IN F O R M A T IO N TO USERS

This m aterial was produced from a m icrofilm copy o f the original docum ent. W hile
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent
have been used, the q uality is heavily dependent upon the quality off the original
subm itted.
The follow ing explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or pa tterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “target" fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent
photographed is “ Missing Page(s)“ . I f it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) o r section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith' adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you com plete continuity.
2 . When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black m ark, it
is an indication th a t the photographer suspected th a t the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent fram e.
3 . When a m ap, drawing o r chart, etc., was p ert off the m aterial being
photographed the photographer follow ed a d efinite method in
“ sectioning" the m aterial. I t is customary to begin photoing a t the upper
le ft hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue photoing from le ft to
right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the firs t row and continuing on u n til
com plete.
4 . The m ajority o f users indicate th a t the textual content is o f greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
“ photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the disserta tion. Silver
prints o f “ photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by w riting
the O rder D epartm ent, giving the catalog num ber, title , author and
specific-pages you wish reproduced.
6 . PLEASE N O TE: Some pages may have indistinct p rin t. Film ed as
. received.

Xerox University M icrofilm s
900 North Zaob Road
- Ann Arbor. Michigan 48KM

I
I

74-19,880
TAYLOR, Delores Wattle, 1940A STUDY TO IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COOPERATIVE EDUCATION
PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED IN MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1974
Education, vocational

U niversity M icrofilm s, A XEROX C o m p an y, A n n A rbor, M ichigan

A STUDY TO IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR
THE DISADVANTAGED IN MICHIGAN

By
Delores Wattle Taylor

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

1974

ABSTRACT

A STUDY TO IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR
THE DISADVANTAGED IN MICHIGAN
by
Delores Wattle Taylor

Statement of the Problem
This
the

study identifies and describes thecharacteristics of

cooperative programs for the disadvantaged in Michigan, funded

under Part G of the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968.
description includes:

The

(1) Characteristics of Coordinators,

(2) Characteristics of School and Students, (3) Program Activities, and
(4) Perceptions and Attitudes of Coordinators about Part G Programs.
The study was undertaken to:

(1) identify and describe activities

that are performed in Part G Cooperative Programs for the Disadvantaged
in Michigan,

(2) identify and describe distinct characteristics in

programs as reported by coordinators, (3) derive from such data some
implications of program value, and (4) derive from such data suggestions
for

further study and bases for evaluation.
This study was designed to be descriptive as well as hypotheses

cnerating.

Design of the Study
Forty-five coordinators of Part G Programs from 36 school dis­
tricts in Michigan responded to a questionnaire which consisted mainly
of fc :t-finding data about themselves, their schools, their students,

Delores Wattle Taylor

and their programs.

Also Included In the questionnaire were statements

designed to sample the perceptions and attitudes of the coordinators
concerning students, programs, and program acceptance.
The following hypotheses were tested to determine the relation­
ships between expressed facts about programs and expressed attitudes
and perceptions of coordinators:
1.

There are no differences between cooperative programs
for the disadvantaged when the programs are compared
on the basis of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

2.

age of the coordinator
number of years teaching experience of the coordinator
specialized training of the coordinator
type of certificate held by the coordinator
type of students served (urban, rural, suburban)

There are no differences in the expressed attitudes
and perceptions of coordinators of the cooperative
program for the disadvantaged when compared on the
basis of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

age of the coordinator
number of years teaching experience of the coordinator
specialized training of the coordinator
type of certificate held by the coordinator
type of students served (urban, rural, suburban)

Major Findings of the Study
Thirty-four (75.6%) of the Part G Coordinators were male.

Four

of the male coordinators were black; thirty were white.
Eleven (24.4%) of the Part G Coordinators were female.
the female coordinators were black; seven were white.

Four of

No other ethnic

group was represented in the population.
Fifteen (35.6%) of the coordinators reported that they had no
years of occupational experience other than teaching.

The Michigan State

Board of Education requires that in order to be vocationally certified,
a teacher should have a minimum of two years of experience in the

Delores Wattle Taylor
occupational area concerned or should have completed a planned program
of directed, supervised occupational experience approved by the State
Board.

This suggests that 35.6% of the coordinators of Part G Programs

have not fulfilled all of the requirements for vocational certification.
Approximately 2,126 students were served by Part G Programs in
Michigan, 1972-73.

In all areas— urban, rural, and suburban— the per­

centage of male students served by Part G Programs was higher than the
percentage of females.
slightly higher.

In urban areas the percentage of males was

Males outnumbered females two to one in rural areas.

The ratio of males to females in suburban areas was three to two.
The highest percentage of black students (68.9) was found in
the urban areas.

Eighty-one and 82.1 percent respectively were the

percentages of white students found in rural and suburban areas.

White

students made up a slightly larger percentage (51.6) of the students
being served by Part G Programs.

The percentage of Spanish (3.3),

Oriental (.02), and American Indian (.07) was low or nonexistent in
all areas; however, the percentage of all three in urban areas was
higher than in the other areas.
Eight coordinators reported a range of 20-22 as the maximum
number of class periods students are released from school for working
purposes.

Observations and interviews revealed that the number of

released hours from class was even greater in certain instances.
Significant distinctions were found when age of the coordinator
was compared to three independent variables that involved the community
and school administration.

It was found that older coordinators seemed

to have had a better understanding of the functions of the advisory

Delores Vattie Taylor

committee, the employers and prospective employers of disadvantaged
students In Part G Programs, and the school administration.
Significant distinctions were found between types of students
served (urban, rural, suburban) and expressed attitudes toward students
and perception of students' attitudes.

Coordinators that served

students mostly from urban areas tended to have higher perceptions of
students' attitude toward programs and better attitudes toward students.
There were no major differences in program activities based on
type of'students served.
It was concluded that a cooperative arrangement can be considered
"good" only to the extent to which the job provides varied learnings,
opportunities for promotion, increased job skills and knowledges, and
encourages potential dropouts to remain in school.

Time spent on the

job should not interfere with the development of basic skills taught in
the classroom.
It was recommended that:
1.

Further research of an evaluative nature must follow this
study in order for it to be of maximum value.

2.

Except in cases of mental retardation, disadvantaged
students should be accepted in regular vocational coopera­
tive programs.

3.

Sophisticated evaluations which include valid pre and
post tests should be given yearly to test the effective­
ness of the programs.

4.

Programs designed to mold disadvantaged youths' attitudes
toward the world of work should be developed for children
at the elementary level, thereby alleviating the problem
of having to undo what has been done.

DEDICATION

To my mother whose strength made me strong;

To Jimmie, without whose love, trust, and devotion
I could not have endured;

To my family and all of my friends whose faith and encouragement
added the impetus needed to "stick with it."

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to Dr. Robert Poland, Chairman of my Guidance
Committee, for his inspiration and help during all phases of my studies
at Michigan State University.
A special thanks also to Dr. Ruth Useem, Thesis Director.

Not

only was she a constant source of inspiration and help, but also a
good friend with sound judgments and suggestions during each course
of events related to the study.
My gratitude is also extended to the other members of my
committee:

Dr. Mary Virginia Moore and Dr. Robert Green.

For her encouragement and creation of the initial interest in
the topic of the study, Dr. Elaine Uthe of the University of Georgia
at Athens, deserves my sincere thanks.
To Dr. Peter Haines who unselfishly offered many suggestions
that helped get the study underway, many thanks.
And finally, thanks to Bob Carr, Graduate Assistant in the Office
of Research Consultation, the Jury Panel, the Part G Coordinators, the
businessmen and the students without whose cooperation this study would
not have been possible.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES

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

vi

LIST OF F I G U R E S ....................................................viii
Chapter
I.

I N T R O D U C T I O N ..............

1

Statement of the P r o b l e m ..................................
Need for the. S t u d y ........................................
Basic As s u m p t i o n s ..........................................
Limitations of the S t u d y ..................................
Definition of T e r m s ........................................
Organization of the Study ..................................
II.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ...............
A.

B.

III.

IV.

The Disadvantaged Youth: Factors Affecting
School Success
........................................
Poverty and Its I m p l i c a t i o n s .........................
Disadvantaged Youth and the Self C o n c e p t .............
S u m m a r y ................................................
Federally Funded Vocational Programs for
Disadvantaged Youth ....................................
S u m m a r y ................................................

2
3
5
5
6
9
.

10

11
14
19
27
28
38

RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE S T U D Y .........................

40

Identification of the Population .........................
Instrumentation............................................
The Questionnaire..........................................
Procedure for the Treatment of D a t a ........................
Analysis of the D a t a ......................................
Hypotheses to be T e s t e d ....................................

40
42
42
49
49
50

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF D A T A .........................

51

Section I: Basic Characteristics of Coordinators
and P r o g r a m s ..........................................
Characteristics of Coordinators
.. . .
Characteristics of Schoolsand Programs ................
Section II: Summary of the State Hypotheses
.............

51
51
59
64

iv

V.

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND IMPLICATIONS..........................................

77

Introduction . . . . . ................... . . . . . . . .
S u m m a r y ................
The D e s i g n ............................................
Analysis of D a t a ......................................
Findings and Discussions ..................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ............................ .................
Recommendations ..........................................
Implications ..............................................

77
77
77
80
80
106
108
109

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

Ill

REFERENCES NOT C I T E D ............................................

116

REFERENCES CITED

APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.

Letter of Inquiry to Contact Persons .....................
Letter of Inquiry and Approval Form to
Superintendents ..........................................
Follow-Up Letter ..........................................
List of School Districts Receiving Part GF u n d s ..........
Jury P a n e l .................................................
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .............................................
Administrative Rules Governing the Certification
of Michigan T e a c h e r s ......................................
Guidelines for Part G Programs from theMichigan
State Department of E d u c a t i o n ...........................
Page 52 of the Michigan State Plan for
Vocational Education ......................................

v

119
120
122
123
126
127
135
147
151

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Page
Distribution of Coordinators of Part G Cooperative
Programs for the Disadvantaged by Age, Sex,
Ethnicity, Michigan, 1972-73

54

Distribution of Coordinators of Part G Cooperative
Programs for the Disadvantaged by Sex, Ethnicity,
Type of Student Served, Michigan, 1972-73 .................

55

Distribution of Coordinators of Part G Cooperative
Programs for the Disadvantaged Years of Teaching
Experience, Michigan, 1972—73 ..............................

56

Distribution of Coordinators of Part G Cooperative
Programs for the Disadvantaged Years of Teaching
a Related Class, Michigan, 1972-73

57

Distribution of Part G Coordinators Years of
Coordinating a Cooperative Program for the
Disadvantaged, Michigan, 1972—73

57

Distribution of Coordinators of Part G Cooperative
Programs for the Disadvantaged College Credits
Directed Toward Teaching Disadvantaged Youth .............

58

Distributive of Total Enrollment of Schools Participa­
ting in Part G Cooperative Education Programs for the
Disadvantaged, Michigan, 1972-73 . . . . . ...............

61

Percent of Students Enrolled in Cooperative Programs
for the Disadvantaged by Sex, Ethnicity, and
Geographical Location in Michigan, 1972-73

62

Distribution of Number of Physically Handicapped
Students in Part G Programs , Michigan, 1972-73

63

Univariate Analysis of Variance on Dependent Measures
and Age of C o o r d i n a t o r ....................................

65

Univariate Regression Analysis on Dependent Measures and
Years of Teaching Experience of the C o ordinator...........

66

Univariate Analysis of Variance on Dependent Measures
and Specialized Training of the Coordinator ...............

67

vi

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

Univariate Analysis of Variance on Dependent Measures
and Type of Certificate Held by C o o r d i n a t o r...............

68

Univariate Analysis of Variance on Dependent
Measures and Type of Students S e r v e d .....................

70

Univariate Analysis of Variance on Dependent
Measures and Age of the C o o r d i n a t o r .......................

71

Univariate Regression Analysis on Dependent Measures
and Years of Teaching Experience of the Coordinator . . . .

73

Univariate Analysis of Variance on Dependent Measures
and Specialized Training of the Coordinator ...............

74

Univariate Analysis of Variance on Dependent Measures
and Type of Certificate Held by C o o r d i n a t o r ...............

75

Univariate Analysis of Variance on Types of Students
Served in Part G Programs, Michigan, 1972-73

76

Scheff& Post Hoc Analysis— Age of Coordinator and
and Choice of Training Station
...........................

90

Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Measures
and Age of the C o o r d i n a t o r ...............................

91

Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Measures and
Types of Students S e r v e d ..................................

98

Vil

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure
1.

Part G Vocational Education Programs, Michigan, 1972-73

viii

60

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 and subsequent Federal legislation
authorized the expenditure of funds for vocational training.

However,

it was not until the Vocational Education Act of 1963 was amended in
1968, over a half century later, that specified amounts of the Federal
appropriations were earmarked and set aside solely for persons who were
considered "unable to succeed" in the regularly reimbursed vocational
programs.
One of the objectives of the Vocational Education
Amendments of 1968 is to provide meaningful vocational
education to individuals who, because of handicapping
conditions, are not able to succeed in a regular voca­
tional education program. Expenditure and program
accountability compliance with this law requires at
least 10 percent of the basic State grants be set aside
for the physically, mentally, or emotionally handicapped
and 15 percent for the academically and socio-economically
disadvantaged.
(U. S. Office of Education 1972b:1)
The terms "disadvantaged" and "handicapped," refer to persons
who, as described in the legislative document, are "not able to succeed
in a regular vocational education program."
The causes and effects of the disadvantaged have led to a growing
concern and a public 'awareness of the seriousness of the problem.
Leighbody (1972:108-09) discusses "Occupational Training and the Disadvangaged," as one of the major issues of the 1970*s in vocational education.
It is now accepted in America that every citizen is
entitled not only to his full civil rights but also to a
job and to the basic comforts and personal dignity which
come with a reasonable degree of economic security.

1

2
In a search for ways to raise the economic and social status
of disadvantaged individuals, Part 6 of the Vocational Amendments Act
of 1968 made grants to States for programs of vocational education
designed to prepare disadvantaged youth for employment through coopera­
tive work-study arrangments.

"These objectives include breaking the

cycle of poverty and maintaining human dignity through productive
employment."

(U. S. Office of Education 1972b:1)

Individuals in all communities of the
need

such education and training are served.

States who desire and
Although priority is given

to areas with high rates of school dropouts and youth unemployment, each
person Is identified as an individual who has had or is having difficulty
succeeding in school rather than as a member of a disadvantaged group
or conmunity.
The Federal legislation and the regulations provided that
criteria for student selection be determined by the States to allow
maximum flexibility in determining who should qualify for these programs.
This recognizes that program characteristics vary among States, among
programs and courses within States, and among levels of Instruction.
(U. S. Office of Education 1972b:4)

Statement of the Problem
There is a dearth of well-defined statements on the activities
that

go on in Part G Cooperative Programs for

expected outcomes.

the Disadvantaged and their

In view of the fact that State and local districts

have a great deal of flexibility in designing programs under Part G
of the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, the characteristics of
programs can be expected to vary from district to district and school

3
to school within a State*
expected to exist.

Some basic commonalities can also be

The general problem of this study is concerned

with the identification and delineation of the characteristics of
Part G Cooperative Education Programs for the Disadvantaged in the
State of Michigan.
The purpose is to:

(1) describe activities that are performed

in Part G Cooperative Programs for the Disadvantaged in Michigan.
(2) identify and describe distinct characteristics in programs reported
by coordinators of the programs; (3) derive from such data some
implications of program value; and (4) derive from such data suggestions
for further study and bases for evaluation.

Need for the Study
The Vocational Education Amendments Act of 1968 provided for
the following:
1.

The continuation and expansion of the current effort.

2.

The involvement of more disadvantaged youth in coopera­
tive education programs.
(U. S. Office of Education 1972a:l)

Although general guidelines for these programs are provided by
the Federal government, nothing has been done to delineate the likenesses
and differences in the existing programs in the State of Michigan.

This

study which involves the delineation of Part G Programs in Michigan is
beneficial in determining the direction and implementation of these
programs in the future.
The cooperative method of instruction for the disadvantaged has
not been subjected to empirical testing regarding its effectiveness.
Because of the absence of sufficient research and literature on the
relative effectiveness of the cooperative method of instruction as a

I

4
device In preparing disadvantaged students for the world of work, it was
decided that a study concerned with a delineation and identification of
program activities and characteristics,which are to serve as evaluative
criteria, is a critical aspect of program evaluation that has been over­
looked .
The researcher had the advantage of assisting in a cooperative
education research project prior to the time served by this study.

On

the basis of informal and preliminary investigation the following
hypotheses were anticipated:
1.

There are no differences in the coordinator's responses
to questions concerning what is actually being done in
cooperative programs for the disadvantaged when compared
on the basis of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

2.

age of the coordinator
number of years teaching experience of the coordinator
specialized training of the coordinator
type of certificate held by the coordinator
types of students served (urban, rural, suburban)

There are no differences’ in the coordinator's expressed
attitudes toward the cooperative education program for
the disadvantaged when compared on the basis of:
a.
l>.
c.
d.
e.

age of coordinator
number of years teaching experience of the coordinator
specialized training of the coordinator
type of certificate held by the coordinator
types of students served (urban, rural, suburban)

Considering the purpose of this study, it was felt that certain
major questions should not be subjected to statistical testing but should
he analyzed and reported in descriptive terms.

The following are such

questions that formed the basis for the interviews:
1.

Do coordinators of the cooperative programs for the
disadvantaged report that disadvantaged students are
taught more effectively in special cooperative programs
than in regular vocational cooperative programs?

5
2. Do coordinators of regular vocational cooperative
programs report that disadvantaged students are taught
more effectively in special cooperative programs than
in regular vocational cooperative programs?
3.

Do Part G Coordinators report that students' career
goals are one of the first priorities considered in
job placement?

4.

How might one go about placing disadvantaged students
who have career goals versus those without career goals?

5.

Are there observed or reported differences in what is
actually being done that conflict with State or Federal
guidelines or laws?

Basic Assumptions
Underlying the study were the following basic assumptions that:
1.

The instrument will yield the data that the researcher
is seeking.

2.

All respondents will answer truthfully.

3.

The combination questionnaire, interview method of collecting
the data for this study will yield a clearer picture of both
major and minor characteristics that are found in the
cooperative programs for the disadvantaged.

4.

Certain implications may be inherent in implementing
positive change in programs when and where needed.

5.

This study is capable of inspiring further research
relating to the effectiveness of cooperative education
programs that serve the disadvantaged.

Limitations of the Study
There are specific limitations of this study which must be con­
sidered prior to making generalizations with respect to the findings.
The results of this study will be generalizable to other populations only
to the extent that other populations are similar in characteristics to
the population used in this study.
1.

The specific limitations are:

The data accepted for analysis were limited to the responses
of the coordinators.

6
2.

Businessmen and students who were interviewed were
recommended by the coordinators.

3.

In order for this study to be of maximum value, further
research of an evaluative nature must follow.

Definition of Terms
Cooperative Vocational Education Program is "a program of
vocational education for persons who, through a cooperative arrangement
between the school and the employers receive instruction, including
required academic courses and related vocational instruction by alterna­
tion of study in school with a job in any occupational field, but the
two experiences must be planned and supervised by the school and employers
so that each contributes to the student’s education and his employability.
Work periods and school attendance may be on alternate half-days, fulldays, weeks, or other periods of time in fulfilling the cooperative workstudy program."

(U. S. Office of Education 1972a:2)

Vocational Education Amendments of 1968.

The Vocational Education

Amendments Act of 1968 "authorized federal grants to states to assist
them to maintain, extend, and improve existing programs of vocational
education, and to provide part-time employment for youths who need the
earnings from such employment to continue their vocational training on
a fulltime basis."

(Mason and Haines 1972:70)

Part G of Vocational Education Amendments Act of 1968.

Part G

authorized Federal grants to States for cooperative vocational programs
designed to prepare students for employment through cooperative workstudy arrangements, with emphasis on the disadvantaged.
Teacher Coordinator.

The coordinator is "the liaison between the

school, the student, and the job supervisor."

(Uthe 1972:6)

The

coordinator is a teacher hired by the school to administer the cooperative
program.

This person provides the in-school related instruction, coor­

dinates it with the students' job experiences, and selects work stations.
Disadvantaged.

"'Disadvantaged persons' mean persons who have

academic, socioeconomic, cultural, or other handicaps that prevent
them £rom succeeding in vocational education or consumer and homemaklng
programs designed for persons without such handicaps, or who for that
reason require specially designed educational programs or related services.
The term includes persons whose needs for such programs or services
result from poverty, neglect, deliquency, or cultural or linguistic
isolation from the community at large, but does not include physically
or mentally handicapped persons. . .unless such persons also suffer
from the handicaps described in this paragraph."
Academically disadvantaged.

(Federal Register:7335)

These individuals are not succeeding

or cannot succeed in a regular vocational eduction program because of at
least one educational deficiency— language (speaking/comprehension);
reading and/or writing; computational; or general educational deficiency.
Individuals in the last group have educational deficiencies which are
principally responsible for their inability to succeed.
may have one or more of the following characteristics:

Such students
low achievement

scores, poor attendance records, school dropout, potential school dropout,
unaware of educational procedures and/or opportunities, lack.parental
support and guidance because of parent's own lack of education.

(U. S.

Office of Education 1972b:14-17)
Socioeconomic or other nonacademic effects:

"These individuals,

because of their background or experience, have developed attitudes which

8
severely limit their ability to perform successfully In a vocational
education program.” (U. S. Office of Education 1972b:16)
Such students may have one or more of the following character­
istics:

hostile or defiant attitude, passive or apathetic attitude,

geographically isolated, need economic assistance to enter or stay in
school, unemployed, or underemployed.
Types of certificates.
discussed in this study are:
permanent.

The three types of vocational certificates

(1) temporary, (2) provisional, and (3)

These terms are defined in (Appendix E) portions of

Administrative Rules Governing the Certification of Michigan Teachers.
Related instruction "means in-school courses specifically
designed to develop and improve occupational skills, knowledges and
attitudes, and, to the extent needed, basic education (remedial) and
personal social skills; such costs of courses may be reimbursed from
vocational education funds.

An academic course deemed essential for

occupational preparation may be recognized as related vocational instruc­
tion if the course is specifically organized to meet the needs of
cooperative vocational education students."

(U. S. Office of Education

197 2 a :2)

Urban student. A student that comes from a heavily populated
inner-city area is considered urban.
students that are bused

Because of the large number of

in the State, the area from which most of the

students come was deemed more important than the location of the school
itself.
Suburban student. The student that comes from a fringe area of
inner city is considered suburban.

Rural student.

The student that comes from sparsely settled

areas, inadequately served by highways or public transportation, with
little access to cultural opportunities is considered rural.

(U. S.

Office of Education 1972b:21)

Organization of the Study
A review of the literature pertinent to the problem under study
is presented in Chapter II.
Disadvantaged:

Two major topics are covered:

(1) The

Factors Affecting School Success, and (2) Federally

Funded Vocational Programs for the Disadvantaged.
Chapter III outlines the specific procedures involved in con­
ducting the study as follows:

(1) Identification of the Population,

(2) Instrumentation, (3) The Questionnaire,

(4) Procedure for Treat­

ment of Data, (5) Analysis of the Data, and (6) Hypotheses to be
Tested.
Chapter IV presents the findings of the study which include:
(1) Basic Characteristics of Coordinators,

(2) Basic Characteristics

of Schools and Programs, and (3) Summary of the Stated Hypotheses.
Chapter V concludes the presentation with the summary of major
findings and discussions, conclusions, recommendations, and implications

Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

The future of any country which Is dependent on the
will and wisdom of Its citizens is damaged, and irreparably
damaged, whenever any of its children is not educated to
the fullest extent of his capacity, from grade school
throughout graduate school. Today, an estimated four out
of every ten students in the fifth grade will not even
finish high school— and that is a waste we cannot afford.
In addition, there is no reason why one million young
Americans, out of school and out of work, should all remain
unwanted and often untrained on our city streets when their
energies can be put to good use.
— President John F. Kennedy
STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
January 14, 1963
Since the early 1960's, more than any other time in American
history, educators and legislators have become increasingly aware of
the wide range of learning abilities and interests of children who
are being taught in our schools.

They have become increasingly aware,

too, of the problems that arise in the academic and social settings
because of these varying degrees of intellect and interest of individuals.
This chapter will focus on that portion of the school population
who have been unable to succeed in school, the disadvantaged, and on the
Federal vocational and occupational programs directed toward rectifying
some of the problems of disadvantaged youth.
This chapter is divided into two parts:
Youth:

Factors Affecting School Success; and (B)

Vocational Programs for Disadvantaged Youth.
10

(A)

The Disadvantaged

Federally Funded

11
A.

The Disadvantaged Youth:

Factors Affecting School Success

Many assumptions have been made about economically* academically
and socially disadvantaged children and their Inability to fare well In
the school setting.

Primary among such attitudes Is that the children

are dull and Intellectually Inferior to middle-class or advantaged
children.
Dr. Audrey Shuey, a psychologist at Randolph Macon Woman's
College* published two editions (1958; 1966) of extensive research In
which the claim was made that I. Q. scores indicate that Negroes are
less intelligent than whites and that mental inferiority can be racial
in origin.

This claim was made on the basis of the accumulation of

hundreds of studies showing that Negroes score lower on I. Q. tests
than Caucasians do.
The fact that Negro students* on the average, score below white
students on most measures of academic achievement Is well documented by
Coleman (1966), Pettigrew (1964), Baughman and Dahlstrom (1968), and others.
However, the validity of Shuey’s claim that mental inferiority
can be racial in origin was challenged by Dr. Melvin M. Tumln (1963),
professor of sociology, Princeton University, and four other outstanding
scientists who represented the professions principally concerned with
matters of genetic and social differences among humans.
were:

The scientists

Dr. Henry C. Dyer, Vice President, Educational Testing Service,

Princeton, New Jersey; Professor Silvan S. Tomkins, professor of
psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey; Professor Ralph
H. Turner, Chairman of the Department of Sociology, University of
California at Los Angeles; and Professor Sherwood L. Washburn, Past

12
President of the American Anthropological Association and Chairman
of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California at
Berkeley.
Also challenged by the distinguished scientists were similar
claims made by Putnam (1961) that the Negro is natively Inferior in
intelligence to the white.

Putnam, a layman, relied almost exclusively

upon the findings presented by Shuey.

The scientists were asked to

read the Shuey and Putnam books and to respond to a series of questions
posed by Tumin.

He prefaced the questions with a joint statement

Issued at a Paris UNESCO Conference by a committee of world leaders
in the social sciences.

Sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists

and geneticists were represented at the meeting.

The statement said

in part:
Whatever classifications the anthropologist makes
of man, he never includes mental characteristics as part
of those classifications. It Is now generally recognized
that intelligence tests do not themselves enable us to
differentiate safely between what is due to innate
capacity and what is the result of environmental influ­
ences, training and education. Wherever it has been
possible to make all allowances for differences in
environmental opportunities, the tests have shown essen­
tial similarity in mental characteristics among all human
groups. In short, given similar degrees of cultural
opportunity to realize their potentialities, the average
achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about
the same.
(Tumin 1963:5-6)
Among the questions asked by Tumin (1963:7-9) of each of the
scientists were:
1.

In your judgment, is there sufficient evidence in the
Shuey volume to justify Dr. Shuey*s conclusion regarding
the presence of native differences between Negroes and
whites and thus to reject, in part or in total, the
validity of the position taken by the social scientists
in Paris quoted above?

13
2.

To the extent that one can discover a consistent line
of argument in the Putnam volume is there, in your
judgment, a sufficient basis of evidence in that
volume to justify the contention that there are signifi­
cant differences in the innate capacities of Negroes
and whites, especially innate intelligence, and thus
in turn to deny in part or in total the validity of
the UNESCO social scientists* statement quoted above?

3.

Are there, in your judgment, any satisfactory tests
of native, i.e. innate or Inborn, intelligence? If
you think there are, what are these tests? To what
extent have the tests been able to free themselves of
culturally specific factors, and thus become culturefree?

4.

What do the standard intelligence tests test? Are we
able, from the results of such tests to make any valid
inferences about native capacities? Under what conditions?
Have these been observed in the volumes in front on you?

Of the questions that were asked, there were three major points
of agreement:

(1) there is no evidence to date to indicate that any

one ethnic or racial group is more intelligent than any other; (2) differ­
ences in performance on intelligence tests have no bearing on innate
intelligence but have to do with environmental factors and learned
responses; and (3) intelligence tests do not measure innate or inborn
mental abilities.
Pettigrew (1966:114-115) wrote that the severely deprived
environment of the average Negro child can lower his measured I. Q. in
two ways:

(1) it can act to deter his actual intellectual development

by presenting him with such a constricted encounter with the world that
his innate potential is barely tapped; and (2) it can act to mask his
actual functioning intelligence in the test situation by not preparing
him culturally and motivationally for such a middle class task.

According to Mink and Kaplan (1970:15)
The native intelligence of many of these young people
is within or in excess of the average range. However, in
some cases, intelligence test scores may be lower than
true ability because of their unfamiliarity with testing
procedures, meager verbal skills, and the effect of socio­
cultural factors which make up the items of the test.
These factors tend to handicap the disadvantaged who are
schooled in a society that places great value on intelligence
and school achievement.
Allison Davis (1948), a quarter of a century ago, criticized
the intelligence test and demonstrated that I. Q. tests penalized lower
class children.

On the basis of many studies, Davis demonstrated that

a large proportion of items were biased against children from the very
low social strata of society. Davis found that in some tests,

the

cultural bias was as high as ninety percent.
Failure to succeed in school is often associated with children
from minority groups, with the rural, with the inner city, with the poor,
and with what seems to be intellectual inferiority or inability of such
children to adjust positively to the various methods of Instruction.
Inasmuch as there is no evidence to indicate that there is innate
superiority of one ethnic group over another, it is necessary to look at
the deprived child's lack of success in school from other perspectives.
A variety of

classroom problems may result from the ethnic

differences among pupils.

For convenience of discussion, they may be

placed in two interrelated categories:

(1) poverty and its implications,

and (2) disadvantaged youth and the self concept.
Poverty and Its Implications
Poverty and poor education, as Patricia Sexton (1961) shows in
Education and Poverty, go hand and hand.

15
Webster (1966:29) points out that disadvantaged children tend
to come from families that are poor, and they usually need special
attention In school.

And, as Lelghbody (1972:110) points out:

All major racial groups In the nation can be found
among the disadvantaged, but Black Americans, Spanishspeaking Americans and American Indians predominate the
disadvantaged group. They constitute a far greater per­
centage of the disadvantaged than they do in the general
population, and whites constitute far less. This means
that in addition to their other handicaps, many of them
suffer from racial and ethnic prejudice as well.
The disadvantaged live in the poorest housing, often unfit for
habitation, being unable to afford any better.
diets and often have Insufficient food.

They exist on inadequate

They frequently lack proper

sanitation and other health necessities and these, combined with their
poor diets, result in chronic bad health for many of them.
these interfere with their ability to function.

Altogether

Their families' lack

of income forces them to occupy the crowded, deteriorating urban slums
or accept isolated rural slum living.

(Leighbody 1972:109)

Contrary to popular beliefs, Newman (1969:35) points out, most
of the adults whose families reside in poverty are employed.

Despite

the unusually large proportion of elderly persons and women heads of
household among the poor, two-thirds of all poor heads of household
worked in 1966.

One-third of this group was employed full time.

They

worked at least thirty-nine hours per week for fifty to fifty-two weeks.
(Newman 1969:32-36)
In 1964, the report of the President's Council of Economic
Advisors suggested that the criterion of poverty refers to those
persons and families whose basic needs exceed the means to satisfy

16

their needs.

Using a minimum yearly Income level of $3,000, eleven

million children in the United States were Identified as poverty
stricken.

A conclusion was drawn by the Council of Economic Advisors

that twenty percent of the nation lived in poverty.

(White 1971:2)

In many cases, these heads of household are unable to fulfill
their role as adequate providers, not necessarily because of their
inability to find work, but rather because of their inadequate earnings
determined by the low wages paid for the jobs they are able to obtain.
The heavy concentration of the deprived in unskilled and service jobs
probably accounts, in part, for the low Income levels.

(Mink and

Kaplan 1970:16)
Hlckerson (1966:64) lists three factors which have in the last
forty years combined to produce a far more fixed group of economically
deprived than ever before in our history:

(1) a great slowdown in the

rate of development of new Industry and a change in the kinds of
personnel needed in the twentieth century.

Unskilled workers today

find little job opportunity; (2) an ending of the "replacement cycle"
Chat made it possible for each new group of immigrants to look over
their shoulders and see the next group coming to relieve them of their
lowly station; (3) a skin color that does not wash off and the conse­
quent impossibility of disappearing into ethnically anonymous American
society.
Hill (1969:204-217) found in his study evidence that racial
and other forms of prejudice are still causing unemployment and
especially underemployment among the disadvantaged groups even after
they have achieved educational equality, and that hiring practices
and union restrictions often nullify the work of the job trainers.

17

He also pointed out that vocational training has prepared the disadvan­
taged for low-akllled, dead-end jobs--jobs which may be eliminated
soonest by technology.
Young people under the age of twenty and the poorly educated
and unskilled of all ages face the most difficulty In getting jobs in
our technological economy.

(Lelghbody 1972:110)

Since the beginning of national concern with Improving the
condition of the poor, great emphasis has been placed upon job
training as a means for getting the unemployed quickly Into jobs and
for accomplishing the long-term objective of breaking the poverty
cycle.

(Lelghbody 1972:111)
Every piece of educational, vocational, manpower and
welfare legislation which has been passed or proposed
since 1960 has contained provisions for training. Govern­
ment, at least, has pinned its hopes upon education, and
particularly vocational education as the answer to the
needs of the disadvantaged. The Manpower Development
and Training Act of 1962, the Vocational Education Act of
1963, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
The Economic Opportunity Act with its Job Corps, and the
Vocational Education Amendments Act of 1968— all have
identified education and training as the principal weapon
for fighting poverty and as the means for the salvation
of the disadvantaged * . . The reform welfare legislation
proposed by President Nixon in August of 1969 relies
heavily upon job training to solve the problems of
unemployment and poverty. (Lelghbody 1972:111-112)
Vernon Allen (1970:151) pointed out, "We sometimes tend to

forget that poverty generally is defined economically rather than
psychologically."
According to Ehlers (1969:200). "[The problem of unemployment
is more than an economic problem, because a] man's occupation in
American society is now his single most significant status-conferring
role."

18

Fantlnl and Weinstein (1968:13-14) wrote:
To be poor Is to be stigmatized by our society. A
man's worth Is determined by how much money he has, the
car he drives, his address, his clothes, and his ability
to spend. Lacking financial worth, he lacks personal
worth. Moreover, he is all too willing to accept society's
value definitions and consider himself a failure. He
feels Impotent; he believes there is little he can do
about his destiny.
The sociological and psychological effects of joblessness are
painfully apparent in America today.
A job is vital to young persons, and it is also vital that the
job provides an outlet for their abilities and that it be compatible
with their considered aspirations.

The high school dropout may find

a job washing dishes or parking cars.

If the youth has graduated from

high school or attended college a while, he/she may clerk or may become
a salesman.

"These are dead-end jobs and he knows it.

He becomes

frustrated; initiation for him has become a personal defeat . . . "
(Ehlers 1969:200)
"A vocational curriculum should expose a disadvantaged student
to a variety of jobs, since many disadvantaged students are aware of
only a handful of possibilities," pointed out Bobbitt and Letwin.

(1970:50)

The vocational curriculum should provide for attitudinal development
and change and should Include some means of diagnosing and indicating
strengths and weaknesses for various occupations.

Caution should be

taken to insure that the curriculum does not lock a student into a
particular occupatior or prepare him for a job that makes no allowances
for professional growth.
In answer to the question, "Can vocational education eliminate
poverty?"

Lelghbody (1972:113) says that by itself it cannot.

"Since

19

the schools alone cannot eliminate the conditions which produce the
disadvantaged class, vocational education, as only one education
ingredient, surely cannot do so."
"Because a good education is essential for any kind of stable
employment, it seems logical," says Lelghbody (1972:111), "that if
children from disadvantaged environments could achieve such an education
the cycle of poverty, and therefore the other difficulties that arise
from deprivation could be broken."
"Vocational education can become an instrument in breaking the
cycle of poverty which leads to unemployment, and thus to more poverty.
To try to break this cycle by offering the poor just enough training
to get into some kind of employment as quickly as possible is short­
sighted and self-defeating . . . "

(Lelghbody 1972:117)

As part of an

adequate and uplifting education, devoid of artificial distinctions
between academic, general and vocational, and adaptable for each
individual, occupational education is a vital resource for meeting the
needs of the underclass.

(Lelghbody 1972:117)

Disadvantaged Youth and the Self-Concept
What a person thinks of himself is one of the essential
determinants of his behavior. Any program designed to
change behavior must of necessity take into consideration
how a person sees himself, how he sees the external world,
and how he understands the relation between the two.
(Washington 1963:33)
"Pride in one's self is directly related to his self-concept,"
said Bobbitt and Letwin.

(1971:29)

The self-concept is a composite

of numerous self-precepts, a hypothetical construct encompassing all
the values, attitudes and beliefs toward one's self in relation to the

20
environment.

"The self-concept influences and, to a great degree,

determines perception and behavior," they further state.

(Bobbitt and

Letwin 1971:28)
Teachers who work with disadvantaged students have found that,
for the most part, these students have low self-images.

"This can be

attributed to many things Including a poor environment, low measures
of intellect and achievement and resulting personality disorders,"
said Bobbitt and Letwin.

(1971:28)

This disoriented self-concept Is

often reinforced by failure in school, early dropping out of school,
lack of employment opportunity, parenthood and juvenile delinquency.
Moreover, the school itself, including the reading readiness
tests (which presumably predict reading achievement), the aptitude
tests, the primers, the readers, and the curriculum as a whole soon
damage severely the confidence and the basic self-esteem of the
children from low socio-economic groups.

Soon, their low place In

society and that of their parents, friends, and neighbors, tend to
weaken their self-image.

As explained by Ehlers (1969:88):

This self-depreciation is typical of all low-status
groups, and is the result of their having been severely
stigmatized in most relationships with dominant groups.
It results in self-depreciation and in hidden self-contempt
beneath the facade of hostility and resentment. The socalled lack of attention, lack of desire to learn, and
lack of competitive drive in school are expressions of
realities and fear and feelings of inadequacy . . .
An extensive review of research relevant to the self-concept

theory as it applies to vocational education is found in a doctoral
study by Wamhoff.

(1969)

The Wamhoff study is an extension of work

by Brookover (1967) and is related to basic concepts of theory of

21
occupational choice developed by Glnzberg (1951) and Super's (1963)
self-concept of an Individual's academic ability as it relates to
school achievement.
Effective education for occupational choice depends
upon more than provisions for the accumulation of skills
and other abilities after a vocation has been chosen. The
process of choosing occupational career direction Includes
self evaluation, evaluation of the world of work as It Is
known to the individual and the arrangement of these
knowledges Into the juxtaposition which provides the
Insight leading to career choice. (Wamhoff 1969:12)
A basic premise in the Wamhoff study Is that the self-concept
of vocational ability Is not a remote psychological construct.
in effect, whatever the student might

feel about

It Is,

himself,supported

by how he perceives others feel about him.
Wamhoff developed a questionnaire patterned after that which
was used by Brookover to measure the self-concept of academic ability.
The Instrument asked such questions as, "Do you think you have the
ability to do any job you desire?"

"How do you rate yourself in school

ability compared with your close friends?"
others grade your work.

"Forget for a moment how

In your own opinion how good do you think

your work is?"
Wamhoff reported that there was a substantial relationship
between the students' self-concept and their perceptions of how others
would evaluate their potential for success
The vocational students were found to

in high status occupations.

have lowerself-concepts of their

academic ability than nonvocational students.

Both groups were equal

in their self-concepts of vocational ability.
Contrary to all sources reviewed, Wamhoff found that the selfconcept of vocational ability and occupational aspirations or expectations

22
was not related to the socio-economic status of "significant others,"
a term used to describe those persons on whom one Is dependent for
emotional gratificatIon— parents, friends, and spouse.
He explained that:

(1969:141)

. . . the self-concept of vocational ability may
operate Irrespective of the socio-economic status of
various occupations or socio-economic status of signifi­
cant others. Therefore, an Individual who is a garage
mechanic (a low socio-economic status occupation) may
have a high self-concept of his vocational ability to
be a garage mechanic. Furthermore, an Individual who
would like to be a teacher (a higher socio-economic
status occupation) may have no higher self-concept of
his vocational ability to be a teacher than the garage
mechanic's self-concept of vocational ability.
Robert Rosenthal and Lenore F. Jacobson's (1968:19-23) study
sought to answer the following questions:

1.

Do teachers anticipate poor performance from some
students and teach these students to fall?

2.

Do teachers expect certain students to achieve more
than others and teach these students to pass?

The researchers convinced the teachers of the school that they

were conducting an experiment to validate a test which would predict
academically talented students.

Actually, the researchers used the

Flanagan Tests of General Ability which is a standardized Intelligence
test.

The researchers told the teachers that the disguised test would

be administered several times during the experiment, and the results
would be sent to Harvard University for analysis.

After the test had

been administered once, a random selection of students was chosen and
were identified to the teachers as potentially academically talented
students.

The test was re-administered three more times during the

experiment.

23

The results indicated that the students who were identified by
the researchers as potentially superior students made significantly
greater Intellectual gains on the Flanagan test than did those students
who had not been so identified.
The students tended to live up to the expectations which the
teachers had of them.

The teachers described the experimental group

of students as being more affectionate, appealing, better adjusted,
socially secure with their peers, more apt to succeed, happier, more
curious, and more interesting than the control group of students who
had not been identified as potentially superior students.
"Disadvantaged youth have a keen perception; it usually works
best in judging the character of adults.

They are seldom fooled, at

least for long by feigned concern, pseudo-acceptance and a facade of
general overfriendliness and effort," said Bobbitt and Letwin.

(1971:29)

The child of low status culture usually loses early in school
his confidence in his ability and in his future.

His parents usually

do not encourage him to compete in school, he usually lacks the drive
for achievement which is the prime incentive taught by middle class.
Asbell (1966:93) gives a vivid description of the pupils that
teachers confront in poor, depressed neighborhoods.
The schoolchildren grow up absorbing the environment
and experience of their parents. They create a world apart
from agencies, officials, laws, policemen, schools and
teachers and far away from middle-class ideas of success.
How do you begin to introduce the idea of 'goal' into the
life of a child who grows up in that other world?
Hickerson (1966:89) suggests that public schools in America
are protectors and carriers of the existing social and economic order
in the society.

24
American society has apparently decided that it
does not need the economically deprived to be anything
other than they are. The release of millions of these
people Into the stream of affluent society would bring
about problems of displacement in the economic structure.
We are in a time of delicate balance; comparative
affluence can be maintained for only four-fifths of our
people. There are not enough jobs now, and with auto­
mation in industry looming greater and greater as a
replacer of men, the situation is more promising.
According to Christopher Jencks:

(1965:14)

First there Is no prospect of creating enough wellpaid jobs to absorb all of America*s children, even If
they all earn Ph.D.'s. Mechanization and automation are
proceeding extremely fast, and official statistics show
that despite the economy's growth, it actually takes
fewer workers today than In 1957 to satisfy private
demands for goods and services. In recent years, growth
of the job market has been produced entirely by govern­
ment expenditures for things like missiles, highways,
education (and the war on poverty), and by the growth
of nonprofit organizations. Today, however, President
Johnson is trying to reduce federal expenditures. Who,
then, is going to hire the children of the poor, even
assuming they are well educated?
Regarding the change of self-concepts, Hawk (1967:196-206)
starts with two propositions:

(1) the self is difficult to change;

(2) when change does occur, It is very gradual.

Once an Individual's

self-image is formed, his behavior tends to be somewhat compulsive
and predictable.

In addition, the person has preconceived notions of

subsequent relationships and the more nearly these expectations are
met the more assured one can be that the concept of self will not
change.

For example, the deprived child has certain misgivings about

teachers, and teachers may communicate through their behavior to the
child certain stereotypic beliefs, prejudices, or misgivings about the
disadvantaged.

Such interactions serve to reinforce the child's

negative self-image.

25

"One mistake which has been made by vocational educators
and by others in their attempts to serve the disadvantaged," claims
Leighbody (1972:119),

is to segregate them from other students and

thus label them as being different or inferior."

This introduces

a form of separatism which is a constant reminder that he is differ­
ent.

"While this may be done with the best of intentions, it falls

to meet the most Important need of the disadvantaged— the need to be
a part of the larger society from which they have too long been
Isolated."

(Leighbody 1972:119)

In strong agreement with Lelghbody, Bobbitt and Letwin (1971:17)
state, "Where possible, disadvantaged students should remain in the
regular vocational education program.

Our goal is to aid the disadvan­

taged in moving into the mainstream of society.

This cannot be

achieved by separating them into special classes."
In the event that special programs are Instituted, names which
attach a stigma to the classes and students should be avoided.

Terms

such as "disadvantaged," "deprived," and "special needs" should be
substituted with titles that are positive.
programs that have such titles are:

Some of the better known

JOBS (Job Opportunities through

Better Skills) in Chicago; YOB (Youth Opportunities Board of Greater
Los Angeles); and PAL (Police Athletic League) in New York.

(Stromberg

1972:36)
All too often, we stamp the disadvantaged student with the
label of a "low or negative self-concept" and then attribute any
misbehavior, poor academic performance or unacceptable characteristics
to the fact that he is disadvantaged and consequently has a poor or

26

negative self-image.

We accept It and even come to expect It, and

our reaction or lack of reaction to the disadvantaged leaves It marks.
(Bobbitt and Letwin 1971:30)
Watered down or diluted programs and standards will not solve
the problems According to Hlckerson (1966:73):
Those who graduate do so largely In the hope that a
diploma will help them attain a better place within even
the limited job opportunities . . . Howevert they are
scarcely better off for completing the ordeal of high
school. In most cases the curriculum offered them Is
poorly placed, academically weak, and basically uncoor­
dinated, with the results that few graduates are equipped
with salable skills.
In spite of the astronomical amounts of money that have gone
into programs under the several pieces of federal legislation, serious
doubts are beginning to appear as to the extent to which job training,
as it is presently being conducted, can have permanent effects on
alleviating the plight of the disadvantaged.
None of the programs which have been tried have been
more than marginally successful, and in order to produce
the limited results that have been achieved it has been
necessary to deal with a great many social and individual
problems which had not always been anticipated. Furthermore,
the long term value of this training is less apparent than
many had hoped. It may help some individuals to meet their
immediate needs, but it fails to reach the larger problems
which form the roots from which poverty grows. The cost
Involved in getting an unemployed or underemployed individual
into regular employment has been high, but however high the
cost, if it works, they are still less than the economic,
personal and social price of lifetime unemployment.
(Leighbody 1972:112)
Disadvantaged youngsters are faced with a series of serious
problems, over which they have no control.

They are usually poor and

members of minority groups, which often places them in prejudiced,
stereotyped categories such as dull, Inferior, etc.

27

Summary
Many assumptions have been made about disadvantaged children and
their inability to fare well in the school setting.

Primary among such

attitudes is that the children are dull and intellectually inferior to
the so called "advantaged" children.
The claim that mental inferiority can be racial in origin was
made by Shuey (1958; 1966) and Putnam (1961) . Some of the world leaders
in the social sciences challenged the claim.

While there was documented

evidence to show that Negro students, on the average, score below white
students on most measures of academic achievement, there were three
major points of agreement concluded by the leading social scientists:
(1) there is no evidence to date to indicate that any one ethnic or
racial group is more intelligent than any other; (2) ethnic differences
in performance on intelligence tests are related to environmental
factors and learned responses; and (3) Intelligence tests do not measure
innate or inborn mental abilities.
The disadvantaged live in poor housing, often unfit for habita­
tion, and are unable to afford any better.
diets and often insufficient food.

They exist on inadequate

Contrary to popular beliefs, however,

most of the adults whose families reside in poverty are employed.

Racial

and other forms of prejudice are still causing unemployment and under­
employment among the disadvantaged groups, sometimes after they have
achieved educational equality.

Vocational training can be Instrumental

in breaking the cycle of poverty which leads to unemployment, but to
try to break the cycle by offering the poor just enough training to
get into some kind of employment as quickly as possible is self-defeating.
As a result of these and other factors, disadvantaged students usually
have a poor concept of self.

28

B.

Federally Funded Vocational Programa for Disadvantaged Youth
With the passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 and

the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, vocational educators
have been challenged to provide occupational and vocational prepara­
tion programs for persons at all levels and abilities In the hope of
improving the lot of those deprived Individuals who have been
unsuccessful in the traditional classroom setting.
A number of other statutes, including the Manpower Development
and Training Act of 1962, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and
the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 have also contained provisions
for training.
At a 1965 White House Conference on Education, this indictment
by Joan Bowers (1965:15) of the American educational system came
during deliberations upon education and the world of work:

"Education

is the only industry in America which continues in business despite
the fact that it is producing a million products unfit for consumption."
"From the beginning," according to Leighbody (1972:7),
"sociological and humanistic reasons have been used to justify the
need for vocational education."

He expressed a most agreed on point

of view that, "those who are trained for a job, and so become wage
earners, will thereby turn out to be more useful and contributing
citizens who will be assets to society rather than dependents."
The July 15, 1969, report of the National Council on Vocational
Education attribute the existence of many of the American social problems
to unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.

On the grounds that

more vocational education would reduce or eliminate much of this

29

underemployment, they believe that It would also reduce violence*
distrust of society by the young, campus and inner city revolt, and
racial unrest.

(Lelghbody 1972:7)

The fact that work experience Is Important In the
process of growing up has not escaped the attention of
educators. For a long time, vocational education has
contained work experience as an integral part in many
courses. What has been called "cooperative education,"
which combines a job with study, has been practiced in
some high schools, for more than thirty years. In 1928
there were seventy-eight cities with 5,682 pupils enrolled
in cooperative courses under the Smith-Hughes Act.
(Burchill 1962:159)
The above statement Is evidence that cooperative education
and work study in general have been a part of the high school curriculum
for many years; however, there is an amazing deficit of research
studies on the outcomes of vocational education training programs
for high school students.
The studies reported here are made after an intensive search
of relevant literature.
A study was conducted by Robertson (1965) to appraise the
effectiveness of a secondary school cooperative education program.
It was found that:
1.

cooperative education did not appear to have any effect
on satisfaction, performance, supervisory responsibility,
salary earned, stability and aspirations, size or types
of firms for which employees worked, methods by which
employees found employment, reasons why employees
changed jobs, and plans to remain in present line of
work.

2.

the work phase of cooperative education was not consid­
ered by this group to be primarily a learning experience.

3.

the cooperative program was beneficial to those students
who wanted to begin working immediately after graduation
from high school.

30

Lee (1969:204-205), reported a study Initiated to:

(1) Identify

the number of Illinois State Board of Vocational Education approved
high school cooperative office education programs that serve lowaverage ability students In their programs, and (2) determine the
nature and extent to which such programs serve the needs of lowaverage ability students.

The research was conducted In two phases.

In December, 1965, questionnaires were mailed to the forty-five
teacher coordinators who operated Illinois State Board of Vocational
Education programs during the 1965-66 school year.

From Information

obtained from the questionnaire, six programs in which low-average
ability studentB participated were selected for further study.

The

teacher-coordinators of the six selected programs were interviewed
during the months of February, March, and April of 1966.
Results of the questionnaire survey indicated that a large
majority of students who were enrolled in high school cooperative
office education programs approved by the Illinois State Board of
Vocational Education during the 1966-67 school year were of average
or above average ability.

However, one-fourth of the programs had

one or more low-average ability students participating In their programs.
The needs of a relatively few low-average ability students were being
served by cooperative office education programs.
The teacher-coordinators* interviews unfolded problems encountered
with low-average ability students:

(1) the difficulties in obtaining

training stations for these students; (2) the development of appropriate
personal qualities as well as skills in low-average ability students;
and (3) the lack of adequate materials for the classroom Instruction of

31

such students.

Results of the teacher-coordinator Interview indicated

that low-average ability students did benefit from participation in
cooperative office education programs.
Work experience or co-op programs are often crucial
for keeping disadvantaged students in school. Many of
these students have gone without money (or with very
little) for so long they often quit school to find a
job as soon as they are of age. Part-time jobs through
work experience or co-op programs usually provide enough
money to enable them to remain in school for one or two
more years. (Bobbitt and Letwin 1971:54)
In a study conducted during the 1967-68 school year, Hodge
(1969:103-104) using one hundred students attempted to determine if
students who had been enrolled in cooperative office education programs
actually developed attitudes toward office employment that were more
favorable in the eyes of employers than those students who had not
enrolled in such programs.

Statistically, the results of the study

indicated that there was no significant difference manifested in the
attitudes toward office employment as determined by employers of the
two groups of students at the beginning of the experimental period or
at the conclusion.
Careful study and analysis of the data obtained in this research
study indicated, however, that:
1.

cooperative office education students with disadvantaged
backgrounds remain in school longer than students from
disadvantaged backgrounds who do not have cooperative
office education experiences and they perform better
while in school.

2.

cooperative office education students with disadvantaged
backgrounds actually revise their career objectives and
in general, raise their level of aspiration as a result
of their cooperative office education experience.

32

3*

cooperative office education students with disadvan­
taged backgrounds have opened the door In many offices
where prior to the employment of the cooperative
office education student no employees from minority
group background has been employed before.

Walther (1971:71-72) conducted a study to find out why "hardcore" dropouts often do not participate In Federal manpower programs,
and to discover what improvements In the programs could be made to
make them more accessible and responsive to the needs of this
particular group.
Two sample population studied consisted of approximately
six hundred Negro male dropouts*

The researcher was able to gather

information In Interviews on about one hundred seventy subjects from
the population.

The men were born before 1952 and had left urban

public schools In 1966-67 before graduating from high school.
The subjects were asked to list their reasons for leaving
school and to Indicate their main reason for leaving.

Sixty percent

of the subjects Indicated that they left school for reasons relating
to the school environment, as opposed to reasons relating to outside
factors.

Thirty-seven percent left school because they had been

rejected by the school (expelled or suspended). Responses show that
most of the dropouts left because of problems with school work, (subjects
were "too hard" or they were "not learning anything" and because they
"lost interest In school").

The majority of the subjects dropped out

by choice.
Further study Indicated that most of the subjects had not
continued their education after dropping out as of June, 1969, when
the Interviews were conducted.

Only six percent of the young men who

33

had dropped out had gone back to complete high school.

However, the

study pointed out that many of the dropouts had come to realize the
value of school and might appreciate a chance to continue their education.
An analysis of the ten-year occupational goals of the groups
studied showed that more than seventy-five percent of the subjectsT
goals were unrelated to work experience.

Thirty-eight percent of the

subjects reported lack of education and training as a handicap to goal
achievement, as compared to ten percent reporting all other handicaps
(discrimination, health, police record, etc.).
A phase of the study was to determine what the nonparticipants
in the manpower programs actually knew about the programs.

It was

found that most of the nonparticipants had little or no knowledge about
the Neighborhood Youth Corps and Manpower Training and Development
programs.

The Job Corps was much better known, but the subjects
*

•

■

specified program drawbacks, such as being away from home, as reasons
for not enrolling in the program.
The study points out that increased education and
training and expanded job opportunities are not enough
to motivate participation in the labor force. The job
has to appear to offer a career opportunity to the youth
and the youth must develop skills which will make it
possible for him to perform his job effectively. (Walther 1971:72)
Walther listed and defined three skills which must be developed
for a person to perform properly on a job:

adaptive, functional and

specific content skills.
He pointed out that it is in the area of adaptive skills— those
competencies which enable an individual to adjust to conditions around
him— that the disadvantaged usually has problems.

He further explained

that Federal manpower programs often do not achieve their goal of

34

on-the-job success £or trainees because the trainees lack adaptive
skills although they can perform the job acceptably.
Anthony Munisterl (1971) conducted a study designed to evaluate
the holding power of a cooperative education or work study program, as
It affected a student sample of sixty-two potential dropouts of maximum
grade ten and minimum age sixteen.
The results grew out of an ex post facto compilation and
comparative analysis of the records of two groups of students assumed
comparable.

One group was exposed to the cooperative program and the

other to a regular vocational program.
It was found during the two-year period that:
1.

there were approximately fifty percent more students In
the cooperative education program than were in the regular
vocational program who did not drop out of school.

2.

the cooperative students were motivated to attend school
(and work) more often; had a better record of punctuality
and a lower record of class cuts, than the students in
the comparison group in the regular vocational program.

3.

six times as many cooperative students as those in the
regular program advanced enough grades to graduate.

In spite of the fact that billions of dollars are being spent on
vocational and occupational training programs, the effectiveness of such
programs is rarely measured on a wide enough scale to be of significant
value to educators who are interested in implementing or perfecting
programs for disadvantaged youth.
One of the greatest problems in education has been
the evaluation of programs. Education evaluation has
developed into a formidable factor in programs funded
with federal money.
In programs for the disadvantaged, the information
feedback model is extremely important. One of the reasons
for this is that using feedback, the goals of a program
can be changed. . . (White 1971:210-222)

35

E . Mansfield Woolfolk (1971) conducted a junior high school
work training program.

Its main objective was to provide disadvantaged

youth with financially compensated work experiences Intended to motivate
them to Improve in attendance, punctuality, development of sound work
habits and to continue their education for at least one year beyond
their sixteenth birthday.

The purpose of the evaluation was to assess

the effectiveness of the project in the attainment of Its goals.
Participants qualified under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, Title I.

Selection of students for participation in

the program was on criteria Intended to identify the most disadvan­
taged and at the same time to zero in on those most likely to become
high school dropouts.
Pre- and post-enrollment data on participants were given and
analyzed. Overall the indications woe that the attainments of the
behaviors expected of the participants were mixed.

There was little

or no change in the development of sound work habits, except that in
many cases the participants started out at a high level of performance
and maintained it throughout the year.
John J. Austin and Donald A. Sommerfield (1967) conducted a
study with disadvantaged youth in Muskegon, Michigan.

Objectives of

the study were to assess the overall effect of vocational and basic
education on disadvantaged youth and to identify the patterns of change
taking place in different categories of disadvantaged trainees.

An

experimental group in the Muskegon Area Career Training Center was
compared with a control group of eighty-nine non-trainees or early
dropouts.

Pre- and post-tests were used to measure changes in personality

36

characteristics.

Occupational status was compared to personality

characteristics.

Using pretainlng scores as a base,

trainees showed

a significantly higher rate of improvement than non-trainees in
achievement, intelligence, occupational status and personality.
Girls, older trainees, trainees with higher formal education, trainees
with a high original I. Q. and trainees with dependents did show a
greater improvement than their opposites.
A study conducted by Harleau Smith Harris (1969) was designed
to measure by the analysis of statistical and subjective data the
effects of work experience programs on the disadvantaged ninth grade
students.
Harris hypothesized that:

The introduction of work experience as

a part of the ninth grade curriculum for selected students would result
in improved self-image, improved outlook toward school, improved
acceptance of and by others and improved perception of work.
Statistical data showed significant results in positive change
of attitude toward self-image as observed by teachers.
findings, Harris recommended:

Based on the

(1) work experience programs be

implemented as an integral part of the junior high school curriculum,
and (2) encouragement and support should be provided for work experience
programs and other studies which illustrate the humanization of the
educational process.
According to Leighbody (1972:13), vocational education has been
suggested as a means for capturing and holding the interest of many
high school students who find the more academic studies not of their
liking or aptitude and that enrollment in vocational courses will

37

encourage them to stay In school rather than become dropouts.

Another

theory Is that students who dislike or are unsuccessful In the academic
subjects may find them more meaningful and Interesting if they are
taking a vocational program and if these subjects can be taught and
directed to their occupational Interest.

"However, the practice of

using vocationally related activities as a method of stimulating better
attitudes toward general studies has been so meager, and no research
has been done which would produce any real answers about this question."
(Lelghbody 1972:13)

Some studies have been made of the comparative

dropout rates among high school students enrolled in vocational programs
and other types of programs directed toward disadvantaged youth.

"These

have been in the form of local, Informal studies, in scattered areas
of the country, and they show no significant differences in dropout
rates between the two groups."

(Lelghbody 1972:13)

"What is discouraging is the failure of any of the programs
yet tried to diminish the stream of unemployable disadvantaged youth
which continues to pour into the labor market."

(Lelghbody 1972:112)

According to Woods (1969:3), "Program designs must be founded
on more than fa feeling.'

Judgments must be based on knowledge and

awareness of students' problems and needs.

Programs based on some vague

generalities are unacceptable because they do not succeed."
Nichols (1970:21) in his overview of the vocational education
picture comments:
So many people, well-intentioned and otherwise, have
definite ideas on the approach that vocational education
for the disadvantaged should take, and all see in their
ideas the promise of success. But if 1 am asked what we
have learned in the past seven years, what we can demon­
strate in the way of success, I am afraid the answer will
have to be: We have learned little and we still have a
long way to go.

38

As his summarizing statement, Nichols (1970:23) suggests that
the problems of the disadvantaged can be solved in the United States:
A nation that in one decade can conceive and carry
out a program to send a man to the moon ought to be able,
in the same space of time to conceive and carry out a pro­
gram to solve the problems of its disadvantaged citizens.
Summary
With the passage of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 and
the Amendments of 1968, vocational educators have been challenged to
provide occupational and vocational preparation programs for persons
at all levels and abilities.
The National Council on Vocational Education on July 15, 1969,
issued a statement attributing the existence of many of the American
social problems to unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.

On

the grounds that more vocational education would reduce or eliminate
much of the unemployment and underemployment, they believed that it
would also reduce violence, distrust of society by the young, campus
and inner city revolt, and racial unrest.
Although there was evidence to show that cooperative education
and work study, in general, have been a part of the high school
curriculum for many years, there was an amazing deficit of research
studies on the outcomes of occupational training programs for high
school students.
Robertson (1965) found that cooperative education did not appear
to have any effects on job satisfaction, performance, supervisory
responsibility, salary earned, stability and aspirations, size or
types of firms for which employees worked, methods by which employees

39

found employment, reasons why employees changed jobs, and plans to
remain In present line of work.

He also found that the work phase of

cooperative education was not considered by the group to be primarily
a learning experience.
Munlsteri (1971) conducted a study designed to evaluate the
holding power of a cooperative education or work study program.
found during a two-year period that:

He

(1) there were approximately

fifty percent more students in the cooperative program than In the regular
vocational program who did not drop out; (2) the cooperative students
were motivated to attend school and work more often, had a better
record of punctuality and a lower record of class cuts; and (3) six
times as many cooperative students as those in the regular program
advanced enough grades to graduate.
In spite of the fact that billions of dollars are being spent
on vocational and occupational training programs, the effectiveness of
such programs is virtually unknown.

Studies that have been conducted

have been done on such a small scale that findings have not been of
significant value to educators who are interested in implementing or
perfecting programs for disadvantaged youth.

Most of the evidence

that is available, however, shows the Federally funded work-study and
cooperative programs have had only marginal success.

Chapter III

RESEARCH PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY
Before the actual gathering of data began, much preliminary
work was needed and accomplished.

A list (Appendix D) of school districts

receiving monies under Part 6 of the Vocational Education Amendments of
1968 for the 1972-73 school year, the amounts received, and the contact
person in each district was provided by the State Department of Education.
Letters (Appendix A) were sent to the thirty-eight contact persons desig­
nated by the State Department of Education requesting the names and
addresses of all Part G Coordinators in their districts.

The population

was identified from the one hundred percent total response to the letter.
A second letter and approval form (Appendix B) were sent to the super­
intendents of the thirty-eight districts soliciting their cooperation by
giving permission to have the questionnaires disseminated among the
coordinators in their districts.

The superintendents were also asked

permission to interview teachers and students connected with the
cooperative programs for the disadvantaged.
The remaining portion of this chapter describes the procedures
used in the study, presented in six sections:

(1) Identification of

the Population, (2) Instrumentation, (3) The Questionnaire, (4) Procedure
for Treatment of Data, (5) Analysis of the Data, and (6) Hypotheses to
be Tested.
Identification of the Population
The population for this study consisted of the coordinator of
forty-five cooperative programs for the disadvantaged in thirty-six
40

41

districts whose superintendents gave approval (Appendix

b)

to disseminate

questionnaires and to interview teachers in their districts.

Two of

the districts failed to give consent.
A letter (Appendix F) accompanied with a questionnaire (Appendix F)
was sent to each of the Fart 6 coordinators.

A follow-up letter (Appendix C)

plus several long distance telephone calls yielded a 100 -percent return
on the questionnaires.
These forty-five coordinators were treated statistically as a
sample of a recurring population.

This is in accordance with the

Cornfield-Tukey Bridge Argument which suggest that to the extent to which
it can be argued that the group studied is representative of a population,
it is typical of or similar to coordinators in the past and a year or
two in the future.
In addition, a stratified random sample of fifteen coordinators
were selected for interview.

Coordinators were divided into three

strata based on type of students served (urban, rural, and suburban).
The location of the school was considered of lesser importance because
of the large number of students that are bused in the State.
tor was assigned a number and placed in a stratum.
from each stratum were drawn from a hat.

Each coordina­

Five coordinators

In two cases, the persons

drawn for interview were not available, and alternates were chosen.
The purpose of the interviews was to solicit more detailed infor­
mation than the questionnaires could give.

Thirty-five students who

were enrolled in Part G Programs during the 1972-73 school year were
interviewed.

Twelve businessmen were interviewed.

When possible the

employers of the students interviewed were also interviewed.

Instrumentation
The development of the questionnaire (Appendix F) was designed
to enlist the following data:

Cl) demographic, (2) factual data con­

cerning Part G Programs In Michigan, and (3) attitudes and perceptions
of Part G Coordinators.
The first step consisted of the development of some major areas
of exploration which were subjected to change several times resulting
from Input from the committee members and other consultants.

When the

first rough form of the questionnaire was developed, fifteen coordinators
were asked to examine it carefully and to make suggestions and comments
where they felt changes were needed.

Two additional mailings were sent

to the same coordinators asking for additional comments when major
changes were made on the questionnaire.

Comments and recommendations

from coordinators, plus consultation with a Jury Panel (See Appendix B
for names of Jury personnel) confirmed the adequacy of the instrument.
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire (Appendix F) contained items designed to elicit
specific information about the coordinator, the students, and the school.
It also included items designed to encourage the coordinator to express
personal beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions.
The first section of the questionnaire entitled, ''General
Information (Coordinator)" focused on demographic data which provided
part of the necessary frame of reference from which data from subsequent
sections of the questionnaire were tested.

Four of the independent

variables— age, years of teaching experience, specialized training, and
type of certificate— were chosen from this section.

43
The second section entitled, "General Information (Students and
School)" was designed to get Breakdowns of various Information concerning
the students and the school.

These data, too, provided a factual frame

of reference from which data from subsequent
naire were tested.

sections of the question­

One Independent variable— type of student served—

was chosen from this section.
The third section of the questionnaire, pages 3—5, was not
labeled.

This section was designed to elicit specific information about

the programs.

Prior to constructing the questionnaire, observations

and careful study of five Part G Programs that served as models were
made.

Characteristics of the programs studied, plus information

gathered through interviews and review of the literature, served as
the basis for expectations and characteristics of Part G Programs.
Items 1— 30 of the third section were positively stated.
The coordinators were instructed to check a "yes" if the item described
was actually being done in their programs.

A "no" response indicated

that the item described was not being done in their programs.

A "not

appropriate" response was actually a "no" response, but with a deeper
feeling, i.e. the item stated did not exist in his/her particular program,
plus the respondent felt that the item described was unnecessary.
Examples of such items that could be expected as necessary
characteristics of a Part G Program and some that were listed in the
third section were:
1.

A written statement setting forth the philosophy and
objectives of the cooperative program for the disad­
vantaged has been developed.

2.

The coordinator visits each training station.

44
3.

Remedial instruction is provided based on individual
student's needs.

4.

Employers are informed of the purposes of the program
and the training station.

5.

Employers are encouraged to think of the program as a
"training experience" for the student and not a source
of inexpensive labor.

The thirty items were grouped into seven categories or variables—
aims and objectives of Part G Programs, choice of training stations
(employment) for disadvantaged youth, policies concerning related
instruction, information concerning the local advisory committees,
community and school understanding, information concerning training
stations and employers, and follow-up activities.
Dependent Variable 1, "Aims and Objectives," required responses
to statements concerned with written statements setting forth the
philosophy and objectives of the cooperative program for the disadvan­
taged students in Part G Programs (Item 1), placement of disadvantaged
students in regularly reimbursed office and distributive education pro­
grams (Item 2), and provisions made for students without career goals
(Item 28) .
Dependent Variable 2,*"Choice of Training Stations," solicited
responses to statements concerned with the selection of training stations
for disadvantaged youth based on students' career goals (Item 3),
opportunities for varied learnings (Items 4 & 7), possibilities for job
change when varied learnings are not possible on present job (Item 5),
coordinators' visitations to training stations (Item 6), participation of
students in the selection of training stations (Item 8).
Dependent Variable 3, "Related Instruction," solicited responses
to statements concerned with related instruction provided for each student

45

based on his/her career goals and Individual needs (Items 9 & 10), the
adequacy of the student-teacher ratio for individualized instruction
(Item 12), and the participation of students in the evaluation of related
instruction (Item 11).
Dependent Variable 4, "Advisory Committee," solicited responses
to statements concerned with the appointment of a local advisory committee
(Item 13), the assistance the advisory committee gives to the coordinator
(Item 14), and the scheduled meetings of the advisory committee (Item 15).
Dependent Variable 5, "Community and School Understanding,"
solicited responses to statements concerned with coordinator's presenta­
tion of objectives and philosophy to the members of the non-vocational
faculty (Item 16), publicity of the program within and outside the
school (Items 17, 18, 19), work stations volunteered by businessmen
(Item 20), school administrator occasionally accompanies coordinator
(Item 21), speeches that are made to civic groups by the coordinator
(Item 22), and the number of released hours available to coordinator
to observe (Item 29).
Dependent Variable 6, "Training Stations and Employers," solicited
responses to statements concerned with information given to employers
prior to their hiring a Part G student (Items 23 & 25), the evaluations of
student

progress by employers and coordinators (Item 24), and the written

analysis of the trainee's job with listed outcomes by both coordinator
and employer (Item 26).
Dependent Variable 7, "Follow-up Activities,". solicited responses
to statements concerned with detailed records that are kept on each
student when he/she leaves the classroom to take a job (Item 27) and
when he/she leaves school (Item 30).

46

The score for each respondent was analyzed based on the number of
"yes" responses in each dependent variable.

A "1" was assigned to the

"yes" response, a "2" to the "no" response, and a "3" to "not appro­
priate."

For the respondent who answered item "1" yes, item "2" no,

and item "28" not appropriate, the score on Aims and Objectives was 1,
because only yes answers were counted.

This score represented what was

acually being done in the program in the particular area of Aims and
Objectives.

The "not appropriate" responses were not analyzed, as

originally proposed because the percentage was exceptionally low.
In the last section, pages 6-7, twenty items were designed to
sample the perceptions and attitudes of the coordinators.

Each state­

ment contained five possible responses ranging from "strongly agree" to
"strongly disagree."

Each response was scored by assigning it a number

with the lower number reflecting a more positive attitude toward the
item.

For example, for a positively worded statement a response of

"strongly agree" was assigned a weight of 1, "agree" a weight of 2,
"uncertain" a weight of 3, "disagree" a weight of 4, and "strongly
disagree" a weight of 5.

The negatively worded statements were reversed

with a "strongly agree" a weight of 5 and a "strongly disagree" weight of 1.
Examples of such items that tested the perceptions and attitudes
of the coordinators were:
1.

The cooperative program for the disadvantaged is seen
as being "good" because it rids the regular classroom
of its academic "problem children."

2.

Academically disadvantaged students cannot be taught
successfully in the regular cooperative programs.

3.

The cooperative program for the disadvantaged encour­
ages potential dropouts to remain in school.

47

4.

The cooperative program Is expected to have a positive
Impact on the work attitudes of the disadvantaged
students.

5.

Most of the disadvantaged students enrolled In the
cooperative program see it as one of value for them.

Six of the questions were grouped into four dependent variables
or categories— Coordinator's Attitude Toward the Disadvantaged Students
in Part G Program, Coordinator's Perception of Disadvantaged Students’
Attitude Toward the Part G Program, Coordinator's Perception of School
Administration and Community Attitude Toward Program.
Dependent Variable 8, "Perception of Program," solicited responses
to statements which revealed feelings, perceptions and attitudes concerned
with the benefits of the Part G Program (Item 31), the effects the program
has on potential dropouts (Item 36), the differences between Part G and
regular cooperative programs (Item 38), the impact that the program has on
the work attitudes of the students (Item 37), and the necessity of con­
tinuing Part G and similar programs as part of the training for disadvan­
taged youth (Item 50).
Dependent Variable 9, "Attitudes Toward Disadvantaged Students
in the Program," solicited responses to statements which revealed
feelings, perceptions and attitudes concerned with jobs considered
appropriate for disadvantaged students (Item 32), disadvantaged students'
ability to succeed in regular cooperative programs (Item 34), and
academically disadvantaged students' ability to develop specific job
skills (Item 42).
Dependent Variable 10, "Perception of Students' Attitude Toward
Program," solicited responses to statements which revealed feelings,
perceptions, and attitudes concerned with students' attitudes toward
released time from school and making money versus developing job skills

48

(Item 33), the power of the Part 6 Programs to decrease some of the
problems that disadvantaged students have at the beginning of the
school year (Item 40), the feelings of Part 6 students who would
rather not be labeled "disadvantaged," (Item 45) and the feelings of
program value to them that the students display (Items 39 & 49).
Dependent Variable 11, "Perception of School Administration and
Community Attitude Toward Program," solicited responses to statements
which revealed feelings, perceptions and attitudes concerned with
employers' attitudes toward hiring disadvantaged students (Item 43),
the image that the program seems to have in the community (Item 44),
the reaction of most of the parents from the disadvantaged community to
the program (Item 47).
Items 35, 41, 46, and 48 were analyzed separately.
Dependent Variable 12, "Disadvantaged students who have not
developed job skills in prior courses cannot be expected to fare well on
a job that requires specialized skills."

(Item 35)

Dependent Variable 13, "White disadvantaged students perform
better than disadvantaged students of other ethnic backgrounds in the
cooperative program."

(Item 41)

Dependent Variable 14, "Teacher-coordinators for regular voca­
tional programs tend to be antagonistic toward the installation of
programs for the disadvantaged."

(Item 46)

Dependent Variable 15, "My program receives full support from
the administrators of my school."

(Item 48)

Scores were summed for each individual according to the above
groupings.

49

Procedure for Treatment of Data
A code number was assigned to each possible response, and
a code sheet was developed which contained the coded respones to
the 99 items on the questionnaire.

From the coded sheet, cards

were punched and programs were written for analysis on the CDC
6500 Computer at the Michigan State University Computer Center.
The Jeremy D, Finn's Mulivarlate, Univariate and Multivariate
Analysis of Variance and Covariance FORTAN IV Program was used.
Analysis of Data
A one-way univariate analysis of variance was used to determine
if there are reported differences in programs based on the independent
variables— age of coordinator, specialized training of coordinator,
type of certificate held by the coordinator, and types of students
served.
Since exact information about the number of years teaching
experience was available, the regression analysis was used to determine
if number of years teaching experience affected reported program
activities and expressed attitudes.

This analysis procedure was

chosen in order not to lose information by forming broader classifica­
tions .
A significant F-test on any analysis was followd by the Scheffe
post hoc procedures.

The Scheffe is a test which determines which means

differ and pinpoints the location of the differences.
were tested at the .05 level of significance.

All hypotheses

50
Because of the qualitative nature of the data secured in the
interviews, statistical analyses were Inappropriate.

Therefore, the

data secured in the interviews were analyzed and presented in descriptive
terms.
Hypotheses to be Tested
The following hypotheses were generated and tested to determine
the degree of differences, using as dependent variables, expressed
facts, attitudes, and perceptions of the coordinators:
1.

There are no differences between cooperative programs
for the disadvantaged when the programs are compared
on the basis of:
a. age of the coordinator
b. number of years teaching experience of the coordinator
c. specialized training of the coordinator
d. type of certificate held by coordinator
e. types of students served (urban, rural, suburban)

2.

There are no differences in the expressed attitudes and
perceptions of coordinators of the cooperative program
for the disadvantaged when compared on the basis of:
a. age of the coordinator
b. number of years teaching experience of the coordinator
c. specialized training of the coordinator
d. type of certificate held by coordinator
e. types of students served (urban, rural, suburban)

In addition, it was felt that certain major questions should not
be subjected to statistical testing.

These questions formed the basis

for the interviews and are reported in descriptive terms.

Chapter IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
The presentation and analysis of the data are contained in
this chapter.

The following areas are discussed:

1.

Basic Characteristics of Coordinators

2.

Basic Characteristics of Schools and Programs

3.

Summary of Results

of the Tests on the Stated Hypotheses

The data are presented

in the form of discussion and tables.

This chapter contains two sections.

Section one presents cate­

gorized factual data in the form of tables which provide a basic
description of the population and programs.
tests of the hypotheses stated
secured

in

Section two summarizes

Chapter Iof the study.

The

data

in interviews were not subjected to statistical analysis and

will be discussed in Chapter V.
Section I
BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COORDINATORS AND PROGRAMS
Characteristics of Coordinators
The population response indicated that 34 coordinators or 75.6
percent were male.

Eleven or 24.4 percent were female.

Coordinators

under 25 represent the smallest percentage (8.9) of the population.
The largest percentage of the reported ages of coordinators was found
in the 26-35 age range, with coordinators over 45 years old slightly
behind (33.3).

White males over 45 represented the largest number of
51

52

coordinators (12).

The median age of the population was 37 years.

Table 1 shows the distribution of the coordinators by age, sex and
ethnicity.
The distribution of coordinators by sex, ethnicity, and type
of students served, i.e. the geographical location from which most
of the students came is presented in Table 2.

The table shows that

46.7 percent of the coordinators serve students mostly from urban areas;
33.3 percent of the coordinators serve students mostly from suburban
areas; and 20.0 percent of the coordinators serve students mostly from
rural areas.
The years of teaching experience of the coordinators ranged from
1 to 24.

Table 3 shows the distribution of the years of teaching

experience.

Table 4 shows the distribution of the years of teaching a

related class, which ranged from 0 to 10, and the distribution of the
number of years coordinating cooperative programs for the disadvantaged
is shown in Table 5.

As can be seen in Table 5, three respondents

reported seven and ten years of coordinating cooperative programs for
the disadvantaged.

This can be explained by the fact that several

districts sponsored similar programs prior to the passing of the 1968
Vocational Education Amendments.
Twenty-nine respondents or 64 percent of the population indicated
that they had had some experience or training for working with the
disadvantaged prior to becoming the coordinator of a Part G Program.
Sixteen respondents
experience.

or 36 percent reported they had no training or

Twenty-seven or 59,99 percent of the coordinators reported

no special college training for teaching disadvantaged students.

Table

6 shows the distribution of the number of college credits coordinators

53

had that were directed toward teaching disadvantaged youth.

Twenty of

the respondents or 44 percent Indicated that they had attended workshops
ranging from 1 to 35 days.

Fourteen or 31 percent Indicated that they

had attended in-service training ranging from 1 to 20 weeks.

Four or

9 percent reported that they had attended summer Institutes for 4 to 6
weeks.
Eleven or 24 percent of the population reported that they were
holders of temporary vocational teaching certificates.

Twenty-two or

49 percent reported that they held provisional certificates, and eleven
or 24 percent reported that they were permanently certified.

One or

2 percent did not report the type of certificate held.
In order to be vocationally certified, (Appendix G) a coordi­
nator should have a minimum of two years of experience in the occupational
area concerned or should have completed a planned program of directed,
supervised occupational experience approved by the State Board.

Although

all of the coordinators indicated that they were vocationally certified,
35.6 percent of the coordinators indicated that they had no years of
occupational experience other than teaching, this

suggests that 35.6

of the Part G Coordinators have not fulfilled all of the requirements
for vocational certification.

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF COORDINATORS OF PART G COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED
BY AGE, SEX ETHNICITY, MICHIGAN 1972-73

Age of
Male (34)
Female (11)
Total
Percent
Coordinator______ Black (4) White (30)_______Black (4) White (7)________________________
Under 25

—

1

2

1

4

(8.9)

2

3

16

(35.5)

1

10

(22.2)

8

15

(33.3)

26-35

2

9

36-45

1

8

Over 45

1

12

—

TABLE 2

DISTRIBUTION OF COORDINATORS OF PART G COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED BY
SEX, ETHNICITY, TYPE OF STUDENT SERVED, MICHIGAN, 1972-73

TYPE OF STUDENTS SERVED

CHARACTERISTICS
URBAN

RURAL

SUBURBAN

TOTALS

PERCENT

MALE
Black
White

2
12

0
6

2
12

4
30

MALE TOTAL

14

b

14

34

FEMALE
Black
White

3
4

1
2

0
1

4
7

FEMALE TOTAL

7

3

1

11

24.4

TOTAL BLACK

5

1

2

8

17.8

TOTAL WHITE

16

8

13

37

82.2

21

9

15

45

(46.7)

(20.0)

(33.3)

(100.0)

TOTAL
PERCENT

75.6

56

TABLE 3

DISTRIBUTION OF COORDINATORS OF PART G COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE
DISADVANTAGED YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE, MICHIGAN, 1972-73

Years of Experience
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
22
24
Total

Frequency

Percent of Total

4
5
4
6
2
6
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
2
1

8.89
11.10
8.89
13.33
4.45
13.33
4.45
2.22
2.22
2.22
2.22
4.45
2.22
4.45
8.89
4.45
2.22

45

100.00

57

TABLE 4

DISTRIBUTION OF COORDINATORS OF PART G COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE
DISADVANTAGED YEARS OF TEACHING A RELATED CLASS, MICHIGAN,1972-73

Years Teaching
Related Class

Frequency

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10

20
8
3
3
4
2
1
1
3

44.44
17.78
6.67
6.67
8.89
4.44
2.22
2.22
6.67

45

100.00

Total

Percent of Total

TABLE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF PART G COORDINATORS YEARS OF COORDINATING A COOPERATIVE
PROGRAM FOR THE DISADVANTAGED, MICHIGAN, 1972-73

Number of Years
1
2
3
4
5
7
10
Total

Frequency

Percent of Total

17
9
10
4
2
2
1

37.79
20.00
22.22
8.89
4.44
4.44
2.22

45

100.00

58

TABLE 6

DISTRIBUTION OF COORDINATORS OF PART G COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS
FOR THE DISADVANTAGED COLLEGE CREDITS DIRECTED
TOWARD TEACHING DISADVANTAGED YOUTH

College Credits
0
3
4
5
6
8
12
16
27
30
31
36
Total

Frequency

Percent of Total

27
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
1
1

59.99
4.45
6.67
2.22
2.22
2.22
4.45
4.45
2.22
6.67
2.22
2.22

45

100.00

59

Characteristics of Schools And Pm^rama
Respondents indicated that the number enrolled in the schools
ranged from 40 to 8,500.

The location of school districts participating

in this study are shown in Figure 1.

Table 7 shows the distribution of

the total enrollment of schools participating in Part G Programs.

An

unusually low figure of 40 was reported as the total enrollment for the
school and twelve as the number of students enrolled in the Part G
Program.

Further investigation revealed that the figure reported was

that of a correctionatlonal institution for boys.

Table 7 shows the

largest percentage of Part G Programs (48.8) was found in schools with
enrollments of 1001 to 2000.
The coordinators reported that the number enrolled in regular
vocational programs funded by the State Department of Education ranged
from 0 to 500.
400.

The number enrolled in Part G Programs ranged from 12 to

Six figures that were reported were unusually high.

100, 106, 130, 150, 295, and 400.
ject to question.

They were

The figure 400 in particular was sub­

There was only one school that reported four coordi­

nators; the other schools reported fewer.

Because of the anonymity of

the questionnaires, they could not be associated with any school or
coordinator; therefore, it was impossible to trace the source of the
information without sending additional questionnaires.

A telephone call

to the vocational director of the school that reported four coordinators
verified the fact that they did not have 400 students enrolled in Part G
Programs.
The percentage of students enrolled in cooperative programs for
the disadvantaged by sex, ethnicity, and geographical location is pre­
sented in Table 8.

The table shows that 68.9 percent of the students

IP-

60

FIGURE 1
PART <3 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS
MICHIGAN, 1972-73

*

''ONTONAGON
soces/c~]

MMfiP
wee

juette

u /ROM

V
[CHIPPEWA
^SCHOOLCRAFT’
(SSor/MAC "I
r delta'

IAlger

1
75b
WCEMSON,
I

____

____

I

.

L.T I

«<b

\MENOMT-

/emmetxcneb

I

_

\p r e s o u e is ll

I

' vh ar u vo uT ]

~ [______ firs e a a
_

'if f iA A

w/TT^^i
o Location of School
Districts with Part G
Programs, 1972-73

* School DistricLs not
reported in this study

J m o n tm o r- ]alpena'

ANTRIM V

!

i

!

CNCY ;

'
v
5SC66a "j--4LCONA
I

\kA~L

AN/s'rFc.wexroko^M/ssAuttilmscoM-’’
^ogemaw | iosco'
I
i **i
!
, .
j._. .j.____ ]_
^masonT
Tosceola \~clare \gladwinTarenac

j
I
M
j_____ I____ I __ _ISAY'
JoCEANA^NEWArCO \
MEECOSTA
[ISABELL
A'
MI
DLLA
AM?,
n
\M
COSTA I
LA
Ut
/O
Hp, ,

i
!
i- M- ONTCALM
- - 1_.
«»WV*T I

- _ l

O

RENT

o

j

^

V C R A T /o f

1

,---i1
--- ( - i LrA P t tL
ft\G E N E SE E I
I______ I
\SHIAW AS- \
a
'
ST CLAIR

;

.

i- - - -

|

5/r|

* °

o ;

,

_

o

I__

| ____ j______ ___|________J ____f ~OAKLAND ^MACOMB'
A t LEG AN

o

\ ' b ARRY

I

> EATON

I
1

L . ^ . J ____
van

•{SAGINAW

i

I

-H

'

HURON
o°
'TUSCOLA \"SAN/LAC

BUREN \KALAMAX kJ ~ CALHOUN

!INGHAM

Oo

'{LIVINGSTON',

I

,f_i
r "JACKSON

*

I O

I
O O
1
1 o o
L._00_.

\w A S H T E N A w

! WAYNEq

I
i
~
o ,\ o o .; \'o
o
o ■i
;
i «
w ■
I
i_____ L_____ j_____r.J____,__ [_____
L _9
o . CASS <STJOSEPH, BRANCH',HILLSOAlT.LENAWEE T MOHROE '
/BERRIEN]
O

&

'

TABLE 7

DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT OF SCHOOLS PARTICIPATING IN PART G COOPERATIVE
EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED, MICHIGAN, 1972-73

SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Below 500
501-1000
1001-2000
2001-3000
3001-4000
5001-6000
8001-9000
TOTAL

Not Reporting 2

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS
IN GROUP

PERCENT OF TOTAL

5
5
21
5
3
2
2

11.6
11.6
48.8
11.6
7.0
4.7
4.7

43

100.0

TABLE 8

PERCENT OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED BY SEX,
ETHNICITY, AND GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION IN MICHIGAN, 1972-73

Female
Male
Total

Black
White
Spanish
Oriental
American Indian
Total

URBAN

RURAL

SUBURBAN

48.2
51.8

32.9
67.1

40.7
59.3

100.0

100.0

100.0

68.9
26.9
3.3
0.2
0.7

14.0
81.1
3.1

16.8
82.1
0.6

100.0

—

—

1.8

0.5

100.0

100.0

63
enrolled in Part G Programs in urban areas were black.

In rural and

suburban areas 81.1 and 82.1 percent respectively of the students
enrolled in Part G Programs were white.
Ninety-three physically handicapped students were enrolled in
Part G Programs.

Thirty-six or 80.1 percent of the coordinators reported

that they had no physically handicapped students.

Table 9 shows the

distribution of the number of physically handicapped students enrolled
in Part G Programs.

One-hundred percent of the coordinators reported

one-half or more of their students were both academically as well as
economically handicapped.
In reporting the ages, of the students, 43 respondents indicated
that they had no 14 year olds; 24 indicated that they had no 15 year
olds; 6 indicated that they had no 16 year olds; 8 indicated that they
had no 17 year olds, and 13 indicated that they had no 18 year olds or
older enrolled in the Cooperative Program for the Disadvantaged.

TABLE 9
DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
STUDENTS IN PART G PROGRAMS, MICHIGAN, 1972-73

No. Handicapped

Frequency

0
1
2

36
2
3

Percent of Total
80.01
4.44
6.67

10

1

2.22

15
30

1
2

2.22
4.44

Total

45

100.00

64

Section•IX
SUMMARY OF THE STATED HYPOTHESES
The first five null hypotheses were tested on the following
seven dependent variables:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Aims and Objectives
Choice of Training Stations
Related Instruction
Advisory Committee
Community and School Understanding
Training Stations and Employers
Follow-up Activities

The following null hypotheses were tested:
Ho^

There are no differences between cooperative programs
for the disadvantaged when the programs are compared
on the basis of age of the coordinator.

The summary of the results of the seven univariate analysis of
variance tests is found in Table 10.

Significant distinctions were

observed on "Choice of Training Stations," "Advisory Committee," and
"Community and School Understanding" dependent measures.
A Scheffe post hoc analysis was run for those tests which were
found significant.

The results of all the post hoc tests can be found

in tjie following chpater with a discussion.
Ho 2 '

There are no significant differences between
cooperative programs for the disadvantaged when
the programs are compared on the basis of number
of years teaching experience.

The summary of the results of the seven univariate analysis of
variance tests is found in Table 11.

Significant distinctions on

"Related Instruction" and "Advisory Committee" dependent variables
were observed.

65

TABLE 10

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE ON DEPENDENT MEASURES
AND AGE OF COORDINATOR
DF = 3 and 37 for each test
Dependent
Variables
Aims and
Objectives
Choice of
Training Station
Related
Instruction
Advisory
Committee
Community and School
Understanding
Training Stations
and Employers
Follow-up Activities

Between
Mean Sa.

Error
Mean Sa.

Univariate F

P Value1

.078

.464

.168

.9176

5.314

1.755

3.028

.0402*

.946

.755

1.254

.3029

3.636

1.266

2.873

.0478*

18.377

2.117

8.682

.0002*

1.118

.674

1.659

.0657

.810

.312

2.592

.0657

Assuming that the null hypothesis is true, the P Value is the probability
of getting an F ratio as big or bigger than the F ratio achieved for the
given sample.
Therefore if the P Value is less than the chosen Alpha,
(for these tests Alpha is .05) we reject the null hypothesis.
*P <.05

66

TABLE 11

UNIVARIATE REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON DEPENDENT MEASURES AND
YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE OF THE COORDINATOR
DF ■ 1 and 43 for each test
Dependent
Variables
Aims and
Objectives
Choice of
Training Station
Related
Instruction
Advisory
Committee
Community and School
Understanding
Training Stations
and Employers
Follow-up Activities

$

r

.153

.0607

.159

.6922

.316

.2437

2.716

.1067

.200

.1498

.987

.3262

.260

.3241

5.048

.0299*

.376

.4153

8.960

.0046*

.187

.2529

2.939

.0937

.134

.1615

1.151

.2893

*P < .05
& = Slope of regression line of the sample

F Ratio

P Value

67

Ho^:

There are no differences between cooperative
programs for the disadvantaged when the pro­
grams are compared on the basis of specialized
training of the coordinator.

The null hypothesis was accepted on the basis of the lack of
significant evidence to suggest that there are differences.

Table 12

shows that there are no significant differences on the seven dependent
variables when compared to specialized training of the coordinator.
Ho^:

There are no differences in cooperative programs
for the disadvantaged when the programs are com­
pared on the basis of type of certificate held by
the coordinator.

The summary of the results of the seven univariate analysis of
variance tests is found in Table 13.

Significant distinctions were

observed on "Related Instruction" and "Advisory Committee" dependent
measures.
TABLE 12
UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON DEPENDENT MEASURES
AND SPECIALIZED TRAINING OF THE COORDINATOR
DF = 1 and 43 for each test
Dependent
Variables
Aims and
Objectives
Choice of
Training Stations
Related
Instruction
Advisory
Committee
Community and School
Understanding
Training Stations
and Employers
Follow-up Activities
P < .05

Between
Mean Sa.

Error
Mean Sa.

Univariate F

P Value

.066

.446

.147

.7034

1.954

1.999

.978

.3284

.579

.772

.751

.3911

.016

1.460

.011

.9184

.161

3.297

.049

.8261

.298

.713

.419

.5210

.322

.347

.928

.3408

68

TABLE 13

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON DEPENDENT MEASURES
AND TYPE OF CERTIFICATE HELD BY COORDINATOR
DF * 2 and 41 for each test
Dependent
Variables
Aims and
Objectives
Choice of
Training Station
Related
Instruction
Advisory
Committee
Community and School
Understanding
Training Stations
and Employers
Follow-up Activities
P < .05

Between
Mean Sa.

Error
Mean Sa.

.568

.436

1.304

.2825

.432

2.090

.207

.8142

1.943

.714

2.722

.0777

5.193

1.229

4.224

.0215*

13.901

2.687

5.176

.0100*

1.466

.068

2.157

.1287

.034

.364

.094

.9108

Univariate F

P Value

69

Ho,.: There are no differences in cooperative programs
for the disadvantaged when the programs are com­
pared on the basis of type of students served.
The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 14 shows no evidence

to suggest that there is any relationship between the reported activities
based on type of students served.
The last five null hypotheses were tested on the following
eight dependent variables:
8.

Perception of Program

9.

Attitude Toward Disadvantaged Students

10.

Perception of Students' Attitude Toward Program

11.

Perception of School Administration and Community
Attitude Toward Program

12.

Item 35— Disadvantaged students who have not developed
job skills in prior courses cannot be expected to fare
well on a job that requires specialized skills •

13.

Item 41— White disadvantaged students perform better than
disadvantaged students of other ethnic backgrounds in
the cooperative program*

14.

Item 46— Teacher-coordinators for regular vocational
programs tend to be antagonistic toward the installation
of programs for the disadvantaged.

15.

Item 48— My program receives full support from the adminis­
trators of my school.

Ho,:

There are no differences in the expressed attitudes
and perceptions of coordinators for the cooperative
program for the disadvantaged when compared on the
basis of age of the coordinator.

The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 15 shows no evidence

to suggest that there is any relationship between the age of the coordina­
tor and his/her expressed attitudes and perceptions toward the program.

70

TABLE 14

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON DEPENDENT MEASURES
AND TYPE OF STUDENTS SERVED
DF = 2 and 42 for each test
Dependent
Variables
Aims and
Obj ectives
Choice of
Training Station
Related
Instruction
Advisory
Committee
Community and School
Understanding
Training Stations
and Employers
Follow- up Activities
P < .05

Between
Mean Sa.

Error
Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Value

.184

.449

.410

.6665

5.378

1.833

2.927

.0646

.292

.790

.369

.6933

2.679

1.383

1.959

.1537

3.902

3.193

1.222

.3050

.203

.728

.279

.7579

.977

.316

3.909

.0560

71

TABLE 15

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON DEPENDENT MEASURES
AND AGE OF THE COORDINATOR

DF = 3 and 41 for each test
Dependent
Variables

Between
Mean Sa.

Error
Mean Sa.

Univariate F

P Value

Perception of
Program

2.457

5.021

.489

.6916

Attitude Toward
Disadvantaged
Students

7.325

5.444

1.345

.2730

Perception of Student's 4.611
Attitude Toward
Program

5.741

.803

.4994

Perception of School
Administration and
Community Attitude
Toward Program

4.340

2.951

1.471

.2367

.261

1.566

.167

.9183

Item 41-Perception of
1.744
White Students' Abil
ity to Fare on Job

.956

1.807

.1610

.168
Item 46-Perception of
Regular Coordinator' s
Attitude

1.849

.091

.9646

.599

.142

.9341

Item 35-Perception of
Students’ Ability to
Fare on Job

Item 48-Perception of
Administrative
Support
P < .05

.085

72

Ho^:

There are no differences in the expressed attitudes
and perceptions of the coordinator for the cooperative
program for the disadvantaged when compared on the
basis of number of years teaching experience.

The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 16 shows no evidence

to suggest that there is any relationship between the number of years
of experience and the coordinator's expressed attitudes and perceptions
toward the program.
Hogi There are no differences in the expressed attitudes
and perceptions of coordinators for the cooperative
program for the disadvantaged when compared on the
basis of specialized training of the coordinator.
The null hypothesis was accepted on the basis of lack of signifi­
cant evidence to suggest that there are differences in expressed attitudes
and perceptions based on the specialized training of the coordinator.
Table 17 shows all tested dependent variables to be above the .05 level
of signficance. However, Item 48, the fifteenth dependent variable was
approaching the level of significance (.0554).
Ho^: There are no differences in the expressed attitudes
and perceptions of coordinators for the cooperative
program for the disadvantaged when compared on the
basis of type of certificate held by the coordinator.
The null hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 18 shows no evidence

to suggest significant relationships between the expressed attitudes and
perceptions of the coordinators and the type of certificate they hold.
Ho^„:

There are no differences in expressed attitudes
and perceptions of the coordinators for the coopera­
tive program for the disadvantaged when compared on
the basis of types of students served.

The summary of the results of the eight univariate analysis of
variance tests is found in Table 19.

Significant distinctions on

"Attitude Toward Students" and "Perception of Student's Attitude"
dependent measures were observed.

73

TABLE 16

UNIVARIATE REGRESSION ANALYSIS ON DEPENDENT MEASURES AND YEARS
OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE OF THE COORDINATOR

DF ■ 1 and 43 for each test
Dependent
Variables

Sauare r

r

F

P Value

.003

.055

.129

.7212

.002

.050

.108

.7442

Perception of Student's .003
Attitude Toward
Program

.057

.142

.7085

Perception of School
Administration and
Community Attitude
Toward Program

.005

.073

.233

.6317

Item 35-Perception of
.006
Students' Ability to
Fare on Job

.081

.287

.5950

Item 41-Perception of
.012
White Students' Abil­
ity to Fare on Job

.113

.556

.4601

Item 46-Perception of
.031
Regular Coordinator's
Attitude

.177

1.397

.2438

Item 48-Perception of
Administrat ive
Support

.065

.182

.6718

Perception of
Program
Attitude Toward
Disadvantaged
Students

P < .05

.004

74

TABLE 17

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON DEPENDENT MEASURES
AND SPECIALIZED TRAINING OF THE COORDINATOR
DF = 1 and 43 for each test

Dependent
Variables

Between
Mean S a .

Error
Mean Sa .

Univariate F

P Value

.184

.955

.037

.8481

2.235

5.650

.395

.5328

Perception of
Student's Attitude
Toward Program

.125

5.792

.021

.8841

Perception of School
Administration and
Community Attitude
Toward Program

9.062

2.906

3.119

.0845

.489

1.500

.326

.5712

Item 41-Perception of
.656
White Student's Abil­
ity to Fare on Job

1,027

.639

.4287

Item 46-Perception of
5.184
Regular Coordinator's
Attitude

1.654

3.134

.0838

.529

3.879

.0554

Perception of
Program
Attitude Toward
Disadvantaged
Students

Item 35-Perception of
Students' Ability to
Fare on Job

Item 48-Perception of
Administrat ive
Support

P < .05

2.052

75

TABLE 18

UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON DEPENDENT MEASURES
AND TYPE OF CERTIFICATE HELD BY COORDINATOR

DF = 2 and 41 for each test

Dependent
Variables

Between
Mean S a .

Error
Mean Sa .

Univariate F

P Value

Perception of
Program

1.466

4.999

.293

.7474

Attitude Toward
Disadvantaged
Students

2.489

5.419

.459

.6350

Perception of
Student *s Attitude
Toward Program

.375

5.855

.064

.9381

Perception of School
Administration and
Community Attitude
Toward Program

.307

3.184

.096

.9084

2.921
Item 38-Perception of
Students' Ability to
Fare on Job

1.438

2.031

.1442

Item 41-Perception of
1.102
White Student Vs Abil­
ity to Fare on Job

1.030

1.070

.3524

Item 46-Perception of
1.296
Regular Coordinator's
Attitude

1.730

.749

.4795

.591

.173

.8471

Item 48-Perception of
Administrative
Support

P < .05

.102

76

TABLE 19
UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON DEPENDENT MEASURES AND TYPES
OF STUDENTS SERVED IN PART G PROGRAMS, MICHIGAN, 1972-73

DF *= 2 and 42 for each test

Dependent
Variables

Between
Mean Sa.

Error
Mean S a .

Univariate F

7.822

4.705

1.663

.2019

Attitude Toward
Disadvantaged
Students

18.679

4.949

3.775

.0311*

Perception of
Student's Attitude
Toward Program

20.813

4.942

4.211

.0216*

Perception of School
Administration and
Community Attitude
Toward Program

2.546

3.069

.829

.4433

Item 35-Perception of
1.225
Students' Ability to
Fare on Job

1.489

8.23

.4461

Item 41-Perception of
1.346
White Student's Abil­
ity to Fare on Job

1.003

1.343

.2722

.012
Item 46-Perception of
Regular Coordinator 's
Attitude

1.812

.056

.9456

.590

.022

.9790

Perception of
Program

Item 48-Perception of
Administrat ive
Support

P < .05

1.225

P Value

Chapter V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Int roduct ion
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the crucial elements
of the study.

The findings, recommendations, and implications based

upon the data obtained in the study will be presented.
SUMMARY

The Design
During the past decade, Federal legislation has focused attention
on vocational training as a means of eliminating unemployment among
disadvantaged youth. The U. S. Office of Education

endorsed the

cooperative method of instruction as a work-preparation device for
those students who, because of handicapping conditions, are considered
unable to succeed in the regularly reimbursed vocational programs.
study was designed to:

This

(1) describe activities that are performed in

Part G Cooperative Programs for the Disadvantaged in Michigan;

(2) identify

and describe distinct characteristics in programs as reported by coordina­
tors of the programs; (3) derive from such data some implications of pro­
gram value; and (A) derive from such data suggestions for further study
and bases for evaluation.
With the growing problem of youth unemployment, and the reported
marginal success of special programs for disadvantaged youth, it is
imperative that these programs be examined, evaluated, and improved.

77

78
Forty-five coordinators of Part G Programs from 36 school dis­
tricts in Michigan responded to a questionnaire which consisted mainly
of fact-finding data about themselves, their schools, and their programs.
Also included in the questionnaire were statements designed to sample
the perceptions and attitudes of the coordinators concerning students,
programs , and program acceptance.
The following hypotheses were tested to determine the relation­
ships between expressed facts about the programs and expressed attitudes
and perceptions of coordinators.
1.

There are no differences between cooperative programs
for the disadvantaged when the programs are compared
on the basis o f :
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

2.

age of the coordinator
number of years teaching experience of the coordinator
specialized training of the coordinator
type of certificate held by the coordinator
type of students served (urban, rural, suburban)

There are no differences in the expressed attitudes
and perceptions of coordinators of the cooperative
program for the disadvantaged when compared on the
basis of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

age of the coordinator
number of years teaching experience of the coordinator
specialized training of the coordinator
type of certificate held by the coordinator
type of students served (urban, rural, suburban)

Important questions were generated from the interviews that were
riot subjected to statistical tests but were analyzed and reported in
descriptive terms.

The following questions formed the basis for the

interviews:
1.

Do coordinators of the cooperative programs for the
disadvantaged report that disadvantaged students are
taught more effectively in special cooperative programs
than in regular vocational cooperative programs?

79
2.

Do coordinators of regular vocational cooperative
programs report that disadvantaged students are
taught more effectively in special cooperative pro­
grams than in regular vocational cooperative programs?

3.

Do Part G Coordinators report that students' career
goals are one of the first priorities considered in
job placement?

4.

How might one go about placing disadvantaged students
who have career goals versus those without career goals?

5.

Are there observed or reported differences in what
is actually being,done that conflict with State or
Federal guidelines or laws?

The study was based on several assumptions:
1.

That the instrument will yield the data that the
researcher is seeking.

2.

That all respondents will answer truthfully.

3.

That the combination of questionnaire and interview
methods of collecting data for this study will yield
clearer picture of both major and minor characteris­
tics that are found in the cooperative programs for
the disadvantaged.

4.

That certain implications may be inherent in implemen­
ting positive change in programs when and where needed.

5.

That this study is capable of inspiring further research
relating to the effectiveness of cooperative education
programs that serve the disadvantaged.

The following were considered limitations of the study:
1.

The results of this study will be generalizable to other
populations only to the extent that other populations
are similar in characteristics to the population used
in this study.

2.

The data accepted for analysis were limited to the
responses by the coordinators.

3. Businessmen and students interviewed were recommended
by the coordinators.
4.

In order for this study to be of maximum value, further
research of an evaluative nature must follow.

80

Analysis of data
A one-way univariate analysis of variance was used to determine
reported differences in programs based on four independent variables—
age of the coordinator, specialized training of the coordinator, type
of certificate held by the coordinator, and type of student served.
Since exact information about the number of years teaching
experience was available, the regression analysis was used to determine
if number of years teaching experience affected the reported program
activities and expressed attitudes.

V

A significant F-test on any analysis was followed by the Scheffe
post hoc procedures.

All hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of

significance.
The data secured in interviews were not subjected to statistical
analysis.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The following findings and discussions were based on the analysis
of the responses from the questionnaires and interviews.
1.

Thirty-four or 75.6 percent of the Part G Coordinators
were male. Four of the males were black.

A close examination of the responses revealed that there were
two black male coordinators in urban schools and two in suburban schools.
White males made up the greatest percentage of coordinators in all three
areas.

The representation of white male coordinators in the urban areas

was 57.1 percent, 75 percent in the rural areas, and 80 percent in the

suburban areas.

Forty percent of the white male coordinators were over

45 and had experience, other than teaching, ranging from 12 to 25 years.

81

2.

Eleven or 24.4 percent of the Part G Coordinators were
female. Four of the females were black.

The percentages of female and black coordinators were considered
too small to do adequate statistical analysis as designed by this study.
Re-examination of the questionnaires, however, revealed that three
females coordinated programs in rural areas; one coordinator was black.
During interviews with rural coordinators, they indicated that their
main problems were job placements for girls and transportation for all
students.

One coordinator reported that on many occasions, he had to

take students to their jobs.
The jobs that were available in rural areas, for the most part,
were farm—related.

While it is conceivable that a female can work well

in a rural area if she is part of a team of coordinators, it is doubt­
ful that a female coordinator is the better of the two sexes to work
with farmers and to provide the related instruction for the male students
who have farm-related jobs.

Although it is not unusual

to "farm out,"

i.e. have a teacher other than the coordinator teach the related class
or part of it in subjects outside of the coordinator's area of speciali­
zation, hiring a lone female in a rural area seems to present problems
that are avoidable.
Female coordinators tend to be younger than male coordinators
and have fewer years of experience other than teaching.
3.

Fifteen or 35.6 percent of the coordinators indicated
that they had no years of occupational experience other
than teaching.

The above finding indicates that at least 35.6 percent of the
coordinators of Part G Programs have not fulfilled all of the require­
ments for vocational certification.

In order to be vocationally certi­

fied (Appendix G ) , a coordinator should have a minimum of two years of

experience In the occupational area concerned or should havj completed
a planned program of directed, supervised occupational experience
approved by the State Board.
Three of the four black male coordinators had no years of
occupational experience other than teaching.

Two

of the black female

coordinators had no occupational experience other than teaching, and
two had had only part-time employment.
All of the white female coordinators Indicated that they had
four years or more experience

other than teachingexcept one; she had

only one year of experience. Of the eighteen white male coordinators
under 45, only three had no years of occupational experience other than
teaching.

Seven of the twelve white male coordinators over 45, had ten

or fewer years teaching experience.

This seems to suggest that white

males were occupationally involved in other careers before or during
their tenure as a teacher.
4.

Approximately 2,126 students were served by Part 6
Programs In Michigan, 1972-73.

In all three areas, the percentage of males that were served by
Part G Programs was higher than the percentage of females. In the urban
area the percentage of males was only slightly higher, whereas males
outnumbered females two to one in the rural areas.

The ratio of males

to females in the suburban areas was approximately three to two.
The fact that the percentage of females was considerably lower
in rural areas than in the other two areas reises several questions.
1.

Are there fewer disadvantaged female youth in rural areas?

2.

Are there fewer female students in rural schools?

r

83

3.

Is it possible that the needs of female students in
rural areas are overlooked or ignored by the Part G
coordinators?

4. Does the sex of the coordinator relate to the propor­
tion of male-female students selected for Part G
Programs?
5.

Are there fewer jobs for women in rural areas which
limit the enrollment of female students in Part G
Programs?

6. How do female students in rural areasfeel about
the limited opportunities for them in the coop^
erative education programs?
7.

What kinds of jobs are available for female students
in rural areas.

Answers to these and similar questions could possibly give some
indications as to why such small numbers of female students were
reported in rural areas.
The highest percentage of black students (68.9) was found in
the urban areas.

Eighty-one and 82.1 percent respectively were the

percentages of white students found in rural and suburban areas.
An extensive review of the literature revealed that the
majority of the disadvantaged come from minority groups.

Based on

the findings from this study, white students made up a slightly
larger percentage (51.6) of students being served by the Part G
Programs.

However, 82.2 percent of the coordinators were white and

17.8 percent were black.

Because the number of minority coordinators

was such a small percentage of the total population (17.8), a statis­
tical analysis based on ethnic background of the coordinators was not
run.

84
Although the percentages of Spanish, Oriental, and American
Indian students were low, the percentage of all three in urban areas
was higher than in the other two areas.

Two groups, black and white,

were represented in the population of coordinators.
5.

State and Federal guidelines suggest that classes for
the disadvantaged remain small.
Six coordinators
reported extremely large numbers of students enrolled
in Part G Programs. The numbers reported were: 100,
106, 130, 150, 295, and 400.

If the above figures are true, and if there are no more than
four coordinators in any one school (one school reported four Part G
coordinators), there seems to be a violation of the low student-teacher
ratio requirement.
the interviews.

Unfortunately no such program was observed during

It would have been interesting to find out why such

large numbers exist and how the coordinators go about handling large
numbers of disadvantaged students who presumably are to receive indi­
vidualized attention and instruction.

Forty of the coordinators

reported that there was an insufficient number of released hours to
visit students on the job and to recruit employees.
6.

Eight coordinators reported a range of 20-22 as the
maximum number of class periods students are released
from school for working purposes.

Although there are no stated requirements on maximum hours, a
fifteen-hour

work week is recommended (Appendix H) .

The reported

hours seem to be a slight overemphasis of the students’ recommended
work load.
While this was not found to be typical, observations and
interviews revealed that there were students over 16 who were holding
eight-hour a day jobs ssecured for them by coordinators.

One young man

who was interviewed at 9:00 a.m. informed the interviewer that he had just

85
completed a ten-hour shift at a local factory.

He said that he could

hardly wait for school to end because "the two are killing me."

When

he was asked what he would do in the event he had to let one go, he
said"it will have to be school."
the money

to pay for it.

He had just

bought a car and needed

He said that since it was so close to the

end of school, he was sure that he could make it.
not a graduating senior.

The young man was

It would, therefore, be interesting to do a

follow-up on him to see how he will deal with the situation in the fall.
Twenty-six of the coordinators reported that they have an organized
follow-up system of former disadvantaged students.
7.

Significant distinctions were found in Ho.. . There were
significant differences between the age or the coordinator
when compared to choice of training station, advisory
committee, the community and school understanding.

The three dependent variables came from the second section of the
questionnaire that pertains to activities that are actually expected to
be found in Part G Programs.

Choice of Training Stations dependent

measure was composed of Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the second section.

Some of the items were:
a.

With very few exceptions, students are placed on jobs
that are related to their career goals.

Thirty-four of the respondents answered "yes", and eleven answered
"no."

b.

Learning opportunities provided at the majority of
the work stations are varied in nature.

Forty-one of the respondents answered "yes", two answered "no" and two
answered "not appropriate."

c.

Students are permitted to change jobs when varied
learning is not possible on present jobs.

86
Thirty-seven of the coordinators answered "yes'1; six answered
"no" and two answered "not appropriate."
d.

The coordinator visits each training station.

Forty-four of the respondents answered "yes"; one answered
"not appropriate."
e.

Training stations are selected on the basis of the
variety of learning experiences provided to supplement
the classroom instruction.

Thirty of the respondents answered "yes"; seven answered "no"
and eight answered "not appropriate."

The eight "not appropriates"

was the highest "not appropriate" response from the questionnaire.
A closer examination of the data revealed that five white males, one
white female, and two black females answered "not appropriate."

One

respondent wrote this comment, "In Part G they are selected as to who
will hire them." It was Interesting and depressing to find that any
coordinator would find "variety of learning experiences" anything other
than crucial when selecting training sites for disadvantaged students.
Certainly if there are no varied experiences, learning is kept at a
minimum.
f.

The student participates in the selection of his
training station.

Thirty-five of the coordinators answered "yes"; eight answered
"no" and two answered "not appropriate."

One coordinator commented,

"The student has the right to accept or reject a job."
Items 13, 14 and 15 made up the Advisory Committee independent
measure.

They are:
a.

A general advisory committee has been appointed to
assist the school in the development of the whole
cooperative program for the disadvantaged.

87
Twenty-seven of the respondents answered "yes"; seventeen
answered "no" and one answered "not appropriate."

Inasmuch as an

advisory committee was one of the recommended funded services
(U.S.O.E. 1972b:8), it was surprising to find so large a number not
taking advantage of such services.

The coordinators were instructed

not to answer Items 14 and 15 if the answer to Item 13 was "no."

Three

sub-questions were asked of those who indicated that there was an
advisory committee.

The twenty-seven who reported that they had an

advisory committee said that local business representatives serve on
the committee.

Fourteen of the coordinators said that parents from

the "disadvantaged" community serve on the advisory committee, and
ten coordinators indicated that students who are considered "disadvan­
taged" serve on the advisory committee.

It is inconceivable that an

advisory committee that functions on behalf of disadvantaged youth can
work in their best Interest if members of the disadvantaged community
are not represented.

b.

The committee assists the coordinator in locating
suitable training stations for the program.

Twenty coordinators answered "yes"; six answered "no"; two
anwered "not appropriate", and seventeen did not respond.

One of the

major functions of the advisory committee is to aid the coordinator
ia selling the program to the business community;
and recommending job stations.

this includes locating

If the advisory committee fails in this

regard its existence is subject to question.
c.

The advisory committee has regularly scheduled

meetings.

88
Sixteen of the coordinators answered "yes"; nine answered "no” ;
three answered "not appropriate", and seventeen did not respond.

When

asked how often did the advisory committee meet, answers received were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Twice a year
Every two months
Monthly
Weekly
When the need occurs

Community and School Understanding dependent measure was com­
posed of Items 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 29.

The two following

items are examples of statements contained in the group:
a.

The objectives and philosophy of the program have
been presented to the members of the non-vocational
faculty.

Thirty-three of the respondents answered "yes"; nine answered
"no" and three answered "not appropriate."

During the interview it

was reported that the objectives and purposes of programs for disadvan­
taged students are often misunderstood and misinterpreted.

It is the

duty of the Part G Coordinator to explain the intentions of the program
to the faculty who may look at it as a "dumping ground."

Six of the

coordinators reported that they do not have a written statement setting
forth the philosophy and objectives.
b.

A planned program of publicity is carried on outside
the school.

Nineteen of the coordinators responded "yes"; twenty-six
responded "no."

One of the main complaints of the coordinators is poor

acceptance of the disadvantaged program by the community and other
teachers.

Yet over half of them admit that they do not publicize their

program outside the school.

This fact brings a few questions to mind.

When there is a commodity to sell, why not publicize it?

Is it that

89
coordinators are not convinced that thetr programs are salable; and
therefore, they are reluctant to puhlicize their products?

Certainly

the coordinator cannot convince others of the benefits of hiring
disadvantaged youngsters, if he/she is not convinced that such students
and programs deserve "priaseworthy" news publication through school
and community channels.

Thirty— two coordinators reported that they

attempt to sell their program to the community by speaking to civic
groups.
r

A Scheffe post hoc analysis was run to determine where the
differences were on the three dependent variables— "Choice of Training
Station," "Advisory Committee," and "Community and School Understanding."
Table 20 shows that when the two younger groups are compared to the two
older groups,

there is a significant difference in "Choice of Training

Station" dependent variable.

Table 21 shows the mean of the two older

groups to be significantly higher than that of the two younger groups.
Tins suggests that the two older groups have better choice of training
stations for the development of job skills of disadvantaged youth.
Although the F-test results indicated that there was a signifi­
cant difference (F =* .873, P ** .0478) in age of the coordinator and

"Advisory Committee," the differences were not revealed in the pairwise comparison,

i.e., when all groups were compared to each other the

significance did not show.

More complex comparisons and analysis can

forecast the differences, but were deemed unnecessary for this study
as it was designed.

Table 21 shows that the mean of the two older groups was higher
than that of the two younger groups.

Therefore, the two

older groups

tended to have better school and community understanding and advisory

90

TABLE 20
SCHEFFE POST HOC ANALYSIS
Age of the Coordinator and Choice of Training Station
Estimate of
Population

Contrast

Xi " Xj

yl -

M3

M2 -

^3

lf3

M4

U1 “

M2

M1 -

M4

lll +

W2 "

U3 +

y4

(95% Confidence
Interval)
lower
Upper
Level
Level

Significant

-2.1667

-4.7087,

.3754

No

-1.0556

-2.5786,

.4675

No

.2857

-1.3132,

1.8846

No

-1.1111

-3.5193,

1.2971

No

-1.8810

-4.3378,

.5759

No

-2.9365

-5.8271,

-.0459

N1 = 4, N2 = 16, N3 = 10, N4 = 15

Yes

TABLE 21

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DEPENDENT MEASURES AND AGE OF THE COORDINATOR

AIMS

CHOICE *

RELATED

ADVISORY *

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

2.67

.577 3.33

2.89

3.00

1.00

1.00

16

2.44

.784 4.44

1.42

3.28

.83

.89

36-45

10

2.60

.516 5.50

.71

3.60

.52 2.10

Over 45

15

2.50

.650 5.21

1.12

2.93

AGE

N

Mean

Under 25

46

26-35

SD

♦Significance Difference Observed at a = .05

1.07

1.64

SD

COMMUNITY *

TRAINING

FOLLOW

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

1.73 3.67

1.53

2.67

2.30

1.00

1.00

1.02

3.83

1.68

3.50

.78 1,33

.59^

.99 6.40

1.17

3.70

.67 1.80

.42;

5.64

1.27

3.79

.42 1.64

.49'

1.22

Mean

92

committee understanding regarding Part 6 Programs; but despite the
fact that a .05 level of significant differences was observed, the mean
scores revealed that all coordinators were rather favorably inclined.
8.

Significant distinctions were found in Ho^. There
were significant differences between the type of
certificate held by the coordinator and the "Community
and School Understanding" and "Advisory Committee"
dependent measures.

The items that made up both "Community and School Understanding"
and "Advisory Committee" dependent variables have been presented in
this chapter (pp. 88, 89, 90).

The Scheffe post hoc analysis revealed that

significant distinctions could not be detected in a pair-wise comparison.
Based on the design of this study, a more complex comparison would not
be of interest.

Table 22 shows that the mean of the temporary certifi­

cate holders was higher than that of the other two certificate holders
on both variables.

Therefore, the temporary certificate holders tended

to have higher perceptions of the "Community and School Understanding"
and "Advisory Committee."

In spite of the fact that a significant

difference was observed, the mean scores were relatively favorable on
all dependent variables for all three types of certificate holders.
9.

Significant distinctions were found in Ho_0 . There
were significant differences between the types of
students served and the expressed attitudes toward
students and perceptions of students' attitudes.

Items 32, 34, and 42 made up the dependent variable, "Attitude
Toward Disadvantaged Students in Program."

Coordinators were instructed

to choose one of five possible responses from "Strongly Agree" to
"Strongly Disagree."
a.

The items to which they responded were:

No Job is considered menial so long as the individual
is making an honest living.

TABLE 22

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DEPENDENT MEASURES AND TYPES OF STUDENTS SERVED
TYPE OF
CERTIFICATE N

CHOICE *

AIMS

RELATED

ADVISORY *

COMMUNITY *

TRAINING

FOLLOW

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

11

2.72

.47

4.91

1.51

3.55

.57

2.27

.77

6.36

1.97

3.91

.30

1.45

.52

Provisional 22

2.50

.67

4.68

1.43

3.27

.83

1.14

1.25

4.45

1.71

3.32

1.04

1.55

.67

Permanent

2.27

.79

5.00

1.41

2.73

1.10

1.18

1.08

4.73

1.56

3.73

.65

1.55

.52

Temporary

11

No response 1
*Significance difference observed at a = .05

94
Item 32 was negatively stated; therefore, a "Strongly Disagree"
was considered the most favorable response.

Six coordinators agreed

strongly, seven agreed, six were uncertain, twelve disagreed, and fourteen
disagreed strongly.

This finding indicates that more than half of the

coordinators realize that there is more to working than having a job.
The job can be honest in every sense of the word, but it if does not
provide the individual with a reasonable degree of economic security,
which also promotes personal dignity and basic comforts, it may be
worthless in the long run.

It can also be added here that in the case

of disadvantaged youngsters, 'f the job does not provide varied learnings,
increased knowledge, plus better attitudes toward the world of work,
the cause of helping disadvantaged youngsters get out of the pit of
deprivation may be a lost one.
An interview with a young lady, who was not recommended by the
coordinator, revealed that she had been in Part G-like programs for
three years.

Although she had changed jobs five times, she was never

more than a counter girl or a waitress.

For three years this young

iady had received credits toward graduation working at a job that was

not related to existing career opportunities susceptible to promotion
and advancement, as stated in the State Plan (Appendix I).

One could

hardly refrain from suspecting the motives of a coordinator who finds

it satisfying just to place a student on a job, any job, and forget that
he/she is there if there are no complaints.

This process Beemed

synonymous with retaining a student in the same grade for a number of
years,

in this case three years, and allowing him/her to graduate simply

because he/she put in the specified time.

It did

not seem to take into

account varied learning opportunities provided for the student.

95

b.

Academically disadvantaged students cannot be
taught successfully- in the regular cooperative
programs.

This statement was negatively- stated.
response was considered the most favorable.

A "Strongly Disagree"
Four coordinators agreed

strongly, six agreed, seven were uncertain, eighteen disagreed, and
ten disagreed strongly.
It was brought out in the interviews, which will be discussed
later in this chapter, that under present conditions most Part G
Coordinators felt that academically disadvantaged students are over­
looked when placed in regular cooperative programs.

Thirty-two of the

Part G Coordinators reported that provisions are made for disadvantaged
students in regularly reimbursed office and distributive education
programs.
c.

Academically disadvantaged students cannot be expected
to develop specific job skills.

This statement was negatively stated and a "Strongly Disagree"
represents the most favorable response.

Two coordinators agreed strongly,

two agreed, four were uncertain, twenty disagreed, and seventeen disagreed
strongly.
Academically disadvantaged is not
retardation.

synonymous with mental

Academically disadvantaged students are usually slow, but

they are trainable and are capable of developing specific job skills.
They may not have the mental capacity or fortitude to develop highly

technical skills, but they can certainly be trained to perform tasks
that require skills that are more sophisticated than sweeping floors,

washing dishes and similar jobs that fall into the "dead end" category.

96

A job that provides just enough money to pacify them, but does not provide
the opportunity for developing skills that will carry over into future
for better jobs should not be considered for any student who is in his/her
second year of cooperative education.

Perhaps during his/her first year

or first semester as a cooperative student, placing him/her on any approved,
available job to acquaint him/her with the world of work can be justified;
but acquaintanceship should not be permitted to go on indefinitely.

Forty

coordinators reported that remedial instruction is provided based on the
individual's needs.

This remedial instruction should be directed toward

increased basic knowledges and skills which will have immediate as well
as carry-over value.
"Perception of Students' Attitudes" dependent variable consists
of Items 33, 39, 40, 45, and 49.
a.

An example of such an item is:

Disadvantaged students seem more enthused over released
time from school and making money than they do with
learning job skills.

This statement was negatively stated and a "Strongly Disagree"
response was the most favorable.

One disagreed strongly, nine disagreed,

eleven were uncertain, sixteen agreed, and five agreed strongly.

If the

cooperative program for the disadvantaged is to be considered a part of
the student's total program, it seems safe to assume that budgeting
should be one of the major units discussed during the related instruction,
'or the most part, these students have had little or no money to spend
prior to their work assignment with the Part G Program.

It is unfor­

tunate that eleven of the coordinators indicated that they have no
idea how the students feel about making money.

97
Thirty-nine of the coordinators reported that disadvantaged
students seem to see the program as one of value for them.

Yet, during

the interviews with the thirty-five students, one-hundred percent of
them indicated that they look at their job as just a job and not as
part of their high school training.

In 95% of the cases, Part G

students interviewed said, too, that if they did not need the money,
they would rather stay in school than work.

They did not, for the

most part, make statements that suggested dislike for school; they
mentioned particulars that they disliked.

They did say in all cases

that they would recommend the program to a friend.
Ten of the coordinators disagreed or were uncertain about the
program’s impact on reducing the problems of the disadvantaged students;
however, they all agreed that the program encouraged potential dropouts
to stay in school.
A Scheffe post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference
between urban and rural coordinators' expressed attitudes toward students
in Part G Programs.

A significant difference between urban and suburban

coordinators’ "Perceptions of Student's Attitudes Toward the Program"
was observed.

Table 23 shows that the mean of the rural coordinators

was higher than that of the urban coordinators.

Therefore, the rural

coordinators tend to have lower perceptions of the student's attitudes
in programs than do urban coordinators.
to rs
the

The mean of the suburban coordina­

was higher than that of the urban coordinators, which suggests that
sub urb an

coordinators have lower perceptions of the student's attitudes

towards the program.

The above two findings were certainly unexpected,

based on the review of literature, urban youngsters are more difficult to

TABLE 23

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DEPENDENT MEASURES AND TYPES OF STUDENTS SERVED

Type Student

Attitude
Toward
Program
N Mean

Attitude
Toward
Students

SD Mean

SD

Perception
of Students
Attitude To
ward Prog.*
Mean

SD

Perception
of School
Adm. and
Community
Mean

Item 35Develc pment
of job
Skills

SD Mean

SD

Item 48- “
Item 46Item 41White Stu­ Antagonism Adminisisdents Per­ of Regular trative
form better Coordinator Support
Mean

SD Mean

Urban

21 10.67 2.31

7.28

2.17

9.95 2.42

6.95 1.96

2.52 1.24

2.29 1.14

Rural

9 11.67 2.54

9.56

1.33 10.89 1.36

6.78 1.09

2.22 1.09

15 11.93 2.66

8.67

2.66 12.13 2.32

6.20 1.74

2.87 1.25

Suburban

*Significance observed at o = .05

SD Mean

SD

3.29 1.31

1.61

.74

2.89

.78 3.44 1.51

1.56

.53

2.26

.88 3.40 1.30

1.60

.91

99
handle In school and have higher dropout rates than do those in other
areas.

These findings suggest that coordinators of these programs have

faith in their students and hope for the success of the programs.
Although the .05 level of significance was observed in both instances»
the mean scores indicated that the attitudes and perceptions of all
groups on all dependent measures were somewhat favorable.
10.

When interviewed both coordinators of the cooperative
program for the disadvantaged and coordinators of
regular vocational cooperative programs reported,
with one exception, that disadvantaged students are
taught more effectively in special programs than in
regular vocational cooperative programs.

Although both groups were in agreement on the above statement,
their reasons were entirely different.

Regular vocational coordinators

reported that:
1.

They do not have time to give the special attention
most disadvantaged students need.

2.

They work with junior and senior students who have
acquired some job entry skills.

3.

Competition is not very keen for academically disadvan­
taged students when they are in special classes, and
they have a better chance of keeping up.

4.

Job assignments are not made by them (the coordinatoi).
They send several students to interview for the same
job. It is left to the student to sell him/herself.
Chances for the disadvantaged student under these
conditions are very slim.

5.

It takes a special kind of person to work well with
disadvantaged students and quite frankly, "I am not
that kind of person," said one.

Part G Coordinators reported that:
1.

It takes extra work and dedication to work with
disadvantaged students.
"Regular coordinators say
they don't have the time. That's not true, they are
not willing to put forth the extra effort."

100
2.

"I enjoy teaching disadvantaged students; they need
me, and I think X relate to them very well. Anyone
can teach a gifted youngster. In fact, they can
teach themselves with a little direction."

3.

"It would be ideal to have students who are considered
disadvantaged included as an integral part of regular
vocational co-op, but we just cannot afford the luxury.
As it is, we are not getting to all the kids who need
help."

4.

"Regular co-op does not begin until a youngster is a
junior or senior. Most of the kids that I have will
not stay in school without a job."

It was interesting to note on Item 38, "There are no real differ­
ences other than students selected, between the regular cooperative
program and the disadvantaged cooperative program."

Five coordinators

agreed strongly, eleven agreed, one was uncertain, eighteen disagreed,
and ten disagreed strongly.

The large number of agrees and strongly

agrees was not anticipated.

Had such responses been expected, a closer

examination of the differences between programs would have been explored.
Just as a speculation, respondents might have had such differences in
mind as:

(1) kinds of jobs that are available for disadvantaged

students, (2) age and grade level of students selected, and (3) community
support that is given to the disadvantaged cooperative program.

At any

rate, there was a wide range of opinions on the distinctions between
the two programs, and it is unfortunate that the reasons for these differ­
ences, as reported by the coordinators, are unknown.
When asked if "teacher-coordinators of regular vocational pro­
grams tend to be antagonistic toward the installation of programs for
the disadvantaged," three agreed strongly, thirteen agreed, five were
uncertain, thirteen disagreed, and eleven disagreed strongly.

One of

the major complaints of Part G Coordinators during the interviews was

101
that the working relationship between the two coordinators Is not as
good as It should be.

Coordinators indicated that they are often In

competition for jobs.

Regular cooperative programs have been part of

the school program for a larger number of years; the Part G Programs
are not yet five years old.

Naturally regular coordinators, especially

those who have been on the job five years or more, have established a
list of employers that hire their students year after year.

As trivial

and childish as it may seem, such a coordinator may become annoyed when
other coordinators threaten to infringe on the secure system that he/she
has established.

Fortunately, this type of behavior does not exist in

all programs, as the results of the following item indicates:
11.

Part G Coordinators reported that students' career
goals are one of the first priorities considered in
job placement. Thirty-four of the coordinators
answered"yes" to Item 3, "With few exceptions,
students are placed on jobs that are related to
their career goals."

During the student interviews, only two of the thirty-five
indicated that they have career goals.
admitted that they did not want

However, in all cases they

to do the type of work, or anything

related to what they were doing at the present time, the rest of their
lives.
The coordinators admitted in the interviews, after probing,
that for the most part these students are void of career goals or
aspirations.
When students are without career goals, the coordinators
indicated that they use the following methods in placing students on
jobs:
1.

Provide students with literature on types of jobs
for which they can prepare.

102
2.

Provide students with information on types of
jobs which are available.

3.

Place the student on the job based on his ability
to handle it regardless of his/her interest.

4.

Place the student on the job that is available and
move him/her to another job when one is available.

Businessmen reported:
1.

"I try to provide varied learnings for the students,
but there is just so much that can be learned in the
short-order business.11

2.

"1 find the students much more dependable than they
are given credit for being. I've had several and
have been pleased with all of them."

3.

"I do not find them too responsible.
I had to let
two go this year because of excessive absences."

4.

"I take as many of them as I can get. They are the
hardest workers you can find anywhere."

5.

"I really don't need as many as I take, but I try to
help these people, and I have the means."

The businessmen who were interviewed in all cases looked upon
the programs favorably.

One built-in bias did exist.

were selected from a list provided by the coordinators.

Businessmen
They were

businessmen who had at least one Part G student in their employ.

Inter­

views with businessmen who once but no longer hired disadvantaged students
would probably have yielded different findings.
Thirty coordinators reported that they had, at times, encountered
much difficulty selling disadvantaged trainees to employers.

Thirty-

seven reported that retail and other business leaders volunteer work
stations for the students in the cooperative program for the disadvantaged.
Forty-three coordinators reported that businessmen are informed
of the purposes of the program and training stations, and forty-two reported

103

that they encouraged employees to think of the program as a "training
experience" for the student and not a source of inexpensive labor.

The

three coordinators who answered no to that question are completely
unaware of what Part G Programs are all about.
When asked what, if anything, they liked most about their jobs,
the students responded:
1. "the money"
2. "getting out of school"
3. "meeting people"
When asked what, if anything, they disliked about their jobs,
they responded:
1. "don't have any time for myself"
2. "cannot participate in sports"
3. "I think X should be paid more"
4. "my job is boring"
5. "cannot take a class that I want because of my Job"
Student responses seem to indicate that they are not, for the
most part, overly enthusiastic about the types of jobs that they have,
but the need for money is so great that they have few, if any, better
alternatives.

Over 90 percent of the coordinators reported that students

seem to find their jobs economically as well as personally rewarding, but
would rather not be labeled as "disadvantaged."
During the time of the school visitations and interviews, many
of the characteristics of the program and the coordinators were viewed
that could not possibly have even been sensed from the questionnaire
responses. Following these events, both positive andnegative, were
considered worthy of highlights.

104

Two school sites were

visited that were considered outstanding

and quite unique.
The first program did not have a coordinator designated on the
class schedule as Fart G or any such special coordinator hired to work
with disadvantaged students exclusively.

The school was receiving Part G

funds, but a team of four coordinators worked with all students based
solely on interest of the students.

Students in all cases were placed on

jobs directly or Indirectly related to their career goals.

If a student was

unsure about goals, he/she was counseled by one of the coordinators.

The

coordinator interviewed at this site was a vivacious individual who stays
on the move in the interest of his students.

After spending an entire

day with him, it seemed safe to conclude ‘hat a program is no better
than its coordinator.
The second program was a night school program for youngsters who
had been unsuccessful in the day program.

They were given the entire

day to work and attended school four nights a week.
were the same as the day offerings.

The course offerings

If a student wanted to take a

course that was not scheduled, providing he/she could get a specified
number of students to sign up, it would be automatically added to the
list of course offerings.
with their program.

Students seemed to have been highly pleased

A full academic schedule was available for them.

Consequently, they had no concerns about having sufficient credits for
college entrance as was the case in some of the day programs where
students were working when certain classes that they wanted to take were
offered.

This program had been the subject of two research projects this

year, but the findings were not available.

105

Two of the coordinators interviewed indicated that the 1972-73
school year would be their last year working with Part G Programs.
a minority himself, felt that the program is a "farce."

One,

"They know

damn well that the type of jobs that are available for these students is
a waste of their time, with a little money attached.
get the best possible jobs for my students.
not to take jobs at fast-food places.

I struggle to

I encourage black students

When I talk to prospective

businessmen, I have a particular youngster in mind, and do not tell him
that I represent ’disadvantaged’ youth.

The word ’disadvantaged’

has a stigma attached that is self-defeating.

X am leaving this program

because I have so little faith in its outcomes, and X am going to channel
my energies in remedial reading at the lower grades.

If these kids

cannot read and do simple arithmatic computations, no work-study job in
the world is going to prepare them for a better life.

There is no need

for us to try to fool ourselves."
A second coordinator, who was not a minority, said, "I am not
convinced that these kids are not being exploited from every angle.
face it, I only have the troublemakers and the slow learners.
makes for an ideal situation.

Let’s

This

The disadvantaged students like not having

to be in school, businessmen are getting their work done for little or
nothing, and everyone is happy except me.
I don't like it.

I see whatis happening, and

I am tired of shuffling papersand saying the right

things at the right time.

It has gotten to the point that X can no

longer live with myself in good conscience.

The kids are great, but

the set-up is lousy."
There are many opinions expressed in this study, but it should
be emphasized that the over 80 percent of the coordinators reported

106

full support from the school administrators and parents of the disadvant­
aged trainees.

Ninety-nine percent recommended that the continuation

of cooperative and other such work-study programs is vital to the success­
ful training of disadvantaged youth.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn from the findings of this
study.

These conclusions are pertinent to and limited by the assumptions

and the design of the study.
1.

Because of the significant differences in the age of the
coordinators on three of the seven dependent variables,
"Choice of Training Stations," "Advisory Committee," and
"Community and School Understanding," one can conclude
that the younger coordinator has more difficulty with
human and public relations.

2.

Because of the significant differences in years of
teaching experience when compared to "Advisory Committee"
and "Community and School Understanding" variables, one
can conclude that coordinators with fewer years of experi­
ence have more difficulty with human and public relations.

3.

Because of the lack of evidence to support the fact that
specialized training for working with the disadvantaged
is needed to coordinate programs, it can be concluded
that specialized training is helpful but not necessary.

4.

Because the seemingly most successful programs were
coordinated by energetic, vivacious, personable coordina­
tors, it can be concluded that a cooperative program is
no better than its coordinator.

5.

Because of lack of evidence to prove that programs differ
based on type of student served, it can be concluded that
there are no differences in the characteristics of urban, rural,
and suburban program activities. There are differences, however,
in kinds of jobs that are available in the three areas.

6.

Because it is evident that disadvantaged students do not
usually get the better jobs, it can be concluded that
Part G Coordinators are obligated to find the best possible
job for each student and to recommend courses and remedial

107

Instruction that will Increase the student's basic skills
and knowledges. The combination of the two can provide an
opportunity to make vertical moves toward the acquisition
of a better career choice.
7.

Because of the evidence to prove that disadvantaged students
are usually placed on menial, low-paying jobs, it can be
concluded that jobs that are not related to existing career
opportunities, susceptible of promotion and advancement
should not be considered in the second and subsequent
years a student is enrolled in cooperative education.

8.

Because of the evidence which supports the hypothesis that
there is a degree of antagonism between Part G Coordinators
and other vocational cooperative coordinators, it can be
concluded that all teachers should work on behalf of all
students. Trivial misunderstandings that are sometimes
observed among coordinators of various programs should be
non-existent.

9.

Because 35.6 percent of the coordinators indicated that
they have no years of occupational experience other than
teaching, it can be concluded that they (35.6%) have not
fulfilled all of the requirements for vocational certifica­
tion.

10.

Because of the objectives and purposes of Part G Programs,
it can be concluded that the advisory committee should have
representation from the disadvantaged community.

11.

Because of the responses to questions on both the inter­
views and the questionnaires, it can be concluded that
all persons are not mentally or emotionally equipped to
work with disadvantaged youth. Extreme care should be
taken in the recruitment and hiring of teachers of special
programs for disadvantaged youth.

12.

Because there is evidence that disadvantaged students are
sometimes exploited, it can be concluded that a cooperative
arrangement can be considered "good” only to the extent to
which the job provides varied learnings, opportunities for
promotion, increased job skills and knowledge and encourages
potential dropouts to remain in school. Time spent on the
job should not interfere with the development of basic skills
taught in the classroom.

108
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are drawn from the findings of
this study.

The recommendations are pertinent and limited by the

assumptions, findings, and design of the study.
1.

Further research of an evaluative nature must follow
this study in order to it to be of maximum value.

2.

Reconstruction of the instrument should solicit
additional information such as,
a.

type of work in which coordinator was engaged
provided that he/she had occupational experiences
other than teaching.

b.

what differences actually exist when comparing the
Part G Programs with other vocational cooperative
programs.

c.

kind of school, i.e. high school, junior high school,
etc.

d.

title given the program

3.

Except in cases of mental retardation, disadvantaged students
should be accepted in regular vocational programs.

4.

Sophisticated evaluation, which includes valid pre and post
tests should be given yearly to test the effectiveness of
the programs.

5.

The cooperative program for the disadvantaged should be
renamed, as has been done in some of the districts. The
term disadvantaged has a negative connotation.

6.

There is evidence to suggest that the student-teacher ratio
is high in some cases and presents problems for the coordina­
tor of individual instruction and visiting training stations.
It is therefore recommended that in such cases funds should be
requested for an additional coordinator, part-time coordina­
tor, paraprofessional or whatever is needed. When monies
are not available,volunteer help from the State colleges
and universities should be requested. It is further recom­
mended that the State or U. S. Office of Education set a
maximum for the number of disadvantaged students that can
be served effectively and efficiently by each coordinator.

109
IMPLICATIONS
The research findings of this study have direct implications for
the Michigan State Board of Education, local school districts, and other
school districts outside of Michigan that have similar programs.

The

statements presented are not necessarily supported by the findings of
the study, but are considered pertinent for program implementation, pro­
gram changes, and future State and Federal legislation.
1.

In areas where there is a large concentration of a particu­
lar ethnic group, at least one coordinator from the same
ethnic group should be hired to coordinate Part G Programs.
Disadvantaged students in particular have problems communi­
cating with and relating to persons outside of the disad­
vantaged community. Minority coordinators, who themselves
may have been subjected to similar hardships, may be able
to understand and deal with many of problems that disad­
vantaged students face. This does not suggest that non­
minority coordinators do not serve minority students well,
nor is it meant to imply that all minority coordinators
serve disadvantaged students well. Aside from college
preparation, a Part G Coordinator must possess other
characteristics. He/she must be energetic, vivacious,
personable, have good ties with the business community,
and have an interest in the future of disadvantaged
students.

2.

Recruitment and selection of coordinators of Part G
Programs must be conducted with a great deal of care.
Disadvantaged students are nspecial" people who are in
desperate need of "special" teachers and coordinators
who can work with and help them solve some of their
problems effectively.

3.

For the most part, disadvantaged students were without
appreciable sums of money prior to their enrollment in
Part G Programs. For these youth, the prime factor for
working at the beginning was making money. Emphasis on
budgeting, spending, and saving should not be overlooked
as a necessary part of preparing the disadvantaged for
the life ahead.

4.

Poor public transportation facilities in rural areas often
present problems for cooperative students. Monies are avail­
able under Part G to help with transportation services.
These monies should be requested and utilized, because no
student who needs financial help should be denied the op­
portunity to work simply because he/she has no means of
getting to the job.

110
5.

Programs designed to mold disadvantaged youths' attitudes
toward the world of work should be developed for children
at the elementary level, thereby, alleviating the problem
of having to break bad habits that might not have developed
if occupational training had begun earlier in their lives.

6. When and where possible, minority businessmen should be
sought to work with disadvantaged students. A sense of
pride and hope may be developed if disadvantaged students
witness a degree of legitimate success by someone who
possibly could have been subjected to similar disadvantages.
7. In a cooperative program, students must be placed where
jobs are available. Retail establishments do offer many
jobs for the unskilled worker, but the coordinator should
not be satisfied with placing students on jobs just because
they are open. He/she must be willing to knock on doors
and convince employers in all areas of the benefits of
hiring his/her students. Health care, for example, is
a field in which jobs are now and are predicted to be
open for the next twenty years. In addition, the career
ladder in health occupations has many steps. A disadvan­
taged student who is without a career goal should be
exposed to health care and other professions that offer
many opportunities for advancement.
8.

A student, advantaged or disadvantaged, who is permitted
to progress through the grades cannot expect to move up
the occupational hierarchy if he/she does not possess a
command of the basic skills. Methods must be developed so
that all students, barring mental retardation, leave school
with a command of the basic skills. Any educational insti­
tution that falls short of this primary objective must be
considered ineffective and should not be tolerated.

9.

Based on the findings of this study concerning the erratic
number of released hours from class a student is permitted to
work and the number of students assigned to one coordinator,
it is the strong feeling of this researcher that some minimal
requirements be handed down from either the State or U. S.
Office of Education. The flexibility afforded coordinators
and administrators is sometimes abused.

10.

In the event that disadvantaged students are placed in the
same classroom with other students, it is assumed that
they will not be isolated, but will be an integral part
of the class. It will be the job of the coordinator to
precipitate group interaction and the help-each-other
atmosphere which makes for better relationships among
students.

REFERENCES CITED
Allen, Vernon L.
1970
Theoretical Issues in poverty research.
of Social Issues. 26(2):151.
Asbell, Bernard
1966
The new improved American.
Book Company.

New York:

Journal

McGraw-Hill

Austin, John J., and Donald A. Sommerfield
1967
An evaluation of vocational education for disadvan­
taged youth. U. S. Office of Education— Bureau of
Research, Division of Adult and Vocational Research.
Baughman, E. E., and W. G. Dahlstrom
1968
Negro and white children:
a psychological study
of the rural south. New York: Academic Press.
Bobbitt, Frank, and Linda Letwin
1971
Techniques for teaching disadvantaged youth in
vocational education. Rural Manpower Center:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Bowers, Joan
1965

From "the white house conference on education."
American Education. l(7):13-28.

Brookover, Wilbur, et. al.
1967
Self concept of ability and school achievement,
III. U. S. Office of Education Report of
Cooperative Research Project No. 2831, Relationship
of Self-Concept to Achievement in High School.
East Lansing: Educational Publication Services,
College of Education, Michigan State University.
Burchlll, George W.
1962
Work-study programs for alienated youth. A casebook.
Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc.
Coleman, James, et. al.
1966
Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.:
United States Government Printing Office.
Davis, Allison
1948
Social class influences upon learning. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Ill

112
Ehlers, Henry
1969

Crucial Issues In education. Fourth edition.
York: Holt, Rhlnehart and Winston, Inc.

Fantlni, Mario D., and Gerald Weinstein
1968
The disadvantaged:
Challenge to education.
York: Harper and Row.

New

New

Ginzberg, Ell, et. al.
1951
Occupational choice:
An approach to a general
theory. New York: Columbia University Press.
Harris, Marleau Smith
1969
The effects of work experience programs on
disadvantaged ninth grade students in Corvallis,
Oregon. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Oregon
State University.
Hawk, Travis L.
1967
Self-concepts of the socially disadvantaged.
Elementary School Journal. 67(4):196-206.
Hickerson, Nathaniel
1966
Education for alienation.
Frentlce-Hall, Inc.

Englewood Cliffs:

Hill, Herbert H.
1969
Employment, manpower training and the black
worker. Journal of Negro Education. 38(3):204-217.
Hodge, James L.
1969
Cooperative office education and the disadvantaged
student. The Journal of Business Education.
45(3):103-104.
Jencks, Christopher
1965
Do we want to win the war on poverty?
Evening Post. 238(5):10-14.
Lee, Charlotte
1969

Saturday

Cooperative office education and the low-average
student. The Balance Sheet. 50(5):204-205.

Leighbody, Gerald B.
1972
Vocational education In America's schools: Major
issues in the 1970's. Chicago: American Technical
Society.
Mason, Ralph E., and Peter G. Haines
1972
Cooperative occupational education. Second edition.
Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc.

113

Mink, Oscar G., and Bernard A. Kaplan
1970
America'8 problem youth, education and guidance
of the disadvantaged. Scranton, Pennsylvania:
International Textbook Company.
Munisteri, Anthony
1971
A study of the holding power of a cooperative
education program for male, potential dropouts
in East Harlem, New York City, Vocational High
School. Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Columbia
University.
Newman, Dorothy K.
1969
Changing attitudes about the
Review. 92(2):32-36.

poor.

Monthly Labor

Nichols, Charles F.
1970
Vocational education for the disadvantaged, seven
years later. American Vocational Journal. 45(8):21-23.
Pettigrew, Thomas F.
1964
A profile of the Negro American.
Van Norstrand.

Princeton:

D.

Pettigrew, Thomas F.
1966
Negro American Intelligence:
A new look at an old
controversy. The Disadvantaged Child, Issues and
Innovations, eds. Joe L. Frost and Glenn R. Hawkes.
New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Putnam, Carleton
1961
Race and reason.
Press.

Washington, D.C.:

Public Affairs

Robertson, Leonard
1965
An exploratory study of the effect of cooperative
education programs in beginning occupations on
selected employment factors. Unpublished Ed.D.
Dissertation, Colorado State College.
Rosenthal, Robert, and Lenore F. Jacobson
1968
Teacher expectations for the disadvantaged.
tific American. 218(4):19-23.
Sexton, Patricia Cayo
1961
Education and Income.

New York:

Scien­

Viking Press.

Shuey, Audrey M.
1958
The testing of Negro intelligence. First edition.
Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P. Bell Company.

114

Shuey, Audrey M.
1966
The testing of Negro Intelligence.
New York: Social Science Press.

Second edition.

Stromberg, Sharon
1972
Teaching business skills to the disadvantaged.
Business Education Forum. 27(3):35-38.
Super, Donald
1963

Vocational development In adolescence and early
adulthood: Tasks and behaviors. Career Development:
Self-Concept Theory. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.

Tumln, Melvin M. (ed.)
1963
Race and intelligence.
League.

New York:

Anti-Defamation

Walther, Regis H.
1971
A summary of a study of Negro male high school
dropouts who are not reached by federal work training
programs. American Vocational Journal. 46(7):71-72.
Wamhoff, Carroll 6.
1969
Self-concept of vocational ability, It's relation
to selected factors In career development. Unpub­
lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan.
Washington, Bennetta Bullock
1963
Youth In conflict.
Associates, Inc.

Chicago:

Science Research

Webster, Staten W.
1966
The disadvantaged learner: Knowing, understanding
and educating. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing
Company.
White, William F.
1971
Tactics for teaching the disadvantaged.
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

New York:

Wood, Merle W.
1969
The disadvantaged student, part 2— a matrix,..
Education World. 20(2):2-3-22.

Business

Woolfoik, Mansfield
1971
Evaluation of the junior high work training program
funded under Title I of the Elementary Secondary
Education Act. Detroit: The Research and Develop­
ment Program Evaluation Section Detroit Public Schools.

115

United States Government
1970
Federal Register. Office of the Federal Register,
National Archives Building.
U. S. Office of Education
1972a
(Bureau of Adult, Vocational and Technical Educa­
tion.) Resource manual for the development of
cooperative vocational education programs under
the Vocational Education Act of 1963, Amended,
F.L. 90-576.
U.

S. Office of Education
1972b
(Bureau of Adult, Vocational andTechnical Educa­
tion.) Suggested utilization of resources and guide for
for expenditures.

U.

S. President(Kennedy)
1963
State of the Union Address.

Uthe, Elaine F.
1972
The cooperative vocational program,instructor's
manual, volume I. Michigan State Department of
Education, Division of Vocational Education.
East Lansing: Michigan State University.

r.

REFERENCES NOT CITED
Bennett, James G. Jr.
1971
Developing positive perceptions about the world of
work. Business Education World LII(l):13-31.
Berg, Ivar E.
1970

Education and jobs: The great training robbery.
New York: Praeger Publishers.

Blair, Philip M.
1971
Job discrimination and education: An investment
analysis. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Ginzberg, Eli, ed.
1964
The Negro challenge to the business community.
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Glass, Gene V. and Julian C. Stanley
1970
Statistical methods in education and psychology.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Goldstein, Harold
1971
America's manpower needs for the seventies— clues
to the tasks ahead for vocational education. American
Vocational Journal XLVI(4):18-25.
Henderson, George, ed.
1971
America's other children.
Oklahoma Press.

Norman:

University of

Huffman, Harry, and Clyde W. Welter
1969
Understanding the educational problems of the
disadvantaged. Business Education World LIX(5):8—11,35,
Leggert, John C.
1968
Class, race and labor— working-class consciousness
in Detroit. New York: Oxford University Press.
McIntosh, Robert W.
1966
Employee motivation and work incentives in the
service industries. Recreation and Tourism Series,
Cooperative Extension Service: Michigan State
University, Extension Bulletin 483.
Michigan Department of Education
1972-73 The Michigan state plan for vocational education.
Lansing.
116

117

Michigan Department of Education
1973
Administrative rules governing the certification
of Michigan teachers. Lansing.
Passow, Harry H.
1968
Developing programs for the educationally disadvan­
taged. New York: Teachers College Press.
Passow, Harry H.
1972
Opening opportunities for disadvantaged learners.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Ross, Arthur M., and Herbert Hill
1967
Employment, race and poverty.
Brace and World, Inc.

New York:

Harcourt,

Ruttenbert, Stanley H.
1970
Manpower challenge of the 1970's: Institution and
social change. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins
Press.
Scheff&, Henry
1959
The analysis of variance.
and Sons, Inc.

New York:

John Wiley

Schulthels, Robert A. , and Alvin Vaughn, eds.
1968
Changing undergraduate business teacher education
programs to prepare teachers for culturally differ­
ent youth. Report of an institute cosponsored by
the Department of Business Education Temple Univer­
sity and the Center for Vocational and Technical
Education, Columbus, Ohio: Temple University.
U. S. Department of Labor
1963
The challenge of jobless youth.
Government Printing Office.

Washington, D. C.:

U. S. Department of Labor
1969
Manpower administration:
Breakthrough for disadvan­
taged youth. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office.
Wegner, Kenneth, and Alan J. Burnes
1969
Jobs and the color barrier.
Pendulum Press, Inc.
Wood, Merle W.
1969

Westport, Connecticut:

The disadvantaged student, part I.
World L(l):2-4.

Business Education

118
Wood, Merle W.
1969
Zimple, Lloyd
1971

The disadvantaged student, part II-A matrix.
Education World L(2):2—3,22.

Business

The disadvantaged worker— readings in developing
minority manpower. Reading, Massachusetts: AddisonWesley Publishing Company.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

119

M IC H IG A N STA TE U N IV E R S IT Y

e a s t l a n s in g

. Mi c h i g a n

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM • ERICKSON HALL

December 5, 1972

Dear Colleague:
You are one of the forty-three leading admlnstrators In Michigan who
plays an Important role in the implementation of Part G, Cooperative
Programs for the Disadvantaged. That is why Barbara Gaylor of the
State Department of Education suggested that I contact you.
Undoubtedly, you know of the growing trend to evaluate federal programs
to determine if, in fact, they are producing favorable results. At the
present, however, there is still a large information gap of accurate
statistics; and it is difficult to obtain a clear overview of the
situation.
It is my intent to investigate this topic as a doctoral dissertation
at Michigan State University.
You can help me greatly if you will send me a list of names and addresses
of all coordinators of Disadvantaged Cooperative Programs in your district.
Since a complete response is vital to the accuracy of the research, I
urge you to take time to comply with my request. 1 am most grateful
for your cooperation in this project.
A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Yours very truly,

Delores Taylor
Graduate Student
Enclosure

APPENDIX B

120
MICHIGAN STATE U N IV E R S IT Y

e a s t l a n s in g

• Mi c h i g a n 48823

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM • ERICKSON HALL

M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:

Delores A. Taylor, Graduate Student
Approval to Collect Data for Doctoral Dissertation
March 19, 1973

There are many State and Federally funded programs In Michigan designed to
help those who have been unsuccessful In fitting Into the mainstream of
society; namely, the disadvantaged.
I am asking for your cooperation in obtaining information regarding one such
program, the Part G, Cooperative Program for the Disadvantaged, funded under
the Vocational Education Admendments of 1968. As you know, there Is a grow­
ing trend to evaluate special programs to determine if, in fact, they are
producing favorable results. At the present time, however, there is still
a large information gap of accurate statistics, and it is difficult to
obtain a clear overview of the situation.
It is my intent to investigate this topic as a doctoral dissertation at
Michigan State University.
The general intent of this study is to collect data which will provide a
greater insight into the quality and characteristics of the Part G Programs.
I hope to come up with some findings which will aid in implementing and
perfecting programs for disadvantaged youth.
The questionnaire that 1 have developed for the study is simple and should
not require more than ten minutes of the coordinator's time. Would you be
willing to have the Part G Coordinators in your district participate in
this study?
In addition, some coordinators, principals, and students will be interviewed.
These people will be randomly selected from a list of those who indicate
that they are willing to participate.
Please return the attached form indicating whether or not you are agreeable
to the participation of the teachers in your district in the study.
Since one-hundred percent participation of all Part G Coordinators is vital
to the accuracy of this research, I certainly hope that you will give your
approval.
A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Enclosures

121

Name of School District

Telephone Number

Number of Schools in District with Part 6 Coopera­
tive Education Programs for the Disadvantaged
They are:

(please indicate the type of students mostly served—
urban, rural, suburban— for each school listed)

School

Address

Coordinator's Name
(if available)

Please encircle your response:
I (do, do not) give my approval to have questionnaires sent to the
Part 6 Coordinators in my district.
I (do, do not) give my approval for short interviews with Part G
Coordinators, Principals, and Students in Part G Programs in my
district.

Comments:

Signature

If there are questions, you may contact me by telephone at 517-353-3391.

APPENDIX C

122
M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

e a s t l a n s i n o • M ic h ig a n 48825

COLUGB OP BDUCATION • ERICKSON HAIL

May 7, 1973

Dear Colleague:
A few weeks ago, 1 sent you a letter soliciting your professional assistance.
To date I have not received your response card indicating that the question­
naire has been completed and returned.
You have a very busy schedule, I realize; but I desperately need a complete
return to insure the accuracy of my study. At last count I had a little
better than fifty percent response— that is not enough. Won't you help me
get a one hundred percent response?
A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Also enclosed
is a post card which, when signed, indicates that your questionnaire has
been completed and returned. Upon receipt of the card, you will receive
no further correspondence.
If you have already completed and returned both the questionnaire and the
card, please disregard this letter.
Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.
Very sincerely yours

Delores Taylor
Graduate Student
Enclosures

APPENDIX D

Co-op G Programs Approved for 1972-73

School District

Amount
Allocated

Adrian
Lenawee Intermediate
School District

$22}860

James R. Brown, Principal

Ann Arbor
Public Schools

$14,247

Earl W. Shaffer, Vocational
Director

Bath Community
Schools

$11,250

Robert D. Hiller

Bay City Bangor
Township Schools

$16,758

William Hileman, Principal

Benton Harbor
Public Schools

$11,655

Bob Lane, Vocational
Director

Berkley Public
Schools

$12,420

Samuel Flam, Deputy Supt.
Leo Gallivan, Special Needs.Coord.

Coloma Public Schools

$14,886

Wesley Arent, Vocational Dir.

Davison Public Schools

$14,130

Thomas Fagon

Detroit Public Schools

$53,450

Jeanne Reed, Business Education

Detroit Public Schools

$23,265

Jeanne Reed, Business Education

East Detroit Public
Schools

$16,650

James A. Reed, Director of
Guidance

Contact Person

Flint Public Schools

$9,266

Charles Clark, Vocational Dir.

Flint Genesee Community
College

$5,598

Charles Roche, Dean, Voc—
Technical Education

Flint Genesee Community
College

$8,004

Charles Roche, Dean, VocTechnical Education

$30,038

Clyde Minor, Vocational Dir.

Holland Public Schools

$5,000

Donald Gebraad, CEPD Coord.

Jackson Public Schools

$9,893

Robert DuBois

Highland Park
Public Schools

124

Co-op G Programs Approved for 1972-73 (continued)
Lansing Public Schools

$69,439

Russel Maples, Vocational Dir.

Madison Heights Public
Schools

$17,127

William DiGiullo, Vocational
Director

$9,430

William DiGiullo, Vocational
Director

Madison Heights
Lamphere Pub. Schools
Mason - Ingham Intermediate
School District

$25,218

Jan Danford, Vocational
Consultant

Memphis Public Schools

$16,056

Robert J. Phillips, Supt.

Menominee Public Schools

$14,301

Ernest Pintorelll, Coordinator

Muskegon Public Schools

$16,650

Gerrit Wiegerlnk, Vocational Dir.

Muskegon - FruitportOakrldge Schools

$15,975

Gerrit Wlegerinkf Vocational
Director

Muskegon - WhitehallMontague Schools

$16,200

Gerrit Wiegerlnk, Vocational
Director

Muskegon Heights
Public Schools

$17,100

Gerrit Wiegerlnk, Vocational
Director
•

Oak Park Public Schools

$14,805

Irving Collins, Vocational Dir.

Pontiac Public Schools

$54,085

Donald Kaiser, Vocational Dir.

Pontiac - Waterford
Township Schools

$16,110

John Carter, Vocational
Coordinator

Portage Public Schools

$29,206

Ronald Williams, Dir. of Youth

Port Huron Public Schools

$19,800

Harold Cook, Vocational Dir.

$6,896
$7,072

Ronald Todd, Vocational Dir.
Same

Royal Oak Kimball High School
Dondero High School
St. Joseph Public Schools
Stanton - Central Montcalm
Public Schools

$22,050
$9,990

William Welrlck
A. Delbert Tucker, Principal

125

Co-op Programs G Approved for 1972-73 (continued)
Warren Public Schools
Mott High School
Warren High School
Cousino High School
Sterling Hgts. High School

$13,410
$12,840
$11,880
$12,840

Alfred Bracclano, Vocational
Director

Wayne-Westland Public
Schools

$24,768

William Murphy, Administrative
Assistant

Ypsilanti Public Schools

$15,750

Ronald Isbell, Director of
Instruction

APPENDIX E

Jury Selected to Evaluate the Questionnaire Items

Dr. Peter G. Haines, Professor
Business & Distributive Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Dr. Rex E. Ray, Professor
Vocational Education
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Dr. Mary Brown, Special Needs Coordinator
Lansing School District
Lansing, Michigan

Mrs. Mary Lane, Vocational Director
Highland Park Public Schools
Highland Park, Michigan

Mrs. Patricia Swagler
Capital Area Career Center
Mason, Michigan

(former coordinator of regular cooperative
programs that served disadvantaged students)

Mr. David Houston
Michigan Stare University
East Lansing, Michigan

(former coordinator of regular cooperative
programs that served disadvantaged students)

Mr, Harry Whitesell, Part G Coordinator
Lenawee Area Voc-Tech Education Center
Adrian, Michigan
Miss Barbara Gaylor, Supervisor
Work-Study, Co-op Unit
Michigan State Department of Education
Division of Vocational Education
Lansing, Michigan

APPENDIX F

127

MICHIGAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

ba st l a n u n o

• u c h k u n 4s b i3

COUSOB OF EDUCATION • BBICKSON HALL

April 7, 1973

Dear Colleague:
Tour role as coordinator of the cooperative program for the disadvantaged
places you in a "special position"— that of helping students who have been
unsuccessful in regularly reimbursed programs. Much of your time, Z am
sure, is spent helping your students; but I do hope that you will take a
few minutes to respond to the enclosed questionnaire.
As you know, there is a growing trend to evaluate Federally funded programs
to determine if, in fact, they are producing favorable results. At the
present time, however, there is a large information gap concerning the
Part G Programs, and it is difficult to obtain a clear overview of the
situation.
It is my Intent to identify and describe characteristics of the Part G
Programs in Michigan as a doctoral thesis at Michigan State University.
Hopefully, my study will provide a greater insight into the quality of the
programs and will produce findings which will aid in implementing and per­
fecting programs for disadvantaged youth.
Since a complete response is vital to the accuracy of this research, may
I urge you to do it now, if possible. Your response is completely anony­
mous, of course. For follow-up purposes, it would be very helpful to me
if you would return the enclosed post card separately from the questionnaire.
Thank you for considering my request; I am most grateful for your cooperation
in this project.
Sincerely yours,

Delores Taylor

Enclosures

128

Return to:

Delores Taylor
W522 Owen Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
48823

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR COORDINATORS OF PART G, COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED
GENERAL INFORMATION
Please Check:

(Coordinator)

1.
2.

Sex:
Age:

3.

Ethnic Background:
(Optional)

Number of Years:

(1.1)
(2.1)
(2.3)
(2.5)

(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)

Male_____
U n der 25
36-45___ "
Bir thyear

(1.2)
Female
(2.2)
26-35___
(2.4)
Over*45

(Optional)
(3.2)
(3.1)
Black
(3.3) American Indian_
(3.4) Spanish Surname_
(3.5) O t her (Specify)_

White

Teaching Experience_
Teacher-Coordinator of Cooperative Programs (Taught
Related Class)______
Teacher-Coordinator of Cooperative Program for the
D isadvantaged______
Occupational Experience other than teaching______

Did you have any specialized training or experience w orking with disadvantaged stu­
dents prior to your becoming a teacher-coordinator of the cooperative program for
the disadvantaged.
(5.1)
Yes______ (5.2)
No______
If yes, check the type of training or describe the type of experiences and write in
the approximate amount of time or credits for each type.

6.

Type of
Training or
Experience

College Courses

Workshops

In-Service

Summer
Institute

Other
(Describe)

(5.3)

(5.4)

(5.5)

(5.6)

(5.7)

Approximate
Number of

Credits

Days

Weeks

Days

(5.31)

(5.41)

(5.51)

(5.61)____

What kind of Vocational Certificate do you n o w hold?
(6.1)
(6.4)

GENERAL INFORMATION

(Check One)

(6.2)
Provisional_______
(6.5)
Other (Specify)

Special (Temporary)___
Permanant (Continuing).

(5.71)

(6.3)

Approval_

(Students and School)

Number of Students:

(7.1)
(7.2)
(7.3)

Enrolled in the School_____
Enrolled in Regular Vocational Cooperative Programs
that are funded b y the State Department of Education_
Enrolled in the Part G, Cooperative Program for the
Disadvantaged______
They are:
(7.31)
(7.33)
(7.35)
(7.37)

(Disadvantaged Cooperative Only)

(7.32)
Female
Black
(7.34)
Spanish Surname_
American Indian

Male____
White__
(7.36)
(7.38)

Oriental_
Other ___
(Specify)

129

Number of Students:

(7.4)

Who are Considered:

(7.41)
(7.42)
(7.43)
(7.44)
(7.45)

(7.5)

By A g e Group:

(7.51)
(7.52)
(7.53)
(7.54)
(7.55)

A c a d e m i c a l l y Disadvantaged^
Soclo-Economically
Disadvantaged_
Bo t h of the A b o v e______
P h y s ically Handicapped_____
O t h e r (Specify)______

14______
15______
16______
17______
18 or over______

8.

Number of grades in the school___

9.

The school serves students mostly f r o m a/ a n (9.1)U r b a n
(9.3)
Suburban_____Area.
(Check One)

(9.2)

R u ral_

10.

M a x i m u m number of released class periods fro m school students are allowed to w o r k
per week_____

11.

M i n i m u m number of class hours required per week______

12.

Number of students in Part G P r o g r a m who w o r k m a x i m u m number of h o urs a week_

13.

Number of students in Part G P r o g r a m w h o w o r k m i n i m u m n u mber of h o urs a week_

130

Instructions:

In the following statements various characteristics of the cooperative
p r o g r a m for the disadvantaged are described.
Will y o u p lease indicate
for each item whether or not your p rogram bears such characteristics
b y checking either "Yes" or "No."
"Not Appropriate" m a y b e checked if
your answer is "No" and y o u feel that the item described is unnecessary.
YES

1.

A written statement setting forth the philosophy and_______ 1_____
objectives of the cooperative pro g r a m for the d i sad­
vantaged has b e e n developed.

NO

NOT
A P P R OPRIATE

______

______

(If your answer to No. 1 Is "Yes," answer 1.1-1.3
before m oving to No. 2.
If your answer is "No,"
move to No. 2.)
1.1

Based on the philosophy and objectives, student
performance objectives have bee n developed.

1.1_____

______

______

1.2

The pr o g r a m is evaluated not less than twice a______ 1.2_____
year b y the coordinator and/or administrator in
terms of these objectives.

______

______

1.3

Written objectives and operation procedures of______ 3.3_____
the p rogram are made available to parents and
potential disadvantaged cooperative students.

______

______

2.

Provisions ha v e b e e n made for disadvantaged students
in regularly reimbursed office and distributive edu­
cation programs.

2_____

______

______

3.

With ve r y few exceptions, students are placed on
jobs that are related to their career goals.

3_____

______

______

4.

Learning opportunities provided at the majo r i t y of
Che wo r k stations are varied in nature.

4_____

______

______

5.

Students are permitted to change jobs w h e n varied
learnings are not possible on present jobs.

5_____

______

______

6_____

______

______

6 . The coordinator visits each training station.
6.1

If yes, h o w often?________________________

7.

Training stations a r e selected on the basis of the
variety of learning experiences provided to supple­
ment the classroom instruction.

7_____

______

______

8.

The student participates in the selection of his
training station.

8_____

______

______

9.

The coordinator provides related instruction for
each student directly related to his career goal.

9_____

______

______

131

YES
10.

Remedial Instruction Is provided based on Indivldual student's needs.

10_

11.

Students participate in the evaluation of the
related Instruction.

11_

12.

The student-teacher ratio is low enough so that
individualizing instruction presents no p roblem
for the coordinator.

12_

13.

A general advisory committee has be e n appointed
to assist the school in the development of the
whole cooperative pr o g r a m for the disadvantaged.

13_

(If your answer to No. 13 is "Yes," answer 13.115.1 before m oving to No, 16.
If your answer
is "No," m o v e to No. 16.)
13.1

Local business representatives serve on
the advisory committee.

1 3 , 1_

13.2

Parents from the "disadvantaged" community
serve on the advisory committee.

1 3 . 2_

13.3

Students who are considered "disadvantaged"
serve on the advisory committee.

1 3 . 3_

14.

The committee assists the coordinator in locating
suitable training stations for the program.

14_

15.

The advisory committee has regularly scheduled
meetings.

15_

15.1

If yes, h o w often?_________________________

16.

The objectives and philosophy of the pro g r a m have
been presented to the members of the non-vocational
faculty.

16_

17.

The cooperative pr o g r a m for the disadvantaged is
periodically publicized in the school publicity
med i a .

17_

18.

A planned program of publicity is carried on w i t h i n
the school for the benefit of the members of the
faculty and interested students.

18_

19.

A planned program of publicity is carried on outside the school.

19_

20.

Retail and other business leaders volunteer work
stations for the students in the cooperative
program for the disadvantaged.

20_

NO

NOT
A P P ROPRIATE

132

YES

NO

NOT
APPROPRIATE

______

______

21.

A school administrator occasionally accompanies the________ 21_____
coordinator on visits to work stations.

22.

The teacher-coordlnator attempts to sell the cooper-______ 22_____________
ative program for the disadvantaged to the community
through speeches to civic groups and utilization of
other public relations techniques.

23.

Employers are informed of the purposes of the pro-__________ 23_____
gram and the training stations.

______

______

24.

There are regular evaluations by the employer and___________ 24_____
the coordinator of the student's progress.

______

______

25.

Employers are encouraged to think of the program
as a "training experience" for the student and
not a source of Inexpensive labor.

25____

______

______

26.

The employer and the coordinator have developed a___________26_____
written analysis of the trainee’s job and listed
desirable outcomes.

______

______

26.1_____

______

______

27.

Detailed records (e.g. Student Profile, Training___________ 27______
Agreement, Training Plan, etc.) are kept on each
student.

______

______

28.

If a disadvantaged student is without a career goal,_______28_____
activities and meaningful experiences are provided
that will give him career direction.

______

______

29.

There is a sufficient number of released hours for
the coordinator to visit students on the jobs and
to recruit employers.

29_____

______

______

30.

There is an organized Bys t e m of follow-up of former
disadvantaged students (e.g. by means of annual
questionnaire, interview, etc.)

30_____ _______ __________

'

(If your answer to No. 26 is "Yes," answer 26.126.11 before moving to No. 27.
If your answer is
"No," move to No. 27).
26.1

The coordinator checks the student's work
and progress in light of the written analysis.
26.11

30.

1

If yes, h o w often?_____________________

If yes, what follow-up system is used?

133

Instructions:

31.

Please indicate for each Item whe t h e r y o u "agree strongly," "agree,
are "uncertain," "disagree," or "disagree strongly."

The cooperative pro g r a m for the disadvantaged is seen
as being "good" because it rids the regular classroom
of its academic "problem children."

31

32.

No job is considered m e n i a l so long as the individual
is making a n honest living.

33.

Disadvantaged students seem m o r e enthused over released
time from school and m a k i n g m o n e y than they do w i t h
learning job skills.

34.

Academically disadvantaged students cannot be taught
successfully in the regular cooperative programs.

35.

Disadvantaged students w h o have not developed job skills
in prior courses cannot be expected to fair wel l on a
job that requires specialized skills.

36.

The cooperative pro g r a m for the disadvantaged encourages
potential dropouts to remain in school.

37.

The cooperative program is expected to have a positive
impact on the w o r k attitudes of the disadvantaged
students.

38.

There are no real differences, other than the students
selected, bet w e e n the regular cooperative pr o g r a m and
the disadvantaged cooperative program.

38

39.

Mo s t of the disadvantaged students enrolled in the
cooperative pr o g r a m see it as one of value for them.

39

40.

M a n y of the problems that the disadvantaged students
had at the beginning of the schoolyear have decreased
as a result of the training they have received in the
cooperative program.

40

41.

Uhlte disadvantaged students p e r f o r m better tha n d i s ­
advantaged students of other ethnic backgrounds in the
cooperative program.

41

42.

Academica l l y disadvantaged students cannot be expected
to develop specific job skills.

42

33

36

134

43.

I have, at times, encountered mu c h difficulty In selllng m y disadvantaged trainees to employers.

43

44.

T h e disadvantaged p rogram h a s a positive image among
community (Social) groups.

44

45.

Students w h o are considered d isadvantaged w o uld rather
not b e labeled as such.

45

46.

Teacher-coordlnators for regular vocational programs
tend to be antagonistic toward the Installation of
programs for the disadvantaged.

46

47.

Mo s t of the parents of the d i sadvantaged trainees
react favorably to the special cooperative program.

47

48.

M y progra m receives full support fro m the administrators 48
of m y school.

49.

Disadvantaged students seem to find their jobs economic
cally as w e l l as personally rewarding.

49

50.

The continuation of the cooperative program, and o t h e r
Buch programs, Is vital to the successful training of
disadvantaged youth.

50

APPENDIX G

135

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES GOVERNING
THE CERTIFICATION OF MICHIGAN TEACHERS
Effective January 18, 1973
(By authority conferred on the state board of education by section 10 of Act No. 287 of the
Public Acts of 1964, as amended, and sections 9 and 302 of Act No. 380 of the Public Acts
of 1965, being sections 388.1010, 16.109 and 16.402 of the Compiled Laws of 1948.)
Rules 1, 5, 15, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 41, 51, 52 and 54 of the rules
entitled "Teacher Certification Code", being R 390.1101, R 390.1105, R 390.1115, R 390.1123,
R 390.1124, R 390.1126, R 390.1127, R 390.1129, R 390.1130, R 390.1132, R 390.1133,
R 390.1134, R 390.1141, R 390.1151, R 390.1152 and R 390.1154 of the Michigan
Administrative Code, rules 1, 5, 15, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 51, 52 and 54
appearing on pages 4234 to 4240 of the 1967 Annual Supplement to the Code, and rule 41
appearing on page 4741 of the 1968 Annual Supplement to the Code are amended, and
rules 29a, 45 and 61 to 67, being R 390.1129a, R 390.1145, R 390.1161 to R 390.1167,
are added to read as hereinafter provided.
The rules of the state board of education entitled "Plan for the Certification of Teachers
and Coordinators of Trade and Industrial Education", "Plan for the Certification of Teachers
and Coordinators of Business Education", "Plan for the Certification of Teachers of
Vocational Agriculture", and "Flan for the Certification of Teachers of Vocational
Homemaking", being R 390.571 to R 390.603 of the 1954 Michigan Administrative Code,
and appearing on pages 4014 to 4019 of the 1954 Administrative Code; rules 2 to 5, 103,
123, 124 and 133 of the rules entitled "Reimbursed Programs of Vocational-Technical
Education", being R 395.232 to R 395.235, R 395.333, R 395.353, R 395.354 and R 395.363
of the Michigan Administrative Code and appearing on pages 4247, 4268 and 4270 to 4272 of the
1967 Annual Supplement to the Code; and rule 31 of the "Teacher Certification Code",
being R 390.1131 of the Michigan Administrative Code and appearing on page 4237 of the
1967 Annual Supplement to the Code are rescinded.
R
R
R
R
R
R
-R

390.571 to R 390 .603. Rescinded
395.232 to R 395.235. Rescinded
395.333. Rescinded
395.353. Rescinded
395.354. Rescinded
395.363. Rescinded
3-90.1131. Rescinded
PART 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

R 390.1101. Definitions .
Rule 1. As used in this code:
(a) "Elementary school" means a school which includes grades kindergarten to 9.
(b) "Secondary school" means a school which includes grades 7 to 12.
(c) "Sponsoring institution" means a higher education institution approved for teacher education
by the state board and which is willing to make recommendations as to applicants for the several
certificates provided for in this code.
(d) "State board" means the state board of education.
(e) "Substantive field" means courses in areas other than professional preparation courses
in education or courses of content or methods related to the preparation of teachers.
(f) "Satisfactory college credit" means an average grade of "C" or its equivalent.

1

136
(g) "Certificate endorsement" means the extension of the grade level validity of an existing
elementary or secondary certificate or the completion of a planned program in an area of
specialization. The Intent of the endorsement program is to permit a person with a secondary
certificate to obtain an endorsement at a level other than secondary and to permit a person
with an elementary certificate to obtain an endorsement in another area or level other than
elementary.
(h) "Early childhood certificate endorsement" means an authorization to teach in any
school program preceding or including kindergarten.
(i) "General elementary certificate endorsement" means an authorization to teach in
grades kindergarten to 6.
0) "Middle school certificate endorsement" means an authorization to teach in grades
5 to 9.
(k) "Secondary certificate endorsement" means an authorization to teach in grades 10
to 12.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1105. Persons required to hold certificates or permits.
Rule S. (1) A person employed in an elementary or secondary school with instructional
responsibilities shall hold a certificate, permit or vocational authorization valid for the
positions to which he is assigned.
(2) A teacher aide, classroom assistant, secretary to instructional personnel or other
paraprofessional person legally employed in a non-instructional capacity need not be
certificated as a teacher.
(3) A student enrolled for student teaching or internship credit at an approved teacher
education institution need not hold a teaching certificate but shall be certified by such
teacher education institution to the state board as enrolled for student teaching. The
certificate shall include the initial and final dates of the assignment and the name of the
school to which the student is assigned. Upon filing such certificate with the state board,
persons assigned school duties by a board of education shall be considered as lawfully
exercising such duties.
(4) A full-time teacher of a day school program reimbursed from vocational education
funds (agriculture, business, homemaking, trade and industrial), shall meet the minimum
qualifications for endorsement or authorization in the particular vocational education field
as specified by the state board.
(5) A teacher in a reimbursed program in special education, shall meet the minimum
qualifications for certification when required by law in the particular special education
field as specified by the state board.
(6) A previously issued certificate retains its original designation and validity. A
permanent certificate continues as a permanent certificate.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390. 1111. Equality of opportunity.
Rule 11. (1) The state board holds that segregation of students at any level in
educational programs seriously interferes with the achievement of equal opportunity guarantees
of this state and that segregated schools fail to provide maximum opportunity for the full
development of human resources in a democratic society. Therefore, it directs each Michigan
institution of higher education approved for the preparation of teachers to provide an
opportunity for prospective teachers to: (a) understand the effect of discrimination on
minority groups as well as on the majority; and, (b) be educated in integrated teacher educa­
tion programs so that in their professional careers they will be able to further achievement of
the equal opportunity guarantees of this state.
(2) An applicant for provisional certification shall show an awareness that Michigan's
constitution and laws guarantee the right to equal educational opportunity without discrimina­
tion because of race, religion, color, or national origin.
(3) Such an applicant holds an important responsibility for creating a climate for learning
based upon the practice of, and an understanding of, equality of educational opportunity in its
fullest sense.
^4) Such an applicant who is otherwise qualified shall not be denied the right to be certified
by the state board, to receive training for the purpose of becoming a teacher or to engage in
practice teaching in any school, on the grounds he is blind, deaf, or physically handicapped

2

137
in some other manner. A school district shall not refuse to engage a teacher on such
grounds, if such a handicapped teacher is able to carry out the duties of the position for
which he applies in the school district.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1115. Applications and credits.
Rule 15. (1) The application for a certificate or permit shall be directed to the state
board of education, Lansing, Michigan, presented on a form supplied or approved by the
state board.
(2) Credits toward certification shall be completed through an approved teacher educa­
tion institution, or accepted in transfer by such an institution, and shall be acceptable
toward requirements for a provisional teaching certificate and a bachelor’s or higher degree.
The state board reserves the right to determine the acceptability of credits presented for
certification from approved teacher education institutions located in other states.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973 .
R 390.1117. Certificate restrictions and expiration.
Rule 17. (1) A certificate and a permit have certain restrictions as to the nature of
teaching for which the holder may be employed. The applicant and the employer shall be
thoroughly familiar with the specific provisions regarding the validity of the several
certificates.
(2)
All certificates and permits expire on June 30 of the expiration year indicated on
the certificate or permit.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
PART 2 . STATE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATES
R 390.1121. General provisions.
Rule 21. (1) A qualified person shall complete an application for provisional certifica­
tion within 5 years after certification requirements have been met.
(2) The requirements in this part of the code for the several certificates are minimum
requirements.
(3) The provisions of this part are mandatory for all persons enrolled in teacher education
institutions in this state after July 1, 1970.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1122. General education and substantive fields.
Rule 22. (1) An applicant for a provisional certificate shall demonstrate that he has an
acquaintance with the substance, concepts, and methods of the principal areas of human
knowledge, and skills essential to communication and inquiry in modern society. He shall
present evidence that he has completed not less than 40 semester hours in a program of
general or liberal education.
(2)
An applicant shall present evidence of completion of a program providing for depth
in any substantive field he proposes to teach. At the secondary level, such specialization
is ordinarily initiated by completing a major in a specific field or in closely allied fields .
At the elementary level, responsibility for introducing pupils to many areas of human
knowledge or inquiry shall not deprive the prospective teacher of the opportunity to
develop a degree of specialization in a particular substantive field. Therefore, the
applicant shall present evidence that he has begun to master a substantive field and is able
because of his teaching skills to stimulate students to seek more knowledge and understanding.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390. 1123. Professional education.
Rule 23. (1) An applicant shall present evidence that he has completed 20 semester hours
of theoretical and practical knowledge in the following fields:

3

138
(a) H o w human beings grow and how they learn.
(b) The structure, function and purposes of educational Institutions In our society.
(c) The methods and materials of instruction appropriate to the elementary or
secondary level.
(2) The applicant shall present evidence that he has participated under institutional
supervision for a minimum of 6 semester hours (of the 20) in directed teaching at the level
for which the certificate is granted.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1124. Scholastic averages and directed teaching .
Rule 24. (1) An applicant for an elementary or secondary provisional certificate shall
have satisfactory college credits prior to assignment to directed teaching. An applicant,
to qualify for a certificate, shall obtain satisfactory college credit in directed teaching.
An applicant shall have satisfactory college credit in the required hours for each successive
certificate.
(2) For certification purposes, a minimum of 30 clock hours of responsible classroom
teaching and observation under the supervision of a sponsoring institution is equivalent
to 1 semester hour of credit in directed teaching.
(3) The directed teaching requirement for the initial elementary or secondary
provisional certificate may be waived in full or in part for an experienced teacher as
follows:
(a) For an applicant with an earned master's degree or higher degree and 3 years of
successful teaching experience at the appropriate level, together with a recommendation
from the school superintendent and the sponsoring institution regarding the certificate, the
complete requirement of 6 semester hours may be waived.
(b) For an applicant with less than an earned master's degree but with 5 years of
successful teaching experience at the appropriate level, together with a recommendation
from the school superintendent and the sponsoring institution regarding the certificate, the
complete requirement of 6 semester hours may be waived.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1125. Degrees and recommendations .
Rule 25. (1) An applicant for a provisional certificate shall have been granted a bachelor's
degree from a Michigan college or university approved for teacher education by the state
board. Degree requirements for an out-of-state applicant are determined by the out-of-state
institution as described in rule 30.
(2) The sponsoring institution shall make recommendation concerning all certificates.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1126. State elementary provisional certificates.
Rule 26. (1) A state elementary provisional certificate may be issued to an applicant who
presents evidence that he has completed 1 of the following requirements:
(a) A major of at least 30 semester hours or a group major of 36 semester hours, and a
planned program of 20 semester hours in other substantive fields deemed appropriate to
elementary education.
(b) Three minors of at least 20 semester hours each, 2 of which shall be in substantive
fields which may include a group minor of 24 semester hours, and 1 of which may be a
planned program of 20 semester hours in a combination of methods and content appropriate
to elementary education.
(2)
A state elementary provisional certificate is valid for teaching all subjects in grades
kindergarten to 8, and in subject matter areas in grade 9, in which the applicant has
completed a major or minor. It is valid for 6 years.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1127. State secondary provisional certificates.
Rule 27. (1) A state secondary provisional certificate may be issued to an applicant who
presents evidence that he has completed the following requirements:
(a) A major of at least 30 semester hours or a group major of 36 semester hours.
(b) A minor of 20 semester hours or a group minor of 24 semester hours.
4

139
(2) A state secondary provisional certificate is valid for teaching all subjects in grades 7
and 8, and in subject matter areas in grades 9 to 12 in which the applicant has completed a
major or minor. It is valid for 6 years.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1128. Additional majors and minors.
Rule 28. A person already certificated who wishes to qualify for a new major or minor may
combine credit already earned with additional credit to bring the total up to the minimum for a
major or a minor as specified in this code. The additional major or minor is to be recommended
by a sponsoring institution in the same manner as the original provisional or permanent
certificate and is to be recorded on a form certifying supplementary majors or minors.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1129. Certificate endorsements.
Rule 29. (1) The holder of a provisional or continuing certificate (elementary or secondary)
may qualify for a certificate endorsement by presenting evidence that he has completed 1 of
the following planned programs with a minimum of 18 semester hours: early childhood,
general elementary, middle school or areas appropriate to the secondary grades. W h e n the
planned program is completed following the issuance of the initial provisional state
certificate, the person may apply the credit on the requirements for the continuing
certificate.
(2) The holder of a provisional or continuing certificate (elementary or secondary) may
qualify at a new certificate level (elementary or secondary) by presenting evidence that he
has completed a minimum 12 semester hour planned program appropriate to the new certificate
level. The applicant qualifying for the new certificate shall present evidence that he has
a distribution of majors and minors appropriate to teaching at that new level. W h e n
directed teaching at the new level is required, the minimum of 2 years of successful
teaching experience at the appropriate level as determined by the state board may be
substituted for the requirement. Credit completed in qualifying at a new certificate level
may be applied on the requirements for the continuing certificate.'
(3) A Michigan institution approved for teacher education or an institution out of this
state as authorized by subdivision (c) of subrule (1) of rule 32 may recommend the additional
certificate endorsement.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1129a. Procedures at expiration of provisional certificates.
Rule 29a . (1) To be qualified for teaching at expiration of an elementary or secondary
provisional certificate, an applicant shall qualify within the provisional period for a
continuing certificate. If the applicant does not so qualify, a 3-year renewal of the
provisional certificate may be granted if the applicant presents evidence that he has
completed 10 semester hours of credit since issuance of the provisional certificate or
that he holds an earned master's or doctor's degree. A second 3-year renewal may be
granted if the applicant presents evidence that he has earned 18 semester hours after
issuance of the provisional certificate in a planned course of study applicable
toward requirements for a continuing certificate or that he holds an earned master's
or doctor's degree.
(2) The sponsoring institution shall make recommendation concerning the certificate.
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
R 390.1130. Reciprocity.
Rule 30. The state board may issue a provisional certificate to a person who has, or who
is reported eligible for, a teaching certificate issued by the certificating authority of any
other state in which requirements for certification are deemed equivalent to those in
effect in this state. The state board may enter into written agreements with the states
for the mutual acceptance of 1 or more types of teaching certificates Issued by each
state. The department of education shall publish and distribute annually a list of states with
which reciprocity agreements are signed, or whose certificates are accepted in such
manner.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
5

r
i

140
PART 3. STATE CONTINUING CERTIFICATES
R 390.1131. Rescinded 1973 (See R 390.1129a).
R 390.1132. State elementary and secondary continuing certificates.
Rule 32 . (1) A state elementary or secondary continuing certificate may be issued to
an applicant who presents evidence that he has completed the following requirements:
(a) He has taught successfully for 3 years according to the validity of his provisional
certificate and since the issuance of the provisional certificate, as determined by the
state board upon recommendation of the sponsoring institution and the local school
district.
(b) He has earned 18 semester hours after the issuance of the state provisional
certificate in a planned course of study. This advanced course of study is applicable
to the applicant’s professional development as determined by the state board upon
recommendation of the sponsoring institution, and if appropriate, the local school
district. A person with an earned master's or higher degree is not required to complete
the 18 semester hour planned program.
(c) A continuing certificate may be recommended by a teacher education Institution
out of this state accredited by a national teacher accreditation agency approved by
the state board provided that credits comprising a planned course of study are applicable
toward a master's or higher degree at the institution.
(2) This rule is mandatory for ail persons seeking certification after July 1, 1976.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1133, State elementary and secondary 30-hour continuing certificates.
Rule 33. (1) A state elementary or secondary continuing certificate is not required
but is available to the teacher who qualifies and requests it.
(2)
This certificate may be issued to an applicant who presents evidence that he has
completed the following requirements:
(a) He has taught successfully for 3 years, under the terms of his provisional,
continuing or permanent certificate as determined by the state board upon recommendation
of the sponsoring institution and the local school district.
(b) Thirty semester hours in a planned course of study beyond the bachelor's degree
or that he holds a master's degree. This advanced course of study is applicable to the
applicant's professional development and shall consist of a planned program contributing
specifically to his professional improvement as determined by the state board upon
recommendation of the sponsoring Institution.
(c) Whe n recommendation for this certificate is made by an institution which is located
out of this state and accredited by a national teacher accreditation agency approved by
the state board, the credits comprising a planned course of study shall be applicable on
a master's or higher degree at the institution.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1134, Validity.
Rule 34. (1) A permanent or continuing certificate or full vocational authorization
retains its validity providing the holder is employed in an educational capacity for a
minimum of 100 days in any given 5 year period.
(2) If the holder of a permanent or continuing certificate or full vocational authorization
is not employed in an educational capacity for the minimum of 100 days in the 5 year
period , his permanent or continuing certificate or full vocational authorization is
automatically suspended.
(3) The suspended certificate or authorization may be reinstated provisionally for 1
year by the state board upon request of a public or private school employer that is
willing to employ and sponsor the holder of the suspended certificate or authorization
full time for 1 year. The provisional reinstatement shall be authorized to the sponsoring
school employer in the name of the holder,
(4) During the reinstatement period the school employer shall provide appropriate class­
room supervision to the teacher candidate for reinstatement of the certificate or authoriza­
tion. The employer shall submit a written evaluation to the state board at the end of the
1 year reinstatement period.

6

141
(5) When the employer reports completion of 1 year of successful experience during the
reinstatement period the permanent or continuing certificate or full vocational authorization
shall be fully reinstated.
(6) W hen the employer reports that the reinstatement year of experience was unsuccessful,
the holder of the suspended certificate or authorization may enroll in a teacher education
institution of his choice and complete a minimum of 6 semester hours of credit selected to
improve the teaching skills identified by the sponsoring employer as deficient during the
1 year reinstatement period. Upon successful completion of that additional credit, the
permanent or continuing certificate or full vocational authorization shall be fully reinstated.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
PART 4. STATE SPECIAL PERMITS
R 390.1141.

General provisions.

Rule 41. (1) On application, the state board will issue a special permit for a person who
has the statutory qualifications and has completed, or had accepted by transfer, the pre­
scribed amount of satisfactory college credit on an approved teacher education program.
The permit will be a full-year permit or substitute permit.
(2) A permit or renewal is issued to the recommending superintendent or personnel
officer who shall apply therefor and affirm under oath that a certificated teacher is not
available for employment. The recommending superintendent or personnel officer receiving
the permit or renewal shall hold the permit or renewal for the person.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1968; Am. 1973.
R 390.1142. Full-year special permits.
Rule 42. (1) An applicant for a full-year special permit shall present evidence that the
person has completed 120 semester hours of satisfactory college credit, including IS
semester hours of credit in professional education.
(2) A full-year special permit is valid for teaching in the grades or subjects specified
on the permit or both until June 30 of the school year for which the permit is issued.
(3) A full-year special permit will be renewed upon presentation of evidence that the
person has completed 6 semester hours of satisfactory additional credit applying on require­
ments for regular certification.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1143. Substitute permits .
Rule 43. (1) An applicant for a substitute permit shall present evidence that the person
has completed at least b0 semester hours of satisfactory college credit until September 1, 1970,
and 90 semester hours of satisfactory college credit after September 1, 1970.
(2) After September 1, 1973, the person who presents less than 15 semester hours of
credit in professional education, but at least 120 semester hours of satisfactory college credit,
is eligible for a substitute permit.
(3) A substitute permit is valid for teaching on a substitute basis for a maximum of 90
days during any school year for a person with a minimum of 60 semester hours of satisfactory
college credit, and for a maximum of 90 days during any semester for a person with a minimum
of 90 semester hours of satisfactory college credit, except that to be eligible to teach for
90 days, the person with less than 120 semester hours shall have completed 30 semester
hours of satisfactory college credit within the last 10 years.
(4) After September 1, 1973, a substitute permit isvalid for teaching on a substitute basis
for a maximum of 90 days during any school year.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1968.
R 390.1144. Substitute permits; renewal.

Rule 44. (1) For a person with 60 semester hours or more of satisfactory college credit who
does not teach more than 90 days during any school year, the substitute permit is renewable the
following year upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools and without additional
credit, but no substitute permit shall be issued for any person
withless
than 90semeste
hours after September 1, 1970.

7

142
(2) For a person with 90 but less than 120 semester hours of satisfactory college credit
who does not teach more than 180 days during any school year, the substitute permit is
renewable the following year upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools and
upon presentation of evidence that the person is participating in a planned program
approved by the sponsoring institution and has completed 10 semester hours of
satisfactory college credit during the preceding 12 months.
(3) For a person with 120 or more semester hours of satisfactory college credit, the
substitute permit is renewable the following year,
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1968.
R 390.1145. Permits in emergency situations.
Rule 45. On recommendation of the superintendent of a local or intermediate school
district, the state board may issue a permit for a person with reasonable qualifications
when failure to authorize the permit will deprive children of an education. The permit
shall be issued for a specific period of time under emergency circumstances not including
labor disputes.
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
PART 5. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
R 390.1151. Approved teacher education institutions.
Rule 51. (1) The state board approves certain institutions and their programs for the
purposes of preparing applicants for certification. Upon request of the state board a
teacher education institution shall present a report of its teacher education curricula
and definitions of majors and minors. The programs of an approved teacher education
institution are subject to periodic review by the state board.
(2) A sponsoring institution recommending applicants for teachers' certificates shall
establish selection techniques which insure that only qualified students are admitted to
the teacher education program and sponsored for certification.
(3) Unless otherwise approved by the state board, all majors and minors offered by
an approved teacher education institution shall be in subject matter fields pertinent to
teaching at the level for which certification is to be recommended. The state board
reserves the right to determine the acceptability of majors and minors recommended by
out-of-state institutions.
(4) An applicant who has been graduated from a specific teaching curriculum, such as
fine arts, industrial arts, library science, music, physical education, health education
or foreign language, may be certificated to teach such specific subject in elementary and
secondary grades when, upon recommendation of the sponsoring institution, the applicant
qualifies at both levels .
(5) An applicant convicted as an adult of an act of immoral conduct contributing to
the delinquency of a child, or a felony involving moral turpitude, as determined by a
court, shall be denied issuance of a certificate or license or shall be denied enrollment
for student teaching or internship in a public or private school, or shall have his
certificate suspended or revoked.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1152. Same; equivalence option.
Rule 52 . An applicant may satisfy any educational requirement for certification by
presenting evidence of an equivalent as determined by the state board. In granting such
equivalence the state board shall consider college graduation and scores made on
standardized examinations or prior teaching experience, or any combination of these or
other appropriate criteria. Evaluation of equivalence shall be under direction of the
state board. The sponsoring institution may award semester hours of credit based upon
equivalence in partial fulfillment of requirements for a major or minor or for any of the
required credits for certification.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.

8

\

143

.

R 390.1153. Same; experimental programs.
Rule 53. The state board at the request of an approved teacher education Institution
may waive for a specific time particular requirements of this code, for experimental teacher
education programs , A request for such a waiver shall provide sufficient detail as pre­
scribed to allow the state board to approve such provisions in order that substantial
experimentation with patterns of teacher education may be encouraged. Upon adequate
evidence, the state board may give continuing status to an experimental teacher education
program of demonstrated superiority.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1154. Gut of state institutions.
Rule 54. (1) An applicant for certification in this state who has been educated in an
accredited institution out of this state shall present evidence of having fulfilled all of
the requirements established for residents of this state. The state board may accept
credit from an institution accredited by its regional accrediting association.
(2) An applicant for certification in this state who presents credit from a teacher
education institution not accredited by its regional accrediting association may validate
such credit by gaining unconditional admission to full standing in the graduate department,
division or school of a college or university fully accredited by the regional accrediting
association, or completing 6 semester hours of acceptable graduate credit in an accredited
institution or meeting such requirements as are specified by the state board.
(3) Credits from institutions in foreign countries will be adjudged by the United States
Office of Education and by the state board in determining eligibility for certification.
(4) A state elementary or secondary provisional certificate may be issued to an applicant
from another state who presents evidence that he has been graduated from a teacher
education institution approved by that state's appropriate education agency and has com­
pleted a program in elementary or secondary education as prescribed by that teacher educa­
tion institution, if the institution is accredited at the time of his graduation by a national
teacher accreditation agency approved by the state board.
HISTORY: Add. 1967; Am. 1973.
R 390.1155. Non-teacher education institutions.
Rule 55. An applicant presenting credits from an institution of higher education not
approved for teacher education purposes shall complete such credits as may be required
by the state board in his individual case.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1156. Correspondence credits.
Rule 56. A correspondence credit may not apply toward requirements for a continuing
certificate, renewal of a provisional certificate, nor conversion of a provisional or
continuing certificate .
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
PART 6 . VOCATIONAL E N D O R S E M E N T A N D AUTHORIZATION
R 390.1161. State secondary provisional certification with vocational endorsement.
Rule 61. (1) An applicant for vocational endorsement shall meet the requirements for
state secondary provisional certification as described in part 2 of these rules as well as
presenting evidence of completing:
(a)
A program in vocational teacher education at an institution approved by the state
board for the preparation of vocational teachers in the occupational area of the
endorsement.
<b) A major or a minor in an approved program in the occupational area of the
endorsement.
(c)
Two years of work experience in the occupational area of the endorsement or
completion of a planned equivalent program of directed supervised occupational experience
approved by the department of education. The occupational experience shall be
characterized by its relevancy and recency.
9

144
(2) Vocational endorsement Is valid for teaching in the stated occupational area in
approved vocational education programs .
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
R 390.1162 . State secondary continuing certification with vocational endorsement.
Rule 62. (1) A state continuing certificate with a vocational endorsement may be
issued to an applicant who has met the requirements for continuing certification as
described in part 3 of these rules as well as presenting evidence that he has com­
pleted the following requirements:
(a) Taught successfully for 3 years according to the validity of his provisional
certificate and vocational endorsement and since the issuance of the provisional
certificate and vocational endorsement, as determined by the state board upon
recommendation of the sponsoring institution and the local school district.
(b) Earned 18 semester hours after the issuance of his state provisional certificate
and vocational endorsement in a planned course of study which includes a minimum of
10 semester hours of relevant vocational education. This advanced course of study is
applicable to the applicant's professional development as determined by the state
board upon recommendation of the sponsoring institution and, if appropriate, the local
school district. A person with an earned master's or higher degree is not required to
complete the 18 semester hour planned program.
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
R 390.1163. Temporary vocational authorization.
Rule 63. (1) A temporary vocational authorization document may be issued upon the
report of a designated vocational teacher education institution to an applicant presenting
evidence that he has met the following requirements:
(a) Possesses a baccalaureate degree.
(b) Has a major or minor in the field of specialization in which vocational authoriza­
tion is being requested or equivalent graduate credits to substitute for the required major
or minor.
(c) Has a minimum of 2 years of experience in the occupational area concerned or has
completed a planned program of directed supervised occupational experience approved by
the state board. The occupational experience shall be characterized by its relevancy
and recency.
(2)
Temporary vocational authorization is valid for teaching in those courses in which
instruction is limited to the occupation specified on the authorization in approved voca­
tional programs. It is valid for 6 years.
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
R 390.1164. Full vocational authorization.
Rule 64. (1) A full vocational authorization document shall be issued to qualified
candidates and shall be valid for continued teaching in those courses in which instruction
is limited to the occupation specified on the authorization in approved vocational
programs.
(2) Applications for full vocational authorization shall contain evidence that the
candidate:
(a) Has taught successfully for 3 years according to the validity of his temporary
vocational authorization as determined by the state board upon recommendation of the
sponsoring institution and the local school district.
(b) Has completed a minimum of 10 semester hours of professional vocational education
as determined by the state board and approved by the sponsoring institution and the local
school district.
(3) The validity of a full vocational authorization is specified in rule 34.
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
R 390.1165. Annual vocational authorization.
Rule 65. (1) If a candidate does not meet the standards outlined for temporary vocational
authorization, an evaluation of competency shall be made by the department of education.
The department shall determine the adequacy of his combined education and occupational
10

145
and teaching experience in relation to the requirements set forth. A candidate shall have
work experience at the Journeyman level in apprenticesble trades. If the candidate is
deemed competent, a 1 year vocational authorization shall be Issued to the school
district. This annual vocational authorization is planned primarily for persons who will
be teaching only vocationally approved trade and industrial and health occupation
courses in grades 9 to 12 .
(2) This annual authorization is valid for teaching those courses in approved programs,
in which Instruction is limited to the occupation specified on the authorization.
(3) A vocational authorization is renewable annually upon the recommendation of the
employing local school district.
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
R 390.1166. Credit from institutions not designated for preparation of vocational teachers.
Rule 66. Candidates for vocational endorsement or authorization who present credit
from a teacher education institution not approved by the state board for the preparation of
vocational teachers may validate the credit by gaining unconditional admission to full
standing in the graduate department, division or school of a college or university approved
for vocational teacher education, by completing 6 semester hours of acceptable graduate
credit in an institution approved by the state board for the preparation of vocational
teachers, or meet the requirements specified by the state board.
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
R 390.1167. Instructional programs leading to state or federal license.
Rule 67 . Personnel assigned instructional responsibility in fields for which a state or
federal license is required shall hold the appropriate license before requesting a voca­
tional endorsement or authorization.
HISTORY: Add. 1973.
PART 7. CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS UNTIL 1970
R 390.1171-R 390.1179. Expired 1970.
PART 8. CERTIFICATION OF CERTAIN TEACHERS UNTIL 1976
R 390.1181. State permanent certificates; elementary.
Rule 81. (1) A state elementary permanent certificate may be issued to an applicant
who has held a state elementary provisional certificate and who presents evidence that
he has met the following requirements:
(a) The application shall be made within 1 year after expiration of the state elementary
provisional certificate.
(b) He has taught successfully 3 years in elementary schools within the 5 year period
provided in the provisional certificate.
(c) He has earned 10 additional semester hours of credit in an approved institution
after the date of Issuance of the original state elementary provisional certificate.
(d) Credit earned after receiving the state elementary provisional certificate whether
or not leading to a master's or higher degree, may be counted toward requirements for
the state elementary permanent certificate, or additional majors or minors.
(2) The sponsoring institution shall make recommendation concerning permanent
certification after submission of evidence by the applicant or after the collection of
evidence by the sponsoring institution.
(3) A state elementary permanent certificate qualifies the holder to teach from the
date of issuance in the elementary grades of the public schools cf this state.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1182. State permanent certificates; secondary.
Rule 82. (1) A state secondary permanent certificate may be Issued to an applicant
who has held a state secondary provisional certificate, and who presents evidence that
he has met the following requirements:

11

146
(a) The application shall be made within 1 year after expiration of the state secondary
provisional certificate.
(b) He has taught successfully 3 years in the secondary schools within the 5 year
period defined by the validity of the provisional certificate.
(c) He has earned 10 additional semester hours of credit in an approved institution
after the date of issuance of the original state secondary provisional certificate.
It is recommended, but not required, that such credit be in partial fulfillment for the
master's degree.
(d) Credit earned after receiving the state secondary provisional certificate, whether
or not leading to a master's or higher degree may be counted toward requirements for
the state secondary permanent certificate, or additional majors or minors.
(2) The sponsoring institution shall make recommendation concerning permanent
certification after submission of evidence by the applicant or after the collection of
evidence by the sponsoring institution.
(3) A state secondary permanent certificate qualifies the holder to teach from the
date of issuance in the secondary grades of the public schools of this state in the
subjects or subject fields indicated on the certificate.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1183. State permanent certificates; general provisions.
Rule 83. (1) Waiver of additional training. Additional training for a state elementary
or secondary permanent certificate may be waived when the applicant has a master's
or higher degree from an accredited institution when the provisional certificate was
issued, or prior to the application for a state elementary or secondary permanent
certificate.
(2) Changes from provisional certification. To be qualified for teaching at the
expiration of an elementary or secondary provisional certificate, the applicant shall
qualify within the provisional period for the state permanent certificate. If the applicant
does not qualify for the state permanent certificate within the provisional period the
privilege of candidacy for a permanent certificate is forfeited. To qualify for
reconsideration the holder shall meet the conditions specified by the state board to
apply to the individual case.
(3) Invalidation of certificate. If the holder of a permanent certificate is not
actively employed in this state, or elsewhere, for 5 consecutive years in an educational
position, the certificate is automatically suspended. To qualify for recertification the
conditions specified by the state board to apply to the individual case shall be met.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1184. State limited renewal certificates; 3-year.
Rule 84. (1) A 3-year state limited renewal certificate may be issued to the holder of a
3-year state limited certificate or a 3-year state limited renewal certificate, who has
earned 10 semester hours of bachelor's degree credit since the date of issuance of the
last certificate held. Renewal credits shall be presented to the state board by the
approved teacher education institution where the applicant is a candidate for the
bachelor's degree, be of an average grade of "C" or better, and be applicable toward
requirements of the curriculum approved for a state provisional certificate.
(2)
A 3-year state limited renewal certificate is valid for 3 years from the date of
issuance and qualifies the holder to teach in the elementary grades of any school district
except 1 which maintains an approved high school.
HISTORY: Add. 1967.
R 390.1185. State limited renewal certificates; 1-year.
Rule 85. (1) A 1-year state limited renewal certificate may be Issued to the holder of
a 1-year state limited certificate or a 1-year state limited renewal certificate, who has
earned 6 semester hours of bachelor's degree credit since the date of issuance of the
last certificate held. Renewal credits shall be presented to the state board by the
approved teacher education institution where the applicant is a candidate for the bachelor's
degree, be of an average grade of "C" or better, and be applicable toward requirements of
the curriculum approved for a state provisional certificate.

12

APPENDIX H

r
147

Part G
Cooperative Education for the Disadvantaged
1.

Definition
Co-op education means a program of vocational education for persons
who, through a cooperative arrangement between the school and employ­
ers, receive instruction, including required academic courses and
related vocational instruction by alternation of study in school
with a job in any occupational field.

2.

Objective
The primary purpose of Part G Cooperative Education programs in
Michigan is to assist disadvantaged youth in adjusting to the work
environment by providing supervised and coordinated on-the-job
training with related classroom instruction. Such programs will
recognize the differing aspirations and ability levels of youth.
Disadvantaged students enrolled in the lower high school grade
levels may be considered as eligible for cooperative experience,
provided they are at least fifteen years of age and provided they
are enrolled in a vocational education program.

3.

Types of Cooperative Arrangements
Work periods and school attendance may be on alternate half-days,
full days, weeks, or other periods of time in fulfilling the coopera­
tive vocational education program. Although no average hours per
week are specified, it is desirable that programs operate for a
full school year and that students in these programs work a minimum
of 15 hours per week for the duration of the program.

4.

Special Provisions
a.

Related Instruction
Related work instruction for disadvantaged youth in Co-op G ■
should include basic work adjustment instruction needed to
bring students to an educational standard necessary for
employment. Special education services which allow for basic
or remedial reading, writing, computing and conmunication
skills required for adequate job performance should be con­
sidered. In addition, each student shall be enrolled or have
completed a related vocational training program.

148

b.

Supportive Services
Certain services designated as supportive in nature are
eligible for partial reimbursement. Such services include
vocational counseling and guidance, remedial types of-’
instruction, development of curriculum, and development of
instructional materials. However, when requesting monies
for supportive services, be sure to Include such justifica­
tion when the project is submitted for review.

c.

Costs to Students
The Department of Education may reimburse local educational
agencies for unusual costs of students resulting from their
participation in cooperative education programs. Special
tools and clothing, transportation, safety and other protec­
tive devices are services included as unusual costs provided
they are not normally furnished by the employer or the school.
The local educational agency will retain such speicals tools
and other equipment which have a minimum cost of $25 per unit
(i.e. a set of tools). (Other supply items, including special
clothing, may be kept by the student provided that he remains
in the cooperative education program for a period of at least
30 days from the beginning date of such employment.) When
requesting monies for costs to students, be sure to include
a list or description of eligible items to be purchased.

d.

Additional Cost of Employers
One of the purposes of the funds available under Co-op G is to
reimburse employers for the added costs of training beyond the
ordinary costs of training new employees. Only when it can be
established that without such reimbursement employers cannot
provide quality on-the-job training, should local educational
agencies submit "added cost payment*1 requests.
Categories of eligible costs include the following:
(1)

Additional time of training sponsors/employers

(2)

Special instructional materials

(3)

Special formal training sessions not normally provided

(4)

Clerical help required to keep necessary records and reports

Such added employers' costs will not Include the costs of con­
struction of facilities, purchases of equipment, and other capital
costs which would accrue to the benefit of the employers.
The length of time in which employers are eligible to claim reim­
bursement of excess costs is limited to ninety work days.

149

e . Training Agreements
There Is to be kept on file in each student's personal
folder a copy of the training agreement made between
student, coordinator, and employer. This agreement must
include information as to job activities, hours worked,
wages paid, the occupational program the student has com­
pleted or is enrolled in, and the type or kind of related
instruction in which the student is enrolled. This
agreement should contain the signature of student, parent
or guardian, coordinator and employer. A copy of the
written training agreement must be available for review
upon request.
5.

6.

Criteria
a.

Students receive instruction, including required academic
courses and related vocational instruction by alternation
of study in school with a job in any occupational field.

b.

These two experiences must be planned and supervised by
the school and employers so that each contributes to the
student's education and to his employability.

c.

Instructional staff assigned to Co-op G programs must hold
or be eligible to hold a vocational teaching certificate.
In certain instances, however, the school district may
request the option to employ a counselor or some other
regularly certified teacher who has the empathy and
ability to work effectively with disadvantaged persons
and with the business and industrial community.

Funding Criteria
Allocation of funds is in terms of priority to areas within the
state having high rates of school dropouts and youth unemployments.
Areas in which there is a concentration of school dropouts are
those school districts where the dropout rate is equal to or
exceeds the state average, plus 100 or more school dropouts. A
high rate of youth unemployment is determined by the State of
Michigan Employment Security Commission office and exists in
those areas where 25 percent or more of the MESC applicants are
youth 22 years of age and younger. If the amount of monies
requested from eligible schools exceeds the allocation, it will be
necessary to determine additional priorities that must be met in
order to qualify for funding.

150

Post-secondary institutions are eligible to offer the program
provided that one or more school districts which meet the above
criteria are located in the service area of the post-secondary
institution. All programs and projects approved will be funded
under Part G provisions of the Act at 90 percent reimbursement
rate. The 10 percent local share must be a direct in-cash con­
tribution, such as salaries of project personnel. Indirect
costs, such as heat, light, and rental of buildings, are not
considered as eligible in-cash contributions.
7.

Application Procedures
School districts in those areas of the state having a high concen­
tration of school dropouts and youth unemployment are encouraged
to submit requests for new and expanded cooperative education
programs. These programs will be on a project, contractual basis,
funded through Part G of the Vocational Education Amendments of
1972. (The regularly reimbursed cooperative education programs
will be funded under Part B of the Act.)
a.

Request application form VE-4002 from the CEPD Coordinator
in each district.

b.

Complete application form and submit to Career Education
Planning District Coordinator in local planning district.
This program request will become a part of the total
vocational education program submitted by the planning
district for each school year.

c.

Program applications will receive approval, disapproval,
or deferred action for such reasons as lack of funds.
Each local educational agency submitting such applications
shall be notified of the disposition of the application.

d.

Final reports including amount of money actually expended,
federal and local, must be submitted to the Vocational
Education and Career Development Service within 30 days
after completion of project.

APPENDIX I

151

E XCERPT F R O M THE M I C H I G A N S T ATE PLA N F O R V O C A T I O N A L EDUCATION
Evaluation and research designed to me e t the requir e m e n t s of consumer
and homemaking programs w i l l be c o m p a t i b l e and coor d i n a t e d w i t h over­
all vocational education evaluation and research activities.
P e r s onnel
wo r k i n g In the above ancillary services wil l m e e t the r e s p o nsibilities
and qualifications as contained in 1.3.
9.0

Coo perative Vocational Education Programs
In addition to the provisions In 1.0 and 2.0 of this part of the State Plan*
the following special provisions apply to coop e r a t i v e voc a t i o n a l e d u c ation
programs supported w i t h Federal funds u n der Part G of the Act.
9.1

Procedures for Approval of C o o perative V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n Progr a ms
N e w and expanded cooperative v o c ational education prog r a m s designed
under Part G
of the A c t shall be established p r i m a r i l y for the purpose
of assisting y o uth In developing those concepts, skills, understandings,
and attitudes necessary to adjust to the w o r k environment and thereby
gain occupational competency consistent wit h their c areer Interests.
Such programs developed through participation of p ublic and p rivate
employers, will be aimed at he l p i n g those y o u t h not p r e s e n t l y served
but w h o need and can profit from supervised c o o p e r a t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r o ­
grams.
Prior i t y of funding cooperative v o c a tional e d u c ation programs through
local educational agencies shall be given to a reas of high c o n c entra­
tion of y o uth unemployment or school dropouts.
9.11

Submittal of Applications
L o cal educational agencies m a y submit a p p lications to the D e p a r t ­
ment of Education for their r e v i e w and recommendation.
Such
applications must show evidence that c o o perative arrang e m e n t s
have b e e n worked out bet w e e n local educational agen c i e s and
private and public employers to p rovide on- t h e - j o b e x p e rience
through part-time paid employment.
N a t u r e of Pro g r a m - Programs will be d e v e loped o n the b asis of
local manpower needs Identified w i t h respect to the per s o n s in­
v olved .
Duration - The total program, including related Instruction and
on-the-job training shall b e sufficiently intensive to enable
the individual served to develop n e c e ssary competencies.
Co­
operative experience m a y be v iewed as a n individually designed
and employment-based learning activity for each student.
Other A p p lication Requirements - Local educational a g e n c i e s will
describe in each application basic information needed b y state
staff.
Applications shall con t a i n information on the purpose,
plan of the project, v a lue to vocational education, q u a l i f i c a­
tions of staff, financial arrangements, and par t i c i p a t i o n of
public and private employers, number of students enrolled in
private non-profit schools who are expected to participate,
degree and m anner of their expected p a rticipation and provision
that the local a gency wil l m a i n t a i n admi n i s t r a t i v e c ontrol and
direction.