IN FO R M A TIO N TO USERS This m alarial was producad from a m icrofilm copy o f the original docum ent. W hile the m oat advanced technological m eant to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the q u ality is heavily dependant upon the q u ality o f the original subm itted. The follow ing explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which m ay appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "targ et" fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "M issing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) o r section, they are spliced in to th e film along w ith adjacent pages. This m ay have necessitated cutting th ru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete c o n tin u ity. 2 . When an image cm the film is ob literated w ith a large round black m ark, it is an indication th a t the photographer suspected th at the copy m ay have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill fin d j good imegs o f the page in the adjacent fram e. 3. When a m ap, draw ing o r chart, e tc ., was part o f the m aterial being photographed the photographer follow ed a d e fin ite m ethod in "sectioning" the m aterial. It is custom ary to begin photoing a t the upper le ft hand corner o f a large d ie e t and to continue photoing from le ft to right in equal sections w ith a sm all overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the firs t row and continuing on u n til com plete. 4 . The m ajo rity o f users indicate th a t the textual content is o f greatest value, however, a som ewhat higher q u ality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f th e dissertation. Silver prints o f "photographs" m ay be ordered a t additional charge by w riting the O rder D epartmen t, giving the catalog num ber, title , author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5 . PLEASE N O TE : Some pages m ay have ind istin ct p rin t. Film ed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 USA St John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks. England HP10 8HR I [ 77-25,261 MATT, Stephen R o b e rt, 1938A COMPARISON OF THE GRADUATES OF ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS CONDUCTED BY COfflUNITY COLLEGES WITH GRADUATES OF ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS BY PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN. M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , P h .D ., 1977 E d u c a tio n , v o c a tio n a l Xerox University M icrofilm s , © Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 1977 STEPHEN ROBERT MATT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A COMPARISON OF THE GRADUATES OF ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS CONDUCTED BY COMMUNITY COLLEGES WITH GRADUATES OF ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS BY PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN By Stephen R obert M a tt A DISSERTATION Subm itted to M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e req uirem e nts f o r th e degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Secondary E ducation and C u rric u lu m ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE GRADUATES OF ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS CONDUCTED BY COWUNITY COLLEGES WITH GRADUATES OF ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS BY PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN By Stephen R obert M att The purpose o f t h is stu dy was to compare se ve ra l aspects o f M ichigan p r o p r ie ta r y schools and community c o lle g e s te a c h in g e le c tr o n ic s program s. They were made to determ ine 1 f both types o f sch oo ls were e q u a lly s u c c e s s fu l 1n p re p a rin g t h e i r graduates f o r the w o rld o f w ork. In a d d itio n , o th e r com parisons were made to examine d iffe r e n c e s between th e schools and t h e i r g ra d u a te s. The Item s compared were g ive n th e la b e ls , Category One In fo rm a tio n and C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n . Category One covered the c h a r a c t e r is tic s o f th e schools and In c lu d e d : 1. Ownership In fo rm a tio n . 2. School p o p u la tio n s . 3. Program o ff e r in g s . C ategory Two covered In fo rm a tio n on the graduates and In c lu d e d : 1. Background o f g ra d u a te s. 2. Job placem ent and s a la ry In fo rm a tio n a f t e r placem ent o f g ra d u a te s . Stephen R obert M a tt 3. Job s a t is f a c t io n and p re p a ra tio n o f g ra d u a te s. 4. R a tin g o f th e I n s t it u t io n s by g ra d u a te s. 5. S tu d ie s taken a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . The C ategory One In fo rm a tio n was com piled u sin g non-school re fe re n c e sources. These In c lu d e d re p o rts from th e M ichigan D e p a rt­ ments o f E ducation and L a b o r* census r e p o r ts , s t a t i s t i c a l a b s tr a c ts , and th e U nited S ta te s Department o f Conmerce. The Category Two In fo rm a tio n was com piled u sin g a q u e s tio n ­ n a ire w hich was m a ile d to th e graduates o f both types o f p o s t­ secondary s c h o o ls . responders s t i l l Dy th e te le p h o n e . As a f i n a l fo llo w -u p te c h n iq u e , th e non­ rem aining a f t e r a second m a ilin g were c o n ta c te d Each Item on th e q u e s tio n n a ire was designed to provide In fo rm a tio n on v a rio u s sub-hypotheses about the g ra d u a te s . Data were com piled f o r each s u b -h y p o th e s is and th e responses rere then analyzed f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e using c h i-s q u a re . The r e s u lts were compared to th e ta b le value a t an alpha le v e l o f 05. As a r e s u lt o f s t a t i s t i c a l l y exam ining th e responses to th e lu e s tlo n n a lre s , 1 t was shown th a t th e main h y p o th e s is c o u ld n o t be 'e je c te d . There was no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y chools and community c o lle g e s 1n p re p a rin g t h e i r e le c tr o n ic s raduates f o r th e w o rld o f w ork. Of a l l th e Item s examined 1n .his d is s e r t a t io n , o n ly th re e proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t . 1. The p r o p r ie ta r y school e le c tr o n ic s school graduates re c e iv e d more a s s is ta n c e from school placem ent o f f i c i a l s than d id community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . Stephen Robert M att 2. Community c o lle g e graduates had a h ig h e r In cide nce o f jo b change than d id p r o p r ie ta r y school g ra du a tes. 3. Community c o lle g e graduates ra te d t h e i r e le c tr o n ic s tr a in in g h ig h e r than d id p r o p r ie ta r y school graduates. Category One In fo rm a tio n h ig h lig h te d several p o in ts . F ir s t, p ro p r ie ta r y schools outnumbered community c o lle g e s 1n M ichigan 182 to tw e n ty -n in e o r by b e tte r than s ix to one. Second, community c o lle g e e n ro llm e n ts , however, were 126,225 w h ile t o t a l p r o p r ie ta r y school e n ro llm e n ts numbered o n ly 37,310. F in a lly , the v a s t m a jo rity o f p ro p r ie ta r y schools o ffe re d le ss than f iv e types o f programs w h ile th e m a jo r ity o f community c o lle g e s o ffe re d between tw enty and f o r t y programs. There were se ve ra l Item s o f Category Two In fo rm a tio n which d id p ro vid e a d d itio n a l in s ig h t on e le c tr o n ic s school graduates even though they were n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t . o f the graduates were tw e n ty - fiv e and f u ll- t im e day s ch o o l. under, The m a jo rity s in g le , and a tte n d A ll those 1n the study were male and w ith but one e x c e p tio n , a l l were h ig h school graduates o r b e tte r . T w e n ty -fiv e per ce n t o f those responding took work 1n a nother f i e l d w h ile th 1 r ty - f1 v e p er c e n t o b ta in e d work b e fo re g ra d u a tio n . F in a lly , n 1 n e ty-f1 ve per c e n t o f th e graduates ra te d t h e i r tr a in in g as average o r h ig h e r. Only f iv e per c e n t ra te d 1 t "below average" and none ra te d 1 t "v e ry lo w ." T his study h ig h lig h te d the Im portance o f th e need f o r fo llo w -u p s tu d ie s . Many o f the graduates In d ic a te d problems e x is te d 1n t h e ir programs. A continuous fo llo w -u p program could p ro v id e the schools w ith a source o f feedback to meet the needs o f t h e ir graduates. A COMPARISON OF THE GRADUATES OF ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS CONDUCTED BY COMMUNITY COLLEGES WITH GRADUATES OF ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS BY PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN 3y Stephen R obert M a tt A DISSERTATION S ubm itted to M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity 1n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e req uirem e nts f o r th e degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Secondary E ducation and C u rric u lu m 1977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS W ith o u t th e h e lp and a s s is ta n c e o f th e fo llo w in g p e o p le , t h is stu d y would never have come to f r u i t i o n . The s c h o o ls , t h e i r a d m in is tr a to r s and graduates who made t h is p ie c e o f rese arch p o s s ib le . The M ichigan Department o f E ducation p e rs o n n e l— t h e i r guidance and su g g e s tio n s w hich were so necessary to keep th e stu d y on ta r g e t. The lib r a r ia n s a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity who were e xtre m e ly h e lp fu l w ith th e rese arch and re v ie w o f l i t e r a t u r e . D r. George F e rn s, my a d v is o r, and a l l th e members o f my com m ittee; D r. C arl G ross, D r. James Page, and D r. Lawrence Borosage who helped th re a d th ro u gh th e d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered 1n t h is rese arch e f f o r t . F in a lly , s p e c ia l thanks to my w ife , Lu, and my two c h ild r e n ; t h e ir p a tie n c e and encouragement made t h is s tu d y e a s ie r. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................................................................... LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................. v v11 LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................................v111 Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 Problem ......................................................................................... O b je c tiv e s ................................................................................... H y p o t h e s e s ................................................................................... Design o f th e S t u d y ................................................................ L im ita tio n s o f S t u d y .......................................................... S a m p le .......................................................................................... Method o f In v e s tig a tio n ................................................... I n i t i a l Procedure ................................................................ Treatm ent o f D a t a ................................................................ T e r m in o lo g y ................................................................................... O verview o f Succeeding C hapters ....................................... C hapter F ootnotes ....................................................................... 8 9 10 13 13 14 14 15 15 15 17 19 REVIEW OF THE L IT E R A T U R E ......................................................... 20 In tr o d u c tio n ................................................................................... E a rly H i s t o r y ............................................................................. E a rly H is to r y and O b je c tiv e s 1n M ichigan . . . . R e s t r ic tio n s , O p p o s itio n andA c c r e d ita tio n . . . C o m p a r is o n s ............................................................................. Program Comparisons ................................................................ P r o p r ie ta r y Schools/Community C olleg e s P ro f1 t-L o s s F a c to r .......................................................... A c c r e d ita tio n ............................................................................. D iffe re n c e s In Program Length and Cost . . . . O ccu pa tio na l P re p a ra tio n ................................................... Placement A s s is ta n c e ................................................... S u m m a r y .......................................................................................... Chapter F ootnotes ....................................................................... 20 20 25 27 28 32 111 37 42 43 46 49 52 53 Chapter III. IV . V. Page DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................................ 57 In tr o d u c tio n ................................................................................... S tatem ent o f th e P r o b le m .......................................................... O b j e c t i v e s .................................................................................... C ategory One I n f o r m a t i o n .................................................... C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n ........................................................ H y p o t h e s e s .................................................................................... Research M ethodology and Design ....................................... C ategory One I n f o r m a t i o n .................................................... C ategory Two I n f o r m a t i o n .................................................... S e le c tio n o f P a r t ic ip a t in g Schools ................................... S e le c tio n o f th e P o p u l a t i o n ............................................. S e le c tio n o f th e S a m p l e .................................................... G a th e rin g th e D a t a ................................................................ P rocessing th e D a t a ................................................................ S t a t i s t i c a l T reatm ent .......................................................... S u m m a r y ............................................................................ 57 57 57 58 58 60 64 64 64 65 69 70 71 71 76 76 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ....................................... 78 In tr o d u c tio n .................................................................................... C ategory One In fo rm a tio n .......................................................... Ownership In fo rm a tio n .......................................................... School P o p u la tio n s ................................................................ Program O ffe r in g s ................................................................ C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n .......................................................... A n a l y s i s ................................................................................... N orm ative D a t a ....................................................................... Main H y p o t h e s i s ....................................................................... A d d itio n a l S tu d ie s ................................................................ Three A d d itio n a l Q uestions ............................................. S u m m a r y .......................................................................................... C hapter F ootnotes ....................................................................... 78 79 79 79 80 82 84 84 91 105 107 110 115 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 116 In tr o d u c tio n ................................................................................... C o n c lu s io n s ................................................................................... O b se rva tio n s ................................................................................... R ecom m endations............................................................................. F u tu re S tu d ie s ............................................................................. Personal O b se rva tio n s and T h e ir Im p lic a tio n s . . . S u m m a r y .......................................................................................... 116 116 119 125 127 131 131 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................... 133 A P P E N D IX ...................................................................................................... ...... 137 1v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page D is t r ib u t io n o f Responses to th e M ailed Q u e s tio n n a ire by E le c tro n ic s School Graduates ................................................... 83 2. Ages o f G r a d u a t e s .............................................................................. 85 3. Sex o f G r a d u a t e s .............................................. ...... 86 4. M a r ita l S ta tu s o f Graduates ........................................................... 87 5. Type o f S tu d e n t B efore G r a d u a tio n .............................................. 88 6. Formal S ch o o lin g o f Graduates...... ................................................... 89 7. Kind o f High School Program Completed by Graduates 90 8. Time Required to F ind W o r k .......................................................... 92 9. A s s is ta n c e Given Graduates by School O f f i c i a l s . . . 93 10. Graduate Responses on In te rv ie w s Leading to Job . . . 94 11. Graduates Reasons f o r Taking a J o b ...................................... 95 12. Graduates Sources f o r F i r s t J o b s ............................................ 96 13. Graduates S t a r tin g S a la rie s ......................................................... 97 14. Graduates R a tin g o f T h e ir T ra in in g f o r Work P r e p a r a t i o n ................................................................................... 98 15. Graduates Responses Concerning S a la ry Increases 99 16. Amount o f R aise Received by Graduates . . . . . .............................. 100 - 17. Number o f Graduates Changing J o b s ............................................ 101 18. Reasons f o r Graduates Changing J o b s ......................................... 102 19. Graduates R a tin g o f Job S a tis fa c tio n ..................................... 103 20. Graduates R a tin g o f T ra in in g .................................................. 104 v Table Page 21. Graduates Taking A d d itio n a l S tud ies .......................................... 106 22. Time Spent In School by G ra d u a te s ................................................ 106 23. Where Graduates Were Taking T ra in in g .......................................... 107 24. Job C la s s ific a tio n s o f E le c tro n ic s Program Graduates Working 1n E le c t r ic a l R elated F ie ld .................................... 108 Job C la s s ific a tio n s o f E le c tro n ic s Program Graduates Working In N o n -E le c tric a l R elated F ie ld s ................................. 109 E le c tr ic a l Courses to Improve Job S k ills Ill 25. 26. ..................... 27. N o n -E le ctr1 ca l Courses to Improve Job S k ills 28. Responses o f E le c tro n ic s School Graduates to any A d d itio n a l Comments you Feel are Im p o rta n t . . . v1 . . . 112 . 113 LIST OF FIGURES F igure Page 1. School A tta in m e n t Ages Eighteen to Twenty-Four 2. School A tta in m e n t Ages Tw enty-Five and Over 3. O verlap o f M ichigan Counties w ith Community C olleges and P ro p rie ta ry Schools Teaching E l e c t r i c i t y / ............................................................... E le c tro n ic s Programs 67 4. Q u e stio n n a ire Used to C o lle c t Category Two In fo rm a tio n . 72 5. Cover L e tte r M ailed w ith Q u e stio n n a ire ............................... 75 6. Number o f Program O ffe rin g s f o r M ichigan Community C olleges and P ro p rie ta ry Schools ...................................... 81 vl 1 . . . . . 3 . 4 . LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page I. P r o p r ie ta r y Schools in M ichigan ............................................. 138 II. License Requirements o f P r o p r ie ta r y Schools in the U n ite d S ta te s ............................................................................. 139 Community C o lle g e s in M ichigan 141 III. IV . V. ............................................. Comparison o f Program O ffe rin g s by P r o p r ie ta r y Schools and Community C olleg e s 1n M ichigan 143 Sub-Hypotheses Matched to Q u e s tio n n a ire Items 150 v111 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION D uring th e p a s t te n y e a rs , p u b lic e d u c a tio n has c o n tin u e d to draw c r it ic i s m from th e ta x p a y in g p u b lic . One such c o m p la in t seems to re v o lv e around the Issu e o f p u b lic schools n o t e d u c a tin g enough o f t h e i r s tu d e n ts f o r c a re e rs . seems to v e r i f y t h is c o m p la in t. A ll to o o fte n th e evidence R obert C a lv e r t, C h ie f, A d u lt & V o ca tio n a l E ducation and Surveys Branch, re p o rts ^ t h a t — A d u lt e d u ca tio n 1s grow ing a t a much f a s t e r r a te than both the t o t a l p o p u la tio n and the number o f f u l l - t i m e s tu d e n ts 1n r e g u la r s c h o o l— th e re was 30% more a d u lt ed In 1975 than 1n 1969. In th e same a r t i c l e , he a ls o p o in ts o u t th a t 43 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l a d u lt e d u ca tio n courses d ea ls w ith o c c u p a tio n a l t r a in in g and t h a t — 53.3 p e r c e n t were ta k in g th e course to Improve o r advance In t h e i r c u rre n t jo b o r to g e t a new jo b . p u b lic tw o -y e a r c o lle g e s o r v o c a tio n a l te c h n ic a l I n s t it u t e s have shown an 80 per c e n t In cre a se 1n sp on soring such courses s in c e 1969. p u b lic e le m en ta ry o r h ig h schools have shown an 8 .3 p e r c e n t decrease 1n s p o n so rin g such courses s in c e 1969. The argument here 1s n o t w hether th e p u b lic schools "s h o u ld " o r "sh o u ld n o t" p re pa re t h e i r s tu d e n ts f o r c a re e rs , b u t th a t th e y "do n o t . " Thus c r i t i c s say rem edial a c tio n 1s necessary. 1 2 To help s h ie ld them selves from t h is barra g e o f c r i t i c i s m , some p u b lic schools e s ta b lis h e d la rg e numbers o f new programs which t h e ir p u b lic s demanded. However, a l l to o o fte n th e se programs were lauded as th e u ltim a te 1n th e la t e s t e d u c a tio n a l th in k in g and technology o n ly to have been a b o rte d a t a l a t e r d a te . some o f these programs have had l i t t l e O b v io u s ly , o r n o th in g to do w ith p re p a ra tio n f o r a c a re e r. American e d u c a tio n has th e dubious d is t in c t io n o f app ea rin g to o p e ra te under v a s t swings o f a pendulum. A new idea may be b lin d ly adopted and b lin d ly fo llo w e d re g a rd le s s o f I t s obvious sh o rtco m in g s. P ro g re s s iv e e d u c a tio n ( w ith a c a p ita l P ), the new m ath, m odular s c h e d u lin g , d if f e r e n t ia t e d s t a f f i n g , and schools w ith o u t w a lls a re a few examples o f good Ideas fr e q u e n tly m is a p p lie d because th e y a re adopted w ith o u t reg ard f o r in d iv id u a l d iffe r e n c e s 1n school d i s t r i c t s and p u p il p o p u la tio n . We need to lo o k c a r e f u lly a t e ve ry new Idea th a t holds any prom ise o f Im proving o u r program s, b u t we need to be h ig h ly s e le c tiv e 1n a p p ly in g them. . . . P o ly s y lla b ic words and re c e n t rese arch data have lo n g been magic doo r-o pe ne rs in e d u c a tio n . . . . We grasp a t w hatever nostrum Is o ffe re d w ith ­ o u t r e a lly lo o k in g a t 1 t to see 1 f i t 1s new o r m erely a warmed-over v e rs io n o f som ething we have a lre a d y t r i e d . 2 D esp ite c r i t i c i s m , many h ig h schools have stood s te a d fa s t 1n t h e i r campaign to produce n o th in g b u t c o lle g e p re p a ra to ry g ra d u a te s; w h ile o th e rs have s te e re d a m id d le -o f- th e - r o a d co urse. The l a t t e r have tempered t h e i r d e c is io n s based somewhat on th e demands o f I t s c it iz e n r y . However, many h ig h schools fe e l th a t they must n o t compromise t h e i r r e s p o n s lb lI1 ty o f p re p a rin g fu tu r e leaders whom th ey a ls o fe e l m ust, o f n e c e s s ity , a tte n d c o lle g e . C onsequently, th e y have c o n tin u e d In t h e i r emphasis on th e c o lle g e p re p a ra to ry programs w ith a le s s e r c o n c e n tra tio n on gen era l o r v o c a tio n a l programs. I r o n i c a l l y , the com parative n e g le c t o f v o c a tio n a l e d u c a tio n 1s In c o n s is te n t w ith th e la u d a b le s o c ia l goal o f equal 3 Percent by Level of School Completed 68% 4 years high school o r more ^-— - 1 1 I 4 years c o lle g e o r more T o ta l Persons, 18-24 Years Old o f 1,016,653 People in M ichigan Figure 1 . — School A tta in m e n t Ages Eighteen to Tw enty-Four. Figure Percent by Level of School Completed 2 . — School <*> Less than 5 years of oo elementary school o C¥ 0» l\> U1 ro Attainm ent *0 ID 3 Ift O 3 Less than 1 year of high school Vt tn 4 years of high 00 school or more ro ■o ro id tn o ■3 •< Ages —* ID ID Q» 3 - * • (A 3 O Twenty-Five <£» D. and O -h Over. 2 -* -*. Q. » to 4 years of college or more ■ O 3- 0» -*• 3 3 O < ID 3 -P» U1 to 4k « 4* Ot ro Median school years completed 5 e d u c a tio n a l o p p o r tu n ity . T ha t I s , wide v a r ia tio n s 1n both s tu d e n t c a p a b ilit ie s and In te r e s ts a re e it h e r Ignored o r g ive n I n s u f f i c ie n t a c c o u n t. The a lm o s t sln g le m ln d e d d e d ic a tio n to maximum e n ro llm e n t in c o lle g e p re p a ra to ry programs has th e e f f e c t o f c o n c e a lin g such r e a l i t i e s a s: (1 ) The r e l a t i v e l y sm all number o f s tu d e n ts m a tr ic u la te d 1n c o lle g e s and u n i­ v e r s i t i e s ; and (2 ) The c o n s id e ra b ly s m a lle r number a c t u a lly e a rn in g d e g re e s .3 4 Data from th e l a s t census show th a t from th e t o t a l o f 1,016,653 people 1n th e e ig h te e n to tw e n ty -fo u r age b ra c k e t 1n M ich iga n , 68 p e r c e n t have f o u r ye ars o f h ig h school o r more. However, o n ly 5 .5 p er c e n t have fo u r ye a rs o f c o lle g e o r more 1n th a t some age c a te g o ry (F ig u re 1 ). A c o u n te r argument m ig h t be o ffe re d by saying t h a t t h is age group 1s to o young to have a tta in e d a s u b s ta n tia l amount o f c o lle g e w ork. Y e t, o f th e 4,594,461 people 1n t h is s ta te tw e n ty - fiv e ye a rs o f age o r o ld e r , o n ly 9 .4 p e r c e n t have fo u r ye a rs o f c o lle g e o r more. The median school ye a rs completed by t h is same age group 1s 12.1 y e a rs . tr a te s th e a c tu a l spread. F ig u re 2 I l l u s ­ T h is In d ic a te s t h a t th e m a jo r ity o f them have graduated from h ig h s c h o o l, b u t have n o t com pleted a fo u r-y e a r degree. F u rth e r e x a m in a tio n o f th e M ichigan census s t a t i s t i c s on the people w ith v o c a tio n a l t r a in in g s u b s ta n tia te s y e t a n o th e r p o in t. Of th e people s ix te e n to s ix t y - f o u r ye ars o ld w ith le s s than f i f t e e n ye a rs o f s c h o o l- 28.5 p e r c e n t from th e male p o p u la tio n o f 2 ,2 0 6 ,3 6 0 and 2 1 .2 p e r c e n t from th e fem ale p o p u la tio n o f 2 ,4 3 5 ,5 1 8 have had some form o f v o c a tio n a l t r a in in g . C onsequently, by f a r th e m a jo r ity have n o t been prepared to e n te r th e w o rld o f work 6 w ith s k i l l s o b ta in e d In a p u b lic v o c a tio n a l t r a in in g program. Y e t, our high schools c o n tin u e to d ir e c t a m ajor amount o f t h e i r emphasis toward le ss than 9 per c e n t 5 o f the people o f t h is s ta te ; those who w i l l u ltim a te ly a t t a in a c o lle g e degree. The p r i o r i t i e s are s la n te d toward those p la n n in g to e n te r c o lle g e ra th e r than those e n te rin g the w o rld o f work 1nvned1ately a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . The same census fig u re s tend to in d i c t th e schools on another p o in t about the schools 1n M ichigan. A s u b s ta n tia l p o r tio n o f the male p o p u la tio n has never completed high s c h o o l. Of the 1,592,798 males tw e nty to f o r t y - n in e years o ld , o ve r 528,000 have n o t graduated. T his 1s a no th er problem a l l by i t s e l f . Upon co m pleting high s c h o o l, those w is h in g f u r t h e r edu­ c a tio n have a m u ltitu d e o f u n iv e r s it ie s , c o lle g e s , community c o lle g e s and o th e r post-secondary schools from w hich to make t h e ir s e le c tio n . Narrowing these o p tio n s to j u s t the schools in the S ta te o f M ich ig a n , an In d iv id u a l could a tte n d any one o f eleven u n iv e r s it ie s , f o r t y - f o u r c o lle g e s o r t h i r t y - s i x ju n i o r / community c o lle g e s . D espite the f a c t th a t th e re 1s an abundance o f p u b lic post-secondary schools 1n e x is te n c e in th is s ta te , p riv a te schools have a ls o entered the mainstream o f education a t th is same le v e l. Of th e th re e types o f schools mentioned im m ediately above, f o r t y - e ig h t are c la s s if ie d as p r iv a te . D espite the e x is te n c e o f a l l these s c h o o ls , both p u b lic and p r iv a te , s t i l l a n o th e r type o f p r iv a te school has emerged 1n the post-secondary e d u catio n f i e l d . the s o -c a lle d p r o p r ie ta r y sch oo l. T his has been 1n the form o f A p r o p r ie ta r y school can be 7 d e fin e d as a school conducted by p r iv a te In d u s try f o r p r o f i t . Here th e re 1s an a m b ig u ity o f te rm s. They have been c a lle d p r o p r ie t a r y , tra d e and v o c a tio n a l s c h o o ls , b u t no one o f these term s covers th e e n t ir e a re a . A l l o f them, however, a re concerned w ith p re p a rin g s tu d e n ts f o r a p a r t ic u la r business p o s itio n o r In d u s tr y , s k ille d tr a d e , s e m ip ro fe s s io n , personal s e rv ic e , re c r e a tio n a l a c t i v i t y o r some o th e r v o c a tio n o r a v o c a tio n . A re c e n t study o p in e s th a t t h is common c h a ra c­ t e r i s t i c suggests th e u t i l i t y o f th e g e n e ric term 's p e c ia lt y s c h o o l1 . . . There a re more than 35,000 s p e c ia lty sch oo ls 1n the U nited S ta te s , w ith a c u rr e n t e n ro llm e n t su rp assin g 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .6 A ls o , th e re 1s much c o n fu s io n o ve r how many o f th ese schools are 1n e x is te n c e . Some o f t h i s c o n fu s io n c e n te rs around com posite e n ro llm e n t f ig u r e s , b u t even th e number o f schools 1s n o t c le a r . Johnson cla im s th a t th e Federal Trade Commission d is c o v e re d 1n 1973 t h a t — There 1s a u n iv e rs e o f some 10,000 d if f e r e n t re s id e n t and home-study v o c a tio n a l schools th a t serve about 3 .3 m illio n stu d e n ts who pay anywhere from $350 to more than $2,000 f o r a program, and o u r knowledge o f these s c h o o ls , t h e i r o pe ra ­ tio n s and t h e i r s tu d e n ts Is p r a c t ic a lly n i l . 7 There a re some s ta te s , however, w hich m a in ta in e x c e lle n t records on both the number o f schools and com posite e n ro llm e n ts . The M ichigan Department o f E ducation has been doing so f o r many ye a rs . In some s ta te s th e re are no re q u ire m e n ts o r r e s t r ic t io n s placed on e n try In to th e p r o p r ie ta r y school m arket w h ile o th e rs have j u s t r e c e n tly enacted laws g o ve rn in g p r o p r ie ta r y school o p e ra tio n s . Again to I t s c r e d i t , M ichigan enacted such le g is la t io n d a tin g back as e a r ly as 1943. P r o p r ie ta r y schools gained e n tr y in t o th e e d u c a tio n a l f i e l d to help f i l l an u n s a tis fie d need. As was h ig h lig h te d e a r l i e r , a 8 la rg e number o f people never f i n is h h ig h s c h o o l. However, an even la rg e r number do f i n is h high school b u t do n o t pursue a fo u r-y e a r degree. Many are c o n te n t to c o n tin u e t h e ir e d u ca tio n w ith a d u lt education courses o r programs a t community c o lle g e s . d e sp ite these and o th e r o p tio n s , a v o id s t i l l However, rem ains. Since t h e ir In c e p tio n p r o p r ie ta r y schools have c a p ita liz e d on le a r n e r 's needs through the e s ta b lis h m e n t o f s p e c ia liz e d courses. In M ichigan, f o r example, t h is need covers a wide v a r ie ty o f s u b je c ts ranging from b a rte n d in g to tu to r in g (Appendix 1 ). Some o f the same programs are being ta u g h t a t both th e community c o lle g e s and p ro p rie ta ry sch oo ls. To some degree th e n , both types o f I n s t i t u ­ tio n s are competing f o r the same c lie n t e le . Problem P ro p rie ta ry schools and community c o lle g e s both o f f e r programs co ve rin g th e same s u b je c ts to the same c lie n t e le . Are community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1n M ichigan e q u a lly successful 1n p re p a rin g graduates f o r the w o rld o f work? One method o f e v a lu a tin g t h e ir success 1s through a comparison o f the g ra du a tes. Hence, t h is study Is comprised o f a l i s t o f v a ria b le s from which a comparison o f graduates Is made. The v a ria b le s are analyzed f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e . In a d d itio n , o th e r v a ria b le s a re examined to h ig h lig h t any d iffe re n c e s between the two types o f post-secondary sc h o o ls . F in a lly , o n ly e le c t r ic it y / e le c t r o n ic s programs are analyzed to keep the stu d y manageable. A ll o f these Items are used to focus 1n on th e main 9 problem . Are community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y schools e q u a lly su cce ssfu l 1n p re p a rin g graduates o f t h e i r e le c t r lc lt y / e le c t r o n 1 c s programs f o r th e w o rld o f work? O b je c tiv e s Because o f th e v a r ie t y o f p ost-se co n d a ry t r a in in g I n s t i t u ­ tio n s , some e f f o r t must be expended tow ard a n a ly z in g them. w ith so l i t t l e known about p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls , i t benchmark Is needed to make com parisons. However, 1s o bvio us a Since most p r o p r ie ta r y schools o f f e r programs which a re two ye ars o r le s s 1n le n g th , th e most obvious benchmark would be the c o m m u n ity /ju n io r c o lle g e . T h e re fo re , a comparison o f th e two types o f p o st-se co n d a ry I n s t it u t io n s serves as th e t h r u s t o f t h is paper. S ince th e re 1s lim ite d In fo rm a tio n about th e p r o p r ie ta r y schools when compared w ith community c o lle g e s , some Item s w hich c o u ld be examined are course o f f e r in g s , s tu d e n ts , f a c i l i t i e s , lo c a tio n and s t a f f . There a re numerous o th e r aspects o f both types o f schools which could be s c r u tin iz e d more c lo s e ly . The o b je c tiv e s a re to g a th e r and compare two broad c a te ­ g o rie s o f In fo rm a tio n on p r o p r ie ta r y sch oo ls v s . community c o lle g e s and t h e i r g ra du a tes. C ategory One covers c h a r a c t e r is tic s o f th e schools and In c lu d e s : 1. Ownership In fo rm a tio n . 2. School p o p u la tio n s . 3. Program o f f e r in g s . 10 Category Two covers th e graduates and in c lu d e s item s such as: 1. Background o f g ra d u a te s . 2. Job placem ent and s a la ry In fo rm a tio n a f t e r placem ent o f g ra d u a te s . 3. Job s a t is f a c t io n and p re p a ra tio n o f g ra d u a te s . 4. R a tin g o f th e i n s t it u t i o n s by g ra d u a te s . 5. S tu d ie s taken a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . C ategory Two covers a m ajo r p o r tio n o f th e data 1n t h is study and is a ls o th e p o r tio n w hich 'is analyzed f o r any s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e s . In a d d it io n , some open-ended q u e s tio n s f o r comments by th e graduates a re a ls o In c lu d e d , b u t these a re n o t analyzed s ta tis tic a lly . Hypotheses The f i r s t s ix sub-hypotheses a re posed to d e te rm in e 1 f th e re 1s any d i s s i m i l a r i t y 1n n o rm a tive data on th e graduates o f th e two types o f p o s t-s e c o n d a ry s c h o o ls . These a re : 1. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e ages o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . 2. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e In th e sex o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 3. There is no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e m a r ita l s ta tu s o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 4. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between th e p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates as to th e ty p e o f s tu d e n t th e y were b e fo re g ra d u a tio n . 11 5. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e graduates 1n th e amount o f form al s c h o o lin g th e y obta ine d b e fo re a tte n d in g e le c tr o n ic s s c h o o l. 6. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e In th e typ e o f h ig h school program completed by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school gra du a tes. The m ajor h ypo th esis 1s th a t th e re 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d i f f e r ence between p r o p r ie ta r y schools and community c o lle g e s 1n p re ­ p aring e le c tr o n ic s school graduates f o r th e w o rld o f work. In o rd e r to accept o r r e je c t th a t hypothesis th e fo llo w in g sub­ hypotheses are made w ith regard to th e graduates o f p ro p r ie ta r y schools and community c o lle g e s . If fifty per c e n t o r more o f these sub-hypotheses a re re je c te d * th e main hypothesis w i l l a ls o be re je c te d . 7. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e in th e le n g th o f tim e re q u ire d to o b ta in work in th e e le c tr o n ic s f i e l d by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c ­ tr o n ic s school graduates. 8. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e amount o f a s s is ta n c e re ce ive d from school placement o f f i c i a l s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school gra du a tes. 9. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n whether jo b s are o bta ine d as a r e s u lt o f In te rv ie w s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates. 10. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e reason g ive n f o r ta k in g jo b s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates. 11. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e sources le a d in g to th e f i r s t jo b a f t e r co m p letin g e le c tr o n ic s schools between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates. 12. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e s t a r t in g s a la r ie s o b ta in e d by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school gra du a tes. 12 13. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e In how graduates from p ro p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c ­ t r o n ic s schools ra te t h e i r t r a in in g as to p re p a rin g them f o r th e work th e y a re a c tu a lly p e rfo rm in g . 14. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e number o f p ro p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates re c e iv in g s a la ry Increases s in c e being h ire d . 15. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e In how much o f a r a is e p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates re c e iv e . 16. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e graduates who have changed jo b s s in c e le a v in g e le c tr o n ic s s c h o o l. 17. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e reason f o r changing jo b s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates. 18. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates 1n how th ey r a te t h e i r s a tis fa c t io n w ith t h e ir jo b s . 19. There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates 1n how they ra te t h e ir e le c tr o n ic s t r a in in g . Then, th re e sub-hypotheses are made to determ ine 1 f th e re 1s any d is s im ila r it y 1n s tu d ie s taken a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . 20. There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates ta k in g a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s . 21. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e number o f hours per week spent 1n school by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates. 22. There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n where p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates ta ke a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s . 13 F in a lly , each graduate 1s asked f o r In fo rm a tio n on jo b c la s s if ic a t io n , recommendations f o r a d d itio n a l co u rse s, and any a d d itio n a l comments. Design o f th e Study L im ita tio n s o f Study Since most p r o p r ie ta r y schools c o n c e n tra te t h e i r o ffe r in g s 1n a ve ry lim ite d number (o fte n j u s t one) o f v o c a tio n a l c a te g o rie s , th is study 1s concerned o n ly w ith those o f f e r in g e le c tr o n ic s programs. T his study 1s a ls o lim ite d to p o p u la tio n s 1n M ichigan. I t Is considered as Independent o f th e c o n d itio n s o f th e p re se n t jo b m arket and s u b je c t to th e usual lim it a t io n s and c r it ic is m s o f the q u e s tio n n a ire te ch n iq u e . Correspondence schools are not covered 1n t h is re p o rt because o f t h e ir v e ry n a tu re . There 1s n o th in g co m p le te ly analagous to them being o ffe re d a t th e community c o lle g e le v e l. Many correspondence programs a re so ld from an o u t- o f- s t a t e headquarters and, a t b e s t, are d i f f i c u l t , 1 f not Im p o s s ib le , to compare. S im ila r ly , th e re la te d In s tr u c tio n phases o f a p p re n tic e s h ip programs, a lth o u g h o ffe re d by community c o lle g e s , a re n ot being considered. p u b lic . These o ffe r in g s a re n o t u s u a lly a v a ila b le to th e paying They are g e n e ra lly reserved f o r those stu d e n ts sponsored by a s p e c ific company and, as such, n ot open f o r r e g is t r a t io n by the p u b lic . W ith these d e lim ita tio n s , l e t 1 t s u f f ic e to say th a t the p ro p rie ta ry schools and community c o lle g e s w ith in t h is stu dy a re 14 those which a re open to th e p u b lic f o r r e g is t r a t io n . T h e ir stu de n ts a ttend classes on th e premises o f th e te a c h in g i n s t i t u t i o n and are fre e to s e le c t th e program o f s tu d ie s o f t h e i r c h o ic e . Sample The p o p u la tio n f o r t h is study has been s e le c te d a t random from th e t o t a l p o p u la tio n o f graduates w ith in a th re e -y e a r In t e r v a l. In some cases, 1 f th e p o p u la tio n 1s s m a ll, th e e n tir e p o p u la tio n has been surveyed. The t o t a l p o p u la tio n has been taken from geo­ g ra p h ic a l areas 1n M ichigan o f f e r in g both community c o lle g e and p ro p rie ta ry school e le c tr o n ic s programs. The schools have been chosen In c o n ju n c tio n w ith and based on th e recommendations o f se le cte d personnel in th e M ichigan Department o f E ducation. Method o f In v e s tig a tio n Two c a te g o rie s o f In fo rm a tio n a re covered 1n t h is s tu d y . The f i r s t , Category One, In clu d e s d e s c r ip tiv e data on th e p ro p rie ­ ta ry schools and community c o lle g e s In th e S ta te o f M ichigan. These data have been c o lle c te d from re p o rts p u b lish e d by v a rio u s s ta te and fe d e ra l agencies. The second, Category Two, deals w ith th e graduates o f p ro p rie ta ry schools and community c o lle g e s . T his p o rtio n o f th e data has been o b ta in e d th ro u gh th e m ailed q u e s tio n n a ire . Those not responding to th e I n i t i a l In stru m e n t have been fo llo w e d up w ith another m a ilin g . As a f i n a l fo llo w -u p te c h n iq u e , th e non­ responders s t i l l rem aining have been co nta cte d by telephone where 15 p o s s ib le . The r e s u lts a re ta b u la te d based on th e s e lf - r e p o r t o f those In d iv id u a ls answ ering th e q u e s tio n n a ire . I n i t i a l Procedure A p i l o t s tu d y has been run on th e In s tru m e n t used 1n Category Two by a d m in is te rin g 1 t to s e le c te d In d iv id u a ls who have a ls o r e c e n tly g ra d u a te d . They have been chosen based on th e employment data a v a ila b le b ut are n o t 1n th e p o p u la tio n s from which th e random samples have been s e le c te d . Employers o f g ra d ­ uates from o th e r than th e p o p u la tio n s s tu d ie d have been m a ile d an open-ended q u e s tio n n a ire to d e te rm in e o th e r p e r tin e n t q u e s tio n s which should be In c lu d e d 1 n th e f i n a l in s tru m e n t. Treatm ent o f Data As a r e s u lt o f th e se data c o lle c te d , summary r e p o rts a re made f o r th e C ategory One ite m s . The ch1-square process 1s used to analyze Category Two sub-hypotheses f o r s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e s . T erm inology 1. E le c tro n ic s S chool—a school where a program o f s tu d ie s o ffe r s In s t r u c t io n which begins w ith th e stu d y o f e l e c t r i c i t y and c o n tin u e s In to s o lid s ta te te c h n o lo g y . 2. P r o p r ie ta r y S chool— a school conducted by a c o rp o r a tio n , p a rtn e rs h ip o r In d iv id u a l whose m o tiv e 1 s g e n e ra tin g a p r o fit. The p r o p r ie ta r y school la b e l has been g ive n to th e 182 p r o p r ie ta r y schools covered in th e 1973 annual r e p o r t o f th e 16 M ichigan Department o f E ducation under the h ea din g, " P r iv a te Trade Schools, Business Schools and I n s t i t u t e s . " T his la b e l 1s used to d e s c rib e those schools designed to operate a t a p r o f i t . I t s h o u ld be noted th a t some p r o p r ie ta r y schools are c a lle d " n o n - p r o f it " f o r ta x purposes. T his a llo w s them c e r ta in b e n e fits n o t o r d i n a r i l y accrued by those w ith o u t th e la b e l. T his 1s an e n t i r e l y le g a l p r a c tic e analagous to th e many companies in c o rp o ra te d 1n the S ta te o f Delaware (even though they are lo c a te d 1n o th e r s ta te s ) . These schools do generate a p r o f i t but d is t r ib u t e 1 t 1n a d if f e r e n t manner. T h e re fo re , they are Included f o r p o s s ib le c o n s id e ra tio n 1 n t h is paper. 3. Community C o lle g e — tw o -y e a r, s ta te a n d /o r p u b lic ta x supported e d u c a tio n a l I n s t i t u t i o n . T h is c a te g o ry In c lu d e s ju n io r c o lle g e s , b u t n o t c o lle g e s o r u n i­ v e r s it ie s w hich o f f e r a b a c c a la u re a te degree. The community c o lle g e la b e l 1s g ive n to the tw e n ty -n in e p u b lic tw o -ye a r schools l i s t e d 1n the 1970 M ichigan S t a t i s t i c a l A b s tra c t under the heading o f A c c re d ite d I n s t it u t io n s o f H ig h e r Education 1n M ich iga n . For I n i t i a l p o p u la tio n comparison w ith p ro p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls , th e base y e a r o f 1970 1s used. Data a re a v a ila b le f o r both types o f schools 1n th a t y e a r and th a t y e a r rep re se nts a date co rre sp o n d in g to th e tim e when those 1n the study graduated. As m entioned e a r l i e r , tw o -y e a r p u b lic p ost-se co n d a ry I n s t it u t io n s go under a v a r ie ty o f names such as community c o lle g e s , ju n io r c o lle g e s , te c h n ic a l I n s t i t u t e s , and te c h n ic a l s c h o o ls . 17 A lthough th e re a re a v a r ie t y o f names, f o r th e sake o f c o n s is te n c y , the sch oo ls analyzed 1n t h is r e p o r t a re la b e le d community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . O verview o f Succeeding Chapters C hapter 2 covers a re vie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e . A w e a lth o f m a te ria l e x is ts on s tu d ie s w hich were conducted on p r a c t ic a lly every a sp e ct o f community c o lle g e s and t h e i r s tu d e n ts . The 11st could go on a lm o st I n d e f i n it e l y as th e re a re l i t e r a l l y hundreds o f e n tr ie s 1n th e m ajo r re se a rch In d ic e s . A reasonable c ro s s - s e c tio n o f those a v a ila b le has been re p o rte d . The number o f a r t i c l e s w r it t e n on p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls , altho ug h c o n s id e ra b le , do n o t n e a rly co ve r th e same gamut as those on th e community c o lle g e s . Only one m a jo r com parative s tu d y o f these two p o st-se co n d a ry e d u c a tio n a l I n s t i t u t i o n s was d is c o v e re d and 1 t has been com pleted j u s t r e c e n tly . In C hapter 3 , th e design and m ethodology o f th e s tu d y are d e sc rib e d . Methods o f o b ta in in g and com paring two types o f data are e x p la in e d . The f i r s t , la b e le d C ategory One In fo rm a tio n , deals w ith a broad com parison o f th e two types o f schools p a r t ic ip a t in g 1n the s tu d y . The second, la b e le d C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n , deals w ith a s p e c if ic comparison o f th e graduates o f both typ es o f s ch o o ls. The method used to s e le c t th e p a r t ic ip a t in g schools 1s a ls o described 1n d e t a i l . The s e le c tio n o f p o p u la tio n , sample s iz e , and method o f s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is a re a ls o e x p la in e d . a sample o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire used 1s In c lu d e d . F in a lly , 18 In C hapter 4 , th e data f o r th e two c a te g o rie s o f In fo rm a tio n are shown 1n d e t a i l . Only th e C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n Is analyzed f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e . Each o f th e f i r s t tw e n ty-tw o sub­ hypotheses are examined u sin g c h i-s q u a re a t an alpha le v e l o f .0 5 . The la s t th re e Item s a re n o t examined u sin g c h i-s q u a re . A l l these responses are c a te g o riz e d u sin g ta b le s to d is p la y them. In C hapter 5, th e f in d in g s , c o n c lu s io n s and recommendations are l i s t e d . Three item s o f C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n prove to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t . These fin d in g s a re summarized to g e th e r w ith o th e rs w hich have n o t proved to be s i g n if ic a n t y e t a re s t i l l m e a n in g fu l. C onclusions reached based on th e fin d in g s a re then enumerated and fo llo w e d by some recommendations. S uggestions a re o ffe re d f o r those w is h in g to r e p lic a t e o r Improve upon th e rese arch methodology used to In v e s tig a te t h is problem . F in a lly , a s e rie s o f o b s e rv a tio n s a re made about some o f th e sub-hypotheses even though th e y are n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t . Chapter I — Footnotes ^N a tio n a l R eport f o r T ra in in g and Development, American S ociety f o r T ra in in g and Development, V o l. 2 , No. 13 (O ctober 1, 1976), pp. 2-3. 2 Gordon G. McMahon, C u rric u lu m Development in Trade and In d u s tr ia l and T echnical Education rto lu m b u s , O hio: C harles E. M e r r ill P u b lis h in g C o., 1972), pp. 121-122. 3A. Harvey B e lits k y , P riv a te V o ca tio n a l Schools and T h e ir Students; L im ite d O b je c tiv e s ^ Unllm Tted O p p o rtu n ity (Cambridge, Ma.: Schenkman P u b lis h in g Company, I n c . , l9 6 9 ), p. 7. ^General S o d a ! and Economic C h a r a c te r is tic s , M ich ig a n , U.S. Department o f Commerce, U. S. Census o f P o p u la tio n , 1970, p p . 24-272. 5 General S o c ia l and Economic C h a r a c te r is tic s , lo c . c 1 t. 6R1chard F u lto n , P ro p rie ta ry S chools, Encyclopedia o f Educational Research, 4 th E d itio n (London: th e M acm illan Company, Col11er-Macm11lan L t d . , n . d . ) , p. 1022. ^Susan E. Johnson, P ro p rie ta ry E d u ca tio n , a Search o f the L Ite r a tu r e , The C enter f o r Research and Development in H igher Education, U n iv e rs ity o f C a lif o r n ia , B e rk le y , 1974, p. 1. 19 CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In tr o d u c tio n T his c h a p te r c o n ta in s a re p re s e n ta tiv e c r o s s -s e c tio n o f th e a r t ic le s and books concerned w ith community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y sch oo ls. F i r s t , some o f th e e a r ly h is t o r y o f both types o f I n s t it u t io n s 1s g iv e n . T h is serves to p o in t o u t th a t p r o p r ie ta r y schools preceded community c o lle g e s 1n th e U n ite d S ta te s . N ext, the a c c r e d itin g and lic e n s in g o f b o th types o f schools are h ig h lig h te d . T h is 1s fo llo w e d by some com parisons o f In s tr u c to r s and program o f f e r in g s . Some o f th e m isco n ce p tio n s about those e n ro lle d 1n tw o -y e a r programs a re then d e s c rib e d . The r a tio n a le f o r t u i t i o n charges and the p r o f i t m o tive o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools are a lso n oted. The works o f some a u th o rs w hich d e s c rib e th e In ro a ds made In to p u b lic e d u ca tio n by p r o p r ie ta r y schools a re then c it e d . This 1s fo llo w e d by In fo rm a tio n about th e number o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools and h ig h lig h ts th e f a c t th a t few o f them d e s ire to be a c c re d ite d . F in a lly , th e im portance o f a school placem ent program 1s p o in te d o u t. E a rly H is to r y J o l i e t J u n io r C o lle g e 1n J o l i e t , I l l i n o i s , e s ta b lis h e d 1n 1901, 1s th e o ld e s t p u b lic ju n i o r c o lle g e s t i l l 20 e x is t in g 1n th e 21 U nited S ta te s .^ However, most o f the h is to r ia n s o f th e ju n io r c o lle g e movement seem to a cce p t the c la im th a t The Lewis I n s t i t u t e , founded 1n Chicago 1n 1896, 1s the o ld e s t ju n io r c o lle g e . L a te r 1 t merged w ith th e Armour I n s t it u t e o f Technology w hich Is today known as the I l l i n o i s I n s t it u t e o f Technology. Susquehanna U ni­ v e r s ity , which opened 1n 1858 and 1s a m is s io n a ry I n s t i t u t e o f the Lutheran Church, has a ls o t r ie d to c la im being th e o ld e s t. 2 The e a r lie s t In sta nce o f p ostgraduate work being added to the high school 1s to be found a t Newton, M aryland, where the f i r s t C a th o lic c o lle g e 1n what 1s now the U nited S ta te s was founded 1n 1677 . . . 1 t m ig h t be c a lle d th e e a r lie s t ju n io r c o lle g e , s in ce 1 n a d d itio n to secondary work I t c a rr ie d i t s stu de n ts In to th e freshman y e a r 1n c o lle g e . I t s stu d e n ts who wished fu r t h e r e ducation were then s e t to S t. Omer's in Belgium to compete t h e ir s tu d ie s .3 Some people even c la im th a t the term "community c o lle g e " should n o t be s u b s titu te d f o r ju n io r c o lle g e . Because the two have been used In te rc h a n g e a b ly , some c la im th a t c o n fu sio n and In con ­ s is te n c y have re s u lte d . W hile the community c o lle g e 1s c lo s e ly re la te d to o th e r twoye a r c o lle g e s . In c lu d in g th e ju n io r c o lle g e , 1 t 1s s t i l l q u ite d if f e r e n t in p h ilo s o p h y , purpose, and fu n c tio n . Due to i t s Im pact, the community c o lle g e has a lre a d y brought about a new In te r e s t 1 n Improved pedagogy, n o n tr a d ltlo n a l s tu d y , e x te rn a l degrees, c r e d it by e x a m in a tio n , and o th e r developments f o r mass e ducation 1n a te c h n o lo g ic a l s o c i e t y . 4 A lthough 1 t 1s d i f f i c u l t to a c tu a lly determ ine which has r ig h t to the c la im th a t 1 t 1 s th e o ld e s t I n s t i t u t i o n , these claim s and co u n te rcla im s a t being th e o ld e s t do p ro v id e h is t o r ic a l In fo rm a tio n . Rather than argue the d iffe re n c e s between the two names and g e t In to a b a t t le o f sem antics, l e t 1 t s u ffic e to say th a t 22 when use o f the g e n e ric term , "community c o lle g e 11 Is made, 1 t Is meant to In c lu d e b oth . The Im p o rta n t th in g 1s, however, th a t the jun io r/co m m u n ity c o lle g e movement d id g e t s ta rte d 1 n the l a t t e r h a lf o f the n in e te e n th c e n tu ry . In these e a r ly days o f th e ju n io r c o lle g e movement many men can be s in g le d o u t f o r t h e ir e f f o r t s to make 1 t a su ccessfu l b eg inn ing . Among them 1s Henry P. Tappan, form er p re s id e n t o f the U n iv e rs ity o f M ichigan, who c a lle d f o r the u n iv e r s itie s to reorganize t h e ir programs. I t was h is w ish to reform American h ig h e r e ducation through the process o f re le g a tin g the low er d iv is io n courses to th e high schools and a d m ittin g to the u n iv e r s itie s o n ly stu de n ts who had completed the fo u rte e n th grade o r I t s e q u iv a le n t.^ W illia m Watts F o lw e ll, 1n h is Inaugural address a t the U n iv e rs ity o f M innesota, r e lte re a te d th is concept.** Both men thought th a t our schools should be reo rg a nize d s im ila r to the German system which In clud es com pletion o f work 1n the "Gymnasium" b e fo re entrance In to a u n iv e r s ity . C onsequently, they were n o t proposing a com­ m unity c o lle g e b u t an a d d itio n o f two more years o f work f o r adm ittance to the u n iv e r s ity . "To them 1 t was o f l i t t l e moment what happened to the freshman and sophomore years o f the c o lle g ia te c u rric u lu m , so long as the u n iv e r s ity could be fre e d o f th em ."^ Perhaps th e e f f o r t s o f W illia m Rainey H arper, P re s id e n t o f the U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago, re s u lte d 1n h is being c la s s if ie d as the fa th e r o f the ju n io r c o lle g e movement. He Is c re d ite d w ith o rg a n iz in g the freshman and sophomore years a t the U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago In to the "J u n io r Col le g e ,11 a name which he gave 1 t. 1s a lso re sp o n s ib le f o r the U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago g ra n tin g He the 23 award o f A s s o c ia te 1n A r ts degree, a p r a c tic e w hich has now spread o thro u gh ou t th e U n ite d S ta te s . To f in d o u t how and when p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls came In to e xis te n c e 1n th e U n ite d S ta te s , 1 t 1s necessary to tra c e th e h is t o r y o f schools back to e a r ly c o lo n ia l tim e s . One o f th e e a r ly sch oo ls was the Dame School w hich was tra n s p la n te d to th e c o lo n ie s from England. T his was b a s ic a lly a b a b y s ittin g i n s t i t u t i o n , b u t th e la d y 1 n charge soon n o tic e d th a t 1 t was e a s ie r to keep c h ild r e n q u ie t and e n te rta in e d by g iv in g thetn som ething w o rth w h ile to do . . . th e y r e lie d upon fe a r to m o tiv a te the c h ild r e n and keep o rd e r 1n th e classroom . The te ach e rs In c lu d e d m in is te r s , c o lle g e s tu d e n ts . In d e n tu re d s e rv a n ts , m echanics, d o c to rs , and even e xpo rted c o n v ic ts and tra m p s .9 T his typ e o f s c h o o lin g was meant to fr e e p a re n ts o f t h e i r c h ild re n w h ile th e y w ent about th e ta sks so necessary to scrape o u t an e x is te n c e In those days. To compensate th e te ach e rs 1n the Dame S chool, a sm all fe e was u s u a lly re q u ire d . Hence, th e f i r s t o f the fe e -p a y 1ng schools run by a s o le p r o p r ie to r y was e s ta b lis h e d in th is c o u n try . In terms o f le a rn in g a tra d e , however, a n o th e r method o f educating c h ild r e n was a ls o used. T his system was th e a p p re n tic e s h ip . A p p re n tic e s h ip papers 1n America 1n th e se ve n te e n th , e ig h te e n th and n in e te e n th c e n tu rie s were v i r t u a l l y th e same as th e y had been in th e M id d le Ages o r even 1n th e tim e o f Hammurabi 1n th e tw e n tie th c e n tu ry B. C. ^ The a p p re n tic e was schooled by th e m aster f o r a p e rio d o f a p p ro xim a te ly seven y e a rs 1n le a rn in g a tra d e . In some cases, t h is seven ye a r p e rio d was exceeded, e s p e c ia lly In th e case o f fem ale a p p re n tic e s . m aster. In essence, th e a p p re n tic e became the p ro p e rty o f th e A p p re n tic e s have even been l i s t e d among th e a sse ts o f 24 bankrupts. Some were taken p e rs o n a lly by c r e d ito r s as payment f o r a debt w h ile o th e rs were s o ld to s a t is f y th e o b lig a t io n . The m aster was p a id by being g ra n te d com plete cu stod y o f th e a p p re n tic e even so f a r as to be co n sid e re d h is p ro p e rty . A lth o ug h many o f th e c o lo n ie s attem pted to p r o te c t th e r ig h t s o f th e a p p re n tic e s , e a r ly w r ite r s In t h is p e rio d p o in te d o u t th a t l i t t l e a c tu a lly e x is te d . 1n the way o f r ig h ts The fe e p a id a t t h is ty p e o f school was in the form o f la b o r r a th e r than a c tu a l money, b u t a g a in , to a s o le p r o p r ie to r . A n o the r e a r ly In d ic a tio n o f a s o le p r o p r ie t o r e s ta b lis h in g a school can be n oted: As e a r ly as 1661, a Dutch sch oo lm a ste r 1n New Amsterdam was a p p a re n tly ta k in g 1n some evening p u p ils to add to h is r e g u la r town school te a c h in g . E v e rt P le te rs e n was p e rm itte d to charge 'a f a i r sum* f o r those 'who come 1n th e evening and between tim e s .1 In 1690, th e re was a p p a re n tly an E n g lis h evening school 1n New Y o rk, s in c e an a p p re n tic e s h ip In d e n tu re 1 n th a t y e a r s p e c ifie d th a t th e a p p re n tic e was to have 'th e p r iv ile g e o f going to the evening s c h o o l.' Most o f th e s e a p o rt towns 1 n th e c o lo n ie s appear to have had evening schools by the f i r s t ye a rs o f th e e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y .* ' The l i t e r a t u r e w r it t e n today In d ic a te s th a t these schools v a rie d 1n th e number o f course o ffe r in g s and were u s u a lly dependent upon th e e x p e rtis e and e xp e rie n ce o f th e m aster te a c h e r. I t has been noted th a t t u i t i o n was p a id by th e s tu d e n ts " d i r e c t l y to the 12 teacher and depended on how many s u b je c ts th e s tu d e n t to o k .11 However, P o tte r a ls o claim ed th a t these schools were p r iv a te ventures e s ta b lis h e d p r im a r ily 1 n "th e p r a c tic a l o r v o c a tio n a l fie ld s ." The 1 1 s t o f s u b je c ts In c lu d e d bookkeeping, n a v ig a tio n , s u rv e y in g , sh o rth a n d , trig o n o m e try and even c o n ta in e d languages 25 o f F rench, German, Spanish and o th e r s . These sch o o ls were th e predecessors o f perhaps th e most famous o f a l l th e e a r ly p r iv a te s c h o o ls , th e Academy* w hich was e s ta b lis h e d by Benjam in F ra n k lin 1n the 1 7 0 0 's. Thus, 1 t can be seen from some o f th e e a r l ie s t h is t o r ie s th a t th e p r o p r ie ta r y school movement preceded community c o lle g e s 1n th e U n ite d S ta te s by a t le a s t two hundred y e a rs . In s p it e o f t h is e a r ly developm ent, 1 t was slow to grow f o r th e same reason as many o f th e o th e r v a rio u s schools w hich fo llo w e d ; a t u i t i o n was being charged as p a r t o f th e req uirem e nts f o r p a r t ic ip a t io n . was a d e te r r e n t f o r those w is h in g to e n te r th e program. T his O nly those who co u ld a ffo r d 1 t o r were w i l l i n g to s a c r if ic e funds o th e rw is e needed to s u p p o rt t h e i r fa m ilie s were a b le to a tte n d . I t became e v id e n t to o u r fo r e fa th e r s th a t t u i t i o n charges were b a r r ie r s to those who needed b u t c o u ld 111 a ffo r d a n y th in g b u t th e most meager e d u ca tio n . I t was t h is e a r ly dependence on th e need f o r funds which sparked l a t e r movements f o r fr e e e d u c a tio n . E a rly H is to r y and O b je c tiv e s 1n M ichigan The search f o r a w r it t e n h is t o r ic a l re c o rd o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y school movement 1n M ichigan proved to be f r u i t l e s s . Even th e e f f o r t to f in d w r it t e n o b je c tiv e s f o r p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls was to no a v a il. F in a lly , as a l a s t r e s o r t , a c o n v e rs a tio n was h e ld w ith th e Super­ v is o r o f P riv a te Trade Schools o f th e M ichigan Departm ent o f Edu­ c a tio n . I t was found th e re were no o b je c tiv e s w r it t e n by the M ichigan Department o f E d u ca tio n . A lth o u g h a p o s itio n paper has been s ta r te d , as o f t h is w r i t i n g , I t 1s f a r from c o m p le tio n . 26 C onsequently, a s id e from some y e a r ly summary re p o rts on Item s such as t o t a l p o p u la tio n and program o ffe r in g s (Appendix I ) , no data on o b je c tiv e s and h is t o r y are r e a d ily a v a ila b le . By th e tim e M ichigan was o rg a n iz e d as a se p a ra te t e r r i t o r y on J u ly 1, 1805, th e re were le s s than t h i r t y c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s i­ tie s 1n th e U nite d S ta te s . I t was n o t u n t i l the e a r ly tw e n tie th c e n tu ry , however, th a t th e j u n io r c o lle g e movement r e a lly g o t 13 s ta rte d 1n t h is s ta te . Dunbar re p o rte d on much o f t h is e a r ly h is to r y . He In d ic a te d th a t 1n 1914 Grand Rapids began the f i r s t ju n io r c o lle g e and H ighland Park s ta r te d the second one 1n 1918. I t was o v e r t h i r t y ye a rs l a t e r th a t th e name "community c o lle g e " was recognized by th e s ta te le g is la t u r e . Some fundam ental changes 1n the s ta te laws r e la te d to j u n io r c o lle g e s were made 1n 1951. The a c t passed by the le g is la t u r e th a t y e a r reco gn ized th e new concept which had e v o lv e d , th a t o f th e corrm unlty c o lle g e s e rv in g n o t o n ly th e academic needs o f stu d e n ts p la n n in g to tr a n s fe r to o th e r c o lle g e s o r u n i­ v e r s it ie s a t th e end o f th e second y e a r , b u t a ls o th e needs o f a l l y o u th and a d u lts In a community f o r e d u c a tio n beyond the h ig h school le v e l .14 The o b je c tiv e s o f community c o lle g e s have been re p o rte d by several so u rce s. A lth o u g h th ey a re somewhat v a rie d 1n c o n te n t, they can be condensed to j u s t f i v e . Shanahan I d e n t if ie d these f iv e m ajor fu n c tio n s as fo llo w s : (a ) tr a n s fe r fu n c tio n , (b ) v o c a tio n a l and te c h n ic a l fu n c tio n , ( c ) th e s tu d e n t personnel fu n c t io n , (d ) th e general e d u c a tio n fu n c tio n , (e ) th e community s e rv ic e f u n c t io n .15 Several o th e r sources made m ention o f programs f o r p u p ils s till 1n high s c h o o l. I n s t i t u t i o n a l re s e a rc h , and c o n tin u in g edu­ c a tio n as r o le s f o r community c o lle g e s . 27 R e s tr ic tio n s . O p p o s itio n and A c c r e d ita tio n S ince t h e i r e s ta b lis h m e n t* b o th th e community c o lle g e and p r o p r ie ta r y school movements have met w ith some o p p o s itio n . E ffo rts have been made to r e s t r i c t t h e i r e s ta b lis h m e n t, o p e ra tio n and expansion. Some o f t h is o p p o s itio n e x is ts 1n the form o f le g is ­ la t io n , lic e n s e r e g u la tio n s and a c c r e d ita tio n re q u ire m e n ts . P robably no s p e c ia l a c t o f a s ta te le g is la t u r e 1s r e a l ly necessary to guarantee th e l e g a l i t y o f a ju n io r c o lle g e o r community c o lle g e e s ta b lis h e d as an e x te n s io n o f th e p u b lic school system . American h ig h sch oo ls have le g a lly o ffe r e d work on the le v e l o f the t h ir t e e n t h and fo u rte e n th grades as f a r back as th e 1880's w ith o u t b eing s e r io u s ly c h a lle n g e d , o r d in a r ily d e s ig n a tin g such programs as p o stg ra d u a te e d u c a tio n . In o rd e r , however, to a v o id any q u e s tio n s o f l e g a l i t y and a ls o to f o r e s t a l l e f f e c t iv e o p p o s itio n to th e e x te n s io n o f lo w -c o s t o r fr e e e d u c a tio n to o ld e r s tu d e n ts , the fo u n d e rs o f the ta x supported ju n i o r and community c o lle g e s have c o n sid e re d 1 t h ig h ly d e s ira b le to o b ta in l e g i s la t i v e s a n c tio n 1 n advance. The e a s ie s t and p ro b a b ly th e b e s t method o f s e c u rin g t h is 1s through what has been c a lle d 'e n a b lin g ' le g is la t io n . Once th e y a re e s ta b lis h e d th e community c o lle g e s become s u b je c t to c e r ta in a c c r e d ita tio n re q u ire m e n ts . They are In sp e cte d p e r io d ic a lly to In s u re th a t th e y meet c e r ta in s ta n d a rd s . A lth o ug h t h is 1s n o t o p p o s itio n , I t 1s a method to In s u re th a t these i n s t i t u ­ tio n s l i v e up to c e r ta in m inim al s ta n d a rd s . To a s c e r ta in w he th er o r n o t these s ta n d a rd s a re met 1s determ ined by re g io n a l a c c r e d itin g bodies such as M id d le S ta te s A s s o c ia tio n . P r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls , however, a re re q u ire d to be lic e n s e d 1n some s ta te s . There 1s l i t t l e in fo rm a tio n a v a ila b le w hich t e l l s the number o f s ta te s w hich r e q u ire lic e n s in g . o f a p o ll o f th e f i f t y However, as a r e s u lt s ta te s w hich was conducted by M a tt, 1 t was found th a t o f th e t h i r t y - e i g h t re s p o n d in g , t h i r t y - s i x re q u ire d 28 some form o f lic e n s in g o r r e g is t r a t io n (Appendix 2 ). Many have o n ly s ta r te d t h is p r a c tic e s in c e 1970. Most s ta te s are v e ry q u ic k to p o in t o u t th a t t h is lic e n s in g In no way c o n s titu te s a c c r e d ita tio n o f any o f th e courses o ffe r e d by the v a rio u s s c h o o ls . P a rt o f th e r a tio n a le behind th e a c c r e d itin g statem ent can be a t t r ib u t e d to a s u i t w hich was I n i t i a t e d In 1969. In i t , M a rjo rie Webster J u n io r C o lle g e ,17 a p ro fit- m a k in g s c h o o l, brought s u i t a g a in s t th e M id d le S ta te s A s s o c ia tio n , a re g io n a l a c c re d itin g body, f o r re fu s a l to to a c c r e d it th e s c h o o l. In th is s u it , th e argument was made by th e M id d le S ta te s A s s o c ia tio n th a t p r o fit- m a k 1 ng sch o o ls sh ou ld n o t be a c c re d ite d because th ey d iv e r t funds and resources away from th e school and I t s s tu d e n ts . I t 1s a p p a re n tly t h e i r fe e lin g t h a t when t h is o c c u rs , q u a lit y e d u c a tio n cannot be o b ta in e d by s tu d e n ts a tte n d in g such I n s t i t u t i o n s . The J u n io r C o lle g e argued to the c o n tra ry and won i t s s u it 1n D i s t r i c t C o u rt; however, th e r u lin g was reve rse d 1n the C o u rt o f A ppeals. Evidence shows th a t o v e r 10 p e r c e n t o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1n M ichigan a lo n e c a rry th e n o n p r o fit la b e l. I f such a s u i t had been In tro d u c e d by a p r o p r ie t a r y school la b e lle d n o n p r o fit, one wonders what th e r e s u lts m ig h t have been. Comparisons Some a u th o rs have made com parisons between community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . E xam ination o f a few o f these comparisons I l l u s t r a t e s th a t th e y compete f o r th e same c lie n t e le . Other Issues b rin g to l i g h t some o f th e c la im s , c o u n te rc la im s and the r a tio n a le f o r a l i t t l e o f th e b itte r n e s s expressed by c e r ta in 29 people. F in a lly , a few o f the d iffe re n c e s between the o p e ra tio n s o f both I n s t it u t io n s a re examined. I t 1s through these issues and comparisons th a t one can come to a b e tte r understanding o f both in s t it u t io n s as they are today. I t a ls o serves to h ig h lig h t th a t the d iffe re n c e s th a t e x is t between them are u n lik e those between o th e r types o f competing e d u c a tio n a l I n s t it u t io n s o f h ig h e r le a rn in g . One o f the f i r s t comparisons u s u a lly made 1s the one on program o ffe r in g s . Agreement seems to e x is t th a t p ro p r ie ta r y schools are u s u a lly f i r s t to i n i t i a t e new programs. U s u a lly , new o c c u p a tio n a l education programs are In trod uce d in th e p r iv a te schools f i r s t . L a te r , i f a program th r iv e s , I t is In trod uce d In to the p u b lic sch o o ls. Most p r iv a te schools are more f le x ib l e than p u b lic schools 1n adapting to changed manpower needs. They depend on t u i t i o n f o r fin a n c ia l s u p p o rt, and I f they cannot a t t r a c t s tu d e n ts , they must go o u t o f business. Students are In flu e n c e d to a c e r ta in e x te n t by salesm anship, and by the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f tr a in in g in glamorous o c c u p a tio n s ; however, a p riv a te v o c a tio n a l school which does n o t place I t s s tu d e n ts 1 n good jo b s w i l l d ie e v e n tu a lly .'® There are se veral fa c to rs which In flu e n c e the a b i l i t y o f p ro p rie ta ry schools to o f f e r programs p r io r to the community c o lle g e s . For example, Evans s ta te d , One o f the m ajor fa c to rs which enables p r iv a te schools to cope r a p id ly w ith changing manpower needs 1s the f a c t th a t t h e ir In s tr u c to r s are r a r e ly on te n u re . T his means th a t 1 f an In s tr u c to r 1 s no lo n g e r needed, he can be discharged w ith no d i f f i c u l t y , w h ile many p u b lic schools p re fe r to c o n tin u e an unneeded v o c a tio n a l program u n t il the death o r re tire m e n t o f an e x is tin g In s tr u c to r . M oreover, p u b lic schools are a fr a id to e n te r new o c c u p a tio n a l tr a in in g programs u n t i l th e lo n g -te rm n e c e s s ity f o r such tr a in in g Is c le a r ly e s ta b lis h e d , f o r they do n o t l i k e to be saddled w ith unneeded te a c h e rs .'9 W ith a la c k o f te n u re a t the p r o p r ie ta r y school le v e l, the q uestion m ig h t a r is e as to the competence o f I t s s t a f f . I t m ight be expected th a t s in ce th e re 1 s a la ck o f jo b s e c u r ity , a te ach e r 30 1n a p r o p r ie ta r y school m ig h t be le s s q u a lif ie d . L a rk in re p o rte d th e r e s u lts o f a stu d y w hich compared p r o p r ie ta r y and n o n -p ro p rie ta ry school te a c h e rs . W hile th e schools s tu d ie d d if f e r e d 1n th e scope o f t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s and methods o f te a c h in g , th e te a c h in g s t a f f s were rem arkably s im ila r . The r a t i o o f f u l l - t i m e and p a r t- tim e te a c h e rs , f o r In s ta n c e , was th e same 1n b o th types o f sch oo ls though th e te a ch e rs 1n n o n -p r o p rie ta ry sch o o ls were o ld e r and possessed a h ig h e r le v e l o f e d u c a tio n . D e s p ite these d i f f e r ­ ences th e te a c h in g e x p e rie n c e o f th e two groups was com parable. The stu d y concludes t h a t 'b o th p r o p r ie ta r y and n o n -p r o p rie ta ry schools t y p i c a l l y employ te a ch e rs who a re w e ll q u a lif ie d 1 n 2q term s o f e d u c a tio n , p r i o r te a c h in g * and o th e r work e x p e rie n c e .' S everal s tu d ie s have been done on th e community c o lle g e s l o ­ cated 1n M ich ig a n . These s tu d ie s examined many aspects o f th e s c h o o ls , t h e ir s t a f f s and t h e i r s tu d e n ts . m entioned. Three o f these s tu d ie s a re b r i e f l y F i r s t , S c h m itt d id a stu d y to I d e n t if y th e problems o f In d u s tr ia l and T e ch n ica l In s t r u c t o r s . The purposes o f h is stu dy w ere: to I d e n t if y problem s o f p a r t- tim e and f u l l - t i m e I n d u s t r ia l and te c h n ic a l In s tr u c to r s as p e rc e iv e d by t h e i r s u p e rv is o rs , the In s tr u c to r s th em selves, and t h e i r s tu d e n ts .2 ' The m a jo r ity o f h is fin d in g s showed a need f o r pedagogical t r a in in g and o th e r r e la te d In fo rm a tio n . The Larson s tu d y d id p o in t o u t a d e fic ie n c y th a t was I d e n t if ie d by th e community c o lle g e s tu d e n ts . W ith th e e x c e p tio n o f th e placem ent fu n c t io n , th e s tu d e n ts were w e ll s a t is f ie d w ith th e manner In w hich th e c o u n s e lin g and guidance fu n c tio n s were perform ed. Four o f e ve ry 10 s tu d e n ts In d ic a te d s e c u rin g th e f i r s t jo b th rough t h e i r own e f f o r t s and o n ly 8 p e r c e n t th rough th e c o lle g e placem ent s e r v ic e .22 F in a lly , th e purpose o f th e M esserschm ldt stu d y was: To d ete rm in e th e p ra c tic e s used by community c o lle g e s In th e s ta te o f M ichigan to r e c r u i t , h ir e , and p re p a re p a r t- tim e In s tr u c to r s In v o c a tio n a l te c h n ic a l e d u c a tio n , and to compare c e r ta in a t t it u d e s o f p a r t- tim e v o c a tio n a l te c h n ic a l In s tr u c to r s 31 w ith f u l l tim e v o c a tio n a l te c h n ic a l In s tr u c to r s on s ix s e le c te d v a r ia b le s .23 Only 36 p e r c e n t o f th e 327 In s tr u c to r s p o lle d responded to the I n i t i a l m a ilin g . M e sse rsch m ld t's fin d in g s d id show, however, th a t th e p rim a ry source o f p a r t- tim e In s tr u c to r s was from lo c a l business and In d u s tr y . A nother s tu d y o u ts id e M ichigan has been done to determ ine the q u a lif ic a t io n s o f newly h ire d f u l l - t i m e community c o lle g e te a c h e rs . The fin d in g s lend credence to the c la im th a t v e ry l i t t l e 1s done to a c tu a lly pre pa re te a ch e rs f o r t h is le v e l o f e d u c a tio n a l I n s t r u c t io n . 24 In t h is s tu d y , P a llc h a k and Moore examine th e q u a l i f i ­ c a tio n s o f 1,310 newly h ire d community c o lle g e te a ch e rs in C a lifo r n ia . The r e s u lts show th a t le s s than 250 a c t u a lly had experience a t the e d u c a tio n a l le v e l 1n which th e y were to te a ch . The breakdown o f th e to p fo u r c a te g o rie s show th e fo llo w in g percentages: Secondary te a c h in g 36% Community c o lle g e te a c h in g 20% F o u r-y e a r c o lle g e te a c h in g 15% I n d u s t r ia l o r commercial 10% The rem aining 19 p e r c e n t f e l l c a te g o rie s . In to s e v e ra l m isce lla n e o u s O b vio u sly th e la r g e s t p o r tio n o f the group were r e c ru ite d from h ig h school te a c h in g . Teachers 1n p r o p r ie ta r y schools a ls o have a v a r ie t y o f background e x p e rie n c e s . Because t h e i r programs In v o lv e ve ry lim ite d c u rric u lu m o f f e r in g s , however, th e te a ch e rs must be w e ll rounded 1n t h e i r s p e c ia liz e d f i e l d s . T his typ e o f e xpe rie nce 32 can be b e st o b ta in e d th ro u gh a c tu a l w orkin g 1n th e f i e l d . Burch 25 re p o rts th a t I t s teachers are grounded In the re a l w o rld o f w o rk. Most are craftsm e n o r p ro fe s s io n a ls , and th e y know th e demands t h e i r s tu d e n ts w i l l fa c e on th e jo b . The te ach e rs are expected to keep up w ith w h a t's g oin g on 1 n t h e i r s p e c ia lt ie s , and one school . . . r e g u la r ly sends f a c u lt y members back to the fa c to r y on 'I n d u s t r i a l s a b b a tic a ls .' A t a l l the s u c c e s s fu l s c h o o ls , p r o p r ie to r s and teachers make a determ ined e f f o r t to f in d o u t what th e lo c a l employers a re lo o k in g f o r 1 n new graduates and how w e ll re c e n t graduates are d o in g . The im portance o f having in s t r u c t o r s who a re cra ftsm e n w ith work r e la te d e xp e rie n ce has a ls o been shown by th e lic e n s in g r e q u ir e ­ ments o f some o f the s ta te s . To in s u re th a t I t s c lie n t s g e t th e In s tr u c tio n to w hich they are e n t i t l e d , these s ta te s have e s ta b ­ lis h e d re g u la tio n s whereby th e schools are re q u ire d to employ q u a lif ie d In s tr u c to r s . B efore in s t r u c to r s can be c e r t i f i e d to teach In th e s c h o o l, th ey must be lic e n s e d by th e s ta te departm ent. The s c h o o ls , in t u r n , must lo o k f o r those in s t r u c to r s m eeting these req uirem e nts. In th e p a s t, The assum ption has been th a t i t 1s b e tt e r to c o n v e rt a journeyman in t o a te a ch e r than to have a te a ch e r a c q u ire the necessary jo b s k i l l s and r e la te d knowledge. Perhaps w ith in th e p re s e n t s it u a t io n t h is assum ption 1 s w a rra n te d , a t le a s t to th e degree th a t s h o p -o rie n te d I n s t r u c t io n does re q u ire s h o p -o rie n te d I n s t r u c t o r s , and th a t such In s tr u c to r s may have g re a te r empathy w ith t h e i r s tu d e n ts than th e person who has never worked 1 n a p ro d u c tio n j o b . 26 Program Comparisons A f t e r comparing I n s t r u c t o r s , th e n e x t lo g ic a l ste p 1s to do lik e w is e w ith program s. Here again d iffe r e n c e s are n o te d . For example, Evans has noted t h a t , American e d u c a tio n 1s designed f o r one b a s ic purpose to p re ­ pare th e s tu d e n t f o r subsequent s c h o o lin g . A ctu a l p r a c tic e 33 1n elem entary s c h o o ls , secondary sc h o o ls , ju n io r c o lle g e s , and bacca lau re a te programs show f a r too l i t t l e re c o g n itio n o f th e r o le o f the school 1n p re p a rin g stu d e n ts f o r c itiz e n s h ip and f o r employment. Only a t th e graduate school le v e l are employ­ a b i l i t y s k i l l s given c a re fu l a tte n tio n by the m a jo r ity o f In s tr u c to r s , and anyone who drops o u t o f th e e d u c a tio n a l stream p r io r to graduate school 1s regarded as a f a i lu r e . Exam ination o f the community c o lle g e programs In fe r s th a t th is 1s tru e o f those e n ro lle d in tw o -ye a r tr a n s fe r programs; those going on f o r a fo u r-y e a r degree. A fte r a l l , these stu de n ts are not e n ro lle d 1n the tw o-year te c h n ic a l program, and are n o t p la n n in g fo r Immediate employment upon program c o m p le tio n . A tr a n s fe r stu d e n t must take these courses which a re p re re q u is ite s f o r the degree. W ith o u t them, a d d itio n a l courses are re q u ire d a f t e r tr a n s fe r r in g to a fo u r-y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n . Those a tte n d in g a community c o lle g e on a te rm in a l te c h n ic a l program would be expected to be a b le to complete a s p e c ia liz e d In depth program. A f t e r a l l , the courses th ey are ta k in g are Intended to prepare them f o r t h e ir l i f e ' s w ork. However, Even a c u rs o ry a n a ly s is o f many tw o -ye ar te c h n ic a l courses w i l l show th a t e it h e r pressures from the academic committees which c o n tro l h ig h e r e d u ca tio n o r the n a tu ra l biases o f the planners have loaded the c u rric u lu m w ith so many e x tra s th a t th e re Is n o t tim e enough l e f t to o f f e r a l l o f the math, scie n ce , and a p p lie d technology th a t Is re q u ire d to tu rn o u t a p ro p e rly prepared te c h n ic ia n . High school te c h n ic a l courses, where e x tra work 1s c o n fin e d to E n g lis h and s o c ia l s tu d ie s , a c tu a lly have more tim e to devote to the v o c a tio n a l a spect o f the program and may tu rn o u t b e tte r Q u a lifie d te c h n ic ia n s In s p ite o f the age d i f f e r e n t i a l .28 Charges o f t h is type have had t h e ir consequences. Some have le d to comparisons being made between community c o lle g e s and p ro p rie ta ry sch oo ls. back and f o r t h . Charges and countercharges have been h u rle d P a rt o f the argument ce n te rs around the c u rric u lu m 34 Its e lf. The p r o p r ie ta r y school people c la im th a t c a re e r r e la te d programs being combined w ith g en era l e d u c a tio n o n ly r e s u lt 1 n th e stu d e n t ta k in g lo n g e r to com plete a program. T h is , in t u r n , Increases the le n g th o f a s tu d e n t's dependence on p a re n ts , f a m ily , and school and delays h is e v e n tu a l e n try In to a c a re e r. When asked what th e d is t in c t i o n was between p r o p r ie ta r y schools and community c o lle g e s , one p r o p r ie ta r y school o f f i c i a l r e p lie d , The p u b lic community c o lle g e s j u s t c a n 't t r a i n a s tu d e n t 1n e le c tr o n ic s o r a cc o u n tin g as w e ll as we can. They have so much p re ssu re to make sure th a t t h e i r courses w i l l tr a n s fe r to a fo u r - y e a r c o lle g e th a t t h e i r v o c a tio n a l courses w ind up being d ilu te d w ith general e d u c a tio n re q u ire d by th e f o u r ye a r s c h o o ls .29 A lth o u g h t h is p o in t 1s s u b je c t to argum ent, I t does p o in t o u t one o f the d iffe r e n c e s between p r o p r ie ta r y sch oo ls and com­ m unity c o lle g e s — th e le n g th o f th e school program . One o f the claim s made by p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1 s th a t th e y c u t o u t th e f r i l l s and c o n c e n tra te on the te c h n ic a l aspects o f th e program . I t 1s t h e ir c o n te n tio n th a t th ey want to g e t th e s tu d e n t tr a in e d and o u t e a rn in g a l i v i n g as soon as p r a c t ic a lly f e a s ib le . Conse­ q u e n tly , th e y g r e a t ly c u r t a i l th e number o f general e d u c a tio n courses. To compare th e r e s u lts o f such a d e c is io n would n e c e s s ita te a d d itio n a l rese arch on many o f th e aspects o f both programs. A g a in , Wilms has observed. The sm all amount o f rese arch done on graduates o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools suggests q u ite c le a r ly th a t th e y fa r e as w e ll In the la b o r m arket as graduates o f p u b lic s c h o o ls , 1 f n o t b e t t e r . F urth erm ore, because these sch oo ls a re concerned o n ly w ith deve lop ing e m p lo ym e n t-re la te d s k i l l s 1n t h e i r s tu d e n ts , t h e ir 35 programs a re o n ly about a q u a rte r o r a h a lf as long as com­ p a ra b le programs 1n p u b lic I n s t i t u t i o n s . C onsequently, they a re cheaper, e s p e c ia lly when the s tu d e n ts ' tim e l o s t in the la b o r m arket 1 s c o n s id e re d .30 Arguments o f t h is ty p e a re n o t j u s t r e s t r ic t e d to being between p r o p r ie ta r y and community c o lle g e s . There a re those who fe e l th a t any tw o -y e a r program 1s an i n f e r i o r one. However, some w r ite r s have keyed on th e d iffe r e n c e s th a t e x is t between community c o lle g e s and th e fo u r - y e a r I n s t it u t io n s w hich th e y fe e d . H i11way, f o r example. In d ic a te d th a t some people seem to th in k th a t stu d e n ts a tte n d in g a tw o -y e a r c o lle g e program cannot make th e grade a t a re g u la r fo u r - y e a r c o lle g e . A m isco n ce p tio n o f t h is k in d seems to a r is e from two n a tu ra l b u t w h o lly m istaken a t t it u d e s on th e p a r t o f some American e d u ca to rs . The f i r s t o f th e s e , u n fo r tu n a te ly , is pure snobbery— the snobbery o f th e re s p e c te d , lo n g -e s ta b lis h e d I n s t i t u t i o n o f le a rn in g toward the young u p s ta r t w hich has dared to assume some o f th e o ld e r c o lle g e 's fu n c tio n s . Time and th e s u c c e s s fu l p ro d u c ts o f th e ju n i o r c o lle g e have a lm o s t, though n o t e n t i r e l y , negated t h is p o in t o f view . The o th e r a t t it u d e seems f a r more lo g ic a l b u t 1s e q u a lly m ista ke n . T his 1 s the Idea t h a t every person should have as much e d u c a tio n as h is mental a b i l i t y w i l l p e rm it him to a c q u ire and th a t those who, f o r one reason o r a n o th e r, abandon t h e i r c o lle g e ca re e rs b e fo re co m p le tio n o f th e s e n io r y e a r n e c e s s a rily in d ic a te th e re b y t h e i r la c k o f re a l f it n e s s f o r s tu d y .3 i A n a tu ra l q u e s tio n e vo lve s from statem ents such as th e se . Why do people s u f f e r from these m isconceptions? T hat q u e s tio n 1s, a t b e s t, d i f f i c u l t 1 f n o t Im p o s s ib le to f u l l y e x p la in . One a ls o fin d s a number o f d if f e r e n t m isco n ce p tio n s a bout te c h n ic a l program s; however, 1 n th e case o f te c h n ic a l program s, th e q u e s tio n 1 s le s s I d e a lis t . In th e case o f te c h n ic a l program s, th e m isco n ce p tio n 1s n o t always d ir e c te d a t community c o lle g e s o r I t s s tu d e n ts f o r th e same 36 reasons. I t seems to be ce n te re d around the program I t s e l f and appears to be a la c k o f re s p e c t f o r th e program and much o f Mhat i t re p re s e n ts . Perhaps much o f th e d is re s p e c t can be sunmed up in one w ord, P re s tig e . The problem s in v o c a tio n a l and te c h n ic a l e d u c a tio n are compounded by th e p re s e n t p rogram 's low p r e s tig e . Its stu d e n ts to o o fte n are the d ro p o u ts o r c a s to ffs o f the academic c u rric u lu m . I t s te a c h e rs , o fte n le s s a c a d e m ic a lly o rie n te d , e n jo y r e l a t i v e l y low s ta tu s w it h in th e te a c h in g p ro fe s s io n 1n maqy s ta te s . I t s b u ild in g s a re o fte n the o ld e s t, i t s f a c i l i t i e s th e p o o re s t. I t s e x t r a c u r r ic u la r programs the w eakest. I t s s u b je c t m a tte r s u ffe r s from the general debasement o f manual and b lu e - c o lla r o ccu p a tio n s 1 n contem porary s o c ia l v a lu e s .32 Whether 1 t be in t h e i r te c h n ic a l o r degree t r a n s fe r program , 1t 1s obvious th a t n o t a l l m unity c o lle g e s . people fe e l the same d is re s p e c t f o r com­ T h is 1s e v id e n t by th e sim p le f a c t o f t h e i r e v e r-in c re a s in g e n ro llm e n t. The c o n s ta n t expansion o f community c o lle g e s and t h e i r programs may have, in some degree, c o n trib u te d to the snobbery noted by H illw a y . However, th e re a re o th e rs who are q u ic k to come to t h e i r d efe n se, c la im in g th a t the s t a f f on the community c o lle g e le v e l devote them selves to t h e i r s tu d e n ts . These defenders throw back the g a u n tle t to th e a c c u s e rs ; those a t the fo u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s . They would n o t do t h is u n le ss the Advocates o f th e community c o lle g e b e lie v e 1 t can meet the c h a lle n g e o f p ro v id in g q u a lit y e d u c a tio n f o r low a c h ie v in g , n o n tr a d ltlo n a l y o u th by being a 'te a c h in g I n s t i t u t i o n . 1 T his c la im Is r e in fo r c e d by tw o -ye a r c o lle g e s who p ro u d ly r e je c t the Idea o f In s tr u c to r s becoming In te n s e ly In v o lv e d 1 n th e re s e a rc h -a n d -p u b l 1 sh a c t i v i t y so p re v a le n t 1 n f o u r year In s titu tio n s . S u p po rters o f th e community ju n io r c o lle g e take g re a t p a in s to emphasize th a t te a c h in g s t a f f s 1 n th e tw o -y e a r c o lle g e devote f u l l tim e to te a c h in g .33 37 Another w r it e r c h a ra c te riz e s the whole community c o lle g e program when he says: Those who a re served by the community c o lle g e b e st charac­ te r iz e I t s uniqueness. Y e t, d e s c r ip tiv e s tu d ie s o f the stu d e n t c lie n t e le are o fte n In c o n c lu s iv e and p a ra d o x ic a l. With the most d iv e rs e c lie n t e le 1n h ig h e r e d u c a tio n , the community c o lle g e serves people who are more re p re s e n ta tiv e o f s o c ie ty than any o th e r I n s t i t u t i o n o f h ig h e r le a rn in g : the many c a te g o rie s In c lu d e young s tu d e n ts , a d u lts , v e te ra n s , s k ille d w orke rs, the disadvantaged, b la c k s , and 't r a n s f e r ' o r 'te r m in a l' s tu d e n ts , among o th e r s .34 P ro p rie ta ry Schools/CoiTinun1ty C olleges P ro fit-L o s s F actor P ro p rie ta ry schools a re a ls o n ot w ith o u t t h e ir d e tr a c to r s . However, th e issues most o fte n p u b lic iz e d in an e f f o r t to b rin g them to p u b lic a tte n tio n re v o lv e around money. I t should be under­ stood th a t p r o p r ie ta r y schools charge a t u i t i o n f o r attendance 1 n any o f t h e i r programs. T his t u i t i o n is used to d e fra y o p e ra tio n a l costs and, a t the same tim e , p ro v id e s the owners w ith a p r o f i t a fte r they have covered t h e ir expenses. I t Is th a t word, " p r o f i t , " th a t causes much concern 1 n the e d u c a tio n a l community. Owners o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools I n s is t th a t they must be provided w ith an In c e n tiv e to develop and c o n tin u e to o pe ra te educational programs. A f t e r - a l l , they must f i r s t o b ta in a b u ild in g e ith e r through purchase o r r e n ta l. The c o s t o f these b u ild in g s 1s n ot covered by any school m ill age from which they can o b ta in fu n d in g . N ext, th ey must p ro v id e an In s tr u c tio n a l s t a f f capable o f meeting lic e n s in g requirem ents o f those s ta te s which demand 1 t . The s a la rie s and fr in g e b e n e fits o f the In s tr u c to r s , s e c re ta rie s , and owners must a ls o come o u t o f t u i t i o n charges. The c o s t o f 38 In s tr u c tio n a l equipm ent, o f f i c e equipm ent* f u r n it u r e , desks, e t c . , alone runs In to thousands o f d o lla r s . must come from t u i t i o n charges. U ltim a te ly , th e s e , to o , I f , a f t e r a l l these expenses are met, th e re 1 s no p r o f i t l e f t o v e r, why should th e owners open a school 1n the f i r s t place? They a sk, "Which o f you would In v e s t tens o f thousands o f d o lla r s j u s t to g e t i t back on a break-even basis? " I t would be much w is e r and a s a fe r in ve stm e n t to p u t the money 1n any bank w ith a guaranteed In te r e s t r e tu r n . P r o fit provides th e In c e n tiv e to In v e s t 1n th e o p e ra tio n o f a p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o l. However, p r o f i t a ls o can lead to some abuses. That th e re a re abuses among th e e s tim a te d 35,000 o r so p ro ­ p r ie t a r y sch o o ls 1n th e U n ite d S ta te s is u n d e rs ta n d a b le . Most o f th e schools depend on earned Income f o r s u r v iv a l; they are c o n fin e d to a m arket shrunken o u t o f a l l p ro p o rtio n to I t s p o te n tia l volume by th e r e l a t i v e l y h ig h fees necessary to meet ever-m o un ting c o s ts ; and a l l a re competing w ith a llu r in g cla im s from th e n e ig h b o rin g schools te a c h in g the same o r o th e r v o c a tio n s . C o m p e titio n may be th e lif e - b lo o d o f tr a d e , b u t I t 1s a ls o a breeder o f conduct n o t always a model o f e th ic a l b e h a v io r .35 This concept o f c o m p e titio n should n o t be sneered a t ; I t Is one o f th e p i l l a r s on w hich o u r c o u n try was founded. The re a l Impetus to the p r o p r ie ta r y school movement to ok p la ce back 1 n th e era o f th e C iv il War. I t was a bout th a t tim e th a t most h ig h e r e d u c a tio n was grounded In the c la s s ic s . C onsequently, th e re was a r e s u lta n t la c k o f t r a in in g 1n o u r c o u n tr y 's grow ing commercial s tr u c t u r e . T h is, 1n tu r n , p ro v id e d th e s p a rk ; th e In c e n tiv e needed In a c o m p e titiv e s o c ie ty . even today. I t 1s t h is same c o m p e titio n which e x is ts 39 I t can be seen th a t p r o p r ie ta r y schools were e s ta b lis h e d to p ro vid e an a lt e r n a t iv e to an e x is t in g c la s s ic a l e d u c a tio n . They were Intended to p ro v id e tra d e experiences and knowledge f o r those In te n t on w orking w ith t h e i r minds and hands. T his prem ise e x is ts as a c a rry o v e r to th e p re s e n t because even now, th e p r o p r ie ta r y e n tre p re n e u rs compete d i r e c t l y w ith j u n io r c o lle g e s and community c o lle g e s th a t o f f e r s im ila r voca­ tio n a l e d u ca tio n fr e e o f charge. That th e p r o p r ie t a r ie s are a b le to s u rv iv e a g a in s t t h is k in d o f c o m p e titio n Is the b e s t p o s s ib le evidence o f t h e i r e f f ic ie n c y , th e e f f e c t iv e ­ ness o f t h e i r t r a in in g and th e s k i l l w ith w hich th e y respond to changing s tu d e n t needs. However, w ith re fe re n c e to u n e th ic a l b e h a v io r, c o n s id e r th is p o in t. An axiom 1n t h is business 1s th a t no school can s u rv iv e f o r long 1f 1 t c o n tin u e s tu rn in g o u t s tu d e n ts f o r whom th e re a re no jo b s . An Ir r e s p o n s ib le o p e ra to r can keep s tu d e n ts stream ­ ing 1 n f o r a tim e w ith heavy a d v e r t is in g , b u t word from d is ­ s a t is f ie d graduates sooner o r l a t e r g e ts around— p a r t i c u l a r l y In th e s m a lle r c i t i e s and towns where th e m a jo r ity o f the su cce ss fu l p r o p r ie t a r ie s are lo c a te d .37 More Is s a id about t h is co nce pt l a t e r 1n t h is c h a p te r. A number o f a r t i c l e s have been w r it t e n on th e c o m p e titio n between th e v a rio u s s c h o o ls . co ntin ue s to re o c c u r. However, the p o in t about p r o f i t S everal o f the a r t ic le s v e r if y th e e x is te n c e o f p r o f i t being a sore p o in t between th e com peting s c h o o ls . the reason i t 1 s a sore p o in t is Perhaps th e f a c t th a t community c o lle g e s do n o t make money* j u s t spend I t . The m ajo r reason why we in the co re have looked down so upon the p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls has been th e f a c t t h a t th e y e x is t to make a p r o f i t . These days, 1 t 1s c le a r th a t th e d is t in c t io n 1s b lu rre d between p r o p r ie ta r y and n o n p r o fit I n s t i t u t i o n s . For a l l p r a c t ic a l purposes, most n o n p r o fit I n s t i t u t i o n s were d e lig h te d 1 n th e p a s t to e n co u n te r 1 excess o f Income o ve r e x p e n d itu re , 1 and the fin a n c e s o f th e two typ e s a re n o t v e ry 40 d if f e r e n t . In f a c t , one o f th e problems o f core c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s itie s today Is th a t th e y d o n 't make a p r o f i t . 38 Why the p r o f i t Issue 1s o f such concern 1 s never q u ite made c le a r. As a m a tte r o f f a c t , some w r ite r s s im p ly t r e a t i t as a ru s e . P ro p rie ta ry schools are l i k e l y to compete s e rio u s ly w ith twoand fo u r-y e a r c o lle g e s 1n tr a in in g and la b o r fo rc e o f the fu tu r e . To exclude them j u s t because they make a p r o f i t 1s to respond e m o tio n a lly to a red h e r rin g . P r o f i t making 1s n ot the Is s u e . The q u e s tio n th a t should be asked to p r o p r ie ta r y schools as w e ll as p u b lic v o c a tio n a lly o rie n te d schools 1 s ve ry sim p le : How w e ll do th ey do what th e y say they a re d o 1 n g ? 3 9 The p r o f i t id e a l has even c a rrie d over In to the s to c k m arket. A number o f la rg e companies have bought In to th e p r o p r ie ta r y school m arket. In 1969, i t was found th a t m ajor c o rp o ra tio n s such as B e ll & H ow e ll, ITT, Lear S le g le r and Ryder System a ls o own sch o o ls. . . . W i t h ro u g h ly 10,000 such p r iv a t e ly owned sc h o o ls , 2,000 o f which opened 1 n the 1 9 6 0 's, th e gates a re open f o r p u b lic ow nership. I t 1s In e v ita b le , say In d u s try le a d e rs , th a t more c o rp o ra tio n s w i l l go p u b lic and a c q u ire s c h o o ls , as has been the case l a t e l y . 40 T his prophesy d id n ot come tru e f o r a number o f reasons. Many o f these companies were In te re s te d 1n the p r o f i t a s p e c t, b u t d id n o t r e a lly know how to o pe ra te a sch o o l. L a te r many p u lle d o u t and l e f t t h e ir o p e ra tio n to the sm all businessmen; however, i t d id s t a r t a new precedent f o r some o f these companies e n te rin g In to the sch o o lin g f i e l d . As a r e s u lt , some have entered in t o the f i e ld on an even broader b a s is . They have expanded t h e ir In te rn a l programs to In c lu d e some new a c t i v i t i e s . For example, There are rnaqy o th e r o rg an ized p ost-secondary a c t i v i t i e s th a t a re showing expansion. P robably the most Im p o rta n t 1s the area o f In d u s tr ia l programs. Some companies have a p p a re n tly d iscovered th a t they can t r a in people more cheaply and q u ic k ly 'In -h o u s e ' than by sending them away to graduate sc h o o ls . Thus, IBM, Raytheon, Xerox, General M otors, M otorola and maqy more have s e t up t h e i r own tr a in in g and personnel development programs. 41 Data from the Syracuse E d u ca tio n a l P o lic y Research C enter In d ic a te t h a t about 21 m il l i o n Am ericans a re now engaged 1n such a c t i v i t y * n o t c a r r ie d o u t 1n a c o lle g e o r u n iv e r s it y . O ther a c t i v i t i e s * such as t r a in in g managers f o r fra n c h is e agencies l i k e M cDonald's and H o lid a y In n s , a re a ls o done I n house. 4 ' The p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls have a ls o made o th e r In ro a ds In to the e d u c a tio n a l f i e l d , some p re v io u s ly rese rve d f o r th e p u b lic schools. R e c e n tly , C a lifo r n ia has begun a p i l o t program th a t amounts to a voucher system f o r v o c a tio n a l e d u c a tio n . I t o ffe r s s c h o la rs h ip s to s tu d e n ts who want to pursue jo b t r a in in g and g iv e s them th e o p tio n o f a tte n d in g e it h e r p u b lic o r p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . The agency th a t a d m in is te rs th e program says th a t p r o p r ie ta r y s tu d e n ts have a c o n s id e ra b ly h ig h e r co m p le tio n r a te than th e s tu d e n ts 1n p u b lic s c h o o l s . 4 ” One o th e r program w o rth n o tin g a ls o to o k p la ce 1n C a lif o r n ia . In I t , the C ity o f O akland, under th e sp o n so rsh ip o f the Comprehensive Employment T ra in in g A c t (CETA), sought t r a in in g f o r some h a rd -c o re unemployed. They tu rn e d to th e P o lly P r ie s t Business C o lle g e , a p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o l, to begin t r a in in g 1n 1971. The In te r e s tin g aspect was th e f a c t t h a t . The school guaranteed to p la ce fo u r o u t o f f i v e o f I t s CETA graduates 1n jo b s . For e ve ry s tu d e n t s h o r t o f the m ark, 1 t promised to t r a i n a n o th e r fr e e . L a s t y e a r, in the fa c e o f a re g io n a l unemployment r a te o f 12per c e n t, th e school missed I t s goal f o r th e f i r s t tim e , and t h is y e a r 1 t is t r a in in g fo u rte e n e x tra s tu d e n ts a t no c h a rg e .4^ Burck sums up th e fe e lin g s o f many o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y school owners on th e money Issue when he sa ys, Because they a re o p e ra te d w ith exem plary e f f ic ie n c y , they earn a modest p r o f i t doing som ething th a t many p u b lic sch oo ls cannot do a t a l l — sending graduates In to th e w o rld w ith a m arketable s e t o f s k i l l s . And because th e y a re p r iv a t e , p r o p r ie ta r y sch oo ls pay taxes r a th e r than soak them u p .44 42 A c c re d ita tio n L ik e community c o lle g e s , th e p r o p r ie t a r y schools a ls o have a c c re d itin g a g e n cie s. However, u n lik e t h e i r c o lle g ia t e c o u n te rp a rts , th ere 1s no re q u ire m e n t th a t th e y be a c c re d ite d . A n a ly s is o f th e records shows th a t th e m a jo r ity o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls , 1n f a c t , are n o t a c c re d ite d . A c c r e d itin g is necessary f o r those schools w is h in g to r e g is t e r s tu d e n ts being sponsored by v o c a tio n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s o r q u a lif y in g s tu d e n ts f o r c e r ta in types o f bank lo a n s . However, because th e re a re no r e g u la tio n s Im posing p e n a ltie s f o r not being a c c re d ite d , most schools do n o t s u b je c t them selves to the t r ib u la t io n s needed to accom plish 1 t. The two a c c r e d itin g agencies f o r these sch o o ls a re the N a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f Trade and T e ch n ica l Schools (NATTS) and th e A s s o c ia tio n o f Independent C olleg e s and Schools (A IC S ), fo rm e rly th e U n ite d Business Schools A s s o c ia tio n . NATTS has a t o t a l o f 390 schools on I t s l i s t o f a c c re d ite d s c h o o ls , and AICS has a t o t a l o f 518. O b v io u s ly , th e m a jo r ity o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools rem ain u n a c c re d ite d . T h is 1s n o t to be In te r p r e te d to mean th a t th e schools do n ot meet the q u a lif ic a t io n s ; many o f them s im p ly have not_ a p p lie d f o r a c c r e d ita tio n f o r one reason o r a n o th e r. The number o f p r o p r ie t a r y schools 1n e x is te n c e 1s open to some disagreem ent, however, th e general consensus seems to s e t t h e ir number a t around 10,000. Based on t h is f ig u r e , 1 t would In d ic a te th a t le s s than 10 p e r c e n t o f th e schools a re a c c re d ite d . A nother movement was I n i t i a t e d to a c c r e d it p r o p r ie ta r y schools to g e th e r w ith those 1n th e h ig h e r e d u c a tio n a l community; however, th e In te r n a l Revenue S e rv ic e was q u ic k to Issue a w arning about such a p ro p o s itio n . A budding movement to g iv e p r o p r ie t a r y I n s t i t u t i o n s g re a te r s ta tu s 1n th e m ainstream o f h ig h e r e d u c a tio n has been s e t back by th e In te r n a l Revenue S e rv ic e . 43 Responding to a q u e ry from th e F e d e ra tio n o f Regional A c c r e d itin g Commissions o f H igh er E d u c a tio n , th e IRS ru le d t h is month th a t th e fe d e r a tio n 's ta x-e xe m p t s ta tu s 'may be je o p a rd iz e d 1 1 f I t s member commissions a d m it p r o p r ie ta r y In s titu tio n s . P o lic y Change Had Been Planned The fe d e r a tio n , w hich c o n s is ts o f th e seven v o lu n ta ry agencies th a t g ra n t o v e r a ll a c c r e d ita tio n to c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s it ie s , had been p la n n in g a m a jo r p o lic y change to a c c r e d it p r o p r ie ta r y i n s t it u t i o n s . V i r t u a l l y a l l o f th e com m issions' c u r r e n t members are p u b lic o r n o n - p r o f it p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s . The IRS r u lin g d e c la re d , however, th a t *th e adm ission o f p r o fit- s e e k in g o rg a n iz a tio n s in t o th e membership o f non­ p r o f i t o rg a n iz a tio n s 1s in c o n s is te n t w ith ta x-e xe m p t s ta tu s under S e c tio n 5 01 (c) ( 3 ) ' o f th e In te r n a l Revenue Code. Aside from th e exem ption 1 t p ro v id e s , t h is s ta tu s 1s e s s e n tia l to th e e l i g i b i l i t y o f such o rg a n iz a tio n s f o r fo u n d a tio n g ra n ts and o th e r o u ts id e s u p p o rt. The c a te g o ry g e n e ra lly covers s c h o o ls , ch urche s, and c h a r ita b le I n s t i t u t i o n s and o rg a n i­ z a tio n s .46 As a r e s u lt o f r u lin g s such as t h is and th e outcome o f the M a rjo rie Webster case d t e d e a r l i e r , a c c r e d itin g o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools has been g r e a tly c u r t a ile d o u ts id e t h e i r own a c c r e d itin g o rg a n iz a tio n s . D iffe re n c e s 1n Program Length and Cost Besides th e d iffe r e n c e s 1n a c c r e d itin g , th e re a re a ls o the b asic d iffe re n c e s 1n program le n g th and c o s t. I t 1s a g e n e r a lly accepted f a c t th a t p r o p r ie ta r y schools charge much more In t u i t i o n than com nunlty c o lle g e s . P a rt o f th e r a tio n a le f o r t h is f a c t stems from one o f t h e i r In h e re n t d iffe r e n c e s . Community c o lle g e s o f f e r lib e r a l a r ts programs w h ile p r o p r ie ta r y sch oo ls do n o t. These li b e r a l a r ts programs p ro v id e them w ith an edge 1n the 44 d is t r ib u t io n o f t u i t i o n . The p r o p r ie ta r y school cannot depend on a lo w -c o s t program to h elp s u b s id iz e a more expensive o f f e r in g . The community c o lle g e o ffe r s a lib e r a l a r ts program , sometimes to a m a jo r ity o f th e s tu d e n ts . The c o s t o f o p e ra tin g t h is program Is u s u a lly , though n o t a lw a ys, le s s expensive than o p e ra tin g th e o c c u p a tio n a l e d u c a tio n program , so th e c o lle g e helps s u p p o rt th e h ig h -c o s t o c c u p a tio n a l program w ith t h is 's u r p lu s 1 from th e lib e r a l a r ts s t u d e n t s . 47 T h is f a c t sh ou ld n o t i n f e r th a t a l l th e programs o ffe r e d by community c o lle g e s a re lo n g e r than those o f p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . The l a t t e r do n o t j u s t o f f e r s h o rt program s. Some programs a re o f s u f f i c i e n t d u ra tio n to q u a lif y them to g ra n t th e A s s o c ia te Degree. The Commonwealth o f P ennsylvania changed some o f i t s re g u la tio n s In 1969 w hich made 1 t p o s s ib le f o r p r o p r ie ta r y schools to award two types o f a s s o c ia te degrees. They had to meet standards e s ta b lis h e d by th e Commonwealth 1n o rd e r to q u a lif y . P a rt o f these standards in c lu d e d th e scope and le n g th o f the programs. The le n g th o f th e program equates o u t to a p p ro x im a te ly two ye ars o f fo rm a liz e d s tu d y . In h is a r t i c l e , Shoemaker a ls o re p o rte d th a t as o f 1973, th e re were th ir ty - s e v e n schools approved to g ra n t t h is degree. However, he a ls o s ta te d t h a t . In many ways, th e programs approved f o r the a s s o c ia te degree are s im ila r In scope and le n g th to programs o ffe r e d by the community c o lle g e s , though th e re a re some d iffe r e n c e s — the most Im p o rta n t o f w hich 1s th e decreased emphasis on general e d u ca tio n 1n th e program o f a p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o l.4® A g a in , th e reduced o ffe r in g s 1n general e d u c a tio n becomes an Issu e . The p r o p r ie ta r y schools are s t i l l keeping w ith t h e i r t r a d it io n a l r o le o f te a c h in g as much te c h n ic a l m a tte r as p o s s ib le a t the expense o f general e d u c a tio n a l c o n te n t. 45 H ost o f th e w r it e r s quoted so fa fiT g lv e one s id e o f an Is s u e . They s e le c t e it h e r th e community c o lle g e o r th e p r o p r ie ta r y school and expound to some degree on a p a r t ic u la r a s p e c t o f t h e i r program . Very l i t t l e has a c t u a lly been w r it t e n w hich compared both program s; however, one s tu d y has been done comparing them. I t was done by the American I n s t i t u t e f o r Research in th e B e h a vio ra l Sciences under a c o n tr a c t w ith th e U. S. O ffic e o f E d u ca tio n . Wilms compared tw enty-one p u b lic s c h o o ls , s ix te e n o f w hich were community c o lle g e s , w ith tw e n ty -n in e p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . They were lo c a te d 1n fo u r lo c a tio n s around th e U n ite d S ta te s and covered s ix d if f e r e n t o c c u p a tio n a l a re a s ; a c c o u n tin g , e le c tr o n ic data processlng-program m er, d e n ta l a s s is t in g , e le c tr o n ic te c h n ic ia n , s e c r e ta r ia l and cosm etology. He found t h a t . The p r o p r ie ta r y s tu d e n t b rought fe w e r resources to school w ith him. He was more l i k e l y a h ig h school d ro p o u t o r graduate o f a lo w -s ta tu s general o r v o c a tio n a l p rogram .4’ Based on th e r e s u lts o f th e fin d in g s o f th e s tu d y , Wilms o ffe re d seven recommendations, s ix o f which proposed fe d e ra l o r s ta te government In vo lve m e n t. These recom nendatlons were based on the fa c ts th a t , E ig h t o u t o f te n graduates o f p ro fe s s io n a l and te c h n ic a lle v e l, postsecondary v o c a tio n a l programs d id n o t g e t th e jo b s they tra in e d f o r ; and, second, e ig h t o u t o f te n graduates from lo w e r-le v e l v o c a tio n a l programs g o t th e jo b s th ey tr a in e d f o r b u t w ith th e e x c e p tio n o f s e c r e ta r ie s , b a re ly earned the fe d e ra l minimum w a g e . 5° In terms o f an o v e r a ll f in d in g , Wilms s ta te d t h a t , "G raduates o f p u b lic schools had about th e same success 1n th e la b o r m arket as graduates o f p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls ." 51 46 Upon examining th e Wilms s tu d y , L a rk in s ta te s th a t , In terms o f th e people they s e rv e , the study shows p r o p r ie ta r y and n o n p ro p rie ta ry school stu d e n ts to be q u ite s im ila r 1n sex, age, e d u c a tio n , p r io r work e xp e rie n ce , and fa m ily background, though th e re 1s a somewhat h ig h e r percentage o f m in o r ity group students e n ro lle d 1n n o n p ro p rie ta ry sch oo ls. F u rth e r, the e d u ca tio n a l p r o f ile s o f n o n p ro p rie ta ry and p r o p r ie ta r y school students are alm ost I d e n t ic a l. Four o u t o f ten had been e n ro lle d In academic programs b efo re u n d e rta k in g v o c a tio n a l s tu d ie s , more than h a lf had achieved grade p o in t averages 1n the 'B ' range, and a no th er 35 per c e n t had 'C a v e r a g e s . 52 O ccupational P re p a ra tio n Some w r ite r s a ls o a llu d e to the im portance o f some type o f o ccu p a tio n a l p re p a ra tio n . T h e ir arguments are based on the n e ce ssity o f having an adequately educated populace. I t 1s t h e ir c o n te n tio n th a t every s tu d e n t must begin t h is o c c u p a tio n a l prepara­ tio n 1n high s c h o o l, even those e n ro lle d in c o lle g e p re p a ra to ry programs. Once c o m p e titio n f o r p o s itio n s in the jo b m arket b eg ins, those le s s s k ille d are handicapped. T h e ir handicap 1s th e d ir e c t r e s u lt o f possessing inadequate s k i l l s . A ll students o u ts id e the c o lle g e p re p a ra to ry c u rric u lu m should a c q u ire an e n tr y - le v e l jo b s k i l l , b u t they should a lso be prepared f o r p o s t-h ig h school v o c a tio n a l and te c h n ic a l e d u c a tio n . Even those in the c o lle g e p re p a ra to ry c u rric u lu m m ig h t p r o f i t from the techniques o f le a rn in g by d o in g . Some form al postsecondary o c c u p a tio n a l p re p a ra tio n f o r a l l should be a goal f o r th e near fu tu r e . Postsecondary e n ro llm e n ts a re g ro w in g , and b e fo re many years have passed, the la b o r fo rc e e n tra n t w ith o u t advanced s k i l l s gained through postsecondary e d u c a tio n , a p p re n tic e s h ip , o r o n -th e jo b tr a in in g w i l l be a t a s e rio u s d is a d v a n ta g e .53 Now I t becomes apparent th a t some w r ite r s fe e l o c c u p a tio n a l p re p a ra tio n should n o t be n e g le c te d , b u t should be an in te g r a l p a r t o f the sch o o lin g process. They s tre s s th a t 47 Some type o f form al o c c u p a tio n a l p re p a ra tio n must be a p a r t o f every e d u c a tio n a l e xp e rie n ce . Though 1 t may be w e ll to delay f i n a l o c c u p a tio n a l ch oice u n t i l a l l th e a lte r n a tiv e s are known, no one ought to leave th e e d u c a tio n a l system w ith o u t a s a la b le s k i l l . In a d d itio n , g ive n th e r a p id it y o f change and th e c o m p e titio n from g e n e ra lly r is in g educa­ tio n a l a tta in m e n t, upgrading and rem edial edu catio n o p p o rtu n itie s a re a c o n tin u a l n e c e s s ity . Those who need o ccu p a tio n a l p re p a ra tio n m ost, both p re v e n tiv e and re m e d ia l, w i l l be those le a s t prepared to take advantage o f 1 t and most d i f f i c u l t to educate and t r a i n . T his a t t it u d e 1s n o t new; i t has been In e x is te n c e f o r hundreds o f y e a rs . One m erely needs to examine some o f the h is to r y o f a p p re n tic e s h ip s 1n t h is c o u n try . W ith the changes In o u r e a r ly h is to r y , newer demands were placed on o u r la b o r fo rc e . No lo n g e r could sm all Independent p ro p r ie to r s keep on com peting. Schaefer and Kaufman noted th a t As tim e passed, however, more and more masters re le g a te d t h e ir e d u c a tio n a l r e s p o n s ib ilit ie s to s o c ie ty a t la r g e , m a in ta in in g th a t a p p re n tic e s h ip was a source o f la b o r and th a t th e o b lig a tio n o f e d u catin g th e young 1n th e b a sic elements should be assumed by th e sch o o ls. Upon the demise o f a p p re n tic e s h ip , a tte m p ts were made to f i l l the gap 1n the form o f mechanics in s t it u t e s and lyceums. Education became th e by-w ord. As e a r ly as 1826, Jo sla h Holbrook p u b lis h e d the m an ifesto o f the American Lyceum Movement which c a lle d f o r the fu r n is h in g o f a u n iv e rs a l and p r a c tic a l e d u c a tio n .55 Time progressed and by 1900, alm ost every p ro fe s s io n a l o ccup atio n had one o r more schools devoted to 1 t. A t p re s e n t, alm ost every s k i l le d , te c h n ic a l and p ro fe s s io n a l o ccu p a tio n in d u c ts a t le a s t p a r t o f i t s w orkers through form al school programs o ffe re d 1n high sch o o ls, community c o lle g e s , u n iv e r s it ie s and p r iv a te o ccup atio n al s c h o o ls .5® Coming back to th e issue o f h ig h s c h o o ls , m o m e n ta rily, sheds some a d d itio n a l l i g h t on th e c r it ic is m o f the post-secondary education movements. There are some c r i t i c s who p e r s is t In saying 48 th a t th e h ig h school s tu d e n t Is n o t g iv e n th e b e s t a d v ic e when 1 t comes to v o c a tio n a l s e le c tio n . They emphasize th a t more should be done a t th e h ig h school le v e l r a th e r than w a itin g u n t i l l a t e r . For example, McMahon s ta te s th a t we must r e a liz e th a t we are a gain making a r b it r a r y s e le c tio n o f c a re e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r many young p e o p le ; and by em phasizing th e p o s t h ig h school a t th e expense o f th e high school program , we may be d e p riv in g a ve ry s u b s ta n tia l number o f s tu d e n ts o f an e d u c a tio n which c o u ld change t h e i r e n t ir e l i f e e x p e rie n c e .® ' Yet th e re are la rg e numbers o f s tu d e n ts who do have the fo r e s ig h t to begin la y in g plans f o r t h e i r f u t u r e . Some choose c o lle g e p r o p r la to r y programs and o th e rs narrow down a v o c a tio n a l choice in h ig h s c h o o l. Once they com plete t h e i r program s, th e y are prepared to e n te r In to th e w o rld o f w ork. However, some o f these s tu d e n ts l a t e r change t h e i r minds and w ish to c o n tin u e t h e i r e d u ca tio n . A t th a t p o in t, a n o th e r problem compounds th e s it u a t io n . Consider what happens when s tu d e n ts w ish to expand on knowledge p re v io u s ly o b ta in e d 1n h ig h s c h o o l. They can e n r o ll 1n e it h e r a c o lle g e , community c o lle g e , o r p r o p r ie ta r y school In a program which should c o n tin u e th e e d u c a tin g p ro ce ss. I t would be n a tu ra l fo r them to e x p e ct courses to b u ild on knowledge a lre a d y a tta in e d . Some o f these I n s t i t u t i o n s g ra n t c r e d it f o r p re v io u s w ork. Some p r o p r ie ta r y schools make the c la im th a t th ey g ra n t advance placement based on s u c c e s s fu lly passin g a t e s t I n d ic a tiv e o f th e m a te ria l covered In s p e c if ic co u rse s. There a re community c o lle g e s which have s im ila r programs w h ile o th e rs work d ir e c t l y w ith s tu d e n ts s t i l l e n r o lle d 1n h ig h s c h o o l. A few even g ra n t 49 advanced s ta n d in g based on work com pleted 1n h ig h s c h o o l; however, th is 1s n o t th e case f o r a l l . Too fr e q u e n tly th e y a re g iv e n no c r e d it f o r t h is e a r l i e r I n s t r u c t io n and a re fo rc e d to re p e a t courses w hich they com pleted s u c c e s s fu lly 1n th e h ig h s c h o o l.5® Placement A s s is ta n c e Upon c o m p le tio n o f t h e i r program s, th e s tu d e n ts are ready to e n te r In to th e la b o r m a rke t. Some, in f a c t , do n o t w a it u n t i l they gra du a te from th e p r o p r ie ta r y school o r community c o lle g e . Some are 1n such demand th a t th e y are o ffe r e d p o s itio n s by companies w h ile th e y a re s t i l l a c tu a lly g ra d u a tin g . in t r a in in g . C onsequently, th e y le a ve w ith o u t T h is is n o t th e case 1n a l l f i e l d s . Those who a re n o t as fo r tu n a te 1n fin d in g a p o s itio n have to w a it f o r g ra d u a tio n and then lo o k f o r placem ent a s s is ta n c e . A n a tu ra l o u t le t In s t it u t e d by some o f the b e tte r schools is th rough th e development o f a w e ll-o rg a n iz e d placem ent o f f i c e . There is a p o s it iv e c o r r e la t io n between the e x is te n c e o f a placem ent o f f i c e and th e r a t in g o f the v o c a tio n a l program. I t has been shown c le a r ly th a t schools w hich o p e ra te placem ent o f f ic e s f o r t h e i r s tu d e n ts have b e tt e r v o c a tio n a l e d u c a tio n programs than schools w hich do n o t o f f e r such a s e rv ic e . The most l i k e l y reason f o r t h is fin d in g Is th a t the placem ent o f f i c e serves as a feedback mechanism f o r a d ju stm e n t in th e c o n te n t and methods o f th e v o c a tio n a l t r a in in g program to meet lo c a l la b o r m arket n e e d s.59 Yet n o t a l l schools have p u t f o r t h th e e f f o r t needed to develop an e x te n s iv e placem ent s e rv ic e . T h is same shortcom ing can a lso be a t t r ib u t e d to c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s it ie s ; however, the evidence o f these fin d in g s must be p r e t t y c o n v in c in g because even 50 some high sch oo ls w ith v o c a tio n a l programs have I n s t it u t e d a p la c e ­ ment o f f i c e . One o f th e f i r s t a u th o rs to b egin g iv in g d e ta ile d in fo rm a tio n on p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1s B e lits k y . He notes t h a t , The placem ent r a t i o f o r a l l r e p o r tin g NATTS schools 1n 1966 was e stim a te d a t 55 p e rc e n t; a h ig h e r f ig u r e m ig h t have been expected 1n view o f the f a c t th a t n e a rly every school had a placem ent s e rv ic e f o r g ra d u a te s .60 He, to o , makes th e o b s e rv a tio n about th e im portance o f a placement s e rv ic e . He notes t h a t . S tudent fo llo w -u p is o f course an im p o rta n t means o f d e te r­ m ining th e e ffe c tiv e n e s s o f a s c h o o l's t r a in in g and u lt im a t e ly th e s tu d e n t's o c c u p a tio n a l p ro g re s s . More than 4 /5 o f the NATTS schools had some s tu d e n t fo llo w -u p procedures a lth o u g h the In te r v a ls v a rie d w id e ly . 6 * However, can t h is be a t t r ib u t e d in th e same p ro p o rtio n to a ll p r o p r ie ta r y schools? T h is is open to q u e s tio n . I t w i l l be re c a lle d th a t NATTS re p re se n te d le s s than 10 p e r c e n t o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . T h e re fo re , t h is fo llo w -u p procedure ca n n o t, by In fe re n c e , be g e n e ra liz e d to be In e x is te n c e in a l l s c h o o ls . To make m a tte rs w orse, c o n s id e r some o f th e te s tim o n y before a subcomm ittee o f th e House o f R e p re s e n ta tiv e s s tu d y in g p ro p r ie ta r y v o c a tio n a l s c h o o ls . Here 1 t 1s s ta te d t h a t . School fo llo w u p o f s tu d e n ts a f t e r g ra d u a tio n 1s a c r u c ia l means o f d e te rm in in g th e percentage o f s tu d e n ts who secured tr a in in g r e la te d jo b s and t h e i r o c c u p a tio n s p ro g re ss o v e r the y e a rs . Most schools fo llo w -u p t h e i r g raduates f o r one y e a r; b u t o n ly about 20 p e rc e n t o f th e sch o o ls g a th e r i n f o r ­ m ation on t h e i r g ra d u a te s ' employment p ro g re ss a f t e r th e f i r s t y e a r. I t would seem, th e r e fo r e , th a t p r iv a te v o c a tio n a l sch o o ls— as w e ll as most o th e r e d u c a tio n a l and t r a in in g I n s t i t u t i o n s — c o u ld Im prove t h e i r fo llo w -u p procedures and, 1n tu r n , p ro v id e a c c r e d itin g teams w ith a d d itio n a l Im p o rta n t evidence f o r e v a lu a tin g th e s c h o o ls .62 51 Whether th e same statem ents a re tr u e about community c o lle g e s 1s n o t found 1n th e work o f any o f th e a u th o rs s tu d ie d . However, 1 t does pose a s e rio u s q u e s tio n about th e degree to w hich s tu d e n ts ’ needs have been met by t h e i r program o f s tu d ie s . These same h e a rin g s saw te s tim o n y presented by many o f th e e xpe rts In th e p r o p r ie ta r y school f i e l d . Some f i n a l arguments made w ith reg ard to th e placem ent by p r o p r ie ta r y schools serve to I l l u s t r a t e th e re a l Im portance o f such a s e rv ic e . P r o p r ie ta r y schools must meet th e needs o f t h e i r s tu d e n ts and prepare them f o r o c c u p a tio n s b e tte r than t h e i r com­ p e t it o r s f o r any g ive n c o s t; th ey must c o n s id e r s ig n a ls from o u tp u t m arkets to s u rv iv e ; th ey are c h a ra c te riz e d by lim ite d o b je c tiv e s and program s; th e y are s in g le -p u rp o s e o rg a n iz a tio n s to pre pa re s tu d e n ts f o r s u c c e s s fu l employment; they re c o g n iz e th a t t h e i r own success depends la r g e ly on th e o cc u p a tio n a l success o f t h e i r graduates and th e r e fo r e th ey s e le c t s tu d e n ts w ith a h ig h p r o b a b ilit y f o r s u c c e s s fu l placem ent; th e y a re c h a ra c te riz e d by f l e x i b l e o p e ra tio n s to accommodate th e needs o f s tu d e n ts and e m p lo y e rs .6'3 In c o n c lu s io n , the evidence presented by these w r it e r s shed l i g h t on some o f th e c la im s and c o u n te rc la im s o f b o th community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . However, th e re 1s no hard and fa s t evidence as to w hich 1s doing b e tt e r a t th e ta s k o f e d u c a tin g I t s s tu d e n ts . The American fa s c in a tio n w ith being th e b e s t, being a w in n e r, a lm o st a u to m a tic a lly leads to th e c o n c lu s io n th a t the o th e r 1s a lo s e r ; however, t h is 1s n o t th e case, nor should 1 t be thought to be so. Both community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y schools meet needs Imposed by those w is h in g to f u r t h e r them selves, t h e i r knowledge, and t h e i r s k i l l s . Because both have shown evidence th a t they a re p ro v id in g t h i s s e rv ic e 1s p ro o f enough t h a t o u r s o c ie ty has a need f o r b o th . 52 H is t o r ic a lly , th e schools o f t h is n a tio n have had an u nsta te d assignm ent— to p ic k o u t those who should n o t c o n tin u e form al s c h o o lin g . T his was once necessary because th e la b o r fo rc e 1n the p a st was made up m a in ly o f u n s k ille d w o rk e rs . Muscle power had s a l a b i l i t y a t one tim e , and someone had to decide who p icke d th e c o tto n , who mined th e c o a l, o r who worked 1n th e f a c t o r ie s . 64 Can we a ffo r d to c o n tin u e t h is p ro cess, o r worse y e t , should we p i t o u r schools a g a in s t one a nother o n ly w ith th e r e s u lt th a t the stu d e n t becomes th e lo s e r? Sumnary The review o f th e l i t e r a t u r e reve ale d several fa c ts about the two types o f post-se con da ry sch o o ls. Among th e most Im p o rta n t fin d in g s were f i r s t , th e re 1s a wide v a r ie ty o f a r t ic le s and books w r itte n on convnunlty c o lle g e s . co lle g e s has been s tu d ie d . P r a c t ic a lly every a spect o f community On the o th e r hand, p r o p r ie ta r y schools have, by com parison, had very l i t t l e stu d ie s made on them. w r itt e n and p r a c t ic a lly no Secondly, and more Im p o rta n tly , th e revie w o f lit e r a t u r e h ig h lig h te d the f a c t th a t o n ly one com parative study had been done. T his s tu d y , j u s t re c e n tly com pleted, was conducted under th e auspices o f th e U. S. O ffic e o f E ducation. T his served to I l l u s t r a t e the need and Im portance f o r a d d itio n a l com parative stu d ie s and forms th e b a s is f o r t h is s tu d y . Chapter I I — Footnotes ^James W. T h o rn to n , The Community J u n io r C olleg e (New York: John W iley and Sons, I n c . , 1960), p. 47. ^Michael B r ic k , Forum and Focus f o r th e J u n io r C olleg e Movement (New Y ork: Bureau o f P u b lic a tio n s of teachers C o lle g e , Columbia U n iv e r s ity , 1964), p. 23. ^ B r lc k , op. c 1 t . , p. 12. ^R obert P a lin c h a k , The E v o lu tio n o f th e Community C ollege (Metuchen, N .J .: The Scarecrow )>ress, I n c . , 1973), p. 1. ^Tyrus H illw a y , The American Two-Year C olleg e (New York: Harper and B ro th e rs , 1958), p. 34. 6H111way, lo c . c 1 t. 7H 1llw ay, op. c 1 t . , p. 35. Bjames L. W leber, "The Development o f th e J u n io r C ollege In th e U nited S ta te s " (U npublished paper a t M ichigan S ta te U ni­ v e r s ity , 1964), p. 5. 9C arl H. Gross and C harles C. C handler, The H is to ry o f American Education through Readings (B oston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1964), p. 8. York: ^ R o b e rt E. P o tte r , The Stream o f American Education (New American Book Company, 1967), p. 25. ^ P o t t e r , op. c l t . , p. 70. 12 ^ P o tte r, op. c l t . , p. 71. ^^W 1ll1s F. Dunbar, The M ichigan Record In H igher Education ( D e tr o it: Wayne S ta te U n iv e rs ity P ress, 1963), pp. 241-242. 14 'D u n b a r, op. c l t . , p. 246. IS john j . Shanahan, "A D e s c rip tiv e Study o f th e Students E n rolled In O ccupational Education 1n M ic h ig a n 's P u b lic Community Ju n io r C olleg e s" (U npublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta t io n , M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1973), pp. 41-42. 53 54 ^^Tyrus H illw a y , op. c l t . , p. 208. ^ W e llf o r d W. W ilms, "A New Look a t P ro p rie ta ry S chools, " Change (Summer, 1973), p. 7. 18Rupert N. Evans, Foundations o f V o ca tio n a l E ducation (Columbus, Ohio: C harles E. M e r r ill P u b lis h in g C o., 1971), p. 12. l^E vans, lo c . c l t . 28T1mothy L a r k in , " P ro p r ie ta r y Schools: Measure U p," Manpower (March, 1973), pp. 20-21. How do th ey ^ C a r lo s R. S c h m itt, "A Study o f th e Problems o f P art-T im e In d u s tr ia l and T echnical In s tr u c to r s 1n S elected M ichigan Community C olleges" (U npublished Thesis f o r degree o f P h .D ., M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1971), p. 1. 22 M ilto n E. Larson, "A Study o f th e C h a r a c te r is tic s o f S tudents, Teachers, and th e C u rricu lu m o f In d u s tr ia l- T e c h n ic a l Education 1n th e P u b lic Community J u n io r C olleges o f M ichigan" (Unpublished Ed.D. d is s e r ta t io n , M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1965), pp. 111-1v. “ Dale Harvey M esserschm ldt, "A Study o f P art-T im e In s tr u c to r s In V o c a tio n a l-T e c h n ic a l Education Among Community C olleges 1n M ichigan" (U npublished Ph.D. d is s e r ta t io n , M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1967), p. 1. ^ R o b e rt P a llnch ak and W illia m Moore, J r . , A g a in s t th e Odds (San F ra n cisco : Jossey-Bass I n c . , P u b lis h e rs , 1970), p. 64. 28Charles G. B urck, "Schools Where Students Pay to Learn Paying J o b s ," Fortune (December, 1975), p. 128. 28Grant Venn, Mann. Education and Manpower (W ashington, D.C.: The American A s s o c ia tio n o f School A d m in is tra to rs , 1970), p. 65. ^ R u p e rt n . Evans, "School f o r S c h o o lin g 's Sake: The C u rre n t Role o f th e Secondary School 1n O ccupational P re p a ra tio n , The T ra n s itio n from School to W ork," r e p o r t based on th e P rin c e to n Manpower Symposium, P rin c e to n , N .J ., May 9 -1 0 , 1968, quoted by Grant Venn, Man, Education and Manpower, p. 30. 2&Gordon G. McMahon, C u rricu lu m Development 1n Trade and In d u s tr ia l and T ech n ica l Education (Columbus. O hio: C harles E. M e r r ill P u b lis h in g C o ., 1972), p. 120. 29W11ms, op. c l t . , p. 7. 55 SOwilms, op* clt., p. 6. 3^H 1llw ay, op. c l t . , p. 84. 3 2 Venn, op. c l t . , p. 63. 33John E. Roueche and R. Wade K 1rk, C atching Up: Remedial Education (San F ra n c is c o : Jossey-Bass P u b lis h e rs , 1973), p. 5. 34 P a lln c h a k , E v o lu tio n , op. c 1 t . f p. 186. 35 H arold F. C la rk and H arold S. S loan, Classrooms on Main S tre e t (New York: I n s t i t u t e f o r In s tr u c tio n a l Improvement, I n c . , Teachers C olleg e P ress, Teachers C o lle g e , Columbia U n iv e r s ity , 1966), p. 32. 38Burck, op. c l t . , p. 126. ^ B u r c k , lo c . c l t . 3 8 Harold L. Hodgklnson, " P ro p r ie ta r y I n s t it u t io n s : P r o fita b le Lesson?" C hro nica l o f H igher Education (January 29, 1973), p. 6. 3^Wilms, op. c l t . , p. 80. 40,,Mak1ng I t 1n th e Learnlnq T ra d e ," Business Week (September 6, 1969), p. 74. ^H o d g k ln s o n , lo c . c l t . ^ B u r c k , op. d t . , p. 128. 43B urck, op. c l t . , p. 124. 44B urck, lo c . c l t . 48E11wood A. Shoemaker, "The C hallenge o f P ro p rie ta ry S chools," Change, V o l. 5, No. 6 (Summer 1973), p. 71. 48Robert L. Jacobson, "IRS C autions A c c re d itin g Groups on Accepting P r o p r ie ta r y Members," C hro nica l o f H igher Education (January 29, 1973), p. 1. 47Shoemaker, op. c l t . , p. 72. 48Shoemaker, lo c . c i t . 49W e llfo rd W. W ilms, P u b lic and P ro p rie ta ry V o ca tio n a l T ra in in g (L e x in g to n , M ass.: L e xin g to n Books, f>. C. Heath and Company, n . d . ) , p. 182. 56 50W llm s, op. d t . , p. 186. 5^W1lms, op. c l t . , p. 171. ®^Lark1n, op. c l t . , p. 19. 53R upert N. Evans, G arth L. Mangum and O tto Pragan, "E du ca tion f o r Employment, The Background and P o te n tia l o f th e 1968 V o ca tio n a l E ducation Amendments, 11 A j o i n t p u b lic a tio n o f th e I n s t it u t e o f Labor and I n d u s t r ia l R e la tio n s , The U n iv e r s ity o f M ich iga n , Wayne S ta te U n iv e r s ity and th e N a tio n a l Manpower P o lic y Task Force, May 1969, Ann A rb o r, M ic h ig a n , p. 66. 54 Evans, Mangum and Pragan, op. c l t . , p. 64. ®^Carl J . S chaefer and Jacob J . Kaufman, "New D ire c tio n s f o r V o ca tio n a l E d u c a tio n ," a r e p o r t prepared f o r th e M assachusetts A d viso ry C ouncil on E d u c a tio n , D. C. Heath and Company, L e x in g to n , M ass., 1971, p. 26. ®®Evans, F o u n d a tio n s, op. c l t . , p. 11. 5^McMahon, op. c l t . , p. 114. ®®Evans, op. d t . , p. 184. 59Evans, op. d t . , p. 13. ®®A- Harvey B e lit s k y , P r iv a te V o c a tio n a l Schools and T h e ir S tudents: L im ite d O b je c tiv e s , U n lim ite d O p p o rtu n ity (Cam bridge, M ass.: Schenkman P u b lis h in g C o ., I n c . , 196 9), p. 6 i . ^ B e l i t s k y , op. d t . , pp. 61-62. ^ P r o p r ie t a r y V o c a tio n a l S ch o o ls, H earings b e fo re a sub­ committee o f th e Committee on Government O p e ra tio n s , House o f R e p re s e n ta tiv e s , N in e ty -T h ird Congress, Second S e ssio n , J u ly 16, 17, 24 and 25, 1974, U. S. Government P r in t in g O f f ic e , W ashington, 1974, p. 220. 63 P r o p r ie ta r y V o c a tio n a l S c h o o ls , op. c l t . , p. 240. 64 Venn, op. c l t . , p. 12. 1 CHAPTER I I I DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY In tr o d u c tio n T his c h a p te r is devoted to a d e ta ile d e xa m in a tio n o f th e methodology used 1n g a th e rin g In fo rm a tio n f o r t h is s tu d y . In fo rm a tio n 1s d iv id e d in t o two s e c tio n s . The The f i r s t s e c tio n , la b e lle d Category One, d e a ls w ith In fo rm a tio n on the two types o f schools p a r t ic ip a t in g 1n t h is s tu d y . The second 1s la b e lle d Cate­ gory Two and deals w ith In fo rm a tio n on th e graduates from p r o p r ie ta r y schools and community c o lle g e s . F in a lly , th e method used to s e le c t the ta r g e t s tu d e n t p o p u la tio n and c o ll e c t th e data is d e s c rib e d . Statem ent o f th e Problem Are community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y schools e q u a lly su ccessfu l 1n p re p a rin g graduates o f t h e i r e le c t r i c it y / e l e c t r o n i c s programs f o r th e w o rld o f work? O b je c tiv e s The o b je c tiv e s o f t h is s tu d y were to g a th e r and compare In fo rm a tio n on community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1n two broad c a te g o rie s . The f i r s t , la b e lle d C ategory One, covers I n f o r ­ m ation on the two types o f p o st-se co n d a ry s c h o o ls . The second, la b e lle d Category Two, covers In fo rm a tio n on th e graduates o f both types o f I n s t i t u t i o n s . 57 58 Category One In fo rm a tio n W ith in t h is c a te g o ry th re e types o f data on the schools were sought u sin g p u b lic a tio n s produced by non-school so urces. 1. Ownership In fo rm a tio n 2. School p o p u la tio n s 3. Program o ffe r in g s They w ere: Some o f th e com parisons o f C ategory One In fo rm a tio n were done using 1970 census data w h ile th e C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n was o b ta in e d using a q u e s tio n n a ire to su rve y graduates from th e e a r ly 1 9 7 0 's. Thus, th e 1970 census data served as a benchmark f o r keeping the two types o f In fo rm a tio n 1n p e rs p e c tiv e . Category Two In fo rm a tio n A q u e s tio n n a ire was used to g a th e r d a ta f o r v a rio u s sub­ hypotheses. As a check a g a in s t th e re c o rd s re c e iv e d from the sch oo ls, each g raduate was asked to v e r if y h is g ra d u a tio n y e a r. Then se ve ra l I n i t i a l fa c to r s about th e graduates were examined f o r s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e s . 1. Age 2. Sex 3. M a r ita l s ta tu s 4. F u ll o r p a r t- tim e s tu d e n t 5. Amount o f fo rm a l s c h o o lin g 6. Type o f h ig h school program N ext, th e placem ent program o f each ty p e o f school was examined f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e . In c lu d e d here were the responses from th e g ra du a tes c o n ce rn in g th e fo llo w in g : 59 7. T1nie re q u ire d to f in d a jo b 8. A s s is ta n c e re ce ive d from the school 9. A ble to fin d a jo b 10. Reason f o r ta k in g th e jo b 11. Sources f o r f i r s t jo b A f te r o b ta in in g w ork, each graduate was asked to respond to a s e rie s o f q u e s tio n s about h is jo b . analyzed f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e . These answers were then They In clud ed the fo llo w in g : 12. S ta r tin g s a la ry 13. Rate th e tr a in in g re ce ive d as to i t s p re p a ra tio n f o r work a c tu a lly perform ed 14. I f th ey o b ta in e d a s a la ry Increase 15. Amount o f Increase 16. I f they changed job s 17. The reason f o r changing jo b s 18. Job s a tis fa c t io n 19. Rate the e le c tr o n ic s tr a in in g rece ived To g e t In fo rm a tio n on any a d d itio n a l sch o o lin g a f t e r graduation each p a r t ic ip a n t was asked to respond to several a d d itio n a l q u e s tio n s . These were concerned w ith : 20. Taking a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s 21. Hours taken 22. Where they a re taken The graduates were asked to answer th re e open-ended ques­ tio n s to p ro v id e some a d d itio n a l In fo rm a tio n . These q u e stio n s were 60 concerned w ith jo b c la s s if ic a t io n s , a d d itio n a l c o u rs e s , and a d d itio n a l comments. T h e ir answers were to serve as g u id e lin e s f o r fu tu r e recom­ m endations. Hypotheses C ategory One In fo rm a tio n was o b ta in e d f o r com parisons on th e two types o f p o st-se co n d a ry s c h o o ls . C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n , however, was o b ta in e d f o r purposes o f comparing t h e i r g ra d u a te s. The l a t t e r serves as th e fo c a l p o in t f o r the m ajo r h y p o th e s is o f th is stu d y . The main h y p o th e s is was: There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y schools and community c o lle g e s 1n p re p a rin g e le c tr o n ic s school graduates f o r th e w o rld o f w ork. Since the f i r s t s ix Item s o f C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n deal w ith n orm a tive d a ta , th e y a re n o t a p a r t o f th e main h y p o th e s is . They were sought to e s ta b lis h some b a s ic fa c ts f o r comparison o f the g ra d u a te s. 1. Sub-hypotheses one through s ix a re : There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e ages o f p r o p r ie t a r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . 2. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e in th e sex o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 3. There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e m a r ita l s ta tu s o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 61 4. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between th e p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates as to th e typ e o f s tu d e n t th e y were b e fo re g ra d u a tio n . 5. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e g ra du a tes in th e amount o f form al s c h o o lin g th e y o b ta in e d b e fo re a tte n d in g e le c ­ tr o n ic s s c h o o l. 6. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the type o f h ig h school program com pleted by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . The n e x t t h ir t e e n Item s o f C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n are used to d ete rm in e s ig n ific a n c e o f the main h y p o th e s is . w ith th e e le c tr o n ic s s tu d e n ts a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . They deal These were Items which co u ld be a t t r ib u t e d back to th e sch o o ls and t h e i r Im pact on the s tu d e n ts . 7. Sub-hypotheses seven th rough n in e te e n a re : There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the le n g th o f tim e re q u ire d to o b ta in work in the e le c tr o n ic s f i e l d by p r o p r ie t a r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 8. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the amount o f a s s is ta n c e re c e iv e d from school placem ent o f f i c i a l s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 9. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n w hether jo b s a re o b ta in e d as a r e s u lt o f In te rv ie w s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 62 10. There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the reason g ive n f o r ta k in g jo b s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . 11. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the sources le a d in g to th e f i r s t jo b a f t e r c o m p le tin g e le c tr o n ic s school between p r o p r ie t a r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 12. There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the s t a r t in g s a la r ie s o b ta in e d by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 13. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e in how graduates from p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s schools r a te t h e i r t r a in in g as to p re p a rin g them f o r th e work th ey a re a c t u a lly p e rfo rm in g . 14. There 1s no s i g n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates re c e iv in g s a la ry Increases s in c e being h ir e d . 15. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n how much o f a r a is e p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c ­ tr o n ic s school graduates re c e iv e . 16. There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e graduates who have changed jo b s s in c e le a v in g e le c tr o n ic s s c h o o l. 17. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the reason f o r changing jo b s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 63 18. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie t a r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates 1n how th e y r a te t h e i r s a t is f a c t io n w ith t h e i r jo b s . 19. There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie t a r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates in how th ey r a te t h e i r e le c tr o n ic s t r a in in g . I f a t le a s t 50 p e r c e n t o f these Item s a re s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t , th e main h y p o th e s is Is r e je c te d . T his w i l l In d ic a te th a t e ith e r p r o p r ie ta r y schools o r community c o lle g e s a re doing a b e tte r jo b o f p re p a rin g graduates f o r the w o rld o f w ork. Three a d d itio n a l sub-hypotheses are made to determ ine any d is s i m il a r i t y 1n s tu d ie s taken a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . 20. There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates ta k in g a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s . 21. There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e in the number o f hours p e r week spent in school by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. 22. There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n where p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates ta ke a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s . F in a lly , each gra du a te was asked to respond to th re e a d d i­ tio n a l q u e s tio n s d e a lin g w ith jo b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , recommendations fo r a d d itio n a l c o u rs e s , and any a d d itio n a l comments. They were n o t s ta te d as p a r t o f th e hypotheses b u t were In c lu d e d f o r a d d itio n a l In fo rm a tio n . 64 Research M ethodology and Design Several sources were used to e s ta b lis h th e d esig n and c o lle c t the In fo rm a tio n sought 1n t h is study* Category One In fo rm a tio n T h is c a te g o ry o f in fo rm a tio n was o b ta in e d from s e v e ra l so urces. A ll o f these r e p o r tin g sources were s e le c te d from o u ts id e th e realm o f c o n tro l o f th e two types o f schools being examined. By s e le c tin g them 1n t h is manner, any b ia s from a s e lf - r e p o r t in g source co u ld p o t e n t ia lly be reduced as low as p o s s ib le . 1. The sources used w ere: Annual R eports o f th e M ichigan Departments o f E ducation and Labor 2. Census R eports 3. M ichigan S t a t i s t i c a l A b s tra c t 4. U n ite d S ta te s Departm ent o f Commerce R eports Category Two In fo rm a tio n T h is c a te g o ry o f In fo rm a tio n was o b ta in e d u sin g a q u e s tio n ­ n a ire . Each Ite m on 1 t was designed to p ro v id e In fo rm a tio n on the va rio u s sub-hypotheses. The q u e s tio n n a ire was developed through the use o f p i l o t In s tru m e n ts m a ile d to graduates and t h e i r em ployers. The f in a liz e d v e rs io n o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire was m a ile d to each o f the graduates s e le c te d f o r p a r t ic ip a t io n 1n t h is s tu d y . Data from these q u e s tio n n a ire s re tu rn e d were analyzed to d e te rm in e the s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e o f each o f th e sub-hypotheses. Thus, Category Two In fo rm a tio n was a c o m p ila tio n o f the responses o f th e graduates o f th e two types o f p o s t-s e c o n d a ry sch oo ls s tu d ie d . 65 S e le c tio n o f P a r t ic ip a t in g Schools As h ig h lig h te d numerous tim es 1n th e re v ie w o f l i t e r a t u r e * placement o f graduates determ ined th e success o r f a i l u r e o f p ro ­ p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . S ince t h is served as a d e te rm in in g f a c t o r f o r p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls* why n o t a ls o use 1 t w ith community c o lle g e s ? An e x c e lle n t measure o f both schools c o u ld th e r e fo r e be o b ta in e d by s u rve yin g th e graduates from t h e i r e le c t r lc lt y / e le c t r o n 1 c s programs. C onsequently, a co m parative s tu d y o f both types o f post-secondary schools was 1n o rd e r. A ss is ta n c e was sought from members o f th e M ichigan D ep a rt­ ment o f E ducation to s e le c t th e schools w hich were to p a r t ic ip a t e 1n t h is s tu d y . The S ta te o f M ichigan* under th e p ro v is io n s o f A ct 148 passed 1n 1943, serves as the r e g u la tin g and lic e n s in g body f o r p r iv a te tra d e s c h o o ls , business sch oo ls and I n s t it u t e s In the s ta te . T h e re fo re , th e S u p e rv is o r o f P riv a te Trade Schools was In v ite d to h e lp 1n th e I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls. The S u p e rv is o r o f th e Post-Secondary U n it v o lu n te e re d to help I d e n t if y th e community c o lle g e s w hich would p a r t ic ip a t e . By making th e I d e n t if ic a t io n s 1n t h is manner, 1 t was p o s s ib le to co n s id e r a l l th e schools 1n both c a te g o rie s w ith in th e s ta te . The s e le c tio n o f p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls was made from a 1 1 st which In c lu d e d a l l those lic e n s e d to do business w it h in the s ta te . Thus, a l l schools were In c lu d e d re g a rd le s s o f w hether o r n o t they were a c c re d ite d by any o f th e fo u r a c c r e d itin g agencies reco g n ize d by th e U. S. Commission o f E d u c a tio n . I t has been e s tim a te d t h a t o n ly 10 to 15 p er c e n t o f p r o p r ie ta r y p o s t-s e c o n d a ry sch o o ls are 66 a c c re d ite d . T h e re fo re , t h is method e lim in a te d any p o te n tia l problem o f e x c lu d in g any n on -a ccred 1ted sc h o o ls d oin g business 1n th e s t a t e . Community c o lle g e s were s e le c te d from th e 1 1 st o f tw e n ty nine o p e ra tin g 1n th e s ta te . Of th e tw e n ty - fiv e M ichigan c o u n tie s 1n which community c o lle g e s were lo c a te d , o n ly th re e d id n o t have an e le c t r i c it y / e l e c t r o n i c s program . Of th e seventeen c o u n tie s where p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls were lo c a te d , o n ly fo u r had an e l e c t r i c i t y / e le c tr o n ic s program . and Wayne c o u n tie s . These l a t t e r fo u r were Genesee, K 1nt, M idland I t 1s n o te w o rth y th a t a l l fo u r o f these co u n tie s were a ls o served by a t le a s t one community c o lle g e o ffe r in g such a program . To check the amount o f o v e rla p , a comparison was made o f those w ith e le c t r lc lt y / e le c t r o n 1 c s program o ff e r in g s . A map showing th e c o u n tie s where community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y schools a re te a c h in g these programs fo llo w s . A lth o u g h th e re were o th e r community c o lle g e s In th e S ta te which ta u g h t e le c tr o n ic s program s, th e re were no o th e r p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1n th e same county a ls o o f f e r in g such a program . A b re a k­ down o f the schools in those c o u n tie s having both types o f schools y ie ld s th e fo llo w in g d is t r i b u t i o n : Genessee County Community C o lle g e s : C harles M. M o tt P r o p r ie ta r y S ch o o ls: RETS E le c tro n ic s Schools Kent County Community C o lle g e s : Grand Rapids J u n io r C o lle g e P r o p r ie ta r y S ch o o ls: RETS E le c tr o n ic Schools U n ite d E le c tr o n ic s I n s t i t u t e 67 F igu re 3 . —O verlap o f M ichigan C ounties w ith Community C olleg e s and P r o p r ie ta r y Schools Teaching E le c t r ic it y / E le c t r o n ic s Programs. Midland Kent Genesee Wayne 68 M idland County Community C o lle g e s : D e lta P r o p r ie ta r y S chools: Dow E d u catio n Systems Wayne County Community C o lle g e s : Henry Ford S c h o o lc ra ft P r o p r ie ta r y S c h o o ls : E le c tr o n ic s I n s t i t u t e o f Technology RETS E le c tr o n ic Schools Wayne County Is c o n sid e re d by many people to be a p o r tio n o f the D e t r o it M e tro p o lita n A re a. I t a lo n e had s l i g h t l y o ve r 47 p e r cent o f th e p o p u la tio n o f th e e n t ir e s ta te . Genesee, Kent and M idland co u n tie s com prise an a d d itio n a l 10 p e r c e n t o f th e S ta te 's p o p u la tio n . This means th a t about 57 p e r c e n t o f th e S ta te o f M ic h ig a n 's popu­ la t io n 1s c o n c e n tra te d where both a p r o p r ie t a r y school and c o lle g e teach e le c t r lc lt y / e le c t r o n 1 c s . a community Most o f th e rem ain in g popu­ la t io n is o ffe re d an e l e c t r i c it y / e l e c t r o n i c s program s o le ly by the o th e r e ig h te e n community c o lle g e s . These, however, serve most o f th e g eo gra ph ical area o f th e s ta te . Even though some sch o o ls had names w hich in c lu d e d the g e n e ric term " e le c t r o n ic s , " th e y were e lim in a te d 1 f th e y d id n o t 1n f a c t meet the c r it e r i o n o f a c t u a lly te a c h in g e le c t r lc lt y / e le c t r o n 1 c s . Thus schools w hich ta u g h t computer program m ing, computer te c h n o lo g y , computer o p e ra tio n , systems a n a ly s is , keypunch o p e ra to r o r o th e r n o n -re la te d e le c tr o n ic s courses (b ro a d c a s tin g , FCC lic e n s e o r e le c tro -h y d ra u l1 c s e rv ic e s ) were ru le d o u t o f t h is s tu d y . P r io r to making th e d e te rm in a tio n o f w hich schools to s u rv e y , a l e t t e r was s e n t to th e deans o f th e community c o lle g e s and 69 p re s id e n ts o r owners o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls 1n these matched c o u n tie s I n v it in g t h e i r p a r t ic ip a t io n 1n th e s tu d y . I t was planned to narrow th e stu d y to j u s t two co u n t1 e s--o n e b ein g Wayne County fo r I t s m e tro p o lita n p o p u la tio n and th e second from e it h e r o f th e rem aining th re e c o u n tie s . W ith th e In fo rm a tio n s u p p lie d by the two M ich iga n Department o f Education p e rs o n n e l, the schools were t e n t a t iv e ly s e le c te d . Each school was then p a id a personal v i s i t f o r purposes o f v e r i f i ­ c a tio n o f th e s i m i l a r i t y o f th e programs being ta u g h t. Upon co n firm in g the s i m i l a r i t y o f o f f e r in g s , each school was asked to p a r tic ip a te in th e stu dy and a l l fo u r a ccepted. The names o f the schools f i n a l l y s e le c te d are n o t g ive n because o f th e prom ise c o n f id e n t ia lit y . of T h e re fo re th e schools a re l i s t e d as: Community C o lle g e Number One (C. C. #1) Convnunlty C o lle g e Number Two (C. C. #2) P r o p r ie ta r y School Number One (P. S. #1) P r o p r ie ta r y School Number Two (P. S. #2) S e le c tio n o f th e P o p u la tio n Once th e p a r t ic ip a t in g schools were d e te rm in e d , th e popu­ la t io n had to be s e le c te d and the survey in s tru m e n t c o n s tru c te d . The f i r s t d e c is io n was to have two p o p u la tio n groups from each school lo c a tio n . The one group would be re c e n t graduates and the second would be o u t o f school a t le a s t two y e a rs , th e f e e lin g being t h a t t h is l a t t e r group would n o t be In flu e n c e d as much by the "h a lo " e f f e c t o f having j u s t com pleted s c h o o l. T h e re fo re , the two y e a rs , 1971 and 1973, were s e le c te d f o r th e ta r g e t p o p u la tio n . 70 N ext, l i s t s o f th e ta r g e t p o p u la tio n s were o b ta in e d from a l l fo u r p a r t ic ip a t in g sc h o o ls . A t t h is tim e i t was found th a t th e number o f g ra du a tes from both community c o lle g e s was e x tre m e ly s m a ll. T h e re fo re to In cre a se th e p o p u la tio n s , t h e i r 1972 graduates a ls o had to be In c lu d e d . S e le c tio n o f th e Sample S e ttin g th e sample s iz e was determ ined in c o n s u lta tio n w ith the M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity O ff ic e o f Research C o n s u lta tio n . Because o f th e sm all sample s iz e o f th e community c o lle g e s g ra d u a te s, t h e i r t o t a l p o p u la tio n was surveyed. The p r o p r ie ta r y school sample s iz e was s e t a t a percentage o f t h e i r t o t a l popu­ la t io n . That percentage Is n o t g ive n here so th a t no In fe re n c e o f schools o r t h e i r p o p u la tio n s can be surm ized from t h is r e p o r t. The in d iv id u a l p r o p r ie ta r y school p a r tic ip a n t s were a r r iv e d a t by u sin g th e fo llo w in g p ro ced u re . F i r s t , th e 1971 subgroup f o r each school was l i s t e d 1n a lp h a b e tic a l o rd e r and assigned a number s ta r t in g w ith one and c o n tin u in g u n t i l th e la s t name was a ssig n e d . The same procedure was used f o r th e 1973 g ra d u a te s . In t h is manner, a l l fo u r p r o p r ie ta r y school subgroups had numbers a ssig n e d . Next, u sin g a ta b le o f random numbers, each subgroup was reduced to the d e s ire d sample s iz e . To c o n s tr u c t th e survey q u e s tio n n a ire , two p i l o t In s tru m e n ts were p re pa red . One was m a ile d to e le c tr o n ic s graduates and the second to em ployers th a t h ir e them. Based on th e In fo rm a tio n o bta ine d from the p i l o t in s tru m e n ts re tu rn e d , t h e i r responses were 71 used to fo rm u la te the q u e s tio n n a ire . The f in a liz e d form shown In Figure 4 was used to g a th e r th e Category Two In fo rm a tio n . A lthough an a d d itio n a l y e a r had to be added la t e r to the community c o lle g e subgroups, none o f these a d d itio n a l s u b je c ts were In th e p i l o t group. G athering the Data A f t e r the survey In s tru m e n t was p ilo t - t e s t e d and the popu­ la t io n determ ined, the random sample was surveyed using th e U nited States m a ll. A cover l e t t e r was a tta ch e d to each q u e s tio n n a ire m ailed, F igu re 5. For those n o t resp on d in g , a second l e t t e r w ith an a d d itio n a l h a n d w ritte n n o te , to g e th e r w ith any new address In fo rm a tio n o b ta in e d , was m a ile d . F in a lly , using the te le p h o n e , e f f o r t s were made to tra c e a l l the non-responders s t i l l rem ain in g . Only a f t e r they had g ive n t h e ir p e rm is s io n , were t h e ir responses recorded an audio ta pe . one re fu se d . tape. Of a l l those contacted in th is manner, o n ly His answers were re p o rte d , but n ot recorded on audio Those who agreed to the ta p in g a ls o had t h e ir responses added to the survey In s tru m e n t. Processing the Data A code number was added to the m ailed survey forms so th a t each respondent could be I d e n t if ie d as to y e a r o f g ra d u a tio n and school a tte n d e d . master data sh e e t. cards. A ll the responses were then tr a n s fe rr e d to a These data were then keypunched In to coded The keypunching was done by an experienced o p e ra to r and v e r if ie d on a separate machine. As an a d d itio n a l p re c a u tio n to 72 Figure 4 . '-Q u e s tio n n a ire Used to C o lle c t Category Two In fo rm a tio n . As o f date 1. 4. What Is yo u r age? Under 20 20-25 26-30 Over 30 2. Sex 3. Female Male M a r ita l S tatu s Divorced M arried S in g le Widow Widower How long ago d id you graduate from the e le c tr o n ic s program you attended? Less than 1 y e a r 1 -3 years 4 -6 years More than 6 years 5. 6. How long a f t e r g rad u atio n d id I t take to o b ta in work 1n the e le c tro n ic s f ie ld ? Before graduating Im n ed late ly upon g radu ation Less than 1 month O ther (p le a s e s p e c ify ) months years Obtained work 1n another f i e l d (p le a s e s p e c ify ) 7. How much a s s istan c e did you re c e iv e from school placement o ffic ia ls ? None Did not re q u ire assistan ce Had a number o f In te rv ie w s arranged by the school (p le ase s p e c ify ) 8. As a r e s u lt o f the In te rv ie w s were you able to fin d a job? Yes No Not a p p lic a b le , went In to m i l i t a r y , c o lle g e , e tc . (p le ase s p e c ify ) 9. Reasons f o r ta k in g job? Advice o f fr ie n d o r r e l a t i v e Close to home F rin g e b e n e fits More chances f o r advancement R ep u tatio n o f company S a la ry O ther (p le a s e s p e c ify ) 10. A fte r o b ta in in g a p o s itio n , how would you r a t e your t r a in in g as to p rep arin g you f o r the work you a re a c tu a lly perform ing? Did not prepare me adequately Prepared me f o r most requirem ents Trained me f o r a l l requirem ents O vertra in ed me f o r tasks re q u ire d O th er (please s p e c ify ) 11. Were you fu ll p a rt fu ll p a rt time tim e tim e tim e day studen t day studen t evening studen t evening student What was your s t a r tin g s a la ry (b e fo re taxes)? Under $100/week $100 - 1 4 9 /week $150 - 199/week Over $2 0 0 /week 73 12. Old you re c e iv e an In crease In s a la ry sin ce your h irin g ? No Yes ( I f y e s , answer 13) 13. How much o f a r a is e p er week? Less than $15 $15 - 30 More than $30 14. Have you o r a re you In the process o f ta k in g a d d itio n a l studies? Yes No 15. I f yes to 14, how many hours per week a re spent 1n the classroom? Lessthan 3 hours 3 -6 hours 7-9 hours More than 9 hours 16. Where a re you ta k in g a d d itio n a l traln1ng? C o lleg e o r u n iv e r s ity Company t r a in in g program Community c o lle g e program Correspondence school P ro p rie ta ry school S e lf study O ther (p lease s p e c ify ) 17. Amount o f formal schooling b efo re a tte n d in g e le c tr o n ic s school? 1 -6 years 7-9 years 10-11 years High School graduate Less than B a ch elo r's degree Beyond B a ch elo r's degree 18. What kind o f high school program d id you complete? C o llege prep Old not complete high school General (n e ith e r c o lle g e prep nor te c h n ic a l) Vocational o r te c h n ic a l 19. Have you changed jobs since le a v in g e le c tro n ic s school? No Yes 20. I f you have changed jo b s , f o r what reason? D is lik e o ld jo b Got a b e t t e r jo b Laid o f f o r f ir e d M i l i t a r y s e rv ic e Promotion O ther (s p e c ify ) 21. What were the sources le a d in g to your f i r s t jo b a f t e r com pleting e le c tro n ic s school? Employment agency Frien d o r r e l a t i v e Newspaper o r magazine ad Previous employer School o f f i c i a l O ther (s p e c ify ) 22. How would you r a t e your e le c tr o n ic s tra in in g ? Very high Above average Average Below average Very low 23. How would you r a te your s a t is ­ fa c tio n w ith your job? Very high Above average Average Below average Very low 74 24. Uhat Is your Job c la s s ific a tio n ____________ I f you wish to answer, where a re you now employed? 25. What a d d itio n a l courses would you recommend an e le c tro n ic s student take to Improve t h e ir job s k ills ? 26. Please make any a d d itio n a l comments you fe e l are im p o rtan t. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. Stephen R. M att Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity Room 330 Erickson H a ll East Lansing, Michigan 48823 ? 75 Figure 5 .— Cover L e tte r M ailed w ith Q u e s tio n n a ire . M IC H IG A N STATK U N IV E R S IT Y C O L L I <.K OK I-O L C A T I o N I'J U I D KJ'A R I M K N I ’ OK S K C O N O A K V K I K > L A ilO N L A N M N C i - Mil I I K . A N • 4M J4 A N D C U R R IC U L U M £R IC K S O N H A L L Dear E le c tro n ic s Graduate: Attached 1s a survey in s tru m e n t which deals w ith item s re la te d to y o u r s a t is f a c t io n w ith y o u r p ro fe s s io n a l t r a in in g . Would you take a moment from y o u r busy schedule to check the a p p ro p ria te boxes. Any a d d itio n a l comments you would care to make would be more than welcome. A f te r you have answered the q u e s tio n s , would you please re tu rn 1 t today 1n the stamped, s e lf-a d d re s s e d envelope. Your answers w i l l be used to p ro v id e v a lu a b le in fo rm a tio n concerning t r a in in g 1n the e le c tr o n ic s f i e l d . Your a s s is ta n c e as a recognized graduate 1n t h is area 1s g r e a tly a p p re c ia te d . Your re p ly w i l l be kept c o n fid e n tia l. S in c e re ly , Stephen R. M att E le c tro n ic s In s tr u c to r MSU 76 Insure accuracy* each ca rd had I t s c o n te n ts p r in te d o u t on th e to p . This In fo rm a tio n was then cross-checked a g a in s t th e m aster data sheet. A l l th e keypunched cards were then processed on a com puter. P rin to u ts o f th ese data were o b ta in e d on the U n iv e r s ity o f Manitoba computer u sin g th e S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c ia l Sciences (SPSS) program. T h is program is one o f a sta n d a rd s e rie s o f on­ lin e computer programs 1n d a lly use a t th e U n iv e r s ity . R e su lts o f these data a re re p o rte d 1n th e n e x t c h a p te r. S t a t is t ic a l T reatm ent The responses were then analyzed using ch1-square and the r e s u lts compared to th e ta b le va lu e a t an alpha le v e l o f .0 5 . The degrees o f freedom 1n th e comparisons were dependent upon th e number o f c e ll s . However* th e ch1-square tre a tm e n t re q u ire s a minimum o f f i v e responses 1n each c e l l . responses. I t a ls o re q u ire s d is c r e te Because o f these r e s t r i c t i o n s , 1 t was necessary to re s o rt to p o o lin g responses 1n some cases. Taking these r e s t r ic t io n s In to c o n s id e r a tio n , the In d iv id u a l hypotheses were compared w ith the ta b le va lu e to determ ine I f any were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t . Summary In t h i s c h a p te r, the process f o r s e le c tin g the sch oo ls to p a r tic ip a te 1n the stu d y was g iv e n . I t was shown th a t o n ly fo u r co u n tie s 1n the S ta te o f M ichigan had e le c tr lc lt y /e 1 e c tr o n 1 c s programs conducted by both community c o lle g e s and p r o p r ie ta r y schools. Two c o u n tie s were s e le c te d from them. 77 The data gath e re d by t h is s tu d y were broken down In to two c a te g o rie s . F i r s t , C ategory One d e s c rib e d d a ta on both typ e s o f p a r t ic ip a t in g s c h o o ls . C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n d e s c rib e d data on the graduates o f th e s c h o o ls . N e xt, the process used to develop th e q u e s tio n n a ire was d e sc rib e d . T his In v o lv e d th e use o f a p i l o t In s tru m e n t and reducing I t s fin d in g s to th e f in a liz e d In s tru m e n t. Once f i n a l i z e d , the q u e s tio n n a ire was m a ile d to graduates o f th e e l e c t r i c i t y / e le c tr o n ic s programs o f both types o f s c h o o ls . The responses were then keypunched and th e r e s u lts o f th e data com piled through the use o f a com puter. The responses were then analyzed u sin g ch1-square and compared to th e ta b le values a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 to dete rm in e s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e . CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA In tr o d u c tio n Two c a te g o rie s o f data are c o lle c te d in t h is s tu d y . C ategory One covers the sch o o ls and in c lu d e s : 1. Ownership In fo rm a tio n 2. School p o p u la tio n s 3. Program o ffe r in g s C ategory Two, the m ajor p o r tio n o f the data 1n t h is s tu d y , covers th e graduates and In c lu d e s : 1. Background o f graduates 2. Job placem ent and s a la ry in fo rm a tio n a f t e r placem ent o f graduates 3. Job s a t is f a c t io n and p re p a ra tio n o f graduates 4. R ating o f th e I n s t i t u t i o n s by graduates 5. S tu d ie s taken a f t e r g ra d u a tio n Data c o lle c te d on the schools and from th e graduates are then a na lyzed . The Category One and Two In fo rm a tio n a re f i r s t lis t e d 1n raw data form . Thus th e a c tu a l responses are shown b e fo re p o o lin g ; n e c e s s ita te d by th e sm all sample p o p u la tio n . Each Item o f C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n 1s then analyzed f o r s ig n ific a n c e using ch1-square a t an a lpha le v e l o f .0 5 . Using t h is te c h n iq u e , the community c o lle g e graduates are compared w ith th e p r o p r ie ta r y school gra du a tes. 78 79 The th re e open-ended q u e s tio n s o f th e q u e s tio n n a ire d e a lin g w ith Job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , a d d itio n a l courses and a d d itio n a l comments are l i s t e d 1n a m o d ifie d fo rm . The responses a re c a te g o riz e d In to ta b le s 1n an e f f o r t to show tre n d s f o r both types o f p o s t-s e c o n d a ry I n s t it u t io n s . C ategory One In fo rm a tio n Ownership In fo rm a tio n T his f i r s t ca te g o ry 1s concerned w ith data on th e s c h o o ls . An exam ination o f th e community c o lle g e s 1n M ichigan shows th a t they can be su b d iv id e d In to two c a te g o rie s : 7 p r iv a te 29 p u b lic A breakdown o f th e ow nership o f M ic h ig a n 's 182 lic e n s e d p r o p r ie ta r y schools shows th e fo llo w in g d is t r i b u t i o n : 3 company owned 10 h o ld in g companies 11 p a rtn e rs h ip s 22 n o n - p r o f it 58 e d u c a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s 78 I n d iv id u a lly owned School P o p u la tio n s Exam ination o f th e e n ro llm e n t s t a t i s t i c s f o r th e tw e n ty nine p u b lic community c o lle g e s shows they had 126,225 s tu d e n ts (Appendix 3 ) . The seven p r iv a te community c o lle g e s had an e n ro llm e n t o f o n ly 3,313 which averages o u t to 473 s tu d e n ts p e r s c h o o l. The 80 p r iv a te ly owned D avenport C o lle g e o f Business had th e b u lk o f these w ith 1,316 w h ile DeLlma J u n io r C o lle g e l i s t e d o n ly two s tu d e n ts . These p r iv a te schools a re n o t used 1n th e com parisons w hich fo llo w . P r o p r ie ta r y schools had a re p o rte d t o t a l s tu d e n t e n ro llm e n t o f 3 7 ,3 1 0 .1 These fig u r e s In d ic a te t h a t , c o ll e c t i v e l y , th e com­ m unity c o lle g e s had a p o p u la tio n more than 333 per c e n t la r g e r than th a t o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . I t should be noted th a t th e re were o n ly tw e n ty -n in e p u b lic comnunlty c o lle g e s as compared to th e 182 p r o p r ie ta r y schools lic e n s e d 1n th e S ta te o f M ich iga n . (U n lik e some s ta te s re p o rte d e a r lie r , in t h is S ta te p r o p r ie ta r y schools must be lic e n s e d to o p e ra te .) Y e t, th e community c o lle g e s averaged 4,300 s tu d e n ts per school w h ile p r o p r ie ta r y sch oo ls had s l i g h t l y under 270 stu d e n ts per school on the average. Comparing these f ig u r e s , th e average community c o lle g e had n e a rly s ix te e n tim es as many s tu d e n ts as d id th e average p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o l. Program O ffe rin g s W ith t h is knowledge on p o p u la tio n tre n d s , the n e x t ste p was to Is o la te th e program o f f e r in g s o f both types o f I n s t i t u t i o n s . A summary o f these o ffe r in g s are shown 1n F ig u re 6. Appendix 4 h ig h lig h ts the f a c t th a t fo u r programs were o ffe re d fr e q u e n tly by both types o f s c h o o ls . The o ffe r in g s o f g re a te s t s i m i l a r i t y were: A cco u ntin g Bus1ness Adm1n1strat1on/Management E le c t r ic a l/ E le c t r o n ic s R elated S e c r e ta r ia l Science Figure 6.--Number of Program Offerings for Michigan Comnunlty Colleges and Proprietary School: 151 150 \ 20 20 j j Proprietary Schools 15 Community Colleges 11 10 2 I Less than 5 1 5-9 I 10-14 E O I 15-19 I l a 20- 24 i 25-29 i 30-34 Number of Program Offerings i 35-39 55 or more i 82 O nly one o f these fo u r programs i s d ir e c t l y r e la te d to the In d u s tr ia l E ducation f i e l d , nam ely, th e e le c t r ic a l/ e le c t r o n ic s programs. The re vie w o f th e l i t e r a t u r e d id n o t d is c lo s e any s tu d ie s made e x c lu s iv e ly on community c o lle g e and p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1n the e le c t r ic a l/ e le c t r o n ic s f i e l d . by L a rk in 2 A p o r tio n o f one stu d y re p o rte d on d id , however, In c lu d e e le c tr o n ic te c h n ic ia n s as p a r t o f I t s p o p u la tio n base. T h is need In s p ire d doing an e n t ir e s tu d y on comparing corrm unlty c o lle g e and p r o p r ie ta r y school graduates in th is f i e l d . C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n A n a ly s is o f these data showed th a t o f th e 207 people 1n the sample, 108 f i l l e d o u t th e su rve y In s tru m e n t and two more responded th a t they had n o t y e t g ra du a ted . These two a re d esig na te d by the a s te r is k 1n Table 1. Based on the C o r n fie ld Tukey argument f o r 3 In fe re n c e , 1 t 1s assumed th a t the non-responders would have answered In a manner s im ila r to those who d id respond. A d d it io n a lly , some o f those responding a ls o gave more than one answer f o r v a rio u s q u e s tio n s . a n a ly s is demands d is c r e te answers. The ch1-square s t a t i s t i c a l A l l Item s having two o r more answers checked were d is c a rd e d and were n o t used 1n th e c a lc u la tio n s to comply w ith ch1-square re q u ire m e n ts . For t h a t rea son , th e t o t a l number o f respondents appears to flu c tu a te f o r each s ta te m e n t. F in a lly , th e data from th e computer p r in to u ts were analyzed to determ ine w hether o r n o t any s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e s e x is te d . The a n a ly s is was done a t an alpha le v e l o f .0 5 . Both the raw and TABLE 1.—Distribution of Responses to the Mailed Questionnaire by Electronics School Graduates. 1972 1971 Sample Response 1973 Sample Response Sample Response Total Sample Response C. C. #1 2 2 (100%) 9 8*(89%) 3 3*(100%) 14 13 (92%) C. C. #2 2 0 ( 0%) 12 7 (58%) 14 11 ( 79%) 28 18 (64%) P. S. #1 25 8 ( 32%) X X 30 19 ( 63%) 55 27 (49%) P. S. #2 50 22 ( 44%) X X 60 30 ( 50%) 110 52 (47%) Totals 79 32 (41%) 107 63 (59%) 207 110 (53%) 21 15 (71%) Mote: C. C. = Conmunity College P. S. * Proprietary School ♦ Of the 1972 and 1973 graduates, one from each year indicated that he had not yet graduated, even though his name was listed on the graduation lis t. 84 s t a t i s t i c a l data are shown. The ve ry lim ite d number o f community c o lle g e graduates n e c e s s ita te d p o o lin g many o f the sample groups fo r any m eaningful a n a ly s is . One o f the r e q u is ite s o f u sin g c h i- square 1s th a t the expected frequency should have c e ll s iz e s c o n ta in in g a t le a s t f iv e responses. T h e re fo re , p o o lin g was the o n ly way a n a ly s is could be accom plished. In some In sta nce s even th is arrangement d id n o t p ro v id e the necessary c e ll s iz e . The lim ite d number o f graduates a ls o n e c e s s ita te d doing a d d itio n a l com putations w ith o u t the a id o f th e computer. A nalysis The responses to th e q u e s tio n n a ire were com piled and organized fo r a n a ly s is . In Appendix 5, each su b-hyp o the sis was matched to It's corresponding Item on the q u e s tio n n a ire . S t a t is t ic a l s i g n i f i ­ cance was determ ined by using th e c h i-s q u a re te s t s t a t i s t i c . i < ° ij - Ei / CZ T = rZ = i j - 1 E lj where Ri Eu * cj N Each Item was compared to the ta b le va lu e a t an alpha le v e l o f .05. Normative Data The f i r s t s ix sub-hypotheses deal w ith norm ative d a ta . These sub-hypotheses were posed to shed some l i g h t on th e type o f stu de n ts ta kin g an e le c tr o n ic s program. Each Item 1s analyzed f o r s t a t i s t i c a l 85 s ig n ific a n c e to d e te rm in e 1 f ar\y d iffe r e n c e e x is te d . F o llo w in g 1s the breakdown o f th e responses f o r th e v a rio u s c a te g o rie s as th e y are r e la te d to each h y p o th e s is . H ypothesis 1: There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the ages o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . The responses to Item 1 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e sis and a re shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 . —Ages o f G raduates. Item 1. cc PS T o ta l 0 19 9 0 0 64 9 6 0 83 18 6 19 9 64 15 83 24 28 79 107 21.7 6 .3 61.3 17.7 83 24 28 79 Age Under 20 20-25 26-30 Over 30 Observed Age 25 & under 26 A o v e r T o ta l Expected 25 & under 26 & o ve r T o ta l 107 These data had to be pooled f o r a n a ly s is u s in g c h i-s q u a re because th e community c o lle g e s had no one 1n th e 0 v e r-3 0 c a te g o ry . T h e re fo re , by p o o lin g , two c a te g o rie s c o u ld be c o n s tru c te d w ith 86 c e lls c o n ta in in g more than f iv e responses. C e lls o f f iv e o r more are a r e q u is ite f o r ch1-square a n a ly s is . Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is re s u lte d In a value o f 2.024. Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le value a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e e x is ts in the ages o f the g ra du a tes. T h e re fo re , H ypothesis Number One cannot be re je c te d . H ypothesis 2 : There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the sex o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra du a tes. The responses to Item 2 a p p ly to t h is h yp o th e sis and are shown In Table 3. TABLE 3 . — Sex o f Graduates. Item 2. CC PS T o ta l 0 28 0 0 78 1 0 106 1 28 79 107 Sex Female Male DNR T o ta l These data d id n ot have to be analyzed because a l l o f the respondents were m ale. re je c te d . T h e re fo re , H ypothesis Number Two cannot be There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the sex o f the graduates. H ypothesis 3 : There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e In the m a r ita l s ta tu s o f p ro p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates. The responses to Item 3 a p p ly to th is hypo th esis and a re shown 1n Table 4. 87 TABLE 4 . —M a rita l S ta tu s o f Graduates, Item CC PS T o ta l 0 0 38 40 0 0 1 0 49 57 0 0 1 M a rita l S tatus D ivorced M arried S in g le Widow Widower DNR n 17 0 0 0 Observed M a r ita l S tatus M arried S in g le n 17 38 40 49 57 T o ta l 28 78 106 12.9 15.1 36.1 41.9 49 57 28 78 Expected M arried S in g le T o ta l 106 A ll o f those responding checked one o f two c a te g o rie s , m a rrie d o r s in g le . 0.705. Doing th e c h i-s q u a re a n a ly s is r e s u lts in a value o f Comparing I t to th e ta b le value a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3.8 4 1) shows no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e . T h e re fo re , H ypothesis Number Three cannot be re je c te d as th e re 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e m a rita l s ta tu s o f the g raduates. H ypothesis 4 : There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between the p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates as to th e type o f s tu d e n t they were b efo re g ra d u a tio n . The responses to Item 5 a pp ly to th is hypothesis and are shown 1n Table 5. 88 TABLE 5 . — Type o f S tu d e n t B e fo re G ra d u a tio n . Item 5. CC PS T o ta l 20 3 0 51 7 16 71 10 16 20 3 51 23 71 26 23 74 97 Type o f S tud en t F u ll- tim e day P a rt-tim e day Evening Observed Type o f S tudent F u ll- tim e day P a rt-tim e o r evening T o ta l A g a in , th e data had to be pooled f o r a n a ly s is u sin g c h isquare. Even a f t e r p o o lin g , one o f th e c e lls s t i l l f iv e responses. had fe w er than T h is n e c e s s ita te d doing a Yates c o r r e c tio n w hich is re q u ire d f o r a 2 x 2 d is t r i b u t i o n when one o f th e c e lls f a l l below f i v e . Doing th e Yates c o r r e c tio n to th e c h i-s q u a re a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a v a lu e o f 2 .06 3 . Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le va lu e a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e . T h e re fo re , H ypothesis Number Four cannot be re je c te d because th e re 1s no d iffe r e n c e as to th e type o f stu d e n t th e y were b e fo re g ra d u a tio n . H ypothesis 5: There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e g raduates in th e amount o f fo rm a l s c h o o lin g th e y o b ta in e d b e fo re a tte n d in g e le c tr o n ic s s c h o o l. The responses to Item 17 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e s is and are shown In Table 6. 89 TABLE 6 . — Formal S chooling o f Graduates. Item 17. CC PS T o ta l 0 0 0 18 4 0 6 0 1 0 64 6 0 8 0 1 0 82 10 0 14 18 4 64 6 82 10 22 70 92 Amount o f Formal S chooling Before A tte n d in g E le c tro n ic s School 1-6 years 7-9 years 10-11 years High school graduate Less than B a c h e lo r's degree Before B a c h e lo r's degree DNR Formal S chooling High School Graduate Less than B a c h e lo r's T o ta l Only one man In d ic a te d th a t he was not a high school gra du a te. The rem ainder o f those responding f a l l In to two c a te g o rie s ; high school graduate and le s s than b a c h e lo r1 's degree. c o lle g e graduates checked the l a t t e r c a te g o ry . Only fo u r community This n e c e s s ita te d doing a Yates c o rr e c tio n which is re q u ire d when a c e ll has less than f iv e responses. The Yates c o rr e c tio n to the c h i-s q u a re a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a value o f 0.758. Comparing 1 t to the ta b le value a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e . T h e re fo re , H ypothesis Number F ive cannot be re je c te d because th e re 1s no d iffe r e n c e 1n the amount o f form al s c h o o lin g before a tte n d in g e le c tr o n ic s s c h o o l. 90 H ypothesis 6 : There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e In the typ e o f high school program completed by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. The responses to Item 18 a p p ly to t h is h yp o th e sis and are shown In Table 7. TABLE 7 . — Kind o f High School Program Completed by Graduates. Item 18. CC PS Tot« 11 0 24 0 35 0 8 3 5 31 12 8 39 15 13 11 11 24 43 35 54 22 67 89 8 .7 13.3 26.3 40.7 35 54 22 67 89 What Kind o f High School Program Did You Complete? C ollege P re p a ra to ry Did n ot complete h ig h school General ( n e ith e r c o lle g e p re p a ra to ry nor te c h n ic a l) V o ca tio n a l o r te c h n ic a l DNR Observed High School Program C ollege P re p a ra to ry General o r V o ca tion al T o ta l Expected C ollege P re p a ra to ry General o r V o ca tion al T o ta l Upon doing th e f i r s t s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is * the Expected c e ll f o r th e v o c a tio n a l o r te c h n ic a l programs by community c o lle g e graduates was s t i l l le ss than f iv e . T h e re fo re , th e responses had to be pooled to o b ta in r e s u lta n t Expected c e lls being la r g e r than 91 f iv e . T h is was necessary because th e Yates c o r r e c tio n cannot be done f o r 3 x 2 c e ll s . I t can o n ly be done f o r an a n a ly s is w ith one degree o f freedom and co n se q u e n tly had to be ru le d o u t In t h i s In sta n ce . Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts In a v a lu e o f 1 .337. Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le va lu e a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e . There­ fo re , H ypothesis Number S ix cannot be r e je c te d as th e re 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e k in d o f h ig h school program com pleted by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates. Main H ypothesis The n e x t s e rie s o f sub-hypotheses d e a ls w ith in fo rm a tio n on jo b s o b ta in e d a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . T h is group o f hypotheses (seven through n in e te e n ) is used to a s c e rta in w hether o r n o t th e main hypothesis should be r e je c te d . I f 50 p e r c e n t o r more o f Item s shown by these hypotheses are r e je c te d , then th e main h y p o th e sis 1s a ls o r e je c te d . T h is would in d ic a te th a t a s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e e x is ts between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic graduates 1n t h e i r p re p a ra tio n f o r th e w o rld o f w ork. H ypothesis 7: There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e In the le n g th o f tim e re q u ire d to o b ta in work In th e e le c tr o n ic s f i e l d by p r o p r ie ta r y school and convnunlty c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . The responses to Item 6 a p p ly to t h i s h yp o th e sis and a re shown 1n Table 8. 92 TABLE 8 . — Time R equired To F ind Work. Item 6. CC PS T o ta l 6 0 3 11 8 0 32 5 5 15 19 3 38 5 8 26 27 3 9 11 8 42 15 19 51 26 27 28 76 104 13.7 7 .0 7 .3 37.3 19.0 19.7 51 26 27 28 76 How Long A f t e r G rad u atio n Did I t Take to O b ta in Work 1n th e E le c tro n ic s F ie ld ? B efore G raduation Im m e d ia te ly upon g ra d u a tio n Less than one month O ther O btained work 1n a n o th e r f i e l d DNR Observed How Long A f t e r G raduation to O b ta in Work One month o r le s s O ther O btained work In a n o th e r f i e l d T o ta l Expected One month o r le s s O ther O btained work in a n o th e r f i e l d T o ta l 104 Because o f th e d is t r i b u t i o n o f th e responses, th e y had to be pooled to g e t th e c e ll s iz e s la rg e enough to be analyzed u sin g c h i-s q u a re . T h is r e s u lts 1n a d is t r i b u t i o n c o n ta in in g s ix c e l l s . Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a v a lu e o f 5 .424. Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le v a lu e a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith two degrees o f freedom (5 .9 9 1 ) shows no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e . There­ fo r e , H ypothesis Number Seven cannot be r e je c te d as th e re is no 93 s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e tim e re q u ire d by th e graduates to o b ta in w ork. H ypothesis 8 : There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e In £he amount o f a s s is ta n c e re ce ive d from school placement o f f i c i a l s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates. The responses to Item 7 a p p ly to t h is hypo th esis and are shown 1n Table 9. TABLE 9 .— A ssista n ce Given Graduates by School O f f ic i a l s . Item 7. CC PS T o ta l 13 7 13 18 25 7 1 48 0 55 13 7 7 13 18 48 26 25 55 27 79 106 6 .6 6 .4 14.0 19.4 18.6 41.0 26 25 55 27 79 How Much A ssista n ce Did You Receive From School Placement O f f ic ia ls ? None Did n o t re q u ire a s s is ta n c e Had a number o f In te rv ie w s arranged by school DNR 26 1 Observed A ssista n ce from School Placement O f f ic i a l s None Did n o t r e q u ire a s s is ta n c e Had a number o f In te rv ie w s T o ta l Expected None Did n o t re q u ire a s s is ta n c e Had a number o f In te rv ie w s T o ta l 106 94 Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a value o f 13.088. Comparing I t to th e ta b le value a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith two degrees o f freedom (5.9 9 1) means H ypothesis Number E ig h t 1s re je c te d . Convnunlty c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates re c e iv e le ss h elp from school placement o f f i c i a l s than do p r o p r ie ta r y school graduates. H ypothesis 9 : There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n w hether jo b s a re o bta ine d as a r e s u lt o f In te rv ie w s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates. The responses to Item 8 a p p ly to th is h ypo th esis and are shown 1n Table 10. TABLE 1 0 .— Graduate Responses on In te rv ie w s Leading to Job. Item 8. CC PS T o ta l 11 4 35 24 46 28 8 5 14 6 22 11 11 4 8 35 24 14 46 28 22 23 73 96 11 6 .7 5.3 35 21.3 16.7 46 28 22 23 73 96 As a R e s u lt o f th e In te rv ie w s , Were You Able to Find a Job? Yes No Not a p p lic a b le (went In to m i l i t a r y , c o lle g e , e t c . ) DNR Observed As a R e s u lt o f In te rv ie w s — Find a Job Yes No Not a p p lic a b le ( m i l it a r y , e t c . ) T o ta l Expected Yes No Not a p p lic a b le ( m i l it a r y , e t c . ) T o ta l 95 The Yates c o rr e c tio n can be used o n ly when th e degrees o f freedom 1s one and when one c e ll 1s s m a lle r than f i v e . T his Item has one c e ll s m a lle r than f iv e b u t th e degrees o f freedom are two. However, 1 f the expected frequency 1s a t le a s t f i v e , th e c h i-s q u a re a n a ly s is can s t i l l be used w ith o u t having to pool responses. Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts in a va lu e o f 3.204. Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le value a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith two degrees o f freedom (5 .9 9 1 ) shows no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e . fo r e , Hypothesis Number Nine cannot be r e je c te d . There­ There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates o b ta in in g jo b s as a r e s u lt o f t h e ir In te rv ie w s . H ypothesis 10: There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the reason given f o r ta k in g jo b s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school gra du a tes. The responses to Item 9 a p p ly to t h is hypothesis and are shown 1n Table 11. TABLE 1 1 .— Graduates Reasons f o r Taking a Job. Item 9. CC PS T o ta l 1 1 0 2 1 1 2 6 2 5 2 13 2 5 15 16 3 6 2 15 3 6 17 22 Reasons f o r Taking Job Advice o f fr ie n d o r r e la t iv e Close to home F rin g e b e n e fits More chances f o r advancement R ep u tatio n o f company S a la ry O ther DNR 96 The responses from th e community c o lle g e graduates do n o t y ie ld apy c e lls la r g e r than f i v e . Due to th a t f a c t , th e reason f o r ta k in g jo b s cannot be analyzed u s in g ch1-square and H ypothesis Number Ten cannot be r e je c te d . H ypothesis 11: There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the sources le a d in g to th e f i r s t jo b a f t e r co m p le tin g e le c tr o n ic s schools between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . The responses to Item 21 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e s is and a re shown 1n Table 12. TABLE 1 2 .— Graduates Sources f o r F i r s t Jobs. Item 21. CC PS T o ta l 1 4 8 0 2 3 8 3 10 7 4 20 13 21 4 14 15 4 22 16 29 2 16 20 37 22 53 18 57 75 Sources Leading to F i r s t Job A f t e r C om pleting E le c tr o n ic s School Employment agency F rie n d o r r e la t iv e Newspaper o r magazine ad P re vio u s em ployer School o f f i c i a l O ther DNR Observed Sources Leading to F i r s t Job A f t e r G raduating School o f f i c i a l Non-school source T o ta l The Yates c o r r e c tio n 1s a p p lie d to t h is h y p o th e s is because the pooled responses r e s u lt In a 2 x 2 ta b le w ith one degree o f freedom and one c e ll le s s than f i v e . 97 Doing th e Yates c o rr e c tio n to the ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a va lu e o f 2.725. Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le value a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e . T h e re fo re , H ypothesis Number Eleven cannot be r e je c te d . There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e 1n the sources le a d in g to the f i r s t jo b a f t e r com pleting e le c tr o n ic s school between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school gra du a tes. Hypothesis 12: There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the s t a r t in g s a la r ie s o b ta in e d by p ro p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates. The responses to Item 11 a p p ly to t h is hypo th esis and are shown 1n T a b lW f lk TABLE 1 3 .— Graduates S ta r tin g S a la rie s . Item 11. CC PS T o ta l 4 4 12 4 4 5 29 21 9 15 9 33 33 13 19 8 16 34 30 42 46 24 64 88 11.5 12.5 30.5 33.5 42 46 24 64 88 What Was Your S ta r tin g S a la ry (B efore Taxes)? Under $100/week $100-149/week $150-199/week Over $200/week DNR Observed S ta r tin g S a la ry Less than $150 $150 o r more T o ta l Expected Less than $150 $150 o r more T o ta l 98 Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a v a lu e o f 2 .8 1 3 . Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le v a lu e a t an a lpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e . fo r e , H ypothesis Number Twelve cannot be r e je c te d . There­ There Is no s ig ­ n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e s t a r t in g s a la r ie s o b ta in e d by p r o p r ie ta r y school and convnunlty c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . H ypothesis 13: There 1s no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n how graduates from p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s schools r a te t h e i r t r a in in g as to p re p a rin g them f o r the work th e y a re a c t u a lly p e rfo rm in g . The responses to Item 10 a p p ly to t h is h yp o th e s is and a re shown in Table 14. TABLE 1 4 .— Graduates R a tin g o f T h e ir T ra in in g f o r Work P re p a ra tio n . Item 10. CC PS T o ta l 1 14 4 1 3 4 8 38 5 7 4 14 9 52 9 8 7 18 15 46 61 5 12 17 20 58 78 15.6 4 5.4 61 4 .4 12,6 17 58 78 Rate Your T ra in in g as to P re p a rin g You f o r Work You Are A c tu a lly P e rform in g Did n o t prepare me a d e q u a te ly Prepared me f o r most req uirem e nts T ra in e d me f o r a l l req uirem e nts O v e rtra in e d me f o r ta sks re q u ire d O ther DNR Observed T ra in in g P re p a rin g f o r A c tu a l Work Prepared f o r most re q u ire m e n ts o r le s s T ra in e d f o r a l l req uirem e nts o r more T o ta l Expected Prepared f o r most re q u ire m e n ts o r le s s T ra in e d f o r a l l re q u ire m e n ts o r more T o ta l 20 99 The community c o lle g e responses had to be pooled because th e ch1 -squ are a n a ly s is re q u ire s c e ll s iz e s o f a t le a s t f i v e . ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a v a lu e o f 0 .1 4 1 . Doing th e Comparing 1 t to the ta b le v a lu e a t an a lpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3.8 4 1) shows no s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e . Number T h irte e n cannot be r e je c te d . T h e re fo re , H ypothesis There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e In how g raduates from p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra du a tes r a te t h e i r t r a in in g as to p re p a rin g them f o r th e work th e y are a c t u a lly p e rfo rm in g . H ypothesis 14: There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates r e c e iv in g s a la r y In cre a ses s in c e being h ir e d . The responses to Item 12 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e s is and a re shown 1n Table 15. TABLE 1 5 .— Graduates Responses C oncerning S a la ry In c re a s e s . Item 12. CC PS T o ta l 3 15 10 8 48 23 11 63 33 Did You Receive an In cre a se 1n S a la ry S ince Your H irin g ? No Yes DNR Observed S a la ry In cre a se NO Yes T o ta l 3 15 8 48 11 63 18 56 74 100 One c e ll o f th e 2 x 2 c o r r e c tio n ta b le Is s m a lle r than f i v e . The Yates can be a p p lie d because o n ly one degree o f freedom Is In v o lv e d . Doing th e Yates c o r r e c tio n to th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a va lu e o f 0.018. Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le v a lu e o f an a lpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s i g n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e . T h e re fo re , H ypothesis Number Fourteen cannot be r e je c te d . There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates r e c e iv in g s a la ry In cre a ses s in c e being h ir e d . H ypothesis 15: There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n how much o f a r a is e p r o p r ie ta r y school and com­ m u n ity c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates re c e iv e . The responses to Item 13 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e s is and a re shown in T able 16. TABLE 1 6 .—Amount o f Raise Received by G raduates. Item 13. CC PS T o ta l 6 5 4 13 15 16 19 29 21 21 23 42 6 9 15 15 35 21 44 50 65 4 .8 10.2 16.2 33.8 21 44 15 50 65 How Much o f a R aise Per Week? Less than $15 $15-30 More than $30 DNR Observed Amount o f Raise Less than $15 $15 o r more T o ta l Expected Less than $15 $15 o r more T o ta l 101 Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts In a v a lu e o f 0 .5 7 3 . Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le v a lu e a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e . fo r e , H ypothesis Number F ifte e n cannot be r e je c te d . There­ There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n how much o f a r a is e p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates re c e iv e . H ypothesis 16: There is no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e graduates who have changed jo b s s in c e le a v in g e le c tr o n ic s s c h o o l. The responses to Item 19 a p p ly to t h is h yp o th e s is and a re shown 1n Table 17. TABLE 1 7 .— Number o f Graduates Changing Jobs. Item 19. CC PS T o ta l 7 14 7 41 27 11 48 41 18 7 14 41 27 48 41 21 68 89 11.3 9 .7 36.7 31.3 48 41 21 68 89 Have You Changed Jobs Since Leaving E le c tr o n ic s School? No Yes DNR Observed Changed Jobs Since Leaving E le c tro n ic s School No Yes T o ta l Expected No Yes T o ta l 102 Doing th e c h i-s q u a re a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a v a lu e o f 4 ,6 3 7 . Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le v a lu e a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) means H ypothesis Number S ix te e n 1s r e je c te d . E le c tro n ic s graduates from convnunlty c o lle g e s have changed jo b s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than th ose from p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls . H ypothesis 17: There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the reason f o r changing jo b s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . The responses to Item 20 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e s is and are shown In Table 18. TABLE 1 8 .— Reasons f o r Graduates Changing Jobs. Item 20. CC PS T o ta l 0 8 2 0 0 3 13 2 11 6 1 1 4 51 2 19 8 1 1 7 64 8 5 11 14 19 19 13 25 38 6 .5 6 .5 13 12.5 12.5 25 19 19 38 I f You Have Changed Jobs* For What Reason? D is lik e o ld jo b Got a b e tte r jo b L a id o f f o r f i r e d M i l i t a r y s e rv ic e Prom otion O th e r DNR Observed Reason f o r Changing Jobs B e tte r jo b O ther reasons T o ta l Expected B e tte r jo b O ther reasons T o ta l 103 The responses had to be pooled because the c h i-s q u a re a n a ly s is re q u ire s c e ll siz e s o f a t le a s t f i v e . Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a value o f 1,052. Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le value a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith degree o f freedom (3.8 4 1) shows no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e . fo r e , H ypothesis Number Seventeen cannot be re je c te d . one There­ There Is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the reasons f o r changing jo b s by p ro p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. H ypothesis 18: There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates 1n how they r a te t h e i r s a tis fa c t io n w ith t h e i r jo b s . The responses to Item 23 a p p ly to t h is h yp o th e sis and are shown 1n Table 19. TABLE 1 9 .— Graduates R ating o f Job S a tis fa c tio n . Item 23. CC PS T o ta l 2 8 5 4 0 9 10 27 19 7 2 14 12 35 24 11 2 23 10 9 19 37 26 63 47 35 82 10.9 8.1 19 36.1 26.9 47 35 63 82 How Would You Rate Your S a tis fa c tio n w ith Your Job? Very high Above average Average Below average Very low DNR Observed Job S a tis fa c tio n Above average o r h ig h e r Average o r below T o ta l Expected Above average o r h ig h e r Average o r below T o ta l 104 The responses had to be pooled because th e ch1-square a n a ly s is re q u ire s c e ll s iz e s o f at le a s t 5. Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts In a v a lu e o f 0 .0 9 3 . Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le v a lu e at an a lp h a le v e l o f .05 degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e . There­ fo r e , H ypothesis Number E ighteen cannot be r e je c te d . w ith one There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n how p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates r a te t h e i r s a t is f a c t io n w ith t h e i r jo b s . H ypothesis 19: There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates In how they r a te t h e i r e le c tr o n ic s t r a in in g . The responses to Item 22 a p p ly to t h is hypo­ th e s is and a re shown 1n Table 20. TABLE 2 0 .— Graduates R a tin g o f T r a in in g . Item 22. CC PS T o ta l 3 14 5 1 0 5 5 24 38 4 0 8 8 38 43 5 0 13 17 6 23 29 42 46 48 71 94 11.3 11.7 34.7 36.3 23 71 46 48 94 How Would You Rate Your E le c tro n ic s T ra in in g ? Very h ig h Above Average Average Below average Very low DNR Observed How Would You Rate Your T ra in in g ? Above average o r h ig h e r Average o r low er T o ta l Expected Above average o r h ig h e r Average o r low e r T o ta l 105 A g a in , th e responses had to be pooled because th e ch1-square a n a ly s is re q u ire s Doing th e c e ll s iz e s o f a t le a s t f i v e . ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lte d In a v a lu e o f 7 .48 3 . Comparing 1 t to th e ta b le v a lu e degree o f freedom r e je c te d . a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one (3 .8 4 1 ) means H ypothesis Number N ineteen Is Conmunlty c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates r a te t h e i r t r a in in g s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r than do p r o p r ie ta r y school e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s. A d d itio n a l S tu d ie s N e xt, th re e sub-hypotheses were asked to p ro v id e In fo rm a tio n on a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s taken a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . H ypothesis 20: There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates ta k in g a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s . The responses to Item 14 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e s is and are shown 1n Table 21. Doing th e ch1-square a n a ly s is r e s u lts 1n a va lu e o f 0 .01 0 . Comparing I t to th e ta b le va lu e a t an alpha le v e l o f .05 w ith one degree o f freedom (3 .8 4 1 ) shows no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e . fo r e , H ypothesis Number Twenty cannot be r e je c te d . There­ There 1s no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates ta k in g a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s . H ypothesis 21: There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n the number o f hours p e r week spent 1n school by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . The responses to Item 15 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e s is and are shown 1n Table 22. 106 TABLE 2 1 .— Graduates Taking A d d itio n a l S tu d ie s . Item 14. CC PS T o ta l 8 15 5 25 45 9 33 60 14 8 15 25 45 33 60 23 70 93 8.2 14.8 24.8 45.2 33 60 23 70 93 CC PS T o ta l 2 2 1 3 20 8 5 2 4 60 10 7 3 7 80 Have You o r Are You Taking A d d itio n a l S tudies? Yes No ONR Observed Have You o r Are You 1n Process o f Taking A d d itio n a l S tudies? Yes No T o ta l Expected Yes No T o ta l TABLE 2 2 .— Time Spent 1n School by Graduates. Item 15. I f Yes, How Many Hours Per Week are Spent 1n School? Less than 3 hours 3-6 hours 7-9 hours More than 9 hours DNR 107 Because o f I n s u f f i c ie n t responses, t h is h y p o th e s is co u ld n o t be analyzed u s in g c h 1 -sq u a re . H ypothesis 22: There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n where . p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates ta k e a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s . The responses to Item 16 a p p ly to t h is h y p o th e s is and are shown 1n Table 23. TABLE 2 3 .— Where Graduates Were T aking T r a in in g . Item 16. CC PS T o ta l 3 0 2 1 0 2 0 19 5 4 3 7 0 6 0 49 8 4 5 8 0 8 0 68 Where a re You Taking A d d itio n a l T ra in in g ? C o lle g e o r u n iv e r s ity Company t r a in in g program CoFTmunlty c o lle g e program Correspondence school P r o p r ie ta r y school S e lf stu d y O ther DNR Because o f I n s u f f i c ie n t responses t h is h y p o th e s is c o u ld n o t be analyzed using ch 1-squ a re . Three A d d itio n a l Q uestions F in a lly , each graduate was asked to respond to th re e a d d i­ tio n a l q u e s tio n s . These d e a lt w ith jo b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , recommendations f o r a d d itio n a l c o u rs e s , and l a s t l y , any a d d itio n a l comments they wished to make. c a tio n s . The f i r s t q u e s tio n , Item 24, asked f o r jo b c l a s s i f i ­ The responses were broken down In to th e c a te g o rie s o f e le c t r ic a l r e la te d and n o n -e le c tr1 c a l r e la te d f i e l d s . shown 1n Tables 24 and 25. They are 108 TABLE 2 4 .— Job C la s s ific a tio n s o f E le c tro n ic s Program Graduates Working In E le c tr o n ic a l R elated F ie ld . Job T i t l e 1. Communications S p e c ia lis t 2. Computer O perator 3. C o n tro ls Designer 4. Customer E ngineering 5. Customer S e rv ic e R e p re se n ta tive 6 . Draftsman 7. E le c tr ic a l Layout 8. E le c tro n ic E le c tr ic a l Engineer 9. 10. E le c tr ic ia n 11. E le c tro n ic Computer T e st 12. E le c tro n ic Purchasing Agent 13. Engineer 14. Aide 15. F ie ld 16. In s p e c to r E le c tro n ic s 17. 18. In stru m e n t C a lib r a tio n & R epair 19. In s tru m e n ta tio n Mechanic 20. Radio O perator 21. R ep a ir/S ale s 22. S u p e rviso r E le c tr ic a l Maintenance 23. Technical R e p re se n ta tive 24. T echnical W rite r 25. T ech n icia n 26. Audio A v io n ic s 27. 28. Communications E le c tr ic a l 29. E le c tro n ic 30. Emissions 31. E ngineering 32. Experim ental 33. F ie ld S e rvice 34. I n s t a lla t io n 35. Medical 36. 37. O ffic e Machine 38. Product Test 39. Q u a lity C o n tro l S e rvice 40. 41. T e s te r A n a lyze r 42. T o ll Testman T o ta l Community C olleges P ro p rie ta ry Schools 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 19 1 55 109 TABLE 2 5 .—Job C la s s ific a tio n s o f E le c tro n ic s Program Graduates Working In N o n -E le c tric a l R elated F ie ld s . Community C ol1eges Job T i t l e 1. 2. P ro p rie ta ry Schools C le rk Drug S tore 3. Stock 4. Custodian 5. F a cto ry Worker 6. Job S e tte r 7. Laborer 1 8 . Lathe O perator 9. Machine O perator 10. 11. Maintenance S u p e rv is o r 12. 13. Mechanic M il i t a r y 14. 15. P r in te r R estaurant Worker 16. Sales Manager 17. 18. 19. S e rv ic in g O ffic e Equipment Stockman Student 20. Truck D riv e r 1 21. Welder Repairman 1 1 1 1 1 2 T o ta l 7 15 110 The n e x t q u e s tio n , Ite m 25, asked, "What a d d itio n a l courses would you recomnend an e le c tr o n ic s s tu d e n t ta ke to Improve h is jo b s k i l ls ? " A g a in , because o f th e c o m p le x ity o f th e responses, th e y are broken down In to two c a te g o rie s . The f i r s t c a te g o ry . Table 26, g ive s th e breakdown o f th e e le c t r ic a l courses recommended to Improve jo b s k i l l s . The second c a te g o ry , Table 27, g iv e s th e breakdown o f th e n o n - e le c tr ic a l courses recommended to Improve t h e i r jo b s k i l l s . A number o f those responding to t h is Item o f th e q u e s tio n ­ n a ire g iv e more than one suggested course w h ile o th e rs o f f e r no response. For th a t reason th e t o t a ls do n o t correspond to number o f those re s p o n d in g . F in a lly , Item 26, th e l a s t one on the q u e s tio n n a ire , asked f o r "Any a d d itio n a l comments you fe e l a re Im p o rta n t." o f th e responses 1s shown In Table 28. A summary A g a in , n o t a l l those responding g iv e comments, w h ile o th e rs o f f e r s e v e ra l. Summary C ategory One In fo rm a tio n h ig h lig h te d se ve ra l f a c t s . 1. The la r g e s t s in g le ca te g o ry o f ow nership o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1s I n d iv id u a lly owned. 2. P r o p r ie ta r y sch oo ls outnumber community c o lle g e s more than s ix to one. 3. Community c o lle g e e n ro llm e n ts outnumber those o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools n e a rly s ix te e n to one. Ill TABLE 2 6 .— E le c t r ic a l Courses to Improve Job S k i l l s . Courses 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Community C o lle g e s A n yth in g New 1n th e F ie ld A p p lic a tio n o f T e st Equipment Computers Computer Programming Computer E le c tro n ic s Depends on th e Job D ig it a l E le c tro n ic s & L o g ic C ir c u it s D o n 't Know F.C .C . License Home S e rv ic in g & TV R epair 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 10 1 4 2 2 I n d u s t r ia l E le c tr o n ic s In s tru m e n ta tio n 1 1 15. Job R elated Courses M edical E le c tro n ic s 2 1 16. Microwave 17. 18. O p e ra tio n a l A m p lifie r s 1 1 14. 1 5 3 In te g ra te d C ir c u it s & C hem istry f o r I . C . 's 13. P r o p r ie ta r y Schools 6 4 1 19. P r in t Reading P rin te d C ir c u it s 1 1 20. P r a c tic a l R e p a ir Course 1 21. Sem iconductor Theory 22. T hin F ilm Sem iconductors 1 23. S e rv ic in g R elated 1 24. 25. 26. Servos S o lid S ta te S p e c ia liz e d T ra in in g 1 1 9 3 27. T ro u b le s h o o tin g Vacuum Tubes 2 1 28. T o ta l 1 1 19 61 112 TABLE 2 7 .— N o n -E le ctr1 ca l Courses to Improve Job S k i l l s . Courses Community C olleges P ro p rie ta ry Schools 1. Accounting 2. A r c h ite c tu r a l D ra ftin g 3. Communications 1 4. Business Courses 2 5. E n g lish Com position 2 6. Management 2 7. Math 8. Mechanical E ngineering 9. Mechanics 1 1 4 6 1 3 4 10. M iscellaneous 11. Non-Technlcal Courses 1 12. None/No Answer/No 4 13. Phys1cs/Chemls t r y 14. Reading S k ills 15. P u b lic Speaking 16. Technical W ritin g 1 T o ta l 15 23 3 1 1 1 47 113 TABLE 2 8 .— Responses o f E le c tr o n ic s School Graduates to any A d d itio n a l Comments You Feel Are Im p o rta n t. Community C o lle g e s Comments 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. B e tte r Equipment Needed Course Very Broad Co-op. Program Needed Course Layout 1s L o g ic a lly Done Degree 1s Im p o rta n t Did n o t Prepare f o r S p e c ia lty Work E xperience R equired F.C.C. Lice n se a Must Improve S tu d e n t's L o g ic Inadequate T ra in in g Job Does Not R equire T ra in in g Received Jobs Scarce Low Paying Jobs M isce lla n e o u s More Hands-On T ra in in g Needed No/None O utdated P o o rly W ritte n Courses P r a c tic a l Experience Needed Prepared w e ll f o r T ra n s fe r to C o lle g e P r i o r i t y Given to Blacks Problems w ith Teaching S t a f f R e p a ir o f More Complex Equipment S a tis fy in g Customer 50% o f Job School 20/30 Years Behind Computer F ie ld S e lf-S tu d y H e lp fu l Teachers n o t Q u al1 f1 ed /N ot In te re s te d 1n S tudents Theory n o t R elated to A c tu a l Too Many Incom petents 1n F ie ld ; Upgrading R equired Too Much on Vacuum Tubes Too A b s tra c t T ra n s fe r C r e d it In to Degree Program Lacking Upgrade Requirements What Employers Expect Should Be Taught W ork-Study Program Needed Would n o t Recommend T h is School T o ta l 1 1 2 P r o p r ie ta r y Schools 2 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 9 2 6 6 35 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 29 85 114 4. Community c o lle g e program o ffe r in g s g r e a t ly outnumber those o f p r o p r ie ta r y sch oo ls b u t fo u r programs a re o ffe r e d by b o th I n s t i t u t i o n s . The m a jo r ity o f th e q u e s tio n s In v o lv in g C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n d id n o t show any d iffe r e n c e . However, th re e sub­ hypotheses d id prove to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t . 1. A s s is ta n c e re c e iv e d by graduates from school placem ent o ffic ia ls 2. These w ere: (H yp o the sis Number E ig h t) . Number o f graduates who have changed jo b s s in c e g ra d u a tio n (H yp o th e sis Number S ix te e n ). 3. The r a t in g o f t r a in in g re c e iv e d by graduates (H yp o th e sis Number N in e te e n ). C hapter IV — F ootnotes 11971-72 Annual R eport o f P riv a te Trade S ch o ols, Business Schools and I n s t i t u t e s , Department o f E d u c a tio n . S ta te o f M ichigan A d u lt and C o n tin u in g E ducation S e rv ic e * S e p t., 1973, pp. 3 -4 . 2 Tim othy L a r k in , " P r o p r ie ta r y S chools: How Do They Measure Up," Manpower (M arch, 1973), pp. 20-21. 3 J . C o r n fie ld and J . W. Tukey, "Average Values o f Mean Squares 1n F a c t o r ia ls , " Annals o f M athem atical S t a t i s t i c s , V. 27 (1 9 5 6 ), pp. 907-949. 115 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In tr o d u c tio n T h is c h a p te r c o n ta in s th e c o n c lu s io n s and recommendations o f th e s tu d y . I t covers both C ategory One and C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n . Those data w hich prove to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t are examined. In a d d itio n , o th e r data w hich a re n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t a re a ls o examined f o r m ea nin gful r e la tio n s h ip s . These l a t t e r com parisons w hich appear 1n th e O b se rva tio n s s e c tio n p ro v id e th e b u lk o f th e In fo rm a tio n on w hich th e d is c u s s io n presented 1n t h is c h a p te r Is based. A f t e r th e r e s u lts a re re p o rte d , some s u g g e stio n s f o r fu tu r e s tu d ie s a re p re s e n te d . T his s e c tio n 1s a ls o w r it t e n to p ro v id e re se a rch e rs w ith some In s ig h t In to th e p o te n tia l p i t f a l l s w hich a w a it them. C onclusions The main h y p o th e s is o f t h i s stucjfy was th a t no s i g n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e e x is ts between p r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls and community c o lle g e s 1n p re p a rin g e le c tr o n ic s school graduates f o r th e w o rld o f w o rk. In o rd e r to a cce p t o r r e je c t th a t h y p o th e s is , th ir t e e n sub-hypotheses (numbers seven th rough n in e te e n ) were made. If 50 p e r c e n t o r more o f them were r e je c te d , th e main h y p o th e s is would a ls o be r e je c te d . 116 117 The responses to th e q u e s tio n n a ire were examined s t a t i s t i ­ c a lly u sin g c h 1 -sq u a re . The r e s u lts were compared w ith th e ta b le values a t an a lp h a le v e l o f .0 5 . Of th e t h ir t e e n sub-hypotheses examined, o n ly th re e proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s 1 g r1 f1 c a n t. T h e re fo re , th e main h y p o th e s is c o u ld n o t be r e je c te d . There 1s no s i g n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie t a r y schools and com­ m u n ity c o lle g e s 1n p re p a rin g e le c tr o n ic s school graduates f o r the w o rld o f w ork. Three sub-hypotheses proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t . H ypothesis Number E ig h t: There is no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e 1n th e amount o f a s s is ta n c e re c e iv e d from school placem ent o f f i c i a l s by p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s g ra d u a te s . In th e re v ie w o f l i t e r a t u r e , one p o in t was emphasized by se ve ra l o f th e w r it e r s . I t was th e f a c t th a t placem ent had to be o f paramount concern to p r o p r ie ta r y schools t h a t wanted to s ta y 1n e x is te n c e . They In d ic a te d th a t th e lif e b lo o d o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools was t h e i r a b i l i t y to f in d jo b s f o r t h e i r g ra d u a te s . T h is p o in t a ls o proved to be an Issue o f s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between the p r o p r ie ta r y schools and community c o lle g e s in t h is s tu d y . F o r ty - e ig h t (61 p e r c e n t) o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y school graduates re p o rte d 1n q u e s tio n n a ire Item 7 having "had a number o f In te rv ie w s arranged by school o f f i c i a l s , " w h ile o n ly seven (25 p e r c e n t) o f community c o lle g e graduates so re p o rte d . Using th e number o f In te rv ie w s as a c r i t e r i a f o r Im portance o f placem ent, the p o in t made In th e re v ie w o f l i t e r a t u r e on how Im p o rta n t p r o p r ie ta r y schools viewed placem ent was v e r if ie d 1n t h is s tu d y . H ypothesis 118 Number E ig h t was r e je c te d because p r o p r ie ta r y school graduates re c e iv e d more a s s is ta n c e from school placem ent o f f i c i a l s . H ypothesis Number S ix te e n : There 1s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­ ence 1n th e number o f p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e graduates who have changed jo b s s in c e le a v in g e le c tr o n ic s s c h o o l. The second s i g n if ic a n t Issue was th a t o f changing jo b s . Community c o lle g e graduates had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r In c id e n c e o f jo b change. Fourteen (66 p e r c e n t) o f community c o lle g e graduates r e p o r tin g In d ic a te d on q u e s tio n n a ire Item 19 th a t th e y "changed jo b s " w h ile tw e nty-se ven (40 p e r c e n t) o f th e r e p o r tin g p r o p r ie ta r y school graduates had done so. E ig h t o f th e fo u rte e n community c o lle g e graduates r e p o r tin g jo b changes In d ic a te d th a t th e y d id so f o r a " b e t t e r jo b " (Ite m 2 0 ). Eleven o f th e tw e nty-se ven p r o p r ie ta r y school graduates re p o rte d th a t th e y a ls o changed jo b s because th e y found a b e tt e r one. A lthough th e number o f community c o lle g e graduates changing jo b s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g re a te r than those from p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls , the m a jo r ity changed f o r a b e tt e r jo b . The combined t o t a l o f both typ es o f graduates showed th a t n in e te e n o f th e fo r ty - o n e l e f t f o r a b e tte r jo b . T h is showed th a t th e graduates had the p o te n tia l f o r upward m o b ilit y a f t e r I n i t i a l jo b placem ent. S p e c u la tio n on o th e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s a re d e s c rib e d la t e r 1n t h is c h a p te r. H ypothesis Number N in e te e n : There Is no s i g n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e between p r o p r ie ta r y school and community c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s school graduates 1n how th e y r a te t h e i r e le c tr o n ic s t r a in in g . 119 The t h i r d Item showing a s ig n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e was th e r a tin g th e graduates gave to th e t r a in in g th e y re c e iv e d . Seventeen (74 p e r c e n t) o f th e community c o lle g e graduates responding to q u e s tio n n a ire Item 22 gave t h e i r school an "above average o r h ig h e r" r a t in g w h ile tw e n ty -n in e (41 p e r c e n t) o f th e p r o p r ie ta r y school g ra du a tes a ls o ra te d t h e i r t r a in in g as "above average o r h ig h e r ." Convnunlty c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s graduates ra te d t h e i r t r a in in g h ig h e r than d id p r o p r ie ta r y school g ra d u a te s . However, a n o th e r p o in t w hich bears h ig h lig h t in g is th e f a c t th a t o n ly f i v e p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l o f both I n s t it u t io n s ra te d t h e i r t r a in in g "below a v e ra g e ." None o f e it h e r th e community c o lle g e o r p r o p r ie ta r y school g raduates ra te d t h e i r t r a in in g as "v e ry lo w ." T his would tend to lend credence to th e f a c t th a t both types o f I n s t it u t io n s appear to be doing a good jo b o f t r a in in g 1n th e eyes o f I t s g ra d u a te s . T h is h y p o th e s is should n o t be confused w ith H ypothesis Number T h irte e n w hich was a ls o r e la te d to r a t in g o f t r a in in g by g ra d u a te s. The responses to q u e s tio n n a ire Item 10 and t h e i r Im p lic a tio n s a re d iscu sse d l a t e r 1n t h is c h a p te r. O b serva tion s T h is s e c tio n d ea ls w ith In fo rm a tio n o u ts id e th e main h y p o th e s is . I t In c lu d e s sub-hypotheses one through s ix , tw e nty th ro u gh tw e n ty *tw o , th re e a d d itio n a l q u e s tio n s , and C ategory One In fo rm a tio n . C ategory One In fo rm a tio n a ls o h ig h lig h te d s e v e ra l p o in ts . F i r s t , p r o p r ie ta r y schools outnumbered community c o lle g e s 1n 120 M ichigan 182 to tw e n ty -n in e o r by b e tt e r than s ix to one. However, even though th e y h e ld t h is edge, t o t a l community c o lle g e e n r o l l ­ ments numbered 126,225 w h ile t o t a l p r o p r ie t a r y school e n ro llm e n ts numbered o n ly 37,310. Even though community c o lle g e s had a la r g e r t o t a l e n r o l l ­ ment, the number o f g ra du a tes from e le c tr o n ic s programs conducted by p r o p r ie ta r y schools was much la r g e r . P r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls have been shown to be o f a s p e c ia lty n a tu re . They conducted few er d if f e r e n t types o f programs than d id community c o lle g e s . By f a r the v a s t m a jo r ity o f p r o p r ie ta r y schools o ffe r e d le s s than f i v e types o f programs. The m a jo r ity o f th e community c o lle g e s o ffe r e d between tw e n ty and f o r t y program s. Only f i v e community c o lle g e s o ffe re d as few as te n to fo u rte e n program s. T his d e f i n i t e l y proved th a t when comparing program o f f e r in g s , p r o p r ie ta r y schools were more lim ite d 1n scope than community c o lle g e s . F in a lly , p r o p r ie ta r y schools 1n M ichigan were 1n business to make money. Of the 182 doing business 1n th e S ta te , s e v e n ty - e ig h t were owned by In d iv id u a ls and f i f t y - e i g h t by e d u c a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s . T h is amounted to a lm o s t 75 p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l . Only tw e n ty -tw o o f th e t o t a l were c la s s if ie d as n o n - p r o f it . O u tside th e main h y p o th e s is none o f the C ategory Two In fo rm a tio n sub-hypotheses show any s t a t i s t i c a l d iffe r e n c e s . T h is stu d y does, however, p ro v id e a d d itio n a l In fo rm a tio n on e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates from both typ es o f p o st-se co n d a ry I n s t i t u t i o n s . The m a jo r ity o f e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates a re tw e n ty f i v e and und er, s in g le , and a tte n d f u l l - t i m e day s c h o o l. If 127 comparisons were made o f o th e r c u rrlc u lu m s t h is m ig h t n o t prove to be tr u e . Perhaps one o f th e reasons f o r these fa c ts can be a t t r ib u t e d to th e c u rric u lu m I t s e l f . E le c tr o n ic s 1s a f i e l d which Is g o in g through an Immense number o f changes. Since th e advent o f th e t r a n s is t o r , new d is c o v e rie s have been made so r a p id ly 1n t h is f i e l d t h a t In fo rm a tio n 1s grow ing by le a p s and bounds. W ith in fo rm a tio n being 1n such a s ta te o f f l u x in t h is in d u s tr y , th e re are many new and h ig h ly p u b lic iz e d o p p o r tu n itie s . T his has re s u lte d 1n an a t t r a c t iv e m arket f o r young people d e s ir in g jo b s . E le c tro n ic s 1s t r a d i t i o n a l l y th o u g h t o f as a h ig h school v o c a tio n a l s u b je c t. However, o f th e p a r tic ip a n t s r e p o r tin g 1n t h is s tu d y , o n ly 17 p er c e n t o f th e t o t a l In d ic a te d th a t th e y had been e n ro lle d 1n a v o c a tio n a l o r te c h n ic a l high school program (S u b-hyp o the sis Number S ix ) . The s u p p o s itio n th a t c o lle g e p re ­ p a ra to ry stu d e n ts cannot ta ke v o c a tio n a l courses 1n high school because th e re 1s no way to f i t them In to t h e i r schedules 1s s u b s ta n tia te d by t h is s tu d y . The names o f those who were In th e random sample were a l l examined as a r e s u lt o f th e responses on th e q u e s tio n o f sex (Sub­ h yp o th e sis Number Two). were m ale. A l l o f those who responded In d ic a te d th e y E xam ination o f th e names o f th e non-responders showed t h a t th e y , to o , had names w hich appeared to be m a s c u lin e . I t should a ls o be noted th a t w ith b u t one e x c e p tio n , a l l those responding from both I n s t it u t io n s were h ig h school graduates o r b e tt e r (S u b -h yp o th e sis Number F iv e ) . P r o p r ie ta r y sch o o ls drew 122 some c r it ic i s m 1 n th e re vie w o f l i t e r a t u r e e n r o llin g u n q u a lifie d c a n d id a te s . w ith re g a rd to i.he 1 r They a lle g e d ly e n r o lle d many ca n d id a te s who had never com pleted h ig h s c h o o l. The r e s u lts o f t h is stu d y In d ic a te th e c o n tra ry to be tr u e . A n o th e r o b s e rv a tio n w o rth n o tin g Is th e f a c t th a t a t o t a l o f tw e nty-se ven graduates ( e ig h t from community c o lle g e s and n in e te e n from p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls ) o b ta in e d work 1 n a n o th e r f i e l d (S u b -h yp o th e sis Number Seven). I t 1s I r o n ic th a t 25 p e r c e n t o f those responding had taken o th e r work a f t e r having prepared f o r the e le c tr o n ic s f i e l d . One p o s s ib le e x p la n a tio n c o u ld be the h ir in g c y c le 1 n In d u s tr y w hich c o u ld r e f l e c t a downturn 1n th e economy. T h is 1s. however, s p e c u la tio n and c o u ld be a fo c u s o f I n t e r e s t f o r fu t u r e s tu d ie s . On th e q u e s tio n o f s t a r t in g s a la ry (S u b -h yp o th e sis Number T w e lve ), fo r t y - tw o (49 per c e n t) o u t o f e ig h t y - s ix responding In d ic a te d th a t th e y made le s s than $7,000 per y e a r. Only th ir t e e n (15 p er c e n t) In d ic a te d t h a t th e y made more than $ 10,000 p e r y e a r. T his would tend to v e r i f y one o f th re e th in g s : 1. Low paying jo b s f o r those e n te rin g th e e le c tr o n ic s fie ld . 2. R eluctance to d iv u lg e s a la r y In fo rm a tio n . 3. More concern o v e r lo n g -ra n g e advancement p o s s i b i l i t i e s r a th e r than s t a r t in g s a la r y . The l a t t e r r a tio n a le f o r jo b acceptance (S u b -h yp o th e sis Number Ten) was g iv e n by some o f th e resp on d en ts. In d ic a te th a t 1 t was a t le a s t p a r t ly re s p o n s ib le . T h is m ig h t 123 E xam ination o f th e reasons f o r ta k in g th e jo b show some o th e r In te r e s tin g s t a t i s t i c s . Those ta k in g a jo b because o f f r in g e b e n e fits , r e p u ta tio n o f th e company and s a la ry t o t a l e le v e n . S ix o f th e e le ve n checked money as t h e i r reason f o r ta k in g the jo b . The s in g le c a te g o ry , "More Chances f o r Advancement," was checked by f i f t e e n resp on d en ts. T h is 1s an In d ic a tio n th a t th e re 1s more lo n g -ra n g e I n t e r e s t on th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f fu tu r e advancement r a th e r than an emphasis f o r s t a r t in g s a la r y . Even though s a la r ie s are n o t h ig h , a demand tre n d appears to e x is t . Of th e 104 responding to th e q u e s tio n on th e tim e re q u ire d to g e t a jo b (S u b-hyp o the sis Number Seven), t h i r t y - e i g h t In d ic a te d th a t th ey o b ta in e d work b e fo re g ra d u a tio n . T h is m ig h t seem a stra n g e paradox; t h i r t y - e i g h t pla ce d b e fo re g ra d u a tio n and tw e nty-se ven o b ta in e d work 1n a d if f e r e n t f i e l d . However, the s a la r ie s being what th e y were c o u ld have been th e m o tiv a tin g fa c t o r on t h is d e c is io n to s h i f t v o c a tio n a f t e r t r a in in g . A n a ly s is o f Item 24, 1n w hich respondents r e p o r t t h e i r jo b c la s s if ic a t io n s , shows no d ls c e rn a b le tre n d . I t s tr o n g ly suggests th a t a w ide v a r ie ty o f jo b s were a v a ila b le , b u t th e s a la ry was n o t h ig h enough to a t t r a c t th e graduates a t th a t tim e . There were n in e people who In d ic a te d th a t school d id n o t pre pa re them a de qu a tely f o r th e work perform ed (S u b -h yp o th e sis Number T h ir te e n ) . On th e o th e r hand, a lm o st an equal number ( e ig h t) In d ic a te d th a t th e y were o v e rtra in e d f o r th e ta sks re q u ire d . The v a s t m a jo r ity f a l l In to between these two extrem es. T h is would tend to In d ic a te th a t both types o f p o st-se co n d a ry schools are 124 p re p a rin g t h e i r graduates to handle th e m a jo r ity o f th e ta s k s th e y w i l l e n c o u n te r. T h is response a ls o h e lp s I l l u s t r a t e th e Im portance o f th e p o in ts m entioned w ith response to Item 25. O ffe r in g t h e i r su gg estio n s on o th e r c o u rs e s , t h 1 r t y - s 1x proposed th a t s tu d e n ts 1 n school should ta k e courses re la te d to s o lid s ta te e le c tr o n ic s . Because th e tre n d 1n In d u s try Is tow ard m in ia t u r iz a t io n , t h is lends credence to those s u g g e s tio n s . S o lid s ta te e le c tr o n ic s p ro v id e s th e c a p a c ity f o r comprehension o f how m in ia t u r iz a tio n 1 s both fe a s ib le and p r a c t ic a l. Of those who changed jo b s , a p p ro x im a te ly 50 p e r c e n t (n in e te e n ) d id so because th e y g o t a b e tte r jo b . O nly two people changed jo b s because th e y d is lik e d t h e i r o ld jo b s . However, when asked to r a te t h e i r p re s e n t jo b s a t is f a c t io n (S u b -h yp o th e sis Number E ig h te e n ), th ir t e e n people ra te d 1 t below average o r lo w e r. W ith th a t k in d o f r a t in g , i t 1s n a tu ra l to e x p e ct a number o f a d d itio n a l jo b changes w i l l o ccu r 1n th e f u tu r e . Because o f the number o f responses to th e q u e s tio n about a d d itio n a l courses needed, 1 t would be a n a tu ra l e x p e c ta tio n to see t h is r e fle c te d 1n Item 14. A p p ro x im a te ly o n e -th 1 rd o f th e g raduates ( t h i r t y - th re e ) In d ic a te d th e y were ta k in g a d d itio n a l s tu d ie s . them s a id th e y were a tte n d in g a p r o p r ie t a r y s c h o o l. None o f T h is I l l u s t r a t e s th e f a c t th a t p r o p r ie ta r y schools have such lim it e d course o ffe r in g s th a t l i t t l e can be gained from f u r t h e r atte nd an ce a f t e r co m p le tin g th e I n i t i a l program. I f graduates from such a program want to c o n tin u e t h e i r e d u c a tio n o r upgrade t h e i r know­ ledge th ey must seek o th e r sources to meet t h e i r needs. 125 The la s t o f the c h e c k o ff q u e s tio n s (S ub-hypothesis Nun*bor N ineteen) asked tne graduates to r a te t h e ir e le c tr o n ic s t r a in in g . Not one ra te d t h e ir school as "v e ry low " and o n ly f iv e ( f i v e per c e n t) ra te d 1 t "below a v e ra g e ." I t would be an In te r e s tin g com parison to see 1 f o th e r s c h o o ls , from h ig h school to u n i­ v e r s it ie s , would g e t such a r a t in g . T h is tendency toward high r a tin g s speaks v e ry h ig h ly o f the t r a in in g re c e iv e d a t both these 1 n s tf tu tlo n s . To th e q u e s tio n w hich asked f o r " a d d itio n a l convnents th o u g h t to be Im p o rta n t" (Ite m 2 6 ), the v a s t m a jo r ity o f responses d e a lt w ith d e fic ie n c ie s In program , s c h o o l, s t a f f o r needs d is ­ covered a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . Only two people responded w ith any p o s itiv e comment about t h e i r t r a in in g . Reconwendatlons Schools s h o u ld e s ta b lis h a v ia b le fo llo w -u p program on I t s g ra d u a te s . The p ro d u cts o f t h e i r programs sh ou ld be tapped as a v ia b le feedback s o u rc e . A l l to o o f t e n , sch oo ls c o n tin u e t h e i r program o ffe r in g s w ith l i t t l e o r no m o d ific a tio n . T his 1s why some have become sta g n a n t o r l o s t c o n ta c t w ith th e p re s e n t needs o f th e In d u s try th ey s e rv e . I f th e y would c o n ta c t t h e ir g raduates on a r e g u la r b a s is , n e g a tiv e comments c o u ld be p u t In to c o n te x t and perhaps used to e f f e c t some needed changes. The fo llo w - u p s tu d ie s s h o u ld be s e q u e n tia l In n a tu re , such a s , th re e , f i v e , and te n ye a rs a f t e r g ra d u a tio n . Placement a s s is ta n c e proved to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t f o r th e two types o f s c h o o ls . P r o p r ie ta r y school graduates re c e iv e d 126 f;ore a ssista n ce fr om placement o f f i c i a l s than c o in u n lty c o lle g e graduates. The c la im about placement being the life b lo o d o f p ro ­ p r ie ta r y schools was s u b s ta n tia te d in th is s tu d y . T h e ir placement record was one o f the Items which allow ed them to compete w ith community c o lle g e s . Since placem ent techniques are one o f the p i l l a r s o f s tre n g th f o r p r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls , why n ot examine them more thoroughly? The r e s u lts o f such an In v e s tig a tio n could prove to be h e lp fu l to placement o f f i c i a l s 1n the p u b lic school s e c to r. The number o f conm unlty c o lle g e e le c tr o n ic s graduates who changed jo b s was s ig n i f i c a n t l y h ig h e r than p r o p r ie ta r y school g ra du a tes. T his s ig n ific a n c e m ig h t have been a ttr ib u te d to se ve ra l fa c to r s , y e t , some o f the p o s s i b il i t i e s would have been pure s p e c u la tio n . S ub-hypothesis Number E ig h t In d ic a te d th a t community c o lle g e graduates re c e iv e d le s s placement a s s is ta n c e . A s tro n g p o s s i b il i t y e x is ts th a t e n tr y - le v e l jo b s o b ta in e d by them were le s s d e s ir a b le . T h is was f u r t h e r s u b s ta n tia te d by the f a c t th a t more than 50 p e r c e n t o f the conm unlty c o lle g e graduates changing jo b s In d ic a te d th a t th e y changed f o r b e tte r jo b s . More a s s is ta n c e should be g ive n to conm unlty c o lle g e graduates 1n fin d in g t h e ir jo b s . I f they were b e tte r matched w ith t h e ir job s d u rin g th e I n i t i a l phase o f jo b placem ent, perhaps few er jo b changes would r e s u lt . Convnunlty c o lle g e graduates ra te d t h e i r e le c tr o n ic s tr a in in g s ig n if ic a n t ly h ig h e r than p r o p r ie ta r y school g raduates. N e ith e r group, however, gave t h e i r in s t it u t io n s low ra tin g s In th is c a te g o ry . As a cross-che ck and to g a in added In s ig h t to th is q u e s tio n . 127 Sub-hypothesis Number T h irte e n (Ite m 10) was made. Here the graduates were asked to ra te t h e ir tr a in in g f o r the work a c tu a lly perform ed. One co^nrunity c o lle g e and e ig h t p ro p r ie ta r y school graduates In d ic a te d th a t they were n ot prepared ade qu a tely, w h ile o ver 90 per ce n t o f the combined graduates in d ic a te d th a t t h e ir schools tra in e d them f o r most req uirem e nts. One way to Improve on th a t percentage was shown in the responses to Item 25. There were t h i r t y - s i x responses to th a t Item suggesting a d d itio n a l s o lid s ta te e le c tr o n ic s courses. Doth types o f schools sh o u ld , th e r e fo r e , examine t h e i r c u rric u lu m o ffe r in g s . Since graduates sa id th ey needed more s o lid s ta te co urses, these should be added to those programs where d e fic ie n c ie s are noted. A com plete la c k o f fem ales e n ro lle d was noted on the q u e s tio n d e a lin g w ith th e sex o f gra du a tes. T h is la c k o f females should be a m a tte r o f concern s in c e T i t l e I I o f th e V ocational Amendments o f 1976 emphasize the e lim in a tio n o f sex b ia s and s te re o ty p in g . The r e g is t r a r s , c o u n s e lo rs , and r e c r u ite r s should pay c lo s e a tte n tio n to th a t f a c t . Host e le c tr o n ic s firm s employ women to assemble components because o f t h e i r d e x te r it y s k i l l s , y e t , when I t comes to tr a in in g e le c tr o n ic s te c h n ic ia n s , none were found 1n t h is s tu d y . A c tiv e e f f o r t s should be made to r e c r u it women In to t h is f i e l d . F uture S tudies The r e s u lts o f t h is stu dy have j u s t touched the t i p o f the Ic e b e rg . The p r o p r ie ta r y school m arket, the s c h o o ls , t h e i r management and f i n a l l y , t h e i r graduates a re a l i t t l e known commodity. So l i t t l e 128 1s known a bout thorn by the g e n e ra l p u b lic t h a t , in f a c t , most people n o t a tte n d in g one a re n o t even aware o f t h e i r e x is te n c e . T his s tu d y a tte m p te d to shed sorje l i g h t on th e g ra du a tes o f p r o p r ie t a r y sch o o ls th ro u g h a com parison w ith community c o lle g e g ra d u a te s . The p ro d u c ts o f b o th programs have many s i m i l a r i t i e s ; however, more re s e a rc h 1 s s t i l l needed and o n ly then w i l l good com parisons be p o s s ib le . Whenever a s tu d y In v o lv in g p r o p r ie t a r y s c h o o ls a n d /o r community c o lle g e s 1 s u n d e rta k e n , s e v e ra l Item s sh ou ld be c a r e f u lly o bse rve d . F i r s t , 1 t 1s Im p o rta n t th a t th e l i s t o f p r o p r ie ta r y sc h o o ls 1s one w hich has been approved by the S ta te Departm ent o r s i m i l a r s t a t e r e g u la tin g agency. I f th e re Is no r e g u la tin g agency, as I s th e case In some s t a t e s , th e p i t f a l l o f s e le c tin g o n ly from a 11 s t p u b lis h e d by th e s e lf - r e g u la t in g a c c r e d itin g a g e ncie s s h o u ld be a v o id e d . The m a jo r it y o f p r o p r ie t a r y s c h o o ls a re n o t members o f th e se a c c r e d itin g a g e n c ie s . T h is s im p le p re c a u tio n th en e lim in a te s one o f th e m a jo r p 1 t f a l l s - - t h a t o f s e le c tin g from a l i s t c o n ta in in g o n ly 10 p e r c e n t to 15 p e r c e n t o f th e s c h o o ls o p e ra tin g In a s t a t e . In th e case o f community c o lle g e s , p r e lim in a r y I n v e s t i­ g a tio n s h o u ld be done to In s u re t h a t adequate numbers o f s tu d e n ts a re a v a ila b le f o r th e s tu d y . One o f th e s u rp ris e s encountered 1n th e pro cess o f c o n d u c tin g t h is s tu d y was th e lim it e d number o f c o rm u n lty c o lle g e e le c t r o n ic s g ra d u a te s from th e two p a r t ic ip a t in g s c h o o ls . F ig u re 6 p o in te d o u t t h a t community c o lle g e s o ffe r e d a range o f te n to f i f t y - f i v e program s. P r o p r ie ta r y s c h o o ls , on th e 129 o th e r hand, o ffe r e d somewhere between one and n in e te e n p ro g ra m w ith o ve r 80 p e r c e n t o f f e r in g le s s than f i v e . T h e re fo re , even though the average p o p u la tio n o f p r o p r ie t a r y sch oo ls 1n M ich ig a n 1s o n ly 205 s tu d e n ts , these a re c o n c e n tra te d 1n fe v e r f i e ld s o f s tu d y . Community c o lle g e s , however, may have sparse numbers In c e r ta in c u rrlc u lu m s even though t h e i r t o t a l p o p u la tio n m ig h t seem la r g e . A n o th e r problem In d e a lin g w ith c o m p a ra tive s tu d ie s on p r o p r ie t a r y s c h o o ls re v o lv e s around t h e i r d e s ir e to keep In fo rm a tio n c o n f id e n t ia l. Because I t Is a h ig h ly c o m p e titiv e b u s in e s s , they do n o t w is h c la s s if ie d in fo r m a tio n to become p u b lic knowledge. They e s p e c ia lly do n o t w is h to sh are s tu d e n t p o p u la tio n In fo rm a tio n w ith t h e i r c o m p e tito rs . F or t h a t re a s o n , e v e ry e f f o r t must be made n o t o n ly to com ply w ith t h i s w is h , b u t to g ua ra n te e 1 t. T h e re fo re , when s e t t in g th e s iz e o f th e sam ple, one th in g s h o u ld be rem em bered-th e p e rce n ta g e used s h o u ld n o t be s p e c ifie d 1n th e f i n a l r e p o r t I f c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Is to be m a in ta in e d . I t Is a s im p le m a tte r to b a c k tra c k and a c t u a lly d e te rm in e th e s iz e o f th e p o p u la tio n In q u e s tio n and th u s g iv e away c o n f id e n t ia l In fo rm a tio n . Community c o lle g e s a re p u b lic I n s t i t u t i o n s and, as such, a re p la g ue d w ith a n o th e r p ro ble m . Because th e y a re " s tu d ie d to d e a th ," th e y a re sometimes v e ry r e lu c t a n t to p a r t ic ip a t e In any new s tu d ie s . T h e re fo re , i t 1s Im p e ra tiv e t h a t any new re s e a rc h I n v e s t ig a tio n be c a r e f u ll y th o u g h t o u t , w e ll docunented, and t r u l y J u s tifie d . O th e rw is e , s u p p o rt and c o o p e ra tio n w i l l be p a i n f u l l y d i f f i c u l t to e x t r a c t even though 1 t meets a need. 130 I f t h is s tu d y wore to bo re p e a te d , the te lephone would be the main in fo r m a tio n g a th e rin g t o o l, However, even then the re s e a rc h e r sh o u ld be fo re w a rn e d ; g ra d u a te s a re h ig h ly m o b ile . P a r tic ip a n ts In t h is s tu d y moved to many lo c a tio n s in th e U n ite d S ta te s and one even moved o u ts id e t h is c o n tin e n t. Some fa m ilie s a re w i l l i n g to d is c lo s e new address In fo rm a tio n o r phone numbers o n ly a f t e r a le n g th y e x p la n a tio n by th e c a l l e r . F i n a l ly , s t i l l o th e r s , o fte n ra n g in g above 50 p e r c e n t o f th e sam ple, c a n n o t be lo c a te d w ith any re a s o n a b le e f f o r t . WATS l i n e U nless one has access to a (W ide Area Telephone S e rv ic e ) a c o s t ly phone b i l l s h o u ld be a n t ic ip a t e d . A d d itio n a l s tu d ie s s h o u ld be done to compare o th e r a spe cts o f b o th typ e s o f p o s t-s e c o n d a ry s c h o o ls . These s tu d ie s c o u ld in c lu d e a d d it io n a l Item s on th e g ra d u a te s , c u r r ic u lu m , te a c h in g s t a f f , d ro p o u t r a t e , reasons f o r le a v in g s c h o o l, and th e typ es o f s tu d e n ts e n te r in g t h e i r p rogram s. There has been some specu­ l a t i o n on th e p a r t o f e d u c a to rs t h a t s tu d e n ts le a v in g programs (d ro p o u ts ) p r i o r to g ra d u a tio n m ig h t r e a l l y be advance p la ce m e n ts. F u tu re s tu d ie s c o u ld be done to v e r i f y o r d is c o u n t t h a t l i n e o f re a s o n in g and d e te rm in e th e r e a l needs o f d ro p o u ts . A n o th e r p o s s ib le s tu d y c o u ld be done on th e w hole q u e s tio n o f m i l i t a r y s c h o o ls p re p a rin g e le c t r o n ic s te c h n ic ia n s , o r f o r th a t m a tte r any o th e r s p e c i a li s t s , f o r c i v i l i a n Jo bs. No a tte m p t was made 1 n t h i s s tu d y to a s c e r ta in w h e th e r o r n o t any o f th e g ra du a tes p a r t ic ip a t e d 1 n m i l i t a r y program s b e fo re o r a f t e r a tte n d in g e le c t r o n ic s s c h o o l. 131 Personal O b se rva tio n s and T h e ir Imp! ic a tlo n s A lth o u g h t h is stu d y was done 1n M ic h ig a n , th e re a re two i r p l ic a t l o n s f o r o th e r lo c a le s around the U n ite d S ta te s . The need f o r fo llo w - u p s tu d ie s cannot be emphasized s tr o n g ly enough. There Is some doubt a bout th e v a lu e o f re tu rn s th e f i r s t y e a r a f t e r g ra d u a tio n because o f th e "h a lo e f f e c t " o f J u s t co m p le tin g t h e i r program . The Im portance o f r e tu rn s th re e , f i v e , and te n ye ars a f t e r g ra d u a tio n , how ever, w ould seem to be more m ea nin gful because o f th e absence o f th e th r e a t o f In t im id a t io n . The la c k o f fem ales e n r o lle d 1n th e e le c tr o n ic s programs s tu d ie d in d ic a te s a problem o f sex s te r e o ty p in g . Uomen have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been employed f o r assem bling because o f t h e i r d e x t e r it y and m a n ip u la tio n s k i l l s w ith e le c t r o n ic components b u t th e y a re n o t employed as te c h n ic ia n s . The V o c a tio n a l Amendments o f 1976 have taken a s tro n g s ta n c e a g a in s t such sex b ia s . E xam ination o f e le c tr o n ic s programs s h o u ld be u nd erta ken to d ete rm in e th e e x te n t o f th e b ia s . Summary The r e s u lt s o f e x a m in a tio n o f C ategory One In fo rm a tio n , open-ended q u e s tio n s , and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is o f tw e n ty -tw o su**« hypotheses r e s u lte d 1n s e v e ra l f in d in g s . F i r s t , th e re was no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e between M ich ig a n p r o p r ie t a r y sch o o ls and community c o lle g e s In p re p a rin g e le c tr o n ic s school g raduates f o r th e w o rld o f w o rk. In t h i s d is s e r t a t io n , o f a l l th e Item s exam ined, o n ly th re e proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 132 1. The p r o p r ie t a r y s c h o o l e le c t r o n ic s school g ra d u a te s re c e iv e d more a s s is ta n c e from school pla ce m e nt o f f i c i a l s th an d id comm unity c o lle g e e le c t r o n ic s school g ra d u a te s . 2. C o m u n lty c o lle g e g ra d u a te s had a h ig h e r in c id e n c e o f jo b change th a n d id p r o p r ie t a r y s c h o o l g ra d u a te s . 3. Community c o lle g e g ra d u a te s r a te d t h e i r t r a in in g h ig h e r th a n p r o p r ie t a r y sch o o l g ra d u a te s . C a te g o ry One In fo r m a tio n h ig h lig h t e d th e f a c t t h a t p r o p r ie t a r y s c h o o ls outnum ber com m unity c o lle g e s 1n M ic h ig a n 182 to tw e n ty - n in e ; had 3 7 ,3 1 0 e n r o llm e n ts conpared to 126.225 f o r c o n rtu n lty c o lle g e s ; and th e m a jo r it y o f f e r e d le s s th a n f i v e ty p e s o f program s compared to between tw e n ty and f o r t y f o r convnunlty c o lle g e s . The m a jo r it y o f th e g ra d u a te s 1n t h i s s tu d y were tw e n ty * f i v e and u n d e r, s in g le and had a tte n d e d f u l l - t i m e day s c h o o l. A ll th o se 1 n th e s tu d y w ere m ale a n d , e x c e p t f o r one re s p o n d e n t, a l l o f them w ere h ig h s c h o o l g ra d u a te s o r b e t t e r . T h is s tu d y h ig h lig h t e d th e Im p o rta n c e o f th e need fo r f o llo w - u p s tu d ie s to I d e n t i f y pro ble m s w ith th e sch o o l and i t s c u r r lc u lu n . S in c e th e g ra d u a te s th e m se lve s were In th e b e s t p o s it io n to s p e c ify re q u ire m e n ts a f t e r c o m p le tin g t h e i r p ro g ra m s, why n o t ta p them as a v ia b le fe e d b a ck source? BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1971-7? Annual R ep o rt o f P r iv a te Trade S c h o o ls . Business Schools and i n s t i t u t e s '. Departm ent o f E d u c a tio n , S ta te o f M ichigan"TiduVt and C o n tin u in g E d u ca tio n S e rv ic e , S e p t., 1973. B e lit s k y , A. K a rv c y . P r iv a te Vo c a tio n a l Schools and T h e ir S tu d e n ts : L im ite d O b je c 1 1ve s , U n lim ite d O p po rtun 1 Cambr1dge, Ma. : Schenkman P u b lis h in g Company, I n c . , 1969. Boros age, Law rence. Co tm iu n lty C o lle g e s In M ic h ig a n . I d e n t if ie d by County . P r e lim in a ry R e p o rt. Prepared f o r : M ichigan BOS/ CEP P la n n in g - P r o je c t, D epartm ent o f L a b o r, 1973. . P r iv a te Schools 1n M ic h ig a n . I d e n t if ie d by County , P r e lim in a ry R e p o rt. P repared f o r : M ich ig a n BOS/CEP P la n n in g P r o je c t , Depar tmen t o f L a b o r, 1973. B r ic k , M ic h a e l. Forum and Focus f o r th e J u n io r C o lle g e Movement. New Y o rk: Bureau o f P u b lic a tio n s o ? te a c h e rs C o lle g e , 1964. B u rck, C h a rle s G. "S ch o o ls Where S tu d e n ts Pay to Learn P aying J o b s ." F o rtu n e . December, 1975. C la r k , H a ro ld F . , and S lo a n , H a ro ld S. Classrooms on Main S t r e e t . New Y ork: I n s t i t u t e f o r I n s t r u c t io n a l Im provem ent, In c . Teachers C o lle g e P re s s , Teachers C o lle g e , 1966. C onover, W. J . P r a c tic a l N on p arm e trlc S t a t i s t i c s . John W ile y A Sons, I n c . , 1971. New Y o rk: C o r n f ie ld , J . , and T ukey, J . W. "Average Values o f Mean Squares In F a c t o r ia ls . " A nnals o f M athem atical S t a t i s t i c s . V. 27 (1 9 5 6 ). Emplo y e rs and Young A d u lts Look a t V o c a tio n a l E d u c a tio n . Columbus, O h io : Ohio A d v is o ry C o u n cil f o r V o c a tio n a l E d u c a tio n , 1973. Evans, R u p e rt N. F ou n da tion s o f V o c a tio n a l E d u c a tio n . Columbus, O h io : C h a rle s £. M e r r i l l P u b lis h in g C o ., ) 9 / l . . "S chool f o r S c h o o lin g 's Sake: The C u rre n t R ole o f th e Secondary School In O c c u p a tio n a l P re p a ra tio n , The T r a n s itio n fro m School to W o rk." R e p o rt based on th e P rin c e to n Manpower 134 135 Symposium, Princeton, N. J . , May 9-10, 1968, quoted by Grant Venn, Man. Education and Manpower. Evans, Rupert N .; Mangum, Garth L .; and Pragan, O tto. "Education fo r Employment, The Background and P o te ntia l o f the 1968 Vocational Education Amendments." A J o in t P ublication o f the In s titu te o f Labor and In d u s tria l R elations, The Uni­ v e rs ity o f Michigan, Wayne State U n iv e rs ity and the National Manpower P olicy Task Force, May 1969, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Farquhar, W illiam W. D irections fo r Thesis Preparation. Counseling, Personnel Services, College o f Education, Michigan State U n iv e rs ity . F ulton, Richard. P roprietary Schools. London: Encyclopedia o f Educational Research) The Macmillan Company, C o llle r Macmlllan Ltd. General Social and Economic C h a ra c te ris tic s . Michigan. U. S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Census o f Population, 1970. Glnzberg, E ll. S trategies fo r Educational Reform. Distinguished Lecture Series No. 1. The Center fo r Vocational and Technical Education, The Ohio State U n iv e rs ity , Columbus, Ohio, 19721973. Gross, Carl H., and Chandler, Charles C. The H istory o f American Education through Readings. Boston! 0. C. Heath and Company, 1964. HI11way, Tyrus. The American Two-Year College. and Brothers, 1958. New York: Harper Hodgklnson, Harold L. "P ro p rie ta ry In s titu tio n s : P ro fita b le Lesson?" Chronicle o f Higher Education. January 29, 1973. Jacobson, Robert L. "IRS Cautions A ccrediting Groups on Accepting P ro p rie ta ry Members." Chronicle o f Higher Education. January 29, 1973. Johnson, Susan E. P ro prieta ry Education, a Search o f the L ite ra tu re . Berkley, C a l i f . : the Center fo r Research and Development in Higher Education, U n iv e rs ity o f C a lifo rn ia , 1974. L a rkin , Timothy* "P ro p rie ta ry Schools: Manpower. March, 1973. "Making I t 1n the Learning Trade." 1969. How Do They Measure Up." Business Week. September 6 . 136 MLMiihon, Gordon G. C u rrjc u lu m Oovelopment In T rade and I n d u s t r ia l and Te c h n ic a 1 Ed oca t 1o n . Col ur::b u s , O h io : C h a rle s E. ~ M e r r i l l P u b lis h in g C o ., 1972. M ich ig a n S t a t i s t i c a l A b s t r a c t . 9 th E d it io n . Na t io n a l Rep o r t f o r T ra in in g and Deve lo p m ent. Am erican S o c ie ty f o r T r a in in g and D evelopm ent, V o l. 2 , No. 13 (O cto b e r 1, 1976). P a lin c h a k , R o b e rt. The E v o lu tio n o f th e Community C o lle g e . N .J .: The Scarecrow^ P re s s » I n c . , 1973. M etuchen, P a lin c h a k , R o b e rt, and M oore. W illia m , J r . A g a in s t th e Odds. San F ra n c is c o : Jossey>Bass I n c . , P u b lis h e r s , lT 7 0 . P o t t e r , R o b e rt E. The Stream o f A m erican E d u c a tio n . Am erican Book Company, 196?. New Y o rk: P r o p r ie ta r y V o c a tio n a l S c h o o ls . H e a rin g s b e fo re a Subcom m ittee o f th e Com m ittee on Government O p e ra tio n s , House o f P re re s e n ta t i v e s , N in e ty - T h ir d C on g re ss, Second S e s s io n , J u ly 16, 17, 24 and 2 5 , 1974, U. S. Government P r in t in g O f f ic e , W a sh in g ton ; 1974. P u b lic a tio n s Manual o f th e A m erican P s y c h o lo g ic a l A s s o c ia tio n . 2nd E d it io n . Roueche, John £ .» and K ir k , R. Wade. C a tc h in g Up: Remedial Edu­ c a t io n . San F ra n c is c o : Jo ssey-B ass P u b lis h e r s , 1973. S c h a e fe r, C a rl J . , and Kaufman, Jacob J . “ New D ir e c tio n s f o r V o c a tio n a l E d u c a tio n ." A r e p o r t p re p a re d f o r th e M assachusetts A d v is o ry C o u n c il on E d u c a tio n , 0. C. Heath and Company, L e x in g to n , M a ., 1971. Shoemaker, E llw o o d A . "The C h a lle n g e o f P r o p r ie ta r y S c h o o ls .“ Change, V o l. 5, No. 6 (Summer 1 9 7 6 ). T h o rn to n , James W. The Community Ju nio r* C o lle g e . John W ile y and Sons, In c .T i9 6 0 . New Y o rk : Venn, G ra n t. Man. E d u c a tio n and Manpower. W a sh in g ton , O .C .: The Am erican A s s o c ia tio n o f School A d m in is tr a to r s , 1970. Wleber, James L. MThe Development of the Junior College In the U n ite d S ta te s .** U n p u b lis h e d p a p e r a t M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s it y * 1964. W ilm s, W e llfo r d W. "A New Look a t P r o p r ie ta r y S c h o o ls ." Summer 1973. Change, APPENOICES 137 APPENDIX I PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN Number Teaching Type of School This F 8artend1ng 0 Bible 0 Broadcasting 3 Business 31 Data Processing 20 Dog Grooming 3 Floral Design 4 Income Tax 7 Keypunch Only 13 Medical - Related 2 Miscellaneous 9 Modeling 10 Motel Management 2 Real Estate 9 Sales Training 7 Security 0 Sewing & Tailoring 6 Truck Driver Training 2 38 Trade - Industrial 6 Tutoring Total Not*: 172 1971-72 Annual Report of Private Trade Schools, Business Schools and Institutes, Department of Education, State of Michigan. 138 APPENDIX I I LICENSE REQUIREMENTS OF PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas C a lifo rn ia Colorado Connecticut Delaware F lo rid a Georgia Hawaii Idaho I l l i n o is Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota M ississipp i Missouri Montana Nebrasks Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island License Required Did Not Reply Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Did Not Reply Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Did Not Reply Did Not Reply Yes Did Not Reply Yes No Did Not Reply Yes Yes Did Not Reply Yes Did Not Reply Did Not Reply Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Did Not Reply 139 Date Approval o r Law Passed 1964 1971 1965 1964 1966 1972 No Date Given 1972 1955 1963 1955 1971 1972 1972 1972 1972 No Date Given 1943 1972 1943 1963 1973 (Rev.) 1935 1943 1970 1970 1937 1947 140 State South C a ro lin a S outh Dakota Tennessee Te*as Utah Verm ont V i r g i n ia W ashington West V i r g i n ia W is c o n s in Wyoming Note L ic e n s e R e q u ire d Yes Yes D id Not R eply Yes Yes No Yes D id N ot R e p l y Yes O ld N ot R e p ly Yes Date A p p ro va l o r Law Passed 1971 1966 1972 1921 1971 No Date G iven 1957 The above re p re s e n ts th e sivnmary o f resp o n se s to a p o ll o f th e 50 S ta te D e p a rtm e n t's o f E d u c a tio n co n d u c te d by Stephen R. M a tt In M arch, 1974. APPENDIX II! COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN E n ro llm e n ts o f F u l1 and P a rt-tim e S tudents School Name Alpena Community C o lle g e 903 Bay DeNoc Community C o lle g e 904 C oncordia L u th e ra n J u n io r C o lle g e * 511 * D avenport C o lle g e o f B usiness 1,316 DeLlma J u n io r C o lle g e 2 D e lta C o lle g ? Genesee Convnunlty C o lle g e 6,004 ♦* 8,659 Glen Oaks Convnunlty C o lle g e 861 Gogebic Community C o lle g e 645 Grand Rapids J u n io r C o lle g e 5,357 Henry Ford Community C o lle g e 11,982 H ig h la n d Park C o lle g e 3,558 Jackson Business U n iv e r s it y * Jackson Convnunlty C o lle g e 372 * 3,635 Kalamazoo V a lle y Community C o lle g e 2,996 K e llo g g Community C o lle g e 3,203 K lr t la n d Convnunlty C o lle g e 515 Lake M ic h ig a n C o lle g e 2,533 L an sing Convnunlty C o lle g e 7,242 Macomb C ounty Convnunlty C o lle g e 17,160 M ich ig a n C h r is tia n J u n io r C o lle g e 211 141 142 E n ro l lm ents o f F u ll and P a r t-tir * 'e School Name Students M id M ic h ig a n Community C o lle g e 610 Monroe C ounty Community C o lle g e 1,691 M ontcalm Community C o lle g e 686 Muskegon B usiness C o lle g e 509 Muskegon Community C o lle g e 3,496 N o rth C e n tra l M ic h ig a n C o lle g e 734 N o rth w e s te rn M ic h ig a n C o lle g e 1,712 O akland Community C o lle g e 15,001 S t. C l a i r C ounty Community C o lle g e 2 ,642 S c h o o lc r a ft C o lle g e 5 ,2 9 6 S o u th w e ste rn M ic h ig a n C o lle g e 941 Suomi C o lle g e 4 392 Washtenaw C it y C o lle g e 4 ,0 0 9 Wayne C ounty Community C o lle g e 12,500 West Shore Community C o lle g e 550 T o ta l E n ro llm e n t N o te : 129,538 M ic h ig a n S t a t i s t i c a l A b s t r a c t , 9 th E d it io n , pp. 129-134. 4These a re tw o -y e a r I n s t i t u t i o n s w hich a re c l a s s i f i e d as p r iv a t e . 4 #Th1s Is now th e C h a rle s S t u a r t M o tt Community C o lle g e . APPENDIX IV COMPARISON OF PROGRAM OFFERINGS BY PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN MICHIGAN Number o f Programs Community Col le g e Program A c c o u n tin g A d v e r tis in g D e s ig n /S a le s P ro m o tio n A erospace S tu d ie s A g r ic u lt u r e R e la te d A i r C o n d it lo n ln g / R e f r lg e r a t lo n A i r c r a f t / A i r l i n e R e la te d A p p lia n c e R e p a ir/S e rv ic e A p p lie d Power T echnology A r c h it e c t u r a l C o n s tr u c tio n A r c h it e c t u r a l D e s ig n /D r a ftin g A r t D esign Assessm ent A d m in is tr a tio n A u d io -V is u a l C om m unications A u to m a tio n A u to m o tiv e R e la te d 23 2 1 10 4 13 3 1 2 9 1 1 2 -39 B anking and F in a n ce B a rte n d in g B ib le M is s io n a ry R e la te d B i l l i n g C le r k - T ru c k in g B lu e p r in t R eading B o ile r O p e ra tio n Bookkeeping R e la te d B r id a l Headware and M i l l i n e r y B ro a d c a s tin g B ro k e r L ic e n s e P r e p a ra tio n B usiness A d m 1 n 1 s tra t1 o n /M g t. R e la te d B u ild in g C o n s tru c tio n /M a in te n a n c e 1 --« -— — — — — 31 10 C a lc u la tin g MacMne C a rto g ra p h ic D r a f t in g C a s h le r-C h e c k e r C ast M e ta ls T ech n olo gy ChaInman (S u rv e y in g ) C hef T r a in in g Chem ical (L a b ) T e ch n o lo g y C h ild Care R e la te d Church R e la te d C i v i l T e ch n o lo g y C it y P la n n in g — 1 « 1 -** 9 4 — 4 1 143 P r o p r ie ta r y Schools 15 1 I 5 1 1 7 2 4 1 10 1 11 1 4 2 15 2 1 1 1 3 1 144 Number o f Program s P ro g ra m Comiiiunl ty Col le g e P r o p r ie ta r y S chools C l e r ic a l / C l e r k T y p is t C lim a te Systems T e ch n o lo g y C l o t h i n g / T e x t i le D esign Com m ercial A r t C o m n e rcia l C oo king & B a kin g Com m ercial & I n d u s t r i a l S e c u r ity C om m unications Media Community S e r v ic e /H e a lth Com puter R e la te d C o n c re te T e c h n o lo g y C o n s tr u c tio n E s tim a tin g C o r r e c tio n s C o r r ls lo n C osm etology C ost C o n tr o l C o u rt C o n fe re n c e R e p o rte r C r e d it S p e c ia l i s t C r im in a l L a b o r a to r y T e c h n o lo g y Crown & B rid g e P r o s t h e t ic s ( D e n ta l) C u lIn a r y A r t s C y to te c h n o lo g y 18 D ata P ro c e s s in g D e n ta l R e la te d D esig n E n g in e e rin g T e c h n o lo g y D ic ta p h o n e D ie D e sig n D ie s e l R e la te d D im e n s io n a l M e tro lo g y A C a l i b r a t i o n D is c o v e ry (Charm) D is p a tc h e r ( T r u c k in g ) D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a tio n Dock P e rs o n n e l ( T r u c k in g ) Dog G room ing D r a f t in g A D esign Drama D ra p e ry M aking D ressm aking A D e sig n Drug C o u n s e lin g 17 2 18 4 E l e c t r i c a l / E l e c t r o n i c s R e la te d E le c tr o - H y d r a u l1 c S e rv ic e s E le c tr o - M e c h a n ic a l T e c h n o lo g y E le v a to r A Farm S u p p ly E n g in e e rin g A s s is t a n t E n g in e e rin g T e c h n o lo g y 1 1 8 1 1 1 2 2 36 1 • m 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 5 30 8 mm 2 1 5 1 24 22 1 4 1 1 1 145 Number o f Programs Program Communl t y Col lege P r o p r ie ta r y S chools Environmental Related Engl1sh Estimating Construction Fashion Merchandising Fashion Modeling FCC License Fire Protection Technology F1re Science Fisheries Technology Floral Related Fluid Power Technology Food Service Related Foremanshlp-Supervlslon/Development Forestry Technology Furniture Design Furniture Reflnlshlng Gospel Graphic Arts Graphic Reproduction Technology Health Services Related Hermeneutics ft Christian Ethnics Highway Technology Home Catering Homiletics Horseshoeing Horticulture Management Hospital Unit/Ward Manager Hotel Motel Related Hymnology Illustration Income Tax Preparation Industrial Arts Education Industrial Design Industrial Drafting Technician Industrial Electr1c1ty/Electronlcs Industrial Engineering Technology Industrial Machinery Repair Industrial Management/Superv >s1on Industrial Mathematics Industrial Production Industrial Safety Industrial Sculpture Technology 6 1 2 1 9 1 1 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 3 2 1 6 2 1 1 146 Number o f Programs Program Industrial Security Industrial Supervision Industrial Technology Inhalation Therapy Inspection Instrmentatlon Technology Insurance Interior Design Community Col lege P ro p rie ta ry Schools 1 1 6 6 3 3 Janitorial Journal1sm 3 35 Keyed Tape Keypunch Related Lah Assistant Labor Studies Language Landscape Related Law Enforcement Leadership Legal Secrr tary Related Library Assisting Machine Calculation Machine Drawing Machine Operator Machine Shop Machine Technology Machine Tool Related Male Orderly Medical Management Manufacturing Technology Marketing/Merchandising Related Marine Technology Maritime Training Massage Materials Technology Meat Cutting Mechanical Drafting and Design Mechanical Engineering Mechanical Technology Medical Lab Assistant Related Medical Secretary Mental Health Technology Metallurgy Related Millinery 1 *+ 3 2 mm 1 1 1 4 5 4 1 1 2 8 1 1 12 4 25 1 1 3 1 7 3 3 13 22 2 6 4 2 6 1 2 147 Number o f Programs Program Convnunlty Col lege 4 Ministry Related Model1ng Motel Management Multigraph Natural Resources Technology Needle Trades Numerical Control Related Nursing Related Occupational General Occupational Therapy Office Machine Related Office Management Papermaklng Technology Party Chief (Surveying) Pastry Baking Personal Development Pesticide Technology Pharmeceutlcal Lab Technology Photo Modeling Physical Therapy Related Plano Repair Related Plastics Technology Pneumatology Police Science Related Power Plant Mechanic Preacher Preparation Related Printing Product Drafting ft Design Professional Modeling Property Evaluation Assessment Psychology Public Adjusting Public Works Technology Publications/Printing P ro p rie ta ry Schools 10 1 1 4 29 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 19 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 Quality Control 3 Radio TV Broadcasting Radio TV Comnunlcations Radio TV Repair Radiology Real Estate Related Receptionist Recreational Related 4 4 7 4 1 1 1 13 4 148 Number o f Programs Program Residential Construction Resort Management Rodman Sales Related Secretarial Science Security Training Related Semi-Truck Driving Sewing Related Shoe Repair Shop Mathematics Shorthand Sk1 H111 Management Small Business Operation Small Engines Related Social Health Services Soil Technology Speed Writing Stenography Related Supervision Survey of Modern Missions Surveying Switchboard Related Systems Analyst Community Col lege P ro p rie ta ry Schools 1 1 — 1 — 8 28 33 3 2 5 — — ---— 1 -6 1 1 — 4 1 — 1 — — 1 1 1 1 5 16 2 1 4 2 Tailoring Teacher Aide Technical Illustrating/Writing Temperature Engineering Technology Theater-Acting Theology Related Time Study Engineering Tool & Die Related Traffic Engineering Technology Related Transmission Truck Driving Related Turfgrass Management Typing Related — 6 1 — — — — 2 2 1 1 1 6 Upholstery Urban Professional Assistant Urban Technology — 1 1 1 Verifier *“ 1 1 1 2 2 7 "* 2 12 Number o f Programs Prograw Water Treatment Related Welding Related Note: Communlty College Proprletary Schools 3 13 1 2 “Related" refers to program offerings which are In a closely allied area which approximates the one listed. Lawrence Borosage, Community Colleges 1n Michigan. Identified bv County. Preliminary Report. Prepared for: Michigan BOS/CEP Planning Project, Department of Labor, 1973. Lawrence Borosage, Private Schools 1n Michigan, r a t i f i e d by County. Preliminary ReportT Prepared for: Michigan BOS/CEP Planning Project, Department of Labor, 1973. APPENDIX V SUB-HYPOTHESES MATCHED TO QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS Sub-Hypothesis Number Item Q uestionnaire Item Number 1 Age 1 2 Sex 2 3 Marital Status 3 4 Day/Evening Student 5 5 Formal Schooling 17 6 High School Program 18 7 Time Obtaining Work 6 8 Placement Assistance 7 g Find Job 8 10 Reason Taking Job 9 11 Sources First Job 21 12 Starting Salary 11 13 Rate Work Training 10 14 Raise 12 15 Amount Raise 13 16 Changed Jobs 19 17 Reason Change 20 18 Job Satisfaction 23 19 Rate Training 22 20 Additional Studies 14 21 Hours Additional Studies 15 22 Where Additional Studies 16 Job Classification 24 Additional Courses 25 Additional Comment 26 150