a t i o n a l or n a tional,"
For the reasons
the q u e s t i o n n a i r e
293 s e c o n d a r y
stratified

s t a t e d a b o v e It w a s

approach

In g a t h e r i n g d a t a

school principals

sample

of public

decided

selected

high

to use

f r o m t he

in the r a n d o m

schools

In t he s t a t e

of M i c h i g a n .
The
survey was

validity

of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

in a d e s c r i p t i v e -

p o i n t e d out by S p a h r a n d S w e n s o n , ^

also indicated
useful method

t ha t

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

for t he

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

approach

e n d o r s e d by P a r t e n ,
effective method

collection

12

f o r the

approach was

o f data.

13

a

T h e us e o f

in r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s

Cronback,

Remmers^

an d Y e o m a n s

14

has b e e n
as

an

collection of information.

g

C a r t e r V. G o o d a n d D o u g l a s E. S c a t e s , M e t h o d s of
R e s e a r c h (New York:
A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , Inc., 195*0 »
pp" 606 -607.
10W a l t e r E. S p a h r a n d R i n e h a r t J. S w e n s o n , M e t h o d s
and S t a t u s of S c i e n t i f i c R e s e a r c h (New York:
Harper and
B r o t h e r s , 1 930), pp. 232-23 3 .
■^H. H. R e m m e r g , I n t r o d u c t i o n to O p i n i o n an d A t t i t u d e
M e a s u r e m e n t (New Y o r k :
H a r p e r a n d B r o t h e r s , 1954) , p"I 5 ^ T
12

Mildred
cal P r o c e d u r e s
13

Parten, Surveys, P0 II3 , and S a m p l e s — P r a c t i ­
(New YorlT: H a r p e r a n d B r o t h e r s , 1950) , p"! 57.

Le e J. C r o n b a c k , E s s e n t i a l s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l T e s t i n g
(New York:
H a r p e r and B r o t h e r s , I960) , p . 405.
14
D o u g l a s E. S c a t e s a n d A l i c e V. Y e o m a n s , Th e E f f e c t
of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e F o r m on C o u r s e R e q u e s t s of E m p l o y e d A d u l t s
( W a s h i n g t o n : A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l on E d u c a t i o n , I960), p . 2-4.

36
Development

of the O p i n i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

In o r d e r to f o r m u l a t e th e s t a t e m e n t s
in the p r o p o s e d s e c o n d a r y
t ionnaire,
pria te

s c ho o l p r i n c i p a l s

outlined

In C h a p t e r I,

Interest w e r e d e v e l o p e d
The f o l l o w i n g list
in this

opinion que s ­

it wa s n e c e s s a r y to d e t e r m i n e the mo st a p p r o ­

fa ctors to be c o ns i de r ed .

qu estions

to be c o n t a i n e d

B a s e d on the s p e c i f i c
12 c on t en t

areas of

for the o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

c on t a i n s

the c on t en t

areas of i n t e r e s t

survey.

Content Areas

of I n t e r e s t

1.

D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s t a f f me m be r s;

2.

Community

a c c e p t a n c e of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

program;
3.

Citizenship development

a m o n g s tu d e n t s e n r o l l e d

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ;
4.

Availability

of g u i d e l i n e s

and I n f o r m a t i o n for

the s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l

in d r i v e r

education;
5.

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n pr o g r a m ;

6.

Secondary

sc h oo l p r i n c i p a l s

acceptance

of the

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r og r am ;
7.

R e m o v a l of r e q u i r e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n f r o m the
pu b l i c school;

8.

R a i s i n g the d r i v e r l i c e n s i n g age to 17;

9.

R e i m b u r s e m e n t rates
driver education;

for s t u d e n t s

completing

37
10.

R e s t r u c t u r i n g the driver education requirements;

11.

Adoption of a statewide
g r a m that

12.

is b o t h

Employment

driver education pro­

uniform and mandatory;

of regional

coordinators

and

to d i r e c t

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in t he p u b l i c
schools
Specific

of M i c h i g a n .

objectives

c ontent a r e a i d e n t i f i e d ,

were
and

then written regarding each

content

g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g t o the g e n e r a l
exemplified,

as

written

for t h e

specified,

a panel

contained

sity,

of purpose

an d

(1) Mr.

Robert

0.

initially

content

area

statements

and a

were then submitted
of wording,

in tent.
J.

This

Robert

to

content,

panel

of

S h i n n o f the

(3)

the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

Gustaf*-

Dr.

at

L o u i s R o m a n o a n d Dr.

o f th e C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n

University,

(5) Mr.

R o b e r t E.

Center staff members

(4) Mr,

of the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n
a nd

Each

N o l a n a n d Dr.

staff members

at M i c h i g a n S t a t e

Principals,

were

S a f e t y C e n t e r at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r ­

Michigan State University,

dent

ar e as .

statements

son, H i g h w a y T r a f f i c S a f e t y

William Mann,

statements

f o r an a n a l y s i s

c o n s i s t e d of:

(2) Dr.

they best

statements.

of e x p e r t s

Highway Traffic

then

I.

a m i n i m u m of tw o

63 c o m p l e t e d

and s p e c i f i c i t y
experts

complete

12 c o n t e n t

maximum of eight
The

statement

l i s t e d in C h a p t e r

Sixty-three

a r ea s w e r e

Ben Leyrer,

Presi­

of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l

Phillip O'Leary,

of E d u c a t i o n ,

staff m e m b e r of

Driver Education Division.

38
As

a result

of analysis

an d e d i t i n g ,

13 s t a t e m e n t s

were deleted.
The

statements

for i n c l u s i o n

a g r e e d u p o n by th e p a n e l

in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

are

listed

of e x p e r t s
in A p p e n ­

dix D.
The statements
in the S i e b r e c h t

15

in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w e r e

format

gory r e s p o n s e s y s t e m :
(3) u n d e c i d e d ,
The

"strongly

(4)

u s i n g the

(1)

agree"

an d

category

r e s p o n s e to the s t a t e m e n t s
category represents

following five

strongly

disagree,

the m o s t

agree,

(5)

(2)

cate­

ag r e e ,

strongly disagree.

denotes

a n d t he

arranged

t he m o s t

favorable

"strongly disagree"

unfavorable

response

to

the s t a t e m e n t s .
In a d d i t i o n to the
questionnaire,

a series

statements wer e
tionnaire.
experience

50 s t a t e m e n t s
of preliminary

I n c l u d e d at

These

items

d r i v i n g e x p e r i e n c e o f the
years,

and

(1) the y e a r s

secondary

of

(2) the

school principal

in

the s e c o n d a r y p r i n c i p a l

(4) t h e t y p e o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o ­

g r a m o f f e r e d In his
behind-the-wheel

information

school principal,

(3) t he m e t h o d b y w h i c h

learned to d r i v e ,

opinion

the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e q u e s ­

Included:

as a s e c o n d a r y

on t h e

school

system,

(5)

curriculum offered

(6) a s t a t e m e n t

r e g a r d i n g the

the t y p e o f

in his

school system,

awarding of credit

in

15
^ E l m e r B. S i e b r e c h t , T h e S i e b r e c h t A t t i t u d e S c a l e
(New York:
C e n t e r for S a f e t y E d u c a t i o n , N e w Y o r k Univer*sity, 19*J1).

39
driver education toward graduation.
i n c l u d i n g t he s e items w a s

The purpose

for

to o b t a i n d a t a f r o m t he s e c o n d a r y

school p r i n c i p a l r e g a r d i n g his b a c k g r o u n d as a d r i v e r an d
the type of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m o f f e r e d

in his

school

system.
Als o i n c l u d e d on p a g e
four " o p e n - e n d e d "
p r i n c i p a l m ig h t
includes

th e se

statements

that the s e c o n d a r y

r e s p o n d to if he so d es ired.
four "open-ended"

A l s o p r o v i d e d o n the
tio n na i re was

^ of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w e r e

a space

school

Appendix E

s ta t em e nt s .

last p a g e o f the o p i n i o n q u e s ­

for a d d i t i o n a l

comments

or rema rks.

Pi l ot S t u d y
P r i o r to m a i l i n g
pr i n ci p al s

the o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e to those

s e l e c t e d f or the sample,

lng s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s

a pilot

study involv*-

in I n g h a m Co u n t y was

c onducted to a c c o m p l i s h the f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t iv e s:
determine
basis,

if s e c o n d a r y

school principals,

(1)

on a l i m i t e d

u n d e r s t o o d the t e r m i n o l o g y and i n t e n t o f eac h

statement p r e s e n t e d In the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,

(2) d e t e r m i n e

the clar ity of w o r d i n g In the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
obtain s u g g e s t i o n s ,

deletions,

and

(3)

or a d d i t i o n s n e e d e d in

the q ue s t i o n n a i r e .
The pilot

study

involved a secondary school princi­

pal in each o f the four a th le t ic
tions, n amely

enrollment

classifica­

class A, B, C, and D size schools.

In

40
c o n d u c t i n g the p i l o t st u dy
sented personally
select ed.

This

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p r e ­

to e a c h p u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l

selection process

involved a random samp­

lin g of s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s

in I n g h a m C o u n t y not

p r e v i o u s l y s e l e c t e d In the o r i g i n a l s a m p l e of 293 s e c o n d ­
ary s c h o o l p ri n c i p a l s .
As a r es u l t

of s u g g e s t i o n s m a d e by tho se p r i n c i p a l s

i nv olved in th e p i l o t
in the 50 s t a t e m e n t s
A p p e n d i x P c o nt a i n s

study,

some m i n o r c h an g es w e r e m a d e

c o n t a i n e d In the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
a copy of the c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Mai lout P r o c e d u r e s

P r i o r to m a i l i n g the c o m p l e t e d o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e
to the 293 s e c o n d a r y

s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s se l ec t ed ,

f ol l owing steps w e r e e mp l oy e d:
cipal's name,

address,

e x p l a n a t i o n and
Robert 0. N o l a n ,

(1) t y p i n g of t h e p r i n ­

and s a l u t a t i o n on ea ch

l e t t e r of e n d o r s e m e n t
Assistant

D i r e c t o r of the H i g h w a y T r a f f i c

tion of the r e t u r n e n v e l o p e ,

P re s id e nt

letter of

s u p p l i e d by Dr.

Safety C e n t e r at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,

ment of e n d o r s e m e n t

the

(3)

(2) p r e p a r a ­

the p r i n t i n g of a s t a t e ­

of the s u r v e y by Mr.

B e n L ey r er ,

of the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l

Prin cipals,

and

(4) a d d r e s s i n g the e n v e l o p e to be m a i l e d

out c o n t a i n i n g the o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
return e n v e l o p e ,

endorsements,

and l e t t e r o f e x p l a n a t i o n .

A pp endix 0 are copies
letter of e x p l an a ti o n.

o f the

letters

C o n t a i n e d in

of e n d o r s e m e n t

and

41
Follow-Up Procedure
E a c h o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a i l e d to a s e c o n d a r y
scho ol p r i n c i p a l was

co d ed to i d e n t i f y the f ollowing!

(1) name of p u b l i c h i g h sc ho o l,
size of the h i g h s c hool,

and

(2)

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by

(3) m e t r o or n o n - m e t r o

county in w h i c h the s c h o o l was

located.

As the c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e r e t u r n e d ,
m as t e r list o f th o se p u b l i c h i g h sc h oo l s
was

a

in the s a m p l e

c he c k e d to i d e n t i f y the p r i n c i p a l w ho h a d respon de d .

Appendix H contains

the m a s t e r list o f p u b l i c h i g h sc h oo l s

sampled in the s ta t e of M ic h i g a n .
A f t e r a p e r i o d of so me 2 we e ks

a second question­

naire was sen t to t ho s e p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d
respond to the i n i t i a l m ai l in g .
accur at e ly m a i n t a i n e d

fa i l e d to

D a i l y r e cords w er e

for the p r i n c i p a l s w h o r e s p o n d e d

to the follow*-up p r o c e d u r e s .
The o r i g i n a l m a i l i n g and s u b s e q u e n t

follow-up p r o ­

vided a 96 p e r cent r e t u r n of c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
from those p r i n c i p a l s
graph that shows the
questionnaire.

Appendix

I conta in s

for A n a l y s i s

the f o l l o w - u p

letter.

of the D a t a

fi n dings p r e s e n t e d in C h a p t e r IV o f this i n v e s ­

tigation i n v o l v e d the use of d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c a l
techniques

a

f r e q u e n c y of r e t u r n o f the o p i n i o n

A p p e n d i x J c o nt a i n s
Methods

T he

s el e cted.

that

i n d i c a t e d the p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n s e s

*42
f ro m the p r i n c i p a l s
eac h

content

(1)

metro county

categories
cl a ss A,

schools

versus

B,

C,

metro

county

with

(2) n o n ­

schools,

(3)

driving ranges

on-the-street

(*4) s c h o o l s w i t h

summer,

driver education programs

versus

schools o f f ering credit

schools

offering no-credit

after

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

driver education

schools

in w h i c h

or less

via methods

(7) s c h o o l s

secondary

the p r i n c i p a l

other than driver

with principals who had

w i t h p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d s i x or m o r e y e a r s

secondary

via

fi ve y e a r s

administrative experience versus

istrative experience,

and

day,

(6)

l e a r n e d to d r i v e

education,

with

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n v e r s u s

who had

had l e a r n e d to d r i v e

school,

schools

s ch ools w i t h p r i n c i p a l s
versus

or

driver

driver educa t i o n o f fered during the regular school
(5)

in

compared,

a nd D s c h o o l s ,

car off-street

schools

education programs,
or S a t u r d a y

contained

i n w h i c h d a t a wa s

versus

sch o o l s w i t h m u l t i p l e
simulators

statements

area of interest.

The main
included:

to v a r i o u s

(8)

school principals

total

t o the

schools

secondary

r e s p o n s e s by
statements

admin­

the

o n the

questionnaire.
Summary
Presented
cedure
schools

for

(1)

in the

in this

chapter were the methods

of p r o ­

s e l e c t i o n of t h e s a m p l e o f p u b l i c h i g h
st a te

s am p l i n g t e c h n i q u e s

of Michigan,
involved

(2) d e s c r i p t i o n of t he

in t h e r e s e a r c h s u r v e y ,

(3)

43
o u t l i n e o f the sampling; d i s t r i b u t i o n by a r e a in the s t a t e
of M i c h i g a n ,
ment

(4)

the questionnair*e a p p r o a c h ,

o f the s e c o n d a r y

tionnaire,

and

school principals

(6) m e t h o d s

for analysis

P r e s e n t e d in C h a p t e r I V are t h e
r e s e a r c h s u rv e y.

(5)

develop­

opinion ques­
of t h e data.

findings

of this

CHAPTER

IV

ANALYSIS OP THE DATA
In t h e p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r the m e t h o d s
this r e s e a r c h

survey were

presented.

IV is an a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a and t h e
Is d i v i d e d
content
that

into thirteen

sections,

areas of interest

chosen

Table 5

includes

each o f the t w e l v e c o n t e n t
The
involve

findings,

findings.

on e

driver education,
enrolled

(3)

(2)

for study,

to w a r d :

citizenship

"open-ended"

r e l a t e d to

(1) d r i v e r

development

of

among students

(4) a v a i l a b i l i t y o f g u i d e l i n e s
(5) a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f

(6) a c c e p t a n c e o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

r em o va l o f r e q u i r e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,
l i c e n s i n g a g e to s e v e n t e e n ,

requirements,

to the

in th e t h i r t e e n s e c t i o n s ,

and i n f o r m a t i o n for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

driver education,

and a section

community acceptance

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

driver education,

(10)

chapter

f or e a c h o f t h e t w e l v e

the statements

opinions

education staff members,

This

ar e as o f in t er e s t .

presented

the p r i n c i p a l s '

for

C o n t a i n e d In C h a p t e r

i n v o l v e d th e p r i n c i p a l s 1 r e s p o n s e s

statements.

of procedure

(7)

(8) r a i s i n g t h e d r i v e r

(9) r e i m b u r s e m e n t

rates

for

r e s t r u c t u r i n g the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

(11) a d o p t i o n o f a u n i f o r m s t a t e w i d e d r i v e r

education program,

(12) e m p l o y m e n t

of r e g i o n a l

to di r ec t the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ,
e nded" s t a t e m e n t s

contained

an d

coordinators

(13) t he

In the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

44

"o p en

45
TABLE 5.— Statements

G r o u p e d by C o n t e n t

Area of Interest.

Content Area of Interest

.

Statements

Driver Education Staff
Members

1,

C o m m u n i t y A c c e p t a n c e of
Driver Education

14 , 49

Citizenship Development among
Students enrolled in Driver
Education

2,

3

Availability of Guidelines and
Information for Driver Education

4,

Administration of Driver
Education

5,

6.

Principals Acceptance
Driver Education

6, 8, 16,
35 , 36

7.

Removal of Required
Education

1

2.
3.

4.

5.

8.
9.
10 .
11.
12.

of

32,

40,

24,

33,

41

15,

25,

34

13,

23,

48

27

Driver
18 , 26 , 28 , 37,

R a i s i n g the D r i v e r L i c e n s i n g
Age to S e v e n t e e n

7,

17

Reimbursement
Education

9,

19,

Rates

22,

45,

43 , 46

for D r i v e r
29,

38,

Restructuring the Driver
Education Requirements

10 , 20 , 30 , 39,

Adoption of Uniform Statewide
Driver Education

11 , 21 , 31

Employment of Regional Coordi­
n a t o r s to D i r e c t D r i v e r
Education

12 , 42

44,
50

47

E a c h o f th e
tables.

Data

first

twelve

sections

for t h e f i r s t t a b l e

concerned with the principals'
content

divided

th at

categories

a c c o r d i n g to:
c ou n ty

(1)

schools,

responses.

i nclude:

(3) n o n - m e t r o

principals

driver education,
no c r e d i t
y ears

county

from schools

for driver education,

or less

secondary

(^) t o t a l

concerned with
categories

that

(3) p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d

who had

experience,

secondary

(6) p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d

via o t h e r m e t h o d s

other than driver education.
of principals

from:

administrative

and/or after

multiple car off-street
and

(3)

3

schools

e d u c a t i o n o n l y d u r i n g the
school,

to d r i v e

Table

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l

Saturday,

via

learned

(1)

five

(*4)

l e a r n e d to d r i v e

an d

sc hools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r

for

offering

driver education,

r ep o rt s t h e r e s p o n s e s

responses

offering credit

administrative

(5) p r i n c i p a l s

is

(2) m e t r o

and

from schools

p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d six o r m o r e y e a r s
experience,

is

in s e l e c t e d

(2) p r i n c i p a l s

school,

schools,

that

a nd

the principals

second table

th e p r i n c i p a l s

(1)

area of interest

report

is

to q u e s t i o n s

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f the

D a t a on the

r e s p o n s e s by

in e a c h s e c t i o n

response

p e r t a i n to t h e s p e c i f i c
into

is c o m p o s e d o f t h r e e

da y,

(2)

su m m e r ,

schools having a

driving range and/or driving simulator,

(4) s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e o f

driver education o n - t h e - s t r e e t .

T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
toward Driver Education Staff Members
A t t e n t i o n in this
members

section focuses

o f the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

Table

6 shows

to q u e s t i o n s

the p e r cent

staff.
of responses

school

by principals

p e r t a i n i n g to d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s t a f f m e m b e r s .

F u r t h e r r e v e a l e d ar e the r e s p o n s e s
(1)

upon data regarding

size,

grouped

(2) m e t r o a n d n o n - m e t r o

a c c o r d i n g to:

counties,

and

(3)

t otal r e s p o n s e s .
Data In Table
1.
that

6 indicates

Eighty-one

that:

p e r cent o f all p r i n c i p a l s

driver education teachers were

o p p o r t u n i t y to h e l p

enthusiastic about

in the d e v e l o p m e n t

schools

enthusiastic

reported

about

that

driver

from non-metro

education teachers

h elping you n g people.

per cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

the

on young persons.

E i g h t y - f o u r p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
county

reported

from metro

Similarly,

county

schools

were

78.3
shared

this opini on .
2.
cated that

S i x t y p e r cent

o f al l p r i n c i p a l s

driver education teachers

assu re the m a x i m u m i m p r o v e m e n t

responding

indi­

p l a n t h e i r p r o g r a m to

of attitudes

among students

e n r o l l e d in the p r o g r a m .
Not

all p r i n c i p a l s

p r esent p r o g r a m s

that

agreed

improve

t ha t

driver education teachers

attitudes

as I n d i c a t e d by

the 19.7 p e r cent a n d 17 .1 p e r cent r e s p o n s e s
and D s c ho o l p r i n c i p a l s .

of class

C

TABLE 6.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Driver Education
Staff Members as Classified by Total, School Size, and Type of County.
School Classification

Question

1. Driver education teachers
are enthusiastic about their SA/A
opportunity to help in the
U
development of young persons. D/SD

Total

A

B

C

%

%

%

%

D
*

Metro
%

NonMetre
*

81.5
n.4
5.5

8o. 4
13.1
5.3

87.9
6.8
5.4

77.8
15.9
4.8

78.9
10.5
7.0

78.3
13.7
7.3

84.2
9.6
4.1

13. Driver education teachers
plan their program to assure
maximum improvement of atti­
tudes of young persons,
both as a driver and as a
member of the community.

SA/A
U
D/SD

60.1
23.2
15.5

56.5
26.3
14.5

62.2
24.3
12.2

61.9
19.0
19.1

59.7
22.8
17.1

56.5
25.8
16.1

63.0
21.2
15.1

32. Driver education teachers
are better trained to do
their Job than most members
of the high school staff.

SA/A
U
D/SD

26.2
21.0
52.1

27.7
17.1
55.2

36.1
16.2
47.3

17.5
22.2
58.7

22.8
31.6
45.6

29.0
18.5
51.6

23.3
23.3
52.1

40. Driver education teachers
lack educational skills
needed to effectively
teach boys and girls
enrolled in the driver
education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

6.3
1 M
78.6

2.6
17.1
80.3

6.8
2.7
87.8

9.5
23.8
66.6

7.1
14.0
77.2

4.8
12.9
80.7

7.5
15.1
76.7

45. Teachers should be required
by the State to have at
least an approved minor in
driver education before
being certified to teach
this subject.

SA/A
U
D/SD

48,7
20.3
31.0

60.5
15.8
23.7

39.2
20.3
40.6

44.4
22.2
33.3

50.8
24.6
24.6

54.1
18.5
27.4

34.5
21.9
33.6

48. The six semester hours
required for certifica­
tion of driver education
teachers Is sufficient
for quality Instruction,

SA/A
U
D/SD

37.2
27.3
34.3

32.8

44.6
32.4
21.7

30.2
34.9
35.0

40.4
21.1
35.1

37.9
23.4
37.9

36.3
30.8
31.6

21.1
46.1

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
K E Y : SA/A * Strongly agree or agree
U
* Undecided
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree

vo

50

3.

T w e n t y - s i x p e r cent

o f a ll p r i n c i p a l s

a g r e e d t ha

driver education teachers were better prepared than were
the t e a c h e r s o f o t h e r
con t r a s t ,

subjects

5 2. 1 p e r cent

in the h i g h s ch o ol .

o f all p r i n c i p a l s

driver education teachers were
s ub j ec t a r e a t h a n w e r e
^.

In

indicated

that

not b e t t e r p r e p a r e d in t h e i r

teachers

E i g h t y - s e v e n p e r cent

in o t h e r s u b j e c t

a reas.

of the p r i n c i p a l s

in c l a s s B

sch o ol s d i d not a g r e e th a t d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s
necessary educational
girls.

s k i l l s to e f f e c t i v e l y

This posit i o n was

s u p p o r t e d by

principals

from class A schools and

principals

f r o m c l as s D s c h o o l s .

Seventy-eight

p e r cent
had

to e f f e c t i v e l y

and girls

teach boys

teach boys and

80.3 per cent

of t he

77*2 p e r cent o f the

o f al l p r i n c i p a l s

driver education teachers

lacked

the e d u c a t i o n a l
enrolled

reported that
skills needed

in t h e d r i v e r

education program.
Table

6 shows

f u r t h e r that m e t r o

county

school

principals more oft e n endorsed the educational
driver education teachers

skills

of

than did non-metro county school

principals.
5.

In r e s p o n s e

to th e q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e r e q u i r

me nt of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s

to h a v e at l e a s t

a p p r o v e d m i n o r In d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
s up port w h i l e o n l y

fo r c e r t i f i c a t i o n ,

from class A schools

39.2 p e r cent

an

indicated

of the p r i n c i p a l s

B schools agreed with this position.

Principals

60.5

fro m class

from class D

51
schools were most
ment

often non-commital

c o n c e r n i n g t he r e q u i r e ­

c a l l i n g f o r a m i n o r In d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

for c e r t i f i c a ­

ti on o f t e a c h e r s .
F i f t y - f o u r p e r ce nt
c ou n ty

schools

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

r e p o r t e d t ha t

driver

education teachers

be r e q u i r e d to h a v e an a p p r o v e d m i n o r
on ly

3^.5 p e r cent o f t he n o n - m e t r o

e n d o r s e d th i s

for the

school principals

the majority

of all principals

c a l l i n g f or a m i n o r

c e r t i f i c a t i o n of t e a c h e r s .

F o r t y - s i x p e r ce n t o f the p r i n c i p a l s

A s c h o o l s d i d not a g r e e
education courses
qua l i t y

for c e r t i f i c a t i o n w h i l e

county

e n d o r s e d the r e q u i r e m e n t

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
6.

that

Thirty-five

C and D schools

the p r i n c i p a l s

si x s e m e s t e r h o u r s

for c e r t i f i c a t i o n ,

instruction.

f r o m c la s s

should

requirement.

It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t
responding,

from metro

were

per

a gr e ed .

of driver

sufficient

for

cent o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s

Twenty-one

from class B schools

f r o m class

p e r cent o f

c o n c u r r e d w i t h this

opinion.

Table 7 presents
the

following selected

credit

for s t u d e n t s

experience,

( k)

by p r i n c i p a l s

categories:

completing

(2) s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g no
p r i n c i p a l s w h o h ad

responses

credit

5 years

(1) s c h o o l s

a c c o r d i n g to
offering

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ,
f or d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

o r less

(3)

secondary administrative

principals who had six or more years

secondary a d m inistrative experience,

(5) p r i n c i p a l s w h o

learned to d r i v e v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,
who l e a r n e d to d r i v e

via methods

and

(6) p r i n c i p a l s

other than driver education.

TABLE 7.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Driver Education
Staff Members as Classified by Secondary Administrative Experience of the
Principal, Method by which the Principal Learned to Drive, and Whether Credit
was given for Driver Education,

Credit
%

No
Credit
%

SA/A
U
D/SD

84.5
11.3
2.1

80.8
12.2
7.0

76.8
15.2
6.5

86.5
7.5
4.5

78.7
12.1
9.1

81.9
11.3
5.0

13. Driver education teachers
plan their program to
assure maximum improvement
of attitudes of young per­
sons, both as a driver and
as a member of the community.

SA/A
U
D/SD

71.2
15*5
13.4

52.1
28.7
17.4

55.1
24.5
18.1

65.4
21.1
12.8

60.6
18.2
21.2

60.1
23*9
14.7

32. Driver education teachers
are better trained to do
their job than most members of the high school
staff.

SA/A
U
D/SD

26.8
17.5
54.7

28.7
23*5
46.9

26.4
21.7
51.5

26.4
20.3
52.6

30.3
24.2
42.4

25.6
20.6
53.4

SA/A
U
D/SD

7.2
17.5
74.3

4.3
9.6
84.4

7,3
18.8
72.5

5.3
9.0
85.0

3.0

18,2

6.7
13.4
78,6

Question

5 yrs.
6yrs.
Via
or less or more Dr. Ed.
%
%
%
%

Via Oth.
Methods

1. Driver education teachers
apo

A n t - Fi115 i a

p

ahnnt

their opportunity to help
in the development of
young persons.

40. Driver education teachers
lack educational skills
teach boys and girls
enrolled in the driver
education program.

78.8

45. Teachers should be required
by the State to have at
least an approved minor In
driver education before
being certified to teach
this subject.

SA/A
U
D/SD

53.6
18.6
27.8

33.9
25.2
1*0.8

48.6
23.2
28.2

1*8.9

48.5

17.3
33.8

18.2
33.4

48.8
20.6
30.7

The six semester hours
required for certification
of driver education teachers SA/A
U
is sufficient for quality
D/SD
instruction,

36.2
27.8
35.1

1*0.0
26,1

35-5
28.3
3H.8

39.1
26.3
33.9

36.4
24,2
39.4

37.4
27.7
33.6

32.2

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
* Credit Is given toward graduation for drivereducation.
No Credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less ■ Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience.
6 yrs. or more ■ Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrative experience.
Via Dr. Ed.
* Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth. * Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
* Strongly agree or agree.
U
■ Undecided.
D/SD
* Disagree or strongly disagree.

5**
T a b l e 7 shows t h a t :
1.

E i g h t y - f o u r p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

o f f e r i n g credit

f r o m s c ho o ls

for the s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n of d r i v e r

e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s w e r e
enthusiastic

about h e l p i n g y o u n g p e rsons.

T h i s p o s i t i o n was

e n d o r s e d by 80.8 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
o f f e r i n g no c r ed i t

f r o m sc h oo l s

for d r i v e r ed u ca t i o n .

P r i n c i p a l s w i t h mo re t h a n 6 y e ar s

secondary a d m i n i ­

s tr ative e x p e r i e n c e w e r e g e n e r a l l y m o r e f a v o r a b l e in t h e i r
o p i n i o n c o n c e r n i n g the e n t h u s i a s m of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s
than w e re p r i n c i p a l s w i t h

less ex p er i en c e.

E i g h t y - o n e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s wh o h ad l e a r n e d
to drive via m e t h o d s o t h e r t h a n d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n i n d i c a t e d
that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s h el p in the d e v e l o p m e n t o f
young p e rs o n s ,

a nd 78.7 p er cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w h o ha d

learned to d r iv e v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n agreed.
2.

O f t h os e s c ho o ls

o f f e r i n g credit

completion of driver education,

for the s u c c e s s f u l

71-2 pe r cent o f the p r i n c i ­

pals s u p p o r t e d the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r ' s
im prove the a t t i t u d e s of y o u n g p e r s o n s .
of those p r i n c i p a l s

a b i l i t y to

F i f t y - t w o p er cent

in s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g n o cr e d i t c o n c u r r e d

with this posit i on .
P r i n c i p a l s w i t h 6 or m o r e y e a r s of s e c o n d a r y a d m i n i ­
st rative e x p e r i e n c e w e r e m o r e

i n c l i n e d to s up p or t th e d r i v e r

e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r ' s a b i l i t y to i mp r o v e a t t i t u d e s a m o n g
students,

than were

p r i n c i p a l s w i t h less e x p e r i e n c e .

Data indicates
sch o ol s

that

o f f e r i n g cr e di t

54.7 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

to t h o s e

pleting driver education,

students

d i d not

successfully

agree that

responsible

Table
principals

for other

7 further reveals
having 5 years

e x p e r i e n c e b e l i e v e d th a t

subject
th a t

or less

of o t h e r

subjects.

46.4

p e r cent

of the

secondary administrative

subject

This p o s ition was

number of principals

than were

ar ea s.

driver education teachers

better prepared to teach their

com­

driver education

t e a c h e r s w e r e b e t t e r p r e p a r e d to t e a c h t h e i r s u b j e c t
teachers

from

than were most
s u p p o r t e d by

having additional

were
teachers

an e q u a l

years administrative

experience.
P r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d l e a r n e d to d r i v e
more

o f t e n r e p o r t e d that

better prepared
who had

in t h e i r

Eighty-five

or mo r e y e a r s
a gree t h a t

subject

experience

via other m e t h o d s .

an d g i r l s .

w h o h a d less

shared this

principals with

lacked educational

Similarly,

secondary administrative

opinion.

to t h o s e

the p r o g r a m r e p o r t e d

skills

7 2 . 5 p e r cent

F i f t y - f o u r p e r ce n t o f the p r i n c i p a l s

offering credit

6

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e d i d not

driver education teachers

of the p r i n c i p a l s

were

area than did principals

p e r cent o f the

secondary

n e e d e d to t e a c h b o y s

5.

driver education teachers

l e a r n e d to d r i v e

4.

v ia d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

that

students

successfully

from schools
completing

driver education teachers

be r e q u i r e d to h a v e a m i n o r to b e c e r t i f i e d

in t h i s

should
subject.

56
S h a r i n g this o p i n i o n w e r e

33*9 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from sch ools o f f e r i n g no credit
The m a j o r i t y o f p r i n c i p a l s

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
in all c a t e g o r i e s p r e s e n t e d

in T ab l e 7 i n d i c a t e d that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s

should

hav e an a p p r o v e d m i n o r for c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
6.

Principals

f r o m sc h o o l s

o f f e r i n g cr edit

e d u c a t i o n di d not a gr e e w i t h t h e i r c o l l e a g u r s
o f f e r i n g no cre dit,

Table
principals

f r o m s chools

that the c o m p l e t i o n of six s e m e s t e r

hours o f co l l e g e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s was
for q u a l i t y

for d r i v e

sufficient

i n s t r uc t io n .
8 i n d i c a t e s the p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n s e s
in the

f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o ri e s:

(1) sc h oo l s o f f e r i n g

driver e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s ch o ol day,
o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,
after school,

(3)

from

(2) s c ho o ls

Saturday,

and/or

s c hools h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e c a r o f f - s t r e e t

d r i v i n g range a n d / o r d r i v i n g si m ul a t o r ,
off e ri n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

an d

(U) s ch o o l s

ph a se o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

solely o n - t h e - s t r e e t .
Data from Table
1.

8 re v e a l s

that:

E i g h t y - f o u r p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s ch o o

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day
r ep o rt e d that

driver education teachers were enthusiastic

about h e l p i n g y o u n g p e r s o n s .

T h is p o s i t i o n w a s a s s u m e d by

80.^ per cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
edu c a t i o n d u r i n g the su mmer,

f r o m sc h oo l s o f f e r i n g d r i v e r

Saturday,

a n d / o r a f t e r school.

TABLE 8.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages, Relative to Driver Education
Staff Members as Classified by Type of Program Offered, and Type of Laboratory
Instruction.

Regular
School Day

Question

%

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School
%

Range
and/or
Simulator

BTW
Onthe-Street

%

%

1. Driver education teachers
are enthusiastic about
their opportunity to help
in the development of
young persons.

SA/A
U
D/SD

84.7
8.5
5.1

80.7
12.3
5.7

80.4
9.8
7.8

81.9
11.8
5.0

13. Driver education teachers
plan their program to
assure maximum improvement
of attitudes of young per­
sons, both as a driver and
as a member of the com­
munity .

SA/A
U
D/SD

64.4
27.1
6.8

59.0
22.2
17.9

62.7
29.4
5.9

59.5
21.8
17.7

32. Driver education teachers
are better trained to do
their Job than most mem­
bers of the high school
staff.

SA/A
U
D/SD

20.4
23.7
54.3

27.8
20 .3
51.4

31.4
17.6
49.1

25.0
21.8
52.7

40. Driver education teachers
lack educational skills
needed to effectively teach
boys and girls enrolled in
the driver education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

0
13.6
86.4

8.0
14.2
76.4

5-9
17.6
74.5

45. Teachers should be required
by the State to have at
least an approved minor in
driver education before
being certified to teach
this subject.

SA/A
U
D/SD

52.6
25.4
22.0

47.7
18-9
33*5

54.9
27.5
17.2

49.3

48. The six semester hours
required for certification
of driver education
teachers is sufficient for
quality instruction.

SA/A
U
D/SD

28.8
32.2
37.3

39.7
25.9
33.5

33.3
27.5
39.2

38.2

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A ■ Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree.

6.4

13.2
79.6

18.6
34.1

27.3
33.1

59
2.

Of* the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g th e r e g u l a r s c h o o l d a y ,

offering driver
6*1.** p e r ce nt

supported the driver e d u c ation teachers

ability

attitudes

p e r c e nt o f th e

of yo u n g persons.

principals
the

Fifty-nine

from schools offering driver education during

su m me r , S a t u r d a y ,

and/or after school

In s c h o o l s w i t h a m u l t i p l e
range and/or driving

simulator,

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r ' s

principals
ability

than did principals

the-wheel

instruction on-the-street.

s tr e et

Principals

driving range

from schools

of o t h e r h i g h
No p r i n c i p a l

principals
summer,

having a multiple

car off-

in other

categories,

th at

than were

subjects.

from a school offering driver education
d a y r e p o r t e d th at

lacked educational

t ea c h b o y s a n d g i rl s .

student

offering behlnd-

were better prepared

school

during the regular school
teachers

more often upheld

and/or driving simulator agreed more

driver education teachers

** .

driving

to i m p r o v e

from schools

frequently than did principals

teachers

s h a r e d t h is o p i n i o n .

car off-street

attitudes

3.

to I m p r o v e

driver education

skills needed to eff e c t i v e l y

In c o m p a r i s o n ,

8.0 p e r c e nt

of the

f r o m s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the

Saturday,

education teachers

and/or after
lacked

school

skills

i n d i c a t e d th a t

necessary

driver

to t e a c h b o y s

and g i r l s
5-

Seventeen per cent

having a multiple

of the principals

car off-street

driving range

from schools
and/or driving

60
s i m u l a t o r r e p o r t e d t h at d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s s h o u l d not
be r e q u i r e d to h a v e an a p p r o v e d m i n o r In d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
for c e r t i f i c a t i o n .

Th is

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

p o s i t i o n was

s h a r e d by

3^.1 p e r

f r o m s c ho o ls o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d -

t h e - w h e e l p h a s e of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n o n - t h e - s t r e e t .
F i f t y - t w o p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m sc h oo l s

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day
s u p p o r t e d the r e q u i r e m e n t
for c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
in sc ho ols
Saturday,

F o r t y - e i g h t p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the s ummer,
and/or after school

6.
schools

of a m i n o r In d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

concurred.

T w e n t y - n i n e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r

school day a g r e e d t h at six s e m e s t e r h o ur s
cation co urses was s u f f i c i e n t
while

fr o m

39.7 p er cent

of driver edu­

for q u a l i t y I n s t r u c t i o n ,

of the p r i n c i p a l s

fr o m s c h o o l s o f f e r ­

ing d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in the summ er, S a t u r d a y ,
school s u p p o r t e d this

a n d / o r af t e r

re q ui r em e nt .

T he O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d C o m m u n i t y A c c e p t a n c e of D r i v e r
Education
This
responses

s e c t i o n c o nt a in s
of p r i n c i p a l s

fi n dings w h i c h i n d i c a t e the

to q u e s t i o n s

concerning community

acceptance o f d r i v e r e d uc a ti o n.
P r e s e n t e d In T a b l e 9 are the p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n s e s
from p r i n c i p a l s

g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g to:

(1) s c h o o l size,

TABLE 9*— Responses of Principals, Expreozed in Percentages*, Relative to the Community
Acceptance of Driver Education as Classified by Total, School Size, and Type
of County.
School Classification
Question

Total
%

A
%

B
%

C
%

D
%

Metro
%

NonMetro
%

14. Parents in this community
receive adequate informa­
tion about driver educa­
tion.

SA/A
U
D/SD

49.5
20.3
29.5

53.9
19.7
25.0

50.0
24.3
24.3

46.1
15.9
38.1

45.6
21.1
33.4

48.4
21.8
28.2

50.0
19.2
30.8

49. This community has a nega
tive reaction toward
driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

1.5
7.4
91.2

1.3
5.3
93.4

0
4.1
96.0

3.2
9.5
87.3

1.8
12.3
86.0

.8
4.8
94.3

2.1
9.6
88.4

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree
U
■ Undecided
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree

62
(2)

metro and non-metro

county

schools,

and

(3) t o t a l

responses.
D a t a s h o w n In T a b l e
1.
parents

9 Indicates:

F i f t y p e r cent o f all p r i n c i p a l s
In t he c o m m u n i t y r e c e i v e d a d e q u a t e

r e p o r t e d th at
information about

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m .
Fifty-three

p e r cent

schools agreed with
principals
2.

t hi s p o s i t i o n ,

from class

C schools

Ninety-one per

the c o m m u n i t y

while

f r o m c l as s

A

38.1 p e r cent o f t h e

d id n ot agree.

cent o f al l p r i n c i p a l s

has a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e

This p o s i t i o n was
principals

of the p r i n c i p a l s

r e f u t e d by o n l y

toward

reported

that

driver education.

1.5 p e r cent

o f a ll

responding.

Principals
reported that

from class B schools more

the

community

frequently

had a positive reaction toward

driver education than did principals

from schools

of other

classifications.
N i n e t y - f o u r p e r cent o f the m e t r o
principals

a n d 88.4 p e r cent

principals

concluded

th at

o f the

county

non-metro

th e c o m m u n i t y

school
county

supported driver

education.
Table

10 p r e s e n t s

from p r i n c i p a l s

in the

a percentage

comparison of responses

following categories:

administrative experience of the principal,
w h i c h he l e a r n e d to d r i v e ,

and

(1)

secondary

(2) m e t h o d by

(3) w h e t h e r c r e d i t w as

for c o m p l e t i o n o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

offered

TABLE 10.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentage^1, Relative to the Community
Acceptance of Driver Education as Classified by Secondary Administrative
Experience of the Principal, Method by which the Principal Learned to Drive,
and Whether Credit was given for Driver Education.

Question

Credit
*

No
Credit
*

5 yrs.
or less
*

6 yrs.
or more

44.9
22.5
31.1

54.1
18.0
27.8

27.3
24.2
48.5

52.5
19.7
26.9

0
10.9
89.1

3.0
3.8
93.3

0
18.2

1.7
5.9
92.5

14. Parents in this community
SA/A
receive adequate informa­
U
tion about driver education. D/SD

46.4
20.6

32.0

53.0
18.3
27.8

49. This community has a nega­
tive reaction toward
driver education.

1.0
7.2
91.7

2.6
4.3
93.1

SA/A
U
D/SD

%

Via
Dr. Ed,
%

81.8

Via Oth.
Methods
%

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
* Credit is given toward graduation for driver education.
No Credit
■ No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less *Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrative experience.
6 yrs. or more
=Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrative experience.
Via Dr. Ed.
*Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth.
■Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
* Strongly agree or agree.
U
« Undecided.
D/SD
* Disagree or strongly disagree.

6H

Table
1.

10 r e v e a l s :

F i f t y - t h r e e p er cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s f r o m sc h oo l s

o f f e r i n g no credit

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d that

p ar e nt s r e c e i v e d a d e q u a t e
e d u c a t i o n pr o gram.

F o r t y - s i x per cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

s ch o ol s o f f e r i n g c r ed i t
T ab l e

information about the driver

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n agreed.

10 fu r t h e r shows tha t as his

tive e x p e r i e n c e

from

increased,

s e c o n d a r y admlnistra'

the p r i n c i p a l m o r e f r e q u e n t l y

i n d i c a t e d that pa r e n t s r e c e i v e d a d e q u a t e I n f o r m a t i o n ab out
d r i v e r educati o n.
F i f t y - t w o p er cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s wh o h ad l e a r n e d
to d r i v e v i a m e t h o d s
that pa r e n t s
ed ucation.

o t h e r t ha n d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n i n d i c a t e d

had r e c e i v e d a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n ab o ut d r i v e r
T w e n t y - s e v e n p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s w h o had

l earned to d r i v e via d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h a r e d this o p in i on .
2.

N i n e t y - o n e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

o f f e r i n g credit

f ro m s c h o o l s

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d i s c l o s e d that

c om m un i ty s u p p o r t e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,
o f the p r i n c i p a l s

the

w h i l e 93*1 p e r cent

from s c ho o ls o f f e r i n g no c redit

for this

subject w e r e o f the same opinion.
Tab l e
princip a ls

11 i n d i c a t e s th e p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n s e s
f r o m the f o l l o w i n g c at e g o r i e s :

e d u c a t i o n is o f f e r e d in the school,

a nd

of

(1) w h e n d r i v e r

(2) the m e t h o d of

t ea c h i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e o f d r i v e r e d uc a ti o n.
Data in T a b l e 11 I n d i c a t e s
1.

that:

F i f t y - f o u r p er cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

with a m u l t i p l e ca r o f f - s t r e e t

f r o m sc h o o l

driving range and/or driving

TABLE 11,— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Community
Acceptance of Driver Education as Classified by Type of Program Offered, and
Type of Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day

Question

%

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School
*

Range
and/or
Simulator
*

BTW
Onthe-Street
%

14. Parents in this community
SA/A
receive adequate informa­
U
tion about driver education. D/SD

44.1
27.1
27.1

51.0
18.4
30.2

54.9
25.5
19.6

48.2
19.1
31.8

49. This community has a nega­
tive reaction toward
driver education.

0
3.4
96.6

1.9
8.5
89.7

2.0
3.9
94.2

1.4
8.9
90.0

SA/A
U
D/SD

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree.

66
s i m u l a t o r r e p o r t e d that p ar e n t s

In the c o m m u n i t y r e c e i v e

a d e q u a t e I n f o r m a t i o n about d r i v e r ed u ca t i o n .
tion w a s not s u p p o r t e d ,

however,

principals

offering behind-the-wheel

f r o m s c ho o ls

by

This p o s i ­

31.8 p e r cent of th e
instruc­

tion so l e l y o n - t h e - s t r e e t .
2.

N i n e t y - s e v e n p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

fr o m

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l
day i n d i c a t e d that

the c o m m u n i t y had a p o s i t i v e

toward d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n , w h i l e

attitude

89.7 p e r cent of the p r i n ­

cipals in s c ho o ls

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the

summer,

a n d / o r a f t e r s c h o o l concur r ed .

Saturday,

Principals

f r o m s c ho o ls h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e

car of f-

street d r i v i n g r an g e a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r m o r e
reported that
did p r i n c i p a l s

frequently

the c o m m u n i t y s u p p o r t e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t h a n
f r o m s ch o ol s

instruction entirely

offering behind-the-wheel

on - th e - s t r e e t .

T h e O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
Toward Citizenship Development Among Students
This
questi ons

s e c t i o n i n c l u d e s the r e s p o n s e s

of p r i n c i p a l s

concerning citizenship development

a m o n g st u d e n t s

e nr olled in d r i v e r education.
In T a b l e
by p r i n c i p a l s
size,

12 are

f o un d the p e r c e n t a g e s

in the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r ie s :

of r e s p o n s e s
(1) s c h o o l

(2) m e t r o and n o n - m e t r o co un t y sc h o o l s ,

total r e s p o n s e s .

to

and

(3)

TABLE 12.— Responses of principals, Expressed In Percentage^1, Relative to Citizenship
Development Among Students Enrolled in Driver Education as Classified by
Total, School Size, and Type of County.
School Classification
Question

Total

A

B

C

D

%

%

%

%

%

Metro
*

NonMetro
%

2. Driver education can provide
the opportunity to make real
changes possible in the
responsibility to be assumed
by teenagers.

SA/A
U
D/SD

88.9
7,7
1.8

82.9
11.8
2.6

91.9
5.4
1.4

90.5
7.9
0

91.2
5.3
3.5

87.9
8.9
1.6

89.7
6.8
2.1

3. Driver education can provide
youth with proper attitudes
for effective citizenship.

SA/A
U
D/SD

86.7
8.8
3.3

86.8
6.6
3.9

90.6
6.8
1.4

84.1
14.3
1.6

86.0
7.0
7.0

90.4
5.6
2.4

84.2
11.0
4.1

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree
U
* Undecided
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree

68
D a t a in T a b l e 12 sh ows
1.

that:

E i g h t y - n i n e p e r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s i n d i c a t e d

that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n c o u l d p r o v i d e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y to d e v e l o p
responsibility among t e e n a g e r s .
the p r i n c i p a l s f r o m s c h o o l s

M o r e t h a n 82 p e r cent of

in all c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s a g r e e d

with this opinion.
2.

D a t a i n d i c a t e d that

r e p o r t e d that

86.7 p e r cent of th e p r i n c i p a l s

driver education could provide youth with

proper attitudes

for effective citizenship.

It s h o u l d b e n o t e d that on ly s l ig h t v a r i a t i o n e x i s t e d
b et w e e n the r e s p o n s e s

of m e t r o and n o n - m e t r o co u n t y p r i n c i p a l s

c o n c e r n i n g the a b i l i t y o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n to p r o v i d e
a tt i tu d e d e v e l o p m e n t a m o n g st u d e n t s e n r o l l e d in the program.
C o n t a i n e d in T a b l e
of p r i n c i p a l s g r o u p e d

13 are the p e r c e n t a g e s o f r e s p o n s e s

in c a t e g o r i e s

that

include:

(1)

se condary a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of the p r i n c i p a l
m ethod by w h i c h the p r i n c i p a l
w he t he r credit was o f f e r e d

l e a r n e d to drive,

and

(2)
(3)

for d r i v e r e du c at i o n .

D a t a in T a b l e 13 r e v e a l s that:
1.
more years

N i n e t y - o n e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d 6 o
s e c o n d a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e r e p o r t e d that

dri ver e d u c a t i o n c o u l d p r o v i d e the o p p o r t u n i t y

fo r the

d evelopment o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a m o n g t e e n a g e r s ,

a n d 86.2

per cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s w i t h less e x p e r i e n c e ,
T a b l e 13 f u r t h e r r e v e a l e d that
in the r e s p o n s e s

from principals

ag reed.

l ittle v a r i a t i o n e x i s t e d

in sc h o o l s

o f f e r i n g cred it

TABLE 13*— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Citizenship
Development Among Students Enrolled in Driver Education as Classified by
Secondary Administrative Experience of the Principal, Method by which the
Principal Learned to Drive, and Whether Credit was given for Driver Education.

Question

Credit

No
Credit

%

%

5 yrs.
or less
%

6 yrs.
or more
%

Via
Dr. Ed.
*

Via Oth.
Methods
%

2. Driver education can pro­
vide the opportunity to
make real changes possible
in the responsibility to
be assumed by teenagers.

SA/A
U
D/SD

88.6
10.3
1.0

86.1
8.7
2.6

86.2
10.1
1.4

91.7
5.3
2.2

87.9
12.1
0

89.1
7.1
2.1

3. Driver education can pro­
vide youth with proper
attitudes for effective
citizenship.

SA/A
U
D/SD

87.6
11.3
1.0

84.3
8.7
5.2

84.7
10.1
3.6

88.7
7.5
3.0

87.9
9.1
3.0

86.5
8.8
3.4

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
■ Credit is given toward graduation for drivereducation.
No Credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less * Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience,
6 yrs. or more * Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrativeexperience.
Via Dr. Ed.
* Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth. * Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
* Strongly agree or agree,
U
* Undecided.
D/SD
* Disagree or strongly disagree.

70
for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n as c o m p a r e d
offering no credit

r e g a r d i n g the d e v e l o p m e n t

bility among students
2.

Principals

from schools

of responsi­

o f f e r i n g no c r e d i t

o f t e n that d r i v e r

provide youth with proper attitudes

citizenship than did principals
The

findings

from schools

e n r o l l e d in t h e p r o g r a m .

driver education reported more
c ou l d not

to p r i n c i p a l s

contained

from schools

in Table

for effec t i v e
offer i n g credit.

1*4 d e p i c t

the p e r c e n t a g e

of principals

categories:

(1) s c h o o l s cf'fering d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g

d u r i n g the

s c h o o l da y,
summer,

having a multiple

(2) s c h o o l s

Saturday,

and

(4)

following

offering driver education

and/or after school

car off-street

driving simulator,

in t h e

education

of r e s p o n s e s

the r e g u l a r

included

fo r

(3)

schools

driving range and/or

schools

o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e -

w he e l p h a s e o n - t h e - s t r e e t .
Data from Table
1.
pals

14 r e v e a l s

that:

Only a slight v a r i a t i o n was

in s c h o o l s

apparent among pr i n c i ­

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r

sch ool d a y p r o g r a m a n d p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the

summer,

sch ool w h e n th e y w e r e a s k e d

if driver education provides

for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t

Saturday,

offering

of responsibility

and/or after

among students enrolled

in the p r o g r a m .
2.

Ninety per

cent

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

offering driver e d u c a t i o n during the regular school

day

e n d o r s e d t h e a b i l i t y o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n to p r o v i d e y o u t h

TABLE 14,— Responses of Principals, Expressed In Percentage^, Relative to Citizenship
Development Among Students Enrolled In Driver Education as Classified by
Type of Program Offered, and Type of Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day

Question

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School

%

%

Range
and/or
Simulator

BTW
Onthe-Street

%

%

2. Driver education can pro­
vide the opportunity to
make real changes possible
in the responsibility to
be assumed by teenagers.

SA/A
U
D/SD

88.1
10.2
0

89.2
7.1
2.3

86.3
9.8
0

89.6
7.3
2.3

3. Driver education can pro­
vide youth with proper
attitudes for effective
citizenship.

SA/A
U
D/SD

89.8

85.8
9.0
4.2

88.2
7.8
2.0

86.4
9.1
3-6

8.5
0

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree.

72

with proper attitudes
five p e r cent

for effective

o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

driver e d u c a t i o n during the
school also agreed that
w it h p r o p e r a t t i t u d e s

citizenship.

from schools

summer,

Eighty-

offering

Saturday,

and/or after

driver education provides youth

for effective

citizenship.

The Opinions of Secondary School Principals
T o w a r d t he A v a i l a b i l i t y of G u i d e l i n e s and
Information for Driver Education
This
towards

section

c o n t a i n e d th e o p i n i o n s

th e a v a i l a b i l i t y

of guidelines

of principals

and information

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
In T a b l e

15 » are t h e p e r c e n t a g e

principals

In c a t e g o r i e s

that

of s c h o o l ,

(2) m e t r o a n d n o n - m e t r o

of responses

i n cl u d e :

(1)

c ou n t y

from

classification

schools,

and

(3) t o t a l r e s p o n s e s .
The data
1.
B schools

In T a b l e

15 s h o w s

Fifty-seven per
r e p o r t e d that

cent

that:

of the principals

legislative

changes

in c l as s

in driver

education were well publicized

for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

two p e r cent

responding,

of all prin c i p a l s

supported

Fortythis

position.
However,
principals

It s h o u l d be n o t e d that

responding indicated that

29 .5 p e r ce nt

legislative

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w e r e n o t w e l l p u b l i c i z e d

of th e

changes

for a d m i n i s ­

trators .
2.

F i f t y - s i x p e r ce nt

the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

of all p r i n c i p a l s

o f E d u c a t i o n ha d p r o v i d e d

r e p o r t e d th at
sufficient

TABLE 15.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Availability
of Guidelines and Information for Driver Education as Classified by Total,
School Size, and Type of County.
School Classification

Total

A

B

C

D

%

%

%

%

%

42.8
26.2
29.5

39.5
27.6
32.9

56.8
16.2
23.0

33.4
34.9
31.7

38.6

28.1

SA/A
U
D/SD

56.4
28.0
14.7

59.2
27.6
13.2

55.4
25.7
17.6

33. Guidelines from the State
Department of Education have
been provided that answer
questions relative to design, SA/A
U
implementation, and develop­
D/SD
ment of driver education.

53.5
28.8
15.9

55.2
26.3
17.1

41. A prescribed Statewide
curriculum is needed for
driver education.

39.9
28.4
31.3

43.5
22.4
34.2

Question

4, Legislative changes in driver SA/A
education are well publicized U
D/SD
for administrators.
24. The State Department of Edu­
cation has provided suffi­
cient direction for the
driver education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

Metro
*

NonMetro

%

31.6

43.5
25.0
29.8

41.8
27.4
29.5

54.0
28.6
17.5

56.1
31.6
10.5

57.2
28.2
13.7

55.5
28.1
15.7 ;

55.4
21.6
20.3

54.0
34.9
11.1

47.4
35.1
14.1

55.6
25.0
17.7

51.4
32.2
14.4

40.5
18.9
39.2

35.0
44.4
20.6

40.4

42.7
25.8
30.7

37.7
30.8
31.5

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A ■ Strongly agree or agree
U
* Undecided
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree

31.6
28.1

7^
d i r e c t i o n for the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n prog ram.
howev er ,

is t h e fact that

Of importance,

28.0 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

r e s p o n d i n g w e r e u n d e c i d e d w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h this q ue s ti o n.
The m a j o r i t y of p r i n c i p a l s
i n d i c a t e d that

in all s ch o o l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ,

sufficient direction had been provided driver

e d u c a t i o n by the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n .
3.

F i f t y - f o u r p e r cent o f all p r i n c i p a l s

that a d e q u a t e g u i d e l i n e s

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n h a d b e e n

p r o v i d e d by the S t at e D e p a r t m e n t
20.3 p er cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
support

of E d u c a t i o n .

However,

f r o m class B sc h oo l s d i d not

this p o s i t i o n .

4.
the n e e d

reported

P r i n c i p a l s w e r e not in g e n e r a l a g r e e m e n t
for a s t a t e w i d e

c u r r i c u l u m in d r i v e r ed u ca t i o n .

T h i r t y - n i n e p e r cent o f all p r i n c i p a l s
a s t at e w i d e

concerning

i n d i c a t e d a n e e d for

driver education curriculum while

31*3 p e r

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s o p p o s e d s u c h a r e q u i r e m e n t .
D a t a i n d i c a t e d that

^3-5 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from class A s c h o o l s a n d ^0.5 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from

class B s ch o ol s e n d o r s e d a s t a t e w i d e c u r r i c u l u m for d r i v e r
education.

Principals

f r o m cl a ss

C an d D s c h o o l s w e r e

equally d i v i d e d o n the q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the a d o p t i o n of
a s t at e w i d e

c u r r i c u l u m fo r d r i v e r ed u ca t i o n .

T a b l e 15 f u r t h e r r e v e a l e d that m e t r o co u n t y p r i n c i p a l s
more f r e q u e n t l y

supported a statewide driver education

curriculum than did non-metro county

sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s .

75
Data reported

in Table

r e s p o n s e s by p r i n c i p a l s

16

in the

Includes the percentage
following categories:

secondary administrative experience
method by which
cr e d it w a s g i v e n

the p r i n c i p a l

that

s tr a tors.

(3) w h e t h e r

p er

that:

cent o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s

secondary administrative

legislative

category

16 i n d i c a t e s

Forty-five

or m o r e y e a r s

and

(2)

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

Data in Table
1.

(1)

o f the p r i n c i p a l s ,

learned to drive,

of

changes were well

Twenty-three per
presented

with

experience reported

publicized

for a d m i n i ­

cent o f a l l p r i n c i p a l s

in T a b l e

16 w e r e

6

for e a c h

non-committed when asked

the q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e
c ha n g e s
2.

fo r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
In r e s p o n s e

to the

question concerning the provision

of s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n f or the
the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

driver

of Education,

principals wi t h 6 or more years
e x p e r i e n c e a n d 5 0 . 7 p e r c e nt
secondary a d m i nistrative

p e r cent o f the

of secondary

administrative

o f the p r i n c i p a l s w i t h

experience

D a t a i n d i c a t e d th at

62.4

education program from

agreed.

33.3 p e r cent

of t h e p r i n c i p a l s w h o

ha d l e a r n e d to d r i v e v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d
Stat?

Department

that

the

of Education had provided sufficient

d i r e c t i o n f o r the p r o g r a m .
p er cent

le ss

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

A l i k e p o s i t i o n wa s

t a k e n b y 59 .6

w h o h a d l e a r n e d to d r i v e

via

o th e r m e t h o d s .
3.

F i f t y - t h r e e p e r ce nt o f the p r i n c i p a l s

offering credit

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n a n d s c h o o l s

from schools
offering

TABLE 16.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*
of Guidelines and Information for Driver Education
Administrative Experience of the Principal, Method
Learned to Drive, and Whether Credit was given for

Question

Relative to the Availability
as Classified by Secondary
by which the Principal
Driver Education.

Credit

No
Credit

%

%

%

%

Via
Dr. Ed.
*

5 yrs.
or less

6 yrs.
or more

Via Oth.
Methods
*
43.3
26.5

SA/A
U
D/SD

40.2
25.8
31.9

40.0
26.9
32.2

40.8
23.9
34.1

45.1
28.6
24.8

39-4
24.2
36.4

24. The State Department of
Education has provided
SA/A
sufficient direction for the U
driver education program.
D/SD

55.7
31.0
13.4

50,4
30.4
17.4

50.7
31.2
17.4

62.4
24.8
12.1

33-3
48.5

25.2

18.2

14.3

33. Guidelines from the State
Department of Education
have been provided that
answer questions relative
to design, implementation,
and development of driver
education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

53-6
26.8
17.5

53.0
29.6

48.5
29.7
18.8

58.7
27.8
12.8

48.5
33.3

18.2

54.2
28.2
15.6

41. A prescribed Statewide
curriculum is needed for
driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

43.3
22.7
34.0

34.8

44.2
24.6
30.5

35.4
32.3
32.4

27.2
51.5
21.2

Legislative changes in dri­
ver education are well pub­
licized for administrators.

15.6
32.2
32.2

28.6
59.6

41.6

25.2
32.8

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
* Credit is given toward graduationfor drivereducation.
No Credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less * Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience.
6 yrs. or more * Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrativeexperience.
Via Dr. Ed.
« Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth.
* Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
■ Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD
* Disagree or strongly disagree.

77
no c r e d i t

reported that

had p r o v i d e d

sufficient

Principals

guidelines

indicated more

education.

secondary

often that the

admini­
State

of Education had provided sufficient driver

education guidelines than did principals

with less

T w e n t y - s i x p e r cent o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s
presented

of Education

f or d r i v e r

who had 6 or more years

strative experience
Department

th e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

in T a b l e

Department

experience.

in e a c h c a t e g o r y

16 w e r e u n d e c i d e d w h e n a s k e d

if the S t a t e

of Educa t i o n had made dri v e r education guidelines

available.
4.

Information gleaned

3 •3 p e r c e n t o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from Table

from schools

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d th at

e du c at i o n ,

from schools

offering credit

Thirty-four per

o f f e r i n g no

credit

cent

for d r i v e r

agreed.

Principals with
experience

that

a prescribed statewide

driver e d u c a t i o n curr i c u l u m was needed.
of the p r i n c i p a l s

16 i n d i c a t e s

supported

curriculum more

5 years
the n e e d

or l e s s

secondary administrative

for a s t a t e w i d e

driver education

often than did principals with

additional

administrative experience.
F o r t y - o n e p e r cent
drive

via m e t h o d s

a statewide

of the principals

who

l e a r n e d to

other than driver education endorsed

c urriculum for driver education,

pe r cen t o f the p r i n c i p a l s

while

w h o h a d l e a r n e d to d r i v e

only

27-2

via

d ri v er e d u c a t i o n a gr e e d.
P r e s e n t e d In T a b l e
by p r i n c i p a l s

17 a r e th e p e r c e n t a g e s

toward questions

of r e s p o n s e s

c o n c e r n i n g the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f

TABLE 17.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentage^, Relative to the Availability
of Guidelines and Information for Driver Education as Classified by Type of
Program Offered, and Type of Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day
*

Question

It. Legislative changes in dri­
ver education are well pub­
licized for administrators.
24. The State Department of
Education has provided
sufficient direction for
the driver education
program.
33. Guidelines from the State
Department of Education
have been provided that
answer questions relative
to design, implementation,
and development of driver
education.
Itl. A prescribed Statewide
curriculum is needed for
driver education.

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School
*

Range
and/or
Simulator
%

BTW
Onthe-Street
%

SA/A
U
D/SD

42.4
23.7
33.9

43.0
26.9
28.3

41.2
31.4
27.5

43.1
25.0
30.0

SA/A
U
D/SD

50.9
39.0
10.2

58.0
25.0
16.1

58.8
31.4
9.8

55-9
27.3
15.9

SA/A
U
D/SD

50.9
30.5
16.9

54.2
28.3
15.6

51.0
35.3
11.8

54.1
27.3
16.8

SA/A
U
D/SD

37.3
30.5
32.2

40.6
27.8
31.1

45.1
29.4
25.5

38.7
28.2

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree.

32.8

79
g u i d e l i n e s a n d i n f o r m a t i o n fo r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
categories

include:

(1) s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day,
e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the

summer,

(2)

schools

Saturday,

offering driver

and/or aft e r school,

(3) s c h o o l s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e

car off-street

and/or driving simulator,

(4) s c h o o l s

the-wheel

1.
that

and

instruction entirely

D a t a in T a b l e

offering behind-

that:

of p r i n c i p a l s

changes

driving range

on-the-street.

17 r e v e a l s

The majority

legislative

Selected

in e a c h c a t e g o r y

reported

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w e r e w e l l p u b ­

l i c i z e d for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
It s h o u l d be n o t e d th at

more

t h a n 23 p e r

cent

o f the

p r i n c i p a l s r e s p o n d i n g d i d not

s u p p o r t t he p o s i t i o n t ha t

legislative changes were well

publicized

2.

for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

P i f t y - n i n e p e r cent of t h e p r i n c i p a l s

having a multiple

car off-street

s i m u l a t o r r e p o r t e d that
provided sufficient
This o p i n i o n w a s

driving range and/or driving

the State Department

direction

s h a r e d by

from schools

of E d u c a t i o n had

for the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m .

5 5 .9 p e r

cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g t h e b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e o f d r i v e r
education solely on-the-street.
Thirty-nine per

ce nt o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g th e r e g u l a r s c h o o l d a y w e r e
n o n - c o m m i t t a l w h e n a s k e d i f t he d i r e c t i o n g i v e n t h e d r i v e r
e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m by t he S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t
adequate,

o f E d u c a t i o n was

80
3.

F i f t y - f o u r p e r cent

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g th e
after school
Department

reported

that

s um m e r ,

from schools

Saturday,

adequate guidelines

and/or

from the State

of Education were p r o v i d e d for driver education.

F ifty p e r cent

of the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools offering

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l d a y a gr e e d .
Sixteen per

cent

the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l
s treet

11.8 per

multiple

from schools offering

phase of driver education

r e p o r t e d th at the

d i d not p r o v i d e
w hi l e

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

State

Department

sufficient guidelines

of E ducation

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

cent o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

c ar o f f - s t r e e t

solely on-the-

from schools having a

driving range

and/or driving simulator

agreed.
Table

17

the p r i n c i p a l s

further revealed

that m o r e

in e a c h c a t e g o r y w e r e

t h a n 27 p e r

undecided concerning

the p r o v i s i o n o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n g u i d e l i n e s
the S t a t e
4.
street

Department

of Education.

Principals

from schools

th a t

a statewide

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be a d o p t e d ,
the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

while

car off-

i n d i c a t e d by

c u r r i c u l u m in
38.7 p e r c e nt o f

o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

instruction exclusively on-the-street,
Twenty-seven per

p r o v i d e d by

having a multiple

driving range and/or d riving simulator

a *45.1 p e r cent r e s p o n s e

cent of

concurred.

ce nt o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s

were non­

c om m i t t a l w h e n a s k e d the q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g a s t a t e w i d e
c u r r i c u l u m f or d r i v e r

education.

81

T he O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of
Driver Education
T hi s

section contains

f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g the o p i n i o n s

of s e c o n d a r y s c ho o l p r i n c i p a l s

to q u e s t i o n s

c o n c e r n i n g th e

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of d r i v e r e du c at i on .
P r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 18 is the p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n s e s
from p r i n c i p a l s a c c o r d i n g to s e l e c t e d c a t e g o r i e s t h at
(1) s chool size,

(2) m e t r o a n d n o n - m e t r o

include:

co u nt y s c ho o l s ,

a nd

(3) to t al r es p on s e s .
D a t a in T a b l e 18 i n d i c a t e s t h a t :
1.

S e v e n t y - t w o p er cent o f all p r i n c i p a l s a g r e e d

that the w r i t t e n r e p o r t s

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w e r e not

exces­

sive.
S e v e n t y - f o u r p e r cent o f the n o n - m e t r o

county princi­

pals d i s c l o s e d that th e re w e r e not e x c e s s i v e w r i t t e n r e p o r t s
in d r i v e r ed u ca t i o n .

Similarly,

70.2 p e r cent o f the m e t r o

county p r i n c i p a l s agreed.
2.

Principals

r ep o r t e d that

the

in each c a t e g o r y p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

secretarial

18

t i m e spent o n d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

was not excessive.
Principals

f r o m class B a nd D sc h o o l s

cent and 71-9 p e r cent r e s p o n s e ,

in a 70 . 3 p e r

i n d i c a t e d th a t t he s e c r e ­

tarial ti me spent o n d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n wa s not ex c es s i v e .
More t h a n 60 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
schools, agreed.

in c la s s A a nd C

TABLE 18.— Responses of Principals, Expressed In Percentages* Relative to the Administra­
tion of Driver Education as Classified by Total, School Size, and Type of
County,
School Classification
Question

Total

A

B

C

D

Metro

NonMetro

t

%

%

%

%

%

%
13.0

5. The time I spend on paper
work for driver education
is excessive.

SA/A
U
D/SD

12.5
12.5
72.4

10.5
10.5
75.0

14.9
12.2
69.0

15.9
14.3
69.8

8.8
14.0
75.4

12.1
14.5
70.2

11.0
74.0

]5. Too much secretarial time
is spent on driver educa­
tion matters.

SA/A
U
D/SD

14,0
16.6
68.2

21.1
10.5
68.4

10.8
17.6
70.3

14.3
20.6
63.5

7.0
19.3
71.9

17.7
16.1
65.3

10.6
17.1
71.2

25- I need additional time to
properly administer the
driver education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

26,2
16.6
55.4

36.8
13.2
48.7

31.1
16.2
50.0

19.1
25.4
55.3

14,1
10.5
72.1

33.0
16.9
49.1

20.5
15.8

34. Scheduling the driver
education program is
difficult and time con­
suming.

SA/A
U
D/SD

36.6
9.6
52.4

40.8
10.5
47.3

39.2
2.7
58.2

30.2
15.9
50.8

33.3
10.5
54.4

40.3
5.6
53.2

32.9

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree
U
* Undecided
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree

61.0

13.0
52.0

S

83
N o n - m e t r o c o u n t y p r i n c i p a l s e n d o r s e d th e a b o v e p o s i t i o n
more

frequently than did metro
3.

Data gleaned

55 p e r cent

county principals.

from Table

o f all p r i n c i p a l s

18 I n d i c a t e s

that more

than

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y d i d not

n e e d a d d i t i o n a l t i m e to a d m i n i s t e r th e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
program.
It w a s r e v e a l e d that as
for a d d i t i o n a l

time

school

size

Increased the need

to a d m i n i s t e r the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

program also Increased.
The

findings

disclosed that

26.2 per cent

principals

Indicated a need for a d ditional

the d r i v e r

education program.

Sixty-one
principals

p e r cent

reported

that

of the n o n - m e t r o
additional

4.

county principals

Fifty-two

pals

consuming.

s u p p o r t e d th i s

per cent r e s p o n s e
Fifty-eight

to a d m i n i s t e r

county

while

school

49 * 1 p e r

s h a r e d this

p e r cent o f al l p r i n c i p a l s

s c h e d u l i n g th e d r i v e r
nor t i m e

time

time was not n e c e s s a r y to

administer the driver education program,
cent of the m e t r o

o f a ll

opinion.
revealed that

e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m w as n e i t h e r d i f f i c u l t
Both metro and non-metro

county

p o s i t i o n by a 5 3 - 2 p e r cent

princi­

a n d 52 .0

respectively.
p e r cent o f t h e c l a s s

and 5^.^ p e r c e n t o f the c l a s s

B school principals

D school principals

indicated

that s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w a s n e i t h e r d i f f i c u l t
c on s um i n g ,

while 50.8 per

pals a n d *J7<3 p e r ce nt
of the s a m e o p i n i o n .

cent

of the

of the class
class

nor time

C school pri n c i ­

A school principals

were

8*4
However,
principals
difficult

r e p o r t e d that
a n d ti m e

Table
principals

it s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t

s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w as

consuming.

19 s h o w s

the percentages

grouped according

strative experience,
l ea r n e d

to d r i v e ,

36.6 p e r cent o f all

and

to:

of responses

(1) y e a r s

from

secondary admini­

(2) m e t h o d by w h i c h the p r i n c i p a l
(3) w h e t h e r

credit was

offered

f or

driver education.
Data shown in Table
1.
learned

19 i n d i c a t e s :

S e v e n t y - t h r e e p e r cent
to d r i v e v ia m e t h o d s

reported that

the t i m e s p en t

e d u c a t i o n w a s not e x c e s s i v e ,
cipals w h o h a d
2.

6 or m o r e y e a r s
that

on the w r i t t e n reports
while

63.6 p e r cent

via driver

in d r i v e r

o f the p r i n ­

educa t i o n agreed.

p e r ce nt o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

who had

secondary administrative experience reported

secretarial

not e x c e s s i v e

who had

other than driver education

l e a r n e d to d r i v e

Seventy-one

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

t i m e s p en t

as

on d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n matters

c o m p a r e d to 65*9

pals w h o h a d less

p e r cent

experience and responded

was

of the p r i n c i ­
to t h e sa m e

question.
3.

F i f t y - t h r e e p e r cent

offering credit

o f the

fo r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

time was not n e e d e d to a d m i n i s t e r
In a g r e e m e n t ,
schools

were

58 .3 p e r

o f f e r i n g n o cr e di t

cent

principals

from schools

i n d i c a t e d that

additional

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m .
o f the p r i n c i p a l s

f or d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

from

TABLE 19.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentage^, Relative to the Administra­
tion of Driver Education as Classified by Secondary Administrative Experience
of the Principal, Method by which the Principal Learned to Drive, and Whether
Credit was given for Driver Education.

Question

Credit
*

No
Credit

5 yrs.
or less

6 yrs.
or more

Via
Dr. Ed.

%

%

%

%

Via Oth.
Methods

%

5. The time I spend on paper
work for driver education
is excessive.

SA/A
U
D/SD

9.3
14.4
74.2

14.7
9.6
72.2

13.0
15.9
69.6

12.0
9-0
75.2

18.2
15.2
63.6

11.8
12.2
73.5

15. Too much secretarial time
is spent on driver educa­
tion matters.

SA/A
U
D/SD

14.4
14.4
70.1

14.8
16.5
67.0

13.8
19.6
65.9

14.3
13.5
70.7

18.2

18.2
63.6

13.5
16.4
69.9

25. I need additional time to
properly administer the
driver education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

24.8
21.6
52.6

25.2
14.8
58.3

25.3
21.7
51.4

27.1
11.3
59.4

33.3
18.2
48.5

25.2
16.4
56.3

34. Scheduling the driver
education program is diffi­
cult and time consuming.

SA/A
U
D/SD

35.0
13.4
48.4

38.2

33.3
11.6
51.1

39.9
7.5

27.3
15.2
57.6

37.8
8.8
51.6

8.7
53.0

52.6

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
* Credit is given toward graduationfor drivereducation.
No Credit
= No credit is given toward graduation fordriver education.
5 yrs. or less * Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience.
6 yrs. or more * Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrativeexperience.
Via Dr. Ed.
* Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth. ■ Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
* Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD
* Disagree or strongly disagree.

86
P r i n c i p a l s w i t h 6 or m o r e y e ar s
e x p e r i e n c e r e p o r t e d more

secondary administrative

f r e q u e n t l y that no a d d i t i o n a l

time was n e e d e d to a d m i n i s t e r the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m
than did p r i n c i p a l s w i t h less a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ex p e r i e n c e .
P r i n c i p a l s wh o h ad l e a r n e d to d r i v e via d r i v e r e d u c a ­
tion i n d i c a t e d mo re o f t e n a n e e d for a d d i t i o n a l ti me f o r the
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t h a n d id p r i n c i p a l s who
had l e ar n ed to d r iv e via o t h e r m e t h o d s .
li,

The m a j o r i t y of p r i n c i p a l s

p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

20 r e p o r t e d that

e d u c a t i o n was n e i t h e r d i f f i c u l t
Fifty-eight

in e a c h c a t e g o r y
s c h e d u l i n g of d r i v e r

n o r t i m e consum i ng .

p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w h o ha d l e a r n e d

to d r iv e v ia d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n i n d i c a t e d that the s c h e d u l i n g
of this c o u r s e was n e i t h e r d i f f i c u l t n o r time c o ns u mi n g.
This o p i n i o n was

s h a r e d by 51*6 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

who had l e a r n e d to dr i ve

via m e t h o d s

other than driver

education.
Table

19 f u r t h e r r e v e a l e d that more t h a n 27 p e r cent

of the p r i n c i p a l s

in each c a t e g o r y r e p o r t e d that

scheduling

driver e d u c a t i o n was d i f f i c u l t a n d ti me co n s u m i n g .
P r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

20 are the p e r c e n t a g e s o f r e s p o n s e s

from p r i n c i p a l s g r o u p e d in c a t e g o r i e s that

incl ude:

(1)

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day
(2)

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n only d u r i n g the

Saturday,

a n d / o r a f t e r sc h oo l ,

car o f f - s t r e e t

summer,

(3) s ch o ol s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e

driving range and/or driving simulator,

and

TABLE 20.— Responses of Principals, Expressed In Percentage^1, Relative to the Administra­
tion of Driver Education as Classified by Type of Program Offered, and Type of
Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day

Question

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School

%

%

Range
and/or
Simulator

BTW
Onthe-Street

%

%

5. The time I spend on paper
work for driver education
is excessive.

SA/A
U
D/SD

8.5
15.3
72.8

13.6
11.8
72.1

19.6
15.7
60.7

10.9
11.8
75.0

15. Too much secretarial time
is spent on driver educa­
tion matters.

SA/A
U
D/SD

11.9
16.9
71.2

14.6
16.5
67.4

15.7
17.6

66.7

13-7
16.4
68.6

25. I need additional time to
properly administer the
driver education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

20.3
16.9
61.0

27.9
16.5
53.8

33.3
15.7
49.0

24.6
16.8
56.8

34. Scheduling the driver edu­
cation program is difficult
and time consuming.

SA/A
U
D/SD

45.8
3.4
47.5

33.9
11.3
53.7

43.2
7.8
47.1

35.0
10.0
53.7

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree.

88
(J|) s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g the b e h l n d - t h e - w h e e l

I n s t r u c t i o n In

driver education purely o n - t h e - s t r e e t .
Table
1.

20 shows t h a t :

S e v e n t y - t h r e e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from

scho ols o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r sc h o o l
day r e p o r t e d that the time

spent

on w r i t t e n r e p o r t s

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was not e x c e s s i v e .

In

This p o s i t i o n wa s

s u p p o r t e d by an e q u a l n u m b e r of p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s c ho o ls

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the su mm er,

Saturday,

and/or

aft e r shcool.
Principals

f r o m s ch o o l s

o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

phase of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n e n t i r e l y o n - t h e - s t r e e t

indicated

more o f t e n that the t i me spent o n w r i t t e n r e p o r t s

in

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was not e x c e s s i v e as o p p o s e d to p r i n c i p a l s
from s c ho o ls h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e car o f f - s t r e e t

d r i v i n g range

a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m ul a to r .
2.

S e v e n t y - o n e p er cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s c hools

offering driver education

d u r i n g the r e g u l a r sc h o o l day

r ep o r t e d th at s e c r e t a r i a l

t i me spent on d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

not e x c e s s i v e ,

a nd 6 7 . p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

was

from

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g th e s ummer,

S a tu r da y ,

a nd / or a f t e r sc h o o l co n cu rr e d.
3.

S i x t y - o n e p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

o ff e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

from schools

d u r i n g t h e r e g u l a r s c h o o l day

repor te d that a d d i t i o n a l time to a d m i n i s t e r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
was not ne e de d , w h i l e 5 3. 8 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from

89

schools
day,

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g th e s u m m e r , S a t u r ­

a n d / o r a f t e r s c h o o l agreed.
F i f t y - s e v e n p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l
tion e x c l u s i v e l y

fr o m s ch o o l s

i n s t r u c t i o n in d r i v e r e d u c a ­

o n - t h e - s t r e e t r e p o r t e d that a d d i t i o n a l

time was not n e e d e d to a d m i n i s t e r the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o ­
gr am as did

49.0 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e car o f f - s t r e e t

f r o m s c hools

driving range and/or

d r i v i n g simulator.
k.

The responses

of principals

p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 20 w e r e ev e n l y
c o n c e r n i n g the d i f f i c u l t y
Principals

in e a c h c a t e g o r y

d i v i d e d on the q u e s t i o n

of s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e du c at i o n .

f r o m sc h o o l s

offering driver education

during the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day r e p o r t e d m or e

o f t e n that

s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was b o t h d i f f i c u l t
c on s um i ng than di d p r i n c i p a l s
edu c at i on d u r i n g the s um m er ,

in s c h o o l s
Sa t ur d a y ,

and time

offering driver

a n d / o r a f t e r school.

T he O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d A c c e p t a n c e of the D r i v e r
Education Program
Attention
of p r i n c i p a l s

to this

s e c t i o n f ocuses

to q u e s t i o n s

upon the responses

c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r a c c e p t a n c e of

driver education.
F o u n d in T a b l e 21 are the p e r c e n t a g e s
from p r i n c i p a l s
school size,

representing categories

(2) m e t r o and n o n - m e t r o

(3) total r es p on s e s .

of responses

that involve:

c ounty s ch o ol s ,

(1)
and

TABLE 21.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Their Acceptance
of Driver Education as Classified by Total, School Size, and Type of County.
School Classification

Question

Total

A

%

%

B
*

C
*

D

Metro

%

%

NonMetro
*

6. Driver education should be
a part of the regular school
day program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

3^.3
17.3
47.7

46.1
14.5
39.5

31.1
17.6
50.0

19.0
19.0
60.3

40.3
19.3
40.4

42.0
16.1
41.9

28.1

8. Administrators as a group
support driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

83.4
13.7
2.6

77.6
17.1
5.3

78.4
18.9
1.4

88.9
9.5
1.6

91.2
7.0
1.8

78.3
17.7
4.0

87.7
10.3
1.4

16. Driver education should be
required of all new drivers.

SA/A
U
D/SD

87.8
M
5.5

89.4
3.9
6.6

91.8
4.1
4.1

88.9
4.8
4.8

79.0
7.0
7.0

91.9
2.4
4.0

84.2
6.8
6.8

22. Our board of education
supports the driver
education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

93.7
4.8
1.1

94.7
3.9
1.3

89.2
6.8
2.7

95.3
4.8
0

96.5
3.5
0

92.7
4.8
1.6

94.5
4.8
.7

23. Credit toward graduation
should be given in driver
education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

49.8
14.4
35.8

50.0
9.2
40.8

44.6
18.9
36.5

47.7
12.7
39.7

57.9
17.5
24,6

51.6
12.9
35.5

48.0
15.8
36.3

27. Driver education is only
taught in the public
schools to provide a ser­
vice to the community.

SA/A
U
D/SD

26.9
12.2
59.0

21.0
14.5
64.4

24.3
6.8
62.2

30.2

35.1
10.5
54.4

27.4
11.3

26.7
13.0
58.9

17.5
52.4

58.8

18.5
52.0

92.1
3.2
4.8

96.5
3.5

17.6

58.7
9.5

41.9

31.8

35. Our superintendent supports
the driver education
program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

93.4
4.8
1.9

93.5
5.3
1.3

91.9

36. Driver education Is not an

SA/A
U
D/SD

48.7
14.0
36.5

60.6
13.2

37,8

26.3

academic subject.

6.8
1.4

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree
U
* Undecided
D/SD « Disagree or strongly disagree

0

93.5
4.0
2.4

93.2
5.5
1.4

36.9
14.0
49.2

47.6
15.3
36.2

50 .C
12.3
37.0

1

92
Ta ble 21 shows
1.

that:

F o r t y - e i g h t p e r cent,

p r i n c i p a l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in this

or n e a r l y o n e - h a l f of all
su r v e y r e p o r t e d that

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d not be a part o f the r e g u l a r s c h o o l
day progr am .

Th is p o s i t i o n was r e f u t e d h o w e v e r ,

by

3^*3 p e r

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s r e s p o n d i n g to this q ue s ti o n.
Principals

f r o m class

C s c ho o l s

reported more fre­

quen tly that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n sh o u l d not be a part of the
r eg u l a r sc h oo l da y t ha n d id p r i n c i p a l s
classifications.

It s h o u l d be noted,

per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

in s c h o o l s of o t h e r
however,

that

46.1

in class A s c h o o l s e n d o r s e d the

o f f e r i n g of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r sc h o o l day.
E i g h t y - t h r e e p er cent of al l p r i n c i p a l s
administrators
As school
more

I n d i c a t e d that

support d r i v e r educat io n .
size d e c r e a s e d p r i n c i p a l s

t e n d e d to r e s p o n d

fa v or a b l y to the q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

support

for the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p ro gram.

E i g h t y - s e v e n p e r cent
school p r i n c i p a l s

o f the n o n - m e t r o c o un t y

i n d i c a t e d that a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

s u pport

driver e d u c a t i o n a nd 78.3 p e r cent of the m e t r o c ou n ty
princip a ls
2.

s u p p o r t e d t hi s opinion.
Data r e v e a l e d that

87.8 p e r cent o f all p r i n c i p a l s

r e po r te d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d o f new d r i v e r s
N i n e t y - o n e p e r cent of the m e t r o c o u n t y

s chool p r i n c i ­

pals e n d o r s e d the r e q u i r e m e n t o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n for n e w
drivers and 84.2 pe r cent of the n o n - m e t r o c o u n t y
princ ip a ls

s h a r e d this view.

school

93
3.

An o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y ,

or 93.7 p er cent,

o f all

p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d that the b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t e d
the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n program.
4.

F o r t y - n i n e p e r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d that

credit s h o u l d be g i v e n in d r i v e r ed u c a t i o n .
was not e n d o r s e d ,

ho w ev e r,

by

This position

35*8 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

r e s p o n d i n g to this q u es t i o n .
Table

21 f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e s that

57-9 p e r cent of t he

pri n ci p al s

f r o m class D s ch o o l s a n d 50.0 p e r cent o f th e

principals

f r o m class A sc h o o l s e n d o r s e d the o f f e r i n g o f

credit

for c o m p l e t i o n of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

Forty-seven per

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m class C s c h o o l s a nd 44.6 p e r

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m class B s c h o o l s

respectively,

agreed.
The f i n d i n g s p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e
metro c o u n t y s chool p r i n c i p a l s

21 f u r t h e r shows that

s u p p o r t e d c r ed it

edu c at i on m o r e o f t e n t h a n di d n o n - m e t r o

fo r d r i v e r

co unty sc h o o l p r i n c i ­

pals .
5.

F i f t y - n i n e p e r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was t aught
community service.

This o p i n i o n w as

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

public

schools

as a

not s h a r e d by 26.9 p e r

r e s p o n d i n g to t h is q u es t i o n .

Met r o a n d n o n - m e t r o
equal a g r e e m e n t

in the p u b l i c

d id not a g r e e

co u n t y

school principals were

that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was

school to p r o v i d e m o re

taught

in the

t h a n a c o m m u n i t y service.

in

94

6.

N i n e t y - t h r e e p e r cent o f a l l p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d

that the s ch o ol s u p e r i n t e n d e n t

supported the driver education

program.
7-

S ix t y p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

in cl a ss A sc h o o l s

r ep o r t e d that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was not a n a c a d e m i c

subjec t.

This o p i n i o n was s h a r e d by 58.7 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s in
class C schools.

In co n tr a s t ,

pals in class D s c h o o l s

49 .2 p e r cent o f t h e p r i n c i ­

indicated

d river e d u c a t i o n was an a c a d e m i c

that in t h e i r o pi n i o n ,
subject.

P r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 22 are the p e r c e n t a g e s
from p r i n c i p a l s

g r o u p e d in c a t e g o r i e s

that

of r e s p o n s e s

in c lude:

(1)

secondary a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of the p r i n c i p a l ,
method by w h i c h the p r i n c i p a l
wh et her cre dit wa s o f f e r e d

and

(3)

for d r i v e r e d uc a t i o n .

Data in T a b l e 22 r e v e a l s
1.

l ea r n e d to drive,

that:

F i f t y - f i v e p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

o ff ering no c redit

(2)

f r o m sc h o o l s

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d tha t

driver e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d not be a part of t he r e g u l a r s c h o o l
day progra m , w h i l e

41.3 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

schools o f f e r i n g c redit

fr o m

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n felt that it

should be o f f e r e d d u r i n g th e r e g u l a r sc h o o l day.
T h i r t y - n i n e p e r cent

of t h e p r i n c i p a l s w i t h 5 y e a r s or

less s e c o n d a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e e n d o r s e d o f f e r i n g
driver e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r sc h oo l day,
per cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
experience agreed.

w h i l e 17-3

with more years administrative

TABLE 22.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Their Acceptance
of Driver Education as Classified by Secondary Administrative Experience of the
Principal, Method by which the Principal Learned to Drive, and Whether Credit
was given for Driver Education.

Question

Credit
%

No
Credit
%

5 yrs.
or less
%

6 yrs.
or more
%

%

Via
Dr. Ed.

Via Oth.
Methods

%

6. Driver education should
be a part of the regular
school day program,

SA/A
U
D/SD

33.0
23.7
41.3

32.1
13.1
54.7

39.1
19.6
41.3

17.3
15.0
54.1

30.3
30.3
39.4

34.8
15.5
48.7

8. Administrators as a group
support driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

89.7
9.3
1.0

77.4
18.3
3.5

85.5
13.8
.7

81.2
13.5
4.5

87.8
12.1
0

82.7
13.9
2.9

16, Driver education should
be required of all new
drivers.

SA/A
U
D/SD

89.6
3.1
4.1

85.2
5.2
7.8

89.1
4.3
3.6

86.5
5.3
7.5

90.9
3.0
0

87.4
5.0
6.3

22. Our board of education
supports the driver
education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

94.9
5.2
0

90.5
6.1
2.6

91.3
6.5
1.4

96.2
3.0
.8

90.9
3.0
6.1

94.1
5.0
.4

23. Credit toward graduation
should be given in
driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

84.6
9.3
6.2

18.1

47.1
17.4
35.5

52.6
11.3
36.1

36.3
33.3
30.3

51.7
11.8
36.5

27. Driver education is only
taught In the public
schools to provide a
service to the community.

SA/A
U
D/SD

13.4
15.5
70.1

33.9
11.3

30.4
13.0
54.4

23.4
11.3
63.9

33.3
9.1
57.6

26.1
12.6
59.3

20.9
60.0

52.2

Our superintendent supports
the driver education pro­
gram.

SA/A
U
D/SD

92.8
7.2
0

92.2
3.5
4.4

89.9
7.2
2.9

97.0
2.3
.8

90.9
6.1
3.0

93.7
4.6
1.7

Driver education is not
an academic subject.

SA/A
U
D/SD

35.1
13.*
51.5

59-1
18.3
20.9

44.0
15.9
39.1

53.4
12.0
33.9

36.4
18.2
45.5

50.4
13.4
35.3

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
* Credit Is given toward graduationfor drivereducation.
No Credit
■ No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less * Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience.
6 yrs. or more * Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrativeexperience.
Via Dr. Ed.
* Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth, Meth.
* Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
* Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD
* Disagree or strongly disagree.

97

F o r t y - e i g h t p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s w h o
drive v i a m e t h o d s

l e a r n e d to

other than driver education disclosed

that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d not be a p a r t
school day p r o g r a m , w h i l e

30.3 p e r cent

of the r e g u l a r

of the p r i n c i p a l s

who le arned to d r i v e via d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n f a v o r e d o f f e r i n g
driver e d u c a t i o n in the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day p r og r a m .
2.

N i n e t y p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

off e r i n g credit
istrators

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

i n d i c a t e d that

supported driver education.

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from s c h o o l s

f r o m sc h oo l s
admin­

Seventy-seven per

o f f e r i n g no cr edit,

concurred.
P r i n c i p a l s w h o h ad
tion i n d i c a t e d m o r e

l e a r n e d to d r i v e v i a d r i v e r e d u c a ­

f r e q u e n t l y that a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

ported d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t h a n did p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d

sup­
learned

to drive via o t h e r methods.
3.

T h e r e q u i r e m e n t of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n of n e w d r i v e r s

was s u p p o r t e d by 89.6 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
offeri ng credit f o r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n a nd by
the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s ch o ol s

Principals who had

f r o m sc h o o l s

85.1 p e r cent of

o f f e r i n g n o credit.

le a r n e d to d r i v e v ia d r i v e r e d u c a ­

tion more o f t e n s u p p o r t e d the r e q u i r e m e n t o f d r i v e r e d u c a ­
tion for new dr i v e r s

t h a n did p r i n c i p a l s w h o

l e a r n e d to

drive v i a o t h e r method s .
*4.

B o a r d of e d u c a t i o n s up p or t

was r e p o r t e d by more

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

t h a n 90 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

in each c a te g or y p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

22.

P r i n c i p a l s w i t h 6 or m o r e y e a r s
trative e x p e r i e n c e

indicated more

secondary adminis­

f r e q u e n t l y that the b o a r d

98
of e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t h a n d i d p r i n c i p a l s
w it h less e x p e r i e n c e .
5.

F i f t y - t h r e e p e r cent o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s w i t h 6

years o r m o r e
that

credit

per cent
with this

secondary

administrative

experience

s h o u l d b e g i v e n in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

of the principals w i t h

le ss

experience

reported
while

47.1

agreed

position.

P r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d n ot r e c e i v e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
instruction were more

favorable

toward offe r i n g credit

this s u b j e c t t h a n w e r e p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d

in

l e a r n e d to d r i v e

via d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
6.

Th e m a j o r i t y o f p r i n c i p a l s

p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e
taught

22 r e p o r t e d t h a t

in t h e p u b l i c

community
7.

schools

in e a c h c a t e g o r y
d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was

to p r o v i d e m o r e

than a

s e rv i ce .
N i n e t y - s e v e n p e r ce nt o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s w i t h

or mo r e y e a r s

secondary

that the s c h o o l

administrative

superintendent

while 89.9 p e r ce n t

6

experience indicated

supported driver education,

of the p r i n c i p a l s w i t h

less e x p e r i e n c e

also agre ed.
8.

F i f t y - o n e p e r cent

offering credit
education was

of the principals

from schools

f o r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d th a t d r i v e r

an academic

of the p r i n c i p a l s
education agreed.

subject while

from schools

only

o f f e r i n g no

20 .9 p e r ce n t

credit

for driver

99
P r i n c i p a l s w h o ha d l e a r n e d to d ri v e v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
frequently

s u p p o r t e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n as a n a c a d e m i c s u b j e c t

while p r i n c i p a l s w ho h a d l e a r n e d to d r i v e v ia o t h e r m e t h o d s
did n o t .
T h i r t y - n i n e pe r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w i t h 5 y e a r s

or

less s e c o n d a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e an d 33*9 p e r cent
of the p r i n c i p a l s w i t h a d d i t i o n a l

administrative experience

r ep orted that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was an a c a d e m i c

subj ect.

Of

special note was that m o r e t h a n 35 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i ­
pals in ea ch c a t e g o r y p r e s e n t e d

in T a b l e 22 i n d i c a t e d that

driver e d u c a t i o n was not an a c a d e m i c
T ab l e 23 shows the p e r c e n t a g e s
p rincip a ls

o f r e s p o n s e s by

in c a t e g o r i e s th at include:

driver e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the sum mer,
school,

subject.

(1)

sc h o o l s o f f e r i n g

Saturday,

and/or after

(3) s ch o o l s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e c ar o f f - s t r e e t d r i v i n g

range a n d / o r d r i v i n g si m ul a t o r ,

an d

(4) s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g

the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n e n t i r e l y onthe-street .
T able 23 p o i n t s ou t t h a t :
1.

Fi f ty

six pe r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

fr om s c h o o l s

o ffering d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day
agreed that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be o f f e r e d at that
while onl y

28.3 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m schools

offer in g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,
after sch ool

time,

S a tu r d a y ,

and/or

felt th at d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be o f f e r e d

during the r e g u l a r sc h o o l d a y .

TABLE 23.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to their Acceptance
of Driver Education as Classified by Type of Program Offered, and Type of
Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day

Question

%

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School

%

Range
and/or
Simulator

%

BTW
Onthe-Street
*

SA/A
U
D/SD

55.9
16.9
23.7

28.3
17.5
5*1.2

52.9
9.8
34.3

30.0
19.1
50.5

8. Administrators as a group
support driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

79.6
1.7

84.5
12.3
2.8

72.5
21.6
3.9

85.9
11.8
2.3

16. Driver education should
be required of all new
drivers.

SA/A
U
D/SD

93.3
3.4
3.4

86.4
5.2
6.1

90.2
5.9
3.9

87.3
*1.5
5.9

22. Our board of education
supports the driver
education program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

96.6
3.4
0

93.0
5.2
1.4

89.9
7.8
2.0

94.6
4.1
.9

23. Credit toward graduation
should be given in
driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

62.7
10.2
27.1

46.2
15.6
37.2

54.9
7.8
37.2

48.7
15.9
35.4

27. Driver education is only
taught in the public
schools to provide a
service to the community.

SA/A
U
D/SD

13.6
8.5
77.9

30.6
13.2
53.7

17.6
15.7
62.7

29.1
11.4
58.1

18.6

100

6. Driver education should
be a part of the regular
school day program.

Our superintendent supports
the driver education pro­
gram.

SA/A
U
D/SD

93.2
6.8
0

93.4
4.2
2.4

90.2
9.8
0

94.1
3.6
2.3

Driver education Is not an
academic subject.

SA/A
U
D/SD

45.8
15.3
39.0

49.5
13.7
35.8

49.1
13.7
37.2

48.6
14.1
37.4

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree',
U
* Undecided.
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree.

102
Principals
street

from sc h oo l s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e c ar of f -

d r i v i n g ra n g e a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r m o r e o f t e n

s up p or t ed d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day
than did p r i n c i p a l s
wheel p r o g r a m s o l e l y
2.

from sc h o o l s

o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e -

on-the-street.

E i g h t y - f o u r p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

f ro m

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,
day,

a n d / o r a f t e r s c h o o l r e p o r t e d that

ported d r i v e r e d uc a t i o n .
per cent

T hi s

of the p r i n c i p a l s

Satur­

administrators

opinion was

from schools

sup­

s h a r e d by 79.6

offering driver

e du c at i on d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day.
Principals

f r o m s ch o o l s

o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

phase of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n e n t i r e l y o n - t h e - s t r e e t
more

fr e q ue n t l y

that

administrators

reported

supported driver educa­

tion than did p r i n c i p a l s

from s ch o ol s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e

of f-street

a n d / o r d r i v i n g s imulator.

3.

driving range

N i n e t y - t h r e e p e r cent

of the p r i n c i p a l s

car

f ro m

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l
day e n d o r s e d the r e q u i r e m e n t
drivers, w h i l e

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n for n e w

86.4 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s ch o o l s

offeri ng d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n only d u r i n g the su m me r , S a t u r d a y ,
and/or a f t e r s ch o ol m a i n t a i n e d a s i m i l a r v i ew in r e s p o n s e
to this q u es tion.
4.

Information gleaned

from T a b l e

96.6 pe r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

24 i n d i c a t e s

that

from schools offering driver

education d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day r e p o r t e d t ha t the
board of e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t e d d r i v e r e du c at i on .

This opinion

103
was al so h e l d by 93*0 p er cen t o f the p r i n c i p a l s
o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the su m me r ,

f r o m s ch o ol s

Saturday,

and/or

after school.
T a b l e 23 f u r t h e r r e v e a l e d that
of the p r i n c i p a l s

in e a c h c a t e g o r y i n d i c a t e d that the b o a r d

of e d u c a t i o n d id not
5.

less t h a n 2.0 p e r cent

su pport d r i v e r e d uc a t i o n .

S i x t y - t h r e e p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l
day s u p p o r t e d the o f f e r i n g of credit
and 46.2 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
driver e d u c a t i o n in the sum mer,

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
f r o m s ch o o l s o f f e r i n g

Saturday,

and/or after

school w e r e in a g r e e m e n t .
T a b l e 23 f u r t h e r s hows th at p r i n c i p a l s
having a m u l t i p l e

car o f f - s t r e e t d r i v i n g r a n g e a n d / o r

driving s i m u l a t o r m o r e

o f t e n e n d o r s e d c re d it

education t h a n did p r i n c i p a l s
behind-the-wheel

f r o m sc h oo l s

for d r i v e r

f r o m sc h oo l s o f f e r i n g the

p h a s e of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s o le l y o n - t h e -

street .
Further revealed

in T a b l e 23 was th at mo r e t h a n 27

per cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
credit

in e a c h c a t e g o r y o p p o s e d o f f e r i n g

for s t u d e n t s c o m p l e t i n g d r i v e r e du c at i o n .
6.

Da ta i n di c a t e s that

77.9 pe r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r
school day did not agree that
the p ublic

school to p r o v i d e

This p o s i t i o n was

this

su b je c t was only t a ught

in

a s er v i c e to the commun i ty .

s u p p o r t e d by 53-7 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

10*4
from schools
Saturday,

and/or

7.
cent

offering

Table

after

8.

2 3 further

schools
school

the

per

offering driver
day

reported

an a c a d e m i c
from schools
Saturday,

summer,

and

that

more

than

reported

after

p o s it io n was

the

driver education program,

cent

of the p r i n c i p a l s
during

the

35-8 p e r

cent

from

regular

d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was

school

were

o p p o s e d by m o r e

responding

90 p e r

that

considered

of the p r i n c i p a l s

offering driver education during the

and/or

principals

during the

category

education

that

subject

revealed

in e a c h

endorsed

Thirty-nine

education

school.

of the p r i n c i p a l s

superintendent

this

driver

to t h i s

in a g r e e m e n t .
than

*15 p e r

summer,
However,

cent

of the

question.

The Opin i o n s of S e c o n d a r y Scho o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the R e m o v a l of R e q u i r e d D r i v e r
Education
In t h i s

section

toward q u e s t i o n s

are

the

concerning

findings

the

from the p r i n c i p a l s

removal

of r e q u i r e d

driver

education.
Pound
principals
size,

(2)

in T a b l e
grouped

metro

2*4 a r e

into

the per c e n t a g e s

categories

and n o n-metro

that

county

of responses

include:

schools,

and

by

(1)

school

(3)

total

responses.
Data
1.
that

from Table

2*4 i n d i c a t e s

Seventy-one

th e p u b l i c h i g h

conducting driver

school

per

that:

cent

should be

education programs.

of all principals
responsible

for

reported

TABLE 24.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Removal of
Required Driver Education as Classified by Total, School Size, and Type of
County.
School Classification
Question

Total

A

B

C

D

Metro

NonMetro

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

18 . Public high schools should
be responsible for conduct­
ing driver education
programs.

SA/A
U
D/SD

71.2
15.9
12.9

75.0
14.5
10.5

79.7
9.5
10.8

60.3
19.0
20.6

66.7
22.8
10.6

75.0
16.9
8.0

67.8
15.1
17.1

26. Driver education should not
be offered in the public
school system.

SA/A
U
D/SD

8.4
9.2
82.3

7.8
5.3
86.9

7.5
4.1
86.5

12.7
17.5
69.9

3.5
12.3
84.2

6.4
8.1
85.5

10.3
10.3
79.5

28. All driver education should
be taught by parents and
relatives of students wish­
ing to apply for a driver's
license in Michigan.

SA/A
U
D/SD

.8
1.1
97.8

0
0
100.0

1.4
4.1
93.2

1.6
0
98.4

0
0
100.0

0
.8
98.4

1.4
1.4
97.3

37. Driver education should not
be required for obtaining a
driver's license in the
State of Michigan.

SA/A
U
D/SD

8.5
2.9
88.2

14.5
1.3
84.2

8.1
1.4
89.2

1.6
4.8
93.7

8.8
5.3
85.9

13.0
2.4
83.9

4.8
3.4
91.8

r
43. Driver education is an
example of attempted State
control of local education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

8.1
16.6
74.5

10,5
9.2
80.2

6.8
17.6
74.3

9.5
20.6
69.8

4.3
21.1
71.9

10.5
15.3
73.4

6.2
17.8
75.4

46. Providing driver education
for youth is not one of the
school's responsibilities.

SA/A
U
D/SD

10.7
12.9
75.7

7.8
11.8

13.6
6.8
78.4

14.3
19.0
66.7

7.0
15.8
75.4

8.9
14.5
75.8

12.3
11.6
75.4

80.3

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree
U
* Undecided
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree

106

107
S e v e n t y — five per
principals
cent

cent

o f the m e t r o

county

m a i n t a i n e d the above opinion w h i l e

of t he n o n - m e t r o

county

school

67*8 per

school principals

responded

affirmatively.
Principals

f r o m c l a s s A an d B s c h o o l s

e d u c a t i o n In the p u b l i c
class

school more

frequently

driver

than did

C an d D s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s .
2.

Eighty-two per

cent

of a l l p r i n c i p a l s

that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be
more

endorsed

frequently

3.

county

school principals

tion In the p u b l i c s c h o o l s
metro c o u n t y

o f f e r e d in th e p u b l i c

than did non-metro

Metro county

more

school principals.

s u p p o r t e d d r i v e r educa*-

frequently

than did n on­

per

cent

of a l l p r i n c i p a l s

agree that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be t a u g h t
and relatives

for a d r i v e r ' s
^.

d i d not

exclusively

of th e s t u d e n t s w i s h i n g to a p p l y

l i ce n s e ,

Eighty-eight

that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
driver's

schools

school principals,

Ninety-eight

by p a r e n t s

revealed

per

cent

of al l p r i n c i p a l s

should be required

reported

for o b t a ining a

license.

Principals

f r o m class

e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be
license m o r e

required

C schools

r e p o r t e d th at

for o b t a i n i n g

often than did principals

driver

a driver's

from schools

of

other c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
Ninety-two per
pri n ci p al s

supported

cent

t he r e q u i r e m e n t s

for o b t a i n i n g a d r i v e r ' s
the m e t r o c o u n t y

o f the n o n - m e t r o

license,

school principals

county

school

of driver e d u c ation

while

83.9 p e r

agreed.

cent

of

108
5.

S e v e n t y - f o u r p e r cent o f all p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d

that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w a s not an e x a m p l e of s tate c o n t r o l
of local educat i on .
Principals

f ro m class A s c h o o l s

education was not a n e x a m p l e o f st a te

I n d i c a t e d that

driver

c o n t r o l o f local

e du c at i on m o r e o f t e n t h a n di d p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s c ho o ls

in

other c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
6.

S e v e n t y - s i x p e r cent

of all p r i n c i p a l s

that p r o v i d i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was

reported

the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the

public schools.
C o n t a i n e d in T a b l e
by pr i nc i pa l s

25 are the p e r c e n t a g e s

g r o u p e d in c a t e g o r i e s

years s e c o n d a r y

administrative

which the p r i n c i p a l

S e v e n t y - f o u r p er

schools o f f e r i n g cr edit
s c ho o ls

driver educat i on .
of the p r i n c i p a l s

and

(1)

(2) m e t h o d by
(3) w h e t h e r the

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

Th e d a t a p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

the public

includ e:

experience,

l e a r n e d to driv e,

school o f f e r e d cr edit

1.

that

of r e s p o n s e s

25 i n d i c a t e s

that:

cent of t h e p r i n c i p a l s

f ro m

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d that

s h o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e for c o n d u c t i n g
This o p i n i o n was

s h a r e d by 6^.3 p er cent

f r o m s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g no c r e d i t .

P ri n ci p al s w i t h 6 or m o r e ye a rs

secondary administrative

experience e n d o r s e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in the p ub l i c

s ch o o l s

more f re q ue n t l y t h a n did p r i n c i p a l s w i t h less e x p e r i e n c e .
S e v e n t y - t w o p e r cent o f th e p r i n c i p a l s w h o ha d l e a r n e d
to drive via m e t h o d s

other than driver education reported

TABLE 25.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages* Relative to the Removal of
Required Driver Education as Classified by Secondary Administrative Experience
of the Principal, Method by which the Principal Learned to Drive, and Whether
Credit was given for Driver Education.

Question

Credit

No
Credit

%

%

5 yrs.
or less
%

6 yrs.
or more
%

Via
Dr. Ed.
%

Via Oth.
Methods
%

18 . Public high schools should
SA/A
U
D/SD

74.2
16.5
9.2

64.3
17.4
18.3

68.2
18.8
13.1

74.5
12.8
12.8

60.7
24.2
15.1

72.7
14.7
12.6

Driver education should
not be offered in the
public school system.

SA/A
U
D/SD

6.2
5.2
88.7

10.4
13.0
76.5

8.7
9.4
81.9

8.3
9.0
82.7

6.1
15.2
78.8

8.9
8.4
82.8

All driver education
should be taught by
parents and relatives
of students wishing to
apply for a driver’s
license in Michigan.

SA/A
U
D/SD

0
0
100.0

1.8
.9
96.5

.7
2.2
96.4

.8
0
99.2

0
0
100.0

.8
1.3
97.5

Driver education should
not be required for
obtaining a driver's
license in the State of
Michigan.

SA/A
U
D/SD

12.^1
2.1
85.6

6.9
1.7
90.4

7.9
3.6
87.6

9.1
2.3
88.8

9.1
3.0

8.4
2.9
88.3

109

be responsible for conduct­
ing driver education pro­
grams .

87.8

^3. Driver education is an
example of attempted
State control of local
education.
Providing driver educa­
tion for youth is not
one of the school's
responsibilities.

SA/A
U
D/SD

12,3
18,6
69.1

6,Q
17,4
74.7

SA/A
U
D/SD

8.3
13.4
77.3

13.9
13.0
73.0

73.9

9,8
14,3
75.2

66.7

7.2
16.4
75.6

8,0
14.5
76.1

13.5
11.3
75.2

0
30.3
69.7

12.2
10.5
76.5

6.5

18,8

15,1

18.2

no

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
« Credit is given toward graduationfor drivereducation.
No credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less = Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience.
6 yrs. or more * Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrativeexperience.
Via Dr. Ed.
* Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth. « Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
* Strongly agree or agree
U
* Undecided
D/SD
* Disagree or strongly disagree

Ill
that

driver

s chool

and

to d r i v e

education was
6 0 . 7 p e r ce nt

credit

p r o g r a m s h o u l d be

opinion was

h e l d by

offering no

3.
credit

o f t he p r i n c i p a l s

Eighty-nine per

schools o f f e r i n g

s ch o o l s

responsibility

via driver education were

2.

this

the

c e nt

in agreement.

o f th e

offered

76 . 5 p e r

from

cent

public

t ha t

school.

o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

This
from

credit.
responding from schools

by p a r e n t s

th a t

and relatives

this

offering

subject

of those

should

students

fo r a d r i v e r ’s l i c e n s e .

Every principal who
e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d t ha t
e x c l u s i v e l y by

principals

in t he

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d

w i s h i n g to a p p l y

who had learned

for driver e d u ca ti on repo rt ed

All principals

not be t a u g h t

of the public

parents

of the p r i n c i p a l s

had

this
and

learned
program

to d r i v e

via driver

s hould not

relatives,

while

who

had

l e a r n e d to d r i v e

Eighty-five

per

cent

be taught

97*5 per

ce nt

via other methods

a greed .
4.
offering

credit

schools

for o b t a i n i n g

s h a r e d by

90.4

o f f e r i n g no c r e d i t

5.

Seventy-five per

offering no credit
course w a s
educat i on .

principals

for driver educ at io n reported

should be r e q u i r e d
opinion was

of the

per

ce nt

o f tne

When asked

the

the

principals

of attempted

This
from

from schools

reported that
state

same question,

course

e d u c a t i o n course.

o f t he p r i n c i p a l s

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

not a n e x a m p l e

that

a d r i v e r ’s l i c e n s e .

f or the d r i v e r
ce nt

from schools

control

6 9* 1

the
of

per* cent

local
of

112
t he

principals

education were
Data
pals

who

had

learned

to

indicated

control

principals

of

who

offering

credit

for driver

In agreement.

further revealed

education,
state

from schools

had

drive

that

local

that

76.5

subject

education.
to

cent

via methods

this

learned

per

other

was

not

Sixty-six

drive

of the

than driver
an

per

via driver

princi­

example
cent

of

of
the

education

agreed.
6.
schools

Seventy-seven
offering

providing
of the

this

public

f ro m s c h o o l s
this

type

of

offering

cent

for driver

of

Seventy-three
no

credit

the

education

i n s t r u c t i o n was

school.

the

per

principals
indicated

from

that

responsibility

cent

for driver

of the principals

education

supported

position.
Seventy-six

to d r i v e
that

credit

per

per

via methods

this

course was

w hi l e

69.7

per

drive

via driver
Table

principals

26
in

cent

cent
other
the

of

the

than

driver

principals

education

concurred.

categories

the

involve:

driver e d u c a t i o n

during

the

s ch o ol s

driver

education

and/or

after

s treet

driving

offering
street .

school,
range

(3)

regular

schools

and/or

had

learned

had

(1)

school

having

school,
learned

of responses

during

driving

the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

of the

who

percentages

that

who

education reported

responsibility

o f the

includes

offering

principals

schools
day,

the

(2)

a multiple

instruction

by
offering

summer,

simulator,

to

and

entirely

Saturday,

car off(4)

schools

on-the-

TABLE 26.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Removal of
Required Driver Education as Classified by Type of Program Offered and Type
of Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day

Question

%

Summer
Sa t . and/or
After School
*

Range
and/or
Simulator

%

BTW
Onthe-Street

%

18 . Public high schools should
be responsible for con­
ducting driver education
programs.
26. Driver education should
not be offered in the
public school system.

SA/A
U
D/SD

72.9
18.6
8.5

70.8
15.1
14.2

76.5
9.8
13.7

70.0
17.3
12.8

SA/A
U
D/SD

10.2
10.2
79.7

8.0
9.0
83.0

9.8
5.9
84.3

8.2
10.0

SA/A
U
D/SD

0
0
100.0

1.0
1.4
97.2

0
0
100.0

1.0
1.4
97.3

SA/A
U
D/SD

11.9
1.7
86.il

7.5
3-3
88.7

9.8
0
90.2

8.2
3.6
87.7

81.8
113

28 . All driver education should
be taught by parents and
relatives of students wish­
ing to apply for a driver's
license in Michigan,
37. Driver education should
not be required for
obtaining a driver's
license in the State of
Michigan.

1

43. Driver educaM jn is an
example of attempted
State control of local
education.
46. Providing driver educa­
tion for youth is not
one of the school's
responsibilities.

SA/A
U
D/SD

10.2
16.9
72.9

7.5
16.5
75.0

9.8
9.8
80.il

7.7
18.2
73-2

SA/A
U
D/SD

6,8
22,0
71.2

11,7
10,4
76.9

7.8
13.7
77.5

11.4
12.7
75.5

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A = Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD = Disagree or strongly disagree.
114

115
Ta ble
1.

26 shows t h a t :

S e v e n t y pe r cent o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

category p r e s e n t e d In T a b l e

26 r e p o r t e d that

in ea c h
the pu b li c

school s h o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e for c o n d u c t i n g d r i v e r e du c at i o n .
Principals

f r o m s c ho o ls h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e c ar of f-

street d r i v i n g range a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r e n d o r s e d the
r e s p o n s ib i li t y o f the pu b l i c

sc hool f o r c o n d u c t i n g d r i v e r

e du c ation m o r e o f t e n t h a n did p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s c hools

offe ring b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l i n s t r u c t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y o n - t h e street.
2.

D a t a g l e a n e d f r o m T ab l e

per cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

26 i n d i c a t e d that

84.3

fr om s ch o ol s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e

car o f f - s t r e e t d r i v i n g ra n g e a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r r e p o r t e d
that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be o f f e r e d in the pu b li c
system.

This o p i n i o n was

principals

s chool

s h a r e d by 81.8 p e r cent o f the

f ro m sc h oo l s o f f e r i n g b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l i n s t r u c t i o n

on-the-street.
3.

All p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s c ho o ls

offering driver education

during the r e g u l a r s ch o o l day r e p o r t e d that
should not be t a ught

the c ou r se

e x c l u s i v e l y by p a r e n t s a n d r e l a t i v e s

of students w i s h i n g to ap p ly for a l ic e ns e to o p e r a t e a
motor vehicle.
principals

Thi s p o s i t i o n was e q u a l l y

s u p p o r t e d by

from sc h oo l s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e ca r o f f - s t r e e t

driving r a ng e a n d / o r d r i v i n g si m ul a to r .
4.

E i g h t y - s i x per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

fr om

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c ho o l

116
day and 88.7 per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s fr om schools
offering d ri v er e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,

Saturday, a n d / o r

after school, r e po r te d that this c ourse sh o ul d be r e q u i r e d
for obtaining a driver's license.
Principals

from schools h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e car off-

street driving range a nd/or d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r an d p r i n c i p a l s
from schools of f ering b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

i n s t r u c t i o n e n ti r e l y

on-the-street e n do r se d the r e qu i re m en t of d ri v e r e d u c a t i o n for
obtaining a dri ver's li ce nse by a 90.2 per cent and 87.7 p e r
cent response respectively.
5.

S ev e nt y -f i ve per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from

schools o f fering driver e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,
and/or after school

Saturday,

in dicated this class was not an e x ample

of attempted state control of local education.
72.9 per cent of the princi p al s

Similarly,

from schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r

education in the r eg u la r school day w e re in a g r e e m e n t .
Principals

from schools h a v i n g a mu l t i p l e car off-

street dr iving range a nd / or d r i v i n g s im u l a t o r r e po r t e d that
driver educat ion was not an e xa m pl e o f a t t e m p t e d state
control of local e d u c a t i o n more o f te n than did p r i n c i p a l s
schools o f fe r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

i n s t r u c t i o n e nt irely

on-the-street.
6.

S e v e n t y - s i x per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

fr om

schools o f fe r in g driver e d u c a t i o n d u ri n g the summer,
Saturday, an d /o r after school and 71.2 per cent of the
principals from schools o f f e r i n g d r iv e r e d u c a t i o n in the

fr om

117

regular school day i n d i c a t e d that
was the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

p r o v i d i n g this

s ub j ec t

of the school.

S e v e n t y - s e v e n pe r cent

of the p r i n c i p a l s

having a m u l t i p l e c a r o f f - s t r e e t

f r o m s ch o o l s

driving range and/or driving

simulator i n d i c a t e d that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was
responsibility an d a s i m i l a r number,

the s ch o ol s

or 75.5 p e r

cent, o f the

principals from s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l
struction e n t i r e l y

on-the-street,

in­

agreed.

The O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y Sc h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d R a i s i n g the D r i v e r L i c e n s i n g Age
to S e v e n t e e n
C on t ai n ed in this
opinions of p r i n c i p a l s

s e c t i o n a r e the f i n d i n g s o f the
toward questions

concerning raising

the driver l i c e n s i n g age to sevent ee n .
P r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 27 a re the p e r c e n t a g e s

of r e s p o n s e s

from pr i nc i p a l s g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g to the

following categories

(1) school size,

c o u n t y sc h o o l s ,

(2) m e t r o a n d n o n - m e t r o

and

(3) total r es p on s es .
The d a t a f r o m T ab l e

27 shows

1.

cent of all p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d

Sixty-three per

that :

that students at age 16 ar e m a t u r e e n o u g h to s af e l y o p e r a t e
a motor vehicle.
2.

The m a j o r i t y

presented in T ab l e

of p r i n c i p a l s

27 we re

licensing age to sevent ee n .

o p p o s e d to r a i s i n g the d r i v e r
H o we v er ,

that 3^.4 per cent of all p r i n c i p a l s
year r e q u i re m en t

in ea ch c at e g o r y

it s h o u l d be n o t e d
supported a seventeen

for o b t a i n i n g a d r i v e r lic ense.

TABLE 27,— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Raising the
Driver Licensing Age to Seventeen as Classified by Total, School Size, and
Type of County.

School Classification

Question

7. Students at age 16 are not
mature enough to safely
operate a motor vehicle on
the public streets and
highways in Michigan.
17. The minimum driver licensing
age in Michigan should be
17.

Total

A

B

C

D

Metro

NonMetro

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

SA/A
U
D/SD

21.0
15.1
6 3.1

19.8
18.4
60.5

21.7
10.8
67.6

22.2
19.0
58.7

21.1
12.3
65.9

25.8
12.9
61.3

17.1
17.1
64.4

SA/A
U
D/SD

31.4
22.5
45.1

31.6
25.0
43.2

33.8
20.3
43.2

33.3
22.2
42.8

26.3
22.8
50.9

36.3
18.5
43.6

27.4
26.0
45.9

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A = Strongly agree or agree
U
= Undecided
D/SD - Disagree or strongly disagree

119
In T a b l e
p ri n ci p a l s

28 ar e the p e r c e n t a g e s

In c a t e g o r i e s

strative e x p e r i e n c e
the p r i n c i p a l

that

of r e s p o n s e s

include:

o f t he p r i n c i p a l ,

l e a r n e d to d r i v e ,

and

(1)

by

secondary admini­

(2) m e t h o d by w h i c h

(3) w h e t h e r

credit was

given for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
Table
1.

28 I n d i c a t e s

Sixty

that:

seven per

c e nt

schools o f f e r i n g n o c r e d i t
that s tu d e n t s

at a g e

of the p r i n c i p a l s

for driver

16 a r e m a t u r e

a motor ve h i c l e .

This

op i n i o n was

of the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

from

education reported

e n o u g h to

safely

s hared by 59*8

offering credit

operate

p e r cent

f o r th is

subj e c t .
Sixty-nine

per

cent

o f th e p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d

to drive v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n I n d i c a t e d
age 16 are m a t u r e e n o u g h to

safely operate

and 62.2 p e r cent

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

via o t h e r m e t h o d s

concurred.

The m a t u r i t y

not

of the p r i n c i p a l s

r e s p o n d i n g to t h i s

learned

safely

s u p p o r t e d by a p p r o x i m a t e l y

Fifty-three per

offer in g no c r e d i t

students

c e nt

at

a motor vehicle

who had

o f t h e 16 y e a r o l d to

motor v e h i c l e wa s

2.

t h at

learned

to d r i v e

operate

20 p e r c en t

question.

o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

for dr i v e r e d u c ation

from schools

indicated that the

driver l i c e n s i n g a g e s h o u l d not

be r a i s e d to s e v e n t e e n ,

while only

principals

37.2 p e r

offering c r e d i t

cent

of the

a

from schools

for driver e d u c a t i o n agreed.

TABLE 28.-.-Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Raising the
Driver Licensing Age to Seventeen as Classified by Secondary Administrative
Experience of the Principal, Method by which the Principal Learned to Drive,
and Whether Credit was given for Driver Education.

17. The minimum driver licens­
ing age in Michigan should
be 17.

Via
Dr. Ed.

Via Oth.
Methods

Credit

*

%

%

SA/A
U
D/SD

26.8
13.4
59.8

17.5
15.7
67.0

21,7
13.8
63.7

20.3
16.5
62.4

21.2
9.1
69.7

21.0
16.0
62.2

SA/A
U
D/SD

34.0
26.8
37.2

26.9
19.1
53.0

32.6
22.5
44.2

30.0
22.6
45.8

27.3
27.3
45.5

31.9
21.8
44.9

Question

7. Students at age 16 are
not mature enough to safely
operate a motor vehicle on
the public streets and
highways in Michigan.

6 yrs.
or more

No
Credit

5 yrs.
or less

%

%

*

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
* Credit is given toward graduationfor drivereducation.
No Credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver education.
5 yrs. or less

*

Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrative experience.

6 yrs. or more * Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrative experience.
Via Dr. Ed.
= Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth. ■ Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
** Strongly agree or agree.
U
« Undecided.
D/SD
* Disagree or strongly disagree.

121
Of s pe c ia l n ot e Is the fact
cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

that m o r e t h a n 26 p e r

in e a c h c a t e g o r y p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

28 en d orsed a m i n i m u m d r i v e r l i c e n s i n g age of s e ve n te e n.
P r e s e n t e d in T a b l e

29 are the p e r c e n t a g e s of r e s p o n s e s

by principa ls g r o u p e d in c a t e g o r i e s

that

include:

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in the su mmer,
and/or af t er school,

(1)
Saturday,

(2) s ch oo l s o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

during the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day,

(3) s c h o o l s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e

car off-street d r i v i n g r a n g e a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r ,
(4)

schools o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

and

instruction entirely

on-the-street.
Data in T a bl e 29 r e v e a l s t h a t :
1.

S e v e n t y - f o u r p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

fr o m

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s ch o o l
day reported that

s t u d e n t s at ag e

16 are m a t u r e e n o u g h to

safely operate a m o t o r v e h i c l e w h i l e 59-9 p e r cent
principals

of the

from sc h oo l s o f f e r i n g this c o u r s e d u r i n g the

summer, Saturday,

a n d / o r a f t e r s chool a g r e e d that s t u d e n t s

were mature e n o u g h to s afely o p e r a t e a m o t o r v e h i c l e at age
sixteen.
Principals

f r o m s c ho o ls h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e

car off-

street d r i v i n g r an g e a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r s u p p o r t e d the
maturity of 16 y e a r ol d st u d e n t s
more often th a n did p r i n c i p a l s

from s c ho o ls

the-wheel i n s t r u c t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y
2.

to o p e r a t e a m o t o r v e h i c l e
offering behind-

on-the-street.

F i f t y - o n e p er cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m sch ools

offering dr i ve r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day

TABLE 29.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Raising the
Driver Licensing Age to Seventeen as Classified by Type of Program Offered,
and Type of Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day
*

Question

7. Students at age 16 are not
mature enough to safely
operate a motor vehicle on
the public streets and
highways in Michigan.

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School
%

Range
and/or
Simulator
%

BTW
Onthe-Street
%

SA/A
U
D/SD

13.6
11.9
7*1.5

23.1
16.0
59-9

19.6
11.8
68.6

21.3
15.9
61.8

17. The minimum driver licensing SA/A
age In Michigan should be
U
D/SD
17.

20.4
27.1
50.9

34.4
21.2
43.4

37.2
19.6
41.1

23.2
45.9

122

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree.
U
■ Undecided.
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree.

30.0

123
reported that the m i n i m u m d r i v e r l i c e n s i n g age s h o u l d n ot be
seventeen.
principals

S i m i l a r l y t h e r e was
in s ch o ol s

summer, Sa t ur d a y ,

a ^3.^ p e r cent r e s p o n s e

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the

a n d / o r a f t e r s c h o o l w h o a l s o d i d not a gr e e

with r ai s in g the d r i v e r

l i c e n s i n g age to s e v e n t e e n .

T h i r t y - s e v e n p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
having a m u l t i p l e

fr o m

car o f f - s t r e e t

driving range

f r om sc hools
and/or driving

simulator r e p o r t e d that the m i n i m u m d r i v e r l i c e n s i n g age
should be r ai s ed to s e v e n t e e n ,
principals

f r o m s c ho o l s

while

30.0 p e r cent of the

o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e —w h e e l ph a s e

of d ri v er e d u c a t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y o n - t h e - s t r e e t

e x p r e s s e d this

view.
The O p i n i o n s of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the R e i m b u r s e m e n t Rate for
Driver Education
Inv o l v e d in this

s e c t i o n are o p i n i o n r e s p o n s e s

principals t o w a r d q u e s t i o n s

f ro m

c o n c e r n i n g the r e i m b u r s e m e n t

rate for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
Data in T a b l e
principals

30 shows

in ca t e g o r i e s

th at

metro and n o n - m e t r o c o u n t y
T ab l e

30 i n d i c a t e s

1.
that a d equate

the p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n s e s by
include:

schools,

and

(1) s ch o o l

size,

(3) t o t a l re s po n se s .

that :

Forty-nine percent

of all p r i n c i p a l s

funds w e re m a d e a v a i l a b l e in the sc h o o l

for driver education.

(2)

Table

30 f u r t h e r shows

that

indicated
system

11.1 p er

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w e r e u n d e c i d e d w h e n as k e d the q u e s t i o n
concerning the a v a i l a b i l i t y
education program.

By

of a d e q u a t e f u n d i n g for the d r i v e r

co ntrast,

39.5 p e r cent of all

TABLE 30.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Reimburse­
ment Rates for Driver Education as Classified by Total, School Size, and Type
of County.

School Classification

Question

9. Adequate funds have been made SA/A
available in this school sys­ U
tem for driver education.
D/SD

Total

A

%

%

B
*

C

D

Metro

%

%

%

NonMetro
*

48.7
11.1
39.5

50.0
11.8
36,8

43.3
9.5
45.9

42.9
15.9
41.3

59.6
7.0
33.4

49.2
11.3
37.9

48.0
11.0
41.1

L9. The quality of the driver
education program directly
reflects the reimbursement
rate for students complet­
ing the program,

SA/A
U
D/SD

33.6
29.5
35.4

32.9
27.6
39.5

41.9
18.9
36.5

28.5
34.9
36.5

66.7
24,6
3.5

35.5
27.4
36.3

32.2
31.5
34.9

>9. The present reimbursement
rate for driver education
allows adequate reference
and supplementary materials
for driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

10.7
15.7
73.1

9.2
18.4
72.4

8.1
5.4
85.1

6.3
20.6
73.0

21.1
21.1
57.9

10.5
14.5
74.2

11.0
17.1
71.9

38. The current reimbursement
of $30.00 per student com­
pleting the driver educa­
tion program is adequate.

SA/A
U
D/SD

8.5
16.6
74.2

6.6
18.4
75.0

4.1
10.8
82.4

7.9
19.0
73.0

17.5
19.3
63.2

8.9
16.1
73.3

8.2
17.1
74.6

4^4. The total cost of the driver
education program should not
be fully paid for by State
reimbursement.

47. The cost for driver educa­
tion should besupplemented
by funds from the board of
education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

18.0
20.3
57-5

25.0
18.4
52.6

19.0
17.6
58.1

14.3
23.8
57.2

12.3
22.8
63.1

21.8
22.6
52.4

15.1
18.5
61.6

SA/A

25.8

38.2

21.6

20.6

20.1

30.6

21.9

U

23.2

21.1

22.2

35.1

21.0

25-3

D/SD

49.4

40.8

17.6
58 .1

55.6

42.1

47.6

50.7

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A - Strongly agree or agree
U
* Undecided
D/SD ■ Disagree or strongly disagree

126
princip als r e p o r t e d th at a d e q u a t e
were not a v a i l a b l e

the q u e s t i o n

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

In t h e i r s c h o o l system.

Data revealed
classification

funds

that

categories

concerning

principals
were

in the

divided

various

school

in t h e i r r e s p o n s e s

the a v a i l a b i l i t y

of adequate

to

funds

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

2.

F u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d in T a b l e

cent of class D s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s

30 was

a nd

that

66.7 p e r

*41.9 p e r cent of the

class B school p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e that the q u a l i t y

of d r i v e r

education is d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t e d in the r e i m b u r s e m e n t rate
for students

c o m p l e t i n g the p r ogram.

held, however, by
pals and

T h i s o p i n i o n wa s not

39.5 p e r cent of the class A s c h o o l p r i n c i ­

36.5 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

in class C schools .

The o p in i o n s w e r e d i v i d e d a m o n g m e t r o and n o n - m e t r o
county school p r i n c i p a l s

r e g a r d i n g the q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g

program q u a l i t y in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n as r e f l e c t e d by the
reimbursement rate.
3.

S e v e n t y - t h r e e p e r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

that the p r e s e n t

r e i m b u r s e m e n t r a te

not allow for a d e q u a t e r e f e r e n c e

indicated

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n did

of s u p p l e m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l s

for the program.
Data
cipals

further revealed

f r o m c lass

did 73.0 p e r

cent

B schools
of the

that

8 5 .1 p e r c e n t of t h e p r i n ­

endorsed

class

the above position

C school principals.

than 21 p e r cent

of t h e p r i n c i p a l s

from

howeve r,

the p o s i t i o n

the

rate

refuted

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

supplementary

materials .

that

allowed

class
present

for a d e quate

as

More

D schools,
reimbursement
reference

and

127
.

S e v e n t y — four p e r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

that the current

reimbursement

driver education.

stated

rate wa s not a d e q u a t e

O f s p e c i a l n ote, was

8.5 per cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

for

the fact that onl y

i n d i c a t e d that

the cu r r e n t

re imbursement r at e fo r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n is a d e q u a t e to c o ve r
the cost of the program.
Principals

f r o m class B s ch o o l s

r e p o r t e d th at the

current rate for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n wa s not a d e q u a t e m o r e
often than d id p r i n c i p a l s
5*

from o t h e r s c h o o l

F i f t y — s e v e n p e r cent

that the total

of all p r i n c i p a l s

reported

cost of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be

for by state r e i m b u r s e m e n t .
pals, ho wever,
rei mbursement

classifications.

did not

T w e n t y p e r cent

com mit

themselves

than p ri n ci p a l s

f r o m class A s c h o o l s

from o t h e r s ch o ol

ed ucation s h o u l d not be

of all p r i n c i ­

concerning total

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n by" st a te

P ri n ci p al s

fu lly p a i d

funds.

agreed more

classifications,

driver e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m than di d m e t r o county

pals

one,quarter,

r ep orted that the cost

su pplemented by

funds

P ri n ci p a l s

driver

sc h oo l p r i n c i ­

pals i n di c at e d that th e s ta t e s h o u l d pay the t o t a l

About

that

fully p a i d for by s t at e r e i m b u r s e m e n t s .

A g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e of n o n - m e t r o c o unty

6.

frequently

cost of the

school principals

or 25.8 p e r cent

of al l p r i n

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be

fr om the

local b o a r d of e d u c a ti o n.

f r o m class A sc h oo l s e n d o r s e d s u p p l e m e n t i n g

the cost of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w i t h b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n funds
more frequently

th a n d id p r i n c i p a l s

classifications.

from sc h oo l s

of o t h e r

128
T h i r t y p e r cent of the m e t r o

c ounty s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s

supported the use of b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n funds to s u p p l e m e n t
the d river e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m w h i l e on ly 21.9 p e r cent
non-metro county

school principals

of the

c ou l d a g re e w i t h this

statement.
It s h o u l d be n o t e d that m o r e t h a n
principals

49 p e r cent of all

o p p o s e d the use of b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n

funds

for

the d river e d u c a t i o n p r ogram.
T ab l e

31 In c lu d e s the p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n s e s by

principals g r o u p e d into c a t e g o r i e s
by which the p r i n c i p a l

that

le a r n e d to drive,

administrative e x p e r i e n c e

Involve*

(1) m e t h o d

(2) s e c o n d a r y

of t h e p r i n c i p a l ,

and

(3) w h e t h e r

credit was g i v e n for d r i v e r education.
Data In T a b l e
1.

31 re v ea ls

P r i n c i p a l s w ho h a d

education f r e q u e n t l y

that:

l ea r ne d to d r i v e v i a d r i v e r

r e p o r t e d that

adequate

funds

for d r i v e r

education h ad not b e e n ma de a v a i l a b l e to t h e i r s c h o o l system.
When asked this q u e s t i o n ,

p r i n c i p a l s w h o had l e a r n e d to d r i v e

via other m et h od s w e r e not as p r o n o u n c e d In t h e i r d i s a g r e e m e n t .
F o r t y - e i g h t p e r cent
offering credit

of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m sc h o o l s

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d that

funds were a v a i l a bl e

for d r i v e r e ducation.

adequate

A s i m i l a r n u mb e r,

however, did not agr ee w h e n as k ed this ques tion.
2.
were not

Pr i n c i p a l s

In each

in g en e ra l a g r e e m e n t

c at e g o r y p r e s e n t e d In T a b l e
c o n c e r n i n g the q u a l i t y

of the

driver e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m as r e f l e c t e d by the r e i m b u r s e m e n t
rate.

Princ ip a ls

from sc hools o f f e r i n g cr ed it

31

for d r i v e r

TABLE 31.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Reimburse­
ment Rates for Driver Education as Classified by Secondary Administrative
Experience of the Principal, Method by which the Principal Learned to Drive,
and Whether Credit was given for Driver Education.

Question

9. Adequate finds have been
made available in this
school system for driver
education.

5 yrs.

6 yrs.

Credit

No
Credit

or less

or more

%

%

%

SA/A
U
D/SD

48.4
10.3
41.3

49.5
10.4
39.2

48.6

19. The quality of the driver
education program directly
reflects the reimbursement
rate for students complet­
ing the program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

36.0

30.4

29. The present reimbursement
rate for driver education
allows adequate reference
and supplementary materials
for driver education,

SA/A
U
D/SD

38. The current reimbursement
of $ 30.00 per student com­
pleting the driver educa­
tion program is adequate.

SA/A
U
D/SD

11.6
39.8

29.9
33.0

40.0

34.1
28.3
36.9

6.2

12.1

13.0

13.4
80.4

15.7
71.3

15.2

71.0

7.2

7.9
13.9
77.4

9.4
17.4
72.5

16,5
75,3

27.0

%

Via
Dr. Ed.

%

Via Oth.
Methods

%

48.9
10.5
39.1

42.4
9.1
48.5

49.6
11.3

33.1

33.4
30.3
36.4

33.7
29.4
35.3

8.3
16.5
75.2

12.1
12.1

10.5
16.4
72.7

7.5

3.0
24.2

30.8
33.8

15.8
76.0

75.8

72.8

38.2

9.2
15.5
74.3

44. The total cost of the
driver education program
should not be fully paid
for by State reimbursement.

SA/A
U
D/SD

14.4
23.7
56.7

17.4
17.4
62.7

52.9

The cost for driver educa­
tion should be supplemented
by funds from the board of
education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

26.8
21.6

24.3

25.4

22.6

26.1

51.5

50.4

47.1

17.3
62.4

18.2
21.2
60.6

18.1
20.2

26.3
20.3
51.9

24.2
27.3
48.5

26.0

19.5

16.6

23.2

57.2

22.7
49.5

130

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth,
KEY: Credit
- Credit is given toward graduation for driver education.
No credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less * Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrative experience.
6 yrs. or more * Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrative experience.
Via Dr. Ed.
* Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth. * Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
= Strongly agree or agree.
U
= Undecided.
D/SD
= Disagree or strongly disagree.

131
e ducation r e p o r t e d that the q u a l i t y o f the p r o g r a m was
directly r e f l e c t e d by the r e i m b u r s e m e n t

ra te for s t u d e n t s

comple ting the c o u r s e m or e o f t e n t h a n d id p r i n c i p a l s
sc hool s

from

o f f e r i n g no c r e d i t .

O f s p ec i al note is that m o r e t h a n 33 pe r cent of the
principals in e a c h c a t e g o r y p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e
agree that the q u a l i t y

31 d i d not

of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m was

reflected by the r e i m b u r s e m e n t

rate

for s t u d e n t s

completing

the program.
3.

Ei g ht y p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

offering credit
the p r i n ci p al s

from schools

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n an d 71*3 p e r
f r o m sc h oo l s o f f e r i n g no c redit

subject, r e p o r t e d that the p r es e nt

cent of

for this

reimbursement rate

for

driver e d u c a t i o n did not a l l o w a d e q u a t e r e f e r e n c e and
su pplementary m a t e r i a l s .
P ri n ci p a l s w i t h 5 y e ar s or less s e c o n d a r y
experience a g r e e d m o r e f r e q u e n t l y
additional e x p e r i e n c e ,

administrative

t h a n did p r i n c i p a l s w i t h

that the pr e se n t

r e i m b u r s e m e n t rate

for driver e d u c a t i o n a l l o w e d for a d e q u a t e r e f e r e n c e

and

supplem entary m a t e r i a l s .
Table
principals

31 r e v e a l e d that more

than 71 p e r cent of the

in e a c h c a t e g o r y r e p o r t e d t ha t the p r e s e n t r e i m ­

bursement rate

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n did not a l l o w

for a d e q u a t e

reference and s u p p l e m e n t a r y materials.
4.

Data i n d i c a t e d that

from schools o f f e r i n g credit

75-3 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d

132
that the p r es e n t
program.

r e i m b u r s e m e n t ra t e was not a d e q u a t e

A like p o s i t i o n w as

schools o f f e r i n g no credit
also shows that

s h a r e d by p r i n c i p a l s

for d r i v e r educa t io n .

for th i s

from
Table

31

24.2 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w ho had

learned to d r i v e via d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w e r e n o n - c o m m i t t a l
c oncerning the p r e s e n t
5.
principals

F i gu r e s

reimbursement

further

f ro m s c ho o ls

ra t e

i n d i c a t e d that

for d r i v e r ed u ca t i o n .
62.7 p er cent of the

o f f e r i n g no cr edit

for d r i v e r

ed ucation and 56.7 p er cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
of fering credit

for this

sub ject

f r o m s chools

r e p o r t e d that

the cost of

driver e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be fully p a i d by state r e i m b u r s e m e n t s .
P ri n ci p a l s w i t h 6 or m o r e y e a r s
e xperience r e p o r t e d that
be fully p ai d by
principals wi th
6.
principals

secondary administrative

the cost of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d

state r e i m b u r s e m e n t mo r e o f t e n t h a n d i d
less e x p e r i e n c e .

Da ta r e v e a l e d that m o r e t h a n 47 p e r cent of the
in e ac h c a t e g o r y o p p o s e d the use of b o a r d of

education funds to s u p p l e m e n t

the cost of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

program.
In Ta b le

32 are the p e r c e n t a g e s o f r e s p o n s e s by

principals g r o u p e d in c a t e g o r i e s

that

incl ude:

offeri ng d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,
after school,
regular day,

(1) s c h o o l s

Saturday,

and/or

(2) s ch o o l s o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the
(3) s c h o o l s h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e c a r o f f - s t r e e t

driving range a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r ,

and

(4) s chools

offering b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l i n s t r u c t i o n e n t i r e l y o n t he street.

TABLE 32.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages!*, Relative to the Reimburse­
ment Rates for Driver Education as Classified by Type of Program Offered, and
Type of Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day
*

Question

9. Adequate funds have been
made available in this
school system for driver
education.

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School
*

Range
and/or
Simulator

%

BTW
Onthe-Street

%

37.3

48.6
10.9
40.0

37.2

41.2
27-5
29.4

31.8
30.0
36.8

18.6

8.5

9.8

16.9
64.4

15.6
75.5

21.6
68.6

10.9
14.5
74.1

10.2

8.0

7.8

27.1

13.7
77.9

17.6

SA/A
U
D/SD

49.2
15.3
33.9

48.6
9.9
40.0

19. The quality of the driver
education program directly
reflects the reimbursement
rate for students complet­
ing the program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

40.7
30.5

31.6
29.2

28.8

29. The present reimbursement
rate for driver education
allows adequate reference
and supplementary materials
for driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

38. The current reimbursement
of $ 30.00 per student com­
pleting the driver educa­
tion program is adequate,

SA/A
U
D/SD

61.0

49.1

11.8

74.5

8.7
16.4
74.1

The total cost of the
driver education program
should not be fully paid
for by State reimbursement.

SA/A
U
D/SD

22.0

17.0

21.5

16.3

28,8

17,9

23.5

45,8

60.9

53.0

19.5
58.6

47. The cost for driver educa­
tion should be supplemented
by funds from the board of
education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

37.3
20.3
42.4

22.6
24.1

35.3

17-6

51.5

47.1

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD = Disagree or strongly disagree.

24.6
24.5
50.0

135
The dat a shown In Table
1.

32 p oi n ts out t h a t :

F o rt y - n i n e per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from sc hools

offering d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r school day
and 48.6 per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
the course d u r i n g the summer,
reported that ade quate

funds

from schools o f f e r i n g

Saturday,

a n d / o r a f te r school

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n had b e e n

made a v ai lable to their sch ool system.
S u p p o r t i n g the ab ove p o s i t i o n w er e *19.1 p e r cent of
the principals from schools h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e car o f f- s t r e e t
driving range an d /o r d ri v i n g s i m u l a t o r a nd 48.6 per cent of
the principals

from schools o f f e r i n g b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

instruction e x c l u s i v e l y o n - t h e - s t r e e t .
In contrast,

more th a n 33 per cent of the princi p al s

in each category r e p o r t e d that a de q ua t e

funds have not be e n

made available to t he i r school sy s t e m for d r i v e r education.
2.

Forty per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

f ro m schools

offering d river e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r scho ol day
indicated that the quality of the p r o g r a m di r e c t l y r ef lects
the reimbursement

rate and 31.6 p e r cent o f the pr i nc i p a l s

from schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,
Saturday, and/or after school concurred.
opposed, however,

This p o s i t i o n was

by m or e than 28 p e r cent of the pr i nc i pa l s

in each category p r e s e n t e d in Table 32.
Principals

from scho ols h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e car off-str e et

driving range a nd/or d ri v in g s i m u l a to r a g r e e d more freque nt l y
than did pr incipals

from schools o f f e r i n g b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

136
Instruction solely on-the-street

tha t th e q u a l i t y o f the

driver e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t s

the r e i m b u r s e m e n t

rate .
S i x t y - f o u r p e r cent
category p r e s e n t e d
r ei m bu r se m en t

rate

adequate r e f e r e n c e
3.

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

in T a b l e

32 di d not

In e a c h

a gr e e that the p r e s e n t

f or d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n a l l o w e d for
an d s u p p l e m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l s .

Da ta s h o w e d that

18.6 p e r

cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from s chools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g t he r e g u l a r
school day r e p o r t e d th at the p r e s e n t
driver e d u c a t i o n a l l o w e d
mentary m a t e r i a l s .

reimbursement

rate

for

for a d e q u a t e r e f e r e n c e a n d s u p p l e ­

E i gh t p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the s u mmer,

from
Saturday,

and/or a f t e r sc h o o l a g r e e d w i t h this po s it i on .
Pri n ci p al s

from schools

offering behind-the-wheel

e xperience e n t i r e l y o n - t h e - s t r e e t

o f t e n d id not a g r e e that

the present d r i v e r

education reimbursement

adequate r e f e r e n c e

and

principals

f r o m s ch o o l s

driving range

r at e a l l o w e d

s u p p l e m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l s . H ow e v e r ,
having a multiple

car o f f - s t r e e t

a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r w e r e not so n e g a t i v e

in their fe e lings w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i t h this
S i x t y - o n e p e r cent

qu e stion.

o f the p r i n c i p a l s

offering d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r
not agree that

for

the c u r r e n t

reimbursement

while 77*9 per cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
driver e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the
school concurred.

su m me r ,

from schools

sc h o o l day did

r a t e was a d e q u a t e ,

f r o m s ch o ol s o f f e r i n g

Saturday,

and/or after

13 7
5.

Sixty

per

offering driver
after
paid

school
for by

reported
state

range

education
m or e o f t e n
the-wheel

day

schools
driving

not

be

that
local

d u r i n g t he

s h o u l d be
only

offering driver
this

simulator
paid

^5.8

and/or
fully

per

cent

education

opinion.

agreed

for by

car off-street

that

state

from schools

c e nt o f t h e
during

program

driver

reimbursements

offering behind-

principals

the

should

regular

be

of education,

from schools

summer,

However,

Saturday,

having a multiple

fully

education

board

the p r i n c i p a l s

education

schools

on-the-street.

per

this

from

summer,

shared

than did principals

offering driver

from the

from

Forty-two

agree

driver

schools

school

instruction

6.

not

from

and/or

should

that

th e

reimbursement.

regular

Principals
driving

of the principals

education during

of the p r i n c i p a l s
d u r i n g t he

cent

while

and/or

school

day

s u p p l e m e n t e d by
51*5

offering driver

Saturday,

from schools

after

per

did

funds

cent

of

education

school

responded

similarly.
Principals
driving range
that

the

and/or

local

cost o f t h e
from s c h o o l s

from schools

board

driver

of

a multiple

simulator

education

should

behind-the-wheel

car

reported more

education program than

offering

on-the-street.

driving

having

supplement

off-street
frequently
the

did p r i n c i p a l s

instruction entirely

138

The

Opinions of Secondary School Principals
Toward Restructuring the Driver
Education Requirements

Contained
principals

in t his

s e ction are

to q u e s t i o n s

the

responses

concerning restructuring

from
the

driver

education requirements.
Table
principals
size,

(2)

33 p r e s e n t s
grouped

the

per

cent

in categories

metro and

non-metro

that

county

of responses
include:
schools,

by

(1)
and

school

(3)

total

responses.
Data
1.

from Table
Forty-six

additional

33 s h o w s

per

classroom

cent

time

that :

of all principals

sho u l d not

be

reported

required

that

in d r i v e r

education.
Principals
classroom time
principals

for this

in o t h e r

Forty-one
pals a n d

in class

50.7

principals

subject

school

p e r c e nt

per

opposed

A and

cent

C schools
more

opposed

often than

additional

did

classifications.

of the m e t r o

of the

additional

county

non-metro
time

school

county

for the

princi­

school

classroom phase

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
2.

The majority

additional time
be r e q u i r e d
Sixty

for the

in d r i v e r
per

57.9 p e r c e n t

of all

cent

principals

behind-the-wheel

indicated that
instruction

should

education.
of the

class

of the principals

A school

from class

principals
D schools

and
supported

TABLE 33-— Responses of Principals, Expressed In Percentages*, Relative to Restructuring
the Driver Education Requirements as Classified by Total, School Size, and
Type of County.
School Classification

Question

Total

%

A

B

C

D

Metro

NonMetro

%

%

%

t

%

%

SA/A
U
D/SD

24.4
28.4
46.8

28.9
18.4
52.6

28.4
27.0
43.3

15.9
30.2
54.0

22.8
42.1
35.1

28.2
29.0
41.9

21.3
28.1
50.7

More time should be required
by the State of Michigan for
the behind-the-wheel phase
of driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

53.1
24.4
22.5

60.6
23.7
15.8

44.6
25.7
29.8

50.8
23.8
25.4

57.9
24.6
17.5

58.9
21.8
19.3

48.6
26.7
24.7

30, The mandatory requirement
in driver education of a
minimum of 30 hours class­
room Instruction and 6
hours per student of
behind-the-wheel trair g
is excessive.

SA/A
U
D/SD

2.2
4.4
93.4

2.6
5.3
92.1

1.4
2.7
96.0

1.6
6.3
92.1

3.6
3.5
92.9

1.6
3.2
95.1

3.2
5.5
91.8

quately be taught in thei
3-week program required
by the State Department of
Education as a minimum.

SA/A
U
D/SD

18.4
22.9
58.3

17.1
18.4
64.5

28.4
20.2
50.0

15.9
33.3
50.8

10.5
19.3
70.2

19.4
17.7
62.1

17.8
26.7
55.5

139

More time should be required
by the State of Michigan for
the classroom phase of
driver education.

50. The Federal Standard stating
"the driver education course

should be scheduled over a
SA/A 42.5
minimum of 6 calendar w e e k s U
26.2
Is practical.
D/SD 30.6

46.1
21.1
32.9

^Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth
KEY: SA/A = Strongly agree or agree
U
= Undecided
D/SD = Disagree or strongly disagree

32.5
25-7
40.5

49.2
27.0
23.8

43-9
33*3
21.0

48.3
21.8
29.0

37.7
30.1
31.5

141

more time for the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
This o p i n i o n was

sh a r e d by

50.8 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from class C s ch o ol s and 44.6 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

from

class B schools.
Metro co u n t y

s chool p r i n c i p a l s e n d o r s e d a d d i t i o n a l t i me

for the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p ha s e of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n mo r e
frequently t h a n d i d n o n - m e t r o c ounty
3.

school principals.

N i n e t y - t h r e e p e r cent of a ll p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d

that the m a n d a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t

of 30 h o u r s of c l a s s r o o m I n ­

struction and £> h ou r s o f b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

t r a i n i n g in d r i v e r

ed ucation was not ex c es s iv e .
4.

Very

few,

or less t h a n 18 p e r cent,

indicated that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

of the p r i n c i p a l s

co u ld a d e q u a t e l y b e ta u g h t

in a three w e e k program.
S ev e nt y p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
schools and 64.5 p e r cent

f r o m class

of the p r i n c i p a l s

D

f r o m cl ass A

schools r e p o r t e d that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n c o u l d not be t a u g h t
adequately in t h re e weeks.
Further revealed
of the me t ro c o u n t y
the no n -m e t r o c ounty

in T a b l e

33 was that 6 2. 1 p e r cent

sc h o o l p r i n c i p a l s a n d 55 .5 p e r cent of
sc h oo l p r i n c i p a l s

driver e d u c a t i o n c o u l d be t aught

did not a g re e that

effectively

In a t h r e e w e e k

program.
5.

F o r t y - t w o p e r cent o f all p r i n c i p a l s a g r e e d that

scheduling d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n o v e r a six w e e k p e r i o d was
practical.

P r i n c i p a l s In c lass

A a nd C s c h o o l s

endorsed

142

the p r a c t i c a l i t y

of scheduling d river education over a six

calendar w e e k pe r i o d m o r e o f t e n than did p r i n c i p a l s

from

class B a n d D s c h o o l s .
It s h o u l d be n o t e d ,
all p r i n c i p a l s

however,

that

30.6 p e r ce n t

opposed the p r a c t i c a b i l i t y

of

of scheduling driver

e d u c a t i o n o v e r a six c a l e n d a r w e e k p e r i o d .
Contained
by p r i n c i p a l s

in T a b l e

34 a r e

in c a t e g o r i e s

administrative

experience

which the p r i n c i p a l

the p e r c e n t a g e s

that

include:

(1)

of t h e p r i n c i p a l ,

l e a r n e d to d r i v e ,

and

of responses
secondary

(2) m e t h o d by

(3) w h e t h e r

credit

was g i v e n f o r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
Table
1.

34 i n d i c a t e s

Forty-one

o f f e r i n g cr e d i t
the p r i n c i p a l s
cou rse w e r e

per

that:
c en t o f the p r i n c i p a l s

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n a n d
from

schools

o f f e r i n g no

from schools

51.3 per cent
credit

o p p o s e d to r e q u i r i n g a d d i t i o n a l

of

for this

time

f o r the

had

learned

classroom phase of dri v e r education.
S i x t e e n p e r cent

o f the

principals

who

to drive v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n e n d o r s e d a d d i t i o n a l
the c l a s s r o o m p h a s e o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,
cent of t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s
me th ods

indicated that

who had

additional

while

for the

for

2 5. 7 p e r

l e a r n e d to d r i v e
time

time

via other

classroom

phase was n e c e s s a r y .
2.

The requ i r e m e n t

for addit i o n a l

wh eel in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w a s
the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

time behind-the-

s u p p o r t e d by

offering credit

47.4 p e r c e n t
for this

of

subject

TABLE 34.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to Restructuring
the Driver Education Requirements as Classified by Secondary Administrative
Experience of the Principal, Method by which the Principal Learned to Drive,
and Whether Credit was given for Driver Education,

Credit

Question

%

No
Credit

%

5 yrs.
or less
*

6 yrs.
or more

Via
Dr. Ed.

Via Oth.
Methods

%

%

%

26.8
32.0
41.2

21.9
26.1
51.3

26.0
30.4
42.8

22.5
26.3
51.2

15.1
42.4
42.4

25.7
26.5
47.5

20. More time should be required
SA/A
by the State of Michigan
for the behind-the-wheel
U
phase of driver education.
D/SD

47.4
28.9
23.7

52.2
24.4
23.5

51.4
25.4
23.1

54.8
23.3
21.8

54.6
30.3
15.2

52.9
23.5
23.5

30. The mandatory requirement
in driver education of a
minimum of 30 hours class­
room instruction and 6
hours per student of
behind-the-wheel training
is excessive.

SA/A
U
D/SD

2.1
2.1
95.9

2.6
5.2
92.2

2.1
6.5
91.3

2.3
2.3
95.5

0
6.1
94.0

2.6
4.2
93.3

39. Driver education can ade­
quately be taught in the
3-week program required
by the State Department of
Education as a minimum.

SA/A
U
D/SD

17.5
19.6
62.8

20.9

17.3
24.6
57.2

19.5
21.1
59.4

18.2

18,4
22.3

£tjl

10. More time should be required
SA/A
by the State of Michigan
U
for the classroom phase of
D/SD
driver education.

25.2
53.1

27.3
54.5

58.9

*10.2
26.8
33.0

*11.7
23.5
33-0

*12.7
29.0
27.5

*12.1
23.3
33.8

*15*5
33*3
21.2

*12.0
25.2
30.9

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
* Credit is given toward graduationfor drivereducation.
No Credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less * Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience.
6 yrs. or more * Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrativeexperience.
Via Dr. Ed,
■ Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via 0th. Meth.
« Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
= Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided,
D/SD
= Disagree or strongly disagree.

trtfi

50. The Federal Standard stating
"the driver education
course should be scheduled
SA/A
over a minimum of 6 calenU
dar weeks," is practical.
D/SD

145
and 52.2 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g no

credit.
P r i n c i p a l s w i t h 6 or m o r e y e a r s
exper ie n ce s u p p o r t e d a d d i t i o n a l

time

secondary

administrative

f o r the b e h i n d - t h e -

wheel p h a s e of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n m o r e o f t e n t h a n d i d
prin cipals w i t h less

administrative experience.

F i f t y - f o u r p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w ho h a d l e a r n e d
to drive via d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d mo r e ti me
require d

for b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

should be

i n s t r u c t i o n in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

and 52.9 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d l e a r n e d to dr i ve
via o t h e r m e t h o d s
3.

N i n e t y - s i x p e r cent

o ff ering c redit
principals

ag re ed.
of the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n a n d 92. 2 p e r cent

f r o m sc h o o l s

o f f e r i n g no cre dit

the m a n d a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t
Instr uc t io n a n d 6 h o u r s

of t h i r t y h ou r s

of the

c o n c u r r e d that
classroom

p e r s t u d e n t b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l was

not e xcessive.
P r i n c i p a l s at a ll l e v e l s

of secondary administrative

ex perience a g r e e d that t h i r t y h o u r s o f c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n
and 6 hours o f b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l t r a i n i n g p e r s t u d e n t
driver e d u c a t i o n was
4.

not an e x c e s s i v e r e q u i r e m e n t .

The m a j o r i t y o f p r i n c i p a l s

p resented in Ta b l e

in

in ea c h c a t e g o r y

34 r e p o r t e d that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n co u ld

not be taught a d e q u a t e l y in a t h r e e w e e k p r og r am .
5.

The p r a c t i c a l i t y o f s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

over a six c a l e n d a r w e e k p e r i o d was

s u p p o r t e d by m o r e

than

146
40 per cent of the p ri n ci p a l s
Table 3^-

In each c a t e g o r y p r e s e n t e d In

By contrast, ho wever,

this re q u i r e m e n t was o p p o s e d

by a p p r o x i m a t e l y 27 per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s r e s p o n d i n g
to this question.
Found in Table

35 are the p e r c e n t a g e s of r e s p o n s e s by

principals gr ouped in c at e go r ie s that include:

(1) schools

offering d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r school day,
(2)

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,

Saturday,

a n d / o r a f t e r school, and

b ehind-the-wheel

(3) schools o f f e r i n g

i n s t r u c t i o n e n t i r e l y o n- t he - st r ee t .

Data from Table 35 re veals t h a t :
1.

The o p in i on s of p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m schools h a v i n g a

multiple car o ff - st r ee t d r i v i n g range an d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r
and from pr i nc i pa l s in schools o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l
phase of driver e d u c a t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y

o n -t h e- s tr e et , were

evenly ma t ched in their r e sp o ns e s to the q u e s t i o n c al l in g for
an increase in c l a s s r o o m time for d r i v e r education.
F o r t y - se v en p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

fr om schools

offering driver e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r school day
opposed a d di t io n al time for the c l a s s r o o m phase of d r iver
education.

A si mi lar n u m b e r of p r i n c i p a l s

offering d ri v er e d u c a t i o n in the summer,

from schools

Saturday,

and/or

after school agreed.
2.

The m aj o r i t y of p r i n c i p a l s

s u pp o r t e d the r e q u i r e ­

ment of a dditional time for b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l
driver education.

In co ntrast,

however,

i n s t r u c t i o n in

23-5 pe r cent

TABLE 35.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentage#, Relative to Restructuring
the Driver Education Requirements as Classified by Type of Program Offered,
and Type of Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day
*

Question

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School

%

Range
and/or
Simulator

%

BTW
Onthe-Street

%

10. More time should be required
by the State of Michigan for SA/A
the classroom phase of
U
driver education.
D/SD

22.0
30.5
47.5

25.0
27.8
46.7

25.5
27.5
47.0

24.1
28.6
46.8

20. More time should be required
by the State of Michigan for SA/A
U
behind-the-wheel phase of
D/SD
driver education.

49.1
28.8
22.0

54.3
23.1
22.7

53.0
23.5
23.5

53.2
24.5
22.3

30. The mandatory requirement
in driver education of a
minimum of 30 hours class­
room instruction and 6
hours per student of
behind-the-wheel training
Is excessive.

SA/A
U
D/SD

3.4
1.7
94.9

1.9
5.2
92.9

4.0
2.0
94.1

1.8
5.0
93.2

39. Driver education can ade­
quately be taught in the
3-week program required
by the State Department of
Education as a minimum.

SA/A
U
D/SD

8.5
25.4
66.1

21.2
22.2
56.2

13.7
17.6
68.6

19.5
24.1
55.9

50. The Federal Standard stating
"the driver education
course should be scheduled
SA/A
over a minimum of 6 calenU
dar weeks," is practical.
D/SD

45.8

39.2

18.6

41.5
28.3

21.6

35.6

29.2

39.2

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A = Strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD * Disagree or strongly disagree.

43.2
27.3
28.6

149
of the p r i n c i p a l s

f r o m s c ho o ls

having a multiple

ca r o ff -

street d r i v i n g r an g e a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r o p p o s e d
additional time

for the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e

of driver

ed u c a t i o n .

3.
pals

D a t a i n d i c a t e d that

94.9 p er cent of the p r i n c i ­

from sc h oo l s o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the

regular school

day a n d 92.9 p er cent o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the s ummer,

from

Saturday,

and/or a f t e r s c h o o l r e p o r t e d that the m a n d a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t
of 30 hours of c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n a n d 6 h o u r s
the-wheel e x p e r i e n c e

p e r student was not e x c e s s i v e .

N i n e t y - f o u r p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
having a m u l t i p l e

of b e h i n d -

car o f f - s t r e e t

d r i v i n g r a ng e a n d / o r

driving s i m u l a t o r and 93-2 p e r cent
schools o f f e r i n g b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

f r o m s ch o ol s

of the p r i n c i p a l s

from

instruction entirely

o n- t he-street r e p o r t e d that th e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h i r t y h o u r s
of c la s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n a n d six ho u rs

of b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

experience p e r s tu d e n t , was not e x c e s s i v e .
4.

F u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d in T a b l e

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

35 w as that

66.1 p e r

from schools offering driver education

during the r e g u l a r sc h oo l day r e p o r t e d that th e
not be taught a d e q u a t e l y

co u r s e c o u l d

in a t h r e e w e e k progr am .

than 56.2 p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
driver e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the s u mmer,
school a g r e e d w i t h th is posit i on .

f r o m s ch o o l s
Saturday,

More
offering

and/or after

150
Pri n ci p al s

fro m schools h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e car off-

street d r i v i n g range a n d / o r d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r r e p o r t e d
more often that dr i v e r e d u c a t i o n could not be t aught
effectively in a three w e e k p r o g r a m than did p r i n c i p a l s
from schools

offering behind-the-wheel instruction exclu­

sively on-the-street.
5.

P rincipals

f r om

during the r e g u l a r sc h oo l
principals

from s c ho o ls

summer, S a tu rday,

schools

offering driver education

day a g re e d mor e o f t e n than did

of f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the

a nd / o r a fter scho ol that s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r

education ove r a six c a le n da r w e e k p e r i o d was practic a l.
T hi r t y - n i n e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
having a m u l t i p l e car off-str e et

from schools

d r i v i n g range an d /o r

driving s im u l a t o r i n d i c a t e d that s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
over a six ca l e n d a r w e e k p er i od was
28,6 per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

not practi cal.

from schools

the-wheel i n s t r u c t i o n en t ir e ly o n - t h e -s t re e t
It should be noted,
cent

of the p r in c i p a l s

ho w ev e r,

Only

offering behindagreed.

that more t h a n 29

in each c at e go r y p r e s e n t e d in

pe r
T ab l e

35 did not agree that s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n o v e r a six
calendar week p e ri o d was practical.
The Opin ions of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the A d o p t i o n of U n i f o r m
Statewide Driver Education
P ro grams
R ep o rt e d in this s e c t i o n are the findings
opinions of princi p al s

toward q u e s t i o n s

of the

c o n c e r n i n g the

adoption of un i f o r m s t a t e w i d e d river e d u c a t i o n programs.

151
In Table

36 are the p e r c e n t a g e s

cipals gr o up e d Into c a te g or i es
size,

of r e s p o n s e s by p r i n -

that Include:

(2) m e t r o and n o n - m e t r o county sc h ools,

(1) school
and

(3) t o ta l

responses.
Table
1.

36 shows

that:

T h i r t y - t h r e e p e r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

reported

that the p re s en t d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m w o r k e d sm o ot h ly
and should be c o n t i n u e d w i t h o u t
ever,

change.

35.0 p er cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

that the p r o g r a m s h o u l d not
Principals

wer e of the opinion

co n ti n ue unchanged.

fro m class

than did p ri n ci p a l s

In c on t rast, h o w ­

D schools

r e p o r t e d m o r e o f te n

from larger sc hools that the p r esent

driver e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m w o r k e d s m oo t h l y and s ho u ld be
continued unchanged.
F o r t y - o n e p er cent of the m e t r o
pals and
cipals

30.1 p e r cent of the n o n - m e t r o county sc h oo l p r i n ­

Indicated that
2.

county school p r i n c i ­

Principals

ch anges w e r e n e e d e d In d r i v e r e ducation.
In e a c h c a te g or y w e re d iv i d e d on the

question c o n c e r n i n g the a do p t i o n of m a n d a t o r y
requirements

for d ri v er education.

F o r t y - th r ee per

cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

tory course r e q u i r e m e n t s

o pp o s e d manda*-

for dr i v e r e du c at i on , w h i l e

per cent of the pr i nc i p a l s
3.

course

39.6

e n do r s e d su ch a require m en t .

F o r t y - f o u r pe r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s r e po r t e d

that a single w r i t t e n s t a t e w i d e
be used In dr i v e r education.

final e x a m i n a t i o n sh o u l d

In contrast, h o we v er , we re

3^.0 per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w h o r e s p o n d e d to this question.

TABLE 36,— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Adoption of
Uniform Statewide Driver Education as Classified by Total, School Size, and
Type of County,
School Classification

Question

11. The driver education pro­
gram presently required by
the State works smoothly
and should be continued
without change.

Total

A

B

C

D

Metro

%

%

%

%

%

%

SA/A
U
D/SD

33.5
31.0
35.0

28.9
23.7
47.3

21. Mandatory course require­
ments and uniform teaching
SA/A
methods should not be
adopted in the public
U
schools for driver education. D/SD

39.6
16.2
43.1

39.5
15.8
43.4

31. A single written final exami­
nation should be used State­ SA/A
U
wide for all students com­
pleting driver education.
D/SD

4*1.7
21.0
34.0

44.8
19.7
35.5

28.6
42.9
28.6

42.2
35.1
22.8

27.4
41.1

35.7
34.2
30.1

40.6
13.5
44.6

39.7
14.3
46.0

36.9
22.8
38.6

41.2
15.3
42.7

37.7
17.1
43.8

47.3
17.6
33.8

36.5
28.6
34.9

50.9
19.3
29.8

44.3
22.6
32.3

45.2
19.9
3*1.9

35.2
25.7
37.9

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth
KEY: SA/A ■ Strongly agree or agree
U
« Undecided
D/SD ■ Disagree or strongly disagree

30.6

NonMetro
*

153
P l f t y - o n e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

fr o m class D

schools e n d o r s e d a si n g l e w r i t t e n s t a t ew i de d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
examination.

Ho wever,

this p o s i t i o n w as e n d o r s e d by a p p r o x i ­

mately 40 pe r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

In larger s chool

classifications .
The r e sp o ns e s
were e q ually d i vi d ed
written st a te w id e

from m e t r o and n o n - m e t r o county schools
on the q u e s t i o n

final e x a m i n a t i o n for d r i v e r education.

Con t ai n ed in T a b l e
by principals

c o n c e r n i n g a single

37 are the p e r c e n t a g e s of responses

g rouped in categ or i es

that

involve:

methods by w h i c h the p r i n c i p a l le a rn e d to drive,

(1)
(2) s e c ­

ondary a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e of the p ri n ci p a l ,

and

(3) w h e t h e r credit was gi ven for d r i v e r education.
Data in Table
1.

37 points

out that:

T h i r t y - f i v e per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

schools o ff e r i n g no credit

fr om

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d

that the p r o g r a m w o r k e d sm o o t h l y and should be c on t inued
without change.
cipals

However,

only 29.9 p e r cent of the p r i n ­

from sch ools o f f e r i n g credit

agreed w i t h this opinion.
principals

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

T h i r t y - f o u r per cent of the

in these two categories r e p o r t e d that the d r i ­

ver e d uc a ti o n p r o g r a m s ho u ld be re s tructured.
F o r t y - t w o p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w i t h 6 or mo re
years s e co n da r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e i n di c a t e d the
driver e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m w o r k e d sm o ot h l y and sh o ul d not
be changed, w hi l e

25.4 p er cent of the pr i nc i p a l s w i t h

less experie n ce agreed.

TABLE 37.--Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Adoption of
Uniform Statewide Driver Education as Classified fcy Secondary Administrative
Experience of the Principal, Method by Which the Principal Learned to Drive,
and Whether Credit was given for Driver Education.

Question

Credit

%

No
Credit

5 yrs.
or less

6 yrs.
or more

%

%

%

Via
Dr. Ed.

%

Via Oth.
Methods

%

11. The driver education pro­
gram presently required
by the State works smoothly
and should be continued
without change.

SA/A
U
D/SD

29.9
36.1
34.1

34.8
29.6
34.8

25.4
37.0
36.9

42.1
24.8
33.1

30.3
36.4
33.3

34.1
30.3
35.3

21. Mandatory course require­
ments and uniform teaching
methods should not be
adopted in the public
schools for driver educa­
tion.

SA/A
U
D/SD

42.3
14.4
43.3

39.1
19.1
39.1

37.6
15.2
46.3

41.3
17.3
39.9

30.3
12.1
57.6

40.8
16.8
41.1

31. A single final examination
should be used Statewide
for all students completing
driver education.

SA/A
U
D/SD

42.3
19.6
37.9

42.6
25.2
31.3

46.4
21.0
31.9

42.8
21.1

45.4
27.3
27.2

44.5
20.2
34.8

36.1

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
* Credit is given toward graduationfor drivereducation.
No credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver
education.
5 yrs. or less ■ Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience.
6 yrs. or more ■ Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrativeexperience.
Via Dr. Ed.
* Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth. * Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
* Strongly agree or agree
U
■ Undecided
D/SD
« Disagree or strongly disagree

155

2.

F o r t y - t h r e e p e r cent of th e p r i n c i p a l s

o ff ering credit
sta tewide

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t e d m a n d a t o r y

course requirements, while

p rincip a ls

f r om s c h o o l s

tion concurred.

39.1 p e r cent o f t h e

o f f e r i n g n o cr edit

for d r i v e r e d u c a ­

O f s p e c i a l n o te , h o w e v e r , wa s that

n umber of p r i n c i p a l s
opposed m a n d a t o r y
Principals
tive e x p e r i e n c e

from schoo

f r o m th e se

c ou r se
with

respective

requirements

5 years

or

frequently were

less

a similar

categories

fo r d r i v e r e du c at i o n .
secondary

administra­

o f the o p i n i o n that m a n d a ­

tory d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s

s h o u l d be adopted.

Principals w i t h a d d i t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e d i d not a gr e e as
frequently,

however,

requirements

that m a n d a t o r y

should be

F i f t y - s e v e n p er

driver education

course

adopted.
cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w h o had

learned to d r i v e v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d that m a n d a ­
tory course r e q u i r e m e n t s w e r e n e e d e d in this
41.1 per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
via other m e t h o d s

in all

in e a c h

in T a b l e

30 p er cent of the

37 o p p o s e d m a n d a t o r y

in d r i v e r e d uc a t i o n ,

Data revealed

principals

w h o h a d l e a r n e d to d r iv e

that m o r e t h a n

categories

course r e q u i r e m e n t s
3*

Only,

agreed.

O f s p e c i a l n o t e was
principals

subject.

that

c at e g o r y

f o r t y - t w o p e r cent of the
supported

a single statewide

final e x a m i n a t i o n for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w h i l e more t h a n 27
per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
R e p o r t e d in T a b l e
by princi pa l s
schools

o p p o s e d s uc h a r e q u i r e m e n t .

38 are the p e r c e n t a g e s

g r o u p e d in c a t e g o r i e s

that

of r e s p o n s e s

include:

(1)

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s chool

TABLE 38.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages*, Relative to the Adoption of
Uniform Statewide Driver Education as Classified by Type of Program Offered,
and Type of Laboratory Instruction.

Regular
School Day

Question

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School

%
*
11. The driver education program
presently required by the
State works smoothly and
SA/A
U
should be continued without
change.
D/SD

%

Range
and/or
Simulator

%

BTW
Onthe-Street

%

37.3
30.5
32.2

32.6
31.1
35.8

27.5
33.3
39.2

35.0
30.5
34.1

SA/A
U
D/SD

35.6
22.0
42.4

40.6
14.6
43.4

37.2
25.5
35.3

40.0
14.1
45.7

SA/A
U
D/SD

42.4
28.8
28.8

45.3
18.9
35.3

51.0
19.6
29.4

43.2
21.4
35.0

21. Mandatory course require­

31. A single written final
examination should be
used Statewide for all
students completing
driver education.

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * strongly agree or agree.
U
* Undecided.
D/SD « Disagree or strongly disagree.

156

ments and uniform teaching
methods should not be
adopted in the public
schools for driver educa­
tion.

157
day,

(2) schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,

Saturday, a n d / o r a f t e r school,

(3) sc hools h a v i n g a m u l t i p l e

car off-st r ee t d r i v i n g r a n g e a n d / o r d r i v i n g s im u la t or , and
(4)

schools o f f e r i n g the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l phase of d r i v e r

education e x c l u s i v e l y o n -t h e - s t r e e t .
Table
1.

38 reflects t h a t :
T h i r t y - s e v e n per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

in schools

offering d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r school day
agreed that the p r o g r a m w o r k e d sm oo t h l y and sh o ul d be
continued wi t ho u t

change.

T h i r t y - t w o per cent of the p r i n c i ­

pals from schools o f f e r i n g d r iv e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the summer,
Saturday, a n d / o r a ft e r school agreed.
32.2 per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

ed ucation d ur i n g the r e gu l a r school
of the p ri n ci p al s
during the summer,

In contrast, we re

day and

o f f e r i n g d river
35*8 p e r cent

from schools o f f e r i n g dr i v e r e d u c a t i o n
Saturday,

a n d / o r a f t e r school.

The Op i ni o ns of S e c o n d a r y S chool Princi p al s
T oward the Em p lo y me n t of R e gi o na l
C o o r d i n a t o r s to Direct the
Driver Education Program
Found in this s ec t i o n are the o p i n i o n r e s p o n s e s of
principals t ow a rd q u es t i o n s

c o n c e r n i n g the e m pl o ym e nt

of

regional c o o r d i n at o rs to direct the d ri v er e d u c a t i o n program.
Repo rted in Table

39 are the p e r c e n t a g e s of re s po n se s

by pr incipals g r o u p e d In ca t e g o r i e s
school size,

that

include:

(1)

(2) m et r o and n o n - m e t r o county schools,

total r e s p o n s e s .

and

(3)

TABLE 39.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentage^1, Relative to the Employment
of Regional Coordinators to Direct Driver Education as Classified by Total,
School Size, and Type of County.
School Classification
Question

Total

A

B

%

%

%

C

D

Metro

%

%

%

NonMetro
*

12. Driver education in the
public schools should be
scheduled and directed
by regional coordinators
appointed by the State.

SA/A
U
D/SD

12.2
18.8
68.2

18.5
18.4
63.2

10.8
9.5
77.1

11.1
30.2
58.8

7.1
19.3
73.7

15.3
16.1
67.8

9.6
21.2
68.5

42. Driver education could best
be handled in the public
schools by the employment
of regional area coordina­
tors to direct the program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

12.2
22.9
63.8

14.4
17.1
68.4

13.5
14.9
68.9

8.5
31.7
58.7

10.6
31.6
56.1

12.9
19.4
66.1

11.7
26.0
61.7

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree
U
= Undecided
D/SD - Disagree or strongly disagree

159
The d a t a s h o w n in T a b l e

1.

39 i n d i c a t e s

that:

Sixty-eight per cent of all principals were

opposed to the appointment of regional coordinators to
direct the driver education program.
Principals from class A schools were more apt to
support the employment of regional coordinators to direct
the driver education program than were principals from smaller
schools .
Fifteen per cent of the metro county school principals
endorsed the appointment of regional area coordinators,
while only 9-6 per cent of their colleagues in non-metro
county schools endorsed this opinion.
2.

Principals from class A and B schools more fre­

quently opposed regional area coordinators to direct the
driver education program than did principals from smaller
schools.
Table 40 presents the per cent of responses by princi­
pals grouped in categories that include:
which the principal learned to drive,

(1) method by

(2) secondary admini­

strative experience of the principal, and (3) whether credit
toward graduation was given for driver education.
Table ^0 shows that:
1.

Data revealed that principals from schools offering

no credit for driver education generally opposed the appoint­
ment of regional coordinators to direct the driver education
program.

A similar number of principals from schools

offering credit for driver education agreed with this position.

TABLE 40.— Responses of Principals, Expressed in Percentages* Relative to the Employment

of Regional Coordinators to Direct Driver Education as Classified by Secondary
Administrative Experience of the Principal, Method by Which the Principal
Learned to Drive, and Whether Credit was given for Driver Education.
Question

12. Driver education in the
public schools should be
scheduled and directed
by regional coordinators
appointed by the State.
42. Driver education could
best be handled in the
public schools by the
employment of regional
coordinators to direct
the program.

Credit

No
Credit

5 yrs.
or less

6 yrs.
or more

Via
Dr. Ed.
*

Via Oth.
Methods

%

%

%

%

SA/A
U
D/SD

9.3
21.6
69.1

11.3
16.5
70.4

14.5
16.7
68.1

9.8
21.1
68.4

15.2
21.2
63.6

11.8
18.5
68.9

SA/A
U
D/SD

6.2
27.8
66.0

11.3
19.1
66.9

13.0
26.8
48.7

11.3
18.8
69.2

15.2
36.4
48.5

11.8
21.0
66.0

%

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: Credit
= Credit is given toward graduationfor drivereducation.
No credit
* No credit is given toward graduation fordriver education.
5 yrs. or less = Principal had 5 years or less secondary administrativeexperience.
6 yrs. or more = Principal had 6 years or more secondary administrativeexperience.
Via Dr. Ed.
= Principal learned to drive via driver education.
Via Oth. Meth. - Principal learned to drive via other methods.
SA/A
* Strongly agree or agree
U
= Undecided
D/SD
= Disagree or strongly disagree

161
Fourteen per cent of the principals with 5 years of less
secondary administrative experience endorsed the appointment
of regional coordinators to direct the driver education
program, while only 9.8 per cent of the principals with
additional experience concurred.
Sixty-three per cent of the principals who had learned
to drive via driver education opposed the appointment of
regional coordinators while 68.9 per cent of the principals
who had learned to drive via other methods shared this view.
Reported in Table ^1 are the percentages of responses
by principals grouped in categories that include;

(1)

schools offering driver education during the regular school
day,

(2) schools offering driver education during the summer,

Saturday, and/or after school,

(3) schools having a multiple

car off-street driving range and/or driving simulator, and
(4) schools offering the behind-the-wheel instruction solely
on-the-street.
Data

from Table 4l reveals that :

1.

Seventy-three per cent of the principals from

schools offering driver education during the regular school
day did not agree that the course as offered in the public
school, should be handled by the employment of regional
area coordinators.

In comparison, 61.3 per cent of the

principals from schools offering driver education during
the summer, Saturday, and/or after school shared this opinion.
Principals

from schools

having a multiple

car off-

TABLE 4i,— Responses of Principals, Expressed In Percentages* Relative to the Employment
of Regional Coordinators to Direct Driver Education as Classified by Type of
Program Offered, and Type of Laboratory Instruction.
Regular
School Day

Question

Summer
Sat. and/or
After School

%

%

Range
and/or
Simulator
%

BTW
Onthe-Street
*

SA/A
U
D/SD

15.3
15.3
69.5

11.3
19.8
68.0

21.6
17.6
58.8

10.0
19.1
70.4

42. Driver education could
best be handled in the
public schools by the
employment of regional
area coordinators to
direct the program.

SA/A
U
D/SD

10.2
16.9
72.8

12.8
24.5
61.3

12.7
21.6
62.8

11.8
23.2
64.1

•Actual computed percentage rounded to the nearest tenth.
KEY: SA/A * Strongly agree or agree.
U
- Undecided.
D/SD = Disagree or strongly disagree.

162

12. Driver education in the
public schools should be
scheduled and directed
by regional coordinators
appointed by the State.

163
street d r i v i n g r a n g e a n d / o r
supported the a p p o i n t m e n t

driving simulator more

of r e g i o n a l

coordinators

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m t h a n did p r i n c i p a l s
offeri ng the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

frequently
to di r e c t

from schools

p h a s e o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n on-

the-street.
R e s p o n s e s by S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
T o w a r d the " O p e n - e n d e d 1' S t a t e m e n t s
Pound i n Ta b le
by p r i n c i p a l s

42 are the f r e q u e n c y r e s p o n s e s

to the

four

"open-ended"

indicated

statements presented

in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Data in T a bl e
1.

The most

42 s h ow s
f r eq u e n t

for i n cr e a s e d r e i m b u r s e m e n t

that :
r e s p o n s e by the p r i n c i p a l s was
o f the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m .

T h i r t y - se v en p e r cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s
improved f i n a n c i n g was n e e d e d
2.

Table

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

42 f u r t h e r r e v e a l e d

that the q u a l i t y o f p e r f o r m a n c e
driver e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s
3.

Also

that p r i n c i p a l s

an d p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m a m o n g

i n he r en t

the n e e d to r e s o l v e the
in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

associa ted w i t h s c h e d u l i n g p r o b l e m s was
ment of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e g u i d e l i n e s
education.

felt

s h o u l d be i m p r o v ed .

i n d i c a t e d was

scheduling p r o b l e m s

i n d i c a t e d that

Closely

the n e e d f o r d e v e l o p ­

in the a r e a of d r i v e r

164
TABLE 42 .— F r e q u e n c y o f R e c o r d e d R e s p o n s e s
Ended" S t a t e m e n t s .
N u m b e r of
Responses

to the

" O pe n -

•Percentage
of R e s p o n s e s

Increase the r e i m b u r s e m e n t rate
for the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m

82

37%

Improve the q u a l i t y o f t e a c h e r
p erformance a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m
in d river e d u c a t i o n

53

24%

Eliminate s c h e d u l i n g p r o b l e m s
in d r iv e r e d u c a t i o n

32

15%

Require, by law, d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
in the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day p r o g r a m

18

8%

Establish g u i d e l i n e s for a d m i n i s ­
tration of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

15

7%

Standa rdize the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
program s t a t e w i d e

14

7%

Remove r e q u i r e d d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
from the p u b l i c s c h o o l s y s t e m

14

7%

Improve the e v a l u a t i o n and e n f o r c e
ment of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
standards p r e s e n t l y o u t l i n e d by
the State D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n

10

5%

Improve c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n the
school d i s t r i c t and the S t a t e
Department of E d u c a t i o n

8

4%

Eliminate u n n e c e s s a r y p a p e r w o r k
In driver e d u c a t i o n

6

3%

Hire r eg i o n a l c o o r d i n a t o r s to d i r ­
ect the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m

5

2%

Raise the d r i v e r
to 17

5

2%

5

2%

Stress the t e a c h i n g of a t t i t u d e s
in driver e d u c a t i o n

4

2%

Improve i n f o r m a t i o n for o b t a i n i n g
driver e d u c a t i o n v e h i c l e s

3

1%

l i c e n s i n g age

Improve the s t a n d a r d s
education i n s t r u c t i o n

for d r i v e r

•Percentage o f r e s p o n s e s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g the
number of s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s e s by the t ot a l n u m b e r o f q u e s tionnaires c o n t a i n i n g a w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e .
Responses were
contained on 220 r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

165
Summary
Presented
obtained

from

in

Chapter

IV is

a ninety-six

questionnaires

f r o m t he

school p r i n c i p a l s

per

two

sampled

an analysis

cent

data

return of completed

hundred

In t h e

of the

ninety-three

public

high

secondary

schools

of

Michigan.
The
for e a c h
section

chapter was
of the

divided

twelve

concerning

the

" o p e n - e n d e d 11 s t a t e m e n t s
Tables
principals
and

consisting

were

the m a j o r

In C h a p t e r
discussion,

and

content

V the

thirteen

areas

of

sections;

interest,

one

and one

responses

of the

principals

included

on the

questionnaire.

of the

constructed

findings

Into

percentage

for each

presented
summary,

recommendations

major
will

of responses

of the

In each

thirteen

table

findings,
be

to the

were

by

sections,
explained.

conclusions,

reported.

CHAPTER V
SU MMARY,

C O N C L US I ON S ,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In the p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r the findings
research survey we re presented.
found:

(1) a s um m a r y

In this

of the survey

of this

c h a p t e r may be

co n du c te d ,

C2) the

major findings,

(3) c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d upon the findings,

(4) discu ssion,

and

(5) r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

for fu r th e r

research.
S um m ar y
Statement of the P r o b l e m
It was the p u r p o s e of this survey
the opinions

Cl) to d e t e r m i n e

of se c on d ar y sc h oo l p r i n c i p a l s

in the p ublic

schools of M i c h i g a n to w ar d d r i v e r education,
determine w h a t s e c o n d a r y
to resolve the pr o bl e ms

sc ho o l p r i n c i p a l s

and

(2) to

felt was n e e d e d

of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m as

outlined by the State D e p a r t m e n t

of Education.

The r e s o l v i n g of these two g e n e r a l stateme n ts
required that the f o l l o w i n g s p ec i fi c q u e s t i o n s be
answered:

166

167

1.

What

were

the

opinions

driver education
2.

Did the

by
3.

the

Was

driver

were

status

the

opinions

of guidelines

6.

Was

the

State

as m e a s u r e d

opinions

In

citizenship

t he p r o g r a m ?

of pr i n c i p a l s

and

of t h e

toward

Information

the

available

th e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ?

How did principals
of d ri ve r

school,

in p r o m o t i n g

enrolled

for ad m i n i s t e r i n g
5.

driver education

in t h e

effective

among students
What

the

of p r i n c i p a l s ?

education,

principals,

4.

accept

in t h e p u b l i c h i g h

opinions

toward

staff members?

community

program,

of the p r i n c i p a l s

fe e l

about

the

administration

education?

driver

education

Department

program outlined

of Education

a c c e p t e d by

by

the

the

principals?
7.

What were
asked
be

8.

9.

the

opinions

If the m i n i m u m

raised

o f t he

driver

principals

licensing

ag e s h o u l d

to seventeen?

Did opinions

of the princi pa ls

indicate

required

driver

education should be

f r o m the

public

schools?

In th e

when

opinions

of the p r i n c i p a l s ,

present

reimbursement

pleting

driver

rate

education

that

removed

was

the

for students

adequate?

com­

168

10.

Should

t he p r e s e n t

driver education program

f r o m the p r i n c i p a l s 1 v i e w p o i n t be r e s t r u c t u r e d ?
11.

What

were the

opinions

toward a uniform

12.

in t he p u b l i c

Di d

opinions

need
t he
The M e t h o d s
T hi s

schools?

of the p r i n c i p a l s

regional

indicate

coordinators

a

to d i r e c t

driver education program?

r e s e a r c h s u r v e y w as
of 293 s e c o n d a r y

of Michigan.

principals was
E. J,

to e m p l o y

driver education

of P r o c e d u r e

fied s a m p l e
schools

and m a n d a t o r y

program
the

h e l d by p r i n c i p a l s

Stephan

m ln a ti o n by

for d r a w i n g the

f r o m the t e x t s

an d P.

J,

A r t h u r E,

Each public

school principals

A method

taken

limited to a random s t r a t i ­

sample

of

Sampling Opinions

by

M c C a r t h y 1 and S a m p l e - S l z e D e t e r -

Mace.

high

in t h e p u b l i c

2

school

in t he

s t a t e wa s

assigned

a

g e o g r a p h i c a l r e g i o n a c c o r d i n g to th e M i c h i g a n E d u c a t i o n
Association,

A p p e n d i x A,

ment C l a s s i f i c a t i o n
consisting of
each s t r a t a ,

pp.

1E. J.
103-118.
2

50 p e r
w as

(Table

1).

Athletic

cent of the p u b l i c h i g h

a nd P. J.

Mace,

Enroll­

A random stratified
schools

t h e n dra wn.

Stephan

A r t h u r E.

a n d by M i c h i g a n

McCarthy,

o p . c i t ., pp.

2-3*

o p . c l t .,

sample
in

169
Prior

to s a m p l i n g p r i n c i p a l s

opinion q u e s t i o n n a i r e
was

used to o b t a i n

outlined above.
three s e c t i o n s
(2) f i ft y
from the

section

developed,

opinions

The

to the

opinion

whi c h were:

statements
principal,

statements.

w as

The

that
and

items

included:

(1)

the s econdary

in y e a r s ,

the-wheel
credit w as

instruction
given

Section
statements

in the

questions
contained
information,

"open-ended"
information

administrative

the p r i n c i p a l s 1 d riving

the m e t h o d by w h i c h

(*0

the

type

school,

response

th e p r i n c i ­

of d r i v e r

(5)

the type

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

education
of behind-

and

(6) w h e t h e r

for d r i v e r education.

two

that

(2)

an

F, w h i c h

an o p i n i o n

on the p r e l i m i n a r y

experience

program of f e r e d

questionnaire

four optional

of the p r i n c i p a l ,

to d r i v e ,

Appendix

specific

required

(3)

(3)

schools,

(1) p r e l i m i n a r y

experience

pal l e a r n e d

in these

of t he

required

questionnaire
an o p i n i o n

included

response

fifty

according

■5

to the

Siebrecht

agree,

agree,
Section

five r e s p o n s e

undecided,
three

that r e q u e s t e d

disagree,

included

a written

format,

four

response

namely— strongly

and strongly
"open-ended

disagree.

statements

from the principal

(A p p e n d i x E ).
P r i o r to m a i l i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
e x p l a n a t i o n wa s

drafted,

and

letters

■3

E l m e r B,

Siebrecht,

op.

clt.

a letter of

of e n d o r s e m e n t w e r e

170
obtained f r o m Dr.

Robert

the H i gh w a y T r a f f i c
sity, and Mr.

0, N o l a n ,

Safety

B e n Le yrer,

Assistant

C e n t e r at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r ­
President

o f the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a ­

tion of S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s
After two w e e k s , a follow-up
q u e s t i on n ai r e was

D i r e c t o r of

(Appendix G ) .
l e t t e r a nd a se c on d

se nt to t ho s e p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d f a i l e d

to r es p on d to the i n i t i a l m a i l i n g

(A p pe n d i x J).

T he i n i t i a l m a i l i n g and s u b s e q u e n t

follow-up p ro ­

duced a 96 p e r c e n t r e s p o n s e of c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .
A total o f 280 c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e r e c e i v e d
from the

293 p r i n c i p a l s

Responses

sampled.

to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e

puter use, and the t a b u l a t e d

fi n dings

c od e d for c o m ­

w e r e r e p o r t e d in

Chapter IV.
F o l l o w i n g is a s u m m a r y

of the m a j o r fi n d i n g s

of this

research survey.
The M aj o r F i n d i n g s
The

following summary

sented In t h i r t e e n s e ct i o n s ,
content areas

of I n t e r e s t

of major
one

f in d i n g s was p r e ­

for each of the t w e l v e

o u t l i n e d in T a b l e

for the r e s p o n s e s by the p r i n c i p a l s

to the

5» and one
"open-ended"

statements.
1.

D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n S t a f f M e m b e r s .-— E i g h t y - o n e pe r

cent of all p r i n c i p a l s
teachers w e r e

r e p o r t e d that

e n t h u s i a s t i c a bo u t

driver education

t e a c h i n g y o u n g pe r so n s.

171
P rincipals

fr o m class

B schools

e n d o r s e d the e n t h u s i a s m

of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r m o r e
principals

in o t h e r s c h o o l

One-half,

or 52 p e r

f r e q u e n t l y t h a n did

classifications.

c e n t , of all p r i n c i p a l s

agree that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s w e r e
to p e r f o r m t h e i r task as w e r e
jects

in th e h i g h s c h o o l s
No p r i n c i p a l

the t e a c h e r s

d i d not

as w e l l p r e p a r e d
of other sub­

of M i c h i g a n .

from a school offering driver ed u c a ­

tion d u r i n g the r e g u l a r s c h o o l day r e p o r t e d t ha t d r i v e r
education t e a c h e r s
ed ucation of b o y s

l a ck e d s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y
a nd girls.

per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

education d u r i n g the s u mm e r,
school I n d i c a t e d that
the n e c e s s a r y

skills

In c o n t r a s t ,

8.0

and/or after

driver education teachers

lacked

to t ea c h s t u d e n t s .

education t e a c h e r s p l a n p r o g r a m s

principals

however,

offering driver

Saturday,

S ix t y pe r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

development

for the

a m o n g s t u d e nt s .
fr o m s c h o o l s

r e v e a l e d th at d r i v e r

to a s s u r e

attitude

S e v e n t y - o n e p e r cent of the

offering credit

for d r i v e r e d u c a ­

tion agreed.
Forty-nine per
requirement

cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

s u p p o r t e d the

of a m i n o r in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n for t e a c h e r

certification.

This

r e q u i r e m e n t was

o p po s e d ,

however,

by

31.0 per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s .
Principals were equally
as to the q u e s t i o n

divided

in t h e i r o p i n i o n s

c o n c e r n i n g six s e m e s t e r h o u r s

In c o l l e g e

172

driver e d u c a t i o n co urses

as b e i n g s u f f i c i e n t p r e p a r a t i o n

for certification.
2.

Co m m un i ty A c c e p t a n c e of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .—

Ninety-one p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

i n d i c a t e d that the

community s u pp o r t e d d r i v e r education.

Principals

from

schools o f fe r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r
school day more f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d

c o mm unity e n d o r s e m e n t

of driver e d u c a t i o n th a n did p r i n c i p a l s
No p r i n c i p a l

In o t h e r cate gories.

fr o m a s chool o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

during the r eg u la r sc hool day r e p o r t e d that
had a n e ga t iv e a t t i t u d e t ow a rd the program.
was en d orsed by p r i n c i p a l s

from:

the c o mm unity
Th is p o s i t i o n

class B sc h oo l s, w h o had

learned to drive via d r i v e r educa ti o n,

and p r i n c i p a l s w it h

5 years or less s e c o n d a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e experi e nc e .
Citizenship Development

Among Students Enrolled

In Driver E d u c a t i o n .— E i g h t y - n i n e p e r cent of all p r i n c i ­
pals querried,

r e p o r t e d that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d e v e l o p e d a

sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

am o ng teenagers.

class B and D schools m or e frequently
position than did p r i n c i p a l s

Principals

from

agreed w i t h this

from o t h e r s c h o o l c l a s s i f i c a ­

tions .
E ig h ty - si x per cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

r e v e a l e d that

driver e d uc a ti o n can p ro v i d e y o u t h w i t h p r o p e r at titudes
for effective citizenship.
*4.

A v ai l ab i li t y

of G uidelines

and I n f o r m a t i o n For

Driver E d u c a t i o n .— F o r t y - t h r e e per c e n t o f the p r i n c i p a l s

173

reported that

legislative

well p u b l i c i z e d

changes

In driver education w ere

for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

of the p r i n c i p a l s

However,

did not agree, w h e n asked

29.5 p e r cent

the s a m e

question.
Fifty-six per

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

schools r e p o r t e d that

legislative

licized for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
their a s s o c i a t e s

in class

Fifty-six per

while

c ha n g e s w e r e w e l l p u b ­
o n ly

C schools

3 3 . ^ P © r c en t o f

e x p r e s s e d this

cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

the State D e p a r t m e n t

f r o m class B

indicated

of E d u c a t i o n ha d p r o v i d e d

opinion.
that

sufficient

direction to the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n pr o g r a m .
S ixty p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w h o h a d
drive via m e t h o d s
the o p i n i o n that

gram, w h i l e

only

learned to dr i ve

other than driver education expressed
the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

provided a d e q u a t e

l e a r n e d to

of E d u c a t i o n h a d

d i r e c t i o n to the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o ­
33*3 p er

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

who had

v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ag r ee d .

It s h o u l d be n o t e d
pals wer e u n d e c i d e d

that

28.8 p er cent o f al l p r i n c i ­

c o n c e r n i n g the q u e s t i o n

direction for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

of a d e q u a t e

f r o m the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

of Educati on.
Principals

were

equally

to the a d o p t i o n of a s t a t e w i d e

divided

in t h e i r r e s p o n s e s

c u r r i c u l u m in d r i v e r

education.
8.

Administration

per cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

of D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .*— S e v e n t y - t w o

r e p o r t e d that

the t i me sp e nt

on

1 7 1*
written reports
Principals

In d r iver educ a t i o n was not

from schools

phase o f d r i v e r
cated m o r e

o f f e r i n g the b e h l n d - t h e - w h e e l

education

frequently

having a multiple

entirely

driving simulator,

that

education were

excessive.

Sixty-eight per
there wa s

n ot

on-the-street

than did principals

ca r o f f - s t r e e t

no t

Indi­

from schools

driving range and/or

th e w r i t t e n r e p o r t s

cent of th e p r i n c i p a l s

excessive

excessive.

secretarial

time

in driver

reported that

spent

on driver

education.

F i f t y - f i v e p e r ce n t o f th e p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t e d th at
additional time was

not needed

education program.

This

to a d m i n i s t e r th e d r i v e r

p o s i t i o n w as

by 26.2 p e r ce nt o f the p r i n c i p a l s
question.

Seventy-two per

class D s c h o o l s
needed

while

schools w e r e

reported that

the o p i n i o n s

not

scheduling driver
time

consuming.

r e s p o n d i n g to th is

a d d i t i o n a l t i m e wa s
o f th e

This

36.6 p e r cent o f th e p r i n c i p a l s

from larger

revealed that

neither difficult

p o s i t i o n wa s

not

asked this question.

cent o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s

e d u c a t i o n wa s

from

driver education

of principals

so p r o n o u n c e d w h e n

Fifty-two per

however,

cent of th e p r i n c i p a l s

fo r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

progr am,

refuted,

refuted,

nor

however,

by

responding

to the

same

Acceptance

o f D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .—

question.
6.
Forty-eight per

The Principals

c e n t o f al l p r i n c i p a l s

reported

that

driver

175

e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be a p a r t
This o p i n i o n w a s
the p r i n c i p a l s

not

endorsed,

however,

r e s p o n d i n g to t he

Forty-two per
pals e n d o r s e d

of t h e r e g u l a r

while only

28 ,1 p e r

princ ip a ls

expressed

that a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

3^.3 p e r

county

In the

c e nt o f

school princi­

regular school

cent o f the n o n - m e t r o

county

day,

school

this view.

Eighty-three per

cent of al l p r i n c i p a l s

as a g r o u p ,

Eighty-seven per

This p o s i t i o n w a s m o s t

indicated

supported driver

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

driver e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d b e r e q u i r e d

from s c h o o l s

by

same question.

cent o f t he m e t r o

driver education

s c h o o l day.

strongly

education.

r e p o r t e d that

f o r a ll n e w d r i v e r s .

s u p p o r t e d by p r i n c i p a l s

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g t h e regu«-

lar sc h o o l day.
B o a r d of e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t
I nd i cated by
C redit

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was

9 3- 7 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s .
for s t u d e n t s

edu c at i on was

successfully

supported by

^9.8 p e r

completing driver

cent o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s

r es p on d i n g to th i s q u e s t i o n .

Thirty-four per

principals, h o w e v e r ,

th at

reported

c r ed i t

cent

of t h e

s h o u l d n o t be

given for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
Fifty-nine per

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

d i d not

that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n wa s

taught

as

the community.

35 p e r

cent o f the p r i n c i p a l s

More than

from class D s c h o o l s ,
education w a s t a u g h t

however,

a public

agree

indicated

as a p u b l i c

service

that

service

to

driver

to t he

community.

176
Opinions

of p r i n c i p a l s

pronounced when

from

they were

larger

asked

schools

the

same

wer e not

question.

N i n e t y - t h r e e p e r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s
that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n has

the s u p p o r t

so

revealed

of the s c h o o l s u p e r ­

intendent .
F i f t y - o n e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
offering cr e d i t

for the s u c c e s s f u l

ed ucation r e p o r t e d that
was an a c a d e m i c
by 48.7 p er

f r o m sc h o o l s

c o m p l e t i o n of d r i v e r

in t h e i r o p i n i o n ,

subject.

T h is

driver education

o p i n i o n was

r e fu t ed ,

however,

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w h o r e s p o n d e d to the

questionnaire.
7.

R e m o v a l o f R e q u i r e d D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .--A

majority of p r i n c i p a l s ,

or 82,3 p er c e n t , r e p o r t e d tha t

driver e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d b e o f f e r e d in the p u b l i c
Principals

strongly

op p o s e d ,

believed the t o ta l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

in fact 97.8 p e r cent
for t e a c h i n g d r i v e r

education s h o u l d not be d e l e g a t e d to p a r e n t s
E i g h t y - e i g h t p e r cent of all p r i n c i p a l s
a driver e d u c a t i o n course

and r e la t i v e s .
r e p o r t e d that

s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d b e f o r e

son could o b t a i n an o p e r a t o r ' s
school p r i n c i p a l s

school.

endorsed more

ment than di d t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s

licen se.

Non-metro

frequently
in m e t r o

a per­
county

this r e q u i r e ­

co un ty schools.

S e v e n t y - f o u r pe r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w e r e of the
opinion that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n w as not an e x a m p l e
control of local educat i on .

Principals

of state

f r o m class A

177

schools t o o k this p o s i t i o n m o r e

o f t e n t h a n d id p r i n c i p a l s

from ot h er s c h o o l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
D a t a r e v e a l e d that t h r e e - q u a r t e r s

of all p r i n c i p a l s

held the o p i n i o n that p r o v i d i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was

the

res p onsibility of the school.
8.

R a i s i n g the D r i v e r L i c e n s i n g Ag e to S e v e n t e e n .—

T hirty-one p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
driver l i c e n s i n g age to s e v e n t e e n ,
opposed su ch a r e q u i r e m e n t .
schools

indicated more

school p r i n c i p a l s ,

principals we re

while

Principals

45.1 p e r cent
from metro county

o f t e n t h a n did n o n - m e t r o c o un t y

that

raised to sevent ee n .

fa v o r e d r a i s i n g the

the d r i v e r

l i c e n s i n g age s h o u l d be

Approximately

o n e - q u a r t e r of all

u n d e c i d e d as to the q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n e d

with r a is i ng the d r i v e r

l i c e n s i n g age to se v en t e e n .

S e v e n t y — four p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

from schools

offering d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r sc h o o l day
reported that s t u d e n t s

at age

16 are m a t u r e e n o u g h to

safely op erate a m o t o r vehicle.
cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

However,

f r o m s c ho o ls

cation d u r i n g the s u mm e r,

Saturday,

only

59.9 p e r

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r edu*and/or after school

expressed this opinio n.
9.

R e i m b u r s e m e n t Rates

for D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .

Seventy-four p e r c e n t o f all p r i n c i p a l s
current r e i m b u r s e m e n t

rate of $ 30 . 00

i n d i c a t e d that

fo r s t u d e n t s

pleting d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was not adequate.
from class B s c h o o l s

i n d i c a t e d more

the

com­

Principals

frequently

th an did

178
principals

from other school

reimbursement

rate

f o r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n wa s

Forty-nine per
a d e quate

f un ds w e r e

d ri v e r e d u c a t i o n .
that a d e q u a t e

cent o f al l p r i n c i p a l s
available

no t

that

s y s t e m fo r

In t h e i r

reported
school

subject.

indicated

that

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,
were not

adequate.

cent, h o w e v e r ,

available

the

reported

F i f t y - n i n e p e r cen t of th e p r i n c i p a l s
schools

that

no t

t o th e s c h o o l

Thirty-nine per

f unds w e r e

s y s t e m fo r this

classifications,

sufficient

c lass

D

f unds h a d b e e n p r o v i d e d

while principals

as p r o n o u n c e d

from

from larger schools

in t h e i r o p i n i o n s

c o n c e r n i n g th is

question.
Seventy-three per
agree that

the p r e s e n t

cation a l l o w e d
ma ter ials.

reinbursement

for a d e q u a t e

Principals

o pin ion m o r e

cent of th e p r i n c i p a l s
rate

reference

f r o m cla ss

Fifty-eight per

indicated

that

the

should be

fully paid

B schools

cost o f the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m
fo r b y

state reimbursement,

funds.

A schools

plement

tha t

th e

from s m a l l e r

cost

th e

school

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

local board

f r e quently

e x p r e s s e d this

in o t h e r

should not b e s u p p l e m e n t e d by
Principals

for d r i v e r e d u ­

an d s u p p l e m e n t a r y

o f t e n t h a n di d p r i n c i p a l s

classifications.

d i d not

from class

loc al b o a r d

of education

reported more

of education

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

and

should

sup­

t h a n di d p r i n c i p a l s

schools.

R e s p o n s e s by p r i n c i p a l s

tha t t h e q u a l i t y

dr ive r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m d i r e c t l y

reflects

th e

of th e

179

reimbursement

rate were

evenly

per cent w e r e

In a g r e e m e n t ,

and

cent w e r e

35.** p e r
10.

divided.

29.5 p e r

Thirty^three

cent were

o pp o s e d .

R e s t r u c t u r i n g t he D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n R e q u i r e m e n t s .

Twenty-five per

cent of the p r i n c i p a l s w e r e

that a d d i t i o n a l

time

should be required

phase of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
than

53 p e r

cent o f t he p r i n c i p a l s

supported additional

Instruction
a ss o ci a t e s

time

Ninety-three per

county

I n s t r u c t i o n a nd
experience was

6 hours
not

Metro

time

county p r i n c i ­

f or t h e b e h l n d - t h e - w h e e l
often than did their

s ch o o l s .

of t h i r t y h o u r s

per student

reported

that

of c l a s s r o o m

of b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l

cent of th e p r i n c i p a l s w e r e

driver education

however,

o f the

c o u l d not be a d e q u a t e l y

taught d u r i n g t he t h r e e - w e e k p e r i o d .
of the p r i n c i p a l s ,

more

excessive.

Fifty-eight per
opinion that

however,

cent of all p r i n c i p a l s

the m a n d a t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t

classroom

endorsed additional

In d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n m o r e
in n o n - m e t r o

o f the o p i n i o n

f o r the

In c o n t r a s t ,

for t he b e h l n d - t h e - w h e e l e x p e r i e n c e .
pals

undecided,

endorsed

E i g h t e e n p e r cent
the t h r e e — w e e k p r o ­

gram in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
Principals

f r o m class

D schools were generally

opposed to the t h r e e - w e e k p r o g r a m in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,
while principals, f r o m l a r g e r s c h o o l s
course.

f a v o r e d th e s h o r t e r

180
P r i n c i p a l s w e r e not

in a g r e e m e n t w h e n a s k e d t h e i r

op inion r e l a t i v e to s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g a
s i x - c a l e n d a r w e e k period.
11.

A d o p t i o n of U n i f o r m S t a t e w i d e D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n .

Re sponses by p r i n c i p a l s

r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s

present d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m w e r e
T hi r t y - t h r e e p e r cent w e r e
undecided,

and

e v e n l y d i vided.

in a g r e e m e n t ,

35.0 p e r c e n t w e r e

31.0 p e r

f r o m class A and B

schools m o re o f t e n i n d i c a t e d p r o g r a m p r o b l e m s

The

findings

principals

opposed mandat

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

per cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

In d r i v e r

f r o m s m a l l e r sc hools.

F o r t y - t h r e e p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
tory course r e q u i r e m e n t s

cent w e r e

opposed.

Da ta r e v e a l e d that p r i n c i p a l s

education th an d id p r i n c i p a l s

of the

s u p p o r t e d this

I n d i c a t e d that

while

39.6

requirement.

44,7 p e r cent of the

fa v o r e d a s i n g l e w r i t t e n fi n al e x a m i n a t i o n In

driver e d u c a t i o n , w h i l e

34.0 p e r c e n t w e r e

o p p o s e d to s u ch

a requirement.
12.

Employment

of R e g i o n a l

Coordinators

to D i r e c t

the Dr i v e r E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m .— The m a j o r i t y of p r i n c i p a l s ,
or 68.2 p er c e n t , e x p r e s s e d the o p i n i o n th a t r e g i o n a l
dinators to d irect
be employed.

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m n e ed not

S e v e n t y - t w o p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s

schools o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r
school day,

agreed.

coor­

f r om

181
13.

Responses

R e p o r t e d by the p r i n c i p a l s

to the

wOpen*-endedw S t a t e m e n t s .—

as t h e i r t h r e e m a j o r Items

concern In d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n were:
reimbursement

rate,

te acher p e r f o r m a n c e

(b)

improvement

(a)

of

I n c r e a s e In the

In the q u a l i t y of

and p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m in d r i v e r e d u c a ­

tion, and

(c)

elimination

of s c h e d u l i n g p r o b l e m s

subject.

A l s o i n d i c a t e d by the p r i n c i p a l s was

In this

the n ee d

to I n c o r p o r a t e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n In to the r e g u l a r s c h o o l
day and t o s t a n d a r d i z e

the i n s t r u c t i o n

in this progr am .

Conclusions
T he

f o l l o w i n g are the c o n c l u s i o n s

b a s e d u p o n the

findings o f the survey.
1.

Data indicated

that the p r i n c i p a l s

strongly

en dorsed d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n and r e p o r t e d by a 82.3 p e r cent
response that the p r o g r a m s h o u l d be o f f e r e d
school system.
support was
dents,

The findings

in the p u b l i c

also r e v e a l e d that s t r o n g

g i v e n d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n by s c h o o l s u p e r i n t e n ­

board

of e d u c a t i o n m e m b e r s ,

and p a r e n t s

In the

community.
D a t a r e v e a l e d that p r i n c i p a l s

in all c a t e g o r i e s w e r e

opposed to the t e a c h i n g of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y
by parents and r e l a t i v e s
a driver's
2.
p rincipals

of s t u d e n t s w i s h i n g to a p pl y

license.
S h o w n by the d a t a was

that the m a j o r i t y

of

felt that a d d i t i o n a l ti m e to a d m i n i s t e r the

driver e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m w a s not needed.

Principals

for

182

from class A s c h o o l s m o r e
tional time
coll eagues

often reported a need for addi­

to a d m i n i s t e r d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t h a n d i d t h e i r
In s m a l l e r size s ch ools.

3.

The

f in d in g s

r e p o r t e d that

e d u c a t i o n wa s n e i t h e r d i f f i c u l t n o r t im e

s c h e d u l i n g of d r i v e r

consuming accord­

ing to th e m a j o r i t y

of principals who responded,

the w r i t t e n r e po r t s

in driver education excessive.

cipals

nor were
Prin­

from s c h o o l s o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the

re gular s c h o o l day r e p o r t e d m o r e
other p r i n c i p a l s ,

f r e q u e n t l y t h a n did

that s c h e d u l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n was

difficult.
^.

Revealed

pr incipals

of the

ab i l i t y

e du c ation t e a c h e r s
de ve lopment

in the s u r v e y was

and e n t h u s i a s m o f d r i v e r

to p r o m o t e

among students

Indicated, h o w e v e r , was

c i t i z e n s h i p and a t t i t u d e

enrolled

expressed

a

among driver education

P r i n c i p a l s w e r e d i v i d e d in t h e i r o p i n i o n s

the r e q u i r e m e n t of an a p p r o v e d m i n o r
to teach this

D a t a s h o w e d that

reported that

on

for c e r t i f i c a t i o n

subject,

5.

legislative

were w e ll p u b l i c i z e d
State D e p a r t m e n t
guidelines

in the pr o g r a m .

tha t p r i n c i p a l s

need for m o r e p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m
teachers.

the e n d o r s e m e n t by

c h an g es

the m a j o r i t y

of p r i n c i p a l s

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

a n d that

the

of E d u c a t i o n h a d p r o v i d e d s u f f i c i e n t

for the program.

183
6.

P r i n c i p a l s w e r e d i v i d e d In t h e i r r e s p o n s e s

r ai s in g the d r i v e r

l i c e n s i n g a ge to s e v e n t e e n .

revealed that p r i n c i p a l s
students

at age

the p u b l i c

e n d o r s e d the m a t u r i t y

16 to s a f e l y

streets

Principals

learned to d r i v e v i a d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n m o r e
the m a t u r i t y

o f the

a motor vehicle

Data
l e v e l of

operate a motor vehicle

and h i gh w a y s .

16 y e a r old

wh o h a d

on

w h o h ad

often endorsed

s t u d e n t to sa f e l y

t h a n did p r i n c i p a l s

to

operate

l e a r n e d to

drive via o t h e r m et h o d s .
7.

D a t a i n d i c a t e d that p r i n c i p a l s

on the a c a d e m i c

st a tu s

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

51.5 p e r cent of the p r i n c i p a l s
credit

for th is

h e l d m i x e d views

subject

fr om s c h o o l s

However,
that o f f e r e d

r e p o r t e d that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

was acad emic.
8.

The

responses

of principals were

ques tion c o n c e r n i n g the a v a i l a b i l i t y

d i v i d e d on the

of a d e q u a t e

for d r i v e r ed u c a t i o n .

Principals

reported that a d e q u a t e

funds w e r e m a d e a v a i l a b l e

driver e d u c a t i o n m o r e

frequently

funds

in class D s c ho o ls
for

than d i d p r i n c i p a l s

f ro m

larger sch ools.
9.

D a t a s h o w e d that

principals

were of the o p i n i o n t ha t the cu r re n t
was not a d e q u a t e
10,

in all c a t e g o r i e s
reimbursement

rate

for d r i v e r ed u ca t io n .

T h e m a j o r i t y o f the p r i n c i p a l s

cost of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
state r e i m b u r s e m e n t .

sh o u l d be

a g r e e d that the

fully p a i d fo r by

In c o nt r a s t , h o w e v e r ,

38.2 p e r cent

184

of the p r i n c i p a l s

from class A schools

r e p o r t e d that

driver e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be s u p p l e m e n t e d b y
education

funds.

This

quently by p r i n c i p a l s
11.

The

principals
for the

survey

sampled,

o p i n i o n w a s not

wa s

showed

wh eel p h a s e
12.

additional

t im e

opinions

s h o u l d not be

time

o f the
required

Indicated,

th e p r i n c i p a l s

for

for th e b e h l n d - t h e -

of t h e p r o g r a m .
Data reported that principals

week p r o g r a m .

c o u l d be

This

adequately

o p i n i o n wa s

from schools

t h at

d uring the r e g u l a r s c h o o l
13.

in the

of driver education.

of a d d i t i o n a l

driv er e d u c a t i o n

principals

th at

the s t r o n g e n d o r s e m e n t by

the r e q u i r e m e n t

s h a r e d as f r e ­

from s maller schools.

classroom phase

however,

l o c a l b o a r d of

Findings

d i d not

taught

m o st

In a t h r e e -

o f t e n e x p r e s s e d by

offered driver

education

day,

showed

that

the

responses

pals w e r e d i v i d e d r e g a r d i n g the p r a c t i c a b i l i t y
federal s t a n d a r d

that

fe e l that

requires

of p r i n c i ­
of the

scheduling driver educa­

tion o v e r a s i x - c a l e n d a r w e e k p e r i o d ,
14.

R e p o r t e d by

the p r i n c i p a l s

the s u r v e y w as

Further

from p r i n c i p a l s
of a m a n d a t o r y

the m a j o r i t y

r e s p o n d i n g to th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

single w r i t t e n s t a t e w i d e
education.

t h at

fi n al

examination

r e v e a l e d was

on the q u e s t i o n
curriculum

endorsed

of
a

in d r i v e r

t h e d i v i s i o n of o p i n i o n s
c o n c e r n i n g the r e q u i r e m e n t

In th is

subject.

185
15.

D a t a I n d i c a t e d that t he e m p l o y m e n t o f r e g i o n a l

c oo r d i n a t o r s

to d ir e c t

the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m was

strongly o p p o s e d by p r i n c i p a l s .

Recommendations
On the ba s is

of the

f in dings

the f o l l o w i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
1.

final e x a m i n a t i o n

State D e p a r t m e n t

in C h a p t e r IV

are p r e s e n t e d :

D a t a i n d i c a t e d the n e e d

s ta t ewide

reported

for the a d o p t i o n of a

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n by the

of E d u c a t i o n .

The majority

of p r i n c i ­

pals w e r e o f the o p i n i o n that su c h a r e q u i r e m e n t s h o u l d
be im p le m en t ed ,
2.

D a t a r e v e a l e d a lack of

driver e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s
opinions

of principals,

for s t r e s s i n g a t t i t u d e
duct a m o n g the

professionalism among

as a group,

as m e a s u r e d by the

and t h e r e f o r e e n d o r s e d the n e e d
d e v e l o p m e n t a nd b e h a v i o r a l

individuals

involved

in thi s p r o g r a m .

e valuat i on of the t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s
edu c ation Is t h e r e f o r e
3.

The

fi n d i n g s

con­
An

in d r i v e r

recommended.
s u p p o r t e d t h e n e e d fo r t h e r e q u i r e ­

ment of a m i n o r in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

for c e r t i f i c a t i o n to

teach this subject.
4.

E x p r e s s e d by the r e s u l t s was

ate the s c h o l a r s h i p s ,

fellowships,

organizations

the n e e d to e v a l u ­

and stipends

by various

s af e ty

teachers.

D a t a i n d i c a t e d th at s t i p e n d s

offered

to d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
s h o u l d be d i r e c t e d

186
at g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m s
requirements

as

c o m p a r e d to the b a s i c

for t e a c h i n g this

by s a f e t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s

co u ld s e r v e

a dv a nc e d g r a d u a t e t r a i n i n g
5.

The data

subject.

of such a p r o c e s s

information

driver e d u c a t i o n ,

new legislation,

6.

for an a n n u a l i n s e r ­

schools

By i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

about p r o g r a m c ha n ge s
an d i m p r o v e m e n t s

the d a t a was

in
in

a need to evaluate

of r e i m b u r s i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

m ended t ha t

for

ex c ha n g e d .

A l s o r e v e a l e d by

the m e t h o d

offered

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s ,

indicated a need

c o u l d be

The money

as a n i n c e n t i v e

vice t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m fo r p r i n c i p a l s .

this s u b j e c t

co u r s e

It

is r e c o m ­

a g r a d u a t e d s ca l e be d e v i s e d to s u b s i d i z e

o f f e r i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n d u r i n g the r e g u l a r

school day on a full s e m e s t e r basis.
7.

Identified

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e g ui d e

in the s u r v e y wa s a n e e d for an
in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n that

f oc u se s

on

the m e t h o d o l o g y

of d i r e c t i n g and a d m i n i s t e r i n g the p r o ­

gram.

items

Specific

curement

recommended

of d r i v i n g s i m u l a t o r s

street d r i v i n g ra n g e s ,

(b)

i n clude:

and/or multiple

i n f o r m a t i o n that

o btaining d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n v e h i c l e s ,
of s o urces
materials

for t exts,

v i s u a l aids,

for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,

education.

(e) a d i r e c t o r y

c ar off-

regards

(c) t h e i n d e x i n g

an d s u p p l e m e n t a r y

(d) a cost

s ch e du l i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n as a 2,
gram, and

(a) the p r o ­

3,

c o m p a r i s o n of

4 or 5 - p h a s e p r o ­

of i n f o r m a t i o n

concerning driver

187
Discussion
C o n t a i n e d in this

s e c t i o n are the v i ew s

au th or g l e a n e d f r o m t he e x p e r i e n c e s
this r e s e a r c h
T he

of the

and d a t a o b t a i n e d in

survey.

survey

of secondary

school principals
e x p o s e d the

in the

public s c h o o l s

of M i c h i g a n has

administrators

t o w a r d the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m as

o ut lined by the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

opinions

of E d u c a t i o n .

this w r i t e r ’s o p i n i o n th at m a n i f o l d b e n e f i t s ,
public r e l a t i o n s

an d d a t a o b t a i n e d ,

have

of

It is
in b o t h

resulted

fr o m

this survey.
Principals,
driver e d u c a t i o n

by t h e i r r e s p o n s e s ,
In the p u b l i c

contrast, h o w e v e r ,

schools

Th i s

appears

poses q u e s t i o n s

supported

of M i c h i g a n ,

the m a j o r i t y o f p r i n c i p a l s

use of local b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n
subject.

strongly

o p p o s e d the

funds to f i n a n c e

to be a c o n f l i c t

this

of i n t e r e s t

c o n c e r n i n g the s i n c e r e i t y

In

and

of a d m i n i s t r a ­

tors t o w a r d d r i v e r e d uc a t i o n .
The n e e d

for a t t i t u d e d e v e l o p m e n t

among t ea c h e r s ,
by the r e s p o n s e s

administrators,
of p r i n c i p a l s .

that v a r i e d and d i v e r s e o p i n i o n s

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

and s t u d e n t s w a s

Indicated

T h e r e s e a r c h p o i n t e d out
are h e l d by p r i n c i p a l s

toward the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m w h i c h e n d o r s e d ,
the author's
development

opinion,

the n e e d f o r e m p h a s i s

In the t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s

in

on a t t i t u d e
in M i c h i g a n .

188
An Increase In t i me for the c l a s s r o o m or b e h i n d - t h e wheel ph a se of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n , w i th o ut

also I m p r o v i n g

the m e t h o do l og y , w o u l d a p p e a r to a c c e l e r a t e and m a g n i f y
the pr o blems o u t l i n e d by the s u rv e y data.
The a d op t i o n of a si ng le
In driver e d u c a t i o n w o u l d pose
school subjects.

final e x a m i n a t i o n

i m p l i c at i on s

for ot her

S h o u l d this p r o c e d u r e in d r i v e r e d u c a ­

tion be ef f e c t i v e l y

implemented would

tain to math, En g l i s h ,
The de v el o pm e nt
for princ ipals

st a te w i d e

it not eq u a l l y p e r ­

s c i e n c e or social studies ?
of annual i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g pr o g r a m s

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n has impact

curricular offerings

and gives

for o t he r

rise to q u e s t i o n s

that

can

only be re s ol v ed by the e v a l u a t i o n process.
It is this w ri t e r ' s

v i ew that d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n shou ld

be taught by full-time teachers d u r i n g the r e g u l a r school
day, as an academic s ub j ec t r e c e i v i n g a le t te r grade and
Carnegie units of credit a p p l i c a b l e to w ar d gradua t io n .
To offer less, appears

to be d e f e a t i n g the p u r p o s e of the

educative process and tends to label dr i ve r e d u c a t i o n as
unimportant,
Impact for the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
gleaned from the data ob t ai n ed is of little value unless
the findings are adopted and im plemented.

Various

methods to improve d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in M i c h i g a n have been
cited by the princip a ls

in this

survey.

The s u gg e st i on s ,

if adopted, wi l l c o n t r i b u t e to the a d v a n c e me n t
of driver e d uc a ti o n In Michigan.

and p r o g r e s s

189
Recommendations

for F u r t h e r S t u d y

It Is r e c o m m e n d e d t ha t

an l n - d e p t h s t u d y

the c o n t e n t

areas

fu rther d e t e r m i n e
in the p u b l i c

o u t l i n e d in th i s

Also recommended
states
pals

to a s s e s s

s u r v e y b e c o n d u c t e d to

th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

high schools

the

o f th e

of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n

state of Michigan.

is a c o m p a r a t i v e

opinions

of each of

study between

of s e c o n d a r y

school p r i n c i ­

toward the driver education p rogram offered

in t h e i r

respective schools.
Hopefully,
suggests

answers

this

research raises questions

which will

p r e p a r a t i o n of p r o g r a m s
result

in d e s i r a b l e

le a d to the

and

selection and

in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n that w i l l

experiences

f or y o u t h .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

190

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Aaron, J a m e s E. a nd M a r l a n d K. S t r a s s e r .
Driver and Traffic
Safety E du c a t i o n — Content, Methods, and O r g a n i z a t i o n .
New York:
T h e M a c m i l l a n C o m p a n y , 1966.
A r m o r e , S i d n e y J,
Inference.

I n t r o d u c t i o n to S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s
N e w Yor k:
J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s , 1967.

Cronback, L e e J.
E s s e n t i a l s of P s y c h o l o g i c a l
York:
H a r p e r a n d B r o t h e r s , I960.
Good, C a r t e r V.
N e w York:
Hayes,

Testing.

and

New

an d D o u g l a s E. S c a t e s ,
Methods of R e s e a r c h .
A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s " 1 9 54 •

W i l l i a m L.
a nd W i n s t o n ,

Statistics.
196 3.

N e w Y or k :

Holt,

Rinehart

Key, N o rm a n.
S t a t u s o f D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n In the U n i t e d
S t a t e s . W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.:
N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n on
Safety Education, National Education Association,

I960.
Mace,

A r t h u r E.
Sample-Slze Determination.
R e i n h o l d P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , 1964.

New York:

Parten, M i l d r e d .
S u r v e y s . P o l l s , an d S a m p l e s - - P r a c t l c a l
P r o c e d u r e s . N e w York:
H a r p e r an d B r o t h e r s , 1950.
R e m m e r s , H. H.
I n t r o d u c t i o n to O p i n i o n a n d A t t i t u d e
M e a s u r e m e n t . New York:
H a r p e r an d B r o t h e r s , 195**.
Scates, D o u g l a s E. a n d A l i c e V. Y e o m a n s .
T h e E f f e c t of
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e F o r m on C o u r s e R e q u e s t s o f E m p l o y e d
A d u l t s . W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . : A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l on
E d u c a t i o n , I960.

191

192
Siebrecht , E l m e r B.
T h e S l eb r e c h t A t t i t u d e S c a l e , N e w
Yorki
C e n t e r for S af e ty E d u c a t i o n , N e w Y o r k U n i v e r ­
sity, 19^1.
Spahr, W a l t e r E. and R i ne h ar t J. Swenson.
M e t h o d s and
S ta t us of S c i e n t i f i c R e s e a r c h . N e w York:
Harper
and Br others, 1930.
Stephan, E. J, and P. J. Mc C ar t hy .
Sampling O p i ni on s.
York:
J o h n Wiley and Sons, 1958.
P ub l i c a t i o n s

Ne w

of O r g a n i z a t i o n s

American A u t o m o b i l e A s so c ia t io n ,
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n S er v i c e s
of AAA.
A m e r i c a n A u t o m o b i l e A s s o c i a t i o n , Mar ch,
19^9.
Auto M a n u f a c t u r e r ' s Associa t io n .
Let's Meet the T r a f f i c
S af e ty C h a l l e n g e . August 21^ 1969.
Department of Sta te Police,
Michigan Traffic Accident
D i g e s t . M i c h i g a n S t at e Poli ce, 1969•
Insurance I n s t i t u t e o f H i ghway Safety.
National Highway
S af e ty S t a n d a r d s . W as h in g to n :
Insurance Institute
for H i g h w a y S a f e t y , 1968.
Michigan D e p a r t m e n t of Education.
Driver Education Pro­
g r a m m i n g , J a n u a r y . 1 9 7 0 . M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of
E du c at i on , 1970.
Michigan E d u c a t i o n D i r e c t o r y and Buye rs Guide,
Michigan
E d u c a t i o n D i r e c t o r y 1 9 6 9 - 1 9 7 0 . L a ns i ng , M i ch i ga n ,
T9Z9~.
Michigan Hi g h S c h o o l A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n Bu lletin.
D ir e c t o r y Issue 1 9 6 9 — 1970 S c h o o l Year. V o l u m e XLVI
N o v e m b e r . 1969« N u m b e r 4 - s . M i c h i g a n H ig h School
A t h l e t 1 c A s s o c i a t i o n , 19^9•
Michigan St a te U n iversity.
Michigan Statistical A b s t r a c t .
East Lansing:
G r a d u a t e S c h o o l of Bu s in e ss A d m i n i s ­
t ration, 1968.
National Hi g hw a y S a fe t y Bureau.
H i g h w a y S a fe t y P r o g r a m
Ma nual. V o l u m e
D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n . U n i t e d States
D e p a r t m e n t of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , F e d e r a l H i g h w a y
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.:
J an u a r y , 1969.

I

193
National Sa f et y Countil,
"The 1969 T r a f f i c S t o r y . *
T r a f f i c S a f e t y . N a t i o n a l S a f e t y Co uncil, 1970.
"What S c h o o l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s T h i n k A b ou t D r i v e r
E d u c a t i o n ," T r a f f i c S a f e t y . N a t i o n a l S a f e t y
Council, May, 1970.
State B o ar d of E ducation.
S e c t i o n 811 of Act No. 300 of
the Pu bl ic Acts of 1949. as A m e n d e d , b e i n g S e c t i o n
257. 811 of the C o m p i l e d Laws of 1948.
St a te D e p a r t ­
ment of E d u c a t i o n , D e c e m b e r 5, 1969.
State D e p a r t m e n t of Education.
Driver Education. Section
811 of Act No. 300 of the P u b l i c Acts of 1949. as
Ame n d e d b e i n g S e c t i o n 2 5 7. 8 11 of the C o m p i l e d Laws
of 194#"! L a n s i n g : M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n .
___________ S u m ma r y of A n n u a l R e i m b u r s e m e n t R e p o r t s .
Lansingi
M i c h i g a n Dep_a^tment~ of E d u c a t i o n , F i s c a l
Y e a r R e p o r t J u l y 1, 1968 t h r o u g h J u n e 30, 1969.
State of M i c h i g a n 68th L e g i s l a t u r e E x t r a S e s s i o n of 1955E nr o l l e d House Bi l l No. 1 . Lansing:
S ta t e D e p a r t ­
ment of Education.
Su perintendent of Pu b li c Instruction.
"The R ep o rt of the
Ad Hoc D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n Po l i c y St u dy C o m m i t t e e , "
Lansing:
M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , S e p t e m b e r
1964.
Traffic Safety A s s o c i a t i o n of Detroit.
T r a f f i c S a fety
A s s o c i a t i o n B u l l e t i n . T r a f f i c Sa f et y A s s o c i a t i o n
of Detroit, M i ch i ga n, F e br u ar y , 1962.
Traffic Safety.
"What the 'Moynihan Report' R ea l ly Said
About D r i v e r E d u c a t i o n . "
Traffic S a f e t y . National
Safety Council, Chicago:
J u n e 1968,
U n p u b l i s h e d M a te r i a l s
Brazell, Robert E.
"A F o l l o w - u p Study of P ublic S c h o o l
D ri v er Tr a in e e s, R e l a t i n g D r i v i n g P e r f o r m a n c e
Reco rds to S e l e c t e d Ac ad e mi c and T r a i n i n g F a c t o r s ."
U n p u b l i s h e d thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of M ic h i g a n , 1962.
Highway Tr affic Sa f et y Center,
Ho w to Improve D r i v e r
E d u c a t i o n in M i c h i g a n . Hi ghway T r af f ic S afety
Center, C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t i o n S e rvice, M i c h i g a n State
Un iversity, D e ce m be r, 1966,

Moore, N e vi l Leslie.
"A St u dy to D e t e r m i n e the R e s p o n s i ­
bilities, T r a i n i n g , and T i m e I n v o l v e m e n t of T r a f f i c
S af e ty E d u c a t i o n W o r k e r s in S e le c t e d M i c h i g a n
S c h o o l s . ” U n p u b l i s h e d thesis, M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r ­
sity, 1969.
Oakland County T r a f f i c Sa fe t y C o mm i tt e e.
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s All S tudy G r o u p s .
T raffic Safety C om m i s s i o n , 1965.

S um m ar y R e p o r t
O a k l a n d C ounty

of

/

APPENDICES

195

APPENDIX A
REGIONS OP THE MICHIGAN
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

196

REGIONS OF THE M I C H I G A N
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

REGIONS
OF YOUR
M.E.A.

DETROIT

197

APPENDIX B
MA P O F M E T R O P O L I T A N
COUNTIES

AND N O N - M E T R O P O L I T A N
IN M I C H I G A N

ig8

MAP OF M E T R O P O L I T A N AND N O N - M E T R O P O L I T A N
COUNTIES

IN MICHIGAN

APPENDIX C
S A M P L I N G D I S T R I B U T I O N M A P O P P U B L I C HIGH
S C H O O L S S E L E C T E D IN M I C H I G A N

200

.SAMPLING D I S T R I B U T I O N MAP OP PUBLIC HIGH
SCHOOLS S E L E C T E D IN M I C H I G A N

•

• j

Lj r J

,•

i!

,

N

x-/^iar'lT
!

H -

j

p » > ' _ ijeafcj
!•
r

.m * - ,

!_ #• _rLiaw- f c / *

J

? -* f>

.*•

„0

^

P f e >

^ - . ^ T ^ r V i

MICHIGAN

tS a S T ^

? * '|!* T , ! #

^Swwwj

/ ? •_ !

* i*

i*
i

'5**ff7iA*f ^wcmu*Tcu«r

t
i-

!
L

j

j
i± X

****** T5S«i«r

j

r t_ J^ -_J
c .•_
r ,JLv-S . i^— f ^ i-ri
■Mwarf
iiiimarfuumm
^kaMw*

/ O ^ I JTiOMWr
s xtM*l W o T TFy MMi/T*****1
i ;* ** ■
«* i »

.j _ * J t_ * L j V / _ g ? y

201
R M N « i N H | M | M n H H W H « N M H W 4 M < < m * M ( t H W « l I K H I 4 t m i l >*W >B>*M * l M M « IIMIMI

L

^

APPENDIX D

LIST OP STATEMENTS

ACCORDING TO

CONTENT AREA OF INTEREST

202

LIST OF

STATEMENTS

CONTENT

I.

General

Statement:

AREA

OF

INTEREST

W h a t Is t h e o p i n i o n of* s e c o n d a r y
school p r i n c i p a l s r e g a r d i n g the
d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m In t h e
state of Mic hig an?

Specific
A.

A C C OR D I N G TO

Objectives

To Identify the opinion of the
p a l , In t h e s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n ,
tion s t a f f .

secondary school princi­
t owar d the d r i v e r e d u c a ­

Statements
1.

13.

32.

*40.

*45.

*48.

B.

Driver educa t i o n teachers are e n t husiastic about
t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t y t o h e l p in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f
young p e r s o n s .
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s p l a n t h e i r p r o g r a m to
assure m a x i m u m i m p r o v e m e n t of a t t i t u d e s of y o u n g
p e r s o n s , b o t h a s a d r i v e r a n d as a m e m b e r o f t h e
community.
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n te a c h e r s are b e t t e r t r a i n e d to
do t h e i r J o b t h a n m o s t m e m b e r s of the h i g h s c h o o l
staff.
Driver education teachers lack educational skills
n e e d e d to e f f e c t i v e l y t e a c h bo y s and gir l s e n r o l l e d
in t h e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m ,
Teach ers s hould be r eq uir ed by the State to have
at l e a s t a n a p p r o v e d m i n o r I n d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
before b e i n g c e r t ified to teach this subject.
The six semester hours required for certification
o f d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n t e a c h e r s is s u f f i c i e n t f o r
quality Instruction.

To Identify the o p i n i o n of the
pal, in t h e s t a t e of M i c h i g a n ,
ance of d r i v e r education.

203

secondary school
toward community

princi­
accepts

20*4
Sta t em e nt s
1*4.
B a r e n t s In this c o m m u n i t y r e c e i v e a d e q u a t e i n f o r m
m a t l o n a b ou t d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n ,
*49.
Th is c o m m u n i t y has a n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n t o w a r d
driver education.
C.

To i d e n t i f y the o p i n i o n of s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ,
in t he s ta t e of M i c h i g a n , r e g a r d i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in p r o m o t i n g c i t i z e n s h i p a m o n g
s tu d en t s e n r o l l e d In th e d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m .

St atements
2TI D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n can p r o v i d e the o p p o r t u n i t y to
m ak e re a l ch a ng e s p o s s i b l e in the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
to be a s s u m e d by te en a ge r s.
3.
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n can p r o v i d e y o u t h w i t h p r o p e r
a t t i t u d e s for e f f e c t i v e ci t i z e n s h i p .
D.

To i d e n t i f y the o p i n i o n o f the s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i ­
pals, in the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n , t o w a r d t he s t a t u s of
g u i d e l i n e s a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

Statements
W~.
L e g i s l a t i v e changes in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n are w e l l
p u b l i c i z e d for a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
2*4.
Th e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n ha s p r o v i d e d
s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n for the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
program.
33.
G u i d e l i n e s from the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n
h a v e b e e n p r o v i d e d that a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i v e
to d es i g n, i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , an d d e v e l o p m e n t of
d r i v e r e d uc a ti o n.
*41.
A p r e s c r i b e d S t a t e w i d e c u r r i c u l u m is n e e d e d for
d r i v e r ed u ca t i o n .
E.

To id e ntify the o p i n i o n of s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ,
in the st a te of M i c h i g a n , t o w a r d the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of
the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n program.

St atements
5.
The time I s p e n d on p a p e r w o r k for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
is excessive.
15.
T oo m u c h s e c r e t a r i a l ti me is spent on d r i v e r e d u ­
c a t i o n m a tters,
25.
I n e e d a d d i t i o n a l time to p r o p e r l y a d m i n i s t e r the
d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n program,
3*4.
S c h e d u l i n g the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m is d i f f i ­
cult and t i m e consuming.

205
F.

T o I d e n t i f y th e o p i n i o n of t h e s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i ­
pals In th e s t a t e of M i c h i g a n , t o w a r d t h e a c c e p t a n c e of
driver education p r o g r a m s .

Statements
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be a p a r t of t h e r e g u l a r
6.
s c h o o l day p r o g r a m .
8
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s as a g r o u p s u p p o r t d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d b e r e q u i r e d of a ll n e w
16.
drivers.
22.
O u r b o a r d of e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t s the d r i v e r e d u c a ­
tion program.
C r e d i t t o w a r d g r a d u a t i o n s h o u l d be g i v e n in d r i v e r
23education.
T h e t e a c h i n g of d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n by th e p u b l i c
27.
s c h o o l s is a s e r v i c e to t h e c o m m u n i t y .
O u r s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s u p p o r t s the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
35.
p ro g r a m .
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n is not an a c a d e m i c s u b j e c t .
36.

.

II.

General Statement:

W h a t do s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i ­
p a l s feel Is n e e d e d to e x p e d i t e
an d r e s o l v e the p r o b l e m s o f t h e
d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m as o u t ­
l i n e d b y the s t a t e of M i c h i g a n ?

Specific Objectives
A.

To i d e n t i f y t h e o p i n i o n of t he s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i ­
pals, in the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n , t o w a r d r e m o v i n g r e q u i r e d
d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s f r o m t he p u b l i c s c ho o l s .

Sta t em e n t s
ITT.
P u b l i c h i g h s c h o o l s s h o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e fo r
conducting driver education programs.
26.
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d not be o f f e r e d in the
p u b l i c s c h o o l syst em.
28.
All d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be t a u g h t by p a r e n t s
and r e l a t i v e s o f s t u d e n t s w i s h i n g to a p p l y f o r a
d r i v e r s l i c e n s e in M i c h i g a n .
37.
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d not b e r e q u i r e d for
o b t a i n i n g a d r i v e r s l i c e n s e in t h e s t a t e of M i c h i g a n .
*43.
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n is an e x a m p l e o f a t t e m p t e d S t a t e
c o n t r o l of lo c a l e d u c a t i o n .
*46.
P r o v i d i n g d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n f or y o u t h is n ot one of
the s c h o o l s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .

206
B.

To id e nt i fy the o pinion of the s e c o n d ar y s chool p r i n c i ­
pals, In the s ta t e of M ic h ig a n, t o w a r d r a i s i n g the
dr i v e r l i c e n s i n g age to s e v e n t e e n .

Statements
7. St u de n ts at age 16 are not m a t u r e e n ou g h to
safely o p e r a t e a m o t o r v e h i c l e on the public
stre ets and h i g h w a y s in M ic h igan.
17. The m i n i m u m dr i v e r l i c e n s i n g age in M i c h i g a n
s hould be seventeen.
C.

To identify the o p i n i o n o f the s e c o n d a r y school p r i n c i ­
pals in the sta te of M ic h ig a n, t o w a r d r e i m b u r s e m e n t
rates for st u d e n t s c o m p l e t i n g dr i v e r e d u c a t i o n .

Statements
9. A d e q u a t e funds h av e b e e n made av a il a b l e in this
scho ol s y s t e m for d r i v e r education.
19. The qu a l i t y o f the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m d i r ­
ectly re f le c ts the r e i m b u r s e m e n t rate for student
c o m p l e t i n g the program.
29.
The pr e se n t r e i m b u r s e m e n t rate for d r i v e r e d u c a ­
tion allows a d eq u at e r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l s for
d r i v e r education.
38. The current r e i m b u r s e m e n t of $3 0.00 p er student
c o m p l e t i n g the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m is
adequate.
*J*J. Th e total cost of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m
s hould not be fully p a id for by S t a t e r e i m b u r s e ­
ment .
*47.
The cost for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n sh o u l d be s u p p l e ­
m e n t e d by funds from the b o a r d o f educati on,
D.

To identify the op inion of the s ec o nd a ry school p r i n c i ­
pals, in the s ta t e of M i ch i ga n , t o w a r d the r e s t r u c t u r i n g
of the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s .

Statements
10. More time s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d by the sta te of
M i c h i g a n for the c l a s s r o o m p h a s e of d r i v e r
education.
20.
More time sh ou ld be r e q u i r e d by the state of
M i c h i g a n for the b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l p h a s e of
d ri v e r education.
30.
The m a n d a t o r y re q u i r e m e n t in d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n of
a m i n i m u m o f 30 hours c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n and
6 hours p e r s t ud e n t of b e h i n d - t h e - w h e e l t r a i n i n g
is excessive.

207
3950.

E.

D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n can a d e q u a t e l y be t a u g h t in the
3 - w e e k p r o g r a m r e q u i r e d by the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t
of E d u c a t i o n as a m in i m u m ,
T h e F e d e r a l S t a n d a r d s t a t i n g , "the d r i v e r e d u c a ­
t i o n c o u r s e s h o u l d be s c h e d u l e d o v e r a m i n i m u m of
6 c a l e n d a r w e e k s , H is p r a c t i c a l .

To i d e n t i f y the o p i n i o n o f s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ,
in the s t a t e o f M i c h i g a n , t o w a r d a u n i f o r m S t a t e w i d e
m a n d a t o r y d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in all p u b l i c s ch o ol s .

Stateme n ts
11.
The driver education program presently required
by the S t a t e w o r k s s m o o t h l y and s h o u l d be c o n ­
t i n u e d w i t h o u t change.
21.
M a n d a t o r y c o u r s e r e q u i r e m e n t s and u n i f o r m t e a c h ­
i n g m e t h o d s s h o u l d not be a d o p t e d in t he p u b l i c
s c h o o l s for d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n .
31.
A s i n g l e w r i t t e n final e x a m i n a t i o n s h o u l d be used
S t a t e w i d e for all s t u d e n t s c o m p l e t i n g d r i v e r
education.
F.

To i d e n t i f y the o p i n i o n of s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s ,
in the st a te of M i c h i g a n , t o w a r d the e m p l o y m e n t of
r e g i o n a l c o o r d i n a t o r s to di r e c t the d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n
p r o g r a m in the p u b l i c sc hools.

Statements
12.
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n in the p u b l i c sc h o o l s s h o u l d be
s c h e d u l e d and d i r e c t e d by r e g i o n a l c o o r d i n a t o r s
a p p o i n t e d by the Sta te.
42.
D r i v e r e d u c a t i o n c o u l d b e st be h a n d l e d in t h e
p u b l i c s c h o o l s by the e m p l o y m e n t of r e g i o n a l
a r e a c o o r d i n a t o r s to d ir e c t the pr o gram.

APPENDIX E
LIST OF " O P E N - E N D E D ” STATEMENTS

CONTAINED

ON THE OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

208

A LIST OF THE

"OPEN-ENDED” STATEMENTS

CONTAINED

ON THE OPINION QU E S T I O N N A I R E

1.

My b iggest p r o b l e m in a d m i n i s t e r i n g the d ri v er
e d u c a t io n p r o g r a m is _____________________________________

2.

My role as p r i n c i p a l w o u l d be i m p r o v e d if d r i v e r
e d u c a t i o n ___________________________________________________

3.

I think the future o f dr i v e r e d u c a t i o n ________________

4.

The State D e p a r t m e n t

of E d u c a t i o n can best he l p meet

our d r i v e r e d u c a t i o n needs by ___________________________

209

APPENDIX F
S EC O ND A RY S C H O O L PR I NC I P A L S
OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

210

OPINION Q U E S T I O N N A I R E
* YEARS EXPERIENCE AS A SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL________________
*

* DRIVING EXPERIENCE IN YEARS__________ DO NOT DRIVE______________
»
* METHOD BY WHICH YOU LEARNED TO DRIVE: Parents________ Friend___
*

*
Self-Taught
Driver Education Course_______
*
* TYPE OP DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAM OFFERED IN YOUR SCHOOL: Summer_
*

* Saturday

After School/Saturday

Regular School Day_______

*

• TYPE OF CURRICULUM:

On The Street_____ Range______ Simulator___

*

* CREDIT TOWARD GRADUATION IS GIVEN FOR DRIVER EDUCATION: Yes

No

DIRECTIONS
Below is a series of statements. There are no right or wrong
answers. Please check (X) the response that best reflects your
opinion. SA-8trongly Agreq A-Agree, U-Undecided, D-Disagree,
SD-Strongly Disagree.
(Completion time 10 minutes approximately.)
SA
1. Driver education teachers are enthusiastic about their opportunity to
help in tnn development of young persons.
2. Driver education can provide the opportunity to make real changes
possible in the responsibility to be assumed by teenagers.
3. Driver education can provide youth with proper attitudes for effective
citizenship.
J*. Legislative changes in driver education are well publicized for
administrators.
5* The time I spend on paper work for driver education is excessive.
6. Driver education should be a part of the regular school day program.
7. Students at age 16 are not mature enough to safely operate a motor
vehicle on the public streets and highways in Michigan.
8. Adsinistrators as a group support driver education.
9* Adequate funds have been made available in this school system for
driver education.
10* More time should be required by the State of Michigan for the
classroom phase of driver education.
U* The driver education program presently required by the State works
noothly and should be continued without change.
211

A

U

SA
Driver education in the public schools should be scheduled and
directed by regional coordinators appointed by the State.
Driver education teachers plan their program to assure maximum
Improvement of attitudes of young persons, both as a driver and
as a member of the ci.— nmity.
parents in this caaanmlty receive adequate information about driver
education.
>, Too much secretarial time is spent on driver education matters.
Driver education should be required of all new drivers.

1. The minimum driver licensing age in Michigan should be 17.
3. Public high schools should be responsible for conducting driver
education prograsu.
9. The quality of the driver education program directly reflects the

reimbursement rate for students completing the program.
0. More time should be required by the State of Michigan for the
behind-the-wheel phase of driver education.
1. Mandatory course requirements and uniform teaching methods should
not be adopted in the public schools for driver education.
2. Our board of education supports the driver education program.
3. Credit toward graduation should be given in driver education.
.'V. The State Department of Education has provided sufficient direction
for the driver education program.
!5. I need additional time to properly administer the driver education
program.
A. Driver education should not be offered In the public school system.
?7• Driver education is only taught In the public schools to provide
a service to the community.
26* All driver education should be taught by parents and relatives of
students wishing to apply for a driver's license in Michigan.
29. The present reimbursement rate for driver education allows adequate

reference and supplementary materials for driver education.
The mandatory requirement in driver education of a minimum of 30 hours
classroom instruction and 6 hours per student of behind-the-wheel
training is excessive.
31* A single written final examination should be used Statewide for all
students completing driver education.
32. Driver education teachers are better trained to do their Job than
most members of the high school staff.

A

U

Guidelines from the State Department of Education have been provided
that answer questions relative to design, implementation, and
development of driver education.
Scheduling the driver education program is difficult and time
consuming. ________________________________________________________
Over superintendent supports the driver education program.___________
Driver education is not an academic subject.________________________
Driver education should not be required for obtaining a driver's
license in the State of Michigan.___________________________________
The current reimbursement of $30.00 per student completing the
driver education program is adequate.
Driver education can adequately be taught in the 3 week program
required by the State Department of Education as a minimum.___________
Driver education teachers lack educational skills needed to effectively
teach boys and girls enrolled in the driver education program.________
A prescribed Statewide curriculum is needed for driver education.
Driver education could best be handled in the public schools by the
employment of regional area coordinators to direct the program._______
Driver education is an example of attempted State control of local
education.___________________________________________________________
The total cost of the driver education program should not be fully
paid for the State reimbursement.
Teachers should be required by the State to have at least an approved
alnor in driver education before being certified to teach this subject
Providing driver education for youth is not one of the school's
responsibilities._______________________________________________ _____
The cost for driver education should be supplemented by funds from
the board of education.______________________________________________
The six semester hours required for certification of driver education
teachers is sufficient for quality instruction.
This community has a negative reaction toward driver education._______
The Federal Standard stating "the driver education course should be
scheduled over a minimum of 6 calendar weeks," is practical.

[EASE respond below to any area of driver education that, in your opinion, needs
fecial ATTENTION OS EXPANSION:
f biggest problem In administering the driver education program la

f role as principal would be Improved 1f driver education

think the future of driver education

be State Department of Education can beat help meet our driver education needa by

OMENT8/KEMARKS

PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE
IN THE SELF-ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE
PROVIDED TO:----------------------------

Mr. Robert C- Mills
Highway Traffic Safety Cent
Kellogg Center Roam 70
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan USB

APPENDIX G
LETTERS OP E N D O R S E M E N T AND EXPLANATION

215

MICHIGAN

STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

east lanuno

- Michigan

C O N TIN U IN G BD U C A T IO N SB1VICB • H IC K W A Y T R A FFIC SAFXTY CRNTRR • U L L O C O C R N TB *

Mr. Robert C. Mills, a former Michigan school administrator
and currently a doctoral candidate in the College of Education,
Michigan State University, is soliciting your assistance to
the enclosed questionnaire.
Mr. Mills is desirous of your frank opinions concerning the
problems faced b y you in administering the high school driver
education program.
Your response hopefully will provide the
necessary data to eventually improve upon the program as
currently offered and to eliminate difficult administrative
problems now faced b y you.
Your assistance in Mr. Mills' behalf will b e greatly appreciated
Sincerely

Robert O. Nolan, Assistant Direct'
Highway Traffic Safety Center

?16

Survey E n d o r sement

from Mr,

Ben L e y r e r

Please Note
This research survey has been t h o r oughly revie w e d w i t h
Mr. Ben Leyrer, President of M.A.S.S.P,, and has r e c e i v e d
his complete support and endorsement.

217

LETTER OP E X P L A N A T I O N

An attempt is b e i n g m a d e in the State of M i c h i g a n to i d e n t i f y
the problems faced by s e c o n d a r y school princi p a l s in the a r e a of
driver education.
It is tc this goal that your sup p o r t is b e i n g
requested.
The o b j ective of this su r v e y is to p i n p o i n t the p r o b l e m s c o n ­
fronting the secon d a r y p r i n c i p a l in a d m i n i s t e r i n g the driver education
program under the pre s e n t guidelines of the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of
Education.
It is h o p e d that b y h o n e s t feedback from the p r i n c i p a l s
involved in this survey, v a l i d c o n c l usions can be m a d e that
specifically identify the problems e x i s t i n g in d r i v e r educ a t i o n
administration.
Only by the i d e n tification of these probl e m s can
steps be taken to improve the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of dri v e r e d u c a t i o n
in Michigan.
Your a s s i s t a n c e in this study is r e q u e s t e d a n d will b e g r e a t l y
appreciated.
E n c l o s e d please find a self-addressed, stamp e d
envelope for returning the c o m p l e t e d questionnaire.
T h e questionnairi
enclosed is coded to identify school size only.
N o school or principi
will be individually identified.
S i n c e r e l y yours.

Robert C. Mills
Grad u a t e A s s i stant
H i g h w a y T r a f f i c S a f e t y C enter
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y
R C M :j j

Enclosure
218

APPENDIX H
LIST OF THE PU B L I C HIGH S C H O O L S S A M P L E D

219

SAM PLE

OF P U B L IC

H IG H

SCHOOLS

Athletic
ClassiName of School______________ County________fication
AREA 1 (MEA R e g ions

1,

MEA
Region

Grades

Met
Non
Met

2, and 3)

Region # 1
Detroit, Cass T e c h n i c a l

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Detroit, C e n tral

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Wayne

A

1

10-12

M

Detroit, Denby

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Detroit, F i n n e y

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Detroit, Ford

Wayne

A

1

10-12

M

Detroit, M a c k e n z ie

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Detroit, M u m f o r d

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Detroit, N o r t h w e s t e r n

Wayne

A

1

10-12

M

Detroit, S o u t h e a s t e r n

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Detroit, S o u t h w e s t e r n

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Detroit, W e stern

Wayne

A

1

9-12

M

Ecorse

Wayne

B

1

8-12

M

Allen Park

Wayne

A

2

10-12

M

Dearborn , Fordson

Wayne

A

2

10-12

M

Garden City,
Garden City East

Wayne

A

2

10-12

M

Detroit,

Cody

Region # 2

??0

Marne o f

Classification

S c h o o l ____________________C o u n t y

Garden City, W e s t

Senior

Wayne

MEA
Region

Grades

A

2

10-12

Grosse Pointe,
Grosse Pointe N o r t h

Wayne

A

2

9-12

Inkster, C h e r r y Hill

Wayne

A

2

9-12

Lincoln Park

Wayne

A

2

10-12

Livonia,

Wayne

A

2

10-12

Livonia, S t e v e n s o n

Wayne

A

2

10-12

Melv indale

Wayne

A

2

9-12

Plymouth

Wayne

A

2

1 0-12

Wayne

A

2

9-12

A

2

10-12

Bentley

Southgate,

Schafer

Taylor, John F.

Kennedy

Wayne

Wayne, John G l e n n

Wayne

A

2

9-12

Wyandotte,
Theodore R o o s e v e l t

Wayne

A

2

10-12

Dearborn Heights,
Riverside

Wayne

B

2

8-12

Flat Rock

Wayne

B

2

10-12

Grosse Isle

Wayne

B

2

10-12

Inkster

Wayne

B

2

9-12

Livonia, C h u r c h i l l

Wayne

B

2

10-12

Rockwood, C a l s o n

Wayne

B

2

7-12

Lenawee

A

3

9-12

Region ^ 3
Adrian

221

Me

MEA
Reaion

Marne of S c h o o l

County

Ann Arbor,

Washtenaw

A

3

10-12

Monroe

A

3

9-12

Monroe

A

3

10-12

Blissf ield

Lenawee

B

3

9-12

Chelsea

Washtenaw

B

3

9-12

Dexter

Washtenaw

B

3

9-12

Jackson

B

3

10-12

Washtenaw

B

3

9-12

Monroe

B

3

10-12

Parma, W e s t e r n

Jackson

B

3

10-12

Clinton

Lenawee

C

3

7-12

Concord

Jackson

C

3

9-12

Dundee

Monroe

c

3

7-12

Grass Lake

Jackson

c

3

7-12

Morenc i

Lenawee

c

3

9-12

Onsted

Lenaswee

c

3

7-12

Monroe

c

3

7-12

Sand Creek

Lenawee

c

3

7-12

Spr ingport

Jackson

c

3

9-12

Monroe

D

3

9-12

Washtenaw

D

3

7-12

Pioneer

Monr oe
Temperance,

Jackson,

Bedford

Northwest

Milan
Monroe,

Jefferson

Ottawa Lake,

Petersburg,

Whiteford

Summerfield

Whitmore Lake

222

^

Grades

a as a

Athletic
Classi­
fication

Mame o f

AREA 2

C o u n ty

School

A th le tic
C la ss i­
fic a tio n

MEA
Region

Grades

Metz
NonMetr

(MEA R e g i o n 4)

Region #_4
Hastings

Barry

A

4

9-12

MM

A

4

10-12

NM

Calhoun

B

4

9-12

NM

Coldwater

Branch

B

4

10-12

NM

Marshall

Calhoun

B

4

9-12

MM

Calhoun

C

4

9-12

NM

Jonesville

Hillsdale

C

4

7-12

NM

Middleville

Barry

C

4

9-12

NM

Olivet

Eaton

C

4

7-12

M

Athens

Calhoun

D

4

8-12

NM

Litchfield

HilIsdale

D

4

8-12

NM

Tekonsha, R o s e D. W a r w i c k

Calhoun

D

4

7-12

NM

Waldron

Hillsdale

D

4

7-12

NM

Kalamazoo, Loy N o r r i x

Kalamazoo

A

5

10-12

M

Niles

Berrien

A

5

10-12

NM

St. Joseph

Berr ien

A

5

10-12

NM

Comstock

Kalamazoo

B

5

9-12

M

Battle Creek,

Harper

Battle Cre ek ,

Pennfield

Battle Creek,

Creek Calhoun

Springfield

AREA 3 (MEA R e g i o n 5)
Region # 5

223

Name of School
Dowagiac, Union

Countv
Cass, Berrien
Van Buren

Athletic
Classif ication

MEA
Rea ion

B

5

10-12

Grades

Edwardsburg

Cass

B

5

9-12

South Haven

Van Buren

B

5

9-12

Stevensvi1le, Lakeshore

Berr ien

B

5

10-12

Three Oaks, River Valley

Berrien

B

5

9-12

Vicksburg,

Kalamazoo

B

5

9-12

Cassopolis

Cass

C

5

9-12

Colon

St. Joseph

C

5

7-12

Constantine

St. Joseph

C

5

9-12

Decatur

Van Buren

C

5

7-12

Eau Claire

Berrien

c

5

9-12

Gobles

Van Buren

c

5

7-12

Hartford

Van Buren

c

5

7-12

Watervliet

Berrien

c

5

9-12

Burr Oak

St. Joseph

D

5

9-12

Climax, Climax-Scott

Kalamazoo

D

5

7-12

Covert

Van Buren

D

5

9-12

Galien

Berrien

D

5

7-12

Schoolcraft

Kalamazoo

D

5

9-12

22 k

nam e o f

area

4

School

C o u n ty

A th le tic
C la ss i­
fic a tio n

MEA
Region

Grades

Met:
NonMet:

(MEA R egions 6 and 7)

Region # 6
Center Line

Macomb

A

6

10-12

M

Mt. Clemens

Macomb

A

6

9-12

M

Roseville

Macomb

A

6

10-12

M

St. Clair, S o u t h Lake

Macomb

A

6

9-12

M

Warren

Macomb

A

6

10-12

M

Warren, C o u s i n o

Macomb

A

6

10-12

M

Warren, F i t z g e r a l d

Macomb

A

6

7-12

M

Warren, L i ncoln

Macomb

A

6

10-12

M

Warren, W a r r e n W o o d s

Macomb

A

6

9-12

M

Algonac

St. Clair

B

6

9-12

NM

Mt. Clemens, C h i p p e w a

Macomb

B

6

9-12

M

Mt. Clemens,

Macanb

B

6

9-12

M

Richmond

Macont

B

6

7-12

M

St. Clair, St. Clair

St. Clair

C

6

9-12

NM

Armada

Macomb

c

6

8-12

M

Memphis

St. Clair

o

6

8-12

NM

Region

Clinton

7

Berkley

Oakland

10-12

M

Birmingham,
Ernest W. S e a h o l m

Oakland

10-12

M

225

Countv

Name of School

Athletic
Classi­
fication

Metr
MEA
Rea ion

NonGrades

Metr

Bloomfield Hills,

Andover

Oakland

A

7

10-12

M

Bloomfield Hills,

Lahser

Oakland

A

7

10-12

M

Clarkston

Oakland

A

7

10-12

M

Clawson

Oakland

A

7

10-12

M

Farmington,
North Farmin g t on

Oakland

A

7

10-12

M

Hazel Park

Oakland

A

7

1 0-12

M

Madison Heights,
Lamphere

Oakland

A

7

10-12

M

Oak Park

Oakland

A

7

10-12

M

Rochester

Oakland

A

7

9-12

M

Royal Oak, D o n d e r o

Oakland

A

7

9-12

M

Royal Oak,

Oakland

A

7

9-12

M

Walled Lake,
Walled L a k e C e n t r a l

Oakland

A

7

9-12

M

Walled Lake,
Walled Lake W e s t e r n

Oakland

A

7

9-12

M

Auburn Heights,
Avondale

Oakland

B

7

10-12

M

Holly

Oakland

B

7

9-12

M

Madison Heights,
Madison

Oakland

B

7

9- 1 2

M

Ortonville,

Oakland

D

7

9-12

M

K i mball

Brandon

C o u n ty

A th le tic
C la ssi­
fic a tio n

MEA
Region

Grades

Grand Ledge

Eaton

A

8

9-12

Howe11

Livingston

A

8

10-12

Lansing, W a v e r l y

Ingham

A

8

10-12

Owosso

Shiawassee

A

8

9-12

Brighton

Livingston

B

8

9-12

Corunna

Shiawassee

B

8

9-12

Durand

Shiawassee

B

8

9-12

Pickney

Livingston

B

8

9-12

St. Johns

Clinton

B

8

10-12

Byron

Shiawassee

C

8

7-12

Dewitt

Clinton

C

8

9-12

Haslett

Ingham

c

8

9-12

Perry

Shiawassee

c

8

7-12

Pewamo,
Pewamo-Wes t p h a 1 ia

Clinton

c

8

9-12

Stockbr idge

Ingham

c

8

7-12

Ashley

Gratiot

D

8

7-12

Dansville

Ingham

D

8

7-12

Fowler

Clinton

D

8

7-12

Horrice

Shiawassee

D

8

9- 1 2

N ame o f

AREA 5

School

(MEA R e g i o n 8)

Region # 8

227

Nfame o f

AREA 6

C o u n ty

School

A th le tic
C la ss i­
fic a tio n

MEA
Region

Grades

(MEA R e g i o n 9)

Region # 9

Grand Haven

Ottawa

10-12

Grand Rapids,
East G r a n d R a p i d s

Kent

9-12

Grand Rapids,
Kent

A

9

9-12

Kent

A

9

10-12

Ionia

Ionia

A

9

9-12

Caledonia

Kent

B

9

9-12

Cedar Springs

Kent

B

9

9-12

Coopersville

Ottawa

B

9

9-12

Greenville

Montcalm

B

9

9-12

Hudsonville

Ottawa

B

9

9-12

Jenison

Ottawa

B

9

7- 1 2

Ionia

B

9

9-12

Lowell

Kent

B

9

9-12

Otsego

Allegan

B

9

9-12

Wayland, W a y l a n d U n i o n

Allegan

B

9

9-12

Wyoming,

Godwin

Kent

B

9

9-12

Wyoming,

R ogers

Kent

B

9

10-12

Byron C e n t e r

Kent

C

9

9-12

Carson City,
Carson C i t y C r y s t a l

M o n tc a lm

Forest Hills
Grand Rapids,

Lake Odessa,

Union

Lakewood

228

7 -1 2

Athletic
Classi­
fication

MEA
Reaion

Gr ades

Me1
Not
Mel

Name of S c h o o l

Countv

Comstock P a r k

Kent

C

9

9-12

M

Edmore

Montcalm

C

9

9-12

NI

Fennville

Allegan

c

9

9-12

N1

Hamilton

Allegan

c

9

7-12

NI

Lakeview

Montcalm

c

9

7-12

Nl

Martin

A l 1egan

D

9

7-12

NI

Wyoming,
Kent O c c u p a t i o n a l

K ent

D

9

10-12

M

Genesee

A

10

10-12

M

Flint, K e a r s l e y

Genesee

A

10

10-12

M

Flint, S o u t h w e s t e r n

Genesee

A

10

10-12

M

Flushing

Genesee

A

10

9-12

M

Grand B lanc

Genesee

A

10

9-12

M

Lapeer

Lapeer

A

10

9-12

M

Swartz C r e e k

Genesee

A

10

9-12

M

Fenton,

Genesee

B

10

7-12

M

Flint, A i n s w o r t h

Genesee

B

10

9-12

M

Flint,

Genesee

B

10

9-12

M

Linden

Genesee

B

10

9-12

M

0t isvilie,
LakevilLe M e m o r i a l

GeneseeLapeer

B

10

9-12

M

AREA 7

(MEA R e g i o n s

Region #
Flint,

10 a n d 11)

10

Beecher

Lake Fenton

Hamady

2?9

Athletic
Classi-

Met
Non

MEA

Hat

Name 01 s e n Q Q i ----------- _____ ______________

Lapeer

c

10

8-12

M

Genesee

c

10

10-12

M

Br idgeport

Saginaw

A

11

9-12

M

Saginaw,

Saginaw

A

11

10-12

M

Bad Axe

Huron

B

11

9-12

NM

Birch Run

Saginaw

B

11

9-12

M

Caro

Tuscola

B

11

9-12

NM

Ithaca

Gratiot

B

11

9-12

NM

Huron

B

11

9-12

NM

Vassar

Tuscola

B

11

9-12

NM

Brown C i t y

Sanilac

C

11

7-12

NM

Cass City

Tuscola

c

11

9- 1 2

NM

Deckerville

Sanilac

c

11

7-12

NM

Fairgrove,
Akron-Fa i rg r o v e

Tuscola

c

11

9-12

NM

Frankenmuth

Saginaw

c

11

9-12

M

Harbor B each

Huron

c

11

7-12

NM

Reese

Tuscola

c

11

7-12

NM

St. Charles

Saginaw

c

11

9-12

M

Carsonv ilie

Sanilac

D

11

K — 12

NM

Caseville

Huron

D

11

7-12

NM

Almont
Flint,

Bendle

Rea ion # 11

Pigeon,

A r t h u r Hill

Laker

230

Athletic
C l a s s ification

Met
MEA

Nor

Met

Region

Grades

D

11

7-12

NI

Huron

D

11

K — 12

NI

Sebewaing

TuscolaHuron

D

11

7-12

NI

AREA 8

13)

Bay

A

12

9-12

NI

Midland

A

12

10-12

NI

Bay

B

12

9-12

NI

Clare

Clare

B

12

7-12

NI

Gladwin

Gladwin

B

12

9-12

NI

Oscoda

Iosco

B

12

9-12

NI

Pinconning

Bay

B

12

7-12

NI

Beaverton

Gladwin

C

12

9-12

NI

Coleman

Midland

C

12

9-12

NI

Farwell

Clare

C

12

7-12

NI

Harrison

Clare

C

12

9-12

NI

Shepherd

Isabella

c

12

9-12

NI

Isabella

D

12

9-12

NI

Iosco

D

12

7-12

NI

Name of S c h o o l

County

Kingston

Tuscola

pert Hope

(MEA R e g i o n s 12 a n d

Reqion # 12
Bay City,

Handy

Midland
Bay City,

John Glenn

Mt. Pleasant,

Beal C i t y

Whitemore,
Whitemore-Prescott

231

Name of School

Reaion #

County

Athletic
Classi­
fication

MEA
Region

Grades

Met
Non
Met

13

Muskegon

Muskegon

A

13

10-12

M

Big Rapids

Mecosta

B

13

9-12

NM

Fremont

Newaygo

B

13

10-12

NM

Fr uitport

Muskegon

B

13

9-12

M

Manistee

Manistee

B

13

7-12

NM

North Muskegon*
Reeths-Puffer

Muskegon

B

13

10-12

M

Whitehall

Muskegon

B

13

9-12

M

Hart

Oc e a n a

C

13

7-12

NM

Mor1ey

Mecosta

C

13

7-12

NM

Newaygo

Newaygo

C

13

9-12

NM

North M u & k e g o n

Muskegon

C

13

7-12

M

Ravenna

Muskegon

C

13

9-12

M

Reed City

Osceola

C

13

9-12

NM

Shelby

Oceana

C

13

9-12

NM

Brethren

Manistee

D

13

7-12

NM

Freesoil

Mason

D

13

9-12

NM

Marion

Osceola

D

13

7-12

NM

Pentwater

Oceana

D .

13

7-12

NM

Walkervrile

Oceana

D

13

7-12

NM

23?

N am e o f

AREA 9

School

(MEA R e g i o n

C o u n ty

A th le tic
C la ss ific a tio n

MBA
R e g io n

G rad es

M e'
No
Me

14 a n d 15)

Region # 14
Alpena

Alpena

A

14

10-12

NI

Cheboygan

Cheboygan

B

14

7-12

Ni

Rogers C i t y

Presque

B

14

9-12

NI

Charlevoix

Charlevoix

C

14

9-12

NI

Grayling

Crawford

C

14

7-12

NI

Onaway

P r e s q u e IsleCheboygan

c

14

9-12

NI

Atlanta

Montmorency

D

14

9- 1 2

NI

Genesee

Otsego

D

14

7-12

NI

Hillman

Montmorency

D

14

7-12

NI

Indian R i v e r

Cheboygan

D

14

7-12

NI

Mackinaw C i t y

Cheboygan

D

14

7-12

NI

PelIston

EmmetCheboygan

D

14

9-12

NI

Presque

D

14

9-12

NI

Posen

Isle

Isle

Region # 1 5

Traverse C i t y

Grand Traverse

A

15

10-12

NR

Cadillac

Wexford

B

15

10-12

NR

Kalkaska

Kalkaska

C

15

9- 1 2

NM

Bellaire

Antrim

D

15

7-12

NM

233

Name o f S c h o o l

County

A th le tic
C la ssific a tio n

Central L a k e

Antrim

D

15

9-12

Nl

Ellsw o r t h

Antrim

D

15

9-12

Ni

Kingsley

Gd.

D

15

7-12

Ni

Lake C i t y

Missaukee

D

15

9-12

N]

Leland

Leelanau

D

15

7-12

NJ

Mancelon a

Antrim

D

15

7-12

Nl

Suttons B a y

Leelanau

D

15

7-12

Nl

AREA 10

(MEA R e g i o n s

16,

17,

Traver

and

MEA
Region

Grades

Me
NO
Me

18)

Region # 16
Sault Ste. M a r i e

Chippewa

A

16

9-12

Nl

Newberry

Luce

B

16

7-12

NJ

Rudyard

Chippewa

C

16

9-12

NJ

Detour V i l l a g e

Chippewa

D

16

9-12

Nl

Engadine

Mackinac

D

16

7-12

Nl

Mackinac

D

16

K — 12

NJ

Chippewa

D

16

7-12

Nl

Escanaba

Delta

A

17

9-12

Iron M o u n t a i n

Dickinson

B

17

9-12

Ironwood,
Lather L. W r i g h t

Gogebic

B

18

9-12

Mackinac

Island

Pickford

Regions

17 a n d

18

Athletic
Classi­
fica t i o n

MEA
Region

Grades

Meti
NonMeti

Name of School

County

Kings ford

Dickinson

B

17

10-12

NM

Menominee

Menominee

B

17

9-12

NM

N^gaunee

Marquette

B

17

7-12

NM

Bessemer

Gogebic

c

18

7-12

NM

L'Anse

Baraga

c

18

7-12

NM

Munis ing,
William G. M a t h e r

Alger

c

17

7-12

NM

Ontonagon

Ontonagon

c

18

9-12

NM

Champion

MarquetteBaraga

D

17

7-12

NM

Houghton

D

18

7-12

NM

Alger

D

17

7-12

NM

Even, E w e n - T r o u t Creek

On t o n a g o n

D

18

9-12

NM

Felch

Dickinson

D

17

7-12

NM

Chassel
Eben Junction,

Eben

*

Gogebic

D

18

K— 12

NM

Del taSc h o o l c r a f t

D

17

8-12

NM

National Mine

Marquette

D

17

7-12

NM

Painesdale,

Houghton

D

18

6-12

NM

Perkins

Delta

D

17

7-12

NM

Wakefield

Gogebic

D

18

7-12

NM

White Pine

Ontonagon

D

18

7-12

NM

Marenisco,

Roosevelt

Nahm, Big Bay D e N o c

J e f fers

235

APPENDIX I
FREQUENCY OF RETURN OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

236

70

-

FREQUENCY OF RETURNS

60

-

50

-

o
Ia J

2
2

3 40

-

I-

l&J
oc

« : » lil

OD
z

D
z

20-

10-

APRIL

RETURNED

34 72 42 21 II

MAY

16

8

9

4

5

6

5

14 13 3

3

4

I

I

APPENDIX J
FOLLOW-UP LETTER

238

F OLLO W-U P LE T T E R

April 29,

1970

To date the c o m p leted s e c o n d a r y school princi p a l s op i n i o n
questionnaire m a i l e d to y o u on April 13, has not b e e n received.
Please find enclosed, for your convenience, a n o t h e r o p i n i o n
questionnaire w i t h a self-addressed, stamped, return envelope.
Your r e sponse is urgently n e e d e d to get a m o r e a c c u r a t e
picture of the problems c o n f r o n t i n g the s e c o n d a r y school p r i n c i p a l
in the state of M i c h i g a n r e g a r d i n g the dr i v e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m
as p r e s e n t l y o u t l i n e d by the S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of Education.
This survey, has the c omp l e t e support and e n d o r s e m e n t of
Dr. Robert O. Nolan, A s s i s t a n t Direc t o r o f the H i g h w a y T r a f f i c
Safety C e n t e r at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and Mr. Ben Leyrer,
President o f the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of S e c o n d a r y School
Principals.
Your a ssist a n c e in c o m p l e t i n g and r e t u r n i n g the e n c l o s e d
questionnaire will be s i n c e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d and w i l l c o n t r i b u t e
greatly in identifying the prob l e m s c o n f r o n t i n g the s e c o n d a r y
school p r i n cipal in the area of dr i v e r education.
Yours truly.

Rob e r t C. M i l l s
Graduate Assistant
Hig h w a y Tra f f i c S a f e t y C e n t e r
R o o m 70, Kel l o g g Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, M i c h i g a n 48823

2 39