INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction,
1 .T h c sign or “ target” fo r pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “ Missing Pagc(s|” . I f it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
Tills may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on (he film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because o f
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been Fdmed, you will find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning"
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Micrcxiims
International
: i i K » N / l I H H O A D A N N A H H U H M l 4MHHi
W* HI 1)1 U H [ )
UV L U N I >l)N \ \ C M l 41 J t N t U A N D

79177 <.2
L I T T L E , MI CHAEL W I L L I A M
OBJ E CT I VES AND E VAL UAT I V E C R I T E R I A
D I S T R I B U T I V E EDUCATI ON PROGRAMS AT
SECONDARY LEVEL I N M I C H I G A N .
MI CHI GAN STATE

UNIVERSITY,

University

Microfilms
IrtwrwHorul

T
O
ON /M IH ir iA l)

ASNAHf«>M Ml AHH>,

PH.D.,

FOR
THE

19 7 ti

PLEASE NOTE:
In a ll cases this material has been filmed 1n the best possible
way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this
document have been identified here with a check mark
.
1.

Glossy photographs _______

2.

Colored Illustrations _______

3.

Photographs with dark background _______

4.

Illustrations are poor copy _______

5.

Print shows through as there Is text on both sides of page ________

6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

throughout

7. Tightly bound copy with print lost 1n spine ________
8.

Computer printout pages with Indistinct print _______

9.

Page(s)
_____ lacking when material received, and not available
from school or author _______

10.

Page(s) _______ seem to be missing 1n numbering only as text
follows _______

11.

Poor carbon copy _______

12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type ________
13. Appendix pages are poor copy ________
14. Original copy with lig h t type ________
15.

Curling and wrinkled pages _______

16.

Other

University'
Micidnlms
International
300 N ZEE9 RD

ANN A R 80R Ml J01O6 ‘ 3131 761-4700

_____

O B J E C T I V E S AN D E VA LU AT IVE C R I T E R I A FOR
D I S T R I B U T I V E EDUC ATION PROGRAMS AT
TH E SEC ON DA RY LEVEL IN M I C H I G A N

By

Michael W.

Litt le

A D I S S E R TA TI ON

S ub mi tt ed to
M i c h i g a n State U ni ve rs ity
in partial fulfillm ent of the re qui reme nt s
for the deg re e of

D O C T O R OF PH ILOS O P H Y

D e p a r t m e n t of Sec on dary E d u c a t i o n and C u r r i c u l u m

1978

ABSTRACT

O B J E C T I V E S A N D E V A L U A T I V E C R I T E R I A FOR
DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT
THE S E C O N D A R Y L E V E L IN M I C H I G A N
By
M i c h a e l W.

Little

P u r p o s e s of the St u d y
T h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of this d e s c r i p t i v e
provide objectives
education

personnel

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a
and v o c a t i o n a l

study wa s

for d i s t r i b u t i v e

education administrators

in the Stat e of M i c h i g a n .

F r o m the r e su lt s of

this

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

and/or Distributive

Educators

Personnel

were provided with
programs .
criteria

essential

Once standards
and o b j e c t i v e s ,

i n f o r m a t i o n n e eded

are a c c e p t e d
the e v a l u a t i o n

study

to e v a l u a t e

to m e a s u r e p a r t i c u l a r
p r o c e s s ma y be

completed.

M e t h o d s Used
The p o p u l a t i o n
secondary
nators,

for this s t ud y c o n s i s t e d of

distributive education

and local d i r e c t o r s

proportionate
selected.

s a m p l e of

to

tea ch ers ,

423

teacher coo r d i ­

of v o c a t i o n a l programs .

12 3 r e s p o n d e n t s wa s r a n d o m l y

A

M i c h a e l W.

Pa r t I of the s u r v e y wa s d e s i g n e d
objectives

r e s p o nde nt s

believed

r e l a t i o n to their program.

to e l i c i t wh a t

to be m o s t

Par t

Lit t l e

important

in

II was base d on e v a l u a t i v e

c r i t e r i a an d the r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e of ea ch c r i t e r i o n
respect

to p r o g r a m o bj ec ti ves,

to rank the
The

format

(live m o s t
for the

six in importance.
tant,"

"Fairly

tant," and

respondents were

then ask ed

i m p o r t a n t o b j e c t i v e s and criteri a.

rati ng sca le rang ed

in va l u e

(" Extremely Im p o r t a n t , "

Im p o r t a n t , "

"I mp o r t a n t , "

"Ho Imp ort an ce ") .

from on e to

"Very I m p o r ­

"So me wh at

The c h i - s q u a r e

(.05 level o t s i g n i f i c a n c e ) w a s
ences

in

test

Impor­
statistic

used to d e t e r m i n e d i f f e r ­

in the o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by the res pondents.

S u m m a r y of F i nd in gs
1.

The ilive m o s t i m p o r t a n t p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s in the
o p i n i o n s of 123 (65 p e r c e n t response) d i s t r i b u t i v e
educ a t i o n t e ac he rs , t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and local
vo ca ti o n a l d i r e c t o r s were:

O v e r a l l Rank
(By Res pondents)

^.
^ c
ve

1

1-1

Tha t p r e p a r a t i o n for g a in fu l
e m p l o y m e n t and for a d v a n c e m e n t
in a d i s t r i b u t i v e o c c u p a t i o n is
the p r i m a r y goal of the D i s t r i ­
b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Program.

2

1-12 Th a t D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
sh ou l d s e rv e s t u d e n t s of d i v e r s e
ta lents, ab il i t i e s , i nt erests,
an d c u l t u r a l bac kg ro un d.

M i c h a e l W.

O v e r a l l Rank
(By Respon den ts)

Li tt l e

-*ec

1-5

That th e D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
P r o g r a m s h ou ld s t i m u l a t e the
stu den t's i nt er es t in his
chos e n d i s t r i b u t i v e o c c u p a ­
tional field by p r o v i d i n g an
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the o p p o r t u n i ­
ties it o f f e r s h i m to be a
c o n t r i b u t i n g m e m b e r of society.
(Career and job p ot ential.)

1-18

That s t u d e n t s ar e e n c o u r a g e d
to improve th e i r c o m p e t e n c i e s
by furt her e d u c a t i o n and wo r k
so that they ca n p r o g r e s s
beyo nd entry level positi on s.

1-4

That th e D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a ­
tion P r o g r a m s h oul d e n c o u r a g e
and p r o m o t e the use of eth ica l
s tand ar ds in b u s i n e s s and
industry.

2.

The o b j e c t i v e s a p p e a r to a d e q u a t e l y e n c o m p a s s a
s e c o n d a r y d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n program.
Substan­
tial a g r e e m e n t e x i s t e d b e t w e e n r e s p o nd en ts .
When
as k e d to r e c o m m e n d a d d i t i o n s to the list, few tasks
w e r e s u g g e s t e d or w e r e a l r e a d y i n c l u d e d in the
c u r r e n t listing.

3.

For the m o s t part, d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teachers,
t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and local v o c a t i o n a l d i r e c t o r s
agree on the same obj ec ti ve s.
How ever, u s i n g the
m e a n average, d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n c o o r d i n a t o r s
b e l i e v e that o b j e c t i v e 1-18 "St u de nt s are e n c o u r a g e d
to i m pro ve th e i r c o m p e t e n c i e s by f u rthe r e d u c a t i o n
and w o r k " is m o r e imp o rt an t than do a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
and teachers.
Wh ere as, local v o c a t i o n a l a d m i n i ­
s t r a t o r s on t h e average, a g r e e o b j e c t i v e 1-12 "To
serve st u d e n t s of d i v e r s e t a lents , a bili ti es ,
interests, an d c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d s " to be mo r e
i m p o r t a n t than t e ache rs and t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s .

4.

Mi ch ae l W.

Li tt l e

The five mos t i m p o r t a n t e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a
o p i n i o n of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teachers,
t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and local v o c a t i o n a l
d i r e c t o r s w e r e as follows:

in the

O v e r a l l Rank
by R e s p o n d e n t s

_
,
..
_ .
E v a l u a t i v e Cr i t e r i a

2-2

C u r r i c u l u m is d i r e c t l y r e la ted
to r e q u i r e m e n t s of an o c c u ­
pation .

2-1

Ph y s i c a l fa ci l i t i e s and e q u i p ­
m e n t are a d e q u a t e for f u l ­
f i lli ng p r o g r a m ' 0 pur pose.

2-16

S t u d e n t ' s w o r k e x p e r i e n c e — the
be st p o s s i b l e p l a c e m e n t of that
s t ude nt into a c o o p e r a t i v e
t r a i n i n g station,

2-5

I n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s are
c u r r e n t and suit ed to st ud e n t ' s
i n d i v i d u a l needs.

2-4

I n s t r u c t i o n a l a ct iviti es ,
m e t h o d s and p r o c e d u r e s (e.g.,
c o o p e r a t i v e or project) used
in teachin g.

5.

The e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a a p p e a r to a d e q u a t e l y
encompass a secondary distributive education pr o ­
gram.
Substantial agreement existed between di s ­
t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n te ach ers, te ac her-* co o r d i n a t o r s ,
and local v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n dir ec tors.
When
a s ked to r e c o m m e n d a d d i t i o n s to the list, r e s p o n ­
de nt s s u g g e s t e d few tasks that w e r e not a l r e a d y
i n c l u d e d in th e c u r r e n t l i s t i n g or o f fer ed a v a r i ­
a t i o n s i m i l a r to those m en ti on ed.

6.

In general, d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n t eac hers,
t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and local v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n
d i r e c t o r s a g r e e on the sa me e v a l u a t i v e cr ite ri a.
How eve r, th e r e is d i s a g r e e m e n t on c r i t e r i a 2-7
"Ex tra c l a s s a c t i v i t i e s su ch as D E C A and s c h o o l
stor e" ar e on th e m e a n a v e r a g e rat ed m o r e i m p o r t a n t

Michael

W.

Lit t l e

by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s as c o m p a r e d to
teacher-coordinators.
Also, on the average, d i s t r i ­
b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n te a c h e r s rate e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a
"Labor m a r k e t b e h a v i o r and i m p o r t a n c e of a d v i s o r y
c o m m i t t e e s " lower than c o o r d i n a t o r s and a d m i n i ­
strators .
7.

For the m o s t part, ye a r s of e x p e r i e n c e do not make
a d i f f e r e n c e in the o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a ­
tion teacher s, t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and local
v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n dir ect ors.

8.

P r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n do es not m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e
in the o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teacher,
t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and local v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n
directors.

9.

Ty pe of p r o g r a m o f f e r e d has little effe c t on the
o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
teacher s, t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and local v o c a t i o n a l
e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s r e g a r d i n g p r o g r a m of o b j e c ti ve s,

10.

Typ e of p r o g r a m o f f e r e d has little or no e f fect on
the op i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
te ach ers, t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and local v o c a t i o n a l
e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s r e g a r d i n g e v a l u a t i v e cri teria.

11.

Siz e of school has no eff ec t b e t w e e n the o p i n i o n s of
r e s p o n d e n t s on o b j e c t i v e s and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a
for th re e bas ic type s of programs.

12.

Ye a r s of e x p e r i e n c e in the p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n has
li tt le or no e f f e c t on the o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by
d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teachers, t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a ­
tors, and local v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s r e l a ­
tive to p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s and e v a l u a t i v e cr it eri a.

13.

D e g r e e of p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n has l i t t l e or no
e f fec t on the o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e
e d u c a t i o n te ac h e r s , t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , an d local
v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s r e l a t i v e to p r o g r a m
o b j e c t i v e s and e v a l u a t i v e criteria.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The r e s e a r c h e r w i s h e s
those w h o m a d e
To Dr.

this

to e x p r e s s his g r a t i t u d e to

stu dy po ssib le.

Pet e r Haines,

my m a j o r adviser,

w h o has

given me a keen sense of p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m and the e n c o u r a g e ­
ment n e e d e d

to car ry

the p r o j e c t

To my c o m m i t t e e m e mb er s,
Bruce Mi tch ell;

a l s o to Dr.

r e p l a c e d Dr.

J.

W.

through.
Dr.

Fra nk

B o b b i t t and Dr.

Bixby Cooper who willingly

Crissy who passed

away.

your g u i d a n c e and c o n s t r u c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n s

Th a n k

you for

throughout

the

study.
Appreciation

is a l s o du e

fa mi l y e s p e c i a l l y my mother.
K i m b e r l y and Bob.
a comfort

in this

to my m a n y

frie nds and

T h a n k yo u p a r t i c u l a r l y

to

Your u n d e r s t a n d i n g and r e a s s u r a n c e w e r e
u n d e r takin g.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

L I S T OF T A B L E S ............................................

Page
v

Ch a p t e r
I.

II.

PROBLEM

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

Introduction
..................................
...................
S t a t e m e n t of the P r o b l e m
Hypotheses
..................................
P u r p o s e of the S t u d y ......................
A s s u m p t i o n s ..................................
Need for the S t u d y ........................
D e l i m i t a t i o n s ................................
L i m i t a t i o n s ..................................
D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s ........................

1
5
6
7
8
9
13
13
14

R E V I E W OF TH E L I T E R A T U R E ......................

17

S t u d i e s by P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s C o n ­
c e r n i n g the D e v e l o p m e n t of C r i t e r i a for
B u s i n e s s and D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
P r o g r a m .......................................
S t u d i e s in D i s t r i b u t i v e , B u s i n e s s and O f f i c e
E d u c a t i o n C o n c e r n i n g C r i t e r i a for the
E v a l u a t i o n of O n g o i n g P r o g r a m s
..........
S t u d i e s C o n c e r n i n g C r i t e r i a for the E v a l u ­
at i o n of S t a t e and Lo ca l V o c a t i o n a l
Education Programs
........................
S t u d i e s C o n c e r n i n g the D e v e l o p m e n t of P h i l o ­
sophy and O b j e c t i v e s of D i s t r i b u t i v e
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s and O t h e r R e l a t e d
R e s e a r c h .....................................
S u m m a r y of R e l a t e d L i t e r a t u r e ................
III.

1

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

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

P o p u l a t i o n .....................................
S a m p l e ..........................................
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ................................
D e s i g n of S t u d y ................................
Nu ll H y p o t h e s e s ................................
V a l i d a t i o n of I n s t r u m e n t an d Pil o t
S t u d y ..........................................
iii

18

20

28

35
37
39
39
39
41
41
42
43

Chapter

Page
S c h e d u l e of D i s t r i b u t i o n of the
O p i n i o n n a i r e ..................................
A n a l y s i s of D a t a ...............................
S t a t i s t i c a l P a ckage for the Social
S c i e n c e s .......................................
S u m m a r y .........................................

IV.

F I N D I N G S ...........................................
The R e s p o n d e n t s ...............................
P r o g r a m O b j e c t i v e s for S e c o n d a r y D i s t r i b u ­
tive E d u c a t i o n P ro g r a m s in the Stat e of
M i c h i g a n .......................................
E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a for S e c o n d a r y D i s t r i ­
b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s in the State
of M i c h i g a n ..................................
C o m p a r i s o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
T e ach er s, T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Local
V o c a t i o n a l Directors.
O p i n i o n s on the
I m p o r t a n c e of S e lect ed P r o g r a m O b j e c t i v e s
and E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a
...................
P r o g r a m O b j e c t i v e s ........................
Evaluative Criteria
...........................
Siz e of S c h o o l ..................................
Y e a r s of E x p e r i e n c e ...........................
D e g r e e of P r o f e s s i o n a l P r e p a r a t i o n ..........

V.

SUMMARY,

CONCLUSIONS,

A ND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

. .

44
45
45
45
46
47

49

59

66
66
67
72
76
82
94

The P r o b l e m ....................................
94
Research Procedures
...........................
95
F i n d i n g s .........................................
96
C o n c l u s i o n s ....................................... 103
I m p l i c a t i o n s and C o n c l u d i n g S t a t e m e n t
. . . 104
Recommendations
...............................
106
APPENDICES
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

108
110
116
123
126
131
135
139

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

145

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1.

Page
Total R e s p o n s e by Type of P r o g r a m (N-79)
65 P e r c e n t R e sp on se ..............................

2.

R e s p o n s e by Size of School for D i s t r i b u t i v e
E d u c a t i o n Tea cher s and Teac he r
C o o r d i n a t o r s (N-79)

3.

P r o f i l e of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Teacher s,
T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Local V o c a t i o n a l
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s (N-79)

4.

Degr e e of I mp ortan ce At t a c h e d to P r o g r a m
O b j e c t i v e s by All R e s p o n d e n t s
(N=79) . . . .

5.

R a n k i n g for D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Te ac h e r s ,
T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Loc al V o c a t i o n a l
E d u c a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t o r s of the F i v e Mo s t
I m p o r t a n t P r ogram O b j e c t i v e s ....... ..............

6.

The D e g r e e of I mp or ta nce At t a c h e d to E v a l u a t i v e
C r i t e r i a by D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n T e ac he rs,
T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Local V o c a t i o n a l
D i r e c t o r s {N-79)

7.

R a n k i n g by D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
T e a c h e r Co or di na tors, and Local
E d u c a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t o r s of the
Important Evaluative Criteria

8.

9.

10.

Te ac h e r s ,
Vocational
Five Most
(N=79) . . . .

47

52

58

65

D i f f e r e n c e s Bet wee n T y p e of P r o g r a m O f f e r e d
and the Re spondents' O p i n i o n s on the I m p o r ­
t an c e of P r o g r a m O b j e c t i v e s .....................

68

D i f f e r e n c e s Bet wee n T y p e of P r o g r a m O f f e r e d
and the Res pon de nt s' O p i n i o n s on the I m p o r ­
tan c e of E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a
..............

73

D i f f e r e n c e s Between Siz e of S c ho ol an d R e s p o n ­
dents' O p i n i o n s on P r o g r a m O b j e c t i v e s . . . .

v

77

Table
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Page
Di f f e r e n c e s Between Size of School and R e s p o n ­
dents' Opi nions on Evaluative Criteria . . .

80

D i f f e ren ce s Between Years of Experience and
Respondents' Op ini ons on the Importance of
P r ogr am O b j e c t i v e s ............................

83

D i f f e re nces Betw een Years of Ex per ience and
Respondents' O pi ni on s on the Importa nce of
Eva lu ati ve C r iter ia
..........................

86

D i f f e re nc es Be tween Pro fessional P r e p a ra ti on
and R e s p o n d e n t s ' Opi nions on the Imp or ta nce
of P r og ra m O bjec ti ve s
........................

89

Di f f e r e n c e s Bet we en Professional Pr ep arat io n
and Respondents' Opin ion s on the Imp or tanc e
of E va lu ative Cri ter ia ........................

92

Total Responses for Deg re e of Importance
At tac hed to P r o g r a m Obj ec tiv es ..............

126

Total Respons es At tac hed to Degree of I m po r­
tance for E va luati ve Cri te ria
..............

129

Moans and Stan dard Dev ia ti on s for Local V o c a ­
tional Edu ca ti on Admi nistrators, DE T e ac he r
Coord ina tors, and Teachers Regarding
P r og ra m O b j e c t i v e s ............................

131

Means and S t an da rd Deviat ion s for Local V o c a ­
tional Ed uc a t i o n Admi nis trators, DE
Te ache r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Teachers
Reg ar din g E v a l u a t i v e Criteria
..............

133

20.

Rank ing for D i s t r i b u t i v e E d uca ti on Teachers,
T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Local Vo ca ti o n a l
Ed uc a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t o r s of Prog ram
O b j e c t i v e s ......................................... 135

21.

R a nk in g for D i s t r i b u t i v e E d uc at io n Teacher s,
T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Local Vo ca ti o n a l
E du c a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t o r s of Pro g ra m
C r i t e r i a ............................................137

vi

Ta b l e

Page

22.

T o t a l R e s p o n s e for D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n Pro g r a m s
and O b j e c t i v e 1-9 that the D i s t r i b u t i v e
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m Sh ou l d be S e n s i t i v e to
C h a n g e s in D i s t r i b u t i v e an d M a r k e t i n g P r a c ­
tic es and P r o c e d u r e s as T h e y are A f f e c t e d by
S oc ie ta l, Economic, Te ch n i c a l , and E d u c a ­
tiona l D e v e l op me nts, and A d a p t to Such
C h a n g e s ............................................... 139

23.

Total
R e sp onse for D i f f e r e n c e s Be t w e e n P r o g r a m s
and C r i t e r i a 2-7 that E x t r a - C l a s s A c t i v i t i e s
(Such as D E C A & Sch ool Store) are
P r o v i d e d ............................................ 140

24.

Total
R e s p o n s e for D i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n P r og rams
an d C r i t e r i a 2-9 that Home, B u s i n e s s and
C o m m u n i t y R e l a t i o n s are M a i n t a i n e d on a
C o n t i n u a l Basis ..................................

141

25.

T ot a l
R e s p o n s e for D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n P o s i t i o n
and
Cr i t e r i a 2-7 that E x t r a - C l a s s A c t i v i t i e s
(Such as D E C A & S c hool Store) are
P r o v i d e d ............................................ 142

26.

T o ta l Re s p o n s e for D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n Y e a r s of
E x p e r i e n c e and O b j e c t i v e 1-1 that P r e p a r a t i o n
for G a i n f u l E m p l o y m e n t and for A d v a n c e m e n t in a
D i s t r i b u t i v e O c c u p a t i o n is the P r i m a r y Goal of
the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m
..........
143

27.

T o t a l R e s p o n s e for D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n P r o c e s ­
sional P r e p a r a t i o n and O b j e c t i v e 1-12 to Serve
S t u d e n t s of D i v e r s e Tal ents , A b i l i t i e s ,
Inter est s, and C u l t u r a l B a c k g r o u n d s ..........

vii

144

CH A P T E R I

PROBLEM

Introduction
E v a l u a t i o n can play a sig ni fi ca nt r o l e in imp rov ing
instru ct ion and in itia ti ng ap pr op riate c h a n g e
tional programs.

D i s t r i b u t i v e Education

for e d u c a ­

tea cher s and

t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s w o u l d likely benefit if they e x a m i n e d
their role in e v a l u a t i o n relati ve to their p ro grams .

Thro ug h

evaluation,

p r o g r a m s t rengt hs and w e a k n e s s e s m a y be e a s i l y

identified,

the reby e na b l i n g mo r e ef fe c t i v e p l a n n i n g and

improvem en t to take place.
all

Furthermore,

e v a l u a t i o n bec om es

the m o r e impo rt an t due to the view of the A m e r i c a n

public towards e d u c a t i o n and recent F e de ra l
requiring st r i c t e r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of

legislation

funds by v o c a t i o n a l

educa ti on ad mi ni stra to rs .
D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p er so nn el are

in sea rc h of

ways to i m pr ov e p r o g r a m s for students p r e p a r i n g to ente r
d i s t r i b u t i v e oc c u p a t i o n s .

T h e question,

“W h a t

are the

differ e n c e s b e t w e e n an e f f e c t i v e p r o gr am and an in e f f e c t i v e
one?",

is a fu n d a m e n t a l

buti ve edu ca to rs,

issue of valu es not o n l y to d i s t r i ­

but also to other i n t e r e s t e d p a rt ie s

as local a d m i n i s t r a t o r s an d c on c e r n e d parents.

1

such

2

In an a d d r e s s at the D i s t r i b u t i v e
of the

1976 A V A Convention,

D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n

Dr.

E du catio n D i v i s i o n

R i c h a r d Ruff of the A r i z o n a

stated:

T h e c h a l l e n g e that is b e f o r e y o u is to g ua rant ee that
the l e a d e r s h i p for the c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n of D i s t r i ­
b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n comes from t h e DE community.
Do not
f o r f e i t that lea de rs hip b e c a u s e if yo u do not c r i t i ­
c a l l y e v a l u a t e DE, someone e l s e w i l l l l
In r e g a r d
tion of
input

to Dr.

Ruff's p l e a

D i s t r i b u t i v e Education,

for deci s i o n - m a k i n g .

for c r i t i c a l e x a m i n a ­

evaluation

Analysis

of the str eng ths and

w e a k n e s s e s of the pr o g r a m is m a n d a t o r y .
essential
i n vo lv e
actual

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the i n t e r e s t e d g r oups
c o l l e c t i o n of data."

to be e v a l u a t e d
so.

comes,

It thereby b e c o m e s

"to c h o o s e a m e t h o d o l o g y of e v a l u a t i o n that wi ll

When evaluating,

doing

is a ne ce s s a r y

in the

2

it is n e c e s s a r y

to d e c i d e wha t

is

and wh at resu lts w o u l d be a c c o m p l i s h e d by

If a p r o g r a m is based

it is e s s e n t i a l

on

the e v a l u a t i o n of o u t ­

that the p r o c e s s

inv olve

the m e a s u r e ­

me nt of

th e p r o g r a m against p r e v i o u s l y p l a n n e d obj ectives.

A major

weakness

been

the n e g l e c t

expect

in e v a l u a t i n g p r o g r a m s
by ed ucators

to ach ieve.

to

Inexact ne ss

in the past has

s t a t e c l e a r l y w h a t they
in

s t a t i n g goals

R i c h a r d Ruff, E v a l u a t i o n in D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
A C h a l l e n g e for th e Future,
a d d r e s s at the A m e r i c a n V o c a tional E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n C o n v e n t i o n D i v i s i o n of D i s t r i ­
b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n , De c e m b e r 2, 1976.
Houston, Texas.

2

T i m L. W e n t l i n g and T o m E.
O c c u p a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n and T r a i n i n g
Allyn a n d Bacon, I n c . , 1975).

Larson, E v a l u a t i n g
P r o g r a m s (Boston:

3

and the c l a m o r by the pu bl i c r e g a r d i n g a c c o u n t a b i l i t y m a y
al so a t t r i b u t e

to the c u r re nt

b eh av i o r a l o b j e c t i v e s

p o p u l a r i t y of p e r f o r m a n c e or

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

programs.
Evaluation

is a c o n t i n u o u s p r o c e s s w h i c h ma y be

e s t a b l i s h e d on a formal or

informal basis.

vat ion by a D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
features of a p r o g r a m or w a t c h i n g
c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t i e s has
ment,

but

decision.
wel l

it d o e s

intended,

t e a c h e r of the p h y s i c a l
students partaking

its i m p o r t a n c e as a val ue

not p r o v i d e

Nevertheless,

A c a su al o b s e r ­

sufficient

inf orma l

ar e oft en used by

evidence

evaluations,

in

judge­
for a

although

local e d u c a t i o n a l

personnel

3

or are n e g l e c t e d
informal

altoge ther.

evaluations

the y p r o v i d e

In addition,

congressional

p r ogr am s has b e e n

states,

use of

are often the s i t u a t i o n wit h ma n y

states sin ce

matic evaluation

As M a z z a r a

little o n g o i n g
c r i t i c i s m of

formal e v a l u ati on .
the lack of s y s t e ­

by states of the ir v o c a t i o n a l
to no avail.

S e n a t e F i n a n c e C o m m i t t e e c a lled

A noted

educational

S e n a t o r on the

for:

. . . s u b s t a n t i a l r e fo rm s in v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n
l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d a s s u r e C o n g r e s s that
federal e x p e n d i t u r e s for v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n are
in fact a c h i e v i n g th e i r o b j e c t i v e s . ^

3

A n d r e w A. Mazz ara , " E v a l u a t i o n and M i c h i g a n
V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n , " J o u r n a l of M i c h i g a n Indu st ri al
E d u c a t i o n S o c i e t y {February 1976):6
4

Volume

M a n p o w e r and V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n W e e k l y ,
IV, N o v e m b e r 5, 1975, p. 1.

4

A valid
an a s s e s s m e n t
sured to see
terms.

s t ated earlier, will

of p r o g r a m ob j e c t i v e s .
if the p r ogr am

to as

should be

by student

is the m a n n e r

For exam pl e,
r es ou rce use,
evaluation

inc lud ed

in p r o c e s s

att ain

both

i n te nd ed

in r e l a t i o n

programs.
1.

2.

Product

and n o n - i n t e n d e d ,

to p r o g r a m o b j e c ti ve s.
that ma y be

One stu d y c o n d u c t e d

D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n r e n d e r e d vari ou s
personnel through

the

those s k i l l s . " ^

and student l e a r n i n g exp eri en ce s.

i nv ol ve d

"The p r o ­

is t e a c h e r p e r f o rm an ce ,

f r o m p r o g r a m evalua tion .

fits to loc al

the e v a l u a t i o n

k n o w l e d g e and skills,

T h e r e are a numbe r of a d v a n t a g e s

the I l l i n o i s

is o f t e n

and process.

in w h i c h they

i n v o l v e s out comes

and the c o s t s

d e riv ed

in o p e r a t i o n a l

Sec ondl y,

in ter ms of both p r o d u c t

i n cl ude

T he s e should be m e a ­

is a s u c c e s s

input to a p r og ram.

is r e p r e s e n t e d

process

as

The m e a s u r e m e n t of p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s

refe rr ed

duct

evaluation,

by
bene­

e v a l u a t i o n of o c c u p a t i o n a l

T h e y w e r e as follows:

Data

gathered

is use ful

for

justifying

equipment

requests.

Component

areas of s t r e n g t h s

identified
3.

Staff

and

4.

Evaluation

sup pl y

and

and w e a k n e s s e s a r e

for p r o g r a m i m p r o v e m e n t .
fa cility use a r e

improved.

resu lt s are u s e d by th e staff to i m p r o v e

planning.

^ J a n e Covi e l l o , " E v a l u a t i o n of V o c a t i o n a l P r o g r a m s , "
M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of Edu ca tio n, L a ns in g, Mi ch iga n, M o n o ­
graph, 1977 S e r i e s of V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n Concepts.

5

5.

D ec ision s a r e
obt a i n e d

just i f i e d wh e n based on e v i d e n c e

through evaluation.^

The a f o r e m e n t i o n e d b e n e f i t s could gi v e an e v a l u a t o r
a

formal

s y stem of e v a l u a t i o n

Statement
The pr o b l e m of
o b j e c t i v e s or goals

upon wh ic h to ba s e

of the Proble m

the study was to d e t e r m i n e basic

for all

s ec on da ry d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a ­

ti on p r o g r a m s under c o n t r a c t w i t h the M i c h i g a n
D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n
The

j ud ge me nts.

St a t e

and to d e r i v e e v a l u a t i o n

foll o w i n g w e r e r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s

criteria.

to bo

answered:
1.

What objectives
the success of
determined

by

are m o s t

importa nt

in c o n s i d e r i n g

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

teacher-coordinators,

and

tea ch ers ,

local v o c a t i o n a l

education

directors?
2.

Do the o b j e c t i v e s

adequately encompass

a secondary

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n program ?
3.

To what e x t e n t

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

teacher-coordinators,
ti on d i r e c t o r s
4.

and

teachers,

local v o c a t i o n a l

educa­

a g r e e on the same o b j e c t i v e s ?

What evaluative

c r i t e r i a are most

co n s i d e r i n g

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

the

important

in

p r o g r a m as d e t e r m i n e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
g
Coviello,

op.

cit.

6

tea ch ers ,

teacncr-coordinators,

and

local v o c a ­

tio na l e d u c a t i o n di rec to rs .
5.

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

a

secondary distributive education program?
6.

To w h a t

e x t e n t do d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n

teacher-coordinators,
directors

a g r e e upon

t eac hers,

and local v o c a t i o n a l

education

the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

for a

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n pr o g r a m ?
7.

Do y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e
o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
teacher-coordinators,

and local

in the

tea chers,

vocational

educa­

tion d i r e c t o r s ?
8.

Does

the a m o u n t of p r o f e s s i o n a l

difference
tion

in the o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e

teachers,

vocational

preparation make a

teacher-coordinators,

an d

educa­

local

education directors?

Hypotheses
The

following

hypotheses were

tested:

To d e t e r m i n e wh at d i f f e r e n c e s
of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
and

local v o c a t i o n a l

teachers,

teacher-coordinators,

education directors

pr ia te o b j e c t i v e s

and t h e i r r e l a t i v e

thr ee bas ic typ es

of p r ogr am s.

between opinions

regarding appro­

importance affect

To d e t e r m i n e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n
of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n

teacher s,

the o p i n i o n s

teacher-coordinators,

7

and

local vo ca t i c n a l

ed uc a t i o n di rec tors regard ing a p p r o ­

priate evaluat iv e crit eri a

and the relative

importan ce of

each evalua tiv e c r i t e r i o n ' s affe ct upon three basic types
of programs.
To d e t e r m i n e what di ffe renc es between p e rs on ne l
in various sizes of scho ols affect objectiv es and e v a l u ­
ative criteria.
To d e t e r m i n e what differ enc es of opi ni on s
between d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teachers,
tors,

teacher-coordina­

and local v o c a t i o n a l dire ct or s can be found rel ative

to years of ex per ienc e.
Hj.

To d e t e r m i n e what di f f e r e n c e s of opi n io n

between teachers,
director s can be

te ac he r- coo r d i n a t o r s ,
found r e la tive

and

local vo ca tiona l

to the degree of p r o ­

fessional preparation.

Purpose of the Study
The pu r p o s e of the study was to pro vide ob je ct i v e s
and eva lu ativ e c r i t e r i a
and vocational
Michigan,

for d i s t r i b u t i v e e du c a t i o n p ers on ne l

education administrators

in the State of

The e v a l u a t i v e cri ter ia and p r o g r a m obj ec t i v e s

w e r e rated in i m p o r t a n c e ac co r d i n g

to types of prog rams

o f f e r e d — the c o o p e r a t i v e e d u c a t i o n technique,
laboratory method,

the pro je ct

or both.

From the r e su lt s of this study State D e p a r t m e n t of
Ed uc a t i o n p e r so nn el

an d/ o r d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t o r s c a n be

provided with e s s e n t i a l

i n f o r m a t i o n need ed to e v a l u a t e

8

programs.

Once s t a n d a r d s

lar c r iter ia

ar e a c c e p t e d

and ob j e c t i v e s ,

to m e a s u r e p a r t i c u ­

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

completed.
A second p u r p o s e of

the st u d y was

to p r o v i d e d i s ­

t r i b u t i v e ed uc a t i o n p e r s o n n e l w i t h a fact ual and o b j e c t i v e
foundation

for p ol i c y and p r a c t i c e b a s e d on the o p i n i o n s of

practitioners

as well

as e x p e r t s

in the

field,

A s s u m p t ions
T h e f oll owing a s s u m p t i o n s w e r e m a d e

for this

study:
1.

Distributive Education
tors and

tea c h e r s ,

local v o c a t i o n a l

e f f e c t i v e l y rate the

teacher-coordina­

e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s may

i m p o r t a n c e of o b j e c t i v e s

and

e v a l u a t i v e criteri a.
2.

Giv e n the o b j e c t i v e s

and c r i t e r i a

necessary

for

evaluating a secondary Distributive Education
program,

distributive educators

e du ca ti on d i r e c t o r s w i l l

c a r r y out

a s pe ct s of the e v a l u a t i v e
3.

and

local

vocational

the r e m a i n i n g

process.

Pr o g r a m s that ar e n o t u n d e r c o n t r a c t w i t h

the

Mic h i g a n S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n m a y us e the
same i n f o r m a t i o n
4.

for p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n .

That the c o o p e r a t i v e e d u c a t i o n
pr o j e c t

laboratory method

types of p r o g r a m s

fou nd

t e c h n i q u e and

ar e the two p r i m a r y

in M ic higan .

9

Ne o d

for

the S tu d y
national

the s e c o n d a r y
past

enrollments

level have seen a t r e m e n d o u s g r o w t h

two decades.

mately

In M i c h i g a n

279 D i s t r i b u t i v e

cooperative education

alone,

there w e r e

in the
approxi­

Edu c a t i o n p r o g r a m s e m p l o y i n g the

t e c h n i q u e and p r o j e c t m e t h o d w i t h an

e n r o l l m e n t of ove r 22,000
year.

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

s t ud en ts

in the

1 9 77-78

s c hool

7
Concurrently with

new vocational
logical

ha ve als o taken pl ac e

many

techno­

in the b u s i n e s s

it is importa nt

consider whether objectives
for p r o g r a m s

in the past

in the pre s en t

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

are
an d

for e v a l u a t o r s

indeed a d e q u a t e
future.

for a s s e s s i n g

The o b j e c t i v e s

those of a D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o j e c t
i n s t r u c t o r ' s own mind.
lead ers

in the

There f o r e ,
views

Also,
g
field.

with

in the b u s i n e s s

standards

the se ne w trends

and e d u c a t i o n a l

to

used

for a

Distributive Education co-op program may differ widely

amo n g

and

env ir o n m e n t s .

In re trosp ec t,

programs

and e x p a n s i o n of

D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n pro gr am s,

changes

industrial

the d e v e l o p m e n t

from

lab in the

for c r i t e r i a va r y

and d i f f e r i n g

communities,

it seems

7

M i c h i g a n S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , V o c a t i o n a l
T e c h n i c a l Ser vi ces, Lans in g, Mich igan, "Career E d u c a t i o n
P l a n n i n g D i s t r i c t S u m m a r y , " J a n u a r y 1978.
g

W a r r e n G. Meye r, "Eval u a t i v e C r i t e r i a for D i s t r i ­
b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n , " B u s i n e s s E d u c a t i o n F o r u m 15 (April
1 9 6 1 ) : 1 1 - 2 5.

10
important
criteria
ative

to a s c e r t a i n w h a t o b j e c t i v e s
are c o n s i dere d.

i n s t r u m e n t ma y be

m a t i o n and

improvements

F r o m this

initial

fur th er d e v e l o p e d

w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g h o w we ll

is al so a ne ed
being

to p r ov id e

programs

infor­

is c o n c e r n e d

are m e e t i n g the p h i l o ­

that have been e s t a b l i s h e d .

accomplished,

jectives

s c ho ol s

not onl y to d e l i n e a t e

of the goals.

st ep an e v a l u ­

for fut ure action.

The e v a l u a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l

sophy and g o a l s

and ev al u a t i v e

Moreover,

the goals

there

that are

but al so to d e t e r m i n e the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s

Consequently,

r e - e v a l u a t i o n of goals and o b ­

is a c o n t i n u o u s p r o c e s s

in m e e t i n g

the needs of

p r o g r a m as s e s s m e n t .
A f t e r o b j e c t i v e s h a v e been d e v e l o p e d

and pr ior iti zed,

the ne x t ste p

in e v a l u a t i o n

or a s p e c t s of

the p r o g r a m sho ul d be e val uated.

relates

is to d e t e r m i n e w h a t cri te ri a

to thi s p o i n t by say i n g

that

Shack

furthe r

" e v a l u a t i o n r eq ui res the

f o r m u l a t i o n of c r i t e r i a a p p l i c a b l e to the e s t a b l i s h e d aims
g
and o b j e c t i v e s . "
In a ddit io n, R i s t a u and Fa lk b e li ev e that
stated objectives
the e v a l u a t i o n .

are n e c e s s a r y
As a result,

m e n t of the d e g r e e

to w h i c h

to p r o d u c e

the c ri te ria

the c r i t e r i a a l l o w

for

"a m e a s u r e ­

the s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s have been

a c h i e v e d . " 10
9

C h r y s t i n e R. Shack, "The C o n c e p t u a l F r a m e w o r k for
the E v a l u a t i v e P r o c e s s , " N a t i o n a l B u s i n e s s E d u c a t i o n Y e a r ­
bo o k No. 7 , D e p a r t m e n t o f " N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n ,
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., 1969.
^ R o b e r t R i s t a u and Ruel Falk, "State an d Local P r e ­
p a r a t i o n for E v a l u a t i o n , " N a t i o n a l B u s i n e s s E d u c a t i o n Y e a r ­
b o o k No. 7 , D e p a r t m e n t of N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n ,
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., 1969.

11

In fin din gs of the 1976 V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A m e n d ­
ments

the United States C o m m i s s i o n e r of E d u c a t i o n

a large n u m b e r of com me nts

r e g a r d i n g crit eri a

received

for d e t e r ­

m i n i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s of v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n programs.
Most comments e x p r e s s e d a p r e f e r e n c e for p e r m i t t i n g
sta tes to make all d e c i s i o n s in this regard, or for
h a v i n g v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s assum e r e s p o n ­
si bi li ty for d e t e r m i n i n g ho w e f f e c t i v e n e s s is to bo
a s s e s s e d .H
The g e ne ral

issue of e v a l u a t i o n was an

integra l

part of d i s c u s s i o n

at the summ ar y m e e t i n g b e tw ee n

National

for E d u c a t i o n and V o c a t i o n a l

Institut e

researchers.
were
wa s

12

Duri ng the session,

raise d by par tic ipan ts .
the need

the

Education

twenty d i f f e r e n t

The on e most

issue s

frequently cited

for the d e v e l o p m e n t of mode l e v a l u a t i o n d e s i g n s

that could be used

for self a s s e s s m e n t by state s and

programs.

Es se ntia l

to w h a t could m e a s u r e

vocational

e d u c a t i o n wa s the

i n d i c a t o r s or cri teri a

the

local

impa ct of

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l

in a d d i t i o n

to s u cc es sf ul

job

placement.
L e ade rs
ha ve

in the field of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n a l s o

v a ry in g opi n i o n s

regarding valid criteria

a t i o n of a D i s t r i b u t i v e

E d u c a t i o n program.

for e v a l u ­

Th e W e a t h e r f o r d

^ T h e F e der al Register, D e p a r t m e n t of Health,
Ed uc at i o n , and Welfare , U.S. o f f i c e of Education, A p r i l
1977.

12

7,

Pap e r p r e s e n t e d on s u mmar y of the m e e t i n g b e t w e e n
N a t i o n a l I n st it ut e for E d u c a t i o n and V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n
R e s e a rche rs , M a y 20, 1976, W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.

12

stud y

(1974)

ter io n but
terion.

stated

student placement

in n o w a y should

Other

fact ors

to be a v a l i d c r i ­

it be c o n s i d e r e d

such as

the sole c r i ­

"s at i s f a c t o r y p e r f o r m a n c e and

job s a t i s f a c t i o n of s t u d e n t s " are

just as valid.

13

In this era of e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
necessary

to d i s t i n g u i s h

instructional
proceed
ple te

strategy.

the e f f e c t i v e
Teachers

to use a l t e r n a t i v e plan s

the o b j e c t i v e s

public.

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s must
in h e l p i n g

obligation

students c o m ­

forth.

There

is a

to s t u d e n t s and the

C r a w f o r d and M e y e r su m up the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of

Distributive
tributive
sib i l i t y
local

from the i n e f f e c t i v e

that hav e be e n set

moral as well as p r o f e s s i o n a l

it is

Education

in reg ard to e valua ti on .

Education personnel

in a st at e sho uld

for p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n

level

is e s s e n t i a l

"All D i s ­
sha re

respon­

b e c a u s e e v a l u a t i o n at the

to an e f f e c t i v e s t a t e w i d e e v a l u ­

at i o n of the e n t i r e pro gram.
Due to the

larg e n u m b e r of c r i t e r i a and v a r y i n g

o p i n i o n s of l e ad er s on what c r i t e r i a are n e e d e d
ev a l u a t i o n ,
personnel
val id

it is

for p r o g r a m

i m p o r t a n t that D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n

and v o c a t i o n a l

set of c r i t e r i a

education administrators

have a

that ca n be used in the S t a t e of

^ 3Joh n W i l s o n W e a t h e r f o r d , I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and
A n a l y s i s of Issues in D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n , M o n o g r a p h
(S outh we st er n P u b l i s h i n g C o ,).
14

#7

Lu cy C. C r a w f o r d an d W a r r e n G. Meye r, O r g a n i z a t i o n
and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n ( C o l u m b u s ,
O h i o : C h a r l e s R. M e r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1972).

13

M i c h i g a n c o n s o n a n t w i t h p r o g r a m obj ec tive s.

This stu dy

will

teacher-

enable Distributive Education

coordinators
valid

and local

instrument

teachers,

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

to c r i t i c a l l y e v a l u a t e

their programs.

Del imitat io ns
This
objectives

study wa s

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

secondary Distributive
w i t h the M i c h i g a n
This

stu dy

ta nt

E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s un d e r c o n t r a c t

involved Distributive Education
and local v o c a t i o n a l

in M i c h i g a n as re spo ndents.

for all D i s t r i b u t i v e

coordinators

in ev a l u a t i o n .

programs

in the

school

sys tem s

having either

found

teachers,

education

It wa s d e e m e d

impor­

teac he rs and t e a c h e r -

education administrators

But,

stat e and

a s a m p l e was

This

Education

an d v o c a t i o n a l

ticipate

searcher,

for the e v a l u a t i o n of

Sta te D e p a r t m e n t of Education.

teacher-coordinators
directors

limi ted to the d e v e l o p m e n t of p r o g r a m

to p a r ­

du e to the large n u m b e r of

l i m i t a t i o n of

funds by this

re­

s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g to the size of

in the state.

study wa s c o n c e r n e d w i t h

seco n d a r y

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

sch oo ls

t e c h n i q u e or p r o j e c t

l a b o r a t o r y m e t h o d c o n s i s t i n g of the e l e v e n t h and t w e l f t h
grades.

Limitations
Distributive
nity college

Education

and adu lt

levels.

occur s
Th is

at seconda ry,
study w a s

commu­

l i m i t e d to

14

secondary programs contracted with

the M i c h i g a n State

D e p a r t m e n t of E duca ti on .
A fact or w h i c h m i g h t
st u d y is that

first

ye ar

t e a c h e r s or a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ma y not

have s u f f i c i e n t e x p e r i e n c e
tives and e v a l u a t i v e

i n f l u e n c e the r e s u l t s of the

to rate the i m p o r t a n c e of o b j e c ­

criteria

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

program.

D e f i n i t i o n of Terms
Certain
defined

terms

used

frequently

in this

below:
Area

principally

Skill

C e n t e r ; A specialized

entering

high schoo l

for the p r o v i s i o n of v o c a t i o n a l

p e r s o n s w h o are a v a i l a b l e
the

for study

used

education

in p r e p a r a t i o n

for

for

job market.

Distributive E d u c a t i o n : A vocational
study

stud y are

in m a r k e t i n g and d i s t r i b u t i o n

p r o g r a m of

for the p u r p o s e of

job

preparat i o n .
Distributive Education T e a c h e r : A qualified
tionally certified

voca­

t e a c h e r of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n

s t r u c t i o n who do e s not c o o r d i n a t e c l a s s r o o m
o n - t h e - j o b tr ain in g.

This person teaches

in ­

i n s t r u c t i o n wi t h

a block of two or

m o r e c o n s e c u t i v e cl a s s p e r i o d s pe r day.
Distributive Education Teacher-Coordinator: A
qualified,
Education
tra ini ng.

vocationally certified
instruction who

t e a c h e r of D i s t r i b u t i v e

supervises

Fo r the p u r p o s e of thi s

cooperative on-the-job

study,

a Distributive

15
Education
by h i s / h e r

t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r wi ll

be a n y o n e

so d e s i g n a t e d

sta te d e p a r t m e n t of e d u c a t i o n w h o has

served at

least one year.
Th e C o o p e r a t i v e
instruction which

P l a n ; An o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

involves

e m p l o y m e n t and w h i c h g i v e s
classroom learnings
occupational

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

p a t t e r n of
or

ment

through

interes t.

Laboratory

instruction which

individually designed

r e lat ed

students

in p r a c t i c e .

competencies

Th e P r o j e c t

regularly

to the

an o p p o r t u n i t y to apply

It e n a b l e s

t h e m to d e v e l o p

t r a i n i n g on

jobs r e la te d

P l a n : An o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

i n v o l v e s a s e ri es of g r o u p and/

learning

related

scheduled part-time

15

field of m a r k e t i n g ,

and w h i c h are

p a t t e r n of

activities

and

projects

m e r c h a n d i s i n g and m a n a g e ­

to a s t u d e n t ' s o c c u p a t i o n a l

„
16
interests.
E v a l u a t i o n : T h e p r o c e s s of a s c e r t a i n i n g or
the v a l u e or a m o u n t of
Evaluative
used as g u i d e s

s o m e t h i n g by c a r e f u l

j u dg in g

app ra i s a l .

17

C r i t e r i a ; A s p e c t s of a p r o g r a m w h i c h are

for a t t a i n m e n t

of p r o g r a m o b j e c ti ve s.

15

Lucy C. C r a w f o r d an d W a r r e n G. Meye r, Organi zat ion
and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n ( C o l u m b u s ,
O h i o : C h a r l e s E. M e r r i 11 P u b l i s h i n g Co., T5T2), p. 11.
^ Ibid . , p.

17

12 .

J a n e C o v i e l l o , " E v a l u a t i o n of V o c a t i o n a l P r o ­
g r ams ," M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , M o n o g r a p h 1977
S e r i e s of V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n C on ce pts.

16

Program O b j e c t i v e s : Those
cep ts a n d / o r a c t i v i t i e s
stra te

th a t wil l

skills,

k n o w l e d g e of c o n ­

e n a b l e le a r n e r s to d e m o n ­

their mas tery.
Lo c a l V o c a t i o n a l

E d u c a t i o n D i r e c t o r s : A full or

shared t i m e a d m i n i s t r a t o r of v o c a t i o n a l
w i t h i n a sch o ol dis tric t.

education programs

C H A P T E R II

R E V I E W OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E

Throughout

the years

there have been a n u m b e r of

stu die s and d e v e l o p m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s c r e a t e d as i n s t r u m e n t s
for e v a l u a t i n g D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s on
dary and p o s t - s e c o n d a r y
was

to

levels.

The p u r p o s e of

formulate e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w h i c h w o u l d

Distributive Education

p erso nn el

to m a k e

the s e c o n ­

the stud ie s
a s sis t

s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n of

thei r programs.
The c r i t e r i a w o r e o f t e n d e v e l o p e d by v a r i o u s
ga to rs m a k i n g a c o m p r e h e n s i v e
to the "best
in the

thought,

s t ud y of the

pr ac tic es,

to d e r i v e

literature

relate d

c o n d i t i o n s an d s i t u a t i o n s "

field as i d e n t i f i e d by the experts.

has been done

investi­

Howe ve r,

little

from the e x p e r t s w h i c h c r i t e r i a

on the o b j e c t i v e s of the p r o g r a m a r e bes t s u i t e d

based

to local

evaluation.
In rece n t years,
tions,

in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h

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

improved m e t h o d s of e v a l u a t i o n
grams.

f e de ra l
revised

regula­
and

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

The d e v e l o p m e n t of p r o c e d u r e s

for local p r o g r a m

s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n has b e e n an i m p o r t a n t p a r t of this a c c o u n t ­
a b i l i t y thrust.
17

18

V a r i o u s res earch related to the foregoing issues
and the p r e s e n t study was ca t e g o r i z e d in the following way.
First,

was

a rev iew of studies by pro fe ssion al e d uc atio n

o r g a n i z a t i o n s r el atin g to the d evelo pm en t of criteri a
D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n programs.
studies
cr i t e r i a

Second,

for

are doctoral

in D i s t r i b u t i v e Educati on that have c o n s t r u c t e d
for the e v a l u a t i o n of ongoin g programs.

area c o n s i s t s of cri teria e s t a b li shed

The third

for the e va luat io n of

state and local vo cational educ at io n programs.

Lastly

is

a d i s c u s s i o n of res earc h related to p h i l o s o p h y and ob je ct i v e s
for D i s t r i b u t i v e Edu ca tion programs.

S t udi es by Pro fes si on al Org ani zati on s Co nce rn in g
the D e v e l o p m e n t of Criteria for Business and
D i s t r i b u t i v e Educati on Program

E v a l u a t i v e C r iter ia Section 4-4 DE evo lv ed through
the N a tion al

Study of Secondar y School Eva luation.^

c r i t e r i a c h e c k l i s t s used

The

for eva lu at ing secondary D i s t r i ­

b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n pro gr ams have been commonly emp loyed by
teams of e v a l u a t o r s to det er mi ne

the e f f e c tiven es s of

va r i o u s p r o g r a m aspects.
The c h e c k l i s t s are conpos ed of a s tat ement of
gu id in g p r i n c i p l e s

c on ce rn ing DE and seven parts which

incl ud e or ga n i z a t i o n ,

nature of offerings,

phy sical

E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a , Di s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
S e c t i o n 4-4, Na t i o n a l Stud y of Se co n d a r y School Evalua tion,
4th ed. {Washington, D.C., 1969), p. 356.

19

facil iti es,

d i r e c t i o n of

a c t e r i s t i c s of DE,
of

learning,

out comes,

special c h a r ­

i n s t r u c t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l

background

sta ff members.
P r o g r a m p h i l o s o p h i e s and o b j e c t i v e s are ess e n t i a l

elements

in the N A S S E e v a l u a t i o n and are t he re fore c a r e f u l l y

outlined

in o r d e r

their

that e v a l u a t o r s

for the p r o g r a m m a y ba se

judgments.
The

for e a c h of

instrument
the

and e v a l u a t i o n s
excellent

is c o m p o s e d of a s e p a r a t e c h e c k l i s t

seven c a t e g o r i e s of DE criteria.
are bas ed on a f ou r-po in t

to poor.

Fu r t h e r m o r e ,

on eac h p a r t w h i c h

allow

scale

Checklists
from

there are g u i d i n g

statements

for a m o r e ac c u r a t e e v a l u a t i o n of

program characteristics.
The p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of N A S S E was to a s s i s t
school
guiding

personnel

and o u t s i d e e v a l u a t i o n

p rin ci pl es ,

The Del ta

teams w i t h a set of

and e v a l u a t i o n

Pi E p s i l o n 3 study pr o d u c e d

that c o u l d be used
pr og ram s.

checklists

items.

2

an i n s t r u m e n t

for the e v a l u a t i o n of b u s i n e s s e d u c a t i o n

The e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a d e v e l o p e d

p r o v i d e d a basi s

local

from the study

from w h i c h b u s i n e s s e d u c a t o r s w o u l d jud g e

the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e i r d e p a r tm en t.
2

C r a w f o r d and Meyer, O r g a n i z a t i o n and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n (Columbus: Me r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g
Co., 1972), pp. 303-309.
^Delta Pi E p s i l o n (Tau C h a p t e r ) , E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a
for B u s i n e s s D e p a r t m e n t s of S e c o n d a r y Schools, M o n o g r a p h 90
(Chicago, Illinois: S o u t h w e s t e r n P u b l i s h i n g Co.).

20
The e v a l u a t i v e crit er ia we r e ca tegorize d under the
following thi rtee n headings:

(1) A r t i c u l a t i o n wi t h other

de p a r t m e n t s w i thi n the school,
Comm u n i t y resources,
utilization,
materials,
ment and

(4) Curricula,

(8) Libr ary ma te r i a l s and

followup,

and

(7) Instructional
facilities,

(9) P l a c e ­

(10) Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and profe ssi onal
(11)

Su p e r v i s o r y practices,

(12) Teac hi ng

(13) Work experience.

The instru me nt pro vid ed
ments

(3)

(5) Eq ui pmen t and its

(6) Guid an ce practices,

growth of teachers,
methods,

(2) Club activities,

sixty-six cri te ri on s t a t e ­

following each of the thi rte en men ti on ed headings.

The crit e r i o n stateme nt s w e r e sup po rte d by che ck lis t
to allow the eva lu at or

items

to d e t e r m i n e w h et he r or not the c r i ­

teria were being met and to what extent.

Studies in Di st ribu tiv e, Business and
Office Ed uc a t i o n C o n c e r n i n g Cri teri a
for the Ev al u a t i o n of
O n g o i n g Pro grams
In recent years
"evaluation"

terms such as

"ac co unt ability"

and

have come to the fo re fro nt in educ a t i o n c i r ­

cles,

thereby cr e a t i n g a r e l a t i v e l y ne w p h e n o m e n o n for
4
educators.
Gal lup polls
indicate the pu bl ic's d i s s a t i s ­
faction with

the q u al it y of e d u c a t i o n o f f e r e d

n a t i o n ' s schools.

School

in the

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have been put on

the line; wi t h d e c l i n i n g en r o l l m e n t s budge ts must be drawn

^"Ni nth A n nu al G a l l u p Poll of the P u bl ic 's A t t i ­
tudes Toward the Pub li c Sch ools."
Joi nt ly co nd u c t e d by the
G a l l u p Poll an d the C h a r l e s F. Ke tter ing Foundation, Phi
Delta K a p p a n , S e p t e m b e r 1977, V o l u m e 59, No. 1.

21

tightly and o u tp uts ca re f u l l y s cr utinized
they are g e tti ng
However,

to show the public

their m o n e y ' s worth.
all

is not eas il y done.

A wide var iet y of

factors inf lue nc e the p r od uct of our public schools.
5

J oh an sen note d such factors in his e va luati on
thirty high school

Di st r i b u t i v e Ed uc a t i o n p rogra ms

purp os e of as se ssin g
programs.

strengths

and w e a k n e s s e s

The study was divi de d

for e v a l u a t i o n purp ose s:
offerings,

study

(3) Phy si cal

into the

(5)

Instru ctiona l activities,

and

(7) M e thod s of evaluation.

(6)

(4)

for the

in Iowa DE

following areas

(1) Organ iza tion,
facilities,

of

(2) Na tu re of

Instructional

In st ruct ion al

staff,

materials,

Ev a l u a t i o n s w e r e made by Jo h a n s e n by d ev el op ing and
using an e v a l u a t i v e

i ns tr um ent c o n s i s t i n g

of

(1) Che cklist

statements used with the guid ing p r i n c i p l e s as deve l o p e d by
the Na tio nal

Study of Sec on dary Scho ol E v a l u a t i o n as a base

for d e t e r m i n i n g areas
we r e d e v e l o p e d
Inform at ion

to be evaluated,

for each of the c h e c k l i s t statements,

sheets wer e p r ep ar ed

da t a r e quire d

(2) Spe ci fi c criteria

from w h i c h to obta in

and

(3)

the

for e v a l u a t i o n purposes.

The inf or ma ti on

sheets,

gu i d i n g pri nc i p l e s

cific cr i t e r i a we r e used to d e v e l o p

indivi du al

and s p e ­

school e v a l u ­

atio ns and a state summ ary e v a l u a t i o n for each of the
5
Harold D. Joh ansen, "An E v a l u a t i o n of the F ed er ally
R e i m b u r s e d D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Pr o g r a m s in Iowa High
Sch oo ls w i t h Spec if ic R e f e r e n c e to the E v a l u a t i v e Guides as
D e v e l o p e d by the N at io na l Study of S e c o n d a r y School E v a l u ­
ation" (Ph.D. di sse r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1963), p. 196.

22

checklist
present

statements.

study

The J o h a n s e n

in that

study d i f f e r s

from the

the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w e r e not r a t e d

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

to o b j e c t i v e s of the p r o g r a m by

t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
g
G.

P. Mock c o n d u c t e d a stu dy

that w a s a c o m p i l a t i o n

of e v a l u a t i v e p r a c t i c e s and p r o c e d u r e s

in f i fteen p a r t - t i m e

cooperative Distributive Education programs
secondary

scho ol s of Arkansa s.

recommendations
Arkansas

Mo ck m a d e

in the

schools.

w h i c h was s i mil ar

study.

the study,

for the i m p r o v e m e n t of p r o g r a m s

The e v a l u a t i v e

NASSE,

Through

in the p u bl ic

were

cri t e r i a d e v e l o p e d

to the E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a

selected,

tried out and a p p r o v e d

The w r i t e r m a d e

an e v a l u a t i n g
the school
co mmu n i t y .

by L o g a n

three v i s i t s

(1952),

set by the
for the Mo ck

to the sc ho o l

to form

c o m m i t t e e made up of two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of

and two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the
The M o c k

stud y

is s i m i l a r

local

business

to the p r e s e n t st ud y

in that e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w e r e d e v e l o p e d

for the e v a l u ­

a ti o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o gr am s.

H o we ve r,

present

study o b j e c t i v e s of DE w i l l

t an c e w i t h

the c r i t e r i a d e r i v e d

al so be r a t e d

from Mock's

in the

in i m p o r ­

study.

G. P. Mock, "An E v a l u a t i v e S t u d y of the F e d e r a l l y
Reimbursable Part-Time Cooperative Distributive Education
P r o g r a m s in the P u b l i c S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s of A r k a n s a s "
(Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A r k a n s a s , 1965), 202 pp.

23

The B a n n i s t e r
lities,
tive

eq ui pm ent,

and

instructional

Education programs

includ ed

the

evaluation,

following:
(2)

recommendations
An

instrument

studies

were evaluated
DE and on

se l e c t e d DE programs ,

from a surv ey of c u rr en t

in D i s t r i b u t i v e
by a panel

The

of

Education.

45 e d u c a t o r s

p u b l i c s c h o o l s d u r i n g the year
Again,

as in the p r e v i o u s

is s i m i l a r

it d i f f e r s

in c o m p a r i n g p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s

in str ume nt
(3) Ma d e

findings.

liter atu re

and

The crit er ia

instru me nt was

a new dimension

in o p e r a t i o n

in

1967-68.
the B an ni st er

in the d e v e l o p m e n t of
from the p r e s e n t

study

to e v a l u a t i v e criteria.

Th e g r o w t h of e n r o l l m e n t s

7

and

for

in the field of

studies,

to the p r e s e n t on e

e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a but

added

in st ru ment

i n s t r u m e n t was used and d e m o n s t r a t e d on

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

Arkansas

The study

c o n t a i n i n g a list of t en ta ti ve c r i ­

the ba s i s of this e v a l u a t i o n an

formulated.
twelve

(1) D e v e l o p m e n t of an

faci­

for D i s t r i b u ­

in the state of Arkansas.

for i m p r o v e m e n t bas ed on the

ter ia wa s d e v i s e d
r e lat ed

r e so ur ce s

D e m o n s t r a t i o n of the use of the

by the e v a l u a t i o n of

stu dy

stud y^ p r o d u c e d an e v a l u a t i o n of

in t w o- ye ar c ol le ge s

to D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Programs.

T a l m a d g e E. Ban ni st er, " E v a l u a t i o n of Fa cil it ies ,
Equip m e n t , and I n s t r u c t i o n a l R e s o u r c e s in D i s t r i b u t i v e
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s in A r k a n s a s " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of A r k a n s a s , 1969).

24

0
Accordingly,

tho Whitted study

was the first co mp rehen si ve

evalua ti on of two year federally re imb urs able programs
junior colleges.

in

Whitted de ve l o p e d qui de li ne s and used them

as a set of criteria,

an instrument,

for the use of de pa rt me ntal

and a set of pr ocedur es

se lf-ev a l u a t i o n to provide ad m i ­

nistrato rs and D i s t r i b u t i v e Educ at io n teachers and teacherco o r d in at ors with an objective,
ating programs.

economica l means of e v a l u ­

The evaluat iv e cri teria develop ed

study by Wh itt ed were stateme nts
thought,

practices,

the best

co ndi ti on s and situations pe rt a i n i n g to

D i s t r i b u t i v e Edu c at io n programs
obtained

rep resenting

for the

from the current

in the junior colleges

literature.

The stateme nts we re cla ss if ied

into eleven maj or

categori es wh i c h make up important ele ments of the junior
college DE program.
object iv es

The c ateg or ie s we re

of D i s t r i b u t i v e Education,

Administ rat ion,

(4)

Instruction,

and procedures,

(6)

Instructional

(8) E x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r activities,
facilities
tions.

and equipment,

and

(5)

(2) Curriculum,

materials,
(9) Staff,

(11)

(7) Guidance,
(10)

8

Physical

Business-community rela­
into sub ca teg or ie s

The cri teria were submitted

to a gr o u p of D i s t r i b u t i v e Ed uc a t i o n ed uc a t o r s
ment and validation.

(3)

Instr uc tio nal me t h o d s

The statem en ts we r e then d i vi ded

to give a d eq uate descr iptions.

(1) P hilo so ph y and

for r e f i n e ­

Th e c o m m i t t e e c on s i s t e d of seven

M i ldr ed M, Whitted, "Criteria for the Eval u a t i o n
of T w o - Y e a r F e de ra lly R e i m b u r s a b l e D i s t r i b u t i v e Ed uc a t i o n
P r o g r a m s in the J u n i o r Col lege " (Ph.D. disse rtat ion , Indiana
University, 1969).

25

m i d w e s t e r n s t a t e s u p e r v i s o r s of DE and two DE t e a c h e r c o o r ­
dinators

from

ju ni or colleges.

from forty ju ni o r c o l l e g e s

T e a c h e r s and c o o r d i n a t o r s

used the

instrument

to e v a l u a t e

their progra ms.
The W h i t t e d

s tu d y is si m i l a r

to the p r e s e n t

in that e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w e r e d e v e l o p e d
Distributive
it d i f f e r s

c r i t e r i a w e r e not rat ed
other.

and a r e v i e w of

E d u c a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s wa s perf o r m e d ;

f r o m the p r e s e n t

Furt he r,

the

study

study w a s

however,

in that o b j e c t i v e s

in i m p o r t a n c e

study

in r e l a t i o n

and

to each

for p o s t - s e c o n d a r y program s.

9

The T a y l o r

stu dy m a d e a m o r e

the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of

the p ra ct ices,

s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e to

p r oc ed ur es,

c o n d i t i o n s and o t h e r p h e n o m e n a p e c u l i a r to and
the d e v e l o p m e n t and o p e r a t i o n of b u s i n e s s
tion p r o g r a m s
instruction

employing

schools.

cu l a r l y on the d e v e l o p m e n t of

improvement

and a d v a n c e m e n t .

face validity .

in

and o f f i c e e d u c a ­

study

standards

focused p a r t i ­

for the e v a l u a t i o n of
a bas is

for the ir

The s t a n d a r d s w e r e d e v e l o p e d

incorporation

The s t a n d a r d s and
of

The

the p u r p o s e of p r o v i d i n g

for e v a l u a t i o n by t h eir

important

the c o o p e r a t i v e p a r t - t i m e m e t h o d of

in s e c o n d a r y

programs with

si tua tions,

into an in str ume nt.

i n s t r u m e n t w e r e v a l i d a t e d by m e ans

Validation procedures

i nv olve d

th r e e

9

Ruby F. Tay lor, " S t a n d a r d s for the E v a l u a t i o n of
B u s i n e s s and O f f i c e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s E m p l o y i n g the C o o p ­
e r a t i v e P a r t - T i m e M e t h o d of I n s t r u c t i o n in the S e c o n d a r y
Sch oo ls " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a U n i v e rsi ty , 1972).

26

select g r o u p s of p r a c t i c i n g

teacher-coordinators,

one h u n d r e d

in f o r t y - f i v e states.

and t h i r t y - f o u r

Luke^

focused m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y on the d e v e l o p m e n t

of a set of c r i t e r i a

to be used in e v a l u a t i n g an O f f i c e

Production Laboratory,
co ur se

an

i n- sc hool

in the o f f i c e o c c u p a t i o n s

level.

a tot al of

An e v a l u a t i o n

relevant work experience

at the s e c o n d a r y

i n s t r u m e n t and

the i n s t r u m e n t w e r e a l s o d e v e l o p e d

school

instructions

in o r d e r

that

for usin g
the c r i ­

teria m i g h t be m o r e usable.
S t a t e m e n t s of o p t i m u m c o n d i t i o n s ,
dures

and s i t u a t i o n s w e r e d e r i v e d

literature
analyzed

fr om 1960 to Ju ly

and c l a s s i f i e d

into

Students,

(3)

and

Facilities,

The s t a t e m e n t s w e r e

five m a j o r c a t e g o r i e s :
(2)

Class c o n t e n t

e q u i p m e n t and supplies,

of the O f f i c e P r o d u c t i o n L a b o r at or y,

validated

and o f f i c e e d u c a t i o n and c o l l e g e

Teachers

from five s t a t e s w e r e a s ke d

used

(1)
and
(4)

i n s t r u m e n t to e v a l u a t e

for the p r e s e n t

teachers.

to use the c r i t e r i a

the c o u r s e s

from the L u k e study w e r e

by te a c h e r s

state d i r e c t o r s of

business

Criteria

then

(5) Faculty.

The e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w e r e

and

proce­

fr om the p r o f e s s i o n a l

1972.

A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
activi ti es,

pract i c e s ,

they w e r e teaching.

f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d and

study.

^ ® Che ry l M. Luke, " C r i t e r i a for the E v a l u a t i o n of
the O f f i c e P r o d u c t i o n L a b o r a t o r y at the S e c o n d a r y Sch oo l
Level" (Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , 1973).

Tho W y l l i e
of b u s i n e s s
level.

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

an

i n s t r u m e n t w h i c h wa s

f o llo wi ng areas:

(a) C urric ul um ,

Instructional

act iv it ies,

I n s t r u c t i o n a l ma te rial s,
ac ti vi ti es,
P hysi ca l

(g) Home,

f ac il it ies
The

go in g

for the e v a l u a t i o n

T h r o u g h an e x t e n s i v e study of the

developed

(c)

study wa s d e v e l o p e d

(b)

methods

and equip me nt ,

whether

(f)

and

content,

in the

Extra-class
rel at io ns,

(h)

fore­

for e a c h c r i ­

later v a l i d a t e d by b u s i n e s s

field.

tho e v a l u a t o r

in a c h e c k l i s t

could d e t e r m i n e h o w well

fashion

or h o w

B u s i n e s s t e a c h e r s w e r e ask e d

thei r p r o g r a m s based on the c r i t e r i a

to

to i n d i c a t e

they w e r e m e e t i n g e s t a b l i s h e d standar ds.
M a n y of the e v a l u a t i o n

s t ud ies m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y

w e r e v a l i d a t e d by te a c h e r s and s u p e r v i s o r s w i t h i n the
of B u s i n e s s
there

(d)

{i ) Staff.

supporting statements

p o o r l y a s t a n d a r d was met.
evaluate

the

and p r o c e du re s,

bu s i n e s s and c o m m u n i t y

The c r i t e r i a w e r e d e v e l o p e d
whereby

Instructional

(e) Guida nc e,

The c r i t e r i a wa s

educators

used to e v a l u a t e

i n s t r u m e n t was c o n s t r u c t e d to inclu de the

cri t e r i a w i t h

terion.

literature Wyllie

and D i s t r i b u t i v e Educat io n.

are o t h e r

interested parties

E v a l u a t i o n of V o c a t i o n a l
t a kes p l a c e on a s t a t e w i d e

level.

At the

field

sam e time,

in the e v a l u a t i v e p r o c e s

Education programs
Fur t h e r m o r e ,

also

statewide

^ E u g e n e D. Wyllie, " C r i t e r i a for the E v a l u a t i o n of
S e c o n d a r y S c ho ol B u s i n e s s E d u c a t i o n P r og rams" (Ph.D. d i s s e r
tation, I n dian a U n i v e rs ity, 1961), p. 160.

28

evaluation
different

for

local

insights.

e v a l u a t i o n at this

school d i s t r i c t s ma y p r o v i d e m u c h
It t h e r e f o r e b e c o m e s n e c e s s a r y to study

level.

St u d i e s C o n c e r n i n g C r i t e r i a for the
E v a l u a t i o n of State and Local
V o c a t i o n a l E du cati on P r o g r a m s
The

following

studies are c o n c e r n e d w i t h

m e n t and b e t t e r m e n t of
districts
grams.

1.

t e c h n i q u e s w h i c h a s sist local

in the e v a l u a t i o n of o c c u p a t i o n a l

In d e t e r m i n i n g a ba s i s

ti o n s h o u l d be giv en
C a refu l

p l a n n i n g will

In eac h of
discussed

local
grams.
ments

be an e s s e n t i a l

r e vi sed edi tio n,
school

T h e p u r p o s e wa s

part of any

if not a l re ad y mandated.

to local

subjects

are

p r o g r a m e v a l u at io n.

D e p a r t m e n t of Publ ic
evolved criteria

Instruction

12

for the use of

d i s t r i c t s to e v a l u a t i o n b u s i n e s s

to id e n t i f y

atten­

o u t s i d e the e d u c a t i o n a l

the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d

in r e l a t i o n

The P e n n s y l v a n i a
study,

pro­

and

is e x p e c t e d

th e s e stu dies,
only

education

for e v a l u a t i o n design,

Th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of gro up s
community

school

to two aspects:

e v a l u a t i o n design,
2.

the d e v e l o p ­

education pro­

to ai d b u s i n e s s e d u c a t i o n d e p a r t ­

strengths

and w e a k n e s s e s

as m e a s u r e d

a g a i n s t a set of standards .

12

C r i t e r i a for the Use of a Sch oo l D i s t r i c t in
E v a l u a t i n g Its B u s i n e s s E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m , Revlse'd" E d i t i o n ,
D e p a r t m e n t of P u b l i c In st ru ct ion, Ha rr is burg, P e n n s y l v a n i a ,
1968, p. 8.

29

The Pe nn s y l v a n i a de part m e n t
e va lu ate the fol low ing areas:
ment,

(7) Shorthand,
vice,

(1) Phy sical plant and e q u i p ­

(2) O r g a n i z a t i o n and staff,

ness ma th ema tics,

and

instrument was used to

(3) Bookkeeping,

(5) Ge neral business,

(8) Typ ewriting,

(4) Bu s i ­

(6) Offi ce practice,

(9) Special co unse li ng

(10) C om m u n i t y and school

ser­

relations.

The Illinois State Dep ar tmen t of Vo cat io na l

Ed u c a ­

t i o n ^-^ study was a thre e phase syst em for sta te wi de e v a l u ­
ation of o c c u p at io na l
the study was to
and

federal

op er a t i o n of
The

educ ation programs.

The p u rpose of

(1) enco ur age be tt or ut iliz at io n of state

funds,

and

(2) to adv an ce better pl a n n i n g and

local programs.
first pha se of tho study co ns i s t e d of p r o g r a m

planning deci s i o n s m a d e by local d i str ic t personn el
the results of p r e v i o u s l y co nd u c t e d evaluation.
comes of the pla nning we r e reflec te d
one and

five year plans

based on

The o u t ­

in the local districts'

for o c c u p at io na l ed uc a t i o n and sent

to the Di v i s i o n of Vo cation al

and Tec hn ic al

Education.

Phase two of the s y s t e m included annual m o n i t o r i n g of p r o ­
gr a m cha nge s and pro gr es s
personnel.

reflected by state d e p a r t m e n t

Phase three com pri se d an on-s it e v i s i t a t i o n of

local progra ms by a v i s i t a t i o n team c ons is ti ng of

Three Phase S y s t e m for St at e w i d e E v a l u a t i o n of
Oc c u p a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s , Di v i s i o n of V o c a t i o n a l and
Techn ic al Education, D e p a r t m e n t of Education, Springfield,
Illinois, 197G.

30

e duc ators,

b u s i n e s s and

i nd us tria l

r e c e n t g r a d u a t e s of o c c u p a t i o n a l
The last phas e re sul ted
standing qualities
program,

r e p r esent at iv es

programs.
in

identif ic at io n of o u t ­

and d e f i c i e n c i e s

w h e r e b y s pe ci fi c

and

in the o c c u p a t i o n a l

recommendations

for p r o g r a m

im p r o v e m e n t w e r e needed.

The O h i o S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

of E du ca tion

known as P R I D E — P r o g r a m R e v i e w for
and E x p a n s i o n
developed
programs

in V o c a t i o n a l

to imp rove

14

s t udy al s o

Improvement, Development

E d u c a t i o n and G u i d a n c e — was

the q u a l i t y of v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n

t h r o u g h o u t the s t at e of Ohio.
T h e r e are six c o m p o n e n t s o f the P R I D E program;

are as
1.

the y

follows:
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n R e v i e w - - Th e
ture and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
te am are

role,

objectives,

struc­

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

i d e n t i f i e d by a local d i s t r i c t a d m i n i ­

strator .
2.

Process Variable Review--Instructors
advisory

committee

instructional
(criteria)
liti es

to rea ct

program.

to the v a r i a b l e s of an

T h e p r oc ess

i n cl ud e c u r r i c u l u m and

and e q u i p m e n t ,

use a lay

variables

i n s t r uct io n,

instructional

faci­

staff and

students.

14

P R I D E - - P r o g r a m R e v i e w for Improvement, D e v e l o p m e n t
an d E x p a n s i o n in V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n and G u i d a n c e , D i v i s i o n
of V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n an d D i v i s i o n of G u i d a n c e an d Testing ,
D e p a r t m e n t o f E du cati on , C ol um bu s, Ohio, M a y 1976.

31

3.

P r o du ct

R e v i G w --The

achieved

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the s u c c e s s e s

by the v o c a t i o n a l

gra d u a t e

t h r o u g h one and

five y e a r f o l l o w - u p studies.
4.

Cost A n a l y s i s

R e v i e w - - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of cost s on a

per pupil per p r o g r a m basis.
5.

A v a i l a b i l i t y and Impact R e v i e w - - C o n d u c t e d on a
p e r i o d i c b a s i s by v o c a t i o n a l
district personnel

education planning

to u t i l i z e local

resources

for

d e t e r m i n i n g c o m m u n i t y needs.
6.

C o m m u n i t y A c c e p t a n c e R e v i e w - - E x a m i n a t i o n of prevocational
i nter es ts

education

s t u d e n t s to d e t e r m i n e th ei r

and attitudes.

Additional

rep ort s

education personnel

are p r e p a r e d

for i n d i v i d u a l

by

local v o c a t i o n a l

programs

i n f o r m a t i o n and dat a upon w h i c h d e c i s i o n s

providing

regarding

i m p r o v e m e n t and d e f i c i e n c i e s can occur.

The V i r g i n i a
developed

for a n n u a l

p r o g r a m s by local
was

D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n

15

s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n of v o c a t i o n a l

school

d is tr icts .

Local

as v a r i o u s

individual

total p r o ­

progr ams .

A systematic procedure was developed
and e v a l u a t i o n of v o c a t i o n a l

education

self-evaluation

i n t e n d e d for a c r o s s the boa r d e v a l u a t i o n of

gr am s as w e l l

stu dy was

for p l a n n i n g

e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s to as si s t

local scho ol d i s t r i c t s b a s e d on a five ye ar s t a t e plan.

15

A n n u a l Loc al Self E v a l u a t i o n of V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a ­
ti on , D i v i s i o n of V o c a t i o n a l Ed uc a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a tion, Richmon d, Vir g i n i a , 1977.

32

The e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e wa s d e v e l o p e d
areas of v o c a t i o n a l

education--occupational

c o n s u m e r and h o m e m a k i n g educa ti on ,
e x p l o r a t i o n pr og rams .

staff,

e m p l o y e r s and o t h e r

lay persons.

a foundation
This

p r e s e n t and

for mer students,

for s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n by scho ol d i s t r i c t s . ^
study was

based on a c li n i c a l

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

of v o c a t i o n a l

e d u c a t i o n on tho local

tive s of the stu dy w e r e to
or

and o r i e n t a t i o n of

B y r a m e v o l v e d a seri es of s t ud ie s that laid

particular

involving

i mprov ed

pr ep a r a t i o n ,

E v a l u a t i o n s w e r e p e r f o r m e d by c o m ­

m i t t e e s c o m p o s e d of

Haro ld

into thr ee m a j o r

procedures

approach

for the e v a l u a t i o n

level.

Other objec­

(1) d i s c o v e r a n d / o r d e v i s e new

for local

p r o g r a m ev a l u a t i o n ,

establish a working environment

in w h i c h

ation procedures

schoo l p e r s o n n e l

tial

lead ers

at

for bo t h

local

stat e and n a t i o n a l

e d u c a t i o n can take place,
of the c o n s u l t a n t
ations

(3)

and

(5)

me n t a pla n

for e v a l u a t i o n

(4)

in Mic h i g a n .

uncover

situ­

r e s o u r c e and

f u rther d e m o n s t r a t e and

imple­

in the st a t e of M i c h i g a n .

Th e study wa s c o n d u c t e d w i t h
s y st ems

and p o t e n ­

i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e the role

that w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as p o t e n t i a l
cen ters,

s c hoo l

l e a r n i n g of e v a l u ­

leve ls of v o c a t i o n a l

in p r o g r a m e v a l u ation ,

development

(2)

the c o o p e r a t i o n of ten

"The e m p h a s i s wa s on

local

^ H a r o l d M. Byram, E v a l u a t i o n S y s t e m s for Lo ca l P r o ­
gr am s of V o c a t i o n a l - T e c h n i c a l " E d u c a t i o n (East La ns ing,
M ic hi ga n: M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , O c t o b e r 1968), p. 129.

33

staff and c i t i z e n
m e n t of o u t c o m e s

involvement,
t h roug h

follow-up,

and a c t i v i t i e s of int ere st
stud y w e r e d e v e l o p e d
ation

in ad d i t i o n

c u r r i c u l u m analysis,
and special

to each sch ool."

a set of g u i d e l i n e s

to ne w and

17

assess­

p roje ct s
F r o m the

for local

impr ove d p r o c e d u r e s

evalu­

for p r o g r a m

assessment.

The B a rr at a

18

study p r o d u c e d an e m p i r i c a l

systematic

m e t h o d of w e i g h t i n g - - p r i o r i t i z i n g - - s e t s of e v a l u a t i v e c r i ­
teria as a c c e p t e d

by v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n p r a c t i t i o n e r s .

M a j o r o b j e c t i v e s of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n were:
h o w well
tory

the V o c a t i o n a l

Education Program Evaluation

i d e n t i f i e s criteri a,

delphi

technique,

and

(1) To repo rt
Inven­

(2) To e v a l u a t e and e x t e n d the

(3) To g e n e r a t e m o d e l s

to w e i g h t

p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n criteria.
A m o d i f i e d del p hi

t e c h n i q u e was

used to a r r i v e at

a c o n s e n s u s amo ng a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sa mp le of p r a c t i t i o n e r s ,
e x p e r t s and oth er r e l at ed gr ou p s of
m e n t a t i o n and

te chni q u e s

used

subjects.

Th e

in the study to a s s e s s

i m p o r t a n c e of e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w as succes sf ul .
more,

the m o d e l s

with differing

17

18

used a l l o w e d

instru­
the

Further­

for c o m p a r i s o n of p r o g r a m s

sets of e v a l u a t i v e criteria.

Byram,

op.

c i t ., p.

2.

M a r k K. Barrata, " U t i l i z a t i o n of the D e l p h i T e c h ­
n i q u e to W e i g h t P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n C r i t e r i a in V o c a t i o n a l
E d u c a t i o n " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , O h i o S t a t e Univer si ty ,
1974).

34

The W i s c o n s i n D e p a r t m e n t
st u d y w a s d e s i g n e d
instrumentation
programs
classes

to v a l i d a t e

for

of Pub li c

the e v a l u a t i o n of C a p s t o n e v o c a t i o n a l

for the p u r p o s e of p r o g r a m impro vem ent.

T r a d e and

I n du st ri al
Education

19

s y s t e m a t i c p r o c e d u r e s and

inc lude D i s t r i b u t i v e Ed uca ti on ,

cultural

Instruction

Education,

taught

(Capstone

O f f i c e Ed uca tion,

Hone Econom ic s,

and A g r i ­

in the e l e v e n t h and t w el fth

g r a d e s .)
O b j e c t i v e s of tho st u d y w e r e to
mod el

for e v a l u a t i n g

(1) d e v e l o p a va l i d

C a p s t o n e p rogra ms ,

dur es w h i c h c o ul d be used to c o n d u c t

(2) d e v e l o p p r o c e ­

self e v a l u a t i o n and

v i s i t a t i o n e v a l u a t i o n bas e d on the model,
an o n g o i n g e v a l u a t i o n

and

(3) c o n s t r u c t

s y s t e m that cou ld be used

in da y

to

day m a n a g e m e n t of C a p s t o n e pr og ram s.
The C a p s t o n e

P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n S y s t e m c o n s i s t e d of

thr ee phases:
1.

Self
and

Evaluation.

A d a p t i n g and using

instrumentation contained

E v a l u a t i o n Manua l,
comprehensive
Vocational
2.

External
d u r e s and

plan,

in the C a p s t o n e Self

conduct,

and repo rt a

self e v a l u a t i o n of the

tota l C a p s t o n e

Program.

Evaluation.

Adapting

instrumentation

and us i n g

contained

Team Visitation Guidelines,

19

the p r o c e d u r e s

the p r o c e ­

in the C a p s t o n e

c o n d u c t an e x t e r n a l

C a p s t o n e P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n M o d e l an d P r o c e d u r e s ,
D e p a r t m e n t of P u b l i c I n s t r uc ti on, M ad ison, Wisc o n s i n ,
A u g u s t 1977.

35

ev al ua t i o n and receive a w r itte n report con ta ining
con clusions,
tions
3.

re co mm end ations,

and suggest ed so l u ­

for p r o g r a m improvement.

Im pl em e n t a t i o n of Ev alua t i o n F i n d i n g s .
fi ndings

from the self e v a l u a t i o n and o n - s i t e team

e v a l u a t i o n reports,
plans

Using

d e v e l o p short and long range

for im p r o v e m e n t of the program.

Begin i m p l e ­

m e n t a t i o n of the plan ne d p r o g r a m of improvement.
The study wa s pilo t tested.

Rec or di ng and m o n i t o r i n g

of the pilot was done by DPI c o n s u l t a n t s and pilot school
personnel.
vocation al

The W i s c o n s i n Ca p s t o n e model prov id ed

local

e du c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s wi t h a tested p r o g r a m self

e v a l u a t i o n model.

Studies C o n c e r n i n g the D e v e l o p m e n t of P h il os op hy
and O b j e c t i v e s of D i s t r i b u t i v e i^u ca tT on
Programs and Oth er Rela ted Res earch
A study c omp le te d by Cr a w f o r d
ni fi c a n c e to this study.
a t t e n t i o n had been giv en
objectives.

20

is of special

Prior to C r a w f o r d ' s work,

sig­

little

to the v a l i d a t i o n of p r o g r a m

The study wa s a maj o r u n d e r t a k i n g

to d e v e l o p a

p h i l o s o p h y of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n by c o n s t r u c t i n g and
v a l i d a t i n g the bas ic b e li ef s re ga r d i n g DE as d e t e r m i n e d by
the entire p o p u l a t i o n of state s u p e r v i s o r s and teac he r

20

Lucy C. Crawford, "A C o m p e t e n c y P a t t e r n A p p r o a c h
to C u r r i c u l u m C o n s t r u c t i o n in D i s t r i b u t i v e Education, Vol.
I, Final Repo rt of R e s e a r c h P r o je ct Su pp o r t e d by Unit ed
States O f f i c e of E d u c a t i o n G r a n t O E - 6 - 8 5 - 0 4 4 ; Vol. I, 1967
(Blacksburg, Virgini a: V i r g i n i a P o l y t e c h n i c a Institute,
1967) .

36

e d u c a t i o n pe rs on n e l .

The u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e of the r e s e a r c h

project was

to a s c e r t a i n

the lea rnin g e x p e r i e n c e s

be i n c l u d e d

in a DE t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n program.

that

should

A m o d i f i c a t i o n of Q - m e t h o d o l o g y wa s used to c o n s t r u c t
the p h i l o s o p h y .

S t a t e m e n t s of basic beli ef w e r e c a r e f u l l y

s t r u c t u r e d by C r a w f o r d w i t h r e p e a t e d re v i e w s by a C o m m i t t e e
of c o n s u lta nt s.
statements were
beliefs

A b a s i c beli ef c a r d - s o r t of n i n e t y - s i x
then c o n s t r u c t e d and

tested.

The b a sic

that w e r e a g r e e d upo n and later r e f i n e d are

found

in A p p e n d i x A.
Th e C r a w f o r d
sent s t u d y
s t ruc te d
the

study

is d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to th e p r e ­

in that bas ic b e l i e f s or o b j e c t i v e s w e r e c o n ­

for a D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m by e x p e r t s

field.

w e r e used

The o b j e c t i v e s d e v e l o p e d
in the p r e s e n t

by DE p e r s o n n e l
evaluative

and local

in the C r a w f o r d

study to be rated

were

in i m p o r t a n c e

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h r e g a r d to

21

study c o n c l u d e d

for the m o s t par t

cooperative Distributive Education programs
the p h i l o s o p h y

st u d e n t s

study

criteria.

Th e Dav is

meeting

in

that

in I n d i a n a w e r e

established

for t h e m as p e r c e i v e d by

and t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s .

P r o g r a m c o m p o n e n t s that

investigated

gui da nce ,

21

i n c l u d e d the areas of o b j e c t i v e s ,

c u r r i c u l u m and co or d i n a t i o n .

R o d n e y E. Davis, "The Exte nt to W h i c h I n d i a n a
D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s are A c h i e v i n g P r o g r a m P h i l o ­
sophy as P e r c e i v e d by S t u d e n t s and T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s "
(Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , A r i z o n a Sta te Un ivers it y, 1974).

37

Two s u rve y
evaluations
vey

in s t r u m e n t s w e r e d e v e l o p e d

of s t u d e n t s and

i n s t r u m e n t s c o n s i s t e d of

from Lucy C.

Crawford's

to g a t h e r the

teacher-coordinators.

Th e

sur­

forty-five statements derived

study,

"A P h i l o s o p h y of D i s t r i b u t i v e

E d u c a t i o n , " w h i c h wa s e s t a b l i s h e d as being e q u i v a l e n t

to the

In di an a DE philoso ph y.

S u m m a r y of R e la ted
Eighteen

s t u di es p e r t i n e n t

Literature
to e v a l u a t i o n hav e been

s u m m a r i z e d on the p r e c e d i n g pages.
some

form,

teria and
grams,

and

pr e s e n t

i n vo lved the use of ob j e c t i v e s ,
instruments

influenced

22

s u g g e s t s that m a n y

the c o m p o s i t i o n of

the

c h an ges ha v e ta k e n pla c e

and e d u c a t i o n a l

DE p r o g r a m s are in the m i d s t

e n v i r o n m e n t s and

of t h e s e changes.

Meyer

"Have t h e s e past e x p e r i e n c e s h e l p e d us to d e l i n e a t e

the goa ls of D i s t r i b u t i v e

go al s

evaluative cri­

study.

w i t h i n the o c c u p a t i o n a l

changes

in

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

t h e r e f o r e have

Meyer

states,

All of the studies,

Education?"

it is i m p o r t a n t to c o n t i n u o u s l y

in o r d e r th at

B e c a u s e of such
re-evaluate program

they r e f l e c t th e times.

In man y of the s t u d i e s th at have b e e n rev iewed,
i n v e s t i g a t o r s h a v e r e p e a t e d l y d e v e l o p e d a set of cri te ri a,
ha d it v a l i d a t e d by a jury of exp erts ,

22

and t h e n t e s t e d

W a r r e n G. Meye r, " R e - e v a l u a t i o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e
E d u c a t i o n , " B u s i n e s s E d u c a t i o n F o r u m , J a n u a r y 1968, V o l u m e
22, pp. 13-16.

38

on program s.

Kail

and M a s t e r s o n m a k e a good p o i n t w h e n

they say:
A jury of e x p e r t s may have d e eme d the s t a t e m e n t to be
valid for ins tru ct io n, but shou ld it app ly e q u a l l y to
school systems of v a r i o u s sizes, fi nan cial resources,
s t u d e n t e n r o l lm ent, level of o f f e r i n g s — e l e m e n t a r y
t h r o u g h c o l l e g e — and in all g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n s ? ^
In addit io n,
essential

the

s t u d i e s r e vi ew ed

part of any ev al ua ti on,

program objectives
study w i l l

by e x p e r t s

teacher-coordinators
rate o b j e c t i v e s

2 3

as w e l l

The p r e s e n t

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i ­

as p r a c t i t i o n e r s

Distributive Education
and

an

is re l a t i n g

to e v a l u a t i v e cri ter ia.

Specifically,

two bas i c

and that

d e v e l o p a list of o b j e c t i v e s

teria v a l i d a t e d
field.

ha v e a l s o n e g l e c t e d

in the

teachers,

local v o c a t i o n a l d i r e c t o r s w i l l

and e v a l u a t i v e

criteria

in i m p o r t a n c e a mo n g

types of programs.

Lewis W a l l and A. C. M a s t e r s o n , " E m e r g i n g E v a l u ­
ati on A p p r o a c h e s , " B u s i n e s s E d u c a t i o n Y e a r b o o k #7, 1968.

C H A P T E R III

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

In this c h a p t e r are d e s c r i b e d the
participants,
statistical

development

techniques

of the

s e l e c t i o n of the

instrum ent ,

design,

and

for analysis.

Population
Th e p o p u l a t i o n
secondary

school

co or d i n a t o r s ,
programs

for this

D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n teac he rs,

and

local d i r e c t o r s of v o c a t i o n a l

under contract with

of E du ca tion.

study c o n s i s t e d of

the M i c h i g a n

T h e s e g r o u p s w e r e used

from p r a c t i t i o n e r s

education

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

to gain a p e r s p e c t i v e

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

tive E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s

in Mi ch i g a n .

fro m the Sta te A d v i s o r y

Council

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

schools

teacher-

in the field as to w h a t w e r e the mo s t

important objectives

and

423

incorporating

Lis ts w e r e a v a i l a b l e

for V o c a t i o n a l

of E d u c a t i o n

vocational

Michigan which were eligible

for D i s t r i b u ­

for all

Education
secondary

education programs

in

for r e i m b u r s e m e n t .

Sample
A proportionate
selected.
teac h e r s ,

s a m p l e of th e p o p u l a t i o n was

It c o n s i s t e d of

123 D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n

teacher-coordinators,

39

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

40

directors whose programs were contracted with

the M i c h i g a n

S ta t e D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n w e r e r a n d o m l y selected.
the p r o p o r t i o n a t e sample,

twenty-five percent

Distributive Education Teachers
were

selected

(N-18)

from C l a s s B Hi g h Schools ,

and

fifty p e r c e n t

730 hi gh

s c ho ol s

found

T w e n t y area skill c e n t e r s w o r e e x c l u d e d

without

s e p a r a t e c at egory .

(N-24)

h o we ve r,

high s c h o o l s

they w e r e p l a c e d

Twenty-five vocational

from a p o p u l a t i o n of

in Michi ga n.

in the size b r e a k ­

th ey are s p e c i a l i z e d v o c a t i o n a l

c o m p e t i t i v e sports,

st r a t o r s

twenty-five percent

Th i s r a t io c o r r e s p o n d s w i t h the size

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of the

down because

of the

and T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s

from Cl a s s A Hi gh Schools,

from C- D Hi gh Sch ools .

(N-36)

Fr o m

100 w e r e

in a

education admini­

randomly

se l e c t e d

sin ce they w e r e not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h any on e h i g h school.
(A list of p a r t i c i p a n t s
A sch ool

in A p p e n d i x B . )

size c l a s s i f i c a t i o n wa s used to d i f f e r e n ­

t ia t e DE o b j e c t i v e s
pr ogr ams.

is i n c l u d e d

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

The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was b a s e d on the M i c h i g a n

High S c ho ol A t h l e t i c s A s s o c i a t i o n c l a s s i f i e d
M i c h i g a n hi gh s c h o o l s
included:
708-1 ,42 9,
9-12.

types of

Cla ss A,
grades

1977-1 97 8,

1,430 or more,
9-12;

list of

730

The classification
grades

and C l a s s C & D,

9-12;

Class

0-707,

B,

grad e s

Th is c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w a s c h o s e n b a s e d on a p r e v i o u s

s t u d y by U t h e

(1969)

and d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h Dr.

W i l l i a m Rude,

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r of th e S t a t e A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l
Vocational

E d u c a t i o n an d Dr.

for the p r e s e n t

study.

P e t e r G.

Haines,

for

major adviser

41

Instrumentation
B e c a u s e of the n a t u r e and
tion,

an o p i n i o n n a i r e a p p e a r e d

scope of the

investiga­

to be the m o s t e c o n o m i c a l

and e f f i c i e n t m e t h o d of g a t h e r i n g

the p r i m a r y da ta

for this

study.
Sources
developed

used

through

for c r i t e r i a

a comprehensive

literature

r e l a t e d to the

tions,

situations

and

and o b j e c t i v e s we r e
stu d y and a n a l y s i s of

"best tho ught s,

in the

ar ti c l e s ,

field."

Through a discussion with doctoral
bers,

it w a s d e c i d e d

respondents

to

(1)

f r o m on e to six,

the s u r v e y

(2)

o b j e c t i v e s and c r i t e r i a

rank the
relative

cop y of the o p i n i o n n a i r e ma y be
Part
elicit w h a t
objectives

I of the s u r v e y
respondents

in r e l a t i o n

committee m e m ­

instrument

ra t e o b j e c t i v e s

and

condi­

s h ou ld

require

and c r i t e r i a on a scale
five mos t

im po r t a n t

to t h e i r progr ams .

A

found in A p p e n d i x C.

i n s t r u m e n t wa s d e s i g n e d

b e l i e v e d to be the m o s t
to t h e i r pro gr am.

Part

to

important
II w as b a s e d

on r a n k i n g s by r e s p o n d e n t s of e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a an d the
relative

i m p o r t a n c e of e a c h c r i t e r i o n

in r e s p e c t to p r o g r a m

objectives.

D e s i g n of Stu d y
In this d e s c r i p t i v e
and

s t u d y two c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s

four p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s w e r e used.

42

Th e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s w e r e o b j e c t i v e s an d e v a l u ­
ative criteria
from the
the

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

"best thou ghts,

s ta nd ards,

and p r a c t i c e s "

found

in

li ter atu re.
Th e p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s w e r e p r o g r a m type,

as c o - o p e r a t i v e ,
school d e f i n e d
Center;

project method

as C l a s s A,

defined

and bot h c om bi ne d:

Class

size of

D, C l a s s C- D and Skill

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

u s ing the

f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s were:

9-12 years,

and ov er

ty p e of d e g r e e

12 years;

attain ed:

1-3 years,

4-8 years,

and e d u c a t i o n w a s d e f i n e d as

baccalaureate,

m aster s,

spe ci al is t,

and do ct o r a t e .

Null
To d e t e r m i n e

Hypotheses

if p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s

o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
nators,
null

and

local

vocational

hypotheses were
Ho^

tea ch er s,

affected

teacher-coordi­

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

following

tested using a statistical

ana ly sis :

T h e r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n

the o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teacher s,
coordinators,
regarding

the

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

teacher-

education directors

a p p r o p r i a t e o b j e c t i v e s and t h e i r r e l a t i v e

impor­

t a n c e w i t h i n e a c h of t h r e e b a s i c t y p e s of prog ra ms .
Ho 2

T h e r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

the o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n t e ach er s,
coordinators,
regarding

and

between
teacher-

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

a p p r o p r i a t e e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a an d the r e l a t i v e

43

i m p o r t a n c e of each c r i t e r i o n w i t h i n ea c h of t h r e e ba s i c
types of programs.
Ho^

The re

are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teacher s,
local v o c a t i o n a l
s c hoo ls

teacher-coordinators,

education directors

regarding program objectives

and

in v a r i o u s sizes of
and e v a l u a t i v e

criteria.
Ho^
opinions

T h e r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of

between

teachers,

vocational directors
Ho,-

teacher-coordinators

r e l a t i v e to yea rs of expe ri en ce .

T he r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n

b e t w e e n d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n tea ch er s,
tors,

an d

and local

local v o c a t i o n a l

education directors

the d e g r e e of p r o f e s s i o n a l

V a l i d a t i o n of

teacher-coordina­
r e l a t i v e to

pr e p a r a t i o n .

Instrument

and Pi l o t S t udy

The o b j e c t i v e s and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

used

for the

stud y w e r e v a l i d a t e d by a c o m m i t t e e of e x p e r t s w h o w e r e
considered

l e ad ers

in the

sta te and by p r a c t i t i o n e r s

in the

state.
Th e c o m m i t t e e of e x p e r t s c o n s i s t e d of t e a c h e r
education personnel
tive E d u c a t i o n
f r o m the

and th e

in the Sta t e of M i c h i g a n .

following

institutions were

Michigan University,
U n i v e rs it y,

state s u p e r v i s o r

Representatives

in volved:

U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n ,

Western Michigan

University,

St at e D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n .

for D i s t r i b u ­

Central

W a y n e S t at e

and th e M i c h i g a n

Michigan State University

44

was

excluded

tution.

si nc e the

stu dy wa s

Practitioners

initiated

from th at

insti­

i n c l u d e d the E x e c u t i v e Boar d M e m b e r s

of the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n
Teachers

(MADET).

O b j e c t i v e s and c r i t e r i a w e r e

re v i s e d

b a s e d on the s u g g e s t i o n s an d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s m a d e by the
above m e n t i o n e d

groups.

T h o s e e d u c a t o r s w e r e s e l e c t e d on

the b a s i s of t h e i r p o s i t i o n ,
commitment

to d i s t r i b u t i v e

In o r d e r

e xp er ie nce,

and p r o f e s s i o n a l

education.

to d e t e r m i n e the a b i l i t y of r e s p o n d e n t s

to

answer questions correctly

and that a p r o p e r

used

a pilot st u d y wa s c o n d u c t e d w i t h

for a n a l y s i s of data,

distributive education
local

vocational

of the pil ot

te achers,

teacher-coordinators,

education directors.

study,

s t a t i s t i c wa s

and

Bas ed on the r e s u l t s

a p p r o p r i a t e r e f i n e m e n t s an d a d j u s t m e n t s

we r e made.

S c h e d u l e of D i s t r i b u t i o n of the O p i n i o n n a i r e
The
February

10,

first m a i l i n g of the o p i n i o n n a i r e wa s m a d e on
1978,

to d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teac he rs,

teacher-coordinators,
directors

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

in th e S t a t e of M i c h i g a n .

s i gne d to o b t a i n

responses

o b j e c t i v e s and c r i t e r i a

The

education

survey was d e ­

r e l a t e d to the i m p o r t a n c e of

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

as c o n t r a c t e d w i t h the M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E du ca t i o n .
A

follow-up letter was mailed March

n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s of th e f i rs t o p i n i o n n a i r e .
began one month after

the

follow-up.

8,

1978,

to

Tabulation

45

A n a l y s i s of Data
Information
by c o m p u t e r

received

se r v i c e s

from r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e

analyzed

at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y and the

U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n - W h i t e w a t e r .
Statistical
wa s

Package

for the So ci a l

use d to a n a l y z e the data.

The C h i - S q u a r e

r e c o m m e n d e d by r e s e a r c h c o n s u l t a n t s

present

study.

A

sti cal

statistic

for p u r p o s e s

of the

.05 level of s i g n i f i c a n c e wa s der ived.

Due to the p h e n o m e n a w i t h i n
t e c h n i q u e was

(SPSS)

Data wa s c o de d and t r a n s ­

ferred to c o m p u t e r data cards.
was

Sciences

low cell

use d to fur th er

counts,

the gamm a

test the v a l i d i t y of s t a t i ­

s ig ni f i c a n c e .

Summary
Thi s c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e d
obtain necessary

information

the p r o c e d u r e s

for the study.

w e r e s e l e c t i o n of the p a r t i c i p a n t s ,

f o l l o w e d to
Also described

preparation

for the

opinionnaire

and d i s t r i b u t i o n an d f o l l o w - u p on r e t u r n s of

the t w o - p a r t

survey.

Th e o p i n i o n n a i r e
of M i c h i g a n only.
opinionnaire
stu dy w a s

s u r v e y was c o n d u c t e d

In a d d i t i o n

to d a t a

in the S t at e

s e c u r e d by the

f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n and b a c k g r o u n d

s u p p l e m e n t e d by a s e a r c h of r e l a t e d

t e x t b o o k s as wel l

as p e r s o n a l

i nt er views .

for the

li terature,

C H A P T E R IV

FIN D I N G S

This c h a p t e r
data

can be s e p a r a t e d

st a n d i n g and
The

into

into c a t e g o r i e s

four s e c t i o n s

so that

for e a s e of und er-

i n t e rp reta ti on .
first part p r e s e n t s

the re sp ondent s.
r a n k i n g of the

background

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

T h e s e co nd part p r o v i d e s an ov er

all

i m p o r t a n c e e x p r e s s e d by r e s p o n d e n t s on each

of the s e l e c t e d
tives.

is d i v i d e d

18 d i s t r i b u t i v e

T h e third part p r o v i d e s

education program objec­
an o v e r all r a n k i n g of the

i m p o r t a n c e e x p r e s s e d by r e s p o n d e n t s on each of the
21 e v a l u a t i v e criteria .
response
Bo th

for o b j e c t i v e s

the second

relate directly
forth

part

F r e q u e n c y c o u n t and p e r c e n t of
and c r i t e r i a are a l s o pr ese nted.

and the t hi r d par t of

to a n s w e r i n g

in C h a p t e r
Further,

sel e c t e d

this c h a p t e r

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

set

r e po rts the e f f e c t of

the

1.
this c h a p t e r

four p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s on 18 p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s
e v a l u a t i v e cr iter ia.

and 21

E a c h o b j e c t i v e and c r i t e r i a was

t e s t e d u s i n g the c h i - s q u a r e test s t a t i s t i c to d e t e r m i n e
th e r e w e r e

significant differences

(.05 level)

o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n te ach ers,
nators,

and local

v o c a t i o n a l di re c t o r s .
46

if

a m o n g the

teacher-coordi­

47
The R e s p o n d e n t s
Th e da ta
r e s p o n s e s of

79

in this stu dy w e r e c o m p i l e d
(65%)

teacher-coordinators,

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teachers,
and

local v o c a t i o n a l

administrators who returned
respective

school.

that

d i r e c t o r s or

the o p i n i o n n a i r e

Th e a n a l y s i s of the

t h e s e s w e r e ba s e d on da t a d e r i v e d
pr ogr ams,

from the

is c o o p e r a t i v e ,

sent to h i s / h e r

first two h y p o ­

fr om t hr e e types of

p r o j e c t or a c o m b i n a t i o n of

both.
The

larg es t

p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n s e wa s r e c e i v e d

from p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h c o o p e r a t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r og ra ms,
out of

79 or

53 per ce nt .

The nex t

42

l a r ge st r e s p o n s e was

from those p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h a c o m b i n a t i o n of bo t h prog r a m s ,
c o - o p and projec t,
s ma l l e s t

33 out of

r e s p o n s e wa s

method with

4 out

79 or

of 79 or

5 percent.
in T a b l e

The rate of r e s p o n s e
1.

1. - - Tota l R e s p o n s e by Ty p e of P r o g r a m
65 P e r c e n t Res po nse.

Program

42

53.2

4

5.0

Both

33

41.8

Total

79

100. 0

Project

Th e o r i g i n a l

sample

(N-79)a

Percent

Frequency

Co-op

Th e

from p a r t i c i p a n t s of the p r o j e c t

for e a c h p r o g r a m is s u m m a r i z e d

Table

41.8 percent.

for 123.

48
The a n a l y s i s
the v a r i a b l e

of the third h y p o t h e s i s wa s ba s e d on

size of school.

category were

area skill

Also

centers.

inc lude d w i t h i n this
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of sc ho ol

s iz e s w e r e b a s e d on the M i c h i g a n High School A t h l e t i c
Association
1978.

classified

Ski ll

Centers

(20)

they are s p e c i a l i z e d
sp or ts do not

list of M i c h i g a n Hig h Schools,

were a separate category because

vocational

fun ction.

schools whore athletic

In addi tion,

only

ters w e r e used that w e r e c o n t r a c t e d w i t h
m e n t of e d u c a t i o n
Th e

area

skill centers,

13 out of

cen­

the sta te d e p a r t ­

18 or 72.2 per cent.

r e s p o n s e s wa s

13 out of 20 or

the r e s p o n s e ra t e

t e a c h e r s and

Table

skill

l a rg est p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n s e was r e c e i v e d

lesser p e r c e n t a g e of

summarizes

those

in Mich i g a n .

fr om Cla ss D schools ,
somewhat

1977-

A

received

65 per cent.

from

Table 2

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

t e a c h e r c o o r d i n a t o r s by scho ol

size.*

2 . — R e s p o n s e by Si ze of Sch oo l for D i s t r i b u t i v e
Education Teachers and Teacher Coordinators

S c hoo l Size

Responses

Percent

Mo Responses

(N-79)

Percent

Class A
(1,430 or
more)

25

71.4

10

28.6

Class B
(708-1,429)

13

72.2

5

27.8

Class C-D
(Less t h a n 708)

16

66.6

8

33.4

S ki l l C e n t e r s

13

65.0

7

35.0

* (Vo cational e d u c a t i o n d i r e c t o r s w e r e not i n c l u d e d
s i n c e th ey are no t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an y o n e h i g h school.)

49

Tab le

3 illustrates

tage of r e s p o n s e

the

f r e q u e n c y count and p e r c e n ­

for the da ta c o l l e c t e d c o n c e r n i n g

respon­

dent characteristics.
Bas ed on the

levels mo st

ea ch of the v a r i a b l e s

in Tab le

frequently

teacher coordinators,

d e n t s w e r e male,

4 out of

of

4 out of 5 r e s p o n ­

10 we r e b e t w e e n

3 had a t t a i n e d a m a s t e r s deg ree ,

4 to 8 y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e
10 had

full v o c a t i o n a l

for

3, b e t t e r than half of the

r e s p o n d e n t s we r e

2 out of

s el ec ted

ages

25 and

34,

almo st ha lf had

in the i r p r e s e n t

job,

an d

8 out

certification.

P r o g r a m O b j e c t i v e s for S e c o n d a r y D i s t r i b u t i v e
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s in the;
S t a t e of M i c h i g a n
Part on e of the o p i n i o n n a i r e

listed

o b j e c t i v e s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
T ea ch er s,

teacher-coordinators,

and

education

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w e r e ask ed

s e c o n d a r y programs.
local v o c a t i o n a l
to e x p r e s s

opinions

concerning

relation

to the type of p r o g r a m off ered.

rat ing

18 p r o g r a m

the ir

the i m p o r t a n c e of these o b j e c t i v e s
The

in

fol l o w i n g

scale was pr ov ided :
1 - Extremely
2 - Ver y

Important

Imp or ta nt

3 - Fairly

Imp o r t a n t

4 - Im po r t a n t
5 - Somewhat

Important

6 - No I m p o r t a n c e
After completing
to ran k the

the r a t i n g

five o b j e c t i v e s

scale,

r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e asked

they c o n s i d e r e d

to be mo s t

50
Table

3.- - P r o f i l e of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Teacher s,
T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Local V o c a t i o n a l
Administrators (N-79).

Variable

Frequency

Percent
of R e s p o n s e

Position
Teacher
Teacher-Coordinator
Administrator
Total

24
43
12
79

30.4
54 . 4
15. 2
100.0

Male
Female
To ta l

69
10
79

87. 3
12. 7
100 .0

Total

1
35
28
10
5
T9

1 .3
44 . 3
35.4
12.7
6.3
100.0

18
49
9
3
79

22.8
62 .0
11.4
3.8
100. 0

10
39
19
11
79

12.7
49.3
24.1
13.9
100. 0

1
12
66
79

1.3
15.2
83.5

Sex

Age
24
25
35
45
55

or loss
- 34
- 44
- 54
- over

Level of E d u c a t i o n
Baccalaureate
Masters
Specialist
Doctorate
T ot a l
Yea rs of E x p e r i e n c e
1 - 3
4 - 8
9 - 1 2
o v e r 12
To t a l
V o c a t i o n a l C e r t i f i c a t i o n Leve l
Annua I
Temporary
Full
To t a l

106.0

51

important.

For analysi s,

g o r i z e d in the

f o l l o w i n g way:

and c a r e e r p r e p a r a t i o n ,
and

the p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s are c a t e ­

3 - Community

and s oc ie ta l

goals.

a categorical

strated

in T a b l e

paration"
paration

4.

In the c a t e g o r y

57 p e r c e n t of the
for g a i n f u l

for

distributive

e d u c a t i o n programs.

it to be a very

1-12

extremely

extremely
important.

since

is i n t e r e s t i n g

to be a v o c a t i o n a l

" c u r r i c u l u m an d g r o u p s

pro­

served ,"

talents,

and c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d s wa s

abili­

rated

32.9 p e r c e n t

for

r e s p o nd en ts.

1-4 was n o t c o n s i d e r e d q u i t e as i m p o r t a n t
" c o m m u n i t y and s o c i e t a l

e i g h t p e r c e n t of th e r e s p o n d e n t s
an d p r o m o t i o n

but

as the main o b j e c t i v e .

i m p o r t a n t by t o t a l

for the cat egory,

important,

Thi s

i m p o r t a n t by 40.5 p e r c e n t and

Objective

that p r e ­

for

to s e r v e s t u d e n t s of d i v e r s e

in terest s,

is i l l u ­

important objective

is s u p p o s e d

For the categor y,
objective

believed

employment was extremely

distributive education

the deg r e e

"job and c a r e e r p r e ­

respondents

felt

gram with employment

to rate

to p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s w h i c h

34.2 p e r c e n t

ver y

responses

b r e a k d o w n m a y be

r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e as k e d

importance attached

ties,

Total

served,

in A p p e n d i x E.
Initial ly,

of

r e la te d to job

2 - C u r r i c u l u m and grou ps

program objectives without
found

1 - Objectives

believed

in the use of e t h i c a l

i m p o r t a n t an d

goals."

Thirty-

the e n c o u r a g e m e n t

standards

to be

39.2 p e r c e n t e x p r e s s e d very

Table 4.— Degree of Importance At tac he d to Program Ob jectives by All Respondents

Objectives

Extremely
Important
Mo.
%

Very
Important
Mo.

Fairly
Important
Mo.

(N = 79).

to

Mo
Importance

Job and Career Preparation
1-1

1-5

1-18

That preparation for gainful
employment and for advance­
ment in a distributive
occupation is the primary
goal of the Distributive
Education Program.

45

57.0

27

34.2

7

8.8

That the Distributive Edu­
cation Program should stimu­
late the student's interest
in his chosen distributive
occupational field by pro­
viding an understanding of
the opportunities it offers
him to be a contributing
member of a society.
(Career and job
potential.)

33

41.8

33

41.8

13

16.5

That students are encour­
aged to improve their compe­
tencies by further education
and worfc so that they can
progress beyond entry level
positions.

28

25.4

34

43.0

17

31.5

Objectives

1-7

1-11

That the Distributive Educa­
tion program should provide
training that results in
increased efficiency in dis­
tribution and marketing.

Extremely
Important
No.
3

Very
Important
No.

%

Fairly
Important

to

No
Importance

No.

%

26

32.9

22

27.8

31

39.3

That the Distributive Educa­
tion should strive to develop
among employees and consumers
a wider appreciation of the
values of specifically trained
personnel in distribution.
15

19.0

30

38.0

34

42.1

i/i

Curriculum and Groups Served
1-12

1-10

That the Distributive Educa­
tion Program should serve
students of diverse talents,
abilities, interests, and
cultural backgrounds.

32

40.5

26

32.9

That the Distributive Educa­
tion Program should advance
objectives of total educa­
tional programs.

18

22.8

32

40.5

26.6

29

36.7

Obje ct ive s

1-6

1-2

1-17

1-13

That the Distributive Educa­
tion Program prepare per­
sonnel to analyze consumer
demand and satisfy the needs
and vants of the consumers
intelligently, efficiently,
and pleasantly.

Extremely
Important
No.
\

IS

Very
Important
No.
3

Fairly
Important
No.

32

19.0

to

No
Importance
%

40.6

That the Distributive Educa­
tion Program should engender
an understanding and appre­
ciation of the American pri­
vate enterprise system as a
cornerstone of the American
Democracy.

15

19.0

29

36.7

35

44.4

That curriculum offering
include career exploration
at the elementary and
junior high levels.

21

26.G

14

17.7

44

55.7

5

6.3

24

30.4

50

62.3

That the needs of adults in
the local community be served.

in

Objectives

Extremely
Important
Ho.

1-15

That the provisions for a
local chapter of DECA and
activities be established
to foster such activities
as: social skills, leader­
ship abilities, communica­
tion skills, etc.

9

%

11.4

Very

Fairly

Important
No.
%

19

24.1

Important
No.

51

No
to

Importance
%

64.6

Community and Societal Goals
ui

1-4

1-9

That the Distributive Educa­
tion Program should encourage
and promote the use of ethi­
cal standards in business
and industry*

Ln

30

38.0

31

39.2

18

22.8

That the Distributive Educa­
tion Program should be sensi­
tive to changes in distributive
and marketing practices and
procedures as they are affected
by societal, economic, techni­
cal, and educational develop­
ments, and adapt to such
changes.
19

24.1

30

38.0

30

38.0

Objectives

1-16

1-3

1-14

Extremely
Important
No
t

Very
Important
No.
i

Fairly
Important
No.

to

No
Importance
%

That provision for advisory
committee members, school
personnel, and other people
from the community give
input to operation and evalu
ation of the program.

18

22.8

27

34.2

34

43.6

That the Distributive Educa­
tion Program should foster
an awareness of the civic,
social, and moral responsi­
bilities of business to
society.

15

19.0

27

34.2

37

46.9

4

5.1

20

25.3

55

69.6

That long range objectives
be established to account
for trends and changes that
may affect clientele (e.g.,
population movement and
economic conditions).

57
The ab o v e m e n t i o n e d o b j e c t i v e s

a p p e a r to a d e q u a t e l y

e n c o m p a s s a s e c o n d a r y d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m as
respondents were

in g e ne ra l

a g r e e m e n t and sin ce

s u g g e s t i o n s w e r e ad de d to the p r e s e n t
For the mo st part,
t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s and
a g ree on

local v o c a t i o n a l

the same o b j e c tives .

(students are e n c o u r a g e d

by f u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n and work)
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and
interesting
education
W h ere as ,

since

teachers.

However,

local v o c a t i o n a l

ab ili t i e s ,
important

1-12

respondents
an e x t r e m e l y

Th is

their c o m p e t e n c i e s

im po r t a n t

that

fu rt her

i m m e d i a t e em p l o y m e n t .

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s on the a v e r a g e
talents,

to be mo r e

an d t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s .

it s u r p r i s i n g

gave o b j e c t i v e

The

that onl y one out of

1-2 p r o m o t i n g

i m p o r t a n t rating.

standard deviations

than d o

is p a r t i c u l a r l y

and c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d s

than te a c h e r s
found

to i m pr ov e

that o b j e c t i v e

to s e r v e s t u d e n t s of d i v e r s e

interests,

researcher

on the average,

believe

is m o r e

teachers,

administrators

it c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d

has a p r i o r i t y o v e r

agree objective

list.

distributive education

distributive education coordinators
1-18

few or no

Findings

five

free e n t e r p r i s e
for m e a n s and

for r e s p o n d e n t s may be

found

in

A p p e n d i x F.
Subsequently,

up o n c o m p l e t i n g the r a t i n g

r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e ask e d to rank the
objectives.
mine

five m o s t

scale,

important

A w e i g h t e d a r i t h m e t i c scale was u s e d to d e t e r ­

the o v e r a l l

rank

for e a c h o b j e c t i v e .

Th e five m o s t

58
i mp or tant d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s are
presented

in Table

5.

Table 5 . --Hanking for Distributive Education Teachers, TeacherC o o r d i n a t o r s , and Local Vocational Education Administrators
of the Five Host Important Program Objectives.

Overal1
Hank

1

Objective

1-1

1-12

3

4

5

1-5

1-10

1-4

Weighted
»■._».
I,
„
a
Arithmetic Scale

That preparation for gainful employment
and for advancement in a distributive
occupation is the primary goal of the
Distributive Education Program.

2G4

That Distributive Education should serve
students of diverse talents, abilities,
interests, and cultural backgrounds.

136

That the Distributive Education p rogram
should stimulate the student's interest
in his chosen distributive occupational
field by providing an understanding of
the opportunities it offers him to be a
contributing member of society.
(Career and job potential)

134

That students are encouraged to improve
their competencies by further education
and w or k so that they can progress
beyond entry level positions.

BO

That the Distributive Education pr ogram
should encourage and promote the use
of ethical standards in business and
industry.

77

R e s p o n d e n t s were asked to rate the five most important
object ive s on a scale of 1-5.
A weighted value of 5 was given to
each objective ranked 1 in importance.
A value of 4 was given to each
obj ec tiv e ranked 2 in importance and so on, w i t h a value of one given
to the objective ranked 5 in importance.

59
The o b j e c t i v e

r a nke d mos t

important

butive education program was preparation
employment

ma y be

for g a in fu l

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

s e n t i n g a r i t h m e t i c w e i g h t e d scale
found

A tab le p r e ­
for all o b j e c t i v e s

in A p p e n d i x G.

Evaluative Criteria
Education Programs
Par t
cr it e r i a .

scores

for a d i s t r i ­

two of

for S e c o n d a r y D i s t r i b u t i v e
in the S t a t e of M i c h i g a n

the o p i n i o n n a i r e

Respondents were asked

liste d 21 e v a l u a t i v e

to rate the m o s t

c r i t e r i a on a sc a l e of o n e to six as wa s

imp o r t a n t

the s i t u a t i o n

for

program objectives.

Evaluative criteria wore categorized

in the f o l l o w i n g w a y

to a v o i d a long and c u m b e r s o m e

The c a t e g o r i e s are:
program ,

staff.

1 - A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n of

2 - Class content

equipm e n t ,

and sup plies,

Tot al

categories
d e g r e e of

responses

respondents

3 - Faci li ti es ,
5 - F a c u l t y and

for e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w i t h o u t a
in A p p e n d i x E.

by teachers,

The

for d i s t r i b u ­

teacher-coordinators,
in T a b l e

6.

" a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n , "

rat ed e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a n u m b e r 2 - 1 4 - - s u p e r -

visory practices
45.8 percent.

extremely

and

administrators appears

In the c a t e g o r y

that

4 ■- St ude nt s,

i m p o r t a n c e of e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

local v o c a t i o n a l

ties "

and a c t i v i t i e s ,

b r e a k d o w n ma y be found

tiv e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s
and

list.

an d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ve r y

Fo r the c a t e g o r y

i m p o r t a n t or

"class c o n t e n t

and a c t i v i ­

i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s be c u r r e n t w a s r a t e d as
i m p o r t a n t or 44.3 p e r c e n t of the r e s p o n d e n t s .

Table 6-— The Degree of Importance Attached to Evaluative Criteria by Distributive Education Teachers,
Teacher-Coordinators, and Local Vocational Directors (N-79).

Evaluative Criteria

Extremely
Important
No
%

Very
Important
No.
I

Fairly Important to
of No Importance
No.
*

Administration and Organization
2-14

2-19

2-15

2-17

2-9

2-11

2-21

Supervisory practices/admini
stration flexibility meet
student needs.

21

26.6

27

45.8

21

26.6

Philosophy and objectives of
program are being met.

22

27.8

33

41.8

24

30.5

Organization of program is
effective in facilitating
instructional progress and
program objectives.

23

29.1

30

38.0

26

33.0

Labor market behavior— avail­
ability of jobs within community.

29

36.7

23

29.1

27

34.2

Home, business, and cormunity
relations are maintained on a
continual basis.

14

17.7

28

35.4

37

46.9

Articulation— cooperation with
other departments within school.

13

16.5

28

35.4

38

48.1

Advisory Committee functions and
is used effectively.

17

21.5

20

25.3

42

53.1

Table 6 . — Continued.

Evaluative Criteria

2-10

Community resources such as
physical size, economic base,
natural resources, and tax base
are taken into consideration.

Extremely
Important
No.
%

Very
Important
NO.

%

Fairly Important to
of No Importance
No.
%

9

11.4

26

32.9

44

55.7

35

44.3

27

34.2

17

21.5

38.0

29

36.7

20

25.4

Class Content and Activities
2-5

2-2

2-4

2-3

2-7

Instructional materials are
current and suited to student’s
individual needs.
Curriculum is directly related
to requirements of an occupation.

30

Instructional activities, methods
and procedures (e.g., cooperative
or project) used in teaching.

32

40.5

25

31.6

22

27.8

Instructional content is based on
performance objectives.

18

22.8

33

41.8

28

35.5

Extra-class activities (DECA,
school store) are provided.

14

17.7

22

27.8

43

54.5

Table 6 . — Continued.

Evaluative Criteria

Extremely
Important
No.
\

Very
Important
No.
*

Fairly Important to
of No Importance
No.
■».

Facilities and Equipment
2-1

2-12

Physical facilities and equipment
are adequate for fulfilling
program's purpose.

30

38.0

33

41.8

16

20.2

Library materials and facilities
are provided on a centralized
or decentralized basis.

10

12.7

20

25.3

49

62.0

o
NJ

Students
2-16

2-18

Student's work experience— the
best possible placement of that
student into a cooperative
training station.

45

57.0

25

31.6

9

11-4

Student outcomes— job satisfaction
(e.g., students obtain, hold, and
advance in jobs related to field
of preparation.)

22

27.8

38

48.1

19

24.1

Table 6 . — Continued.

Evaluative Criteria

Extremely
Important
No.
t.

Very
Important
No.
1

Fairly Important to
of No Importance
No.
i

Faculty and Staff
2-6

2-13

2-8

2-20

Guidance aspects— such as coun­
seling— are provided by teacher
coordinator, employers, and
guidance counselors (e.g., stu­
dents have a career objective).

30

37.9

37

46.8

12

15.2

Qualifications and professional
growth of teachers is maintained
and updated to insure program
quality.

25

31.6

29

36.7

25

31.6

Adequate staff are provided in
order that all responsibilities
of the job are accomplished.

31

39.2

27

35.2

21

26.6

Placement and follow-up of
graduates are maintained on a
continual basis.

20

25.3

30

38.0

29

36.8

64
In c a t e g o r y
extremely
percent

3 - - " f a c i l i t i e s and e q u i p m e n t " w e r e rated

i m p o r t a n t or

38 p e r c e n t

by r e s p o ndent s.

and ver y

A substantial

rated the s t u d e n t ' s w o r k e xpe ri en ce ,
p l a c e m e n t as e x t r e m e l y
dents

i m p or ta nt or

for the c a t e g o r y - - s t u d e n t s .

fa cu lt y and staff,
were considered

i mpor ta nt or

41.8

n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s

the best p o s s i b l e
54.9 p e r c e n t of r e s p o n ­

Und er

g u i d a n c e asp ec ts ,

very

i mp ortan t

the c a t e g o r y

such as co un se l i n g ,

46.8 p e r c e n t of the

respondents.
The e v a l u a t i v e
quately encompass

listed a b o v e a p p e a r to a d e ­

a secondary distributive education

as r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e

in ge n e r a l a g r e e m e n t

s u g g e s t i o n s w e r e add e d
rated c r i t e r i a

cr i t e r i a

to the p r e s e n t

i n d i c a t e that

since

list.

program

few or no

Th e a bo v e

r e s p o n d e n t s w o u l d p r e f e r to be

e v a l u a t e d on the m e n t i o n e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
In gene ra l,

distributive education

t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and
on e v a l u a t i v e c r it er ia .
the e x t e n t of a g r e e m e n t
criteria
school

local v o c a t i o n a l
Nevertheless,

does differ,

2-7--extra class activities

sto re w e r e on the a v e r a g e

directors

agree

on some criteria,

for exa mp le,

on

such as D E C A and the

rate d m o r e

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s as c o m p a r e d
tors.

te achers ,

im po r t a n t

by

to t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a ­

This see m s to i n d i c a t e that d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n

t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s d o not c a r e to be e v a l u a t e d on this
c r i t e r i o n or e l s e do no t b e l i e v e
on the a verage ,

distributive

in its impor ta nc e.

education teachers

rate

e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a — lab o r m a r k e t b e h a v i o r and the

Also,

65

i m p o r t a n c e of a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e s
and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

lower th an c o o r d i n a t o r s

This cou l d also be d u e to the ir

of time to be in v o l v e d

in such ac tiv iti es.

A f t e r c o m p l e t i n g the r a t i n g sheet,

respondents

w e r e ask ed

to rank the five mo st

important evaluative

criter ia.

A weighted arithmetic

scal e wa s

m i n e the o v e r a l l

rank

for each crit eria.

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

Tab le

2

3

4

5

used to d e t e r ­
The

five most

in T a b l e 7.

7.- - R a n k i n g by D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Tea ch er s,
T e a c h e r C o o r d i n a t o r s , and Local V o c a t i o n a l
E d u c a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t o r s of the Fiv e Most
I mp or ta nt E v a l u a t i v e Cri ter ia. (N=79)

Overail
Rank

1

lack

Objective
]
c
L

2-2

2-1

2-16

2-5

2-4

Weighted
A r i t h m e t i c S c al e

C u r r i c u l u m is d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d
to r e q u i r e m e n t s of an o c c u p a t i o n

134

P h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s and e q u i p m e n t
ar e a d e q u a t e for f u l f i l l i n g
p r o g r a m ' s purpose.

123

S t u d e n t ' s w o r k e x p e r i e n c e — the best
p o s s i b l e p l a c e m e n t of that s t ud en t
into a c o o p e r a t i v e t r a i n i n g s t a t i o n

117

I n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s ar e c u r r e n t
and s u it ed to s t u d e n t ' s i n d i v i d u a l
needs.

104

Instructional activities, methods
and p r o c e d u r e s (e.g., c o o p e r a t i v e or
pro ject) used in teaching.

The criteria considered most

96

i m p o r t a n t by r e s p o n ­

de n t s wa s tha t of c u r r i c u l u m b e i n g d i r e c t l y

r e l a t e d to

66

requirements

of an o c c u p a t i o n .

A table p r e s e n t i n g a r i t h ­

m e t i c scor e s

for all c r i t e r i a m a y be found

in A p p e n d i x G.

C o m p a r i s o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n T e a c h e r s ,
T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s , an d Local V o c a t i o n a l Direc t o r s .
O p i n i o n s on the I m p o r t a n c e
of S e l e c t e d P r o g r a m O b j e c t i v e s
and E v a l u a t i v e C r it er ia
As st at e d
were

selected

in C h a p t e r

3 # four

independent variables

to d e t e r m i n e d i f f e r e n c e s

in the o p i n i o n s

e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n t eac he rs ,
coordinators,
tanc e of

and

local

18 o b j e c t i v e s

vocational
and

teacher

d i r e c t o r s on the

impor­

21 e v a l u a t i v e cri teria.

Program Objectives
Th e first null h y p o t h e s i s was:

T h e r e ar e no s i g n i ­

ficant d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
teacher coordinators,
program objectives
three b a s i c

and

local v o c a t i o n a l d i r e c t o r s

and t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e w i t h i n

(54.5 percent )

percent)

were

were

Forty-two

33

dir ec t o r s .

sch o ol

t ec hn iq ue ,

(53.2 per ce nt )

cooperative education,
and

(30.4 percent)

teacher coordinators,

in their

cooperative education

m e tho d,

24

local v o c a t i o n a l

program offered

both.

on

e a c h of

types of p ro gr ams.

Of the r e s p o n d e n t s ,
43

teachers,

4

and

teac he rs ,

12

(15.2

Th e t y p e of

district would

be the

the p r o j e c t met h od ,

or

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

(5.1 percent)

(41.0 per cent)

were

u s e d the p r o j e c t

u s e d bo t h m e thod s.

A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t y p e of p r o g r a m
o f f e r e d and th e r e s p o n d e n t s '

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

67
p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s wa s
1-9 That

found on the

f o l l o w i n g ob je ct i v e :

the d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m shou ld be

s e n s i t i v e to c h a n g e s

in d i s t r i b u t i v e and m a r k e t i n g p r a c ­

tic es and p r o c e d u r e s

as they are a f f e c t e d

eco no mi c,

and e d u c a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t s ,

ad a p t
less

te ch n i c a l ,

to suc h cha ng es.

In this case,

by societal,
and

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

in favor than on p r e v i o u s ob j e c t i v e s .
The null h y p o t h e s e s

differences

that t h ere are no s i g n i f i c a n t

between distributive education

teacher-coordinators,

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

be re j e c t e d

for this o b j e c t i v e .

Ho wever,

significant

d i f f e r e n c e s based on o p i n i o n s

teachers,
directors

can

t h er e w e r e no
in rega rd

for p r o g r a m o bj ecti ve s.

to

r e s p o nden ts '

position

s q uar e v a lu e

for ea ch of the p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s on p r o g r a m

and p o s i t i o n

is p r e s e n t e d

in Tab le

The chi-

8.

Evaluative Criteria
The

s e co nd null h y p o t h e s i s wa s

that the r e are no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n the o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e
e d u c a t i o n t ea ch er s,
tion al d i r e c t o r s
criteria within

teacher-coordinators,

regarding

(54.4 percent )

percent)

were

voca­

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

24

(30.4 per cent)

were teacher coordinators,

local

program offered

local

e a c h of t h r e e b a s i c types of pr og rams .

Of the r e s p o n d e n t s ,
43

and

vocational directors.

w e r e teachers ,
and

12

(15.2

Th e typ e of

in t h e i r sc ho o l d i s t r i c t w o u l d be the

cooperative education

te chni q u e ,

th e p r o j e c t m e t h o d ,

or

Table 8.— Differences Between Type of Program Offered and the Respondents' Opinions on the
Importance of Program Objectives.

PROGRAM

POSITION

Objective
Chi-Sq.

1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

Sign.***
Level

Chi-Sq.

Sign.
Level

That preparation for gainful employment and for
advancement in a distributive occupation is the
primary goal of the Distributive Education Program.

3.3036

That the Distributive Education Program should
engender an understanding and appreciation of the
American private enterprise system as a cornerstone
of the American Democracy.

.1147

NS

.9011

NS

That the Distributive Education Program should
foster an awareness of the civic, social, and
moral responsibilities of business to society.

1.3426

NS

1.0443

NS

That the Distributive Education Program should
encourage and promote the use of ethical
standards in business and industry.

.0949

NS

3.0540

NS

4.4583

NS

1.9333

NS

That the Distributive Education Program should
stimulate the student's interest to his chosen
distributive occupation field by providing an
understanding of the opportunities it offers him
to be a contributing member of society.
(Career and job potential.)

** NS = Not Significant

NS**

3.7184

NS**

Table 8 . — Continued.

PROGRAM

POSITION

Objective
Chi-Sq.

1-6

1-7

1-8

1-9

1-10

1-11

Sign.***
Level

Chi-Sq.

Sign.
Level

That the Distributive Education Program should
prepare distributive personnel to analyze
consumer demand and to satisfy the needs and
wants of consumers intelligently, efficiently,
and pleasantly.

.1665

NS

2.8958

MS

That the Distributive Education Program should
provide training that results in increased
efficiency in distribution and marketing.

5.7282

NS

1.7279

NS

That the Distributive Education Program should
contribute to the improvement of the techniques
in distribution and marketing.

1.0178

NS

.8634

NS

That the Distributive Education Program should be
sensitive to changes in distributive and marketing
practices and procedures as they are affected by
societal, economic, technical, and educational
developments, and adapt to such changes.

7.9233

.01

2.5055

NS

That the Distributive Education Program should
advance the objectives of the total
educational program.

2.7040

NS

.9666

NS

That the Distributive Education Program should strive
to develop among employees and consumers a wider
appreciation of the values of specifically trained
personnel in distribution.

3.2941

NS

1.3709

NS

Table 8-— Continued.

PROGRAM

POSITION

Objective

1-12

1-13

1-14

1-15

1-16

1-17

Chi-Sq.

Sign.
Level

That Distributive Education should serve students of
diverse talents, abilities, interests, and cultural
backgrounds.

1.2974

NS

.7253

NA

That education needs of adults in the local
community should be served.

3.4027

NS

5.5669

NS

That long range objectives be established to
account for trends and changes that may affect
clientele (e.g., population movement and
economic conditions).

1.2126

NS

.2773

NS

That provisions for a local chapter of DECA and
activities be established to foster such activities
as: social skills, leadership abilities, communi­
cations skills, etc.

1.2637

NS

4.0713

NS

That provision for advisory committee members,
school personnel, and other people from the
community give input to operation and
evaluation of the program.

2.1772

NS

4.6397

NS

.8393

NS

.8422

NS

That curriculum offerings include career
exploration at the elementary and junior high levels

Chi-Sq.

Sign.
Level

Table 8.— Continued.

PROGRAM

POSITION

Objective
Chi-Sq.

1-18

That students are encouraged to improve their
competencies by further education and work so
that they can progress beyond entry level
positions.

3.1259

***Chi-Square test statistics are illustrated in Appendix H, Table 2.

Sign.
Level

NS

Chi-Sq.

Sign.
Level

1.2147

MS

72
both.

Forty-two

{53.2 percent)

c o o p e r a t i v e edu ca tion ,
met hod,

a nd

4

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

(5.1 percent)

(41.8 percent)

used the p r o j e c t

used bo t h me thods.

A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n ty pe of p r o g r a m
offered

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

e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a was

found on c r i t e r i a
for posi ti on.

2-7 and

p r o g r a m and c r i t e r i a

2-7

Th er e f o r e ,

den ts do not t o t a l l y

s u pp ort th es e a cti vi ti es .

2-9

for

respon­

Program
2-7

Extra-class activities
store) are provide d.

(such as D E C A and sch oo l

2-9

Home, b u si ne ss , and c o m m u n i t y r e l a t i o n s are
m a i n t a i n e d on a c o n t i n u a l basis.

Position
2-7

The null

Extra-class activities
store) are provide d.

hypothesis

(such as D E C A and sch oo l

that t h e r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

b e t w e e n d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teacher s,
tors,

and

local

vocational

the se t h r e e criteria.

teacher-coordina­

d i r e c t o r s can be r e j e c t e d

Table

9 presents

for ea ch of the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

for

the c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e

by p r o g r a m and pos it io n.

S i z e of Scho o l
Th e t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s

t e s t e d wa s tha t th e r e w e r e no

significant differences between distributive education
teachers,

teacher-coordinators,

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

directors

b e t w e e n si z e of school a n d ho w it e f f e c t s o p i n i o n s

Table 9.— Differences Between Type of Program Offered and the Respondents1 Opinions on the
Importance of Evaluative Criteria.

Evaluative Criteria

2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4

2-5

2-6

2-7

PROGRAM
— ----------------Chi-Sq.
Sign.
Level

POSITION
--------------Chi-Sq.
Sign.
Level

Physical facilities and equipment are adequate for
fulfilling program's purpose.

2.3236

NS

.5027

NS

Curriculum is directly related to requirements of
an occupation.

1.3595

NS

.6646

NS

Instructional content is based on performance
objectives.

1.0366

NS

5.3164

NS

Instructional activities, methods, and procedures
{e.g., cooperative or project) used in teaching.

1.3683

NS

1.6125

NS

Instructional materials are current and suited
to student’s individual needs.

5.2599

NS

2507

NS

.3255

NS

1119

NS

Guidance aspects— such as counseling— are provided
by teacher coordinator, employers, and guidance
counselors (e.g., students have a career objective).
Extra-class activities
etc.) are provided.

(such as DECA, school store,
17.1594

*Chi-Square test statistic is illustrated in Appendix H, Table 22.
**Chi-Square test statistic is illustrated in Appendix H, Table 23.

.0002*

6.4966

.03*

Tab le 9 . — Continued.

PROGRAM

POSITION

Evaluative Criteria
Chi-Sq.

2-8

2-9

2-10

2-11

2-12

2-13

2-14

2-15

Adequate staff are provided in order that all responsi­
bilities of the job are acconplished.

4.0092

Home, business, and community relations are maintained
on a continual basis.

6.3450

Sign.
Level

.04***

Chi -S q.

Siqn.
Level

1.8275

NS

1.0443

NS

Community resources such as physical size, economic base,
natural resources, and tax base are taken into
consideration.

.1059

NS

.8422

NS

Articulation— cooperation with other departments within
the school.

.7399

NS

3-0804

NS

Library materials and facilities are provided on a
centralized or decentralized basis.

.9070

NS

1.1356

NS

Qualifications and professional growth of teachers is
maintained and updated to insure program quality.

.5723

NS

1.8946

NS

Supervisory practices/administration flexibility meet
student needs.

2.7282

NS

1.7829

NS

.6341

NS

.5583

NS

Organization of program is effective in facilitating
instructional progress and program objectives.

***Chi-Square test statistic is illustrated in Appendix H, Table 24.

Table 9.— Continued.

PROGRAM

POSITION

Evaluative Criteria
Chi-Sq.

2-16

2-17

2-10

Sign.
Level

Chi -Sq .

Sign.
Level

Student's work experience— the best possible placement of
that student into a cooperative training station.

.8923

NS

.9587

NS

Labor market behavior— availability of jobs within
community.

.7094

NS

4.0870

NS

Student outcomes— job satisfaction (e.g., students
obtain, hold, and advance in jobs related to field
of preparation).

.3476

NS

2.0778

NS

2-19

Philosophy and objectives of program are being met.

2.5401

NS

2.0778

NS

2-20

Placement and follow-up of graduates are maintained
on a continual basis.

1.5022

NS

2.4764

NS

Advisory Committee functions and is used effectively.

1.4860

NS

5.5818

NS

2-21

regarding program objectives
between

thre e b a s i c t y pes of programs.
Of the

Cl a s s A High
Schools;
13

and e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a

16

79 re sp on s e s ,

Sc hoo ls;

13

(71.4 per cent)

(72.2 percent)

(66.6 percent)

(65 percent)

25

in the s p e c i a l

on p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s

three b a s i c

c a t e g o r y area
between

skill

and

centers.

the si ze of

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

for

that ther e ar e no s i g n i f i c a n t

between personnel

regarding objectives
basic

in C l as s B High

types of program s.

The null h y p o t h e s i s
differences

in

in Cl a s s C-D High Sch ools;

Th e r e w e r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
scho ol

were

sizes of s c h o o l s

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

types of p r o g r a m s

f a il ed

ther e are no d i f f e r e n c e s .
chi-square value

in v a r i o u s

to reje ct

Tables

the null,

10 and

for p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s

between

three

therefor

11 p r e s e n t

the

and e v a l u a t i v e

criteria.

Y e a r s of E x p e r i e n c e
The
cant

fo ur t h h y p o t h e s i s wa s that

t h e r e ar e no s i gnifi

d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e

education

te achers ,

tio nal d i r e c t o r s

teacher-coordinators,

relative

an d

local

voca­

to y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e .

Of the 79 r e s p o n d e n t s ,

10

(12.7 perc ent )

had on e

th r e e yea r s of e x p e r i e n c e at the ir p r e s e n t po si t i o n ;
four to eig h t y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e ;

39

(49.4 percent)

ha d

19

(24.1 percent)

ha d n i n e to t w e l v e y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e at

to

Table 10.— D ifferences Between Size of School and R e s p o n d e n t s ’ Op inions on Program Objectives.

Pr ogram Objective

1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

1-6

1-7

1-8

Chi-Sq.

Sign.

That preparation for gainful employment and for advancement in a distribu­
tive occupation is the primary goal of the Distributive Education program.

6.3164

NS

That the Distributive Education program should engender an understanding
and appreciation of the American private enterprise system as a cornerstone
of the American Democracy.

3.0203

NS

That the Distributive Education program should foster an awareness of the
civic, social, and moral responsibilities of business to society.

2.3702

NS

That the Distributive Education program should encourane and promote the
use of ethical standards in business and industry.

3.7750

NS

That the Distributive Education program should stimulate the student's
interest in his chosen distributive occupational field by providing an
understanding of the opportunities it offers him to be a contributing
member of society.
{Career and job potential)

3.1074

NS

That the Distributive Education program should prepare distributive per­
sonnel to analyze consumer demand and to satisfy the needs and wants
of consumers intelligently, efficiently, and pleasantly.

2.5953

NS

.9747

NS

1.1145

NS

That the Distributive Education program should provide training that
results in increased efficiency in distribution and marketing.
That the Distributive Education program should contribute to the
improvement of the techniques in distribution and marketing.

Level

Ta b l e 10.— Continued.

P r o g r a m Obj ec tiv e

1-9

1-10

1-11

1-12

That the Distributive Education program should be sensitive to changes in
distributive and marketing practices and procedures as they are affected by
societal, economic, technical, and educational developments, and adapt to
such changes.

NS

That the Distributive Education program should advance the objectives of
the total educational program.

.6959

NS

That the Distributive Education program should strive to develop among
employees and consumers a wider appreciation of the values of specifically
trained personnel in distribution.

.8263

NS

That Distributive Education should serve students of diverse talents,
abilities, interests, and cultural backgrounds.

.4676

NS

2.1658

NS

.7239

NS

That provisions for a local chapter of DECA and activities be established
to foster such activities as: social skills, leadership abilities,
communication skills, etc.

3.6281

NS

That provisions for advisory committee members, school personnel, and
other people from the community give input to operation and evaluation
of the program.

3.4880

NS

That educational needs of adults in the local community should be served.

1-14

That long range objectives be established to account for trends and changes
that may affect clientele {e.g., population movement and economic
conditions}.

1-16

Sign.

3.6552

1-13

1-15

Chi-Sq.

Level

Table 10.— Continued.

Program Objective

1-17

1-18

Chi-Sq.

Sign. Level

That curriculum offerings include career exploration at the elementary
and junior high levels.

2.1980

NS

That students are encouraged to improve their competencies by further
education and work so that they can progress beyond entry level
positions.

1.1757

NS

'U
<o

Table 11.—

D ifferences Between Size of School and Respondents'

Opinions on Evaluative Criteria.

Evaluative Criteria

2-1

Chi-Sq.

Physical facilities and equipment are adequate for fulfilling program's
purpose.

Sign.

4.2175

NS

2-2

Curriculum is directly related to requirements of an occupation.

.2405

NS

2-3

Instructional content is based on performance objectives.

.0333

NS

2-4

Instructional activities, methods, and procedures
or project) used in teaching.

2.0399

NS

Instructional materials are current and suited to student's individual
needs.

3.3748

NS

Guidance aspects— such as counseling— are provided by teacher coordinator,
employers, and guidance counselors (e.g., students have a career
objective).

2.6712

NS

2-7

Extra-class activities

2.8368

NS

2-8

Adequate staff are provided in order that all responsibilities of the
job are accomplished.

2.7549

NS

Home, business, and community relations are maintained on a continual
basis.

2.7964

NS

Community resources such as physical size, economic base, natural
resources, and tax base are taken into consideration.

6.8332

NS

2-5

2-6

2-9

2-10

2-11

(e.g., cooperative

(such as DECA, school store) are provided.

Articulation— cooperation with other departments within school.

2.3141

NS

Level

Tabl e 11.— Continued.

Evaluative Criteria

2-12

Library materials and facilities are provided on a centralized or
decentralized basis.

Chi-Sq,

Sign.

Level

.4747

NS

Qualifications and professional growth of teachers is maintained and
updated to insure program quality.

2.5533

NS

Supervisory practices/administration flexibility meet student needs.

7.0261

NS

.6122

NS

Student's work experience— the best possible placement of that student
into a cooperative training station.

2.4980

NS

2-17

Labor market behavior— availability of jobs within community.

2.6745

NS

2-18

Student outcomes— job satisfaction (e.g.* students obtain, hold, and
advance in jobs related to field of preparation.

2.6454

NS

2-19

Philosophy and objectives of program are being met.

3.8124

NS

2-20

Placement and follow-up of graduates are maintained on a continual basis.

.8903

NS

2-21

Advisory committee functions and is used effectively.

3.2761

NS

2-13

2-14
2-15

2-16

Organization of program is effective in facilitating instruction progress
and program objectives.

82

their p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n ;

and

11

(14.1 percent)

ha d over

t w e l v e y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e at thei r p r e s e n t p ositi on .
A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e
at the p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n an d the r e s p o n d e n t s o p i n i o n s on
p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w a s
objective

found on

1-1:
That p r e p a r a t i o n for g a in ful e m p l o y m e n t
and for a d v a n c e m e n t in a d i s t r i b u t i v e
o c c u p a t i o n is the p r i m a r y goal of the
d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n program.

Thi s m e a n s

tha t c o n s i d e r i n g

w h e l m i n g n u mb er of p e o p l e
this o bje ct iv e,

the

null h y p o t h e s i s

that

of o p i n i o n s
local

between

vocational

can be

r e jected

12 and

that a g r e e d on the

feeling

h o w e v e r was not u na ni m o u s .

teacher s,

found

teacher-coordinators,

relative

for o b j e c t i v e

13 p r e s e n t

1-1.

directors.

d e gre e;

tested

the e f f e c t of the d e g r e e

and

9

e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i ­

teacher-coordinators,

Of th e 79 r e s p o n d e n t s ,

had the b a c c a l a u r e a t e d e gr ee ;

the m a s t e r s degree;

for e a c h of the

Preparation

p r e p a r a t i o n on o p i n i o n s

butive education teachers,

percent)

Ta bl e s

and e v a l u a t i v e cri te ria .

Th e last h y p o t h e s i s

vocational

and

T h e r e w e r e no s i g n i ­

for e v a l u a t i v e cri t e r i a .

D e g r e e of P r o f e s s i o n a l

of p r o f e s s i o n a l

The

to y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e

the c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e

program objectives

i m p o r t a n c e of

there are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

directors

ficant d i f f e r e n c e s

th e r e wa s an o v e r ­

(11.4 per ce nt)

3 (3.8 percent )

49

18

an d local
(22.8

(62.0 perc ent )

ha d the

specialist

h a d the d o c t o r a t e de g r e e .

had

Table 12.--Differences Between Years of Experience and Respondents' Opinions on the Importance
of Program Objectives.

Ob jective

1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

1-6

1-7

1-8

Chi Sq.

Sign.

Level

That preparation for gainful employment and for advancement in a distribu­
tive occupation is the primary goal of the Distributive Education program,

7.4964

. 02 ***

That the Distributive Education program should engender an understanding
and appreciation of the American private enterprise system as a corner­
stone of the American Democracy.

3.3930

NS

.6451

NS

That the Distributive Education program should encourage and promote the
use of ethical standards in business and industry.

1.1878

NS

That the Distributive Education program should stimulate the student's
interest in his chosen distributive occupational field by providing
an understanding of the opportunities it offers him to be a
contributing member of society.
(Career and job potential)

4.6197

NS

That the Distributive Education program should prepare distributive
personnel to analyze consumer demand and to satisfy the needs and wants
of consumers intelligently, efficiently, and pleasantly.

.0086

NS

That the Distributive Education program should provide training that
results in increased efficiency in distribution and marketing.

.3960

NS

4130

NS

That the Distributive Education program should foster an awareness of
the civic, social, and moral responsibilities of business to society.

That the Distributive Education program should contribute to the
improvement of the techniques in distribution and marketing.
***Chi-Square statistic is illustrated in Appendix H, Table 26.

oo
u>

Table 12.— Continued.

Objective

1-9

1-10

1-11

Chi Sq.

Sign.

That the Distributive Education program should be sensitive to changes in
distributive and marketing practices and procedures as they are affected
by societal, economic, technical, and educational developments, and
adapt to such changes.

1.7413

NS

That the Distributive Education program should advance the objectives of
the total educational program.

1.3930

NS

That the Distributive Education program should strive to develop among
employees and consumers a wider appreciation of the values of specifi­
cally trained personnel in distribution.

1.6019

NS

Level

CD

1-12

1-13
1-14

1-15

1-16

That Distributive Education should serve students of diverse talents,
abilities, interests, and cultural backgrounds.
That educational needs of adults in the local community should be served.
That long range objectives be established to account for trends and
changes that may affect clientele (e.g., population movement and
economic conditions).
That provisions for a local chapter of DECA and activities be established
to foster such activities as: social skills, leadership abilities,
communications skills, etc.
That provisions for advisory committee members, school personnel, and
other people from the community give input to operation and evaluation
of the program.

6.6337

NS

1.3930

NS

.9753

NS

1.3180

NS

.8489

NS

Table 12.— Continued.

Objective

1-17

1-18

That curriculum offerings include career exploration at the elementary
and junior high levels.
That students are encouraged to improve their competencies by further
education and work so that they can progress beyond entry level
positions.

Chi Sq.

Sign. Level

2.5098

NS

.9002

NS

co
cn

Table 13*— Differences Between Years of Experience and Respondents' Opinions on the Importance
of Evaluative Criteria.

Criteria

2-1

Physical
purpose.

Chi Sq.

Sign. Level

facilities and equipment are adequate for fulfilling program’s
2.6861

NS

.1B05

NS

1.3180

NS

.4930

NS

4.1341

NS

Guidance aspects— such as counseling— are provided by teacher coordinator,
employers, and guidance counselors (e.g., students have a career
objective).

2.3309

NS

2-7

Extra-class activities

2.9671

NS

2-8

Adequate staff are provided in order that all responsibilities of
job are accomplished.

.0776

NS

2-9

Home, business, and community relations are maintained on a continual basis. 1.3144

NS

2-10

Community resources such as physical size, economic base, natural
resources, and tax base are taken into consideration.

.6393

NS

1.8528

NS

2-2

Curriculum is directly related to requirements of

2-3

Instructional content is based on performance objectives.

2-4

Instructional activities, methods, and procedures
or project) used in teaching.

(e.g., cooperative

Instructional materials are current and suited to
needs.

student's individual

2-5

2-6

2-11

an occupation.

(such as DECA, school store) are provided.

Articulation— cooperation with other departments within school.

the

Table 13.— Continued.

Criteria

2-12

2-13

2-14
2-15

2-16

2-17
2-18

Library materials and facilities are provided on a centralized or
decentralized basis.

Chi Sq.

S i g n . Level

1.5S89

NS

Qualifications and professional growth of teachers is maintained and
updated to insure program quality.

.9208

NS

Supervisory practices/administration flexibility meet student needs.

.2747

NS

Organization of program is effective in facilitating instruction
progress and program objectives.

.3110

NS

Student's work experience— the best possible placement of that student
into a cooperative training station.

.1556

NS

3.1815

NS

3.8160

NS

1.2663

NS

Labor market behavior— availability of jobs within community.
Student outcomes— job satisfaction (e.g., students obtain, hold, and
advance in jobs related to field of preparation.

2-19

Philosophy and objectives of program are being met.

2-20

Placement and follow-up of graduates are maintained on a continual basis.

2-21

Advisory committee functions and is used effectively.

1.3930
1.3144

NS
NS

88
A significant difference between
fessional preparation
tio n teach er s,
d i r e c t o r s wa s

the d e g r e e of p r o ­

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

t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and
found on o b j e c t i v e

local v o c a t i o n a l

1-12:

Th a t d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n shoul d serve
stu d e n t s of d i v e r s e talents, abi li ties,
interest s, and c u l t u r a l b a c k g ro un d.
The null
differences

hypothesis

in the o p i n i o n s b e t w e e n teacher s,

coordinators,

and

local

d e g r e e of p r o f e s s i o n a l

vocational directors

Thus,

s p e c i alis t,

and d o c t o r a l

of this ob jec t i v e .

diverse
value

so do es

needs.

r e l a t i v e to the

r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h b a c c a l a u r e a t e , mas te rs ,
d e g r e e s d i s a g r e e d on the

Therefore
the

Tables

for eac h of the

criteria.

te a c h e r -

p r e p a r a t i o n can be r e j e c t e d on this

objective.

increases,

th at the re are no s i g n i f i c a n t

as p r o f e s s i o n a l

i m p o r t a n c e of s e r v i n g
14 and

15 p r e s e n t

18 o b j e c t i v e s and

importance

preparation
s t u d e n t s of

the c h i - s q u a r e
21 e v a l u a t i v e

Table 14.— Differences Between Professional Preparation and Respondents' Opinions on the
Importance of Program Objectives.

Objective

1-1

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

1-6

1-7

1-8

Chi Sq.

Sign.

That preparation for gainful employment and for advancement in a distri­
butive occupation is the primary goal of the Distributive Education
Program.

1.1794

NS

That the Distributive Education program should engender an understanding
and appreciation of the American private enterprise system as a
cornerstone of the American Democracy.

.1094

NS

That the Distributive Education program should foster an awareness of
the civic, social, and moral responsibilities of business to society.

.9299

NS

That the Distributive Education program should encourage and promote
the use of ethical standards in business and industry.

1.9185

NS

That the Distributive Education program should stimulate the student's
interest in his chosen distributive occupational field by providing
an understanding of the opportunities it offers him to be a
contributing member of society.
(Career and job potential)

4.8260

NS

That the Distributive Education program should prepare distributive
personnel to analyze consumer demand and to satisfy the needs and wants
of consumers intelligently, efficiently, and pleasantly.

2.0277

NS

.8505

NS

4.5436

NS

That the Distributive Education program should provide training that
results in increased efficiency in distribution and marketing.
That the Distributive Education program should contribute to the
improvement of the techniques in distribution and marketing.

LeveL

Tabl e 14.— Continued.

Ob jective

1-9

1-10

1-11

1-12

That the Distributive Education program should be sensitive to changes in
distributive and marketing practices and procedures as they are affected by
societal, economic, technical, and educational developments, and adapt to
such changes.
That the Distributive Education program should advance the objectives of
the total educational program.
That the Distributive Education program should strive to develop among
employees and consumers a wider appreciation of the values of specifically
trained personnel in distribution.
That Distributive Education should serve students of diverse talents,
abilities, interests, and cultural backgrounds.

Chi S q .

Sign.

.4423

NS

4.9122

NS

.0243

NS

7.8395

.02*****

1-13

That educational needs of adults in the local corrr.unity should be served.

.9374

NS

1-14

That long range objectives be established to account for trends and
changes that may affect clientele (e.g., population movement and economic
conditions).

1.1617

NS

.2501

NS

5.3105

NS

1-15

1-16

That provisions for a local chapter of DECA and activities be established
to foster such activities as: social skills, leadership abilities,
communications skills, etc.
That provisions for advisory committee members, school personnel, and
other people from the community give input to operation and evaluation
of the program.

Level

Tab le 14.— Continued,

Objective

1-17

1-lb

Chi Sq.

Siqn. Level

That curriculum offerings include career exploration at the elementary
and junior high levels.

2.8874

NS

That students are encouraged to improve their competencies by further
education and work so that they can progress beyond entry level
positions.

1.6779

NS

Chi-Square test statistic is illustrated in Appendix H, Table 27.

Table 15.— Differences Between Professional Preparation and Respondents' Opinions on the
Importance of Evaluative Criteria.

Evaluative Criteria

2-1

Chi Sq,

Sign.

Physical facilities and equipnent are adequate for fulfilling program's
purpose.

1.2451

NS

2-2

Curriculum is directly related to requirements of an occupation.

2.6035

NS

2-3

Instructional content is based on performance objectives.

3.5280

NS

2-4

Instructional activities, methods, and procedures
or project) used in teaching.

.0612

NS

Instructional materials are current and suited to student’s individual
needs.

1.4967

NS

Guidance aspects— such as counseling— are provided by teacher coordina­
tor, employers, and guidance counselor (e.g., students have a career
objective).

5.4504

NS

.9427

NS

2-5

2-6

(e.g. , cooperative

2-7

Extra-class activities

2-8

Adequate staff are provided in order that all responsibilities of the
jobs are accomplished.

1.8412

NS

Home, business, and community relations are maintained on a continual
basis.

2.0454

NS

.7233

NS

2-9

2-10

(such as DECA, school store) are provided.

Community resources such as physical size, economic base, natural
resources, and tax base are taken into consideration.

Level

Table 15.— C o n t i n u e d .

Evaluative Criteria

2-11

Articulation— cooperation with other departments within school.

2-12

Chi Sq.

Sign.

5.7378

NS

Library materials and facilities are provided on a centralized or
decentralized basis.

.4428

NS

Qualifications and professional growth of teachers is maintained and
updated to insure program quality.

.1693

NS

1.6843

NS

.0039

NS

Student's work experience— the best possible placement of that student
into a cooperative training station.

1.1250

NS

2-17

Labor market behavior— availability of jobs within community.

1.9556

NS

2-1B

Student outcomes— job satisfaction (e.g., students obtain, hold, and
advance in jobs related to field of preparation.

2.2040

NS

.7 355

NS

2-13

2-14

Supervisory practices/administration flexibility meet student needs.

2-15

Organization of program is effective in facilitating instruction progress
and program objectives.

2-16

2-19

Philosophy and objectives of program are being met.

2-20

Placement and follow-up of graduates are maintained on a continual basis.

2.4819

NS

2-21

Advisory committee functions and is used effectively.

5.1736

NS

Level

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY,

CONCLUSIONS,

E v a l u a t i o n wi ll
instruction
problems

play a significant

future.

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

se t t i n g

By

At

the same time,

in c o n t i n u o u s

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

distributive

se ar c h of w a y s to

for st u d e n t s p r e p a r i n g

f o r m u l a t i n g cle a r

standards

tors ma y

ro l e

and i n i t i a t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e c h a n g e

in the

careers.

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

to ent er

new-found

and m e a s u r a b l e o b j e c t i v e s and

for q u a l i t y pr og r a m s ,

i n i t i a t e the e s s e n t i a l

st e p s

distributive educa­

in p r o g r a m ev a l u a t i o n .

The Problem
Th e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of this

stu dy wa s

p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s an d e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a
distributive education programs
This

stud y was u n d e r t a k e n

in the ar e a of e v a l u a t i o n

for s e c o n d a r y

in the S t a t e of Mic hi gan.

to p r o v i d e d e s c r i p t i v e

research

that wa s no t availab le.

A n o t h e r p u r p o s e of the

stu dy w a s to p r o v i d e d i s t r i ­

b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n p e r s o n n e l w i t h a factu al
foundation

to d e v e l o p

and an o b j e c t i v e

for p o l i c y and p r a c t i c e b a s e d on the o p i n i o n s of

p r a c t i t i o n e r s as well
Thus,

as e x p e r t s

in th e

field.

the p r o b l e m in this st u d y was to

and e x a m i n e p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s

(1) d e v e l o p

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

for

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m in the Sta te of M i c h i g a n and
94

95

(2) d e t e r m i n e and c o m p a r e o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
teac he rs ,

teacher coordinators,

d i r e c t o r s on the

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

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

program objectives

and e v a l u a t i v e crit er ia.
Eighteen
were derived
literature

program objectives

from a c o m p r e h e n s i v e

and

21 e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

l i t e r a t u r e review.

The

s e a r c h c o n s i s t e d of s t u d i e s by p r o f e s s i o n a l

cation organizations

related

to the d e v e l o p m e n t of c r i t e r i a

for d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n prog rams,
distributive education

edu­

doctoral

studies

that c o n s t r u c t e d c r i t e r i a

in

for the

e v a l u a t i o n of o n g o i n g pr og r a m s ,

and c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d

for the e v a l u a t i o n of s t a t e and

local

vocational

prog ra ms .

Research Procedures
The p o p u l a t i o n of this stu d y was
tributive education

t ea ch ers,

teacher coordinators,

local d i r e c t o r s of v o c a t i o n a l
tract w i t h
piled

423 s e c o n d a r y d i s ­

education programs

the M i c h i g a n S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t

lists of t h e s e p o p u l a t i o n s w e r e

and

und er c o n ­

of E d u c a t i o n .

p r o v i d e d by the State

D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n an d the S t a t e A d v i s o r y C o u n c i l
Vocational

Ed uc a t i o n .

A proportionate

s a m p l e of

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

d e s c r i p t i v e study.
to

for

123 s e c o n ­

randomly

selected

list.

An o p i n i o n n a i r e

de n t s

Com­

(1)

o n e to six,

Th e

was

use d

survey

to c o l l e c t
instrument

th e da t a
required

for this
respon­

ra te o b j e c t i v e s and c r i t e r i a on a s c a l e
and

(2)

ra n k the

fi v e m o s t

fr o m

important objectives

96
and c r i t e r i a

relative

to the ir pr og rams .

Part

s u r v e y wa s d e s i g n e d to eli ci t w h a t o b j e c t i v e s
believed

to be m o s t

i mp orta nt

importance

The r a t i n g sc a l e used
1 - "Extremely
Important,"

respondents

to the ir p ro grams .

wa s base d on e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a
to rate their

I of the

Part

II

and r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e asked

in r e s p e c t to p r o g r a m ob j e c t i v e s .

for both o b j e c t i v e s

Im p o r t a n t , "

and c r i t e r i a w a s

2 - "Very I m p o r t a n t , "

4 - "Important,"

5 - "S omewhat

3 - "Fairly

Important,"

and

6 - "No I m p o r t a n c e . "

Findings
Th e data p r e s e n t e d
the

in this

study w e r e c o m p i l e d

r e s p o n s e s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teac he rs,

coordinators,
response)

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

w h o re t u r n e d

respective

the o p i n i o n n a i r e

tea ch er

(65 p e r c e n t

sent to h i s / h e r

ins ti tu ti on.

A s u m m a r y of
research questions
1.

directors

from

fin d i n g s r e l a t e d to the s p e c i f i c
for this stu dy

Wh a t o b j e c t i v e s

is as

are mos t

follows:

important

in c o n s i d e r i n g

the su c c e s s of a d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m as d e t e r m i n e d
by d i s t r i b u t i v e
and

education

local v o c a t i o n a l
The

teachers ,

directors?

five m o s t i m p o r t a n t p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s

o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
nators,

and
2.

teacher coordinators,

local v o c a t i o n a l

tea ch ers,

teacher coordi­

d i r e c t o r s w e r e as

follows:

Do the o b j e c t i v e s a d e q u a t e l y e n c o m p a s s

da ry d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n pro gram .

in the

Substantial

a secon­
agreement

97

Overal 1
Hank

Objective

1

1-1

That p r e p a r a t i o n for g a in fu l e m p l o y m e n t
and for a d v a n c e m e n t in a d i s t r i b u t i v e
o c c u p a t i o n is the p r i m a r y goal of the
D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Pro gram .

2

1-12

That D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n should serve
st u d e n t s of d i v e r s e talents, a bi li t i e s ,
i nte rests, an d c u lt ur al ba ckg rou nd.

3

1-5

T h a t the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m
sho uld s t i m u l a t e the s t u d e n t ' s i n t e r e s t in
his c h o s e n d i s t r i b u t i v e o c c u p a t i o n a l field
by p r o v i d i n g an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the
o p p o r t u n i t i e s it o f f e r s h i m to be a c o n ­
t r i b u t i n g m e m b e r of society.
(Career and
job p o t e n t i a l .)

4

1-18

Tha t s t u d e n t s are e n c o u r a g e d to im pr ove
t h e i r c o m p e t e n c i e s by f u rther e d u c a t i o n
and w o r k so that th ey ca n pr o g r e s s be yo n d
e n t r y level pos it ions.

5

1-4

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m
s h o u l d e n c o u r a g e and p r o m o t e the use of
e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s in b u s i n e s s an d industry.

existed between
coordinators,

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n t e ac he rs,

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

W h e n ask ed to r e c o m m e n d a d d i t i o n s
suggested
current

teacher

education directors.
to the list,

few tas ks th a t w e r e not a l r e a d y

respondents

included

in the

l i s t i n g or o f f e r e d a v a r i a t i o n s i m i l a r to th o s e

mentioned.
3.

To w h a t e x t e n t do d i s t r i b u t i v e

teacher coordinators,

an d l oc a l v o c a t i o n a l

on the sa me o b j e c t i v e s ?

e d u c a t i o n te ac h e r

directors agree

98
For the most part,
teacher coordinators,

and

on the same o b j e c t i v e s .
distributive education
1-18
by

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n t e ac hers ,
local v o c a t i o n a l d i r e c t o r s a g re e
However,

administrators

and wor k"

and teacher s.

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s on the average,
serve

st u d e n t s of d i v e r s e

and c u l t u r a l
teachers

the mea n aver age ,

c o o r d i n a t o r s b e l i e v e that o b j e c t i v e

"Studen ts are e n c o u r a g e d

further education

us i n g

backgrounds"

to im p r o v e t h e i r c o m p e t e n c i e s
is mo r e
Whereas,

i m p o r t a n t than do
local v o c a t i o n a l

a g ree o b j e c t i v e

talents,

abil i t i e s ,

to be m o r e

1-12

"To

interests,

i mport an t

than

an d t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s .

4.

What

evaluative criteria

are m o s t

important

c o n s i d e r i n g the s u c c e s s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s
as d e t e r m i n e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n te ach er s,
coordinators,
Th e
opinions

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

five most

important

e d u c a t i o n d ir ec tors.

evaluative criteria

of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n teac he rs,

n a t o r s , and
Overall
Rank

teacher-

in the

teacher-coordi-

local v o c a t i o n a l d i r e c t o r s were as follows:

Ev alu at ive Criteria

1

2-2

Cur ric ul um is direct ly related to requirements of an
occupation.

2

2-1

Physical facilities and equipment are a d eq ua te for ful­
filling p r o g r a m ' s purpose.

3

2-16

Student's w or k expe rie nc e-- the best possib le pla cem en t of
that student into a cooper ati ve training station.

4

2-5

Instructional m aterials are current and suited to
student's individual needs.

5

2-4

Instructional activities, methods and procedu res
cooperative or project) used in teaching.

(e.g.,

in

99
5.

Do the e v a l u a t i v e

criteria adequately encompass a

secondary distributive education program?
The e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a a p p e a r to a d e q u a t e l y e n c o m ­
p a s s a s e c o n d a r y d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n program.
tial a g r e e m e n t e x i s t e d
t eac hers,

list,

When

respondents

included
si m i l a r

between distributive education

teacher-coordinators,

tion dire c t o r s .

Substan­

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

as ke d to r e c o m m e n d

suggested

in the c u r r e n t

additions

educa­

to the

few tas ks that w e r e not a l r e a d y

l i sting or o f f e r e d

a variation

to t ho s e me ntio n e d .
6.

teachers,

To what

e x te nt do d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n

teacher-coordinators,

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

d i r e c t o r s a g r e e upo n the e v a l u a t i v e cr i t e r i a

for a d i s t r i ­

butive education program?
In general,

distributive education

t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s , and
on the same e v a l u a t i v e
a g r e e m e n t on C r i t e r i a
D E C A and schoo l
important

local v o c a t i o n a l

criteria.
2-7

store"

teachers,

However,

"Extra cla ss

directors

t h er e is a d i s ­

activities

education teachers

are on the m e a n a v e r a g e ra te d mo r e

Also,

on the average,

rate e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

teacher-coordinators
Do y e a r s

"Labor m a r k e t

and

lower than

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
of e x p e r i e n c e m a k e a d i f f e r e n c e

th e o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n tea che rs ,
coordinators,

to

distributive

b e h a v i o r and i m p o r t a n c e of a d v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e s "

7.

such as

by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t e a c h e r s as c o m p a r e d

teacher-coordinators.

agr e e

local

vocational

directors?

in

teacher-

100
For the m o s t part,
a

difference

teac he rs ,

in

yea rs of e x p e r i e n c e do not ma k e

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

teacher-coordinators,

and local v o c a t i o n a l

e d u c a t i o n di re c t o r s .
8.
a

Do e s

difference

teachers,

the a m o u n t of p r o f e s s i o n a l

in

p r e p a r a t i o n ma k e

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

teacher-coordinators,

and local v o c a t i o n a l

education directors?
Fo r the mo st part,
make a difference
teachers,

professional

p r e p a r a t i o n do e s not

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

teacher-coordinators,

and

local

vocational

e d u c a t i o n dir ec to rs.
A s u m m a r y of
null
level

hypothesis

findings relating

using

the c h i - s q u a r e test

of sig nifi ca nc e)
Ho^

to the t e s t i n g of the

is as

differences between

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

local v o c a t i o n a l

teachers,

and the resp o n d e n t s '

p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s was

relative

impor­

type s of pro grams.

A significant difference between
offered

teacher-

education directors

r e g a r d i n g a p p r o p r i a t e o b j e c t i v e s and the ir
tan ce a m o n g t h r e e b a s i c

(.05

follows:

T h e r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t

coordinators,

statistic

found

type of p r o g r a m

o p i n i o n s on the i m p o r t a n c e of
on O b j e c t i v e

1-9:

T h a t the d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s h o u l d be
s e n s i t i v e to c h a n g e s in d i s t r i b u t i v e and m a r k e t i n g
p r a c t i c e s and p r o c e d u r e s as they ar e a f f e c t e d by
the so cietal, eco nomi c, a n d e d u c a t i o n a l d e v e l o p ­
ments, an d ada pt to such cha nge s.

101

There

are d i f f e r e n c e s

in o p i n i o n a m o n g r e s p o n d e n t s

types of p r o g r a m s on this o bj ec ti ve .

Thus,

the

st atement.

field do not t o t a l l y
Ho^

s u p p o r t this

in three

practitioners

in

The re are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n

the o p i n i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
coordinators,

and

teachers,

local v o c a t i o n a l d i r e c t o r s

teacher-

regarding

a p p r o p r i a t e e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a and the r e l a t i v e

importance

of eac h e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a b e t w e e n b a s i c type s of program s.
Significant differences
o f f e r e d and p o s i t i o n e x i s t e d
on the

b e t w e e n type of p r o g r a m

in the

re sp ond ents'

i m p o r t a n c e of e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a w e r e

opinions

found

such as

criteria:
P r o g r a m 2-7
Extra-Class activities
school sto re are pro vid ed.
T h e r e are d i f f e r e n c e s
types of p r o g r a m s
tioners

in the

in o p i n i o n a m o n g

regarding

field do no t

such as D E C A and

respondents

this c r i t e r i o n .
totally

su p p o r t

Thus,

typ es of p r o g r a m s
practitioners

in o p i n i o n a m o n g

regarding

in the

relations

respondents

this cr it er ion.

practi­

this stat em en t.

P r o g r a m 2-9
Home, bu si n e s s , and c o m m u n i t y
m a i n t a i n e d on a c o n t i n u a l basis.
T h e r e are d i f f e r e n c e s

in three

are

in three

Th erefo re ,

fie ld do n o t t o t a l l y s u p p o r t

this

statement.
P o s i t i o n 2-7
Extra-class activities
s c hoo l s t o r e are pro vi ded.
T h e r e ar e d i f f e r e n c e s

in o p i n i o n a m o n g

tion r e g a r d i n g

this c r i t e r i o n .

a g r o u p do no t

totally support

s u c h as D E C A and

r e s p o n d e n t s by p o s i ­

T he refo re ,

practitioners

this s ta te ment .

as

102
Ho^j
personnel

T h e r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n

in v a r i o u s

sizes of s c hoo ls

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a b e t w e e n

regarding objectives

the two b a s i c

types of

programs.
This can bo s u p p o r t e d by the dat a
cant d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e
the o p i n i o n s
coordinators,

found b e t w e e n

local v o c a t i o n a l

from the thr e e g r ou ps
program objectives
HOq
between

tea ch er s,

di re ct o r s .

a g r e e d on the r e l a t i v e

in

t e ac he r-

Respondents
i m p o r t a n c e of

and e v a l u a t i v e criteria.

The re are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n s

teachers,

directors

sizes of s c hool s

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

since no s i g n i f i ­

relative

teacher-coordinators,

and

local

vocational

to ye a r s of e xper ie nc e.

A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e
and the re sp on dent s'
found on O b j e c t i v e

o p i n i o n s on p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s was

1-1:

Th at p r e p a r a t i o n for g a i n f u l e m p l o y m e n t and for a d v a n c e ­
m e n t in a d i s t r i b u t i v e o c c u p a t i o n is the p r i m a r y goal
of the d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n program.
T h e r e are d i f f e r e n c e s

in o p i n i o n s among

respondents

to y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e on this objec t i v e .

relative

T h o u g h t h e r e are

an o v e r w h e l m i n g n u m b e r of p e o p l e that a g r e e the o b j e c t i v e
imp or tan t,

the f e e l i n g

HOj-

is not unanimo us.

T h e r e are no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n

b e t w e e n te ac hers ,

teacher-coordinators,

education directors,
preparation.

is

relative

an d loca l v o c a t i o n a l

to the d e g r e e of p r o f e s s i o n a l

103

A significant difference
on the

i m p o r t a n c e of

Objective

the

in the r e s p o n d e n t s ’ o p i n i o n s

f o llo wi ng o b j e c t i v e wa s

found on

1-12:

That d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d s er v e s t u d e n t s of
d i v e r s e talents, abilit ie s, interests, and c u l t u r a l
backgrounds.
T h e r e ar e d i f f e r e n c e s
to p r o f e s s i o n a l
paration

in o p i n i o n a m o n g r e s p o n d e n t s

preparation,

increases,

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

so does

talents,

therefo re,

re l a t i v e

as p r o f e s s i o n a l

the i m p o r t a n c e of s e r v i n g

abiliti es,

interests,

pre­

stu­

and cu l t u r a l

backgrounds.
Conclusions
Base d on the fi n d i n g s of this study,

the

fo ll o w i n g

c o n c l u s i o n s w e r e made:
1.

Ty pe of p r o g r a m such as c o o p e r a t i v e ,
c o m b i n a t i o n of bot h types,

pro jec t,

o f f e r e d has

and a

l i tt le eff ec t

on the o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
tea chers,

teacher-coordinators,

education directors
2.

and

local v o c a t i o n a l

r e g a r d i n g p r o g r a m of ob je ct iv es.

Type of p r o g r a m suc h as c o o p e r a t i v e ,

pr oject,

and a

c o m b i n a t i o n of b o t h types o f f e r e d has li tt l e or no
e f f e c t on the o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e
education

t ea ch er s,

vocational

teacher-coordinators,

education directors

an d local

regarding evaluative

criteria.
3.

E n r o l l m e n t of size of school has no e f f e c t b e t w e e n
opinions

of r e s p o n d e n t s on o b j e c t i v e s an d e v a l u a t i v e

criteria

for t h r e e b a s i c types of p r og ra ms .

104

4.

Y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e in the p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n has
lit tl e or no effe ct on the o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by d i s ­
tributive
and

e d u c a t i o n te achers,

local v o c a t i o n a l

program objectives
5.

education directors

and e v a l u a t i v e

e f f e c t on

the o p i n i o n s

education

teachers ,

objectives

and e v a l u a t i v e cr it eri a.

process.

participate

in the d e l i v e r y of

programs

be

in the e v a l u a t i v e

shou ld

involved

for the e v a l u a t i o n of p r o g r a m s will
as

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

an d c r i t e r i a

evaluations,

{e.g.,

follow-up

as o u t l i n e d

s h o u l d be b a s e d on the nee ds

(3)

for m e a s u r i n g
survey,

bee n d i s a g r e e m e n t

external

F r o m this

typ es of

study,

it

d i f f e r w i t h the

department personnel

I, e v a l u a t i o n

In the past,

on w h i c h o b j e c t i v e s

for v a r i o u s

practitioners

in C h a p t e r

a n d goa l s of the

s c h oo l d i s t r i c t or agency.

o f fer ed .

an d

p l a c e me nt ).

Furthermore,

appropriate

(1) e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o g r a m

(2) d e t e r m i n i n g e v a l u a t i v e cri te ria,

deciding what

local

r e l a t i v e to p r o g r a m

and C o n c l u d i n g Sta t e m e n t

i n c l u d e such c o m p o n e n t s

objectives

an d local

individuals who

Activities

objectives,

lit tl e or no

teacher-coordinators,

education directors

educational

to

e x p r e s s e d by d i s t r i b u t i v e

vocational

All

relative

criteria.

D e g r e e of p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n has

Implications

of t e n

teacher-coordinators,

respective
t h ere has

an d c r i t e r i a are

schools

an d p r o g r a m s

is i m p o r t a n t
" e xp erts"

to note

that

su ch as state

and t e a c h e r e d u c a t o r s as to the

105
i m p o r t a n c e of
If this
change
goal

is a p r e v a i l i n g
from the pa st

it s i g n i f i e s

education

a dramatic

training.

is to p r e p a r e

students.

If a n e w
for c o l l e g e

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

not to a l l o w

"eliti sm "

indicated

criteria

feeling,

for v o c a t i o n a l

for v o c a t i o n a l

for d i s t r i b u t i v e

trainin g,

have

furthering education

to t a k e over.

th e i r p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n

such as a D E C A club,

r e l a t i o n s efforts,

Ho wever,

scho ol

practitioners

shou ld not

store,

w h i c h are a s p e c t s

quality program according

differences

M oreov er ,

and p u b li c

to be c o n s i d e r e d

to v a r i o u s

that

in a

authorities.

a f u rt her o b s e r v a t i o n ma y rev eal

are not

in clu de

large or w i d e s p r e a d .

A f t e r all,

d e s p i t e any d i f f e r e n c e s ,

educators

that

is to se r v e s t u d e n t s and e m p l o y e r s

their m a i n p r i o r i t y

s ho u l d not

that

lose sight

in the best p o s s i b l e way.
The o b j e c t i v e s

and c r i t e r i a

stu dy can s e rve as a basis
education programs

present

form,

studies

in the p r esent

Loca l

school

personnel may

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

or b e t t e r yet,

Numerous

forth

for e v a l u a t i o n of d i s t r i b u t i v e

in M i c h i g a n .

use th e p r o g r a m o b j e c t i v e s

set

in m o r e m e a s u r a b l e

in thei r

t^rms,

in th e are a of e v a l u a t i o n h a v e m a d e

important

contributions

for

local

Although,

l i tt le has been d o n e

self-evaluations.

in v a l i d a t i n g

specific

o b j e c t i v e s to e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a by p r a c t i t i o n e r s on a
local or s t a t e w i d e b a s i s
Lastly,

su c h as this

as s t a n d a r d s

that the p r i m a r y p u r p o s e

stu dy p u r p o r t e d to do.

ar e d e v e l o p e d ,

for all

involved

it is i m p o r t a n t

in e v a l u a t i o n ,

is

106

to i d e n t i f y s t r e n g t h s
and

revision.

In no w a y

to p u n i s h or coer ce
educational

and w e a k n e s s e s

shou ld such o b s e r v a t i o n s be used

tho se

i n vo lv ed

in the d e l i v e r y of the

program.

In summary,

local p r a c t i t i o n e r s will

w i t h dat a that has been c o n s i d e r e d
"best

for p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t

thou ghts,

th e most c u r r e n t and

p r a c t i c e s and c o n d i t i o n s "

education programs across

the nation.

tion p e r s o n n e l m u s t c o n s t a n t l y
and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a

be p r o v i d e d

for d i s t r i b u t i v e

Distributive educa­

review program objectives

b e c a u s e of c h a n g i n g e d u c a t i o n a l

and s t u d e n t needs.

Recommendations
Th e
1.

foll o w i n g

recommendations

Th a t d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n
coordinators,
directors
in this

are made:

teac he rs,

and local v o c a t i o n a l

in the Sta t e of M i c h i g a n

teacher-

education
use the

find ings

st ud y to d e v e l o p c o m p r e h e n s i v e se l f -

evaluation

instruments

s u i t a b l e to t h e i r local

d i s t r i b u t i v e e d u c a t i o n prog ra ms .
2.

Tha t p e r s o n n e l
Education
in this

in the M i c h i g a n Sta te D e p a r t m e n t of

s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r and us e the f i n d i n q s

study

in t h ei r e f f o r t s to d e v e l o p s t a t e w i d e

self-evaluation

instruments

for local d i s t r i b u t i v e

e d u c a t i o n p ro grams .
3.

That

r e s e a r c h b a s e d o n the d a t a a v a i l a b l e

s t u d y be r e p l i c a t e d in o t h e r

sta tes

in this

a n d / o r on a

107
n a t i o n a l bas i s u s i n g v a r i o u s o t h e r g r o u p s
as emplo y e r s ,

student s,

and

such

state and local

leg islators.
4.

Tha t r e s e a r c h be c o n d u c t e d to d e t e r m i n e w h a t
dar ds

(tests,

acceptable

e v a l u a t i o n groups,

to m e a s u r e

etc.)

stan­

w o u l d be

to w h a t d e g r e e o b j e c t i v e s

and e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a are bein g met.
5.

That

f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h be c o n d u c t e d of an a l t e r n a t i v e

nature

(aside from ranking)

such as p a i r e d c o m p a r i ­

son m e t h o d o l o g y to e s t a b l i s h e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i o n
weights which reflect
various

the p r i o r i t i e s

i n t e r e s t groups.

e x p r e s s e d by

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

The Lucy C. C r a w f o r d s t u d y
of D i s t r i b u t i v e Edu ca tion.

(1967) c o n s t r u c t e d e l e v e n goals
T h e s e g o a l s are as follows:

1.

That p r e p a r a t i o n for g a i n f u l e m p l o y m e n t and for
a d v a n c e m e n t in d i s t r i b u t i v e o c c u p a t i o n is the
p r i m a r y goal of the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n program.

2.

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m sho uld
e n g e n d e r an u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a p p r e c i a t i o n of the
A m e r i c a n p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e s y s t e m as a c o r n e r s t o n e
of the A m e r i c a n Democracy.

3.

Th a t the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m shou ld
foster an a w a r e n e s s of the civic, social, and
m o r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of b u s i n e s s to society.

4.

That th e D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m should
e n c o u r a g e and p r o m o t e the use of e t h i c a l s t a n d a r d s
in b u s i n e s s and industry.

5.

That th e D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m shou ld
s t i m u l a t e i n tere st in his c h o s e n d i s t r i b u t i v e
o c c u p a t i o n field by p r o v i d i n g an u n d e r s t a n d i n g
of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s it o f f e r s hi m to be a
c o n t r i b u t i n g m e m b e r of soc iety.

6.

Th a t the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m should
p r e p a r e d i s t r i b u t i v e p e r s o n n e l to a n a l y z e
c o n s u m e r d e m a n d and to s a t i s f y the n e e d s and
w a n t s of c o n s u m e r s i n t e l l i g e n t l y , e f f i c i e n t l y ,
and pleasa n t l y .

7.

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s h ou ld
p r o v i d e t r a i n i n g that r e s u l t s in i n c r e a s e d
e f f i c i e n c y in d i s t r i b u t i o n and m a r k e t i n g .

8.

Tha t the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m sho u l d
c o n t r i b u t e to the i m p r o v e m e n t of the t e c h n i q u e s
in d i s t r i b u t i o n an d m a r k e t i n g .

108

109
9.

That th e D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m sho uld be
s e n s i t i v e to c h a n g e s in d i s t r i b u t i v e and m a r k e t i n g
p r a c t i c e s and p r o c e d u r e s as they are a f f e c t e d by
societa l, econ om ic , te ch ni c a l , and e d u c a t i o n a l
d e v e l o p m e n t s , and ad ap t to such changes.

10.

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m shou ld
a d v a n c e the o b j e c t i v e s of the total e d u c a t i o n a l
program.

11.

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m should
s t riv e to d e v e l o p a m on g e m p l o y e e s and c o n s u m e r s
a w i d e r a p p r e c i a t i o n of the v a l u e s of s p e c i f i c a l l y
t r a i n e d p e r s o n n e l in d i s t r i b u t i o n .

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS
LARGE SIZE

B

INCLUDED IN SAMPLE
(CLASS A)*

Adams High School
Rochester, MI
48063

Fli nt Kea rs le y High School
Flint, MI

A ndover (Bloomfield) H igh School
Bloomfi el d Hills, MI
48103

F raser High School
Fraser, MI
48026

Battle Creek Central High School
Battle Creek, Ml
48107

Ga rden City West High School
Ga rd en City, MI
48135

Bentley High School
Livonia, MI
48154

G ra n dh av en High School
Grandhaven, MI
49417

Bright on High School
Brighton, MI
48116

G rosso Pointo Hi gh School
G rosso Pointe, MI

C as s Technical High School
Detroit, MI
48201

Henry Ford High School
Detroit, MI
48219

Cody H ig h School
Detroit, MI
48228

Holland High School
Holland, MI
49423

Denby High School
Detroit, Ml
48228

Huron Hi gh School
Ann Arbor, MI
48105

D on de ro High School
Royal Oak, MI
48067

Lak es ho re Hi gh School
St. Clair Shores, Ml

East Kentwood H i g h School
Kentwood, MI
48508

Lamphere H i g h School
Madison, MI

East Lansing High School
East Lansing, MI
48823

Lanse Cr eu se N o rt h High School
M t . Clemens, MI
48045

F e r n da l e High School
Ferndale, MI
482 20

L in co ln Park High School
Lin co ln Park, MI
48146

F itz ge ra ld High School
Warren, MI
48091
•Large Cl ass A —

1,430 o r more students

110

Mona Shores High School
Muskegon, MI
N o r th F ar m in g to n High School
F a rm i ng t on Hills, MI
40018
O w o s s o High School
Owesso, MI
488G7
P on ti ac Central High School
Pontiac, MI
480S3
Redford Un ion High School
Rodford, MI
48240
Roosevelt High School
Wyandotte, MI
48192
Sault Area Skill C enter
Sault Stc. Marie, MI
S c a ho l m High School
Birmingham, MI
4B009
Tow er High School
Warren, MI
48093
W all ed Lake Central High School
W all ed Lake, MI
4808R
W a te rf or d Mott High School
Pontiac, M I .

112

PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS INCLUDED IN SAMPLE
M EDIUM SIZE

{CLASS B ) *

Ainsworth High School
Flint, MI
48507

South Haven High School
South Haven, MI
49090

Allegan High School
Allegan, MI
49010

Sturgis High School
Sturgis, MI
49091

Alma High School
Alma, MI
4 8801

Troy High School
Troy, MI
4B084

Beecher High School
Flint, MI
48505
Clawson High School
Clawson, MI
48017
Comstock High School
Comstock, MI
49041
Gaylord High School
Gaylord, MI
49735
Greenville High School
Greenville, MI
48B3B
Hartland High School
Hartland, MI
48029
Jenison High School
Jenison, MI
4942B
Lake Fenton High School
Fenton, MI
48430
Menominee High School
Menominee, MI
49858
Mt. Morris Johnson Memorial High School
Mt. Morris, MI
48458
Ovid Elsie High School
Elsie, MI
48831
Paw Paw High School
Paw Paw, MI
49079
•Medium Class B -- 708 - 1,429 students

113
PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS INCLUDED IN SAMPLE
SMALL SIZE

(CLASS C - D ) *

A therton High School
Burton, MI
48319

Mattawan High School
Mattawan, MI
49071

Bad Axe High School
Bad Axe, MI

Negaunee High School
Negaunee, Ml
49866

Bedford High School
Temperance, MI
48182

Ontonagon High School
Ontonagon, MI
49953

Benzie Central High School
Benzonia, MI
49616

Perry High School
Perry, MI
48872

Buchanan High School
Buchanan, MI
49107

Ravenna High School
Ravenna, MI
49451

Carlson High School
Rockwood, MI
4817 3

Rogers City High School
Rogers City, MI
49779

C harlevoix High School
Charlevoix, MI
49720

Saugatuck High School
Saugatuck, MI
49453

Colon High School
Colon, MI
49040

Union Dowagiac High School
Dowagiac, MI

Forest Hills Northern High School
Grand Rapids, MI
49506

Woodhaven High School
Flat Rock, MI
48134

Goodrich High School
Goodrich, MI
48434
Haslett High School
H a s l e t t , MI
48840
Huron High School
New Boston, MI
48164
Ishpeming High School
Ishpeming, MI
49849
Laingsburg Community High School
Laingsburg, MI
48048
Lakeville High School
Otisville, MI
48463
•Small —

less than 707 students

114
SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH VOCATIONAL DIRECTORS
INCLUDED IN SAMPLE
Ann Arbor Public Schools
Ann Arbor, MI
48103

Muskegon Public Schools
Muskegon, MI
49440

Berrien Springs School District
Berrien Springs, MI
49103

Petoskey Public Schools
Petoskey, MI
49770

Birch Run Area Schools
Birch Run, MI
48413

Saginaw Public Schools
Saginaw, MI
48063

Bloomfield Hills School District
Bloomfield Hills, MI
48013

Saginaw Township Community Schools
Saginaw, MI
48063

Corunna Public Schools
Corunna, MI
48017

Sault Area High School and Skill
Center
Sault Sto. Marie, MI
49783

Dearborn Public Schools
Dearborn, MI
48126
Genesee Intermediate School
Elint, MI
48507

Southfield Public Schools
Southfield, MI
48075
District

Hazel Park City School District
Hazel Park, MI
40030
Huron Valley Schools
Milford, MI
48042
Inkster Public Schools
Inkster, MI
48141
Kearsley Community Schools
Flint, MI
4850G
Lake Shore Public Schools
St. Clair Shores, MI
48082
Madison District Public Schools
Madison Heights, MI
48071
Midland Public Schools
Midland, MI
48640
Mt. Pleasant Public Schools
Mt. Pleasant, MI
48858

Tech Center
Benton Harbor, MI

49022

Troy Senior High School
Troy, MI
48084
Waterford T own sh ip School District
Waterford, MI
48095
Wayne Intermediate School District
Wayne, MI
48184

115
SKILL CENTERS

Bay-Ar ne al Skill Center
Bay City, MI
48706

Southeast Oakland Vocational Center
Royal Oak, Ml
48073

Benton Harbor Skill Center
Benton Harbor, MI

Van Buren Skill Center
Lawrence, MI
49064

Branch Area Skill Center
Coldwater, MI
49039

W e xf o rd - Mi ss a uk e e Vocati on al Center
Cadillac, MI
49601

Capital Area Career Center
Mason, MI
48854
C areer Op p or tu n it i es Center
Saginaw, MI
48602
C areer Technical C enter
Ypsilanti, MI
48197
D i c k i ns o n Area V oc at io na l Center
Kingsford, MI
49001
J a c ks o n Area Career Center
Jackson, MI
49201
Jackson Area
J a c k s o n , MI

Skill
492 01

Center

Kent Skill Center
Gra nd Rapids, Ml
49506
Lapeer C ou n ty Vocati ona l C enter
Attica, MI
49412
L e naw ee Skill Center
Adrian, MI
49221
N e w ay g o A r ea Vocational Ce nt er
Fremont, MI
49412
N or t hw e st Oakland Vocati on al Center
Clarkston, MI
48016
P e t o s k e y A re a Vocational Center
Petoskey, MI
49770
Sault A re a Vo ca ti o na l C enter
Sault Ste. Marie, MI
49783

APPENDIX

AP PE N DI X C

S URVEY OF DE P ER SO NN EL AN D LO CA L V O C A T I O N A L DIRECTORS
TO D E T E R M I N E THE I MPORTANCE OF OBJ EC TI VE S AND
EV A L U A T I V E C RIT ER IA F OR DE PROGRAMS
General Information
Name
(Please print)
Positi on
PLEASE CHECK:
Sex:

Male

Female

Age:

24 or under

25-34

35-44

55 or older

45-54

Type P ro gr am Offered:
W h i c h of the three types of DE pr og r am s best a pp ro xi ma te s what
you offer:
Cooperative

Project Lab

(Block-Time)

Both

C O O P E R A T I V E M E T H O D — A m i n i m u m fifteen hours p ai d on the job
e xpe ri e nc e related to c la ss r oo m i ns truction and each student's
o cc up at io nal o b j e ct i ve as c on tr ac ted with the M ic higan
Department of Education.
P RO J EC T M E T H O D -- In st r uc t io n w h i c h involves a series of group
and/or i nd iv idu al ly designed learning activit ie s and p ro je cts
r e la te d to each student's oc cu p at i on al o b je ct iv e as c on tr ac te d
w i t h the M i c h i g a n Department of Education.
C O- OP M E T H O D / P R O J E C T M E T H O D --A c o mb i na ti on of the c o- o pe ra ti ve
ed uc at i on tech ni qu e and p ro je ct m et h od as contra ct ed w i t h the
M i c h i g a n D e pa r t m e n t of Education.
Level of Education:
Baccalaureate

Masters

S p e c i a li st

Years of e xp er ie nc e at p r es en t position:
1 - 3____

4 - 8___

9 - 12____

Over_12___

Level of Ce rt if ic at io n:
A n nu a l______

T e m p o r a r y ______

Full______

116

Do c to r at e___

117

INTRODUCTION! Following are objectives and evaluative criteria for DE
programs as have been determined by "experts" in the field.
To enhance
the relevance in evaluation of DE programs in Michigan you are asked
to help decide which objectives and criteria are most important to your
program.
INSTRUCTIONS:

1.

Please take the following steps in filling out the
opinionnaire:

Read Part I (The Objectives) and Part II (The Criteria) and
circle one of the numbers to the right of each item relative
to its importance for your program.
The key for this purpose is as follows:
1 - Extremely important
2 - Very important
3 - Fairly important
4 - Important
5 - Somewhat

important

6 - No importance
2.

After you have completed the rating scale, please rank what you
consider to be the five most important objectives and criteria.

3.

Should you wish to suggest additional objectives or criteria,
please list them at the end of the section to which they are
related and circle one value as indicated above.

4.

Return the opinionnaire in the enclosed envelope.
Copies of
the study will be provided to your state association MADET
and SACVE.
Thank you for your cooperation.

PART I: The following is a list of objectives for a Distributive
Education program.
A number of them were derived from the
(1967) Lucy Crawford Study.
Using the scale cited above,
p lease indicate your opinion regarding the importance of
each objective.

Distributive Education Objectives
1-1

That preparation for gainful employment and
for advancement in a d istributive occupation
is the prim ar y goal of the Distributive
E ducation program.

Uj
1

2

M,
3 4

W
5

«.
6

118

A
£

.
£

x

1-2

1-3

1-4

1-5

1-6

1-7

1-8

1-9

1-10

That the Distributive Education program
should engender an understanding and appreelation of the American private enterprise
system as a cornerstone of the American
Democracy.

cr*

^

§
£
$

«, o
C ^
*-* JLJ tt

'B ^
£
*

&
£

§
k,

o

1 2

3

k
4

to ^
5 6

That the Distributive Education program
should foster an awareness of the civic,
social, and moral responsibilities of
business to society.

1 2

3

4

5

6

That the Distributive Education program
should encourage and promote the use of
ethical standards in business and
industry.

1 2

3

4

5

6

That the Distributive Education program
should stimulate the student's interest
in his chosen d is tributive occupational
field by providing an undoistanding of
the opportunities it offers him to be a
contributing member of society.
(Career and job potential)

1 2

3

4

5

6

That the Distributive Education program
should prepare distributive personnel to
analyze consumer demand and to satisfy
the needs and wants of consumers intelli­
gently, efficiently, and pleasantly.

1 2

3

4

5

6

That the Distributive Education program
should provide training that results in
increased efficiency in distribution
and marketing.

1 2

3

4

5

6

That the Di stributive Education p ro gra m
should contribute to the improvement of
the techniques in distribution and
marketing.

1 2

3

4

5

6

That the Distrib ut iv e Education program
should be sensitive to changes in d i s t r i ­
butive and marketing practices and p r o c e ­
dures as they are affected by societal,
economic, technical, and educational
developments, and adapt to such changes.

1 2

3

4

5

6

That the Di stributive Education program
should advance the o bj ec ti ves of the
total educational program,

1 2

3

4

5

6

119

Q,
rr

■*v

a
* C; <r

^

l-ll

1-12

1-13

1-14

1-15

1-16

1-17

1-18

1-19

1-20

$

• <b
a Cro
’i n

,

'**£
g
£ £

v

o'

That the Distributive Education program
should strive to develop among employees
and consumers a wider appreciation of the
values of specifically trained personnel
in distribution.

^ a
1 2

3

4

5

^
6

That Distributive Education should serve
students of diverse talents, abilities,
interests, and cultural backgrounds.

1 2

3

4

5

6

That educational needs of adults in the
local community should be served.

1 2

3

4

5

6

That long range objectives be established
to account for trends and changes that may
affect clientele (e.g., population m o v e ­
ment and economic c o n d i t i o n s ) .

1 2

3

4

5

6

That provisions for a local chapter of
DECA and activities be established to
foster such activities an: social skills,
leadership abilities, communication
skills, etc.

1 2

3 4

5

6

That pr ovision for advisory committee
members, school personnel, and other
people from the community give input
to operation and evaluation of the
program,

1 2

3

4

5

6

That curriculum o fferings include
career exploration at the elementary
and junior high levels.

1 2

3 4

5

6

That students are encouraged to improve
their competencies by further education
and work so that they can progress
beyond entry level positions.

1 2

3

5

6

of
g

^
&
£

4

^
o'

120

R ef er ri ng agai n to the p r ev i ou s list of objectives, pl eas e choose those
five that you feel are most crucial to the success of a DE program.
Rank order 1 t hro ug h 5 begi nn in g w i t h the most important.

1

______

2 ________________________________________________
3

PART II:

The following is a list of evaluat iv e criteria for a D i s t r i ­
butive E d u c a ti on program.
To assist you in the understanding
of cr it er ia in comple tin g the op in io nnaire, evaluative
criteria will be defined as: important aspects of a prog ra m
w h ich are used as g uides for attainm en t of p ro g ra m objectives.

o,
it
E VA L UA TI V E CR IT E RI A

"■*

ci

V

2-1

2-2

Physical facilities and equipment are
a de qu at e for fulfilling p ro gr am' s purpose.
C u r r i c u l u m is di re c tl y related to r e q u i r e ­
m en ts of an occupation.

1

1

A

•

. j
C,
iT .

C

O

C

o

o o p
f;-

.0

O

^

2

A
^
3 4 5

G

2

3

6

4

5

2-3

Instructional content
formance objectives.

2-4

I ns tr uc tio na l activities, m et ho ds and
p r o c e d u re s (e.g., c o o pe r at iv e or project)
used in teaching.

2-5

Ins tr uct io na l ma te r ia l s are current and
suited to student's individual needs.

2-6

G u id a nc e a s p e c t s - - s u c h as c o u n s e l i n g — are
p ro v i d e d by teacher coordinator, employers,
and gui da nc e co un se l or s (e.g., students
have a career o b j e c t i v e ) .

1 2

3

4

5 6

E xt r a- c l a s s ac ti vi t ie s (such as DECA,
school store) are provided.

1 2

3

4

5 6

A d e q u a t e staff are p r o v i d e d in order that
all r e sp o n s i b i l i t i e s of the job are
accomplished.

1 2

3

2-7

2-8

is bas ed on p e r ­

4

•

o
o

C

£

5

6

£

121

o
Q,

CL

t?

^
?
;
^
■*-'
2-9

2-10

2-11

2-12

2-13

2-14

2-15

2-16

2-17

2-18

2-19

2-20

2-21

Home, bu si ne ss and community re lations are
m a i n t a in e d on a continual basis.

it

O

ft ^
^7
S’ "1 § % 8
* *■ ; f #
x IT
o^
^
p 1O
O

1 2

a,
3

^
4

^
5

6

C o m m u n i t y re sources such as ph ysical size,
economic base, natural r esources and tax
base are taken into consideration.

1 2

3

4

5

6

A r t i c u l a t i o n — co op eration w i t h other
d e p ar t me n ts w ith in school.

1 2

3

4

5

6

Lib ra ry m a te ri als and facilities are
p r o vi d ed on a centralized or
d ec e nt r al iz e d basic.

1 2

3

4

5

6

Q u a li f ic a ti on s and profes si on al g ro wt h
of te ac her s in mainta in ed and updated
to insure p ro g r a m quality.

1 2

3

4

5

6

Su pe rv i so ry p r a c t i c es /a d mi n is tr at i on
flexibility meet student needs.

1 2

3

4

5

6

O r g a n iz a ti o n of prog ra m is e ffe ct iv e in
facilitating instructional pr og re s s and
p r o g r a m objectives.

1 2

3

4

5

6

S t u d en t 's work expe ri cn cc --t he best
p o s s i b l e p la c em e nt of that student into
a co operative training station.

1 2

3

4

5

6

Labor m arket b e h a v i o r — a va il ab il ity of
jobs w it hi n community.

1 2

3

4

5

6

S tu de nt o ut com es- -j ob s at isf ac ti on (e.g.,
s tudents obtain, hold, and adv anc e in jobs
r e lat ed to field of p r e p a r a t i o n ) .

1 2

3

4

5

6

P hil os o ph y and o bj ec ti v es of p r o g r a m are
bei ng met.

1 2

3

4

5

6

Pla ce me nt and follow-up of g r ad ua te s are
m a i n t a i n e d on a continual basis.

1 2

3

4

5

6

A d v is o ry comm it te e functions and is used
effectively.

1 2

3

4

5

6

122

•

CL

i?

Oj

a
.

o
TT

CL

ir o

*j

? # ' f f »'
§ "
$ z f §•
i {• i i 6* J
<?
^ .? <? *°
2-22

2-23

S

G

R eferring again to the p r e v i o u s list of criteria, pl ea se c hoose those
five that you feel are m os t crucial to the success of a DE program.
Rank order 1 through 5 b e g i n n i n g with the m o s t important.

1 _________________________________________________
2
3

4
5

APPENDIX

APPENDIX D
Let ter to T e ac he r Edu ca to rs and State
Su pe rv i s o r of DE
Date

Name
Title
School
A d dre ss
City, State
Dear

ZIP Code
;

Presently, at Mi c h i g a n
co nd u c t e d to d e t e r m i n e
ev a l u a t i v e cri te ri a for
pr og ram s under c o n t r a c t
of Education.

State U n i v e r s i t y a study is being
basic bel ie fs or o b j e c t i v e s and
all seco ndary D i s t r i b u t i v e E du ca tion
with the Mi c h i g a n State Dep ar tmen t

It is felt that in this era of e v a l u a t i o n and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
it is nece s s a r y to d i s t i n g u i s h the ef fe c t i v e from the in ef ­
fective ed u c a t i o n a l strategy.
By e s t a b l i s h i n g w h i c h o b j e c t i v e s and c riter ia are most
import ant for M i c h i g a n D i s t r i b u t i v e Ed uc a t i o n p rogr am s on
the se con da ry level, a sound basis is pr o v i d e d for
evaluation.
You r p a r t i c i p a t i o n wou ld be a p p r e ci at ed and of val ue to DE
pr og ram s in Mic hig an.
Ple ase take the f ol lo wing steps in
the e x a m i na ti on of this material.
1.

R e vie w the o b j e c t i v e s and cri te ri a for DE pro grams
and a c k n o w l e d g e your co ns ent or di sa gre ement.

2.

Should you w i s h to suggest a dditi on al o b j e c t i v e s or
criteria, p l ea se list th em at the end of the section.

3.

Ma k e any g e ne ra l obse rv atio ns ,
c r i t i c i s m s on the last page.

4.

E n c l o s e the o b j e c t i v e s and c ri te ri a list in the
sta mped e n v e l o p e and retur n by S e p t e m b e r 15.

R e s p e c t f u l l y yours,

M i ch ae l W. Litt le
123

su gg estio ns ,

or

124

L e tt er to DE Per so nn el and Local
Administrators

Dear Colleague:
I hav e been a former DE t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r for the past
four ye a r s in M i d l a n d Pu bl ic Schools.
Most recently, I
have be en s t ud yi ng for a full year on a d oc to ral fel lo ws hip
in the area of d i s t r i b u t i v e t e ac he r e d u c a t i o n at M i ch ig an
State University.
D e v e l o p i n g a q u a l i t y DE p r o g r a m has always been a ma j o r
conc er n to d i s t r i b u t i v e educators.
Furthermore, D i s t r i b u t i v e
E d u c a t i o n p e r s o n n e l are in c ons ta nt sear ch of way s to
improve pr o g r a m s for s tudent s p r e p a r i n g to enter d i s t r i b u t i v e
oc cu pa tions.
E v a l u a t i o n can play a si gn ifica nt role in
improvin g in s t r u c t i o n and in it ia t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e cha ng e fo**
e d u c a t i o n a l programs.
State and federal g u i d e l i n e s are e m p h a s i z i n g g r eater i m por­
tance on the e v a l u a t i o n of v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n programs.
DE tea cher s and t e a c h e r - c o o r d i n a t o r s oug h t to take a serious
look at their role in the e v a l u a t i o n of their p r o g r a m s or
o t h e r s will.
You can p r o v i d e a m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n in this
regard.
The p r es ent study is e n d o r s e d by the State A d v i s o r y Cou nc il
for V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n and the M i c h i g a n A s s o c i a t i o n of
D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n Teachers.
On the fo llo wing page s are
o b j e c t i v e s and e v a l u a t i v e criteria for DE programs.
Both
areas p r ovid e a basis for the e v a l u a t i o n of a program.
Wou ld yo u p l e a s e take the time to fill out the o p i n i o n n a i r e
and ret urn it in the e nc lo sed envelope.
Thank you.
S i n c e r e l y yours,

Mi c h a e l W.

Lit tle

125

March

8,

1978

Dear Co lleague:
In the b e g i n n i n g part of February, you rec e iv ed an o p i n i o n ­
na ir e c o n c e r n i n g the e va luat io n of D i s t r i b u t i v e Education
programs.
I real ize wi t h your busy s ch ed ule the survey
may have been overlo ok ed.
E n c l o s e d is ano t he r copy of the o p i n i o n n a i r e for your c o m ­
p l e t i o n and a stam pe d s e l f - a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e for your
submission.
Will you pl ea s e take a little of your time to fill out the
surve y instrument.
List ed are o b j e c t i v e s and c r iteri a
c o n s i d e r e d imp ortant in the e v a l u a t i o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e
E du ca ti on programs.
Rate those o b j e c t i v e s and cr i t e r i a
that you b e l i e v e to be most importa nt if your p r o g r a m
we re being evaluated.
Your immediat e a t t e n t i o n and c o o p e r a t i o n will be grea tl y
appreciated.
S i n c e r e l y yours,

M i c h a e l W. Li tt l e
D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n T e a ch er E d u c a t o r
U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n - W h i t e w a t e r

Enc lo sur es

APPENDIX

Table 16,--Total

Responses for Degree of

Importance Attached to Program Objectives.

Num ber and Percent of Total Responses
Objectives

1.
2.

3.

126

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Extremely
Important
So.
%

Very
Important
No.
4

Fairly
Important
No.
4

Important
No.
%

Somewhat
Important
No.
%

That p r e p a r a t i o n for gainful
employment . . .

45

57,0

27

34.2

5

6.3

2

2.5

T h a t the D i s t r i b u t i v e Education
P r o g r a m s h o uld eng e n d e r an u n d e r ­
s t a n d i n g and a p p r e c i a t i o n of the
American private enterprise . . .

15

19.0

29

36.7

19

24.1

12

15.2

4

5.1

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e Educati on
P r o g r a m should fos ter an a wa rene ss
of civic, social, and moral . . .

15

19.0

27

34.2

23

29.1

10

12.7

4

5.1

Tha t the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m
should e n c o u r a g e and pro mote the use
of eth i c a l standar ds . . .
30

38.0

31

39.2

10

12.7

6

7.6

2

2.5

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e E du cati on Pro g r a m
should sti m u l a t e the s t u d e n t ’s interest
in his c h o s e n D i s t r i b u t i v e O c c u p a t i o n a l
field . . .
33

41.8

33

41.0

10

12.7

2

2.5

1

1.3

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e Edu c a t i o n Pro gram
p r e p a r e the D i s t r i b u t i v e p er sonn el to
a n a l y z e c o n s u m e r dem and and sat isfy the
n e e d s and w a n t s of con s u m e r s . . .
15

19.0

32

40.5

15

19.0

7

8.9

10

12.7

T h a t the D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m
p r o v i d e tra i n i n g that results in
increas ed e f f i c i e n c y in d i s t r i b u t i o n
and m a r keti ng.
26

32.9

22

27.8

18

22.8

7

8.9

6

7.6

That the D i s t r i b u t i v e E du cati on Pro g r a m
should con t r i b u t e to the improve ment of
the t e c hniq ues in d i s t r i b u t i o n and
marketing.
12

15.2

28

35.4

17

21.5

14

17.7

6

7.6

No
Importance
No.
»

2.5

Table 16.— Continued.

Number and Percent of Total Responses
Obj ectives
Extremely
Ir»portant
No.
t
9.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

Very
Important
No.
»

Fairly
Important
No.
1

Important
NO.

\

Somewhat
Important
No.
I

No
Importance
No.
»

That the Dis tributive Education
Program should be sensitive to
changes in distrib utive and m a r ­
keting practices and procedures
as they . . .

19

24.1

30

3B.0

16

20.3

11

13.9

3

3.9

That the Dis tributive Education
Program should advance objectives
of total educational programs.

18

22.8

32

40.5

21

26.6

6

7.6

2

2.5

That the Distributive Education
Program should strive to develop
among employe es and consume rs a
wider appreci ation of the values
of spe cifically trained personnel
in distribution.

IS

19.0

30

38.0

24

30.4

6

7.6

3

3.9

1.3

40.5

26

32.9

13

16.5

5

6.3

2

2.5

1.3

11.4

21

26.6

3.8

That the Distrib utive Education
Program should serve students of
div erse talents, abilities,
interests, and cultural backgrounds.

32

That the needs of adults in the
local conwuni ty should be served.

5

6.3

24

30.4

17

21.5

9

That long range objectives be
est abli shed to account for trends
and changes.

4

5.1

20

25.3

24

30.4

15

19

11

13.9

5

6.3

That pro visions for a local chapter
of DECA and activities be
est abli shed . . .

9

11.4

19

24.1

13

16.5

10

12.7

20

25.3

8

10.1

18

22.8

27

34.2

20

25.3

7

B .9

6

7.6

1

1.3

That provisions for advisory
committee mem bers school
personnel . . .

Tabic 16.— Continued.

Number and Percent of Total Responses
Objectives

17.

18.

Very
Important
No.
%

Fairly
Important
No.
%

Important
No.
\

That cur riculum offering include
career exploration at the elementary
and junior high levels.

21

26.6

14

17.7

25

31.6

9

11.4

That students are encouraged to
improve their competencies by
further educati on and work.

2B

35.4

34

43

14

17.7

3

3.8

Somewhat
Important
No.
\

10

12.7

No
Importance
No.
»

128

Extremely
Important
No.
1

Table 17.--Total Responses Attached to Degree of Importance for Evaluative Criteria.

Number and Percent of Total Responses
Evaluation Criteria
Extremely
Important
No.
1
1.

Very
Important
No.
I

Fairly
Important
No.
*

Important
No.
4

Somewhat
Important
No.
%

No
Importance
No.
%

Physical facilities and
equipment . . .

30

38

33

41.8

II

13.9

5

C u r ricu lum is dir ectly
related . . .

30

38

29

36.7

11

13.9

4

5.1

4

5.1

1.3

Instructional content is
based on . . .

18

22.8

33

41.8

12 15.2

9

11.4

6

7.6

1.3

Instructional activities, methods
and procedures . . .

32

40.5

25

31.6

14 17.7

6

7.6

2

2.5

Instructional materials are
current . . .

35

44.3

27

34.2

14 17.7

3

Guidance asp ects— such as
counseling . . .

30

30.8

37

46.8

7.

Extra-class activities . . .

14

17.7

22

B.

Ade quate staff are provided in
o rd er that . . .

31

39.2

Home, business, and community
relations . . .

14

2.
3.
4.
5.

9.

3.8

7.6

4

5.1

2

2.5

27.8

16 20.3

7

8.9

14

17.7

7.6

27

34.2

11 13.9

7

8.9

2.5

1.3

17.7

28

35.4

20

25.3

13

16.5

5.1

9

11.4

26

32.9

22

27.8

12

15.2

8.9

3.8

3-8

1.3

10.1

5.1

6

10.

Communi ty resources such as
physical sire, eco nomi c base . . .

11.

A r t i cul ation -coop erat ion wit h
oth er departm ents . . .

13

16.5

2B

35.4

20

25.3

14

17.7

12.

Library materia ls and facilities
are provided . . .

10

12.7

20

25.3

26

32.9

11

13.9

Qualifications and professional
growth of . . .

25

31.6

39

49.4

7

8.9

7

8.9

13.

129

6.

6.3

8

1.3

Table 17.— Continued.

Number and Percent of Total Responses
Evaluation Criteria
Extremely
Important
No.
t
14.

Very
Important
No.
1

Fairly
Important
No.
%

Important
No.
1

Somewhat
Important
No.
%

S u p e rvi sory p r a c tic es/ad minis trat ion
flexibility . . .

21

26.6

37

46.8

13

16.5

6

7.6

2

2.5

Or g aniz ation or pro g r a m is
effecti ve . . .

23

29.1

30

38.0

19

24.1

6

7.6

1

1.3

Students work e x p e r i e n c e — the best
possible placeme nt . . .

45

57.0

25

31.6

9

11.4

17.

Labor Market behavior . . .

29

36.7

23

29.1

18

22.8

6

7.6

2

2.5

18.

Student o u t c o m e s — job
sat isfaction . . .

22

27.8

38

48.1

14

17.7

4

5.1

1

1.3

Philosophy and o b j ecti ves of
pro gram are being net . . .

22

27.8

33

41.8

13

16.5

7

8.9

4

5.1

Placement and follow-up of
graduates . . .

20

25.3

30

38.0

14

17.7

4

5.1

10

Adv isor y Committee functions . . .

17

21.5

20

24.3

20

25.3

14

17.7

6

15.
16.

19.
20.
21.

No
Importance
No.
*

1

1.3

12.7

1

1.3

7.6

2

2.5

APP E N D I X

Table IB.— Keans and Standard Deviations for Local Vocational
and Teachers Regarding Program Objectives.

..
Obj.ectives
J

1.
2.

Education Administrators, DE Teacher Coordinators,

Adm inistrators
_
_ ,
A G ro up 1
Mean

Coord inators
C Group 2
Mean

SD

SD

1.6667
0.8876

1.6047
0.7910

1.3750
0.4945

2 . 5 1 16

That pre para tion for gainful
employment . . .
That the Distributive Education Program
should eng ender an underst andin g and
appreci ation of the American private
enterpr ise . . .

Teachers
T Group 3
Mean
SD

Group Total
Mean
SD

1.5443
306

0. 7

2.6667

57577?

2-5063

T7TI77

170901'

171774

2.1667

3.

That the Distrib utive Education Program
should foster an awareness of civic,
social, and moral . . .

2.2500
0.6216

2.5814
1.2953

2.2500
0.8847

2.5063
T7T045

4.

Tha t the Distrib utive Education Program
should encoura ge and promote the use of
ethical standards . . .

1.7500
0.7538

2.1163
170756

1.8333
1 .0072

1.9747
1.616o

5.

That the Distrib utive Education Program
should stimulate the student's interest
in his chosen Distributive Occupational
field . . .

1.8333
0 . 8 J48

1.8140
0.9821

1.7500
576077

6 .961?

That the Distributive Education Program
prepare the Distrib utive personnel to
ana lyze consumer demand and satisfy
the needs and wants of consumers . . .

3.0000
i.im

2.6512

2.1667

1.3471

175771

2.5570
1.14 0

7.

Tha t the Dis tributive Education Pro gram
2.B333
provide training that results in increased 1.5859
eff icie ncy in distrib ution and marketing.

2.3256
1.26)2

2.0000

0 .8847

2.3038
I771T9

B.

That the Dis trib utive Education Pro gram
should contribute to the improvement of
the techniques in dis trib ution and
marketing.

2.8333
1.4035

2.8372
1.3439

2.5417

2.7468

1.1025

1.1850

That the Distrib utive Education Program
should be sensitive to changes in d i s ­
tributive and marketing practices and
procedures as they . . .

2.1667
1.0299

2.3488

2.4853
1.0624

2.3544
171203

6.

9.

l '. l 17 8

1.7975

Table 18.— Continued.

Objecti ves

Administrators
A Croup
Hea n^ 1
SO

Coo rdinators
C Group 2
Mean
SD

Teachers
T Group 3
Mean
5D

Group Total
Mean
SD

T77757

2.3750

0.6686

375717

2.2911
1.0737

That the Distrib utive Education Program
should strive to dev elop among employees
and consumers a wider appreciation of
the values of specifically trained
personnel in distribution.

2.6667
1.2J09

2.4651
1.1619

2.2500
0.8470

2.4304
i .0874

Tha t the Distrib utive Education Program
should serve students of diverse talents,
abilities, interests, and cultural
backgrounds.

1.7500
0. 7 5 JB

2.0465
1.2141

2.0B33
1.1389

2.0127
1.1355

13.

That the needs of adults in the local
consminity should be served.

3.0833
1.3790

3.6279

177577

2.9167

3.3291
175755

14.

That long range objectives be established
to account for trends and changes.

3.0833
0.9063

174750

15.

That provisions for a local chapter of
DECA and activities be established . . .

2.6667

3.9535

T767TT

1.5775

16.

That provisions for adv isory committee
members, school personnel . . .

2.0000

0.6030

17.

That cur r i c u l u m off erin g include career
exp lora tion at the elementary and
junior high levels.

IB.

That students are encoura ged to improve
their compete ncies by further education
and w o r k .

10.

11.

12.

That the Distributive Education Program
should advance objectives of total
educational programs.

2.0883

2.3023

1.4313

3.3333

3.3085

1777715

1.3190

3.0000
1.6151

3.4684
1.5242

2.4651
1.3513

2.7500
1.1897

2.4810
175234

2.5833
1.1645

2.6512

2.7083
rmrrc

2.6582

174173

1.9167

1.7442
0.8152

2.1667
6.8681

1.B987
0.8146

0.6686

3.3488

1.3755

Table 19.— Means and Standard Deviations for Local Vocational
and Teachers Regarding Evaluative Criteria.

E va luative Criteria

Education Administrators,

DE Teacher-Coordinators,

Group 1
Mean
SD

Group 2
Mean
SD

Gro up 3
Mean
SD

G ro up '
Mean
SD

1,

Physical facilities and criteria . . .

1.9167
0.6686

1.8605
0.940"/

1.9167
0.8805

1.B861
0.8879

2.

Cur r i c u l u m is directly related . . .

1.5833
677736

2.0930
1.130(5

2.2500
1.1916

2.0633
T.1757

3.

Instructional content is based on . . .

2.0000
IT?060

2.3256
1.2858

2.8333
1.1293

2.4304
1.22 b 9

4.

Instructional activities, methods, and
procedures . . .

2.0000
6 . 73tfs

1.8605
1.1251

2.2500
176134

nw n

5.

Instructional materia ls are current . . .

1.6667
6.7755

1.7674
0.9216

1.9853
0.8065

5”. 8663

6.

Guidance asp ects— such as
c ou nseling . . .

1.9167
0.9003

1.6744
6.S37j

2.2083
O 'b li

1.8734
6.9199

7.

Extra-class activities . . .

2.5833
0.9962

3.4419
1.6228'

2.5417
1.TF77

3.0380
1.536>

2.0000

e.

Ade quat e staff are provided in order
that - . .

2.2500
0.9653

2.0930
1. 34 l9

1.8750
0.8502

2.0506

9.

Home, business, and community
relations . . .

2.3333
6.7185

2.6047

r.isij

2.5833
1.0186

2.5570
1.1285

10.

Communi ty resources such as physical
size, economic base . . .

2.6667
0.6513

2.8837
1.5616

3.0000
6.9325

2.8361
177971

11.

A r t i cul ation -coop erat ion wit h other
d ep artm ents . . .

2.0833

2.7442
1.2742

6.9696

2.6250

2.6076
m j 95

12.

Library materia ls and facilities
provided . . .

3.0000
0.8528

3.0000
I.s il9

2.9583
1 .2329

2.9873
T.3522

r.i6ii

133

1.8101

Table 19.--Continued.

Group

Evaluative Criteria

Mean

Group 2
Mean

Group 3
Mean

Croup 4
Mean

SD

SD

SD

Qualifications and professional
growth of . . .

1.8333
i . 1146

1.9302
1.0094

2.1667
0.7620

0.9444

Supervisory practices/administration
flexibility . . .

2.1667
0.7177

2.1860
1.1182

2.0000

0.3341

2.1266
0.9879

Organization or progran is
effective . . .

2.0000

1.12 82

2.0930
0.9465

2.2917
0.9546

2.1392
679773

16.

Students work exp erience— the best
possible placement . . .

1.6667
0.“6Sll

1.4186
oni

1.7083
<T7W

1.5443
0.6391

17.

Labor market beh avior . . .

2.0000

1.9767
1.2145

2.5000

0.9528

1.1034

2.1392
1.1412

13.
14.
15.

SD

1.9873

Student o u t c o m e s — job satisfaction

2.1667
0.9374

1.8837
0.8786

2.2500
6.8470

2.0380
0.6780

19.

Philosophy and obj ecti ves of program
are being met . . .

2.1667
TT2673

2.1163
1.1794

2.4167

2.2152
1.1117

20.

Placement and follow-up of
graduates . . .

2.0B33
0.5149

rrsTJif

ran

2.5000

2.4557
1 .'3456

21.

Advisory Committee functions . . .

2.0833
1.1645

2.6744
1.3925

3.1250

2.7215

171910

1.1027

2.5349

0.9905

134

18.

A PP EN DI X G

Table 20.— Ranking for Distributive Education Teachers, Teacher-Coordinators, and Local Vocational Education
Administrators of Prograr Objectives.

Overal1
Rank
1-1

That preparation for gainful employment and for advancement in a distributive
occupation

1-12
1-5

1-18
1-4
6

Weighted
Arithmetic ScaLe

Objective

1-2

7

1-7

8

1-3

9

1-17

10

1-10

is the

primary

goal

of

the D i s t r i b u t i v e

Education

Program.

265

That Distributive Education should serve students of diverse talents, abilities,
interests, and cultural backgrounds.

136

That the Distributive Education program should stimulate the student's interest in his
chosen dis tributive occupational field by providing an understanding of the opportunities
it offers him to be a contributing member of society. (Career and job potential.)

1J4

That students are encouraged to improve their competencies by further education and work
so that they can progress beyond entry level positions.

80

That the Dis tributive Education pro gram should encourage and promote the use of ethical
standards in business and industry.

77

That the Distributive Education Pro gram should engender an understanding and appreciation
of the American private enterprise system as a cornerstone of the American Democracy.

64

That the Distributive Education Program should contribute to the improvement of the
techniques in distribution and marketing.

60*

That the Distributive Education Program should foster an awareness of the civic, social,
and moral responsibilities of business and industry.

55

That curriculum offerings include career exploration at the elementary and junior high
levels.

53

That the Distributive Education program should advance the objectives of the total
educational program.

•Respondents were asked to rate the five most important objectives on a scale of 1-5. A weighted
value or 5 was given to each objective ranked 1 in importance. A value of 4 was given to each
objective ranked 2 in importance and so on, with a value of one given to the objective ranked 5
in importance.

Table 20.--Continued,

0vera11
Rank
11

12

Objecti ve
UD)
‘ e
1-6

1-16

That the Dis tributive Education program should prepare dis tributive personnel to
analyze consumer demand and to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers
intelligently, efficiently, and pleasantly.

48

That provision for adv isory coswiittee members, school personnel, and other people
from the community give input to operati on and eva luat ion of the program.

47

1-9

That the Dis tributive Education Program should be sensitive to changes in distributive
and marketing practices and pro cedures as they are affected by societal, economic,
technical, and educational developments, and adapt to such changes.

14

1-15

That provisions for a local chapter of DECA and activities be established to foster
such activities as: social skills, leadership abilities, communication skills, etc.

15

1-11

That the Distributive Education program should strive to develop among employees and
consumers a wider app reciation of the values of specifically trained personnel in
distribution.

16

1-B

That the Dis tributive Education program should con tribute to the improvement of the
t ec hniques in distrib ution and marketing.

17

1-14

That long range obj ectives be established to account for trends and changes that may
affect cliente le (e.g., population movement, and economic conditions).

1-13

That educational needs of adults in the local c o m u n i t y should be served.

136

13

10

Weighted
Arithmetic Scale

17
S

Tabic 21.— Ranking for Distributive Education Teachers, Te ac h e r - C o o r d m a t o r s , and Local Vocational Education
Administrators of Program Criteria.

Overall
Rank

Criteria

Weighted
Arithmetic Scale

1

2-2

C u r ricu lum is directly related to requirements of an occupation.

134

2

2-1

Physical facilities and equipment are adequate for fulfilling program's purpose.

123

3

2-16

Student's work exp erience--the best possible placement of that student into a
cooperative training station.

117

4

2-5

Instructional materia ls are current and suited to student's individual needs.

104

5

2-4

Instructional activities, methods and procedures {e.g., cooperative or project) used
in teaching.

96

6

2-6

Gui dance aspects--such as cou n s e l i n g — are provided by t e a c her -coor dinat or, employers,
and guidance counselors {e.g., students have a career objective).

71*

7

2-3

Instructional content is based on performance objectives.

67

8

2-14

Supervisory practic es/ad minis trat ion flexibility meet student needs.

60

9

2-9

Home, business and community relations are maintained on a continual basis.

51

10

2-10

Student outcomes-— job sat isfaction (e.g., student obtain, hold, and advance in jobs
related to field of preparation.

50

11

2-B

Adequate staff are provided in order that all responsibilities of the job are
accompli s h e d .

49

12

2-13

Qualifications and professional growth of teachers is maintained and updated to insure
pro gram quality.

48

‘Respondents were asked to rate the five nost important evaluative criteria on a scale of 1"5,
wei ghte d value of S was given to each criteria ranked 1 in importance- A value of 4 was given
to each criterion ranked 2 in importance and so on, with a value of one given to the objective
ranked 5 in importance.

Table 21.— Continued.

Overal1
Rank

Weighted
Arithmetic Scale

Criteria

13

2-17

Labor m a r ket beh avio r— availability of jobs within community.

49

14

2-7

Extra-class activities (such as DECA, school store) are provided.

43

15

2-15

Organiz ation of program is effective in facilitating instructional progress and
pro gram objectives.

42
27

16

2-20

Placement and follow-up of graduates are maintained on a continual

basis.

17

2-11

A r t i c u l a t i o n — cooperation wit h other departments within school.

18

18

2-17

Labor market beh avio r— availability of jobs within cornaunity.

13

19

2-21

Adv isor y committee functions and is used effectively.

11

20

2-12

Library materials and facilities are provided on a centralized or decentralized basis.

10

21

1-10

Coiwuunity resources such as physical size, economic base, natural resources and tax base
are taken into consideration.

7

APPENDIX

Table 2 2 . — Total R e spons e for Di ff erenc es Between Programs
and O b j e c t i v e 1-9 that the D i s t r i b u t i v e Educati on
P r o g r a m Should be Sensiti ve to C h an ge s in D i s t r i ­
bu ti ve and M a rket in g Pra ct ices and P r o c e d u r e s as
They are A f f e c t e d by Societal, Economic, T e c h n i ­
cal, and Ed u c a t i o n a l Developments, and Ad a p t to
Such Changes.

Obj ecti ve
Rating

Co- o p

Project

Both

P1

P2

P3

22.0
52.4
44 .9
27. 8

1.0
25.0
2.0
1 .3

26. 0
78.8
53. 1
32 .9

20.0
47.6
66. 7
25.3

3.0
75.0
10.0
3.8

7.0
21.2
23.3
8.9

(1 & 2 = 1)
E x t r e m e l y Importa nt
to Very Important
F r equ en cy
Row Pe rce nt
C o l u m n Pe rcent
Total Percent

(3, 4,

5,

& 6 = 2)

M o d e r a t e l y Important
to No Im portan ce
Frequency
Row Pe rc ent
Colu m n Percent
Total Percent

Raw Chi Squa re = 7.9233 w i t h 2 d e gre es of F r e e d o m
S i g n i f i c a n c e = .01

GAM MA

-.4 62

119

140

Table 2 3 . — Total Response for D i f f e r e n c e s B e t we en P ro gr ams
and C r i t e r i a 2-7 that Ex t r a - C l a s s Ac ti v i t i e s
(Such as DECA fi> School Store) are Provided.

Objective
Rating

Co-op
P^

Project
P^

Both
P^

10. 0
23.8
27.8
12.7

3.0
75. 0
8 .3
3.8

23.0
69.7
63.9
29 .1

32.0
76.2
74.4
40.5

1.0
25.0
2.3
1. 3

10.0
30. 3
23.3
12.7

( 1 & 2 = 1 )
Extremely
to Very

Important
Importa nt

F re q u e n c y
Row Percent
C o l u m n Pe rcent
Total P e r ce nt

(3, 4,

5,

& 6 = 2)

M o d e r a t e l y Impor tan t
to No Im por ta nc e
F re q u e n c y
Row Perc ent
C o l u m n Pe rcent
Total Perce nt

Ra w Chi Squ ar e - 17.1594 with
S i g n i f i c a n c e = .0002

GAMMA

-.7185

2 Deg ree s of F r e e d o m

141

Table 2 4 . — Tota l Res pon se for D i f f e re nc es be tw een Pro grams
and C r iter ia 2-9 that Home, Business and C o m m u ­
nity Rel at io ns ar e M a i n t a i n e d on a Continual
Basis.

Objective
Rating

Co- op

Project

Both

P1

P2

P3

17.0
40.5
40.5
21.5

2.0
50.0
4.8
2.5

23. 0
69.7
54.8
29.1

25.0
59.5
67 .6
31.6

2.0
50.0
5.4
2.5

10.0
30. 3
27.0
12.7

(1 & 2 = 1)
E x tre me ly Important
to Very Important
F re qu ency
Row Percent
Column Percent
Total Perc ent

(3, 4, 5,

& 6 = 2)

M o d e r a t e l y Important
to No Importa nce
Freq u e n c y
Ro w Percent
Co lu m n Percent
Tota l Percent

Raw Chi Sq ua re = 6.3540 wi th
S i g n i f i c a n c e = .04

GAMMA

-.4994

2 D e g r e e s of F r e e d o m

1 42

T ab l e 25 .-- Total R es pons e for D i f f e re nc es Between P o s it io n
and C r i t e r i a 2-7 that Ex tra- C l a s s Act iv it ies
(Such as DE C A & School Store) ar e Provided.

Obj ective
Rating

(1&2

Administrator

Co o r d i n a t o r

T e ac he r

= 1)

Extrem ely Important
to Very Important
Fre que ncy
Ro w Percent
Col umn Percent
Total Percent

(3, 4,

7.0
58.3
19.4
8.9

14.0
32.6
38.9
17.7

15.0
62.5
41.7
19.0

5.0
41.7
11.6
6.3

29.0
67.4
67.4
36.7

9.0
37.5
20.9
11.4

5, & 6 = 2)

Mo dera t e l y Important
to No Im por tan ce
F r equ en cy
Ro w Percent
Colum n Percent
Total Percent

Ra w Chi Square = 6.4966 w i t h 2 Deg re es of Fr e e d o m
Si gn i f i c a n c e = .03

GA MM A

-.1934

143

Table 2 6 . — Total R es po ns e for D if fe re nc es betwe en Years of
E x p e r i e n c e and O b j e c t i v e 1-1 that P rep ar at io n
for Gai n fu l E mpl oy me nt and for A d v a n c e m e n t in a
D i s t r i b u t i v e O c c u p a t i o n is the Prim ary Goal of
the D i s t r i b u t i v e E du ca ti on Program.

Objective
Rating

1-3 Years

4-8 Years

9 Years

& Over

(1 & 2 = 1)
Ex tr e m e l y Important
to V e r y Importa nt
Freque nc y
Row Percent
Column Percent
Total Percent

(3, 4,

7.0
70.0
9.7
0.9

38.0
97.4
52 .8
48.1

27.0
90.0
37.5
34 .2

3.0
30. 0
42.9
3.8

1.0
2.6
14 . 3
1.3

3.0
10.0
42.9
3.8

5, & 6 = 2)

M o d e r a t e l y Important
to No I mpor ta nc e
F re qu en cy
Row Percent
Colu m n Percent
Total Percent

Raw Chi Squa re = 7.4964 wit h
S i g n i f i c a n c e = .02

GAMMA

-.2197

2 De g r e e s of F r e e d o m

144

Ta bic 2 7. --Total Response for Di fferences Between Processional P r e ­
pa ra t io n and O bj ec ti ve 1-12 to Serve St udents of Div er se
Talents, Abilities, Interests, and Cultural Backgrounds.

O bj ec ti ve
Rating

B a c h e l o r 's
Degree

M aster *s
Degree

Specialist and
Doc to ra te Degree

(1 & 2 e 1)
Ext re me ly Important
to V er y Important
Fre qu en cy
Row Percent
C olumn Percent
Total Percent

(3, 4,

15.0
83.3
25. 9
19.0

31 .0
63.3
53.4
39.2

12.0
100.0
20.7
15.2

3.0
16. 7
14.3
3.8

18.0
35.7
85. 7
22.8

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

5, 6 6 = 2)

Mo de ra te ly Important
to No Importance
Freq ue nc y
Row Percent
C olumn Percent
Tot al Percent

Raw Chi S quare « 7.8295 w i t h 2 Degr ee s of F r e e d o m
Si gn if i ca n ce = .02

GAMMA

-.1219

B IB L I O G R A P H Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Annua l Local Self E v a l u a t i o n of V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n .
Richmond, Vir ginia: Di v i s i o n of V oc at i o n a l
Education, D ep ar tm ent of E duc ation, 1977.
Bannister, Ta l m a d g e E.
"Evalua tio n of Facilities, E q u i p ­
ment, and Ins tr uc tion al R es ource s in D i s t r i b u t i v e
Ed uc a t i o n Prog ra ms in A r k a n s a s . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­
tion, U n i v e r s i t y of Ar kan sas, 1969.
Barrata,

Byram,

Mary K.
"U tilizat ion of the Delphi T e c h n i q u e to
We ig ht P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n C r i t e r i a in Voc at io nal
Edu ca tio n. "
Ph.D. disser ta tion, O h i o State
University, 1974.

Harold M.
Eva lu a t i o n Sy ste ms for Local Pro gr ams of
V o c a t i o n a l - T e c h n i c a l E d u c a t i o n . East Lansing,
M i c h i g a n : M i c h i g a n State Univ ers ity, O c t o b e r 1968.

Cap st one P r og ra m E v a l u a t i o n Model and P r o c e d u r e s .
Madison, Wisc on si n: D e p a r t m e n t of P u bl ic I n s t r u c ­
tion, A u g u s t 1977,
Coviello, Jane.
"E val uat ion of V o c a t i o n a l Program ,"
M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of Education, M o n o g r a p h 1977,
Series of V o c a t i o n a l Education.
Crawford, Lucy C.
"A C o m p e t e n c y P a t t e r n A p p r o a c h to C u r r i ­
c u l u m C o n s t r u c t i o n in D i s t r i b u t i v e Ed u c a t i o n . "
Vol. 1.
Bl ack sbu rg, Virginia: V i r g i n i a Po l y t e c h n i c
Institute, 1967.
Crawford, Lucy C., and Meyer, W a r r e n G.
O r g a n i z a t i o n and
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n .
C o l u m b u s : M e r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1972.
Cri t e r i a

for the Use of a Sch oo l D i s t r i c t in E v a l u a t i n g
Its B us in es s E d u c a t i o n Program, R e v i s e d E d i t i o n .
Harrisburg, P e n n s y l v a n i a : D e p a r t m e n t of Public
Instruction, 1968.

145

146

Davis,

R o d n e y E.
"The E x t e n t to W h i c h I n di an a D i s t r i b u t i v e
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s are A c h i e v i n g P r o g r a m P h i l o s o p h y
as P e r c e i v e d by S t u d e n t s and T e a c h e r - C o o r d i n a t o r s ,"
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , A r i z o n a Sta te Un i v e r s i t y , 1974.

De lt a Pi Eps ilon, (Tau Ch ap t e r ) .
E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a for
B u s i n e s s D e p a r t m e n t s of S e c o n d a r y Schools, M o n o ­
g r a p h 90.
S o u t h - W e s t e r n P u b l i s h i n g Com pan y, 1954.
E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a . N a t i o n a l Stu dy of S e c o n d a r y S c h oo l
E v a l u atio n, 4th Edi tio n.
W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , 1969.
F er gu so n, E d w a r d T . , Jr.
"A C o m p a r i s o n of the E f f e c t i v e n e s s
of the P r o j e c t and C o o p e r a t i v e M e t h o d s of I n s t r u c ­
ti on on S e l e c t e d C o m p e t e n c i e s in D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a ­
tion at the S e c o n d a r y L e ve l. "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
M i c h i g a n Sta te U n i v e rs it y.
Hutt,

Roger.
" P e r c e p t i o n of E m p l o y e r s R e g a r d i n g C o o p e r a t i v e
D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s at the S e c o n d a r y
Lev el ."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r ­
sity, 1975.

J oh an sen, H a r o l d D.
"An E v a l u a t i o n of the F e d e r a l l y R e i m ­
b u r s e d D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s in Iowa
Hi gh S c h o o l s w i t h S p e c i f i c R e f e r e n c e to the E v a l u a ­
tive G u i d e s as D e v e l o p e d by the N a t i o n a l St u d y of
S e c o n d a r y Scho ol E v a l u a t i o n . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa, 1963.
Luke,

Ch er y l M.
" Cri te ri a for the E v a l u a t i o n of the O f f i c e
P r o d u c t i o n L a b o r a t o r y at the S e c o n d a r y Sch ool
Lev el ."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n di an a U n i v e r s i t y ,
1973.

Manpower and Vocational
1975).
M azza ra ,

Meye r,

Education Weekly

IV

(November

5,

A n d r e s A.
" E v a l u a t i o n an d M i c h i g a n V o c a t i o n a l
Education."
J o u r n a l of M i c h i g a n I n d u s t r i a l E d u c a ­
tion S o c i e t y (February 1976).

W a r r e n G.
" E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a for D i s t r i b u t i v e
Education."
B u s i n e s s E d u c a t i o n F o r u m (April 1961).

Michigan

S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of E du cati on , V o c a t i o n a l T e c h n i c a l
S ervi ce s.
"Car ee r E d u c a t i o n P l a n n i n g D i s t r i c t
Summary."
(January 1977).

147

Mock,

G. G.
"An E v a l u a t i v e Study of the Fede r a l l y R e i m ­
bu r s a b l e P a r t - T i m e Co o p e r a t i v e D i s t r i b u t i v e E d u ­
catio n Progra ms in the Public S econd ar y Schoo ls of
Arkansas ."
Ph.D. dissertat ion , Un iv er s i t y of
Arkansas, 1965.

P R I D E - - P r o g r a m Rev iew for Improvement, Deve lopment, and
Expa ns io n in V o c a t i o n a l Ed uca tion and G u i d a n c e .
Division of Voca ti on al Educ at io n and Guidance,
Ohio State Dep ar tmen t of Education, M a y 1976.
Ristau,

Robert and Falk,
for E va lua tion ."
Numb er 7, 1969.

R u e l . "State and Local P r e p a rati on
Business Edu c a t i o n Y e a r b o o k ,

Ruff,

Richard.
"Eva lua tion in D i s t r i b u t i v e Education: A
C h a l l e n g e for the Future."
The A me ri ca n Vocatio na l
Edu ca ti on A s s o c i a t i o n C o n v e n t i o n Div i si on of
D i s t r i b u t i v e Education, Houston, Texas, Dec ember
1976.

Shack,

C h r y s t i n e R.
"The Con ce ptual Fr am e w o r k for the
Ev al ua t i v e Pro ce ss ."
Business Edu c a t i o n Y e a r b o o k ,
Number 7, 1969.

Summary of the Meet in g Between N a ti on al I nst itute for
Educatio n and Voca t i o n a l Educ a t i o n Researchers,
Washington, D . C . , May 1976.
Taylor,

Ruby F.
"Stan dar ds for the E v a l u a t i o n of Bus in ess
and Off ice E d u c a t i o n Pro grams Em pl o y i n g the C o o p e r ­
ativ e P ar t-Tim e M e t h o d of In st ru ct ion in the S e c o n ­
dary Schools."
Ph.D. di ss er ta tion, Indiana
University, 1972.

The Federal R e g i s t e r . D e p a r t m e n t of Health,
Welfare.
O f f i c e of Education, April

Education,
1977.

and

Thr e e Phase S y s t e m for Stat e w i d e E v a l u a t i o n of O c c u p a t i o n a l
Ed uc a t i o n Programs.
Springfield, Illinois:
D i v i s i o n of V o c a t i o n a l and T e c h n i c a l Education,
D e p a r t m e n t of Education, 1976.
Uthe,

Dr. Elaine, and Schroeder, Betty.
"The Stat us of
C o o p e r a t i v e O f fi ce E d u c a t i o n P ro grams in M i c h i g a n
1967-1968."
East Lansing, Michigan: M i c h i g a n State
University, Apr i l 1969, p. 30.

Wall,

Lewis, and Masters on , A. C.
"Emerging E v a l u a t i o n
Approaches."
B us in ess E d u c a t i o n Yearbook, N u m b e r 7,
1968.

148

We atherfor d, John W.
I de nt ific ati on and A n al ysis of Issues
in D i s t r i b u t i v e Education, S o u t h weste rn Mono gr ap hs
1974?
Wentling, Tim, and Larson, T o m E.
"E valua ti ng Occ upat io na l
E d uca ti on and Tr ain in g Program."
Boston: Al l y n and
B a c o n , I n c . , 1975.
Whitted,

M i l d r e d M.
"Criteria for the Eval u a t i o n of TwoVear F e d e r a l l y Re i m b u r s a b l e D i s t r i bu ti ve Educat io n
Pro gra ms in the Juni or C o ll eg e. "
Ph.D. diss er tati on ,
Indiana University, 1969.

Wyllie,

Euge ne D.
"Criteria for the E v al ua ti on of S e con da ry
School Busi nes s Ed uc a t i o n Progra ms."
Ph.D. d i s s e r ­
tation, Indiana Uni versity, 1961.