Opinions of Montana secondary school administrators and business education teachers on the Montana
distributive education program
by Glenn Dean Palmer
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Montana State University
© Copyright by Glenn Dean Palmer (1967)
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to determine those opinions of Montana secondary school administrators
and business educators which might account for the difference between the enrollment of the Montana
distributive education program and the employment in Montana in the distributive occupations . A
survey of the professional literature and interviews with leading Montana educators were utilized to
determine the advantages and the disadvantages of the Montana distributive education program as seen
by these people. On the basis of the information learned by this procedure an opinionnaire was
constructed and administered to Montana school board chairmen, superintendents of schools, high
school principals, guidance counselors and business education teachers to determine their opinions on
this educational program. Several findings were revealed by the study.
1. Approximately 50 percent of the superintendents, principals, guidance counselors and business
education teachers adhere to the accepted concept of distributive education.
2. The respondents to the study believe that Montana businesses will cooperate with the schools in the
operation of the distributive education program.
3. It is agreed by Montana school administrators and business education teachers that there is a need for
additional vocational programs in Montana schools.
4. Montana school administrators and business education teachers express the opinion that the
cooperative method is a valid method of instruction.
5. The respondents to the study expressed the belief that there was a need for greater state financial
participation in the local distributive education program.
From the summary of findings the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. Montana secondary school
administrators and business educators do not feel that the lack of business cooperation should be a
limiting factor to the local distributive education program.
2. The cooperative method is an accepted method of instruction in Montana and does not limit the
development of the distributive education program.
3. Factors other than those relative to the opinions Montana secondary school administrators and
business educators hold of the value of the distributive education program are the major limiting factors
in the establishment of that program in Montana schools. OPINIONS OF MONTANA SECONDARY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND BUSINESS
EDUCATION TEACHERS ON THE MONTANA DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
.
:
'
by
v":
GLENN DEAN PALMER
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial
, fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ,
;v
V
•'
'
•
of
''
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Approved:
Head, Major Department
Cochairman,Examining Committee
I'--' ■
Cochaii^ah, Examining Committee
' •■
■< .
12
Giraduate Dean
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
August, 1967
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The writer wishes to express gratitude for the counsel and encour­
agement of members of the committee during the progress of this research.
Special thanks are given to Dr. Robert Thibeault for excellent guidance
and to Dr. Harvey Larson for his help in arriving at the solution to many
of the problems encountered during the course of the study.
The investigator is especially appreciative of the assistance given
him by Dr. Ralph Huntsinger, Associate Professor, Chemical Engineering,
South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.
Without his help the statis­
tical analysis in this study would not have been possible.
My heartfelt thanks go to my family for their patience and under­
standing during the many hours of graduate study.
/b.;- '•
. ; / y
’
'
..
'
\
Chapter
,
■
•V V
I,
■
,,I***
'
Page
INTRODUCTION ......................... ..................... .
■ ■
I
■ ,
1J
'
.
.TABLE OF CONTENTS
II.
.
r f;
III.
Statement of the P r o b l e m .... ............ ...................
6
Procedures . ................................................
7
Design of the Study .....................................
7
Limitations of the Study ....................................
11
Definition of Terms ............................ .......
11
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE CONCERNING THE VALUES, THE NEEDS,
. AND THE ROLE OF DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION .....................
15
The Need for Vocational Education in Distribution..........
15
The Value of the Cooperative Method of Instruction....... .
19
The Quality of the Students of the Distributive Education
P r o g r a m .................................................
23
The State Role in Distributive E d ucation............... .
26
Qualifications of Teachers of Distributive Education .......
29
Summary of Opinions on the Value of Distributive
Education ................................
31
THE MONTANA DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM AS SEEN BY
MONTANA SECONDARY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND BUSINESS
f EDUCATORS .................................... ....,..........
33
’ x ,,. Statistical Technique for Measuring and Describing
Opinions .......................... ............ ............
33
' Opinionnaire Returns ..........
•
38
Respondents' Concepts of Distributive Education ............
43
Administrative Considerations in Establishing the
Distributive Education Program ............................
47
School and Community Considerations in Establishing a
Distributive Education Program .............. ............. .
56
V
Chapter
,
Page
Factors Concerning Students to Consider When
Establishing The Distributive Education Program *.......
60
Opinions Concerning the State and Federal Roles in the
Local Distributive Education P r o g r a m ..... ..............
64
Relationships Existing Between the Items Listed in the
Opinionnaire ......................
71
A Formula For Predicting a School's Interest in
Establishing a Distributive Education Program .........*.
75 •
Summary of Statistical Treatment ..........................
77
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... ........
79
v.
IV.
Summary of Findings .........................
79
Conclusions ................
SI
Recommendations ................ .......... ........... .
82
'
A P P ENDIX ..... ........................... ............ .'......
84
SELECTED REFERENCES ..................
92
/ ■
.
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Divisions of Montana Labor Forceby Occupational Groups 1960 ...
2.
Disadvantages of the Cooperative
Method ......................
22
3.
Opinionnaire Returns ...........................................
38
4.
Distributive Education Programs Currently in Existence in
the Respondents' High School Curriculums ................. .
39
Number of Respondents Considering the Establishment of a
Distributive Education Program
.........................
40
6.
Enrollments of the Respondents' High Schools .....
41
7.
,
Respondents Indicating That They Had Held Positions in
Schools with Distributive Education in the Curriculum .......
42
5.
5
/
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Success of the Distributive Education Program According to
Respondents Indicating Experience with the Program1 ........ ..
43
Respondents' Concepts of the Purpose of the Distributive
Education Program Revealed by Their Selection From
Four Choices .......................
44
Significant Differences Between the Concepts of Distributive
Education Expressed by the Various Groups ...................
46
Significant Differences Between the Administrative Opinions
■Expressed by the Various Segments of the Respondents ........
48
Agreement of the Respondents with the Cooperative Method
of Instruction .......................................
49
Agreement of the Respondents with the Need for Additional
Vocational Programs in the High School ......................
49
Agreement of Respondents with the Existence of Unsuccessful
Distributive Education Programs ............
50
Agreement of Respondents with the Existence of Opportunity
for High School Graduates in the Field of Distribution ......
51
Agreement of Respondents with the Concept That Their
School Board is in Flavor of Vocational Education ........ .
51
vii
.Table
Page
17.
Agreement of the Respondents with the Opinion That
Qualified Teachers are Available to Teach Distributive
Education ..................................
18.
Agreement of the Respondents with the Opinion That Their
Faculty Believes in the Educational Value of Work
Experience ........... .............................. .
19.
20.
21.
t....
Agreement of the Respondents with the Opinion That Their
Faculty Believes that Formal Education on the High School
Level is Necessary for Certain Jobs in Distribution.... .
53
54
Agreement of the Respondents with the Opinion that Their
Faculty Believes that Vocational Education is Within the
Realm of the High School's Responsibility ..............
55
Agreement of the Respondents with the Opinion that Their
Faculty is Familiar with the Distributive Education
Program .... ...............................................
55
22.
Significant Differences Between the School and Community
Opinions Expressed by the Various Segments of the
Population.... .............................
23.
Agreement of the Respondents with the Concept that Their
School is Large Enough to Support a Distributive Education
P r o g r a m ..... )............. ........................... ......
57
Agreement of the Respondents with the Adequacy of Classroom
Space to Accommodate the Addition of Distributive Education
to the Curriculum ............... ................... .........
58
Agreement of the Respondents with the High Comparative Cost of
the Equipment and Materials Required for Distributive
Education.......... .............. ....................... .
59
Agreement of the Respondents With the Willingness of Local
Businesses to Cooperate with the School in a Distributive
Education P r o g r a m .............. ............................
60
Agreement, of the Respondents with the Adequacy of the Local
,Businesses to Provide Sufficient Work Opportunity for
Students ......... ............... ..................... *.....
61
24.
25.
26.
27.
viii
Table
28.
29.
page
Significant Differences Between the Opinions Concerning
Students of the Distributive Education Program Expressed
by the Various Groups ....... *................... .......... .
61
Agreement of the Respondents with the Opinion that Monetary
Gain is the Primary Reason Montana Students Would Enroll
in Distributive Education........... ...................... .
62
30. . Agreement of the Respondents with the Concept of a Sufficient
Student Interest to Establish a Distributive Education
Program in Their Curriculum...........................
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
.'i37.
38.
63
Agreement of the Respondents with the Concept of Parental
Acceptance of the Distributive Education Program ..........
64,
Significant Differences Among the Opinions of the Various
Groups on the Opinionnaire Items Concerned with the State
and Federal Roles in the Distributive Education Program ....
65
Agreement of the Respondents with the Concept of Excessive
State Control in the Work Experience Phase of the
Distributive Education P r o g r a m ...................
66
Agreement of the Respondents with the Concept of Excessive
State Control of the Instructional Phase of the
Distributive Education Program ■...........................
66
Agreement of the Respondents with the Concept of the State
Requirement of Excessive Teacher Time in State and
National Meetings ..............................
67
Agreement of the Respondents with the Concept of Excessive
State Forms Required to Obtain Reimbursement for the
Distributive Education P r o g r a m ...................
68
Agreement o£ the Respondents with the Opinion that There is
Insufficient State Financial Reimbursement to Warrant the
Establishment of the Program ........... . .t..................
69
Agreement 6f the Respondents with the. Opinion that There is
a Need for Greater Federal Financial Participation in the
Local Distributive Education Program
69
«
ix
'.Table
39.
40.
41.
42.
Page
Agreement' of the Respondents with the Opinion that There is
a Need for Greater. State Financial Participation in the
Local Distributive Education P r o g r a m .................. .
70 .
Agreement of the Responderitswith the Idea that Their School .
Has Been Encouraged by the State Department of Public
Instruction to Implement a Program of Distributive
Education..................... .................. .
71
Agreement of the Respondents with the Opinion that There is
Sufficient State Leadership inDistributive Edu c a t i o n ........
Relationships Between Opinionnaire Items ...................
71
73
I
X
ABSTRACT
;V'
The purpose of this study was to determine those opinions of Montana
V V, .r ... secondary school administrators and business educators which might account
for the difference between the enrollment of the Montana distributive
education program and the employment in Montana in the distributive occu­
pations . A survey of the professional literature and interviews with
' * leading Montana educators were utilized to determine the advantages and
. I : ; the disadvantages of the Montana distributive education program as seen
’ .;
by these people. On the basis of the information learned by this proce:
dure an opinionnaire was constructed and administered to Montana school
. . . board chairmen, superintendents of schools, high school principals, guid/ ance counselors and business education teachers to determine their opinions
•f; s
on this educational program. Several findings were revealed by the study.
V/'
■
1. Approximately 50 percent of the superintendents, principals,
guidance counselors and business education teachers adhere to the accepted
concept of distributive education.
2. The respondents to the study believe that Montana businesses will
cooperate with the schools in the operation of the distributive education
program.
.
.
.
-^
3.
It is agreed by Montana school administrators and business educa
tion teachers that there is a need for additional vocational programs in
Montana schools.
,•
' 'f'
,
-''VS
\ :
4. Montana school administrators and business education teachers
express the opinion that the cooperative method is a valid method of
instruction.
5.
The respondents to the study expressed the belief that there was
a need for greater state financial participation in the local distributive
education program.
From the summary of findings the following conclusions may be drawn:
I.
Montana secondary school administrators and business educators do
not feel that the lack of business cooperation should be a limiting factor
to the local distributive education program.
v
2. The cooperative method is an accepted method of instruction in
Montana and does not limit the development of the distributive education
program.
3.
Factors other than those relative to the opinions Montana second­
ary school administrators and business educators hold of the value of the
distributive education program are the major limiting factors in the
establishment of that program in Montana schools.
I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION „
There appears to be a growing recognition that the youth of our na­
tion must be afforded the opportunity to develop saleable skills.
It has
also been observed that the curriculum provisions of traditional high
school and college programs do not meet the needs of the entire student
body.
The case for vocational education as a part of the regular program
of our public schools has been pleaded by contributors to professional
and lay journals for many years.
'
Ellsworth Tomkins, the Executive Secre­
tary of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, made the
statement that the need for vocational education is as great today as it
was during the great depression of the thirties.
He also expressed the
opinion that the school is the effective agency for accomplishing the job
of providing the youth of America with vocational compentencies (35:1).
The entire May, 1965, issue of The Bulletin of the National Association
of Secondary School Principals is devoted to the need for vocational edu­
cation in our schools and means of implementing the proper vocational
education programs in the American educational system.
On October 5, 1961, President John F. Kennedy appointed a panel of
consultants on vocational education.
This panel was charged with the re­
sponsibility of reviewing and evaluating the then current National Voca­
tional Education Acts.
The panel found that despite Federal, state, and
local support for nearly half a century, the development of vocational
education had not been equal to its task of preparing youth for the world
of work.
The panel further found that the vocational programs of the
.American educational system must be expanded and accelerated both to train
2
more skilled workers and to offer young people greater opportunity to
develop their talents and abilities (37:120).
Benjamin E. Willis, then General Superintendent of Schools, Chicago,
Illinois, in a speech given before the American Vocational Association in
1964, made the statement that vocational education had not been preparing
enough workers for the number of jobs that were available.
He further
stated that the job of the school was no longer a purely academic one.
The highest quality educational program was one that provided the most
positive programs of skill development for the greatest number of young
people (40:183).
0.
E. Kjos, in the September, 1961, issue of Montana Education, ex­
pressed the opinion that it was time for Montana schools to take a second
look at their curriculums to determine if they were preparing their gradu­
ates for the labor market of that time.
not.
It was his opinion that they were
He pointed out that while approximately a quarter of Montana's labor
force was employed in distributive occupations, during the 1960-61 school
year only four Montana high schools offered youth an opportunity to pre­
pare. for entrance into this occupation.
He stated that the distributive
education program would meet the needs of a large number of Montana youth
(17:14).
^The term distributive education identifies a program of instruction
in marketing and distribution.
According to Mason (20:335) the function
of distribution: is to move goods and services from the original producer
to the final consumer.
In order to do this job our economy needs many
kinds of marketing agencies such as:
retailers; wholesalers; sales
3
divisions of industrial firms and agricultural processors; transporta­
tion, advertising and marketing research agencies; and a host of service
firms, such as insurance agencies, real estate brokers, banks and other
financial institutions, feeding and lodging establishments and many others
(20:335).
The purpose of the distributive education program is to provide
students with saleable skills for employment in this segment of our labor
force.
The program serves employed personnel within the framework of
their careers whether they be beginning or experienced workers, or occupy,
positions of management.
In addition to those people already employed in
distribution, this area of instruction also serves those who are preparing
for such employment.
Distributive education is composed of the high
school preparatory and cooperative programs, the post high school pro­
gram, and the adult program (4:186).
The present study was concerned with the development of the high
school cooperative program in Montana, therefore, the discussion shall be
limited to this phase of the total distributive education program.
In the
high school program, the term cooperative is used to identify the rela­
tionship which exists between the public school and the business community.
The purpose of this cooperative arrangement is to achieve the basic objec­
tive of preparing young people for careers in the field of distribution.
Distributive education students are enrolled in the high school program as
regular students.
Their curriculum includes academic subjects as well as
classes concerned with theory and procedures which are identified with
certain aspects of distribution and marketing (20:336).
The curriculum in distributive education includes the following:
A
4
study of marketing; including buying, selling, pricing, wholesaling, and
retailing; a study of the factors affecting marketing, including market­
ing research, advertising, visual merchandising, location, customer ser­
vices, and government regulations;■ and a study of the place of the con­
sumer in the marketing process.
In addition, each student receives a
wide range of specific instruction which is related directly to developing
immediate job proficiency (20:344).
^
S . ■
Distributive education students are employed in business firms which
provide job experiences and instructions which are deemed applicable to
the individual student's career objective.
Typically, students report to
their places of employment regularly on a scheduled basis throughout the
school year.
This beginning job initiates the student to the field of dis­
tribution, provides him the opportunity to acquire job competency, to ad­
vance to subsequent positions of greater responsibility, to observe our
free enterprise system in operation, and to become a contributing member
of our society (20:343).
The three fundamental goals of distributive education have been stated
by the Vocational Division of the U. S. Office of Education in the follow­
ing manner:
1.
To offer instruction in distribution and marketing.
2.
To assist in the improvement of the techniques of distribution.
3.
To develop an understanding of the economic and social responsi­
bilities of those engaged in distribution in a free, competitive society
(20:336).
Table I, page 5, shows the division of the Montana labor force
5
TABLE I.
DIVISIONS OF MONTANA LABOR FORCE BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS 1960*
Total Employed
Occupation
Per Cent of
Labor Force
Professional., Technical,1and
Kindred
6,375
11.88
Farmers and Farm Managers
2,053
3.83
Managers, Officials, and Proprietors »
Except Farm
6,400
11.93
8,144
15.18
Sales Workers
4,920
9.17
Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred
7,503
13.98
Operatives, and. Kindred
6,090
11.35
Private Household Workers
1,495
2.79
Service Workers, Except Household
5,156
9.61
Farm Laborers and Foremen
1,065
1.98
Occupations not Reported
2,067
3.85
53,654
100.00
Clerical and Kindred
=.i
Total Employed
information included in this table was derived from the 1960 Census of
Population, Part 28, Montana, U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
according to the 1960 Census of Population.
This is the latest information
available which reveals the number employed by occupation in the Montana
labor force.
Utilizing the U. S. Office of Education definition of the
I
distributive occupations it can be seen that approximately 30 percent of
~r
-
-
;
The distributive occupations have been defined by the. U. S. Office of
Education as those followed by proprietors, managers, or:employees engaged
primarily in marketing or merchandising goods or services.
'I
6
the Montana labor force is employed in the distributive occupations.
The
schools of Montana are currently preparing in the formal distributive
education program less than .5 percent of their graduates for this major
segment of the Montana labor force.
If it is true as previously stated
that vocational education is a major responsibility of the public second­
ary schools, and a vocational program does exist which will, in fact, pre­
pare students for employment in the distributive occupations, a major
segment of our labor force, why then are not the public schools of Montana
preparing a larger proportion of their students for employment in this
important segment of our economy?
The answer to this question was the
driving force in arriving at the decision to make this study.
Statement of the Problem
What are the opinions of Montana secondary school administrators and
business educators which might account for the difference between the en­
rollment in the Montana distributive education program and the employment
in Montana in the distributive occupations?
In order to arrive at the
solution to this problem there were two primary questions which had to be
answered.
1.
Who were the decision makers concerning the implementation of
distributive education in the secondary schools?
2.
What type of instrument could be constructed which would elicit
opinions concerning the value of distributive education from these people?
7
Procedures
Two main procedures were used in this study, the first of which was
to review the professional literature concerning distributive education
which has been published since 1936.
fold:
The purpose of this review was two­
I) To determine those opinions on the value of distributive educa­
tion which were expressed by the national educational leaders, 2) To
determine the educational positions these people felt were responsible
for the implementation of distributive education in the schools.
The second majpr procedure involved the construction of an opinionnaire based upon the findings of the survey of literature and the adminis­
tration of this instrument to those people holding the positions in Montana
schools which the survey of literature revealed were the responsible posi­
tions in the implementation of distributive education.
Data compiled from the opinionnaire were analyzed utilizing appropriate
statistical techniques.
The results of this analysis was reported in chap­
ter 3.
Design of the Study
There were three major portions contained in the design of this study.
They were I) the construction of the opinionnaire, 2) the administrations
of that opinionnaire to Montana secondary school administrators and business
educators and 3) the analysis of the data obtained in the returns to the
study.
Construction of the Opinionnaire
The original opinionnaire was based on the critical issues which be­
came apparent in the survey of literature and the writer's experience as
8
State Supervisor of Distributive Education for the Montana Department of
Public Instruction during the years 1960 to 1964.
Items one through six
on page one of this instrument were designed to identify the respondent as
to his present educational position and his experience with the distribu­
tive education program.
Item seven, page one, was included to determine
the respondent's concept of the distributive education program.
Four con­
cepts of distributive education were listed in item seven and the respondent
was asked to select the one concept which most nearly matched his idea of
the distributive education program.
These concepts are definitions of dis­
tributive education commonly accepted by professional educators in Montana.
Items one through twenty-seven, which are listed on pages two and three
of the opinionnaire were selected as a. result of the review of literature.
It was determined that these were the important factors which were con­
sidered by educational personnel in making the decision to institute a
distributive education program in the high school curriculum.
This preliminary instrument was used as a guide to interview selected
members of the faculty of the School of Education at Montana State Uni­
versity and the present State Supervisor of Business and Distributive
Education for the Montana Department of Public Instruction.
The purpose
of these interviews was to determine any additional factors concerning the
distributive education program which these people felt encouraged or
hindered the development of the program in Montana but were missed in the
review of literature.
The faculty members which were selected were those
members of the education staff who had a special interest in the
9
administration and curriculum of Montana secondary schools.
The original instrument was revised as a result of these interviews
and the resulting opinionnaire was administered to a group of graduate
students in education at Montana State University.
All of these students
have held professional positions in the public schools.
The purpose of
this procedure was to ascertain that the instrument would elicit the type
of responses which would indicate the respondent's Opinion on the value
of the distributive education program.
The process revealed that the
opinions on pages two and three of the opinionnaire were written in such
a manner that they tended to elicit a negative response from the person
I
completing the instrument. The instrument was then revised to remove
this bias.
The resulting instrument (see appendix, page 88) was a quantified
instrument in which the respondent was asked to indicate his degree of
agreement or disagreement with a particular statement by circling a num­
ber between one and five.
He was instructed that the number one indicated
complete agreement with the opinion expressed and the number five indi­
cated complete disagreement.
These numbers were located in a box immedi­
ately following each statement.
,
Administration of the Opinionnaire
The opinionnaire, together with a stamped, self addressed envelope
was mailed to all Montana school board chairmen, superintendents of schools,
high school principals, high school guidance counselors, and high school
business education teachers in high schools with enrollments of 50 or
greater in grades 9 through 12 during the 1966-67 school year.
A second
10
mailing was made to those people who had not responded to the first mail­
ing.within two weeks after that mailing.
A third mailing was made to •
those school board chairmen who did not respond within two weeks after
the second mailing,
(See the appendix, pages 85 - 87 for examples of
the letters which accompanied these mailings.)
Analysis of the Data
The data obtained were analyzed by a series of statistical proce­
dures.
The returns on items one through seven on the first page of the
opinionnaire were simply counted and percentiles were established'for
each respondent answering each item in a certain manner.
Chi square
analysis was also performed upon the responses to item seven to determine
if significant differences existed between the responses of the various
groups to this item.
Means and standard deviations were determined on
items one through twenty-seven on pages two and three of the instrument,
the purpose of this treatment was to determine the respondents' agreement
with these items, ■ Significant differences between the responses of the
groups on these items were determined by a single classification analysis
of variance.
The relationship between the various items listed on the
opinionnaire was determined by factor analysis, a tool which determines
the correlation between various variables.
And a formula to be utilized in
predicting a school's interest in the establishment of a distributive
education program was developed through ai.multiple regression analysis.
11
Limitations of the Study
'
The population for the study consisted of the school board chair­
men, the superintendents of school, the principals-, the guidance counsei Iors, and the business education teachers of all public high schools in
Montana which had an enrollment of fifty or over in grades nine through
twelve during the 1966-67 school year.
The study was limited to the
people holding these positions because it was determined from the review
of literature that these were the positions of responsibility concerned
with the implementation of the distributive education program in the
schools of the nation.
When a state supervisor of distributive educa­
tion makes an initial visit to a local school to discuss the establish­
ment of a distributive education program, he will meet with the superin­
tendent, the school principal, the guidance director and the head of the
business education department (9:30).
This study was limited to those people in guidance and business
education who had half-time or greater responsibility for these functions
in their respective schools.
Definition of Terms
A number of terms have been used in this study which are often sub­
ject to different interpretations.
clarify their meaning.
They are defined in this section to
Most of the definitions were drawn from the
standard educational dictionaries.
Business education teacher.
For the purpose of this study a business
education teacher is defined as one who instructs children in the public
12
schools in the area of education which develops skills, attitudes and
understandings essential for the successful direction of business rela­
tionships.
He does not teach courses in marketing and distribution.
Cooperative program.
The term cooperative program refers to an
educational program whereby the student divides the time he spends in his
formal education between regular classroom studies and experiences in a
bona-fide job.
The two experiences are so planned that each contributes
definitely to the student’s education.
Distribution.
Distribution as used in this study is that segment of
our economy which is concerned with the movement of goods and services
from producer to consumer.
Distributive education.
The term distributive education refers to
a program of instruction which is concerned with preparing persons to
enter the field of selling and merchandising goods and services and with
increasing the efficiency of those already so occupied.
Distributive-occupations.
Distributive occupations are defined as
those occupations which are concerned with making available to consumers
the goods and services produced by others.
Dropout.
A.dropout is a person who leaves school before the comple­
tion of a grade or before graduation.
Opinion.
The term opinion refers to a judgment or a sentiment which
the mind forms concerning a particular educational program or practice.
Opinionnaire.
The terra opinionnaire is defined as a type of ques­
tionnaire designed to- elicit opinions in contrast to objective facts.
State supervisor of distributive education.
The title state
13
supervisor of distributive education refers to a member of the state
department of public instruction who is charged with the responsibility of
the development of the distributive education program in the state public
schools.
Teacher-coordinator,
The teacher-coordinator is the person employed
by the high school to teach the distributive education classes and to
supervise the work-experiences of the distributive education students.
Trainee,-. The term trainee referred to the student enrolled in a
distributive education program who attends school on a part-time basis
and spends-approximately an equal amount of time working in a distribu­
tive business for the purpose of applying the theory he has learned in
the distributive class.
He receives pay and school credit for his time
spent on the job.
Training station.
The term training station referred to the dis­
tributive business in which the distributive education student is em­
ployed for the cooperative phase of his. educational program.
Vocational education.
The term vocational education identifies a
program of education, not leading to the collegiate baccalaureate degree,
which is designed to prepare the learner for entrance into a particular
chosen vocation or to upgrade employed workers; vocational education in­
cludes such divisions as trade and industrial education, office education,
agricultural education, distributive education and home-economics educa­
tion.
The first step in the study was to review the current literature con­
cerning the distributive education program and to interview selected
14
Montana educational leaders.
Chapter 2 is a report of the values, needs
and role of this educational program which were reported in the survey
of literature.
CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF LITERATURE CONCERNING THE VALUES, THE NEEDS
AND THE ROLE OF DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
One of the important procedures of this study was to survey the cur­
rent literature on distributive education.
The purpose of this survey
was to determine the opinions and attitudes expressed by professional
educators on this educational program.
The results of this survey were
utilized in the construction of a preliminary instrument, the final draft
of which was used in determining the opinions of the value of. distributive
education as they were expressed by Montana secondary school administra­
tors and business' educators.
The review of literature encompassed the years 1936 to the present.
The year 1936 was chosen as a beginning point for the survey because that
was the year that congress passed the George-Deen Act, the first act to
provide federal funding for education in distribution.
The review of literature revealed that the published opinions con­
cerning distributive education fell into five major classifications.
These classifications were:
1.
The Need for Vocational Education in Distribution.
2.
The Value of the Cooperative Method of Instruction.
3.
The Quality of the Students in the Distributive Education Program.
4.
The State Role in Distributive Education.
5.
Qualifications of Teachers of Distributive Education.
The Need for Vocational Education in Distribution
The greatest number of opinions found during the review of related
literature were those concerning the need for vocational education in
16
distribution.
These were divided into two subclassifications,jthose con­
cerned with the school's role in providing vocational education in distri­
bution and those concerned with the employment opportunities in the
distributive occupations.
It has been recognized by many educators for a long period of time
that vocational education for the world of work is a responsibility of
the public schools (37:19). Vocational education has been a part of the
.•
American educational system since the days of the American Revolution.
The schools of colonial America were largely academic in nature, but with
the coming of Franklin's Academy, vocational education was introduced into
the American educational system (37:19).
Today, it is still recognized
that vocational education is one of the chief responsibilities of the high
school, according to T . Carl Brown.
Brown cited the fact that the objec­
tives of most high schools include the need to prepare students for work
as proof of this belief (8:201).
In practice, most educators probably accept some degree of
responsibility in the high school for vocational preparation.
Nearly all statements of objectives of the secondary schools
include the need to prepare students for work. The National
Association of Secondary School Principals listed first in the
ten imperative needs of youth in "Education for All American
Youth"; "All youth need to develop saleable skills and those
understandings and attitudes that make the worker an intelligent
and productive participant in economic life. To this end, most
youth need supervised work experience as well as education in
the skills and knowledge of their occupation."
According to the President's Panel of'Consultants on Vocational Education this recognition of the place of vocational education in the curri­
culum of the public school has not resulted/in sufficient vocational
17
education opportunities to meet the needs of the youth of our nation.
The Panel concluded that in general, American youth lacked the opportunity
to develop saleable skills through regular vocational programs in the
public schools.
Their report included the results of a special six state
study which revealed that although two-thirds of the schools in these
states offered vocational education programs in their curriculum, nearly
half of the schools did not offer home economics or agriculture, nearly
90 percent did not offer trade and industrial education and nearly 95
percent did not offer distributive education (37:109).
The results of the study mentioned above indicated that 95 percent
of the schools utilized in the study did not offer distributive education,
yet, the need for training in the distributive occupations was recognized
as early as 1936 by the fedetal government.
An article entitled "The
George-Deen Act," appearing that year in the October issue of the Business
Education World pointed to the great numbers employed in distribution, the
high failure rate of small store operators, the low earnings of sales
people and the unsatisfactory service rendered by people employed in these
occupations as proof of the need for vocational education in this field
(33:83).
The same opinion was voiced in 1939 by Paul Nystrom when he
said, "There is no branch in the complicated system of distribution that
is not important, there is none in which vocational training is not a
necessity".(25:45).
It is accepted in the literature that preparation is needed for em­
ployment in the distributive occupations.
The role of providing vocation­
al education for employment in this field rests squarely with the public
18
secondary schools of America, according to Richert.
It is estimated that each year several hundred thousand young
people in the United States of high school and college age,'
secure their first employment in distributive organizations.
If one concedes the need for training of the large number of
young people who yearly enter the distributive occupations,
then the next question that arises is: "Who shall give this
training?", . . by and large the greater proportion of the
several hundred thousand young people who yearly enter the
distributive field are drawn from the ranks of high school
graduates. The responsibility, therefore, if it is to be
met squarely, rests with the average American high school.
(28:15).
If it is granted that vocational education for distribution .is
needed in the United States and that it is the responsibility of the pub­
lic secondary schools to meet this need, how successful then have the
schools been in meeting the needs of the youth who will eventually find
employment in the distributive occupations?
They have not been successful
in the opinion of the President's Panel of Consultants on Vocational Edu­
cation.
This Panel reported that the preparation of in-school youth for
employment in distribution was very small in comparison to potential em­
ployment in this occupation.
The employment of sales workers in 1961
represented nearly 7 percent of the employed workers, and the sales force
is only a small portion of the distributive field, whereas distributive
education enrollment as a percentage of the 15-19 year age group was only
.3 percent during that year.
What factors are important in the establishment of a distributive
education program?
According to T. Carl Brown, State Supervisor of Dis­
tributive Education for the state of North Carolina, those factors to be
19
considered include the size of the school, the population of the com­
munity and the nature of the community.
He. expressed the belief that a
high school with a minimum enrollment of 270 to 300 students might well
support a cooperative program of distributive education.
This assumes
that a sufficient number of businesses exist in the community to pro­
vide an adequate number of training stations for the students enrolled
in the program.
Brown indicates that usually a city with a population of
5,000 or more will provide an adequate work opportunity for distributive
education student's.
It appears from the literature to be generally accepted by profes­
sional educators that a need exists for vocational education in .'distri­
bution and that it is the responsibility of the school to fulfill this
need.
Several writers indicated that the cooperative method of instruc­
tion has been one of the limiting factors in the offering of the distri­
butive education program in the public schools.
The next section is a
report of the results of the survey of the literature concerning this
aspect of the distributive education program.
v
:
Value of the Cooperative Method of Instruction
The- cooperative, method as described by G.. Henry Richert is a form of
training- i v c which- school and work are combined for the purpose of pro­
viding high school seniors, post graduates and other students with occu­
pational skills.. This method of instruction has been an integral part of
the distributive.education program since its inception in 1937 (28:16).
The question of the success or failure of this instructional method as a
20
means of preparing youth for employment has been discussed in the educa­
tional journals by many writers.
The following are some of the opinions
concerning this method of instruction which were published in the pro­
fessional literature.
In 1937, these advantages were attributed to the cooperative pro­
gram as it was conducted in Texas at that time:
*1. It was impossible to
train more workers than could be absorbed into an occupation because the
employer helped the school select the trainees.
2. Students were trained
under actual, rather than false, working conditions.
3. The school made
no investment in expensive equipment since manipulative skills were
learned in the cooperating businesses.
not replace full-time workers.
4. The part-time employees did
5. Students earned while they learned.
6. Students had saleable skills upon graduation from high school.
7. The
occupational training received by the student was an asset to him in
earning his way, if he went to college.
8. The practical experience ac­
quired by the part-time student helped him develop the proper attitude
toward work (1:83),
However,I in 1946 the small number of post secondary schools utiliz­
ing the cooperative method in their vocational programs encouraged L. 0.
Brockman to include as a major purpose in his study the determination of
the reasons why more schools of this type did not use this particular
method of providing vocational competencies.
A check list with provisions
for free responses was sent to one hundred sixty-six junior colleges.
hundred twelve were returned, or sixty-seven percent.
One
Of this number,
twenty-seven were found to have work experience programs of some form and
21
were, therefore, not included in the final report.
Table 2, page 22, is a •
reproduction of a table Brockman used to report this phase of his study.
It may be noted from the table that concern over the student missing many
of the extracurricular activities of the school and the difficulty of ob­
taining the proper type of training station appear to be the major rea­
sons that the schools cooperating in the study did not use the coopera­
tive method of instruction (7:40).
The need for Brockman's study is
supported by the fact that the opinion was expressed in 1941 that although
students and businessmen alike were interested in cooperative education,
the school authorities often were not in favor of this method of instruc­
tion (34:141),
However, by 1950 administrators were becoming convinced
of the value of using community distributive facilities as laboratories
for real instead of make-believe, training for distributive employment
(30:70).
The same opinion was expressed by Richert when he said that
both educators and laymen believed that the cooperative method was an
important method of instruction and that it would become even more im­
portant in the years ahead.
If administrators were convinced of the value of the cooperative
method they were also beginning to realize that the cooperative method can­
not work without the willing cooperation of the local merchants.
James
B . Gonant recommended that distributive education should be available in
the comprehensive high school, but only "if the retail shops in the com­
munity can be persuaded, to provide suitable openings".
He expressed the
opinion that the success of the distributive education program was depen­
dent upon an adequate number of openings in the local stores and the proper
/
22
TABLE 2.
DISADVANTAGES OF THE COOPERATIVE METHOD*
Disadvantages
I.
2.
33.
4.
5-.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The student misses much of the
extracurricular activities of the
school.
. Work experience which becomes laboratory
experience that correlates closely with
the curriculum is hard to find.
The type of work experience provided is
limited to the area in which the
college is located.
It is difficult to adjust the school
routine to this program.
Trained personnel are not available to
administer a program of this kind.
Legal difficulties make the program
difficult to administer.
Foremen and supervisors seldom train
students well.
It. takes too much of the student time
away from regular academic work.
Allowing credit for work experience
lowers the educational standards of the
school.
It leads to exploitation of students by
employers.
Certain groups are opposed to the
program including:
a. Parents
b. Employers
c . Labor
Total
The cost of the program is more to
the employer than the benefit he
derives.
Agree
No. °L
Disagree
No. %
73
89
9
11
68
84
•15
16
67
83
14
■17
56
76
18
24
52
69
'23
31
28
50
28
50
23
45
28
55
35
44
■ 44
56
30
41
43
59
28
40
41
' 60
7
11
34
52
3.6
26
68
37
39
32
16
87
84
74
32
63
19
29
46
71
information included in this table was derived'from: Brockman, L. 0. ,
"Inauguration and Development of Cooperative Work Experience Education
in Secondary Schools" The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary
School Principals, Jan., 1946.
23
attitude toward the program on the part of the managers operating these
stores.
It was revealed by the review of literature that most of the educa­
tors publishing during the period surveyed were of the opinion that the
cooperative method was an effective means of providing students with the
competencies necessary for employment *
However, the success of the method
was dependent upon the availability of proper training stations operated
by managers with the proper attitude toward the program.
There is a need for education in distribution and the cooperative
method is a successful method of providing this education, why then are
so few schools offering the distributive education program?
The reason
for this, according to some authors, is that the program has not been suc­
cessful in many cases, and it has not been successful because of the low
quality of the students that have been
The Quality of the Students of the Distributive Education Program
The enrollment of low-ability, low-drive students in the traditional
vocational programs has resulted in these programs being largely ineffec7
tive, in the opinion of Fred Wilhelms.
The programs were ineffective pri­
marily because the students enrolled were not capable of holding the jobs
for which they were being prepared.
As a result of this the students who
really belonged in the vocational programs looked upon them with contempt
(39:6).
The opinion that student quality was a factor in the development of
the distributive education program was also expressed by Thomas Miller
24
when he reported that one of the major problems of distributive education
in Pennsylvania during 1954 was that of "keeping the distributive educa­
tion program from becoming a dumping ground".
According to Miller this
problem was a result of the failure of those professionals in distribu­
tive education to win "the cooperation of the guidance personnel in the
school".
The study recommended that if distributive education were to be
effective then those in distributive education must interpret, explain,
and sell the distributive education program to guidance personnel (23:20).
The lack of student guidance by guidance counselors was one of the
chief reasons for low enrollments in the distributive education program
of Atlantic City, New Jersey, according to Krawitz.
This lack of guidance
in his' opinion was attributed to a lack of knowledge of distribution
and the distributive education program on the part of the local guidance
counselors (19:32). ■
The possible' explanation is offered by Warren Meyer that this condi­
tion was a result of the increase in consumer demand and the consequent
decrease in the need for selling skill on the part of distributive employees
This was a result of the scarcity of consumer products at the end of World
War TI.
‘
Just as the pioneer distributive educators were beginning to
discover their roles in education, they were interrupted by
World War II. This retardation was followed by a mad rush for
goods which had been denied the publip during the war years.
The abnormal demand for goods resulted in a seller's market
which has persisted in a number of merchandise lines until
recently. During such periods of high demand and productivity,
company training programs usually deteriorate due to the fact
that goods almost sell themselves and the attention of manage­
ment is focused on buying rather than selling. This was also
25
a period of short labor supply which afforded an opportunity
for "do-gooder" educators to load distributive education .
classes with misfit students. Thus standards of vocational
competency stood still or declined (22:81).
One of the authors stated that the problem of the enrollment of
poor quality students in the distributive education program resulted
from the fact that high school students who could benefit from the instruc­
tion were not interested in the distributive education program.
They
lacked interest because they did not feel that retailing was a desireable profession and they equated the distributive education program with
preparation for retail occupations (34:139).
In the opinion of many teachers the following were the reasons stu­
dents enroll in the distributive education program:
1.
They want to be able to get out of school early every day.
2.
They want to earn some extra money while they are still in school.
3'.
They need money to stay in school and distributive education is
the only way they can earn it.
However, Swack reported that the following were the reasons that distribu­
tive education students in Ohio enrolled in the distributive education pro­
gram.
The reasons are arranged according to the frequency of preference.
Boys:
1.
Learning the different phases of business.
2.
Owning my own store.
3.
Getting work experience.
4 4.
Feeling that time spent in distributive education is more
useful than time spent in other courses.
26
5.
Wanting salesmanship training.
Girls:
1.
Getting work experience.
2.
Feeling that time spent in distributive education is more
useful than time spent in other courses.
3.
Developing personality.
4.
Getting salesmanship training.'
5.
Feeling that getting a job would be easier after graduation
(32:327).
The literature revealed that the problem of attracting the right
students to the distributive education program was one of major impor­
tance.
The writers implied that this was a problem primarily due to the
fact that the students were misinformed concerning careers in distribu­
tion.
The lack of proper guidance on the part of the guidance counselors
was considered to be a major factor in this problem.
Another major consideration, in the development of the distributive
education program which appeared throughout the literature was that of the
state’s role as a leader in the implementation of this program in the local
schools.
The State Role in Distributive Education
Total responsibility for the administration of the vocational educa­
tion program rests with the state board of vocational education according
to Roy Dugger, Deputy Director, Division of Vocational and Technical Educa­
tion, U . S . Office of Education.
The guide for the administration of the
program is the state plan for vocational education.
27
■
.
' -
.
Administration of the entire Vocational Education program, with
the exception Of the federally-sponsored research provision, is
under the auspices of the state boards for vocational education,
To be eligible to participate in the federal vocational educa­
tion program, the respective states must designate as the sole
agency for administration and supervision, a state board for ,
vocational education. . . Each state board for vocational edu­
cation must prepare a state plan which is submitted to the
U. So Commissioner of Education for approval. This state plan
for vocational education must set forth the conditions under
which the vocational and technical education program in the
state will be implemented in the secondary schools, post­
secondary institutions, and under contract with private educa­
tion agencies (13;32).
Many professional educators expressed the opinion that the require­
ments for reimbursement contained in many state plans for vocational educa­
tion were too stringent.
This was stressed in the report of the Presi­
dent's Panel on Vocational Education.
Despite the fact that one of the basic principles of the state
plan is to provide for great flexibility, there have been
cases where vocational education in a state has been a slave
to an outmoded plan. When the state plan prevents maximum effec­
tiveness of the vocational program within the state, the fault
is with the state educational leadership (37;165).
According to the Panel the state's role in vocational education is
not to unnecessarily restrict the state vocational program, rather its
function is the provision of supervisory and consultive services to local
school districts by specialists in vocational education and some finan­
cial assistance to the local school to ease the cost of offering the
vocational program (37:164).
The California state plan for vocational education delegates the
responsibility for the administration of the distributive education
28
program within the state to the Bureau of Business Education.
This
bureau provides the following services to the local school districts of
California:
the functions of conducting conferences of business educa­
tors, school administrators and businessmen, preparing press releases,
acting in a consulting capacity to local schools on business education
problems, conducting research in business education and coordinating re­
search programs with school districts, state colleges and universities
(42:19).
The supervisor of distributive education employed by the state de­
partment of education is normally designated by the state plan as the
head administrative officer for distributive education in the state.
He
is "responsible for the development of retailing and merchandising courses
in the state high schools, on both hi^h school and adult levels," accord­
ing to Burlingame (.9:19).
He stated further that the distributive edu­
cation supervisor is responsible for the promotion of new programs of
distributive education in the local schools.
He expressed the opinion,
however, that the decision as to'whether a program in distributive educa­
tion is to be added to the curriculum is a local decision, arrived at by
the local educational administrative body, therefore, the initial request
to the state department of education for information concerning the dis­
tributive education program and aid in establishing the program must come
from the local school authorities (9:20).
On February 27, 1967, a conference on "The Emerging Role of State
Education Departments with Implications ’for Vocational Education" was
held at the Center for Research and Leadership Development in Vocational
29
and Technical Education at Ohio State University.
This conference was
attended by fifty-five leaders in vocational education and educational
administration from throughout the United States.
One of the major out­
comes of this conference was the conclusion that the state department of
vocational education should initiate programs of vocational education as
well as regulate and maintain these programs (27:2).
It was apparent from the literature that, in the opinion of many
authors, the state played a strategic leadership role in vocational edu­
cation, especially in the areas of administration, promotion, regulation
and financing of the local program.
Establishing the qualifications for
teachers of distributive education was one of the major administrative
roles of the state.(34:13).
Qualifications of Teachers of Distributive Education
,
The President's Panel on Vocational Education included teachereducation in vocational education as one of the major needs for improve­
ment in vocational education (37:212).
Teacher education is directly related to the effectiveness of the
entire vocational education program. Larger numbers, more selec­
tive recruitment, and better preparation and inservice training
of teachers must be achieved. High occupational competency .is de­
manded of vocational teachers; the schools must therefore compete
with the higher salaries and other benefits offered by business,
industrial and agricultural enterprises (34:212).
The need for teacher-coordinators of distributive education was ex­
pressed by Walter M. Arnold- in 1962, then Assistant Commissioner for
Vocational and Technical Education with the U. S. Office of Education, in
30
the foreword of Mary V 0 Marks' publication, Guidelines for Teacher Educa­
tion Programs in Distributive Education.
He stated that the distributive
education program had been increasing at such a rapid rate in the nation
that the supply of qualified teachers was far short of the number needed
(21:v ) .
As early as 1941, Haas expressed the opinion that the shortage
of coordinators qualified to teach in the distributive education program
was a major contributing factor to the failure of many distributive edu­
cation programs (16:455).
,
The most intensive study concerning the instructional program in
distributive education which was reviewed was a study conducted by Roman
F. Warmke in 1960 (38).
Part I of Warmke1s study was devoted exclusively
to issues about minimum requirements' for distributive education personnel.
The portion of this study which was particularly applicable to the pre­
sent study was a section dealing with the minimum requirements for quali­
fication of teacher-coordinators of distributive education.
Warmke found
that the leaders in distributive education expressed the following opinions
concerning the qualifications for teacher-coordinators of the high school
cooperative program.
1.
The findings were based upon opinion means.
The teacher-coordinator of distributive education should have
12.54 quarter hours of general professional education.
2.
The teacher-coordinator of distributive education should have
10.45 quarter hours of specific professional education in distributive
education.
3.
The teacher-coordinator of distributive education should have
21.59 quarter hours of technical education in distribution.
'
31
4.
The teacher-coordinator of distributive education should have
21.3 months of full-time occupational experience in distribution.
It has become apparent from the literature that there was a lack of
qualified teacher-coordinators of distributive education.
Professional
educators felt that this was one of the major limiting factors in the
development of the distributive education program.
Summary of Opinions on the Value of Distributive Education
The review of literature revealed that most authors were of the
opinion that there was a need for vocational education in distribution
in the public secondary schools of America.
The opinion was expressed
that the schools were not meeting this need.
The .cooperative method of instruction was discussed by many authors.
Most of them stated that the success of this method was dependent upon
.
the full cooperation of local businessmen with the proper attitude toward
this educational program.
The quality of students enrolling in the distributive education pro­
gram was one of the major problems in distributive, education according to
several of the writers.
Lack of proper student guidance by the guidance
counselors and the students' lack of knowledge concerning the: opportunities
in distribution were cited as two of the major reasons for the existence
of this problem.
Many of the articles reviewed expressed the opinion that the state
had the major leadership role in distributive education.
There was some
disagreement concerning the. state's function in encouraging the local
32
school to establish the distributive education program, some expressed
the opinion that program regulation and maintenance was the primary role
of the state while others were of the opinion that the state's role
should also include program initiation.
The review of literature revealed that the shortage,of qualified
teachers of distributive education is one of the major problems facing
distributive education.
The purpose of the review of professional literature was to deter­
mine the national opinions of distributive education, in order that these
might be used as a basis for an instrument which would be utilized to
determine opinions in Montana on the value of this educational program.
Chapter III contains a report of the Montana opinions on Distributive
Education.
:
.
CHAPTER III
- Vvi
-V.1:.
;
THE MONTANA DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM AS SEEN BY MONTANA
SECONDARY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS AND BUSINESS EDUCATORS
#
-.-VvV",: f ■
An opinionnaire was constructed in order to discover the opinions
of selected Montana educational personnel concerning the distributive edu-
•.y
cation program.
The original instrument was based upon the published ad-
V
•', . ' . vantages and disadvantages of distributive education as they were expressed
in the professional literature.
--Vv' .
This instrument was used as a guide to
interview selected members of the faculty of the School of Education at
- x , '
Montana State University and the State Supervisor of Business and Distribu-
V . v
" ' 'i '
i
’;
- tive Education for the purpose of determining qualities of the distributive
,
. education program which were significant in Montana but were not included
V , - in the opinionnaire. The instrument was then revised to include those ele­
:v v
ments of distributive education which were discovered during the interviews
/v"..
The item validity of the instrument was established by administering the
" - V
opinionnaire to a group of experienced teachers.
-v
procedure was eliminated by further revision.
The bias revealed by this
The opinionnaire was then ad
ministered to Montana secondary school administrators and business educa­
tors.
A series of statistical techniques were then used to measure the
resulting opinions.
■
. vr '
/ 1\ X ,
'
'
'•
•.
Statistical Technique for Measurirtg .and Describing Opinions
The data obtained were analyzed by a series of statistical procedures.
The returns on items one through seven on the first page of the opinion­
naire were simply counted and percentiles were established for each respon­
V''
Vi V
dent answering each item in a certain manner.
The purpose of this tabulaI
tion was to determine the environmental factors surrounding the respondents
of the study and to establish their experience with the distributive
•v;
,
34
education program. •
Item seven, page one of the opinionnaire listed four statements
which purportedly described the distributive education program.
The
respondents were requested to select the one statement which most nearly
matched his concept of distributive education.
Chi square analysis was
performed on the responses to this item to determine if there were any
significant differences between the responses of the various groups
(11; 147.).
After the above test was performed, the responses of each
group were compared with the responses of each other group to determine
if there were any significant differences between the responses of the
individual groups.
This analysis was performed according to the textbook
treatment of Downie and Heath (11:146) and was accomplished with the aid
of a hand calculator.
■
The mean opinion was then computed for each segment of. the population
on each of the statements, I through 27, listed on pages two and three of
the opinionnaire.
This and the following statistical treatments were
accomplished through the use of a large capacity electronic computer.
After the means were determined for the responses of each of the groups on
items I through 27, standard deviations were then computed for the res­
ponses of each group on each item.
The standard deviations were computed
according to the method described in Downie and Heath (11:47).
The stan­
dard deviation provides information concerning the grouping of the various
opinions around the mean.
According to McNemar (22:24) about two-thirds
of the cases will fall between the limits plus and minus one standard
deviation away from the mean, about 95 percent of the cases will fall
35
between plus and minus two standard deviations away from the mean.
above percentages assume a normal distribution curve.
The
In this study the
respondents' agreement or disagreement with a particular item was deter­
mined in the following manner.
The standard deviation was added to and
subtracted from the mean on each item for each segment of the sample popu­
lation and for the total sample population.
If the mean plus the standard
deviation resulted in a number equal to 3.99 or smaller and the mean minus
the standard deviation resulted in a number equal to 2.00 or smaller, it
was interpreted that the respondents agreed with the opinion expressed
by the item.
However, if the numbers resulting when the standard devia­
tion was added to and subtracted from the mean were 2.99 and 4.00 or
greater respectively, it was interpreted that the respondents disagreed
with the opinion expressed by the item.
It was interpreted that the
respondents expressed no opinion on the item if the range which resulted
from the analysis differed from the two described above.
Following the above treatment, a single classification analysis of
variance was performed upon items I through 27 pages two and three of the
opinionnaire.
The analysis was performed according to the textbook
method described in Downie and Heath (11:160-163).
The purpose of this
treatment was to determine if there were significant differences between
the opinions expressed by the various segments of the sample population on
these items.
is an F ratio.
The result of the single classification analysis of variance
The F ratio was interpreted by the use of the F tabde which
is found in the appendix of Downie and Heath (11:163).
The F table re­
veals the F ratio which is significant at the 5 percent level and the F
36
ratio which is significant at the I percent level.
Significant differences between the opinions of the various groups
were then determined through the utilization of the t test.
It was de­
cided that the null hypothesis would be rejected only at the I percent
V
level or below.
This can be interpreted as meaning that there was only
one chance in 100 that the difference between the means could occur by
chance alone.
The t tests were computed according to the method des­
cribed in Downie and Heath (11:132).
A factor analysis was performed upon the data in order to determine
the relationship which existed between the various variables in the
opinionnaire.
The first step in the factor analysis is to develop an
intercorrelation matrix.
This is a matrix which shows the correlation of
each variable with every other variable being tested.
The next step is to
extract the factors from the matrix of intercorrelations (5:241).
In this
study the principal axes method of factoring was utilized according to
the procedure described in Borko (5:248).
After factoring the matrix,
the next step in the procedure is to rotate the frame of the reference
axes into a meaningful position (5:249).
The final outcome of a factor
analysis is called a factor matrix, a table of coefficients that expresses
the relations between the variables and the underlying factors (18:653).
These coefficients as they are expressed in the factor matrix are called
factor loadings.
Factor loadings range between -1.00 through 0 to +1.00,
like correlation coefficients.
They are interpreted in- the same manner as
correlation coefficients in that they express the correlations between the
variables and the factors.
The investigator then groups the items tested
37
under the various factors by arbitrarily selecting that factor which has
the highest correlation with the individual item (18:654).
The next statistical treatment which was applied to the data was a
multiple regression analysis.
According to DuBois (12:165) the multiple
correlation is the statistical device by which a number of predictors
v
are combined to yield a single score which has the highest possible cor­
relation with a criterion.
He further explains the multiple correlation
in the following manner:
. . . a multiple correlation shows the relationship between
two and only two variables. It is a product moment correlation
which (with considerable unnecessary effort) could actually be
computed by'means of a basic formula for r . It is the correlation
between an unmodified variable (the "dependent variable" or
"criterion") and a second variable consisting of the weighted
sum of scores in two or more " independent" or predictor variables
(the weights of which are such that the correlation of the sum
variable with the unmodified criterion is at a maximum for the,
particular sample of observations used in computing it).
'
Regression coefficients or regression weights applied to predictor
variables are .known as beta coefficients which are designated with the
The end result of a multiple correlation analysis is
a multiple regression formula such as the following:
The tilde over the
value (12:165).
Z
q
indicates a predicted rather than an obtained
38 .
Opinionnaire Returns
" The opinionnaire, together with a stamped, self addressed envelope
was mailed to the sample population as defined in the limitations of the
study.
A second .mailing was made to non-returnees two weeks after the
first mailing.
A third mailing was made to those school board chairmen
who had not returned an opinionnaire within two weeks after the second
mailing.
tion.
In total, 698 questionnaires were mailed to the sample popula­
Of this number 623 or 89.5 percent were returned.
Usable opinion-
naires amounted to 594, seven were returned blank and twenty-two arrived
too late to be included in the compilation.
Thirty of the returns were
only partially usable. -Table 3, is a compilation of the returns to this
study.
TABLE 3.
OPINIONNAIRE RETURNS
Groups
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
Total Respondents
Number,-:
Sent
Number
Returned
Per Cent
Returned
141
128
89
116 .
224
114
126
80
111
192'
80.85
96.88
89.99
91.30
85.71
698
623
89.50
Items one through seven on the opinionnaire were utilized for the
purpose of obtaining background information on the respondents to the
study.
The respondent's position and the enrollment of the school with
which he was connected were asked.
His experience with distributive edu­
cation was determined by asking the following questions:
\
If there was
39
currently a distributive education program in the curriculum of his high
school.
If they were considering the establishment of such a program.
Whether or not he had ever held a position in a school which had a dis­
tributive education program in the curriculum, and if so, was the program
successful in the respondent's opinion.
Tables 4 through 8 reveal data
indicating the background information.of the respondents.
The returns revealed that 18J7 percent of the sample population cur­
rently had a distributive education program in their high school curricu­
lum, as shown in Table 4.
The guidance counselors group was the segment
of the sample whose returns indicated the highest percentage of distribu­
tive education programs in existence i n .their school curriculum.
Super­
intendents responding represented the segment of the sample population
which had the smallest percentage of operational.distributive education
programs in their schools.
. ■i
TABLE 4. DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE IN THE
RESPONDENTS' HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUMS
Group
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
Total Respondents ...
No
Response
I
0
0
0
I
2
■
Yes
Number Per Cent
'H No
Number Per Cent
13
13
11
40
34
12.7
10.3
15.9
36.0
17.1
88
113
58
71
151
86.3
89.7
84.1
64.0
82.9
111
18.7
481
81.3
Analysis of the returns revealed that 16.,4 percent of the total sampie population of the study was at the time the opinionnaires were
• 40
administered considering the establishment of a distributive education
program.
The data in Table 5 reveals that a smaller percentage of the
principals were considering the establishment of the program than any
other segment of the population, whereas, a higher percentage of the
guidance counselors were considering the establishment of the program.
TABLE 5. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS CONSIDERING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
No Response
Number PerCent
Group
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals .
Guidance Counselors
Business Education
Teachers
5
11
2
I
Total Respondents
30
11
■
Yes
Number• PerCent
No
Number PerCent
5.6
9.7
3.4
1.4
9
21
8 .
19
10.1
18.6
13.8
26.8
75
81
48
51
84.3
71.7
82.8
71.8
6.6
22
14.6
119
78.8
6.2
79
16.4
374
77.4
The largest percentage of respondents to this study were employed in
schools with enrollments of 50 - 150, with the next largest percentage
being from schools of 151 - 300 enrollment, as revealed in Table 6, page
41.
The largest percentage of guidance counselors who responded to this
study were employed in schools of over 1,000 enrollment.
The next largest
percentage of guidance counselors were employed in schools of 500 - 1,000
enrollment.
This was the only segment of the responding groups which
differed in any great degree from the total respondents in this respect.
41
ENROLLMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS' HIGH SCHOOL
Per Cent
301-500
Per Cent
500-1,000
58
68
24
10
56.9
54.0
34.8
9.0
23
29
16
18
22.6
23.0
23.2
16.2
10
13
13
19
9.8
10.3
18.8
17.1
8
10
8
23
7.8 3 2.9
7.9 6 4.8
11.6 8 11.6
20.7 41 37.0
,: 59
31.7
34
18.3
21
'11.3
32
17.2 40 21.5
Total Respondents
• 219
36.9
120
20.2
76
12.8
81
13.6 98 16.5
Per Cent
151-300
Chairmen
Superintendents
Princiapls
Guidance Counselors
Business Education
Teachers
Group
Per Cent
Per Cent
Over I ,OOi
o
50-150
TABLE 6.
The respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they had ever
held a position in a school which had a distributive education program in
r
the curriculum.
Table 7, page 42, is a compilation of the responses to
this particular question.
Thirty percent of the respondents indicated
that they had held positions in schools which had distributive education
programs in the curriculum.
The two groups which differed to a fairly
great extent from the total respondents in their answers to this item were
the school board chairmen and the guidance counselors.
Only 12.8 percent
of the chairmen indicated that they had held positions in schools which
had distributive education programs in the curriculums, whereas, 50.5
percent of the guidance counselors indicated that they had held positions
in schools which were operating a distributive education program.
42
TABLE 7. RESPONDENTS INDICATING THAT THEY HAD HELD POSITIONS IN SCHOOLS
WITH DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION IN THE CURRICULUM
No Response
Percent
Number
Group
Yes
Number
PerCent
No
Number
PerCent
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education
Teachers
3
I
I
0
2.9
.8
. 1.5
0
13
35
21
56
12.8
27.8
30.4
50.5
86
90
47
55
84.3
71.4
68.1
49.5
2
1.1
53
28.5
131
70.4
Total Respondents
7
1.2
178
30.0
409
68.8
Those respondents who stated that they had held positions in schools
operating a distributive education program were asked to indicate whether
or not in their opinion the program was successful in meeting its objec­
tives. -Table 8, page 43, is a compilation of the responses to this
particular question.
Eight -and four tenths percent of the respondents
which had indicated that they had held positions in schools with distri­
butive education programs in the curriculums refused to indicate their
opinion as to the success of those programs.
However, 79.1 percent of
those respondents who indicated that they had first had experience with
the distributive education program expressed the opinion that the pro­
gram had been successful, whereas, only 12.5 percent stated that opinion
that the program had failed to meet its objectives.
43
TABLE 8. SUCCESS OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM ACCORDING TO
RESPONDENTS INDICATING EXPERIENCE WITH THE PROGRAM
No Response
Number
PerCent
Group
0
3
2
4
0
8.6
9.5
7.1
7
Total Respondents
16
No
Number
PerCent
13
35 16
48
67.9
71.4
76.2
85.8
3
7
3
4
23.1
20.0
14.3 '
7.1
13.2
39
73.6
7
13.2
8.4
151
i—I
cr\
r-
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education
Teachers
Yes
Number PerCent
24
12.5
Respondents' Concept of Distributive Education
The respondents were given a choice of four statements which sup­
posedly described the distributive education program.
They were asked to
select the one statement which most nearly matched their concept of dis­
tributive education.
Table 9, page 44, is a compilation of the respon­
dents' selections on this item.'
The statements described the program as
one utilizing the work experience method.
The first statement said that
the program was designed to prepare people for the world of work.
Twelve
and nine-tenths of the respondents selected this phrase as the one which
most nearly matched their concept of distributive education.
This phrase
was selected by 27.5 percent of the chairmen and 26.1 percent of the
guidance counselors.
The second statement expressed the opinion that the
purpose of the program was to prepare people for jobs in offices and
stores, 7.4 percent of the respondents selected this phrase as the one
which most nearly matched their concept, of distributive education.
The
business education teachers was the only group which differed greatly from
TABLE 9. RESPONDENTS‘ CONCEPTS OF THE PURPOSE OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
REVEALED BY THEIR SELECTION FROM FOUR CHOICES
Prepare
For World
of Work
Group
Prepare For
Office And
Stores
%
Career
Selection
%
No
Re­
sponse
Prepare
Retail,Wholesale & Service
y Occupations
^
7, .
Chairmen
28
27.5
7
6.9
' 39
38.2
24
23.5
4
3.9
Superintendents
25
19.8
6
4.8
37
29.4
53
42.0
5
4.0
9
13.1
2
2.9
21
30.4
34
49.3
3
4.3
Guidance
Counselors
29
26.1
2
1.8
21
18.9
57
51.4'
2
1.8
Business Education
Teachers
24
12.9
27
14.5
40
21.5
89
47.9
6
3.2
Total Respondents 115
19.4
44
7.4
158
26.6
257
43.3
20
3.4
Principals
45
the rest of the sample on this particular item, 14.5 percent of these
people chose this statement.
The third phrase stated that the program
was designed to give students experience in various occupations in order
to aid them in making a career selection.
26.6 percent of the respon­
dents selected this statement as the one which most nearly matched their
concept of distributive education.
This phrase was selected by 38.2 per­
cent of the chairmen, whereas, only 18.9 percent of the guidance counse­
lors indicated that this statement was the most like their own.
The
fourth phrase indicated that distributive education was a program de­
signed to prepare people for jobs in the retail, wholesale and service
occupations.
This is the accepted concept of distributive education in
Montana (31:15)«
This phrase was selected by 43.3 percent of the respon­
dents as the phrase which most nearly matched their concept of the pro­
gram.
The chairmen was the only group which differed greatly from the
rest of the population in selecting this particular phrase, only 23.5
percent of these people selected this statement.
Ghi square analysis was performed on the concepts of distributive
education as they were expressed by the various groups.
The purpose of
this analysis was to determine if there was a significant difference be­
tween the opinions held by the school board chairmen, the superintendents
,
S
of schools, the high school principals, the guidance counselors and the
business education teachers, as shown in Table 10, page 46.
The X
2
'
which resulted from the analysis was 42.17 which was signifi­
cant at the .001 percent level.
This indicated that there was a signifi­
cant difference between the concepts as they were expressed by the various
46
groups.
Chi square analysis was then performed comparing each of the
groups with each of the other groups to determine if there were signifi- '
cant differences between the concepts of distributive education ex­
pressed by the various' groups (Table 10).
TABLE 10. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS OF DISTRIBUTIVE
EDUCATION EXPRESSED BY HIE VARIOUS GROUPS.
df
Groups
12.822
Chairmen and Superintendents
Chairmen and Principals
13.947
Chairmen and Guidance Counselors
19.508
Chairmen and Business Education
Teachers
27.698
Superintendents and Principals
2.097
Superintendents & Guidance Counselors 6.950
Superintendents and Business Education
Teachers
12.946
Principals and Guidance Counselors
6.439
Principals and Business Education
Teachers
7.714
Guidance Counselors and Business
Education Teachers
•18.672
Significance
Level
3
3
3
.01
.01
.001
3
3
3
.001
.70
.10
3
3
.01
.10
3
.20
3
.001
The analysis revealed that there were significant differences between
the concepts expressed by the chairmen and those expressed by all other
groups.
Significant differences were also revealed between the concepts
expressed by the superintendents and the business education teachers and
those expressed by the guidance counselors and the business education
teachers.
47
Administrative Consideration in Establishing
the Distributive Education Program
Items I through 10 on pages 2 and 3 of the opinionnaire were ineluded because it was revealed in the literature that these were fac­
tors an administrator should consider when contemplating the establish­
ment of a distributive education program in his school.
treatments were applied to the returns on these items.
Four statistical
First means and
standard deviations were determined for each of the sample groups and
for all of the respondents on each item.
The purpose of this treatment
was to determine the degree of agreement each of the segments and the
)
total group expressed on each item.
Agreement was determined by adding
and subtracting the standard deviation on each item to the mean for this
item.
If the resulting range was from 3.99 or smaller to 2.00 or smaller
it was assumed that the respondents agreed with the opinion expressed,
however if the resulting range was 2.99 or greater and 4.00 or greater it
was assumed that the respondents disagreed with the item.
Any range which
differed from the two described above was interpreted as meaning that the
respondents expressed no opinion on the item.
A single classification analysis of variance was also performed on
the returns to these items (Table 11, page 48).
The purpose of this treat­
ment was to determine if the opinions of any of the groups differed signifi­
cant Iy from the opinions expressed by the total group.
Significant dif­
ference between the opinions expressed by the various segments of the total
group were determined through the utilization of t tests.
48
TABLE 11. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE OPINIONS
EXPRESSED BY THE VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Item
F Ratio
Significance Level
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13.603
2.565
2.396
2.586
2.752
9.138
1.658
4.224
3.412
9.597
1%
5%
5% ,
57.
57.
17.
Not Significant
17.
17.
17.
Item I was stated as follows:
.
.
I^ am in favor of releasing students.
from school for educational work experience. When the standard deviation
was added to and subtracted fronvihe mean for the- total group and the mean
of each segment of the total group it was determined that the respondents
agreed with this opinion, as shown in Table 12, page 49.
The single
classification analysis of variance (Table 11) revealed a significant dif­
ference between the opinions expressed by. the various segments:of the total
group at the I percent level.
The t test revealed that there were signifi­
cant differences at the I percent level between the mean opinions of the
chairmen and all other segments of the total group with the exception of
the principals; between the opinions of the superintendents and the guid­
ance counselors and those of the principals and the guidance counselors.
Item 2 was stated in the following manner:
tional vocational programs in our high sdhool.
There is a need for addi­
Analysis of the returns
revealed a high degree of agreement of all of the respondents, with this
49
TABLE 12. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE COOPERATIVE METHOD OF
INSTRUCTION
Group
Mean
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.50
2.05
2.15
1.49
1.81
Total Respondents
1.96
,
S. D.
Agree*
1.20
1.02
1.15
.81
1.08
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.10
Yes
*Agreement was determined according to the standards on page 47. •
statement.
Table 13 contains data which show the means, standard devia-
tions and agreement of the various segments of the respondents with this
item.
The single classification analysis of variance resulted in an F
ratio which was significant at the 5 percent level (Table 11, page 48).
For the purpose of this study all F1 ratios above the I percent level were
rejected as revealing no significant, difference.
TABLE 13. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
1.79
1.65
1.52
1.34
1.63
1.22
1.14
.94
.89
1.09
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.59
1.08
Yes
Total Respondents
Agree*
*Agreement was determined according; to the standards on page 47 •
50
It was revealed that the respondents indicated no opinion on item 3
which was stated in the following manner:
I am aware of some distributive
education programs which were not successful.
The means, standard devia­
tions and agreement of the responses to this item are presented in Table
14.
Table 11, page 48, is a compilation of data which reveals that the
opinions expressed by the various groups were significantIy different at
the 5 percent level but not at the I percent level on this item, therefore,
no significant difference was shown between the opinions expressed in the
returns.
TABLE 14. AGREEMENT OF RESPONDENTS WITH THE EXISTENCE OF UNSUCCESSFUL
DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Group
Chairmen
Superintendents '
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
Total Respondents
Mean'
S. D.
'3.34
2.96
2.98
3.15
3.40
1.43
1.50
1.33
1.42
1.52
No
No
No
No
No
3.20
1.47
No opinion
Agree*
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
^Agreement was established according to the standards on page 47.
Item 4 was stated as follows:
There is opportunity for high school
graduates in the field of distribution.
The analysis revealed that the
respondents strongly agreed with this statement, as shown in Table 15,
page 51.
The single classification analysis of variance (Table 11, page
48) revealed a significant difference at the 5 percent level among the
opinions expressed by the various groups on this item.
For the purpose of
this study this was interpreted as meaning that no significant differences
51
existed between the opinions expressed.
TABLE 15. AGREEMENT OF RESPONDENTS WITH THE EXISTENCE OF OPPORTUNITY
FOR HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES IN THE FIELD OF DISTRIBUTION
Agree*
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
1.67
1.81
1.68
1.47
1.53
.98
.99
.96
.87
.79
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.62
.91
Yes
Total Respondents
^Agreement was established according to the standards on page 47..
Responses to item 5 indicated that the respondents as one group
and all individual groups involved in the study agreed with the follow­
ing opinion:
My school board is in favor of vocational education.
The
highest degree of agreement with this item was shown by the school board
chairmen whereas, the business education teachers indicated the lowest
degree of agreement (Table 16).
The single classification analysis of
variance indicated a difference among the opinions expressed by the various
segments on this item at the 5 percent level of confidence (Table 11, page
48).
TABLE 16. AGREEMENT OF RESPONDENTS WITH THE CONCEPT THAT THEIR SCHOOL
BOARD IS IN FAVOR OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
Group
Mean
S . D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
Total Respondents
*Agreement was established according
1,96
2.08
1.08
1. 11
1.05
Agree*
i
Yes
Yes
2.05
I ■ Yes
2. 0 9
Yes
1.18
2.37
1 . 16
Yes
2.15
1.13
Yes
to the standards on page 47.
52
The superintendents indicated disagreement with the following item,
all other segments of the sample population expressed no opinion on this
item:
Qualified teachers are available to teach distributive education
(Table 17).
The single classification analysis of variance revealed a
difference between the opinions expressed by the various groups which
was significant at the I percent level (Table 11, page 48).
The t tests
indicated that there were significant differences at the I percent level
between the opinions of the following groups:
The chairmen and the
guidance counselors, the chairmen and the business education teachers,
the superintendents and the guidance counselors and the superintendents
and the business education teachers.
TABLE 17. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT QUALIFIED
TEACHERS ARE AVAILABLE TO TEACH DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
Group
Mean
S. D.
Agree*
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business; Education Teachers
3.50
3.58
3.14
2.82
2.95
1.25
1.07
1.23
1.18
1.27
No opinion
No
No opinion
No opinion
No opinion
Total Respondents
3.18
No opinion
1.24
/
^Agreement was established according to the standards on page 47.
The responses indicated that the total group was in agreement with
the following statement:
The faculty of my school believes in the educa­
tional value of work experience (Table 18, page 53).
The single classi­
fication analysis of variance revealed no significant difference between
the opinions expressed by the groups On this item (Table 11, page 48).
53
TABLE 18. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT THEIR
FACULTY BELIEVES IN THE EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF WORK EXPERIENCE
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.28
2.50
2.28
2.17
2.38
.96
.89
.90
1.05
1.03
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.34
.98
Yes
Total Respondents
Agree*
*Agreement was determined, according to the standards listed on pagje 47.
Agreement was expressed by all segments of the sample population
with item 8 which was stated in the following manner:
The faculty of my
school believes that formal education on the high school level is neces­
sary for certain jobs in distribution.
The means and standard deviations
for the various groups are given in Table 19, page 54.
The single classi­
fication analysis of variance revealed a difference significant at the
I percent level between the opinions expressed by the various segments of
the sample (Table 11, page 48).
The t tests revealed a significant dif­
ference at the I percent level between the opinions of the chairmen and
the business education teachers and those of the guidance counselors and
the business education teachers.
i
54
TABLE 19. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT THEIR
FACULTY BELIEVES THAT FORMAL EDUCATION ON.THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL IS
NECESSARY FOR CERTAIN JOBS IN DISTRIBUTION
Group
Mean
S. D.
Agree*
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
1.73
2.03
1.76
1.77
2.12
.92
.92
.85
.90
1.05
Yes
Yes
Yes
■ Yes
Yes
1.93
.96
Yes
Total Respondents
*Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
Agreement was indicated by the returns of all of the groups with the
following item:
The faculty of my school believes that vocational educa­
tion is within the realm of the high school's responsibility (Table 20,
page 55).
The F ratio resulting from the single classification analysis
of variance- was 3.412 (Table 11, page 48) which was significant at the
I percent level of confidence, this indicated that the opinions expressed
'
,
-
by the various groups were significantly different.
The t tests revealed-
that the mean opinions of the chairmen and the principals and. the chairmen
and the guidance counselors were significantly different at the I percent
level on this item.
,, u
The chairmen expressed the opinion that the faculties of: their schools
were familiar with■the distributive education program, all other groups
responding to the study expressed no opinion on this particular item.
The data on this item are shown in Table 21, page 55.
The F ratio which
resulted from the single classification analysis of variance (Table 11,
;I
55
page 48) indicated that the opinions of the various groups were signifi
cantly different at the I percent level of confidence.
The t tests re­
vealed that the mean opinions of the chairmen were significantly dif­
ferent at the I percent level of confidence from the mean opinions
expressed by all other groups responding on this item.
TABLE 20. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT THEIR
FACULTY BELIEVES THAT VOCATIONAL EDUCATION IS WITHIN THE REALM OF THE
HIGH SCHOOL'S RESPONSIBILITY
Group
Mean
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.63
2.35
2.02
2.16
2.34
1.18
. 1.12
.96
1.14
1.13
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.32
1.13
Yes
Total Respondents
Agree*
S. D.
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
TABLE 21. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT THEIR
FACULTY IS FAMILIAR WITH THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
/
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.48
3.28
3.20
3.02
3.27
1.01
1.07
1.10
1.25
1.19
No
No
No
No
3.08
1.17
No opinion
Total Respondents
Agree*
Yes
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
*Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
56
School and Community Considerations in Establishing
a Distributive Education Program
Items 11 through 15 were included in the opinionnaire because it was
determined that these were the major factors concerning the school a'nd
the community which were taken into consideration when contemplating the
establishment of a distributive education program.
These were the state­
ments relative to the size of the school, the classroom space available
to accommodate the distributive education program, the comparative cost
of the equipment and materials necessary to conduct the program, the
existence of a sufficient number of local businesses to provide an ade­
quate work opportunity for the distributive education students and the
cooperation of these businesses with the school in the operation of the
program.
A single classification analysis of variance was also conducted upon
the responses to these items.
The data in Table 22 reveals the results
of this treatment.
TABLE 22. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY
OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY THE VARIOUS SEGMENTS OF THE POPULATION
Item
F Ratio
Significance Level
11
12
13
14
15
23.447
2.522
5.382
5.620
16.530
1%
5%
1%
1%
1%
-
The mean opinion expressed by the guidance counselors indicated that
57
they agreed with item 11 which was stated as follows:
Hy school is
large enough to support a distributive education program, as shown in
Table 23.
All other groups responding to the study expressed no opinion
on this item.
The single classification analysis of variance resulted in
an F ratio of 23.447 (Table 22, page 56) which was highly significant at
the I percent level of confidence, indicating there was a very signifi­
cant difference between the mean opinions expressed by the various groups.
The t tests revealed that the mean opinions of the following groups were
significantly different at the I percent level:
The chairmen and the
guidance counselors, the chairmen and the business education teachers,
the superintendents and the guidance counselors, the superintendents and
the business education teachers, the principals and the guidance counse­
lors and the guidance counselors and the principals and the guidance,
counselors and the business education teachers.
TABLE 23. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE CONCEPT THAT THEIR
SCHOOL IS LARGE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
Group
Mean
S. D.
Agree*
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.48
3.32
3.04
1.79
2.69
1.322
1.47
1.53
1.12
1.64
No opinion
No opinion
No opinion
Yes
No opinion
*Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
Analysis of the data revealed that the respondents did not indicate
an opinion on item 12 which was stated as follows:
Sufficient classroom
space is available to accommodate the addition of distributive education
58
to our curriculum (Table 24).
The single classification analysis of
variance revealed a difference between the opinions expressed by the
various groups responding to the study at the 5 percent level of confi­
dence, as shown in Table 22, page 56.
TABLE 24. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE ADEQUACY OF CLASSROOM
SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITION OF DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION TO THE
CURRICULUM
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.68
3.37
3.49
3.07
3.50
1.42
1.53
1.58
1.60
1.59
3.42
1.56
Total Respondents
Agree* '
No
No
No
No
'No
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion ■
No opinion
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
The guidance counselors did not agree with the statement:
The equip­
ment and materials required for distributive education are too costly
compared to regular academic studies, however the other groups expressed
an opinion on this item.
.59.
This is revealed by the data in Table 25, page
The single classification analysis of variance as reported in Table
22, page 56, revealed a difference between the expressed opinions of the
various groups which was significant at the I percent level of confidence.
The t tests revealed that there was a difference at the I percent level
between the mean opinions of the chairmen and the business education
teachers.
59
TABLE 25S AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE HIGH COMPARATIVE COST
OF THE EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
Agree*
Group
Moan
S. D,
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.05
3.39
3.47
3.75
3.54
1.00
1.15
1.05
1.16
1.20
No opinion
No opinion
No opinion
No
No opinion
3.46
1.15
No opinion
Total Respondents
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
The respondents indicated agreement with the following item, however,
the returns of the chairmen and superintendents revealed no opinion on
this item:
Businesses in my town will cooperate with the school in _a
distributive education program.
The data in Table 26, page 60, shows the
means, standard deviations and agreement of the various groups with this
item.
Table 22,page 56, reveals an F ratio of 5.620 between the mean
opinions on this item.
level of confidence.
This F ratio was significant at the I percent
The t tests revealed that the mean opinions of the
guidance counselors differed significantly at the I percent level from
those expressed by the chairmen, the superintendents and the principals.
Analysis of the returns revealed that the guidance counselors agreed
with the statement:
There is a sufficient number of businesses in the
community to provide an adequate work opportunity for the students in the
distributive education program.
The analysis also revealed that the re­
maining groups expressed no opinion on this item.
This is revealed by the
60
TABLE 26. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE WILLINGNESS OF LOCAL
BUSINESSES TO COOPERATE WITH THE SCHOOL IN A DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
PROGRAM
. .
Group
Mean
S. D.
Agree*
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.85
2.79
2.72
2.18
2.54
1.18
1.21
1.22
1.10
1.23
No opinion
No opinion
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.60
1.21
Total Respondents
Yes
*Agreement was*determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
data in Table 27, page 61.
The single classification analysis of variance
revealed that the mean opinions expressed by the various groups were sig­
nificantly different at the I percent level of confidence, as shown in
Table 22, page 56.
The t tests revealed that the differences between the
mean opinions expressed by the segments were significant at the I percent
level of confidence:
The chairmen and the -business education teachers,
the superintendents and the. business education teachers, the principals
and the guidance counselors, the guidance counselors and the business edui
cation teachers.
Factors Concerning Students to Consider
When Establishing the Distributive Education Program
Items 16 through 18 were included in the opinionnaire because it was
shown through the review of literature that these were felt to be major
factors in the success or failure of the' distributive education program.
These items were concerned With the primary reason students enroll in the
61
TABLE 27. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS VJITH THE ADEQUACY OF THE LOCAL
BUSINESSES TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT, WORK OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS
Group
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
Total Respondents
Mean
S. D.
3.95
■ 3.74
3.42
2.51
3.12
1.20
I.'41
1.45
1.48
1.63
No opinion
No opinion
No opinion
Yes
No opinion
3.31
1.54
No opinion
... Agree*
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
distributive education program, local student interest in the program and
parent support for distributive education.
Significant differences between the mean opinions of the various
groups on these items were established through the use of the single analy­
sis classification of variance.
The data in Table 28 reveals the results
of this analysis.
TABLE 28. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OPINIONS CONCERNING STUDENTS
OF THE. DISTRIBUTIVE, EDUCATION PROGRAM EXPRESSED BY THE VARIOUS GROUPS
Item
16
17
18
F Ratio
.283
9.43?
5.660
Significance Level
Not Significant
1%
1%
I,
Item 16 was stated in the following manner:
I
Distributive education
i
students get paid for their participation in the work experience part of
the program; therefore, monetary gain would be the primary reason our
62
students would enroll in the distributive education program.
All seg­
ments responding to the study with the exception of the chairmen and the
guidance counselors, expressed opinions which indicated disagreement
with this item.
The responses of the chairmen and of the guidance counse­
lors indicated no opinion on this item, as revealed by the data in Table
29.
The single classification analysis of variance as shown in Table
28, page 61, revealed no significant differences between the. opinions
expressed by the various segments of the sample population.
TABLE 29. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT MONETARY
GAIN IS THE PRIMARY REASON MONTANA STUDENTS WOULD ENROLL IN' DISTRIBUTIVE
EDUCATION .
Group
Mean
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.72
3.76
3.76
3.65
3.81
1.30
1.26
1.12
1.24
■ 1.25
3.75
1.24
■ Total Respondents.
Agree*
S. D.
■ No opinion
No
,
No
No opinion
' No
No
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
The guidance counselors and the business education teachers expressed
the opinion that their students had a sufficient interest to warrant the
establishment of a distributive education program in their curriculum, as
shown in Table 30, page 63.
on this item.
None of the other groups expressed an opinion
The data shown in Table 28, page 61, revealed that the
responses of the various groups differed significantly at the I percent
level of confidence on this item.
The t tests revealed that the opinions
-i.c :
:
!'t
63
expressed by the chairmen were significantly different from those ex­
pressed b y ■the guidance counselors and the business education teachers.
The opinion expressed by the guidance counselors also differed signifi­
cant Iy at the I percent 'level from those expressed by the superintendents,
the principals and the business education teachers.
TABLE 30. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE CONCEPT OF A SUFFICIENT
STUDENT INTEREST TO ESTABLISH A DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATIONPROGRAM IN THEIR
CURRICULUM
Group
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
Total Respondents
.
Mean
S. D.
Agree*
3.11
3.00
3.02
2.27
2.74
1.03
1.21
1.23
1.19
1.14
No opinion
No opinion
No opinion
Yes
Yes
2.81
1.19
No opinion
*Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
All groups responding to the study expressed agreement with' the state
ment:
The parents of our students will accept a distributive education
program.
The means, standard deviations and agreement of the respondents
with this opinion are shown in Table 31, page 64.
It was revealed by the
data shown in Table 28, page 61, that a difference among the opinions ex­
pressed on this item by the various groups was significant at the I per­
cent level.
The results of the t tests showed that the opinions expressed
by the guidance counselors were significantly different at the I percent
level from those expressed by the chairmen, the superintendents and the
business education teachers.
The opinions expressed by the business
64
education teachers were also significantly different from those of the
superintendents.
TABLE 31. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE CONCEPT OF PARENTAL
ACCEPTANCE OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.67
2.53
2.49
2.07
2.39
.99
.95
.93
1.01
1,03
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.42
1.01
Yes
Total Respondents
Agree*
*Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
Opinions Concerning the State and Federal Roles
In The Local Distributive Education Program
Items 19 through 27 were included in the opinionnaire because these
factors were the major consideration regarding the state and federal role
in the local distributive education revealed through the review of litera­
ture and the interviews with Montana educational leaders.
These items are
concerned with the state requirements for reimbursement of the distribu­
tive education program, the financial participation of the state and
federal governments and the effectiveness of the state leadership in the
Montana distributive education program.
Significant differences were determined between the opinion of the
various groups on these items, as shown in Table 32, page 65.
Z
65
TABLE 32. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AMONG THE OPINIONS OF THE VARIOUS
GROUPS ON THE OPINIONNAIRE ITEMS CONCERNED WITH.THE STATE. AND FEDERAL
ROLES IN THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM .
/
Item
F Ratio
Significance Level
19
20
21
22
%23
24
25
26
27
2.353
3.986
4.585
2.417
5.764
1.248
3.044 .
3.178
3.143
Not Significant
1%
1%
5%
1%
Not Significant
5%
5%
57o
Analysis of the returns revealed that the respondents expressed an
opinion on item 19 which was stated:
The state assumes too much control
in the 'work experience phase of the distributive education program.
The
results of the analysis of the returns on this item are shown in Table
33, page 66.
The single classification analysis of variance,' Table 32,
revealed, no significant.difference between the opinions expressed by the
various groups on this item.
Analysis of the returns of the guidance counselors revealed that this
segment of the sample population disagreed with the opinion:
The state
assumes too much control in the instructional phase of the distributive
education program.
The analysis revealed that the remaining segments of
the population expressed no opinion on this item.
gives the results of the analysis on this item.
Table 34, page 66,
The data shown in Table
32, revealed a significant difference ambng the opinions of the various
groups at the I percent level.
The t tests revealed that the opinions
66
of the chairmen differed significantIy at the I percent level from those
of the guidance counselors and the business education teachers.
TABLE 33. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE CONCEPT OF EXCESSIVE
STATE CONTROL IN THE WORK EXPERIENCE PHASE OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
PROGRAM
,
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.14
3.30
3.17
3.52
3.40
1.03
1.09
1.01
1.03
.96
No
No
No
No
No
3.33
1.02
No opinion
Total Respondents
Agree*
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
*Agreement was determined, according to the standards listed on page 47.
TABLE 34. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE CONCEPT OF EXCESSIVE
STATE CONTROL OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL PHASE OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
PROGRAM
Group
Mean
S. D.
Agree*
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.10
3.43
3.23
3.63
3.46
1.05
1.09
1.01
.94
.97
No opinion
No opinion
No opinion
No
No opinion
3.40
1.02
No opinion
Total Respondents
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
Analysis of the responses of the guidance counselors indicated dis­
agreement with item 21.
All other segments expressed no opinion on this
item as shown in Table 35, page 67.
Item 21 was stated in the following
.
manner:
The state requires too much teacher time in state and national
67
meetings. The single classification analysis of variance revealed a
significant difference among the opinions expressed by the various groups
at the I percent level, as shown in Table 32, page 65.
The t tests re­
vealed that there were significant differences at the I percent level
between the mean opinions expressed by the following groups:
The chair­
men and the guidance counselors, the chairmen and the business education
teachers and the superintendents and the guidance counselors.
TABLE 35. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE
REQUIREMENT OF EXCESSIVE TEACHER TIME IN STATE AND NATIONAL MEETINGS
Group
Mean
S. D.
Agree*
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.19
3.24
3.30
3.68
3.54
1.07
1.13
1.04
1.07
1.00
No opinion
No opinion
No opinion
No
No opinion
3.42
1.07
No opinion
Total Respondents
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
The superintendents and the guidance counselors expressed no opinion
on the following item:
There are too many stipulated forms required by
the state to obtain reimbursement for the distributive education program.
All other groups agreed with the item., The data in Table'36, page 68, re­
veals the results of the analysis on this item.
The single classifica­
tion analysis of variance (Table 32, page 65) revealed that the opinions
of the various segments of the sample population differed at the 5' percent
level but not at the I percent level on this item.
6 8
TABLE 36. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE CONCEPT OF EXCESSIVE
STATE FORMS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE DISTRIBUTIVE
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Group
Mean
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.79
2.90
2.89
3.20
2.93
" 1.00
1.10
1.07
1.04
.97
2.94
1.03
Total Respondents
Agree*
S. D.
Yes
No opinion
Yes
No opinion
Yes
Yes
*Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47,
The guidance counselors and the business education teachers ex­
pressed no opinion on the item:
There is insufficient state financial
reimbursement to warrant the establishment of the program.
All other
groups responding to the study agreed with the item, as shown in Table
37, page 69.
It was revealed by the analysis that there was no signifi­
cant difference between the opinions expressed by the various groups on
this particular item. Table 32, page 65.
The responses of all groups revealed no opinion on item 24 as shown
in Table 38, page 69.
Item 24 was stated in the following manner:
ThereTis a need for greater federal financial participation!in the local
distributive education program.
There were no significant differences
between the opinions expressed on this item by the various groups res­
ponding to the study as shown by the data in Table 32, page ,65.
■.p
69
TABLE 37. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT THERE IS
INSUFFICIENT STATE FINANCIAL REIMBURSEMENT TO WARRANT THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE PROGRAM
Group
Mean
S . D.
Agree*
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.72
2.86
2.73
3.27
3.11
1.20
1.01
1.07
.95
1.03
Yes
Yes
Yes
No opinion
No opinion
2.98
1.06
No opinion
Total Respondents
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
TABLE 38. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A
NEED FOR GREATER FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTIVE
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.27
2.99
2.95
2.97
3.10
1.37
1.16
1.25
1.26
1.25
No
No
No
No
No
3.06
1.26
No opinion
Total Respondents
Agree*
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
^Agreement was determined according to the standards on page; 47.
The responses of all groups indicated agreement with the following
I ,
item:
There is a need for greater state financial participation in the
local distributive education program.
The data in Table 39, page 70, re­
veals the agreement of each group with this item.
The single classifica­
tion analysis of variance revealed a difference among the opinions ex­
pressed by the various groups responding to this study which was signifi­
cant at the 5 percent level of confidence, Table 32, page 65.
70
TABLE 39. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT THERE IS A
NEED FOR GREATER STATE FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTIVE
EDUCATION PROGRAM
Group
Me an
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals •
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
2.46
2.33
2.30
2.72
2.61
1.20
.97
1.08
1.09
1.07
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2.51
1.08
Yes
Total Respondents
Agree*
*Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
Item 26 was expressed in the following manner:
Our school has been
encouraged by the State Department of Public Instruction to implament a
.program of distributive education.
Analysis of the responses of all
groups responding to the study revealed no opinion on this item, as shown
in Table 40, page 71.
It is revealed by Table 32, page 65, that the
single classification analysis of variance showed a difference among the
mean opinions expressed by the various groups at the 5 percent level of
confidence.
.
I
The data in Table 41, "page 71, reveals the means, standard deviations
>and agreement of the opinions expressed by the various groups with the
statement:
There is sufficient state leadership in distributive education.
This data shows that the chairmen and the superintendents expressed no
opinion on this item, whereas, the principals, guidance counselors and
business education teachers agreed with the item. The single classificar
tion analysis of variance, as shown in Table 32, page 65, revealed that
71
there was a difference between the opinions expressed by the various
groups which was significant at the 5 percent level of confidence.
YABLB 40. .AGBBBMBNf OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH TEE IDEA THAT THEIR SCHOOL
HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TO
IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM OF DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
Agree*
Group
Mean
S. D.
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education feathers
3.49
3.23
3.00
2.88
3.22
1.28
1.52
1.33
1.24
1.34
No
No
No
No
No
3.18
1.36
No opinion
Total Respondents
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
opinion
^Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
TABLE 41. AGREEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH THE OPINION THAT THERE IS
SUFFICIENT STATE LEADERSHIP IN DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION
Group
Mean
S. D.
Agree*
Chairmen
Superintendents
Principals
Guidance Counselors
Business Education Teachers
3.25
2.88
2.79
2.76
2.86
1.08
1.14
1.15
1.04
1.11
No opinion
No opinion
Yes
Yes
’ Yes
2.90
1.11
Total Respondents
Yes
*Agreement was determined according to the standards listed on page 47.
Relationships Existing Between the Items
Listed in the Opinionnaire
In order to determine the relationship which existed between the
various variables which were listed in the opinionnaire a factor analysis
was performed on the responses to the study.
The factor matrix is the
72
final result of the factor analysis.
This matrix is a. table of coeffi­
cients which expresses the relationships between the opinions expressed
in the opinionnaire and the underlying factors (18:653).
Table 42,
page 73, is the factor matrix which resulted from this study.
The co­
efficients revealed by the factor matrix are called factor loadings and
are interpreted in the same manner as correlation coefficients (18:653).
Items 25, 26 and 27, relative to the state leadership in Montana, were
omitted from the factor analysis because the computer which was used for
the analysis did not have sufficient storage to handle all of the data.
Six factors were extracted by the factor analysis.
Those items of
the opinionnaire which were concerned with school size, community size,"
willingness of the local businesses to cooperate with the school in the
operation of the program and those dealing with student and" parent
interest in the program all loaded high on factor one.
The highest fac­
tor loading revealed by-the factor matrix for factor one was .80025.
This loading revealed the correlation between the item concerning parent
interest in the distributive education program and factor one.
The low­
est factor loading revealed for those items selected for factor one was
.52209.) This item referred to the availability-.of- qualified teachers for
the distributive education program.
Factor one was labeled Administrative
Considerations by the writer.
Factor two revealed high factor loadings on items 20, 26, 27, 28, 29
and 30.
The lowest loading on this particular factor was the factor
loading on item 20 which was .33185, the remaining items loaded between
.46236 and .85339.
Item 20 referred to the cost of the equipment and
73
TABLE 42.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OPINIONNAIRE ITEMS
FACTOR LOADINGS*
I
w
g
#
I
S
g
H
I**
2 .
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
.25409
.45641
.64512
.66563
.29346
.20743
.18983
.09989
.08383
.00086
.16676
.19739
.52209
.19892
.01351
.20661
.35789
.80025
.54460
.20350
.63499
.79591
.00137
.62319
.54946
.10193
.13850
.00691
.02502
.20349
2
.09760
.09953
.04319
.12286
.11503
.09551
.15483
.10668
.'08969
.09145
.15079
.05007
.18057
.00444
.01221
.07966
.00202
.07274
.16813
..33185
.01135
.07667
.18233
.05669
.09323
.85339
.84354
.69814
.69598
.46236
3
4
5
■6
.14488
.08546
.14191
.03606
.07433
.07785
.16019
.36956
.54942
.08715
.52791
.61744
.03026
.60301
.64866
.65596
.08767
.06694
.10459
.05092
.27555
.05273
.33467
.25473
.37983
.11768
.14473
.14761
.01344
.13736
.70785
.08051
.03951
.21718
.00325
.06837
.22387
.53668
.29252
.12490
.14017
.18833
.00677
.08785
.14938
.00491
.54483
.11771
.15873
.24296
.02259
.13165
.15411
.13776
.09632
.02154
.02291
.14287
.00767
.08625
.05443
.66877
.06316
.32538
.75206
.79299
.12409
.21537
.11342
.07402
.01015
.16947
.06840
.12846
.17581
.01969
.22945
116961
.14582
.29248
.14278 '
.21273
.19792
.25732
.20179
.00434
.03559
.03673
.08196
.11271
.06384
.00668
.09647
.26323
.29074
.04707
.33312
.15768
.15580
.76055
.24691
.02593
.26096
.34950
.03699
.01256
.15435
.20637
.08182
.00288
.03265
.15564
.10770
.08425
.13260
.06675
.02481
.12569
.06802
.12206
^Positive and negative signs have been omitted.
Interpret as correlations
**Items are numbered consecutively from 1-30 on pages I, 2 and 3 of the
opinionnaire.
74
materials necessary to operate a distributive education program^ items 26
through 30 referred to the state and federal roles in the local distribu­
tive education program.
Factor two was labeled Government InvoIvment.
Those items concerning the need for vocational education in the local
high school, the opportunity in distribution for high school graduates,
the school board’s opinion of vocational education, the faculty belief
in the cooperative method of instruction and the faculty's opinion of
vocational education all loaded high on factor three.
The item refer­
ring to the reason distributive education students enrolled in the pro­
gram had the lowest loading on this factor, .33467.
loaded between .52791 and .65596.
The remaining items
Factor three was labeled Need For
Distributive Education.
Factor four contained high loadings on those items relating to the
;
respondent’s position,his-opinion of work experience as a teaching method
and his faculty’s knowledge of the distributive education program.
This
factor was labeled Work Experience.
Those items .which asked the respondent whether or not there was cur­
rently a distributive education program in his high school, whether or not
he had ever held a position in a high school which had a distributive edu­
cation program in the curriculum and his opinion as to the success or
failure of that program all loaded high on factor five.
ranged from .66877 to .79299.
These loadings
This factor was labeled Distributive Educa­
tion Exposure.
Those items which asked the respondent's concept of distributive edu­
cation and whether or not he was familiar with distributive education
.. i
.1;
>’
i ,
75
"programs which were not successful loaded high on factor six.
The item
which asked the respondent’s concept of distributive education had a
loading of. .33312 and that which asked if he was aware of programs which
were not successful had a loading of .76055.
Factor six was labeled
Distributive Education Concept.
A Formula For Predicting A School1s Interest
In Establishing A Distributive Education Program
An analysis was performed to develop a formula which would predict
whether or not a school's personnel expressed the opinions which would
indicate that they would consider the establishment of a distributive
education program.
analysis.
The analysis performed was a multiple regression
Those items contained in the factor labeled Administrative
Cons!derations were used in the analysis.
The multiple regression is a statistical device by which a number of
predictors are combined to yield a single score which has the highest
possible correlation with a criterion (12:165).
The responses to item 3, page one of the opinionnaire,.were used as
the dependent variable for the multiple regression analysis.■ Item 3 was
stated in the following manner:
3.
7
;• ■
Are you considering the establishment of such a program? '
'_____Yes
_____No
,.I
The following items were utilized as the independent, or predictor,
variables:
;
I
76
•'.4.
What is the enrollment of your high school?
_____50 - 150
_____151 - 300
_____301 - 500
_____501 - 1,000
Over 1,000
6.
Qualified teachers are available to teach distributive education.
11.
My school is large enough to support a distributive education program.
12.
Sufficient classroom space is available to accommodate the addition
of distributive education to our curriculum.
14.
Businesses in my town will cooperate with the school in a distri­
butive education program.
15. ' There is a sufficient number of businesses in the community to pro­
vide an adequate work opportunity for the students in the distri­
butive education program.
17.
Our students have a sufficient interest to warrant the establishment
of a distributive education program in our curriculum.
18.
The parents of our students will accept a distributive education
program.
The regression equation which resulted from this analysis was as
follows:
T 3 = -0.00487(X4)
+
0.04506 (X1^.) +
0.00910(X6)
+ 0.06070(X11)
+
0.01037(X12) +
0.00789 (X16) + 0.03742(X17)
+
0.00338 (X13)
Where:
Z3
=
the predicted score on item 3
X4- =
the derived score on item 4
X1-
the derived score on item 6
=
the derived score on item Il
77
X 12
X 14
X 15
X 17
the derived score on item 12
the derived score on item 14
.the derived score on item 15
the derived score on item 17
{
CO
I—
X
the derived score on item 18
The resulting F ratio of 27.68735 indicates that we can use the
above regression formula at the I percent level of confidence to pre­
dict whether or not a school is interested in establishing a distributive
education program.
Summary of Statistical Treatment
The data obtained in this study were analyzed by a series of statis­
tical procedures.
The returns on items one through six were simply tabu­
lated and percentages were established for each respondent answering in a
certain manner.
A Chi square analysis was performed on the responses to
item seven in order to determine the significant differences between the
concepts of distributive education expressed by the various segments of
the sample.
Means and standard deviations were then computed on the
responses to items one through twenty-seven on pages two and three of the
opinionnaire.
The purpose of this treatment was to determine the degree
of agreement the respondents expressed with the particular opinions stated
in the opinionnaire.
A single classification analysis of variance was
then conducted to determine if significant differences existed between
the expressed opinions of the various segments of the sample pn items one
through twenty-seven, pages two and three of the opinionnaire.
A factor
78
analysis was then performed on the data derived from the returns.
The
purpose of this treatment was to determine the correlation which existed
between the items listed in the opinionnaire.
analysis was conducted on the data.
A multiple regression
The purpose of this treatment was
to develop a formula which could be utilized in predicting a school's
interest in establishing a distributive education program.
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The review of literature revealed that in the opinion of many pro­
fessional educators it is the responsibility of the public secondary
school to provide its students with saleable skills with which they can
obtain employment upon graduation.
It was noted that in Montana where
an excess of 30 percent of the labor force is employed in the distribu­
tive occupations only a very small percentage of Montana's secondary
school youth are being prepared for employment in this major segment of
our economy.
This study was undertaken to determine the opinions of the
distributive education program held by Montana's public secondary school
administrators and business education personnel.
designed to determine these opinions.
An opinionnaire was
This instrument was mailed to
every school board chairman, school superintendent, principal, guidance
counselor and business education teacher in Montana public high schools
which had enrollments of 50 or greater in grades 9 through 12 during the
1966-67 school year.
A return of 89.5 percent was obtained on this study.
Summary of Findings
The following are the major findings of this study:
, I.
Approximately 50 percent of the superintendents, principals, guid­
ance counselors and business education teachers adhere to the accepted con­
cept of distributive education used by the Department of Public Instruction.
2.
Only 23.5 percent of the school board chairmen in Montana high
schools have the concept of distributive education as defined in the
Montana State Plan for Vocational Education.
3.
Mbntana secondary school administrators and business education
80
teachers express the opinion that qualified teachers are available to
teach distributive education.,
4.
The respondents to the study express general agreement with the
concept that Montana businesses will cooperate with the schools in the
operation of the distributive education program.
5.
There is general agreement among the secondary school adminis­
trators and business educators of Montana that the parents of Montana
youth will accept the distributive education program.
6.
There is strong agreement among Montana school administrators
•
I
and business education teachers that there is a need for additional voca­
tional programs in Montana schools.
7.
'
Montana secondary school administrators and business education
teachers express strong agreement with the opinion that the cooperative
method is a valid method of instruction.
8.
It was expressed by the respondents of the study that there is
a need for education for distribution in Montana secondary schools.
9.
Montana secondary school administrators and business education
teachers disagreed strongly with the concept that monetary gain was the
primary reason Montana students would enroll in the distributive educa­
tion program.
10.
The respondents to the study expressed the belief that there was
a need for greater state financial participation in the local distributive
education program.
11.
Montana school administrators and business education teachers be­
lieve that there is sufficient state leadership in distributive education.
SI
12.
The respondents to the study expressed the opinion that there,
are too many stipulated forms required to obtain reimbursement for the
distributive education program.
13.
The respondents expressed no opinion on the technical aspects *
concerning the operation of the distributive education program.
14.
The opinions of Montana secondary school administrators and
business education teachers may be categorized in six factors.
study these were labeled:
In this
"Administrative Considerations"Government
Involvement," "Need for Distributive Education," "Work Experience,"
"Distributive Education Exposure," and "Distributive Education Concept".
15.
A regression equation was developed as a result of the multiple
regression analysis which will make possible the prediction of a school's
interest in the establishment of a distributive education program.
This
equation is based on school enrollment, teacher availability, business and
student interest in the program.
Conclusions
From the summary of findings the following conclusions may be drawn:
I.
Montana secondary school administrators and business education
teachers do not feel that the lack of cooperation from local businesses is
a,detriment to the development of the distributive education program.
This
should not be a limiting factor in implementing a distributive education
program.
,2.
Montana school personnel feel that there is a need for distribu­
tive education in Montana schools.
3.
The cooperative method appears to be an accepted method of pro­
viding Montana students with job competencies, therefore, this should not
82
be a limiting factor in the development of the distributive education
program.
4.
Factors other than the opinions measured by this study are the"
major limiting factors in the establishment of the distributive education
program in Montana schools.
5.
Montana school board chairmen have no clear concept of the dis­
tributive education program.
Approximately half of Montana's superinten­
dents, high school principals, high school guidance counselors and business
education teachers do not hold the concept of distributive education which
is used by the State Department of Public Instruction.
This indicates a
need for a public information program for distribution education.
6.
From the results of this study it appears that lack of knowledge
of the distributive education program is the major factor limiting the
growth of that program in Montana.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made as a result of the findings of
this study:
1.
The State Department of Public Instruction, the Commerce Depart­
ment and the School of Education of Montana State University should carry
out an intensive information program designed to inform Montana educa­
tional personnel about distributive education.
2.
L
A study should be conducted to determine the minimum size school
which can adequately support the distributive education program.
83
3.
The State Department of Public Instruction should attempt to
reduce the number of forms required for the reimbursement of the distri­
butive education program.
4.
An attempt should be made by the state of Montana to increase
the reimbursement of the cost of the distributive education program to
the local school district.
5.
Montana educational administrators should be encouraged to in­
form their boards and faculties of the distributive education program.
6.
The State Department of Public Instruction should utilize the
regression formula developed as a part of this study to construct a
priority list of schools for the purpose of promoting the distributive
education program.
7.
When the State Department of Public Instruction is attempting
to encourage a school to establish a distributive education program the
■
state should try to discover the opinions of the school personnel con­
cerning those items contained in the Administrative Considerations factor.
8.
Other studies following the procedures utilized in this study
should be conducted in other states to determine if these opinions are
unique to Montana or are universal throughout the region or nation.
9.
Montana school superintendents should be informed of the teacher-
education program in distributive education which is in operation at
Montana State University.
10.
Further studies should be conducted to determine any other factors
which promote or discourage the establishment of distributive education in
Montana schools.
APPENDIX
85
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana 597-15
Tel. 406-587-3121
As a part of their research program, the Department of Commerce and the
Department of Education are conducting a study to determine the opinions
of school personnel in the State of Montana concerning distributive edu­
cation.
This educational program h,as gained 563 per cent in enrollment throughout
the nation during the years 1939 to 1963, while Montana has experienced a
decrease of 11.2 per cent during the same period. The purpose of this
phase of the study is to attempt to discover if a small group of factors
exist which accounts for this difference.
You have been selected as a participant for this study and we would great­
ly appreciate your assistance. Please complete the enclosed questionnaire
and return it as soon as possible in the enclosed envelope. No school or
individual responses will be identified in the study, your responses will
be kept strictly confidential.
The results of this study will later be published in dissertation form.
Sincerely,
/s/
Harvey A. Larson
Harvey A. Larson, Head
Department of Commerce
/s/ Earl N. Ringo
/s/ G. Dean Palmer
Earl N. Ringo, Head
School of Education
G. Dean Palmer,'Asst.
Prof., Commerce Dept.
86
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Tel. 406-587-3121
On February 7, we mailed to you an opinionnaire which is the basis of a
research study concerning opinions of Montana Education Personnel about
the distributive education program in the Montana schools. This study
is co-sponsored by the Commerce Department and the Education Division at
Montana State University.
The statistical significance of this study will be greatly' enhanced pro­
vided a substantial percentage of the opinionnaires are returned. Your
contribution will become an integral part of this study. If you have
mislaid the original opinionnaire, an additional copy is enclosed for
your convenience. Please complete the opinionnaire with your opinions
concerning this educational program and return it to us at your earliest
convenience.
Sincerely,
/s/ G. Dean Palmer
G. Dean Palmer, Assistant Professor
Commerce
ENC
GDP:ati
/
87
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
59715
Tel. 406-587-3121
On February 7 and again on February 21 we sent you an opinionnaire
designed to determine your opinions of distributive education. The
opinionnaires constitute the basis of a study to determine the opin­
ions of Montana educational personnel concerning the distributive
education program.
The distributive businesses in Montana employ approximately 46% of the
non-agricultural labor force, yet last year the public schools of
Montana prepared less than 5% of their graduating seniors for this
important segment of our economy. It is my feeling that the opinions
of the Montana school board chairmen greatly affect the implementation
of this educational program in our public schools; therefore, your
opinions are of vital importance to this study. Won't you please
return this opinionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope as soon as
possible. It is imperative that we have a significant return from
Montana school board chairmen in order that this study might be valid.
Thank you for your help in this' important study.
Sincerely,
/s/
G. Dean Palmer
G. Dean Palmer
Assistant Professor.
Commerce Department
GDP/sIk
end.
88
OPINIONS OF MONTANA EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL
CONCERNING THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM
What is your present position? .
_____School Board Chairman'
. Superintendent of Schools
_____High School Principal
_____High School Guidance Counselor
_____High School Business Education Teacher
Is there currently a distributive education program in your high school
curriculum?
_____Yes
No
Are you considering the establishment of such a program?
_____Yes
No
What is the enrollment of your high school?
_____50
_____151
_____301
_____501
Over
-
150
300
500
- 1000
1000
Have you ever held a position in a school which had a distributive
education program in the curriculum?
_____Yes
No
If yes to number 5, in your opinion, was the program successful?
_____Yes
No
Please mark the one phrase which most nearly matches your concept of
distributive education.
_____Distributive education is an educational program, utilizing the
work experience method, which ,is designed to prepare people for
the world of work.
89
Distributive education is an educational program, utilizing the
work experience method, which is designed to prepare people for
jobs in offices and stores.
Distributive education is an educational program which utilizes
work experience in order to give students experience in various
occupations to aid them in making a zcareer selection.
Distributive education is an educational program, utilizing the
work experience method, which is designed to prepare people for
jobs in the retail, wholesale and service industries.
When completing the following items, please indicate; your agreement or
disagreement with the statement by circling the appropriate number in the
box following the statement. Assume that the number I indicates complete
agreement with the statement and that the number 5 indicates complete dis­
agreement. Make a selection on each statement.
Agree
-.I.
/.2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Disagree
I am in favor of releasing students from school
for educational work experience.
1 2 3 4 5
There is a need for additional vocational
programs in our high school.
1 2 3 4 5
I am aware of some distributive education
programs which were not successful.
1 2 3 4 5
There is opportunity for high school graduates
in the field of distribution.
I 2 3 . 4
My school board is in favor of vocational
education.
1 2 3 4 5
Qualified teachers are available to teach
distributive education.
1 2 3 4 5
The Faculty of my school believes in the
educational value of work experience.
1 2 3 4
5
1 2 3 4
5
The faculty of my school believes that
formal education on the high school level
is necessary for certain jobs in distribution.
■
The faculty of my school believes that vocational
education is within the realm of the high
school's responsibility.
5
1 2 3 4 5
90
10.
The faculty is familiar with the distributive
dducation program.
11.
My school is large enough to support a distributive ___________
education program.
1 2 3 4 5
12.
Sufficient classroom space is available to
accommodate the addition of distribution education
to our curriculum.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
The equipment and materials required for distri­
butive education are too costly compared to
regular academic studies.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
14.
Businesses in my town will cooperate with the
school in a distributive education program.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
15.
There is a sufficient number of businesses in
the community to provide an adequate work
opportunity for the students in the distributive education program.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
Distributive education students get paid for
their participation in the work experience part
of the program; therefore, monetary gain would
be the primary reason our students would enroll in
the distributive education program.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
Our students have a sufficient interest to
warrant the establishment of a distributive
education program in our curriculum.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
18.
The parents of our students will accept a distributive education program.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
19.
The state assumes too much control in the work
experience phase of the distributive education
program.
-
___________
1 2 3 4 5
The state assumes too much control in the
instructional phase of the distributive
education program.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
The state requires too much teacher time in
state and national meetings.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
13.
16.
17.
20.
21.
___________
1 2 3 4 5
91
22.
23.
24.
There are too many stipulated forms required
by the state to obtain reimbursement .for the
distributive education program.
.,
1 2 3 4 5
There is insufficient state financial reim­
bursement to warrant the establishment of the
program.
1 2 3 4 5
There is a need for greater federal financial
participation in the local distributive
education program.
1 2 3 4 5
25.
There is a need for greater state financial
participation in the local distributive
' education program. •
26.
27.
1 2 3 4 5
Our school has been encouraged by the State
Department of Public Instruction to implement
a program of distributive education.
1 2 3 4 5
There is sufficient state leadership in
distributive education.
1 2 3 4 5
If Distributive Education is not a part of your curriculum, in the space
below, please list any other reasons you feel might account for the lack
of the implementation of the program in your high school.
In the space below, please list any reasons why you feel that distributive
education should be in your high school curriculum.
SELECTED REFERENCES
1.
Arthur, C. M. "The Vocational Summary," School Life, 23:78-79,
November, 1937.
2.
Baker, VJ. Maurice, "Success Factors in Distributive Education,"
Business Education World, 21:821-822, May, 1941.
3.
Bohrson, Ralph G., "Its Too Peaceful in the Country," The Bulletin
of the NASSP, 49:60-64, May, 1965.
4.
Beaumont, John A . , "Goals of Distributive Education," The High School
Journal, 42:186-188, March, 1959.
5.
Borko, Harold, Computer Applications In The Behavioral Sciences,
Englewood Cliffs; Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962, pp. 204-265.
6.
Briggs, Thomas H., "New Recommendations for Vocational Education,"
Occupations, 15:203-106, December, 1936.
7.
Brockman, L. 0., "Inauguration and Development of Cooperative Work
Experience Education in Secondary Schools," The Bulletin of the
NASSP, 30:39-60, January, 1946.
8.
Brown, T. Carl, "Distributive Education in the Comprehensive High
School," The High School Journal, 42:201-206, March, 1959.
9.
Burlingame,, Billings, "Improving D. E. Instruction Through State
Supervision," Business Education World, 36:19-21, October,
1955 .-
10.
Conant, James B., The American High School Today, New York:
Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959, pp. ,147-168.
McGraw-
11.
Downie, N. M., and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods, New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1959, pp. 40-67, 94-141, 146-168.
12.
DuBois, Philip H . , An Introduction to Psychological Statistics,
New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965, pp. 164-189,
452-470.
13.
Dugger, Roy, "The Vocational Education Act of 1963," The Bulletin
of the NASSP, 49:15-23, May, 1965.
14.
Ferguson, George A . , Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Educa­
tion, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1966,
pp. 294-299.
15.
Guilford, J. P . , Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education,
4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1965, pp. 392428.
93
16.
Haas, Kenneth B ., "Without a D. E . Coordinator, Your Program Isn't
Vocational," Business Education World, 30:454-455, May, 1950.
17.
Kjos, 0., E., "The Labor Force and the High School Curriculum,"'
Montana Education, 38: 14, September, 1961.
18.
Kerlinger, Fred K., Foundations of Behavioral Research, Hew York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965, pp. 650-685.
19.
Krawitz, Myron J., "A D E . Case Study--Getting Support," Business
Education World, 34:32, February, 1954.
20.
Mason, Ralph E., and Peter G . Haines, Cooperative Occupational Edu­
cation and Work Experience in the Curriculum, Danville: The
^ Interstate'Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1965, pp. 335-388.
21.
Marks, Mary V., and John A. Beaumont, Guideline's for Teacher Educa­
tion Programs in Distributive Education'Report of a National ,
• Conference, Washington: United States Government Printing
Office,. 1962, p. v.
22.
McNemar, Quinn, Psychological Statistics, 3rd ed., New York:
Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1^.62, p p . 13-28.
23.
Meyer, Warren G., "Desired Outcomes in the Development of Vocational
Competence," Business Education Yearbook, pp. 76-94, 1963.
24.
John
r
Miller, Thomas E., "Fundamental Problems in Distributive Education,"
Business Education World, 34:19-20, June, 1954.
25.
Nerden, Joseph T., "Vocational Education for a Dynamic Economy,"
The Bulletin of the NASSP, 49:8-14, May, 1965.
26.
Nystrom, Paul H., "A Long Range Plan Needed.for Vocational Training
for Retailing and Other Distributive Trades," School Life,
25:45-46, November, 1939.
27.
Ohio State University, "The Emerging Role of State Education
Departments," Centergram, 2:2, April, 1967.
28.
Richert, G. Henry, "Distributive Education is Business Education,"
Business Education World, 20:23-25, September, 1939.
29.
_______, "The Nation-Wide Progress of Distributive Education,"
Business Education World, 31:15-17, September, 195 0:.
30.
Shotwell, H. D., "Why Distributive-Education Grows," Business Education
World, 31:70-71, October, 1950.
ir
A
I
'r
I
94
31.
.
32.
State Department of Public Instruction, Annual Descriptive Report of
■ the State Board for Vocational Education, Helena, Montana, To
U . S. Office of Education, Washington, D- C., Helena: State of
Montana, 1966, pp. 1-17.
Swack, Harvey R . , "Why High School Students Take Distributive
Education," Business Education World, 23:326-327, March, 1952.
33.
"The George-Deen Act," Business Education World, 17:83, October, 1936.
34.
Thomas, Harold W.., "Creating Interest in a Retailing Program,"
Business Education World, 22:138-141, October, 1941.
35.
Tompkins, Ellsworth, "Foreword," The Bulletin of the NASSP, 49:1,
May, 1965.
36.
United States Department of Commerce, 1960 Census of Population,
Part 28, Montana, Washington: United States Government Print-'
ing Office, 1962.
37.
United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Education
For a Changing World of Work Report of the Panel of Consultants
on Vocational Education, Washington: United States Government
Printing Office, 1963, pp. 1-216.
38.
Warmke, Roman F., Distributive Education Issues, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1960.
39.
Wilhelms, Fred T., "Vocational Education--What Are the Big Questions?"
The Bulletin of the NASSP, 49:3-7, May, 1965.
40.
Willis, Benjamin C., "Awareness and Action For Progress in Distri­
butive 'Education," Theory Into Practice, 3:183-188, December,
1964.
Workman, C . F., "Distributive Education,"- Education, 72:131-135,
October, 1951.
41.
42.
Van Wagenen, R. C., "Vocational Business Education in California,"
National Business Education Quarterly, 34:10-19, December, 1965.
\
MONTANA STATc --------
3 1762 10011137 4
D378
P182
cop.2
DATE
Palmer, G .D .
O p i n i o n s of
Montana secondary
school a d m i n i s t r a ­
tion . . .
ISSUED TO
37f
F 7 ?£.
Q.O