STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY In presenting this paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at Montana State Univer¬ sity, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this paper for scholarly purposes may be granted by my major professor, or, in his absence, by the Director of Libraries. It is understood that any copying or publication of this paper for financial gain shall not be allowed with¬ out my written permission. . 7 Signature ^ Sj* Date AN EVALUATION OF THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM AT CAPITAL HIGH SCHOOL IN HELENA, MONTANA THROUGH A GRADUATE FOLLOW-UP SURVEY by Barbara Eloise Robertson A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Business Education Approved: Graduate Dean MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana August, 1978 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author gratefully acknowledges the aid and super¬ vision of the staff at Montana State University, especially Dr. Norm Millikin, Dr. Dan Hertz and Dr. Harvey Larson. Acknowledgement must also go to the writer's husband, Duane, and daughters, Jennifer and Darci, for the many days they have held the home together in her absence to obtain this degree. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Need for the Study 4 Limitations 5 Definition of Terms 6 Summary 8 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10 Purpose and Necessity of Follow-Up Studies 10 Area and State-Wide Follow-Up Studies in Cooperative and Distributive Education 15 Individual School Follow-Up Studies of Distributive Education Graduates 27 Summary 32 III. PROCEDURES 34 Sources of Data 34 Construction of the Survey Instrument 35 Administration of the Survey Instrument 36 Analysis of Data 37 IV. FINDINGS 39 Part 1 - Status Information 39 Part 2 - Work Experience. 50 Part 3 - Educational Experience 62 Part 4 - Adequacy and Appropriateness of the Distributive Education Program 71 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 82 Summary 82 Conclusions 84 Recommendations 90 iv CHAPTER PAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY * 93 APPENDIX A Questionnaire 98 APPENDIX B Cover Letter - First Mailing 195 APPENDIX C Cover Letter - Second Mailing 196 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Present Location of Graduates 42 2. Marital Status of Graduates 43 3. Length of Distributive Education Enrollment * 46 4. Length of Distributive Education On-the-Job Work Experience 47 5. Current Status of Graduates 49 6. First Employment of Graduates 51 7. First Employment After Graduation in Same Business as On-the-Job Work Experience in the Distributive Education Program 52 8. Type of First Employment Status of Graduates .... 55 9. Length of First Employment of Graduates 57 10. Major Reason for Leaving First Employment 59 11. Reasons for Not Seeking Employment Since Graduation 61 12. More Than One Job Held Since Graduation 63 13. Relationship of D.E. On-the-Job Work Experience to First Employment After Graduation 64 14. Additional Education Since Graduation - Type of Institution 66 15. Additional Education Since Graduation - Length of Enrollment 67 16. Additional Education Since Graduation - Major Area of Study 68 vi TABLE PAGE 17. Relationship of Distributive Education Program to Educational Experience 70 18. Rating of Graduates' Education Received as Part of the Distributive Education Program 72 19. Effectiveness of the Distributive Education Program in Improving Personal Development 74 20. Rating of Graduates' On-the-Job Cooperative Work Experience 76 21. Distributive Education Program to Help Graduates 78 22. Recommendation of the Distributive Education Program to Other High School Students 79 vn CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION All organizations need to make periodic studies to determine the effectiveness and pro¬ gress of their activities. This is true for all types of organizations whether they are business organizations, governmental agencies, or educa¬ tional institutions. These studies should help organizations to determine their strengths and weaknesses which should in turn help them to plan for the future. (Cooley, 1975:1) Assuming that distributive education programs at the high school level are designed and developed to help students prepare for future activities after high school, it is impor¬ tant that teacher-coordinators identify a relationship between the high school program and the student's post-high school activities. One way to define this relationship is to identify the post-high school activities of former students. Two of the most important post-high school activities are further education, employment, or both. These two activities are essential in planning and evaluating the distributive educa¬ tion program. One of the best techniques for evaluating the effective¬ ness of instruction is the follow-up study of high school graduates who participated in the distributive education program. The feedback is extremely beneficial in determining the extent to which the local program is meeting the needs of students. Lucy Crawford and Warren Meyer say that: One of the best techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of instruction is the follow-up sur¬ vey of high school graduates who participated in the distributive education program. An annual follow-up of graduates is mandatory for all fed¬ erally reimbursed vocational programs, but unless the teacher-coordinator conducts the survey for the purpose of improving the local program, the project will have little value. (Crawford, 1972:320) Graduates of a distributive education program can provide valuable information concerning the program for the teacher- coordinator. They have in most cases had an opportunity to apply the knowledges and skills learned in the program and are in a position to evaluate, in part, the adequacy and effectiveness of that program. In speaking of follow-up studies Iliff states that "The major purpose of the research project is the improvement of instruction and, upon the data gathered by the investigator will be based specific recommenda tions pertinent to the curriculum or to methods of instruction (Iliff, 1966-67:35) Statement of the Problem This study was designed to evaluate the distributive education program at Capital High School in Helena, Montana -3- by conducting a follow-up study of cooperative distributive education graduates from the classes of 1975, 1976, and 1977 to obtain information about actual post-high school educa¬ tional and employment activities. This evaluation was based on graduates' answers to questions in four areas: (1) general status information, (2) post-graduate occupational experiences, (3) post-graduate educational experiences, and (4) the ade¬ quacy and appropriateness of the distributive education pro¬ gram at Capital High School as it relates to their occupa¬ tional and educational experiences. Howard Llewellyn states what most investigators are looking for in follow-up studies as follows: There are a number of reasons why follow-up studies are undertaken. At the high school level, investigators generally want to determine (a) the adequacy of instruction as it relates to the goals of the high school graduates, (b) the appropriate¬ ness of course content and instructional equipment, (c) the nature of the entry jobs of graduates, and (d) choices of graduates in post-high school education. (Llewellyn, 1967:19) Specific questions to be asked of the Capital High School distributive education graduates include the following: 1. What is your present occupation? 2. Since graduation from high school, what type of employment have you held, if any? -4- 3. Did you or are you at present attending an educa¬ tional or training institution after graduation from high school? 4. If you did or are continuing your education beyond high school, what was/is your major field of study? 5. How adequate and appropriate was the distributive education program in high school to your present occupation and/or education? The overall * attempt of this study was to provide a basis for evaluating the Capital High School distributive education program by conducting a follow-up study of the classes of 1975, 1976 and 1977 so that this program can be strengthened and improved. Need for the Study This study is important because in order to evaluate whether or not a distributive education program is meeting the needs of its students, the teacher-coordinator should be aware of the status and preparedness of the graduates of that program and the relationship of that program to the life they are now living. Although Capital High School does perform a follow-up study of its graduates on a yearly basis by the career education personnel, this study is broad in nature and does not zero in on any specific programs, thus leaving many questions concerning the adequacy of the distributive education unanswered. Because the program is now four years old with three years of graduates of the program to survey, this study provided information to measure the quality and effect¬ iveness of the program which better enables the teacher- coordinator to prepare students for their role in society. Bernard Nye said: If local distributive educators are to continue to say that they are preparing people for jobs in distribution, then they must be accountable and pro¬ vide the statistical data on graduates from their programs. They should be able to provide proof that their graduates Eire not only employed in distribu¬ tive occupations but that their training has helped them to advance on their jobs. One accountability tool is a comprehensive follow-up system for grad¬ uates of local distributive education programs. Follow-up is a must for distributive educators who want to be accountable. (Nye, 1977:30) Limitations This study was limited to two groups of students in the graduating classes of 1975, 1976 and 1977; (1) Those stu¬ dents who completed only one year of distributive education on a cooperative basis prior to graduation, and (2) those students who completed two years of distributive education on a cooperative basis prior to graduation. This sample was made up of the entire population of the students who fall in these two categories. A follow-up study of students having -6- graduated one year, three years, and five years previously seems to be a pattern of many studies done; however, Capital High School has only been in existence since 1974 with only a freshman through junior population that year, so this study was limited to the only graduating classes that exist. Definition of Terms To assist the reader with the terminology of commonly accepted terms in the area of distributive education, and to insure clarity, interpretation of terms is provided: Cooperative Program A learning program where students spend supervised time in the formal classroom and then have practical application on a part-time job supervised by the training sponsor and teacher coordinator. (Hart, 1974:6) Distributive Education A program of cooperative vocational instruction designed to prepare students in the areas of marketing, merchandising and management for entry-level employment. (Hart, 1974:6) Graduates All persons who graduated with a high school diploma taking distributive education at Capital High School on a -7- cooperative basis for either one or two years. Occupational Competencies Skills, knowledges, attitudes and understfindings necessary for one to be successful in his or her career choice. (Hart, 1974:6) Respondent A former distributive education student who completed and returned the questionnaire. Responses The data and information received from each respondent on the mailed questionnaire. (Cooley, 1975:6) Teacher-Coordinator A teacher who coordinates classroom instruction with on- the-job work experience to better develop competencies within students and their work. (Hart, 1974:6) Training Sponsor A businessperson who provides an occupational laboratory experience for a student or students enrolled in a coopera¬ tive vocational education program. (Hart, 1974:6) -8- Training; Station A business which provides an occupational laboratory experience for a student or students enrolled in a coopera¬ tive vocational education program. Vocational Education Program An elementary, secondary, post-secondary or adult and continuing education program of studies designed primarily to prepare students for entrance into a specific occupation or cluster of occupations. This includes programs such as cooperative, work-study, exemplary, disadvantaged, handi¬ capped, remedial, prepost-secondary, prevocational and voca¬ tionally related. (Montana Cooperative Educational Coordi¬ nators Handbook, 1972:ix) Summary Because distributive education can play a vital role in our economic system by training personnel to meet the labor demands in the areas of distribution, it is of great impor¬ tance to distributive education teacher-coordinators to deter¬ mine how adequately their programs are fulfilling this role. By acquiring information concerning post-graduation occupation and educational experiences of former distributive education students and their assessment of the adequacy and -9- appropriateness of the program as it relates to their post¬ graduate experiences, teacher coordinators can then determine to a great degree whether or not their program is fulfilling its objectives. Hlebichuk stated that: The teacher-coordinator plays an important role toward the success of the distributive educa¬ tion program. His job requires a combination of professional, technical and occupational exper¬ iences. These variables and the variables of the community, business, program and students are com¬ bined to attempt to fulfill the prime objective of the vocational distributive education program. This objective is the preparation of persons for employment in distributive occupations. (Hlebichuk, 1971:11) This study was pursued to determine how adequately the employment and educational needs of the Capital High School distributive education students are being met and to what extent this program is training people to meet the labor demands of distribution. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter was to review the available literature pertinent to follow-up studies. Because of the abundance of material written on follow-up studies and the number of follow-up studies done in education, only litera¬ ture designed for distributive and/or vocational students was used. The review is arranged according to the following areas: (1) purpose and necessity of follow-up studies, (2) area and state-wide follow-up studies in cooperative and distributive education, and (3) individual school follow-up studies of distributive education graduates. Purpose and Necessity of Follow-Up Studies In recent years educators have been hearing the term 'accountability.' "While the term 'accountability' has taken on different meanings for different people, most agree that the basic concept of accountability has come to represent a declaration of policy whereby educators seek to review, and often justify, existing programs." (Hunt, 1975:28) Education is no longer being accepted without question by the public, -11- nor is it any longer the fair-haired child of legislators. Vocational education is now being asked to justify its many and varied programs and to prove the value of its product. Callahan and Drake, in their article "Telling It Like It Is," say that: Recent hearings in Congress further demonstrate the necessity for people in vocational education to tell it like it is. Accountability in vocational education is about to be mandated if vocational edu¬ cators do not begin to realistically deal with problems. Vocational terminee follow-up studies constitute one of the most valuable techniques for assessing the outcomes of Distributive Education programs (DE). Not only do follow-up studies offer an excellent approach for dealing with accountability, they offer an excellent vehicle for program improvement. (Callahan, 1976:20) Hunt states that: "Vocational educators have been less defen¬ sive toward the accountability concept than academic educa¬ tors, not surprisingly since occupational training programs are typically directed toward an accepted end product—usually a student prepared for entry-level employment." (Hunt, 1975:28) Stevenson says that: "The objectives of education, which reflect cultural values, are now economic." He goes on to observe that: "An important change has taken place in what Americans expect of their public schools today; the questions -12- focus on results obtained for resources used. The 'taxpayer revolt' and the present difficulty of passage of bonds and levies may show evidence of the increased concern placed on results of tax money investments by the population." (Stevenson, 1973:4) Bernard Nye, in his article on "Effective Accountability Tool For Distributive Education," said the following: Today the public wants to know what educators are doing and why. To intelligently respond to these questions distributive educators need to have measurable goals and objectives for the total dis¬ tributive education program. The willingness of distributive educators to be held accountable will be reflected in benefits for students, increased cooperation from the business community, and better relations with school administrators. The primary purpose of accountability should be to improve the quality of vocational distribu¬ tive education instruction in the local program through the combined efforts of local education and business personnel. Such a program requires the involvement of students, teachers, counselors, school administrators, lay citizens, employers and program graduates. One aspect of a sound accountability program is the development of an effective follow-up system for graduates from local distributive education programs. (Nye, 1977:28) Seymour Brantner, in his article on "Follow-Up Studies: Who Benefits?", wrote about the good legislative record voca¬ tional education has had and that it is continually being -13- endorsed because vocational education is meeting its objec¬ tives. But the cumulative benefits of vocational education can only be maintained with continued support of legislation. He states that: Follow-up results that present evidence of program effectiveness can play a useful role in retaining that support (legislative). Evidence presented in this form is easily understood. The terminology of the follow-up study and its appli¬ cability to daily concerns of legislators is readily grasped without translation or interpreta¬ tion. State and local boards of education function in comparable positions, and thus follow-up results that are evidence of effectiveness can be put to good use in those quarters. (Brantner, 1975:27) Follow-up studies not only should justify what educators have done in the past, but should also give an indication of the proper direction in which to head to meet the continuous changes in the world of work. Kaisershot, speaking of business education, expresses this point of view as follows: In this age of "accountability" in education, would it not seem logical for business education teachers to display a deeper professional concern regarding the propriety of subject matter content in their various courses which result in the de¬ velopment of the skills, concepts, abilities, and general knowledges required of their graduates? Should not current practices also be subjected to careful evaluation in order that we may be rela¬ tively certain of the proper direction in which we are headed? We can no longer afford to lead our students to believe (nor attempt to convince our¬ selves) that the business world working conditions, -14- job tasks, and overall expectations are now or will remain as they were in recent years. Neither can we afford to train future business education teachers in a manner identical to that of previous years. Rather, we must chart as realistic a course of study as we possibly can, based on available evidence, that will keep the product (our graduates) in step with these ever-changing conditions created outside the educational institutions. In fact, it would seem our duty to attempt to keep one step ahead of these conditions wherever possible. (Kaisershot, 1972:248) He goes on to describe a systematic plan of action whereby follow-up studies can provide data to justify the development of new courses and programs, eliminate obsolescent units of instruction, and reveal the necessity for new equipment. Hewitt and Smith follow this line of though by stating that: Changing technologies and a rapidly expanding economy are demanding that administrators, teachers and supervisors take a critical look at the educa¬ tion of young people and of adults for business employment. Since one of its primary functions is the preparation of students for a lifetime of work, business education is particularly challenged. We dare not assume that we are successfully preparing our students to enter a vibrant and changing busi¬ ness world equipped with the necessary skills, knowledges and attitudes for successful initial employment and for advancement unless we determine in some way whether or not we have accomplished this function. (Hewitt, 1969:81) -15- In summarizing the purpose and necessity of follow-up studies, Louis Bender says: "Vocational educators have already demonstrated their leadership to the academics by providing relevant programs for a technological society. Now it is time for them to take the lead in a comprehensive follow-up evaluation program." (Bender, 1975:34) Kaisershot continues this line of thought by stating: The well-developed, information-seeking follow¬ up study has come of age. It need not be construed as an inferior, unscientific study of little value. Rather it is a reliable basis for improving and up¬ dating a business curriculum, a student teaching pro¬ gram, the content within a given subject, or the addition of necessary equipment to do an even more effective job of educating present and future busi¬ ness education students. The follow-up study today may well be designed to answer any existing questions of "accountability" in the area of business educa¬ tion on both the secondary and post-secondary levels of education. (Kaisershot, 1972:249) Area and Statewide Follow-Up Studies in Cooperative and Pistributive Education Many area and statewide follow-up studies have provided valuable information concerning the effectiveness of dis¬ tributive education programs. From Meyer and Logan's publi¬ cation Review and Synthesis of Research in Distributive Education (1966), several area or statewide studies of coop¬ erative distributive education were summarized. -16- Haines (1965) made a follow-up study of Michigan high school cooperative trainee graduates in April of 1964, ten months following their graduation, to determine their post- high school activities. Of 4,036 questionnaires sent, he had a 36% return. Major findings were: (1) the unemployment rate was low, (2) 38% were attending college or a post-high school institution, (3) 43% were not in the labor force [38% were in school and 5% were homemakers], (4) 35% of the dis¬ tributive trainees were working in a distributive occupation, and (5) cooperative trainees were better-than-average students academically. (Haines, 1965:146) Conclusions by Meyer and Logan state that: "On the basis of the findings, one can conclude that cooperative vocational education contributes to helping young people secure employment iind does not prevent them from furthering their education. Employers benefit because trainees remain with their cooperative employer full time after graduation." (Meyer, 1966:146) In another study cited by Meyer and Logan, Hecht (1963) conducted a follow-up study in three New York high schools to determine why graduates had selected distributive education, how many remained in distributive occupations, and how they evaluated the distributive education program after obtaining work experience. Questionnaires were sent to 650 graduates -17- with 213 replying. Reasons for selecting distributive educa¬ tion in high school were vocational objectives, advancement and opportunities in the field, and the chance to earn both graduation credits and money. A low percentage remained in distributive occupations after graduation (13% from one to three years following graduation) and 50% left within six months because of long hours and low pay. The five areas checked most frequently as needing improvement in the dis¬ tributive education classroom based on their post-high school work experience were: public relations, contacting customers for outside selling, personality development, how to buy mer¬ chandise for resale, and how to get along with others. (Hecht, 1963:30, 147) A third follow-up study summarized by Meyer and Logan was conducted in Virginia by Ely (1964) of 2903 distributive education students graduating between 1957 and 1961. The purpose was to evaluate how effective distributive education programs were in terms of: (1) job stability of former stu¬ dents, (2) continuing education of graduates, and (3) impact of the program in later years. Job stability showed 66% in the labor force with 84% of that number working full time, 16% working part-time, and 61% of those in the labor force still employed in distribution. Of that 61%, a significant -18 number of more than one-third were still employed in the same business establishment in which they received their training. More than 30% of those surveyed continued their education beyond high school. Sixty-eight percent of those graduates felt they had received benefits from the distributive educa¬ tion program. (Ely, 1964:148) In a later edition of Review and Synthesis of Research in Distributive Education (1970), Ashmum and Larson summar¬ ized more follow-up studies done in distributive education. Shotwell (1967), with the help of Kansas distributive educa¬ tion coordinators, conducted a statewide follow-up study of 1,066 distributive education graduates one, three and five years beyond high school graduation. Their findings revealed that: (1) training in marketing kept graduates in their home communities and in the same fields in which they were trained, since over 63% were so employed one to five years after graduation, (2) opportunity to advance into supervisory or management positions within five years existed as 47% reached those levels, and (3) a significant number of grad¬ uates (15%) took additional training at the college level. (Shotwell, 1967:54) The Distributive Education staff of the Alabama State Department of Education, in cooperation with the State -19- Research Coordinating Unit (RCU), developed and implemented a system to follow up the secondary distributive education terminees, graduates, and drop-outs. In Callahan and Drake's article "Telling It Like It Is" summarizing the study, the primary reasons for initiating the follow-up study were to: (1) gather comparable statewide information on all programs that could be used for accountability and program improvement purposes; (2) validate follow-up information gathered by teachers; and (3) establish a reliable and valid data base from which to project realistic objectives in the Management by Objectives Plan (MBO) being ini¬ tiated in the State Department of Education. (Callahan, 1976:20) Four recommendations arrived at which were reviewed with the critical data and six key activities initiated to improve Alabama's distributive education program are as follows: (1) Recommendation: Systematic activities need to be initiated io improve the recruitment and orientation activities prior to student enroll¬ ment in the distributive education program. Data Summary: (a) Approximately 34% of the students while in the distributive education program were not sure or had no intention of getting a job in marketing. (b) Approximately 28% of the drop-outs sur¬ veyed felt they did not have adequate -20- occupational information and school experience to make a realistic career choice. (c) Large numbers of students studying in specific occupational areas where man¬ power studies indicate jobs exist were not securing employment in these areas. (d) Students showed unrealistic ideas about pay scales in distributive education related occupations. (e) A very low percentage felt that guidance counselors or the distributive education teacher-coordinator influenced them in taking the distributive education program. (f) More than 9.3% of the students, if they had it to do over again, would not take a vocational program. (2) Recommendation: The instructional delivery system appears effective and should be continued and pro¬ moted at this point in time. Data Summary: High percentages of students (from 66% to 84.8%) rated high: (1) the quality of teaching by their instructor; (2) the instructor's interest in their class work; (3) the instructor's knowledge about their field of study; (4) the enrollment in the same distributive education pro¬ gram over again; and (5) their training directly related to their first job. (3) Recommendation: An immediate systematic plan at ihe state and local level needs to be developed and implemented to provide job placement services for all distributive education terminees. Data Summary: High percentages of students reported 1title to no help from their distributive education teacher-coordinator in obtaining a job either during high school or upon graduation. -21- (4) Recommendation: Even though terminees' status and job relatedness to training percentages are some¬ what in line with other states, early effort needs to be made to increase program efficiency by attempting to get more terminees in directly re¬ lated and somewhat related jobs. Data Summary: (a) After termination from school for about one year, the terminee job status was as follows: 33.1% employed full time and not attending school; 11.2% employed full time and attend¬ ing school; 31.9% continuing education but not employed; 1.4% in military service; 8.6% unavailable for employment; and 9% unemployed and actively seeking employment. (b) Of the total responding terminees, 20.6% were working in full-time or part-time jobs directly related to their training; 21.9% were working in jobs somewhat related to their training, while 19.5% of the terminees were working in jobs not related to their training. The key activities initiated to improve Alabama's distri¬ butive education program were: (1) Development of systematic plans for improving their student recruitment, selection, find pre-orientation procedures before students enroll in the program. (2) Development of a policy statement concerning the distributive education teacher's responsibility for terminee job placement. (3) Focus on terminee job placement. (4) Development of a teacher's resource guide for job placement. -22- (5) Request of all distributive education teacher education to place additional emphasis on job placement. (6) Utilization of data to establish realistic objec¬ tives by the State Department of Education. (Callahan, 1976:21, 23, 24, 30) A doctoral thesis done by William Lundell in 1975 at the University of Minnesota examined the relationship between twenty-seven characteristics of 1968 distributive education graduates and their program experiences to their educational and occupational status five years after high school gradua¬ tion. Specific purposes of the study were: (1) to determine whether selected factors consisting of scholastic and demo¬ graphic characteristics and program experiences of individual students were related to their job satisfaction, occupational status and educational status, (2) to determine whether select¬ ed factors can be used to identify the type of student most likely to persist and to be satisfied in a distributive occu¬ pation, and (3) to provide data which will help decision makers plan program changes. Lundell's summary of conclusions was as follows: Slightly over one-half of the employed distri¬ butive education graduates were employed in jobs related to their distributive education training. A comparison of the job-related group to those dis¬ tributive education graduates employed in jobs unre¬ lated to their training revealed no significant difference in the amount or type of post secondary education obtained, job tenure, number of full¬ time jobs held, or in the number of promotions offered or received. It also revealed no signifi¬ cant difference in job satisfaction at P < .05. An examination of the relationship of the job- related and unrelated groups to the 27 high school student and program variables revealed no meaning¬ ful relationships. It was concluded that, based on the findings, none of the 27 high school student and program variables can be used to identify the type of student most likely to persist and be satisfied in a distributive occupation. Job satisfaction of the employed distributive education program graduates was compared with that of the general worker population identified by Weiss et al., (1966). This comparison revealed that the distributive education graduate had significantly more Extrinsic Job Satisfaction at P < .02. It was concluded that the program characteris¬ tics of distributive education help the graduate become employed and find job satisfaction in related or unrelated occupations. (Lundell, 1975:abstract) Joseph Hecht did a doctoral study in 1963 from New York University entitled "A Follow-Up Study of High School Grad¬ uates of Three Retailing Programs.’' The main concern of his study was to determine: (1) why graduates selected career training in distributive education; (2) whether a substantial number remained in the field; and (3) what their evaluation of the program was after they obtained store experience. Of 650 questionnaires sent to graduates of the class of 1953-1957, 213 replies were utilized. Based on his data, -24- Hecht found similar recommendations to that of the Alabama study previously discussed. He stated that: Distributive education teachers should do a more thorough job of contacting prospective students per¬ sonally to explain their programs to them. It is inefficient to recruit by mass methods or by non¬ retailing people. A further study is suggested to determine whether poor placement on the job or improper orientation by both teachers and store employers could be motivating factors responsible for the changing of vocational goals upon completion of training. Periodic surveys of local areas should be made to determine the opportunities for distributive education graduates and more rigorous classroom training should be given to prepare students for the careers they have chosen. Graduates should give retailing careers a fair chance before condemning them. Teacher and employer trainers should evaluate a student trainee early in the training period and inform him of his possibilities for success in retailing. (Hecht, 1963:abstract) A doctoral study by James Zancanella in 1965 from Colo¬ rado State College was done to determine whether or not there were important differences in selected criteria between dis¬ tributive occupation employees who participated in a secondary school distributive education cooperative part-time training program and distributive occupation employees who did not participate in such a program during their high school attendance. Zancanella surveyed a select group of 58 high school dis tributive education graduates and 86 non-distributive educa¬ tion program graduates of 1962 employed in a distributive occupation from the states of Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wyoming. His major findings were: (1) No significant difference existed in job per¬ formance and job satisfaction. (2) There was a significant difference in grade point averages: the non-distributive education student average was 2.30; the distributive education stu¬ dent average was 1.82. (3) The non-distributive education student on the average earned more high school credits and par¬ ticipated in more high school activities. (4) There were no significant differences for the two groups in: (a) the types of employment firms; (b) the titles of the employment positions; (c) the main job functions performed by the employees; (d) the reasons for changing employ¬ ers; and (3) the methods used to find employment. (5) No significant difference was shown concerning: (a) the beginning weekly gross salary; (b) the present weekly gross salary. (6) There was a significant difference in favor of the distributive education student concerning those who planned to remain in their present type of work (7) 33.7% of the non-distributive education program graduates were still employed in the first position they had obtained after high school graduation; 41.3% of the distributive education graduates re¬ mained in the same position. -26- (8) There were no important differences in the types of jobs the employees hoped to attain or in their future plans except in one area: 13.9% of the non-distributive education graduates planned to obtain additional education but only 3.5% of the distributive education graduates. (Zancanella, 1965:abstract) The final study reviewed in this section was a study done by Joseph Hlebichuk in 1971 from Montana State University on distributive education graduates in Montana for the 1969-1970 school year. The purposes of his study were: (1) to determine the relationship or influence of selected teacher-coordinator, program, and student variables to the initial placement of the graduates in distributive occupations, and (2) to compile follow-up data related to the distributive education coordi¬ nators, programs, and students. His survey included 18 dis¬ tributive education coordinators and 387 cooperative distri¬ butive education students. Hlebichuk concluded from his study that: (1) less than 40% of the statistically significant influence on the initial placement of the graduates in dis¬ tributive occupations could be attributed to the 38 inde¬ pendent teacher-coordinator, program, and student variables used in this study, (2) the female graduates were more likely to become initially employed in distributive occupations, (3) the occupational area of the student's cooperative work experience influenced his initial placement in a distributive -27- occupation, and (4) students enrolled in programs that did not have the enrollment requirement that the cooperative student be a senior were more likely to become initially em¬ ployed in distributive occupations. (Hlebichuk, 1971:viii) Individual School Follow-Up Studies of bistributive Education Graduates Individual school follow-up studies narrow the broader implications and value to the total body of knowledge, but to this investigator, had more value in relating to this study. Kathryn Iliff summarized the limitations of individual school follow-up studies as follows: The follow-up study, with all its limitations, may result in a worthwhile, small-scale contribu¬ tion to business education if carefully and system¬ atically conducted. Although the conclusions drawn and the recommendations offered will, in many instances, be applicable only to a single institu¬ tion; nevertheless, the values realized may be of more practical worth than studies of wider scope. (Iliff, 1966-67:38) Literature in this section was more difficult to obtain as most research on individual schools were master's thesis or professional papers done in states other than Montana. No follow-up studies on individual high school distributive education programs in Montana could be found. Therefore, only two out-of-state studies were chosen to obtain and review. -28- The first individual school follow-up study of distri¬ butive education graduates reviewed was done by Patrick Furlong in 1974 from the University of Minnesota. The pur¬ pose of the study was to follow up the distributive education graduates of 1967 through 1972 from Mound High School, Mound, Minnesota. A total of 92 completed questionnaires were returned from a potential of 98 graduates, representing a 94% return. His findings were: (1) The majority of Mound High School distributive education graduates still live in the Mound- Westonka area. (2) The percentage of married females is much greater than the percentage of married males. (3) Mound High School distributive education grad¬ uates remain in distributive occupations in about the same percentage as do graduates of other distributive education programs, this figure being just under 50%. (4) Since graduation from high school, the majority of the distributive education graduates have had three or fewer employers; the three main reasons for job changes were more pay, more personal satisfaction, and a return to school to further education. (5) Forty-seven percent of the 92 respondents indi¬ cated that the distributive education program did a good-to-excellent job preparing them for their present employment. (6) Over 60% of the distributive education graduates continued their education. -30- (7) Eighty-three percent of the distributive educa¬ tion graduates employed full time are satisfied- to-well-satisfied with their job and occupational field. (8) The majority of the respondents considered satis¬ faction from work itself to be the most important aspect of a job. (9) The respondents considered the units of instruc¬ tion in occupational adjustment and career explor¬ ation to be the most valuable. (Furlong, 1974: abstract) The other study reviewed in this section was done by Paul Olson (1975), University of Iowa, on Mason City High School distributive education graduates, 1952-1972. The purpose of Olson's study was to determine the current status of the graduates of the Mason City High School distributive education program from 1952 to 1972 and to survey their attitudes toward the distributive education program in which they participated. Of 358 graduates surveyed, 207 (57.8%) graduate responses were used for this study. The conclusions of this study were broken into three areas: (1) employment, (2) education, and (3) evaluation of the distributive education program. The conclusions under Employment were: (1) Less than 1% of the graduates actively seeking employment were unemployed. -31- (2) Females employed varied in length of time and varied intervals. Twenty-eight percent were married and not actively seeking employment. (3) Approximately one-third of the program grad¬ uates are presently in management positions. (4) Seventy-eight percent of the graduates report¬ ing indicated they were satisfied with their current job situation. (5) Over one-third of the graduates reporting re¬ ceived their first employment through the program. (6) Forty-eight of the graduates remain in distri¬ butive occupations. The conclusions under Education were: (1) Forty-eight of the graduates entered post-secondary training, with most entering community college or four-year college programs. (2) Most graduates continued their education in a business or marketing area. The conclusions under the Evaluation of the Distributive Education Program were: (1) Graduates indicated a continued interested in the distributive education program over a 21- year period. (2) All three phases of the distributive education program were given positive reactions with on- the-job training mentioned as most valuable, classroom as second, and DECA as third. -32- (3) Over 78% of the graduates classified their DECA experience as being valuable. (4) Instruction in the broad area of Human Relations was viewed by the students as the most important part of the classroom activity and of the on- the-job training. (Olson, 1975:50-51) Summary In reviewing the literature, it was clearly indicated that follow-up studies have a definite purpose and are needed to help determine the most beneficial program to offer stu¬ dents. It was also found that studies are being done over a long range of time across the country on a statewide, area¬ wide and individual school basis including broad vocational education population with the many disciplines under the um¬ brella of vocational education, the cooperative education aspect which interrelates many vocational disciplines, and the very specific discipline. Of that literature reviewed, it was found that many different approaches were taken to the subject; thus the findings were difficult to compare. It was, therefore, the conclusion of this investigator that because of the different approaches taken and the wide span of time in which different studies have been done, and the varied geographic area in which they were done, the true benefit of a follow-up study -33- of graduates is not in comparing the data found to other studies, but to consider the findings as a benefit to the particular program being studied at that particular time and that a continuous, on-going follow-up study of that program must be conducted in order to be of continued benefit to the students it serves. Some general feelings gathered from the review of liter¬ ature, however, were: (1) unemployment rate was low among graduates of distributive education programs; (2) an average of approximately 37% of the graduates attended a post-second¬ ary educational institution; (3) an average of 40% of the distributive education graduates were employed in distribu¬ tive occupations after graduation; (4) approximately one- third of the graduates remained on their distributive education cooperative jobs after high school; and (5) a very low per¬ centage were not employed but actively seeking employment. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES The major problem of this study was to evaluate the distributive education program at Capital High School in Helena, Montana by conducting a follow-up study of coopera¬ tive distributive education students from the classes of 1975, 1976 and 1977 to obtain information about post-high school education and employment activities. The purposes of this chapter were: (1) to describe the sources of data, (2) to explain the construction of the survey instrument, (3) to explain the administration of the survey instrument, and (4) to describe the procedure for the analysis of data. Sources of Data All of the statistical data was obtained from the fol¬ lowing source: All of the 1975, 1976 and 1977 coonerative dis¬ tributive education graduates (111) at Capital High School, Helena, Montana. -35- Construction of the Survey Instrument One survey form was used in this study. The review of literature provided the basis for the content of the survey form. The survey form (Appendix A, pages 98-104) was sent to the 111 cooperative distributive education students who grad¬ uated in 1975, 1976 and 1977 from Capital High School in Helena, Montana. This form contained questions relating to the following areas: (1) General status information. (2) High school cooperative work experience. (3) Post-high school educational experience. (4) Post-high school occupational experience. (5) The adequacy and appropriateness of the distri¬ butive education program as it relates to their present occupational and educational experience. The initial survey form was reviewed by the BuEd 524 Research in Business Education Class in the summer of 1977 and by Dr. Daniel Hertz and Dr. Norm Millikin, Business Education Department, Montana State University, at which time several revisions were made to clarify the questions and to include statements necessary to obtain the desired information. The revised form was reviewed again by Dr. Hertz and -36- Dr, Millikin to approve for use. After valuable suggestions were provided by those who reviewed the instrument, the final form was adopted for use. Administration of the Survey Instrument On February 3, 1978, each cooperative distributive education graduate of the 1975, 1976 and 1977 classes (ill) was sent a survey form. A cover letter (Appendix B, page 10$) accompanied the survey form explaining the purpose of the study and survey form. A stamped, self-addressed envelope was included for the convenience of the student in hopes of insuring a high percentage of return. After four weeks, 59 forms (53%) had been returned. Only 12 of the 111 were returned because students were not at the designated addresses. On March 3, four weeks after the first mailing, 42 survey forms were sent to the graduates who had not responded. A stamped, self-addressed envelope was en¬ closed with the survey form and a new cover letter (Appendix C, page 106). By April 1, 13 additional completed forms were returned and no letters were returned because the graduate had moved and had left no forwarding address. Eight weeks after the initial mailing, 72 or 65% of the survey forms had been returned. Ten forms were returned -37- because of wrong or no forwarding address. The 72 or 65% useable returns was deemed to be a representative sample and did not warrant a third mailing. Analysis of Data Descriptive research was the type of research used in this follow-up survey of the cooperative distributive educa¬ tion graduates at Capital High School in Helena, Montana. "Descriptive research is extremely beneficial in improving existing programs. This research technique will provide a full and complete understanding of the present program." (Cooley, 1975:24) Descriptive research was described by Oliverio as follows: Descriptive research gives a picture of a sit¬ uation or a population. Any consideration of pheno¬ mena generally begins with a full understanding of the phenomena. Accurate descriptions are imperative for making a wide range of policy decisions. Descrip¬ tive research in a fashion is basic for all types of research for a full assessment of the situation and prerequisite to inferences and generalizations. The motivation for this type of descriptive research generally originates with an awareness that no sys¬ tematic knowledge is available about the population or phenomena under scrutiny. (Oliverio, 1971:258) In this study the information about respondents was gathered by the questionnaire technique and reported by totals and percentages. Tables were used to present the data where -38- the use of this technique enhanced and clarified the present¬ ation of the data. The information, where appropriate, was presented and correlations were determined on a class-to- class basis, on a basis of whether the respondent had completed one or two years of distributive education during high school, and on a male-female basis. The data was compiled and tabulated by the investigator with assistance from the investigator's committee chairman, Dr. Norm Millikin at Montana State University. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This chapter contains the findings of the follow-up study of the graduates of Capital High School distributive educa¬ tion program of 1975, 1976 and 1977. Findings reported in this chapter are limited to questions which dealt with the primary purposes outlined in Chapter One. These were (1) general status information, (2) post-graduate occupa¬ tional experiences, (3) post-graduate educational exper¬ iences, and (4) graduates' attitudes toward the adequacy and appropriateness of the distributive education program at Capital High School as it relates to their occupational and educational experiences. Responses were received from graduates of every distri¬ butive education class, 1975 through 1977. Data compiled from the follow-up survey provided a synopsis of the graduates' occupational and educational histories and status as well as their attitudes toward the distributive education program. Part 1 - Status Information Present Location of Graduates At the present time, 40 of the 72 responding graduates -40- (55.5%) of Capital High School's distributive education pro¬ gram are still located in the Helena area. Seven of the 18 males (39%) and 33 of the 54 females (61%) remained in the Helena area. From this, one can see that a much larger per¬ centage of females than males remained in the Helena area. Seven of the 18 males (39%) and 16 of the 54 females (29%) remained in the state of Montana but outside the Helena area. Of these, 5 of the 7 males and 10 of the 16 females were presently in a post-secondary educational institution and were considered temporarily relocated at the present. Only 4 of the 18 males (22%) and 5 of the 54 females (9%) have left Montana. Of these 9 graduates, 2 were presently attending school out of state and 2 were stationed out of state in the military. It is interesting to note that only 9 of 72 grad¬ uates (12.5%) did not remain in Montana; and only 5 of these 9 graduates (7%) of the total respondents left Montana for reasons other than education or military service. The inves¬ tigator feels that Montana, in general, and Helena, in par¬ ticular, must be providing adequate employment and educational opportunities to retain such a high percentage of its youth upon high school graduation. In summary 55.5% of the respondents still live in the Helena area, 87.5% of the respondents (including the above -41- Helena area residents live in the state of Montana, and 12.5% live out of state. Table 1 shows an analysis of the 72 respondents by class and gender. Marital Status of Graduates Of the 72 respondents, 60 (83%) are single and 12 (17%) are married. Of the 54 female respondents, 45 (83%) are single and 9 (17%) are married. The exact percentage holds true for the males. Of the 18 male respondents, 15 (83%) are single and 3 (17%) are married. As would be expected, the highest percentage of married respondents by class was the 1975 class with 33%. The investigator found these statistics to be encouraging that the married females are not showing a higher percentage than the males as previous studies by other investigators have shown such as Patrick A. Furlong's study in Minnesota for 1967-1972 where 51% of the females and only 28% of the males were married. It might be concluded that the encouragement of and oppor¬ tunities for women to pursue careers outside the home over the past ten years have had an effect on females prolonging marriage until a later age. Table 2 summarizes and expands upon the above information. -42 U2 o o o o £ C£5 CM CJ Q p in tn p o re p w o ■H H Q m 05 CM C CM re X! O O o O M O CO CM c- m a p CM c- M &u re Oi ro 50 in p re in P in p o o o o o • • • • H o o in in p p CM S =«: c^ p 00 p o in o in p 50 to Q p Ol P P 05 o P H in CM Cl O P P P Cl o Cfl Cb in 05 p LO (A P Cl re P u £ o to p p o in in o (£) aR in m in 50 P p CM 05 O P H P p p 05 P P p to 05 O P H p o to p P P Cl o to th CM p CM oo co P p re P u £ CM to P 50 (0 P a c 0 re •H (H X! P re re re q re re x c p © re re p re re a o u © p p CO J re re CO re re x X re c a c re q o P re P re re P c X p p re © p b o X X 5 H O aj x: o U) £ re x: -P P o c xi o X3 p c P re o p X re § (A • g re T: 3 re re to x: re 3 p re X (0 • re c/. | 3 CA q re re P re X 3 U P X5 © re *• re P re o • > re o a co x re re bC 3 q re •H re xs be o q re x 3 P • o c re re CO re re re re 3 re - a re CO bC p re re re x p re P q X re re p re •H re re re co .«■ re in a x • re p X p p o n a P w P o» re -o & '/j •H re •- P 3 re P re v. o P P C P • re - w re re in re P U • ?a o re re ^ a re re > c re o p JP p re w p jp re £ b u E re o re o re U. re -H* C -43 CJ ic in O co to o 3 00 3 o V H OJ Q CM C «-H 3 4) •o c 10 lO Q o c4 c^l in w i. CO 4) fV PM 05 in ^r 'S m +■> o o o o • t • H aR in CM CM T to in oo PH PH in o in H aR • • • CO PH 05 Q r- to TP o *H E-> PH OQ 05 CM CM O tfl U. PH rf in w CM CM cc «H O s 0 4 «cf o o C CO 13 aR Hf CM CO ■p CM CM 05 o H H to co 05 «H PH 0 CO fr ■o (A 13 4) •O -H 4) K ■H 4> U •H •H U PH U u 3 3 3 u, a V X 3 a O X 5 fr- -44- Distributive Education Enrollment Length and On-the-Job Work Experience Length of Graduates Because the investigator felt that the graduate's length of exposure to the distributive education program and length of on-the-job experience in relation to this program was important, the reader should keep the information in Tables 3 and 4 in mind when reviewing the remaining statistics. Of the 72 respondents, 32 (44%) were in the distributive education program for one year only while 40 (56%) were in the program for two years. Because only some 20% of the first year DE students enroll in the second year program each year, the investigator felt that these statistics showed a much increased interest in the distributive education program and a need to respond to the survey if the student took the second year. The number of respondents from the second year classes also followed the cycle for the size of class each year with 14 of the 20 possible students surveyed (70%) in the Class of 1975 responding, 7 of the 8 possible students (87.5%) in the Class of 1976 responding, and 19 of the 20 possible students (95%) in the Class of 1977 responding. Concerning the respondents' on-the-job work experience when in the distributive education program, 47 of the 72 respondents (65%) worked for one year and 25 of the respond¬ ents (35%) worked for two years. For those graduates having -45- taken distributive education for two years, 15 of the 40 respondents (37.5%) worked only one of the two years in the program, while 25 of the 40 respondents (62.5%) worked both years. The following two tables, Table 3 and Table 4, sum¬ marize these statistics. Current Status of Graduates When analyzing the current status of the 1975-1977 grad¬ uates, the investigator found that many graduates were in¬ volved in more than one activity such as in school full time and working part time. For statistical purposes, the investi¬ gator made a decision as to which activity was primary and recorded the graduate in only one area. The largest group of the 72 respondents was 42 (59%) working full time for pay. Seven of the 18 males (41%) and 35 of the 54 females (65%) were working full time. The second largest category showed 22 (31%) in school full time. Seven of the 18 males (39%) were in school full time and 15 of the 54 females (28%). Combining both full time work per¬ centages and full time school percentages, the investigator found it interesting that both the males and females who were working full time or in school full time totaled 90% for their current status. It is also noted that the Class of 1977 had the highest percentage in both of these categories, 62% 46 to in in o a* TJ* irj d rf in o CO PH •H Cfl O V H CM Q CM C to ^ 0) TJ £ o o O o orf DI d G CM rf t> cc U. 0) Oi o ** CM tO in +> Q in in o H aR cd aO d fH OJ =ffc CJ c.0 00 PH O 1C in H aR • • ■ l> CO Tf Q D- -t-> C4 05 o iH H O 05 03 «H CM O W 00 D- in 03 OJ CC •H O X 2 2 in in o iH aR • • U5 CO l£> 03 CO V CM 03 o iH H CM r- 03 «H i-H i-H O CO tx< co in 03 CO iH o S 6 2 oo o to in H aR • • • in CO rr o> to +J f-t to 03 O H o "Cf iH >H Cl o w i. CO CM oo 03 iH i-H CO 1—1 U S rr CM CO « ■H c 03 •o c c o 03 o s a £ *H cn 03 -H fH t. t- 03 bC O 2 3 QC e u a> a) 0) 2 >“ >H PH -J u CO 0) o ■H £ > o O H H -47- rr o o o Iff iff Q* i—1 CD ro Q CO PH tfl o -H i'- in CJ c TJ* CM 0) X3 g o o o o ^ ~r in’ OH io i> CO tu 0) a CM CM d* tO CM m 03 V Q o o o H MJ ^ IT? CM CM in m 00 o in LC >—1 aR • • # t> CO in m Q -fJ CM -M *r CD o H 00 'H 05 CM O CO u. in o in CO »H IH CJ CO i—H rw> IO rH rf o o p~> ■H p CD CO 01 t'- CD CJ 01 o iH EH rr in 01 H X 0 5 in i—i • • # in CO PH CM to V CM PH to 01 o iH EH in oi «M iH CM o CO tu O 00 X CO PH PH CO o s in PH X 42 (0 +-> -p bC c c 01 42 V X O »3 c ^3 o 1 o a o o CO (0 £ c b b 01 -p 01 d d QC 1 •H 01 01 C u >1 >H PH O 01 CO p- 01 o ■p a 3 o u O H EH -48- working full time and 34% going to school full time, making their total activity for working full time and going to school full time 96%. Another observation was that only 44% of the students enrolled in distributive education for one year were working full time while 71% of the second year students were working full time. On the other hand, 30% of the students who took the program for one year were attending school full time while only 20% of the students who took the program for two years were in school full time. For the second year students, these two categories, working full time and in school full time, made up 91% of their current status while for the one year students, this made up only 74% of their current status. The other category showing activity was the in-business- for-self category with 5 of the 72 respondents (6%). It was important to note that only two of the 72 respondents (3%) were unemployed. Table 5 shows an analysis of the 72 respondents' current status by class, gender and length of enrollment in the dis¬ tributive education program. 49 03 2 o o o o o c C7> 1 p •H CM* 1 o 1/3 1 m 1 5 p CM 1 CM in CM 1 oa Tt« CM i> o o o o o 03 1 p p PH 1 in 1 CM 1 r- lO 1 in to PH 1 rr to p in o c o o O c d 1 d to’ PH P 1 in »H 1 p 1 CJ 1 CM P 1 oo p in o o in • in 1 Tf p 1 c CM 1 P 1 9 oo 1 o p 1 O) p p CJ o 1 p 1 in p CJ p 1 to 1 rr o o o o o c SR * • • 1 to p p 1 d p 1 1 CM =«: o 1 in CM p p 1 03 p P f- 1 to P 1 P P m 1 CM P p p 1 QC in O o in • 03 1 d p 1 to P 1 p 1 to 1 to 1 ^r P CJ P 1 in CM 1 ao P p K> 1 CM P 1 p E o •H 73 c 73 P 01 •O X) p CA >> c* o P 0 XI o c 2 cO CO o •H 3 -n 01 V a a P p > J3 g ■|-3 ■c CO 3 U U SH c •P u s* P 71 01 hO O ho O o C/3 O 0) 0 o 73 73 C P C P a P E P E P a> •H •H 73 P •H •H O c T) ho _ P CQ 0 o 9 U 3 CH 3 0) P o P 0 p O 0 “1 H =tt: in 1 1 05 > >1 c V 0) o o 05 0> S s .H FH I —1 05 & a a ^X5 T3 o s E u O CO C En CO c a ■H -P o O ■H > -H CO V C «-H ^ C V C a M3 -W v c •H ^-l 0) U 05 •o E 3 3 X) •!-> EL. 3 E 3 E •H 05 o a o o EL. a Q C/3 E- 52- i> o o c o 00 ^ Q fH in «t 5 CO V tc o V H l> T .-I CM s m rn O' Ufa co ^ faf Ol 01 in £0 V o o o O H TT -fa | in -H -H j CM r =«: O 00 1 00 -fa t-H 5 0 0 in r- CO to -fa Q +* —fa OJ 05 o iH EH > X c o QJ o PH a> c a o. C0 Cl (0 5 a> M •tfa >, QC o o C -fa —fa CO a CO C0 T3 B V •H Cl 0 -H Cl o C*. >> Z Q H -53- First Employment After Graduation In Same Business as On-the- Job Work Experience in the Distributive Education Program Many graduates remained at the business where they were employed during their enrollment in the distributive educa¬ tion program. Of the 72 respondents, 37 (51.5%) did so while 34 (47.5%) did not. Only one respondent was not employed after graduation. A summary of these statistics is shown in Table 7. Type of First Employment Status of Graduates When analyzing the first employment status of the 1975 through 1977 graduates, one sees that 46 of the 72 respond¬ ents (64%) were employed in distributive occupations. In referring back to Table 7, 51.5% of these respondents remained in their distributive education jobs after high school. Therefore, another 12.5% became employed in a distributive occupation upon graduation. The highest areas of employment were food service and department stores with 9 respondents (12.5%) in each area. This statistic follows the employment trend of placement on jobs while in the Capital High School distributive education program. The highest area of employment in this program the past four years has been in the food service area due to the large amount of restaurants in Helena. The department store -54- statistic, however, was a surprise to the investigator, as there are only two remaining major department stores in Helena. Table 8 summarizes and expands upon the above infor¬ mation of the first employment status of graduates. Length of First Employment of Graduates This area was rather difficult for the investigator to summarize as length of employment varies greatly among the respondents. It was decided to break the months and years into three sections each to simplify the findings. Also, because of the varying lengths of time students have been out of high school, it was difficult to reach any conclusions. Of the 72 respondents, only 1 (1%) remained on first employ¬ ment less than one month. The most frequent length of first employment was four to seven months with 19 respondents (26.5%) in that category. The next most frequent length of employment fell in the one to three month category with 15 respondents (21%). Of the 72 respondents, 13 (18%) remained at their first employment. The males remained longer on their first employ¬ ment. Seven of the 18 male respondents (55%) remained one to three years while only 13 of the 54 female respondents (24%) remained over one year. Table 9 summarizes the length of first employment of graduates. T Y P E O F F I R S T E M P L O Y M E N T S T A T U S O F G R A D U A T E S O o o o o o o o C O OJ 1 1 1 Xf i CO H 05 xr H Xf to H H 1 1 1 i (A o ■H C 05 1 1 1 to i xr H CO to H to 05 H 0» TD o O o o o o c o o C o aR H 1 1 1 1 i to H 00 xr H xr c H a H 1 1 1 1 i V) ■k 1 1 1 i i cn 0 H to 1 1 1 H i H H 0J CM i H CM H o w fa. to 1 1 1 i i H H CM CJ i H CJ H CO u 1 1 1 1 H i i i 1 1 i i l i o to 10 O c C£) H 1 1 1 i H i to’ 1 i i o- i ■P 1 1 1 i i 1 i i i cn O PH H H 1 1 1 H i H i CJ 1 i i to i o w fa. i 1 1 1 1 i i i H 1 i i to i w CO H u H 1 1 1 H i H i 1 i i 1 i o to o O o c o o 10 aR 1 1 1 H i to i to H H to to i P 1 1 1 i i i O H H to 1 1 1 H i CM i CM H H CM CM i «H o w fa. to 1 1 1 i i H i OJ H H CM 1 i CA CO H u 1 1 1 H i H i 1 i i 1 CM i O o (A 05 o P •H TJ CJ H CO (0 P O c a u CO © 2 B p 4> P o c P S3 c 4) e CO •H 4) C at 4) 2 bC bC CJ 3 c c >> S fa o p S p P CJ •H fa •H P P 3 U •H O •H P 4) -C •rt 4) fa CO 0) € c > fa O be P "O •H 3 P p. a u u >> fa 0 O 3 0 4) fa CA (A £ 4) 2 3 fa 4> a fa fa H fa 2 c 45 H a E fa. a CO co c3 a CJ CJ > M a Ho t e l/ Lo dg in g TY PE O F F IR ST EM PL O YM EN T ST A TU S O F G RA DU AT ES -56- O o O c o in o in in 1 r^ to in Ht CM to o PH PH 1 CO PH PH CO CO o V H %: 1 in CO rf to 05 CM I> PH c 'T W X! o o O O in in in c • • • • • < o iH 1 CO Q in 1 CM 1 in PH a 1 in 1 PH 1 CO V rv* PH 1 rp CO rr 1 05 1 rr PH to O o o O O O • • • • • H 1 1 to i rr 1 to in 1 1 1 «H i 1 1 £ 1 1 iH o i to 1 CM to 1 PH o o in o in in in PH SR • • • • CO l CO in rH 1 rr 1 e- PH e- 1 CJ 1 1 05 O H ft iH 1 rr 05 PH 1 to 1 m PH PH O CO * PH 1 to PH 1 to 1 to PH CO PH CO iH o £ 1 1 PH CM I l 1 1 n 1 o o o o o o CO SR 1 1 1 H* PH PH rr to’ to 1 e- 1 1 1 PH 1 05 o iH 1 1 1 o PH PH to CM 01 1 PH 05 05 •H a •H 3 e PH Q 3 •H u >> CO 0) 3 •H (0 >> o 05 CO U O) S TJ 3 PH PH P 3 O •PH CO o 05 O a o. O u c •H £ 05 a s CO 05 05 V o c H-> \ c < H 05 9 > CO Q 3 2 U ■H 3 PH o O a. co PH 3 CO a • ■ u -H •H +* 05 a 05 05 ^ C PH 3 U 05 CO a •H O 05 o •H PH O -H O 3 O 05 > C C0 PH CO CO P* •H x: o CO fc, -H •H U £ o o o •PH •H 05 3 CO £ •H V +» O O £ a o z £ £ 0 PH < % £ H 6 Q o o o J in o in O in rf CM l l X PH 1 1 CM tn rr i m 1 1 Ci 1 CM rr i 1 in 1 i FH FH 1 rH 1 l to «T 1 i X O in in in X in X 1 r- in in rr in in i to 1 i to 1 X rr rr to rr rr i rr CM 1 rr to to to to CM i X FH 1 1 FH Cl i X cn ■TJ c /*\ s F-F >■, Ci to FH rs to a c 1 i 1 a o 1 < a FH rr X /F“\ /—\ F—V cn •w FH CM to Ci w w WF 'w' o a cn cn cn cn £ X £ cn cn cn ^6 V +> +> % cn CO a» C c C CC B 3 Ci •*-» a) 0 0 o Ci Ci Ci 0 o * z T. z >* >" >* Q H -58- Major Reason for Leaving; First Employment Of the 72 respondents 21 (29%) did not leave their first employment so this question did not apply. Another 20 respond¬ ents (28%) expected to or entered a post-secondary educational institution upon graduation. As Table 1 indicates and as a later table will show, most of these graduates left the Helena area to attend school and many became employed on another job part-time while in school. Poor hours ranked second in reasons for leaving the job with 7 of the 72 re¬ spondents (10%) in this category. While only 4 of the 18 males (22%) had not left their first employment, 17 of the 54 female respondents (31%) had not left their first employment. The reason for leaving be¬ cause of further education was the same for both male and female at 28% each. The investigator found it interesting that for the third highest category, low pay, only the females left for that reason with 10 of the 54 females (13%) respond¬ ing to that area. Further summarization and analysis of this area is shown in Table 10. Reasons for Not Seeking Employment Since Graduation In this category the investigator found that a large percentage (80.5%) of the respondents did not apply to this question as they did seek employment upon graduation or -59- O in o o o in in O in m o m o • • cfc 05 1 1 TP o to H Tf H in in to H o H CM CM 1 1 H 5 co PH CO o H H Q 1 1 to r- CM H H to TP CM CM c 0) CM 01 l> -o in in o o in m o in in in in o C • # • • • • • • o SR ro Q 1 1 o 1 H H TP in H H in a CM OJ 1 1 H l CO i. a> a in 1 1 1 H to to TP H H H m in o o o o o o in o o 2R • • • # • • • t H in 1 1 to 1 to | H to H 1 H 1 in £ 1 1 1 1 1 1 CM =»: in 1 1 CM 1 CM 1 H CM H 1 H 1 aC H o in o O c c c m in 13 H CM 1 1 1 to H 1 H 1 to TP 1 H o H H 1 1 t | 1 | O H o 05 1 1 1 d H 1 H 1 CM to 1 H C5 1 1 1 1 | to 05 O H «6 in CO 1 1 CM in 1 H CM H H 1 H 1 TP «H CM o « co cO U. to in 1 1 H in 1 H H 1 H 1 H 1 1 8 PH u £ CM H 1 1 1 45 H i 1 1 H H 1 1 1 1 co o c H 45 O CO CO H 3 c >> (H CO I H O’ •H 4. 45 V i H 3 45 s 3 TO c c U CO H •o "O o U H 45 to 45 0 H O O-rl CO 45 H 0 -rt O +■> 3 j—1 "O co a 45 o v a o •H 4. co a oz •H CO bC U H •I“5 a 3 3 CO +» H T3 -O 9- x a 45 x> T3 45 4, 0 H H 4) u, o - 45 45 co •H H CO 45 45 bO 4. 45 H o OZ 0 c c H t, U 4) H C c CO H 4i CO 45 +■> TJ 45 c •r> 45 45 45 3 •H - •rt •H 45 45 •H 4, H 4* 4i 4) H cO CO > 45 H -a •o C CO X) 0» H L 4) H X) > o to CO 3 £ 45 CO a c c c '3 u V o a c 4, J= 45 O O o •H 45 H 5 ^ X 45 O 3 •H H o -n co X 45 3 ■H CQ £ a X o O a U X o z a U £ o a H -60- remained on their jobs they had while in the distributive education program. Of the 18 male respondents, 13 (72%) and of the 54 female respondents, 45 (83%) did not seek employment upon graduation. Other than one respondent reply¬ ing to the military category, all other respondents (18%) did not seek employment after graduation as they expected to enter or entered a post-secondary educational institution. Of the 18 male respondents, 4 (22%) and of the 54 female respondents, 9 (17%) responded to this category. Table 11 further summarizes the above information. More Than One Job Held Since Graduation The largest percentage of graduates (48.5%) per category fell in the "does not apply" area of not having held more than one job since graduation. Of the 18 male respondents, 9 (50%) and 26 of the 54 female respondents (48%) fell in this category. To the investigator this showed a rather high employment stability factor among distributive education graduates. The Class of 1977 came out with the highest stability factor of 30%, although this was not surprising as these students had only been gone from high school approxi¬ mately 9 months when this survey was taken. The next highest number of jobs held since graduation was two jobs (18%). I I g -61- o c c C aP. 00 1 i i H O PH H 1 i i OO o CO H tfl O H to 1 i rH i oo CM c H in l' > o O O -H H X Cfl av a c c O Cfl a o o V CO c CO a Cfl •H co Cfl CO TJ X 4) a H 45 « 0) 0) >> fad 3 u 0 BS a +> u u 3 U 3 c y a» 3 •H •H •H l* H y H TO u X •H 45 Cfl CO p. c c tH c H X 4) -t-> X O 0 3 3 •H £» O o u £ X £ 5 Q H -62- Overall, the percentages went down as the number of jobs held since graduation increased. Table 12 analyzes and summarizes the above information. Correlation of Distributive Education On-the-Job Work Experience as Related to First £mploymeni After Graduation Of the 72 respondents, 36 (50%) felt that their DE on- the-job work experience was somewhat beneficial to their first employment after graduation. Both the male and female break¬ down indicated 50% also. The next highest category of respond¬ ents (37.5%) felt that their DE job was highly beneficial to their first employment after graduation. Only 12.5% of the respondents felt it was not beneficial. The breakdown by class indicated the same feelings except the Class of 1977 which showed an equal feeling of 16.5% between highly bene¬ ficial and somewhat beneficial. This may have been due to the fact that many of these students remained or still remain in the job they had during high school. Table 13 summarizes the above information. Part 3 - Educational Experience Additional Education Since Graduation Of the 34 respondents to this question, 22 (65%) attended a college or university. Five of the 10 male respondents (50%) and 17 of the 24 female respondents (71%) attended a college i 13 c 0) X5 c o & w 0) a 13 V o H ^ =«: % JR SR z X) o T) -63- o in in in o m o • • • t • • • 00 to in 00 to 00 o rH i-H rt* O pH to Ol 'T CO OJ m 0J iH iH to o o o in in o o o • • • • • • • in in to to in 'H i—i to o o 00 T *r OJ CO T l—{ OJ in o in O in o *r in 1 to 1 OJ in 1 1 P FH 'O a c P a 0 C/3 u a a £} C/3 C/3 0 C/3 1/3 o .O 13 E ■H P x> •o o O O OS o •r> •n i* c •rn p o 13 p p C/3 p 3 > X P •H o •H •H o 0 H u. u. o G4- to CQ in c in o r* <5 CM 1 1 d to in p-i 1 1 © CO OH o v H CO 03 1 1 CJ c (M rn iH 1 1 *T CD o ■H H CM CM in 1 1 03 “( O T. in to 1 1 1 oo o in c m in SR d 03 xT 1 1 to t" •H PH 1 1 to 03 O iH H r- to 1 1 xr H 0) OH X) Cfl 0/ 03 -H 0) •H 03 03 u co c O >> X u >> 03 c o o > h PH CJ £ 03 0/ a 03 c Bfi E -H > E X v •H o O CO 03 -H o X cn X o 6- -65- or university. The largest number attended Montana State University (9 respondents) and the next largest number attended Carroll College in Helena (4 respondents). Six of the 34 respondents (18%) attended a trade or business school. Four of those 6 respondents attended the Helena Vocational Technical Center. The 14% falling in the "other" category classified their education as on-the-job training or military training. Length of enrollment showed that 23 of the 34 respond¬ ents (68%) attended school for less than one year. A large percentage of this, however, includes those students in the Class of 1977 who had only been out of high school 9 months at the time of the survey. No particular patterns are rele¬ vant here because of the different lengths of time students had been out of high school. Of the 34 respondents, 11 (31%) did not indicate what major area of study they were pursuing. Five of the 34 respondents (15%) and all female indicated a major area of study in business administration, management or marketing. Four of the 34 respondents indicated a major area of study in computers or accounting. The other areas had only one or two students in their category. Tables 14, 15, and 16 further summarize and analyze the above information. CO 2 € -66- o o O o o SR i m 00 to i T Q i-H 1 CO -H i PH c CO V w o V H =«s 1 CM CO i m T c CM to 0) T3 O o o c »-* o cR 1 PH in I i CO a I in i i r^- w U. ■p 1 CM 1 i to 05 o i-H H 1 00 CM 1 i PH pp «H o w fc. i ■H 1 i PH 05 CO PH u 1 PH i-H 1 i 1 Cl V co CO bO co •H 0) CD C c r— C a ai 0 r— •H •H TO <»H •H o CO x: 3 O +H u >> 3 CO O 3 U -H CO 4) o. O -tH > O *H U c CO e •H ■b> co IP •H o 01 >> H-> •r V u 0 PH ■H •H QZ H co bfi 0) o C co C 0) > a> o £ fc. 0) V CO PH S CO o a -H £ -H c O 3 c. co a X V O u u H < u O t- 67- w o o o O i in r* oo o 73 1 P P CO o p •p Cfl o V %: i m to io c (N to 0) X3 o o o o c • o sR i CM o & i P p p w * OJ rw K *fc i p in in d p CM tw •p o o o o o • t • • H sR I to ro p o 1 CM £ 1 P P 00 o o o 73 JR i i i in in p 1 1 i to to 0> o iH H =«s 1 1 1 CM CM P P o CO fc. 1 1 1 05 05 CO CO u 1 1 1 to to 0 5 0 m C£> 73 1 to 00 p CM* p CM to 05 0 H 1 3 7 p H E-i =«! 4 3 4 p > c h U 05 05 0 o u 0> ts B S O C a A S O 0 to o r o r r n & (0 c O CO 05 CO CO £, K t, L p P ass P 05 05 05 CO CO >> ►> w p 05 0 tO CM P NJ e- A D D I T I O N A L E D U C A T I O N SI NC E G R A D U A T I O N -68- C/3 a o o o o o o o o O c o O o O o o to to CO to to to CO to 01 to to to to to rH rH rH to CO o to OJ rH »H *H Ol rH rp rH rH rH rH rH rH rH o o o o c c O o o O O cR i to CO to to i CO to CJ i i to to to i •H i rH i i rH Ci. i to OJ rH rH i Ol rH i i rH rH rH in o c o o c to 1 1 i i to 1 I i to to 1 i i 1 1 i 1 1 l i l l i r. =tt: 1 1 i 1 1 l i rH rH 1 i i CO o o O o o O o o rH • • • • • • • CO 1 c£> to i 1 i 1 l co 1 to to to to 00 V 1 i l i 1 l 1 o H 1 OJ i i i 1 l Ol i rH rH rH rH to U. 1 a rH i i i 1 i Cl l i rH rH rH rH £ 1 i i i i i 1 l 1 i rH i i i 01 o o o o c LO . < X bo CD ■H •H c bC bt ID o> C g o c •rj o CD 0> CO -tH o c C ID g H o ■H 5 CO q e x CO •H •H •H C 3 3 •H co ID o X CO •H g o £ TZ 1/3 •H o SJ ■ ■H E •H E c c w 3 c 3 Cfl rH U W) o X U CO rH O 1/3 X •H 3 X ID -o CO ID 3 c o CO o •H o O c u. CD CO w b. Z u < CD Q b. CO u To t a l R e s p o n de nt s 2 9 1 1 3 2 . 5 5 6 1 1 3 2 . 5 3 9 1 2 3 5 . 0 1 0 3 0 . 0 2 4 7 0 . 0 34 -69- Correlation of the Distributive Education Program to Educational Experience Of the 72 respondents, 37 (51.5%) did not apply to this question as they had not enrolled in any school after gradua¬ tion from high school. Of the 18 male respondents, 8 (44%) and of the 54 female respondents, 29 (54%) did not continue on in their education. Twenty-four of the 72 respondents (34%) found that the DE program was somewhat beneficial to them in their educational experience beyond high school. Of the 18 male respondents, 7 (39%) and of the 54 female respond¬ ents, 17 (31%) found DE somewhat beneficial to their post- high school educational experience. More males found DE highly beneficial with 3 of the 18 respondents (17%) respond¬ ing this way, while only 2 of the 54 female respondents (4%) found DE highly beneficial to their post-high school exper¬ ience. Only 6 respondents of the 72 (8%) found DE not to be beneficial to their post-high school educational experience and all of these were female. Table 17 further summarizes the above information. T A BL E 17 -70 3 w v o v HPfc fi a» x> G O a U) Li_ 0)^ a c^ o> «H O Wti. «0 •H UE 05 '—iflr-' > >C 4) 0 J= PH > X) C V u •P *§) 45 B H-l T3 ^ 45 r •H O o •H O s cn z a o H -71- Part 4 - Adequacy and Appropriateness of the Distributive Education Program Rating of Graduates’Education Received as Part of the Distributive ^Education Program The highest percentage ranking in the "excellent" area was the category of the ability of the DE coordinator to teach the course (66.5%). The lowest percentage ranking in this area was textbooks and instructional materials (26.5%). In the 'hdequate” area, the highest percentage ranking showed two categories, adequacy of DE classroom and textbooks and instructional materials, at 66.5% each. The lowest percentage ranking in this category was the ability of the DE coordinator to teach the course (30.5%). The highest percentage ranking in the "poor" area was advice and help from counselors (11%). The lowest percentage ranking in this area showed four cate¬ gories at 3% each: ability of the DE coordinator to teach the course, course content, practical application of training to jobs in distribution, and overall DE program. No respondents ranked any of the seven categories as "very poor." Table 18 further summarizes the responses of graduates to their educa¬ tion received as part of the distributive education program. 72- 00 £ < a z r-( CO l i i 1 i 1 1 V l i i 1 i 1 1 u o o H o l i i 1 i 1 l a. u 1 i i 1 i 1 1 a> > Z 1 i i 1 i 1 1 o o c o c o C PH • • CO to H 10 to to H O H O -*-> EH CC CN 00 XT to to 3 OJ to *r * to to to CT a> T3 r- Q CD in 00 CD c H H 1 h H o 1 o o C/3 i o a> C/3 CJ 3 A E CO 3 o c P • +-> O H U •H -H 3 u SH u H P u • £ H (/; C/3 30 C/1 be o o • C H O D2 o CO a w •H CO •H O 3 0) a» H • •H +- H TH a £ V CJ G X S-c c a c V X c CJ CJ GOO • o C/3 H c ■p -p 3 P H u H V XI U O CO c p O c o C/3 E o H W) 3 Q u CO H o CO c G >> o m o CJ O H CJ H -H H H H w o CJ O X •H 3 0- U -H CJ X3 TO o T3 CJ X! u CJ o 3 P X > < < < H CJ CL 5 -73- Effectiveness of the Distributive Education Program in Improving; Personal Development The highest percentage ranking in the "excellent'1 area was increased occupational aspirations (40%). The lowest percentage ranking in this area was increased community in¬ volvement (17%). In the "adequate" area, the highest per¬ centage ranking was improved educational opportunities (75%). The lowest percentage ranking was improved employment status (55%). The highest percentage ranking in the "poor" area was increased community involvement (12%). The lowest percentage ranking in this area was increased occupational aspirations (2%). Only one category in the "very poor" area received any ranking which was increased community involvement (3%). For further summary of the effectiveness of the distributive edu¬ cation program in improving personal development, see Table 19. Ratings of Graduates of On-the-Job Cooperative Work Experience When the graduates rated their on-the-job cooperative work experience, the highest percentage ranking in the "excellent" area was supervision received from employer or training sponsor (54%). The lowest percentage ranking in this area was wages received (14%). In the "adequate" area, the highest percentage ranking was wages received (68%) while 74 a f—l I I C 1 1 i 1 i to 1 -H 1 1 i 1 i 1 u o o H o 1 1 i 1 i CM 1 ft, >5 5H ft. 1 1 i 1 i F—< 1 0) > s: 1 1 i 1 i 1 O o o O o o o to d to CO 0J oi CD +J i-H ft o H CJ r- CM rr ft O) O' ft o o ft. ft. CJ CO CM to ft oo rf £ 1 1 ft 1 ft 1 o o o O o o C .H SR • CO oo in oo in oo oo ft -ft CO in CO r- in CO CO o H =«; o o 03 rf CJ 03 ft 3 rf rf in xs in to m ft o CO ft < to a to rr to to to £ Tf m rr 10 CM to to rH ft ft ft ft ft o o O o o o o M SR • • • • • CO a> lO 03 03 Q to -ft a to CM ft r" ft to •H o C H a» =tt; IO ft T 03 01 iH (N CM CM ft CM ft CM >H 0) o ft. to f- o to 03 03 X 5 C s C •H C •H ft O B in •H 3 e ft >> ft ft a 3 3 •H O 0/ 3 in 3 g a £ ft TO ft o o g 3 o a 3 3 •H G in o ft G CO B O X3 ft O C G c G a/ O •H o G O 'O c 33 •H 33 E 0) ’O XJ >> "O 3 3 ft CJ G •o w a> 0) ft 0) ft W 3 (A > G CO > > •H > ft 3 ft 3 ft > ft a> O o O ft o o QJ ■H G O O ft ft > ft ft ♦H ft a ft a ft > ft -H w a a a G m G c a.* C B E 3 E o C 3 c •H e C/J M M ft ft ft ft ft -75 the lowest percentage ranking was supervision received from employer or training sponsor (36%). The highest percentage ranking in the "poor" area was assistance received from the DE coordinator (2%). In the "very poor" area the highest percentage ranking was wages received (4%). Other cate¬ gories receiving like rankings for the lowest percentage ranking were supervision received from employer or training sponsor (2%), on-the-job experience (2%), and working conditions (2%). Table 20 further summarizes the rating of graduates' on-the-job cooperative work experience. Distributive Education Program Help to Graduates The highest percentage ranking in the "great deal" area was preparation for job interview (82%). Right behind it was preparation of job application forms (81%). The lowest per¬ centage ranking in this area was technically qualified for a job (17%). In the "some" area, the highest percentage rcalk¬ ing was technically qualified for a job (66%) while the lowest percentage ranking in this area was shared by preparation of job application forms (18%) and preparation for job interview (18%). The highest percentage ranking in the "little or none" area was technically qualified for a job (17%) while the lowest percentage ranking in this area was preparation of job application forms (1%). Some graduates felt uncertain 76 8 a CQ < Z 8 u CQ O I I § o O o o -H • • • CO i CM CM CJ i u o o H o Q. i —1 to u u. i 1 1 1 CM a» > s i i—I I-( o o o o o i-H • • • CO OJ aO 't co +-> o t- CO to »r c u o o a. to to CO 1 OJ 1 O o o o o >H SR • • < CO Q CO to 00 00 +> lO to rr IO CD o o -*-> H CC *fc CO CO >H CJ 05 3 to CM to ■ o C4 Q o < CM CM CJ to to 0) CO 05 CJ Cl -H o o o o o rH • • CO rr ■*-> ■3< in in to o c H 0) lO 05 to o to to to CJ i-H cu o U. CO Q 05 '“j 05 X CM lO CJ Cl u r. 05 05 00 i-H SH E S o o O -H u t, CO U > 45 cfi > o •H •H C •H o 45 U o 4) O U 45 •H O 1 45 P. X3 4) U X •H 45 U 45 45 XJ > £ C 3 •H 4) O o O) O 45 O CO •H U O CJ CJ C 45 CO 45 •o 45 CO -t-> •H >) 1 bC 3 V > O 45 C CO . U £ •H CC •H U 45 a 45 CO • a E 1 3 W) co a 3 45 c O X < CO o -77- about the help the distributive education program gave them in working with other people (3%), adjusting to work responsi¬ bilities (3%), and understanding technical information (3%). A few graduates felt uncertain about the help DE gave them in finding a job (1%), knowing their abilities and interests (1%) and preparing for further training (1%). Table 21 further summarizes how graduates felt the distributive educa¬ tion program helped them. Recommendation of the Distributive Education Program to Other High School Students The greatest majority of graduates (96%) felt they would recommend the distributive education program to other high school students. Of the 72 respondents, 18 males (25%) and 51 females (71%) seemed to feel they had gained enough from the program to recommend it to others. The investigator feels that due to the number of brothers and sisters of former students enrolled in the distributive education program and the comments made by many students that a former DE student recommended the program to them, numerous graduates have, in fact, recommended the program to others. Table 22 summarizes the recommendation of the distributive education program to other high school students. T A B L E 21 -78- < o E-i a g Ol M Q o o o O o C rH • CO i i rH 1 1 to to rH to rH c V l i 1 1 •H O CO H -H r =«: i i rH 1 1 OJ OJ rH OJ rH M o z s l i 1 1 1 »H 1 PH 1 O o o o o o o o o 0) i t CO 05 d c o i rH rH rH F—H z O H i o CM 10 in co [> o rH rH o 1 i Tf 05 rH to to to in in •H HJ i CO to OJ rH CJ to OJ CJ o o O o o o o o o o oo oo* CM CO to to in H CM ro to d in rH Q OJ b> 00 00 in rH in CO in in to to i-H o CO H SH rf to 0J to to CM rH rH o s OJ to in to 05 o 00 o f'- T l—i rH rH rH 1 c a b 1 •IH 3 CO o 1 o 0) (ft £ kl •H U rH c n HJ V O c a o rH CO +> 01 o a eft eO U o C Cn B a> Cft o 0) •H •H •H Jr, a o> •H •H £ H O u b> c HH a o £ ■H C A (H >- o > CO o SH o o £> rH -o (ft 3 *H O •o O rH C CO £ o eft (H V C V CM •O eO 3 E H-> 0) 3 eft 3 co 4> 0» ■H •H o o •H E 05 b 2 SH CO •H X5 eft -H H-> >> 0, eft U (H a s a > C O u o Cft >H o U O 3 a u a a) 'O £ -n 1) o 3 rH J -H 0) bn a be o> o 4> H c o TO U u •P?-H 0 c 3 C 05 c > •H 0) CO c a o 3 £ C -H C *H ^ •rl £ a Cb H ;o > < £ a -79- o o o <0 Tf Q fH 03 O CO "H -♦-> Cfl o V =tt: 03 tn Cl c <0 o •v o o o s • • • o rH ■'* in a r* r* Cfl U. o PM P tn -r in m V o o o • • H in i m Ol 1 Cl 00 1 00 FH o o m • CO oQ tn Q -p rn TF 0^ o FH H Ifc r- CJ 03 CM Cl o 73 b. to Cl in 73 Cl Cl CO r—i U Z "Cf 1 o o o CD afc in FH <0 +J Cl Cl <73 O iH H =»*s 00 P 03 «H FH FH O 71 b. O FH FH 73 FH FH CO FH u S 00 1 00 O • in iH in t in CO K) 1 to ■P i to 03 o iH H i Tf # 406/442-8600 CAPITAL -105- l 100 VALLEY DRIVE • HELENA, MONTANA • 59601 January 30, 1978 Dear I am conducting a follow-up study of Capital High School Distributive Education graduates for the classes of 1975» 1976, and 1977. I am interested in information concerning your employment, education and/or training, and evaluation of the Distributive Education program to help improve our program at Capital High School for future graduates. Enclosed is a questionnaire which T would greatly appreciate your filling out and returning by February 25. I am hoping for a one hundred percent return. In addition, this follow-up study is being used as a professional paper to fulfill partial requirements for my Masters of Science degree at Montana State University which I hope to complete by the Summer of 1978. The questionaire should not take more than twenty minutes of your time. Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed, pre-addressed, stamped envelope. I would like to compile part of the information on the questionnaire in a newsletter to send to all D. E. graduates of Capital High School as you may be interested to know where your fellow D. E. classmates now are and what they are doing. Please indicate on the last page of the questionnaire whether or not you wish to receive this newsletter. Thank you so much. Sincerely, 1 Barbara Robertson APPENDIX C -106- March 6, 1978 This letter and questionnaire was sent to you on January 30, 1978. As yet I have not heard from you. I would really appreciate your completing this questionnaire and sending it back in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope by March 17, 1978. If this does not reach you by then, please send it back immediately after you receive it (filled out) as I would like to hear from you and what you are now doing. Thank you so much for taking time to fill this out. Barb Robertson