DOCUMENT RESUME AUTdOR DESCRIPTORS · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 049 392 VT 012 989. AUTdOR. TITLE. SPOAS...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 049 392 VT 012 989

AUTdORTITLE

SPOAS AGENCYPUH DATENOT?:

EDRSDESCRIPTORS

ABSfRACT

Harris, E. EdwardEmployer Preferences and Teacher-CoordinatorPractices in Distributive Education.Office of Education (DREW), Washing4.on, D.C.7164p.

EDRS Price Mr" -).h5*Cooperative Education, Cooperative Programs,* Distributive Education, *Educational Practice,*Employer Attitudes, *Instructor Coordinators,Questionnaires, Vocational Education

Employer preferences and teacher - coordinatorpractices were studied and the results compiled to serve as an aid inimplementing programs in cooperative vocational education,particularly on the secondary school level. A pilot study, involving100 employers and 50 teacher-coordinators, was conducted using thequestionnaire tecnniiue, the -n was followed by d comprehensive studyof 496 teacher-coordinators and 544 employers. The findings indicatedthat (1) employers in Joneral merchandise and the automotive fieldsfelt training sessions were :lore important than did employers inother fields, (2) employers who had trained tour or more students inthe past 2 years telt an advisory committee was very important, and(3) teacher-coordinators from inner city high schools felt a trainingagreement Was less important than did schools from other locations.Specific recommendations were that teacher-coordinators should placeincreased emphasis on training plans, advisory committees, andtraining sponsors, and that placement activities must includereviev of students in relation to particular expectations. (GED)

E. Edward Harris, Ph.D.Northern tlfinots University_

Tie Kalb

f.A ;

IT N;HAS BEEN SAID that cooperative education represents a sleepinggiant in vocational education. The resources and environment for itsfurther development are now self-evident. Congress has made cooper-

ative education a priority in vocational education; a new sense of socialresponsibility exists in the business and industrial community; youth wants"relevant" education. In this climate, vocational educators have a uniqueopportunity to extend the range of vocational education through coopera-tive vocational education.

As cooperative programs spread and become accepted in more andmore communities, there arises a concomitant need for more research tosupport an educational method that 1.,:ilizes the work environment to pro-duce desired vocational outcomes. A well-documented and readable re-search report can assist teacher-coordinators in identifying problems andfinding Iv orkable methods of strengthening their own programs.

Such a report was recently prepared by Region V of the U.S. Office ofEducation and is entitled Employer Preferences and Teacher-CoordinatorPractices in Distributive Education. Although this report was preparedby and for distributive educators in Region V. the findings and recommen-dations have implications extending well beyond the geographical bordersof Region V and even beyond the confines of this one vocational field.

This report offers 21 significant recommendations designed to improvethe business and education dialogue and thereby improve the organizationand operation of all cooperative education programs.

The Gregg Division, McGraw-Hill Book Company, is pleased 'o publishthis report as a professional service to vocation:.I education.

Employer Preferences andTeacher-Coordinator Practices in

DistributiveEducation

Region V U.S. office of Education

U I DtpAltf MtPaf Of MFALUN. IDUCATIOMb MOAN!

Off IC f Of FM/CATIONTHIS DOCOAFAFT NAA IFLN AtrAOCA.KIDtAACILV AS A ECtrt0 f POM TPF OI Itsoft 0100,Goczams OPUDINAtNO it "CANIS DfVITO, OA OfAo0M9 StAttO DO MDT %IC ISSAA LI filAPI0 IA1 Of fK,I1 Off Kt Dt IOUCATO% POS,TADY 014 ADUCA

E. Edward ilarris, Ph.D.Northern Illinois University

De Kalb, Iliinots

CONTENTS

ForewordPreface and Acknowledgements vi

I PROBLEM AND PROCEDURE

Statement of the ProblemDefinition of TermsProcedure

II FINDINGS

Importance of Selected Operational Activities in Distributive Education ProgramsAnalysis of Teacher-Coordinator Activities 5

Identification of Areas of Concern to Employers and Educators 8

Competencies of Distributive Education Student/Trainees 11

Conipetencies of Distributive Education Graduates 15

Reasons for Business Participation in Distributive Education 19

Techniques for Securing Training Stations 23Student Placement Plocedures 23

Frequency of Coordination N'isits 23

Relationship Between Number of Employees in Firm and Training Effectiveness 23

Preferences and Practices in Employment of Students 21Personal Characteristics of Distributive Education Student/Trainees 34Persona! Characteristics of Distributive Education Graduates 34

III RECOMMENDATIONS 15

:PPENDICES

A Participation in Region V Distributive EducationResearch by Employers and Tenher-Coordinators 38

B Employer Classification Data 39

C Icacher-Coordinator Classification Data 41

D Combined Form 1 and 11 Teacher-Coordinator Questionnaire 43

Combined Form 1 and Il Employer Questionnaire 49

'Fcacher-Ctxirdina tor letter of Transmittal S S

G Employer Letter of Transmittal 56

II El Letter 57

FOREWORDWith the emphasis that has been given to cooperative vocational educa-

tion through recent vocational education legislation. it was a decision ofthe Region V Program Planning Committee for Distributive Educationthat a contribution could be made to vocational education through an iden-tification of policies and practices that have developed over the thirtyyears in ihich distributive education has utilized a Noperative plan.

This report is the result of a study to determine employer preferencesand teacher-coordinator practices in distributive education ithin fivestates of Region V. U.S. 011ice of Education. It is hoped that the findingsand recommendations ill prove helpful in the implementation of pro-grams in cooperi.tive vocational education.

The Region V 011ice of Adult. Vocational and Technical Educationwishes to ackninaledge its appreciation to the follo%%ing for their contribu-tions to this study:

The Region V Program Planning Committee for Distributk.c. Education,This study as initiated under the chairmanship of Mr. James Biddle.state supervisor of distributive education. Indiana. and completed underthe chairmanship of Mr. Vernon Sienson. state supervisor of businessand distributive education. Wisconsin,

Dr. E. Ethard Harris. professor and teacher educator of distributiveeducation. Northern Illinois University. Del:alb Illinois. for his profes-sional contributions in developing and directing this study from its in-ception to its completion. including the final riting of this publication.Also, to those staff members ond graduate assistants at Northern Illi-nois I.;niversity for their contributions to the study.

1 he employers of distributive education students and the teacher oor-dinators oho gave of their time to sincerely respond to the surey ques-tionnaires.

The Scars - Roebuck Foundation for its encouragement and i;s fundingof the costs of materials, postage. clerical, and computer link,

The Gregg Division. NleGrimIlill Hook Company for its interest inserving distributive education and its publishing of this study as a publicservice to vo,:ational education.

It s% as a pleasure for the Region V Office to cooperate with the Region VProgram Planning Committee for Distributive Education in planningand completing this study of employ er preferences and teacher-coordinafor practices in distributive .Cucation.

E. I..o is. DirectorAdult, Vocational and Technical Vdt.cationRegion VU.S. 011ice of Education

PREFACEAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is the culmination of almost two years. study and research todetermine employer preferences and teacher-coordinator practices as theyrelate to the organisation and operativa of cooperative-plan programs indistributive education at the secondary school level. Special emphasis w asgiven to those aspects of the program which could best serve as a basis forimproved dialogue between employer and teacher-coordinator. The ser-vices of educators and employers were solicited in designing the researchin order that the findings (.1f the study would be of maximum use in thefield.

Written specifically for use by personnel at the grass roots level. this re-port includes tables that are printed in a type size suitable for preparingoverhead projector transparencies for use in conducting pre-service train-ing sessions for administrators and teachers of cooperatve vocation,.1 ed-ucation. The report is divided into four sections: Chapter 1- -Problem andProcedure; Chapter II Findings; Chapter IiI Recommendations: andAppendices.

The study was conducted through the leadership of Daryl F. Nichols.program officer in vo;:ational and technical education. U.S. Office ofEducation. Region V. Chicago. Illinois. The Region V Program PlanningCommittee for Distributive Education. consisting of thirty selected leadersfrom education and business in the five -state U.S. 011ice of Education area.endorsed the need for the study and provided data essential for conductingthe research.

1 he following members of the Research Coordinating Committee de-serve special recognition: Mr. Wayne Harrison (Wisconsin). Mr. RichardShupe (Michigan). Dr. Herbert Ross (Indiana). and Mr. Albert Kurtz(Ohio). Recognition is also given to Miss Mary. V. Marks and Mr. EdwinI.. Nelson. U.S. 011ice of Education. and Mr. Warren 0. Meyer. Univer-sity. of Minnesota. for their assistance in the design of the research instru-ments.

The untiring efforts of Miss Sheila Whitney. Miss Dorothy. Turek,Mr. Robert Sherman. and NIr. Robert Witherspoon, graduate assistantsat Northern Illinois liniversity, are saluted. The technical and professionalassistance provided by Dr. Barbara Sethney. Mrs. Evelyn Siminson. Mr.W;lliarn Westley. and ND.. Jack Hall arc sincerely acknowledged. Aspecial note of thanks is ctended to the employers and teacher-coordina-tors who took time to carefully complete the survey. forms.

E. Edward HarrisProject Director andChairman. Research Coordinating CommitteeRegion V Program Planning Committee

I)ekalh, flhnuisebruary I. 1971

; ) vi

CHAPTER IPROBLEM AND PROCEDURE

nereasingly. programs in education are being de-I vei Ted, implemented. or enriched through theapplication of the concepts essential to the coopera-tive plan. Viable working relationships between per-sonnel in the employ ir a and educational communitiesplay. a major role in the success of these cooperativeventures, The National Advisory Council on Voca-tional Education highlighted the need for etendingone of these cooperative arrangements when itstated: "The part-time cooperative plan is un-doubtedly the hest program we have in vocationaleducation. It consistently yields high placementrecords. high employment stability. and high jobsatisfaction.

Distributive education is one of the best knownsecondary school instructional programs using thecooperat:ve plan. It is hoped that the eweriences ofeducators and employers involved in distributiveeducation programs will be useful to individuals re-sponsible for the development and administration ofprograms in Looperati.c vocational education.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1 he major purpose of this study was to determineemployer preferences and teacher-coordinator prac-tices as they relate to the organization and operationof cooperativ Tian distributive education programsJ t the secondary school level. Specifically. answers tothe following interrelated questions were sought:

I. How important arc selected operational andtcachercvordinator activities to the successof cooperative-plan distributive educationprograms?

2. V hat proportion of coordination time is de-voted to selected activities'?

3. What ore the major prAlerns faced hy em-ploy :I's and teach ..r-coordinators that limitthe effectiveness of the instructional plan?

4. What level of achievement of selected compe-tencies is needed by high school distributiveeducation students and by graduates as run-time employees?

5. What is the actual level of achievement of se-

lected competencies possessed by students foremployment as distributive education student/trainees and by graduates of the program?

6. What is the relationship between the level ofachievement in selected competencies pre-ferred by employers and the level actually pos-sessed by distributive education students andgraduates?

7. What selected personal characteristics areneeded by student/trainees and by graduates'?

S. What selected personal characteristics arepossessed by students and by graduates of thedistributive education program'?

9. What is the relationship between the etent ofdevelopment of selected personal characteris-tics preferred by employers and those charac-teristics actually. possessed by distributiveeducation students and graduates'?

10. What are the reasops for business participationin the cooperative distributive education pro-gram?

I I. Which techniques used by teacher-coordina-tors for securing training stations do em-ploy ers find Most effectiv: in gaining theparticipation of their firms'? What is the re-lationship between those techniques and theones actu,.11; used by teacherzoo;dinators?

12, What procedures do employers %,.ant coor-dinators to follow in placing student, , andscheduling c)ordination visits? limy do thesepreferences compare with the practices ofteacher-coordinators?

13. What is the relationship heNecn the prefer-ences of various groups of employ ers and thefollowing business classification data: nature.ty pe, and location of business. number ofemployees. and number of distributive educalion students trained during the past Noyears?

14. What is the relationship between the practicesof various groups of teachercoordinators andthe following classification data: location andtype of school. y ears of cperience as coordimitor. utilization of advisory conmiittee.and utilization of training plan?

1.4

DEFINITION OF TERMS

GENERAL MERCHANDISE: Firms sach asdepartment stores. junior department stores, varietystores, general merchandise stores. discount storesand catalog houses.

OTHER (DISTRIBUTIVE BUSINESS): Estab-lishments engaged in selling products or providingservices to individuals and business establishments,which are not classifiable as either retail or wholesalein nature and function.

RETAIL TRADE, OTHER: Estahlishments en-gaged in selling merchandise purchased for resale tocustomers for personal. household, business, or farmuse, which arc not listed in one of the 19 other U.S.Office of Education Instructional Program Areacategories.

TRAINING AGREEMENT: A form prepared bythe .eacher-coordinator that indicates the period oftrair ing, hours of work, salary, and other pertinentfact ; and information necessary to assure basic un-derstandihg of the student /tr...inee's position in thecoore7ative education program. The form may besignod by coordinator. employer. student. andpa rents.

TRAINING PLAN: A written program of experi-ences delineating what is to be learned by a specificstudent/trainee and whether the learning is to takeplace in the classroom (group or indi idual instruc-tion) or on the job or both. The plan is derived from arealistic analysis of the tasks, duties, responsibilities,and occupational objectives of the student/trainee,

TRAINING SPONSOR: The individual to N% humthe student /trainee looks for instruction and train-ing on the job. 1 he on-the-job training sponsor mayhe the ow nor or manager or a responsible individualappointed by the management.

PROCEDURE

McCurdy. president of The SearsRoe-buck Foundation. in presenting the key note addressfor the Region V Distributive Education Conferencein Ft. Wayne, Indiana. on April 29. 1969. called forimproved business and education dialogue. Variousstrategies for gathering data essential for developingimproved dialogue were given serious considerationat J series of meetings held in the spring of 1969.

During the summer and fall of 1969, the objec-tives of the study; were established and numerousdata-collecting instruments were examined. Themailed questionnaire survey technique was endorsedby the Region V Distributive Education PlanningC,:mmittee as the most feasible exploratory researchtechnique for collecting the initial data. Additionalstudies were also to be conducted at a later date bydoctoral students on the perceptions of various pub-

2

lies involved in distributive education. Informationessential for conducting the pilot study was providedby the supervisors of distributive education in thestates of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan. Ohio. and Wis-consin so that the study could be conducted beginningFebruary I, 1970.

The 100 employers and 50 teacher-coordinatorthe pilot study were selected on the basis of dataavailable from the U.S. Office of Education. RegionV. to help insure that a sample which was representa-tive of distributive education in the five-state areawas selected. The responses to the questions in open-ended and close-ended survey forms provided infor-mation for improving the survey instruments and fordetermining the number of responses needed to eachquestion. An 80 percent teacher-coordinator re-sponse and a 58 percent employer response was ob-tained on the pilot study. One follow-up letter wasmailed to increase responses both during the fieldtesting and the final research study (see Appendix H).

Two slightly different forms were designed for col-lecting data from employers and teacher-coordina-tors (see Appendices D and E for combined forms).

Most of the questions appeared on both FormsI and IL while approximately live of the questionswere printed on just Form I or Form II. This pro-cedure was followed so that the data requ.red couldbe provided by the respondents in less than 15 min-utes.

During the early part of May, forms were mailed toevery teacher-coordinator in the live-state Region Varea who had supplied a list containing the name ofeach distributive education student in his program.the name and address of the students' employers. andthe name of a contact person in the employing. firms.Informo'ion was provided on approximately 9,500employers by the teacher-coordinators. Employersw ere selected for participation in this study by a sys-tematic random sample.

One out of every nine firms v tk) employ distribu-tive education students in Region V was asi ed toparticipate in the study. However, at least one em-ployer working with each distributive education pro-gram was selected.

Appendices A. R. and C contain a complete analy-sis and report of the 496 (72 percent) responses ob-tained from teacher-coordinators and the 544 (50.1Percent) replies from employers by selected classifi-cation data, The employer and teacher-coordinatorclassifications were also used in analyzing responsesto selected key questions. Two major programs wereto assist in processing the data with the 360-50 com-puter: Statistical Package for the Social SciencesISPSSP and Tc!estorage and Retrevial System(TSAR).'

'Norman N'ie. Dale Bent. and C. II ,.11.0 ull. i fi-t al 4,Jge for !Sr 4jal National Opinion Re-search Center.t7niversit. or Chicago. Nits(;rdy,110) 1300,Company, Not York, 1970,

'I,/i4 forage and Rirtiout Splint. Duke Uni%cr.it:4Computations Ccrlicr, Durham. North Carolina. 1969.

CHAPTER HFINDINGS

IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES INDISTRIBUTIVE ECJJCATION PROGRAMS

Both employers and coordinators indicated the

importance of s lected operational activities ofthe cooperative plan by using the following scale:I = very important: 2 = desirable; and 3 = unim-portant. All nine of the selected activities were ratedas being either very important or desirable (less than2.5) by both employers and teacher-coordinators.However, the mean values show that teacher-co-ordinators rated each of the selected activities asbeing more important to the operation of the dis-tiibutive education program than did employers.

Data in the rank order columns of Table I showthat statistically significant differences do exist inthe relative importance of the operational activitiesas rated by employers and coordinators. Employersranked the following program activities higher inimportance than did coordinators: a plan or trainingfor each student developed by coordinator and train-ing sponsor; the assignment of a specific individualto serve as an on-the-job training sponsor for eachstudent; and an advisory committee to advise schoolofficials on program evaluation.

Coordinators judged the following program activ-ities cf greater importance than did employers:a written agreement establishing the responsibilitiesof student, school, ::nd employer; and participationby business representatives in the classroom-instruc-tion phase of the prgram.

Analysis of Data by Employer Groups

Statistically significant differ enecs existed in howimportant each of the employer groups believed theselected operational activities were to the success ofthe distributive education program.'

1. Employers representing businesses classifiedas general merchandise indicated that the as-signment of a specific individual to serve astraining sponsor for each distributive educa-tion student was more important to the oiler-atioi. of the distributive education programthan did employers in other types of busi-nesses.

'See Appendix It for listing of data of participatingemployers by nature and type of business and 1.1) numberof distributile education students trained during the past

\ car,.

2. Employers in businesses classified as tal retailtrade; other and (b) other (distributive busi-ness) indicated that the assignment of a spe-cific person to serve as a training sponsor foreach distributive education student was lessimportant to the operation of the distributiveeducation program than did employers inother types of businesses.

3. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) general merchandise and Of automotiveand ic) those representing firms that hadtrained four or more distributive educationstudents during the past two years indicatedthat training sessions to prepare trainingsponsors were more imporrimt to the opera-tion of the distributive education programthan did ether employers.

4. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) retail and (b) those representing firms thathad trained four of more distributive educa-tion students during the past two years indi-cio.ed that badness representatives' participa-tion in the classroom- instruction phase of thedistributive education program is mori, im-portant to the operation of the distributiveeducation program than did other employergroups.

5. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) general merchandise, lb) apparel and ac-cessories, and (c) those representing firinsthat had trained four or inure distributiveeducation students over the past two yearsindicated that business representatives' par-ticipation in DECA youth group activities ismore imporram to the operation of the dis-tributive vdlication program than did othercm ploy ers.

6. Employers roresenting firms that had trainedfour or more distributive education studentsover the past two years indicated that an ad-visory committee is more important to theoperation of the distributive education pro-gram than did employers who had partici-pated as extensively in the program.

7. Employers operating businesses classified asbeing retail or wholesale indicated that classroom instruction related to the on-the-job

3

cT

AB

LE 1

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat i

s th

e im

port

ance

of e

ach

of th

e fo

llow

ing

activ

ities

to th

e.

oper

atio

n of

the

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t is

the

impo

rtan

ce o

f eac

h of

the

follo

win

g ac

tiviti

es to

the

oper

atio

n of

the

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

SR

AN

KR

AN

KM

EA

N*

OR

DE

Rt

TY

PE

OF

AC

TIV

ITY

OR

DE

Rt

ME

AN

*N

-474

N=

490

Cla

ssro

om in

stru

ctio

n ha

ving

a r

elat

ions

hip

to th

ele

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e of

a s

tude

nt I:

his

trai

ning

sta

tion

Tra

inin

g m

ater

ials

for

the

stud

ent t

o st

udy

in s

choo

lth

at a

re r

elat

ed to

his

trai

ning

sta

tion

expe

rienc

esA

pla

n of

trai

ning

for

each

stu

dent

dev

elop

ed b

y co

-or

dina

tor

and

trai

ning

spo

nsor

Ass

ignm

ert o

f a s

peci

fic in

divi

dual

to s

erve

as

an o

n-th

e-jo

b tr

aini

ng s

pons

or fo

;- e

ach

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

nst

uden

tA

dvis

ory

com

mitt

ee (

mad

e up

of m

embe

rs r

epre

sent

a-tiv

e of

the

empl

oyin

g co

mm

unity

) to

adv

ise

scho

ol o

ffi-

cial

s on

pro

gram

ope

ratio

nA

writ

ten

agre

emen

t est

ablis

hing

the

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

of s

tude

nt, s

choo

l, an

d em

ploy

erT

rain

ing

sess

ions

hel

d to

pre

pare

trai

ning

spo

nsor

sfo

r th

eir

role

in tr

aini

ng o

f dis

trib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

stu-

dent

sP

artic

ipat

ion

in D

EC

A y

outh

gro

up a

ctiv

ities

, i.e

. ser

v-in

g as

judg

es fo

r co

mpe

titiv

e ev

ents

, on

field

trip

s, a

tem

ploy

ee-e

mpl

oyer

ban

quet

sP

artic

ipat

ion

by b

usin

ess

repr

esen

tativ

es in

the

clas

s-ro

om -

inst

ruct

ion

phas

e of

the

prog

ram

, i.e

. spe

aker

,et

c.*C

ode

for

Mea

n V

alue

s: 1

=V

ery

impo

rtan

t; 2D

esira

ble;

3U

nim

port

ant

tTw

o-T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

1.64

31

1.79

52

2.01

03.

5

2.C

333.

5

2.10

65

2.18

06

2.30

08

2.31

78

2.34

18

11.

160

21.

248

51.

544

51.

571

7.5

1.67

4

31.

424

92.

081

7.5

1.67

4

51.

577

learning experiences is more important to theoperation of the distributive education pro-gram than did employers in service businesses.

R. Employers representing firms that had trainedfour or more distributive education studentsover the past two years indicated that class-room instruction related to the on-the-joblearning experiences is more important tothe operation of the distributive educationprogram than did employers who had not par-ticipated as extensively in the program.

9. Emr1 yers representing businesses classifiedas being general merchandise indicated thatmaterials given to the distributive educationstudent which are related to his on-the-joblearning experiences are more important tothe operation of the distributive educationprogram then did employers in other types ofbusinesses.

10. Employ ers representing firms that had trainedfour or more students over the past two yearsindicated that training agreements weremore important to the operation of the dis-tributive education program than did em-ploy ers h o had trained fewer students.

l 1. Employers representing firms classified as(a) general merchandise and (b) businessesthat had trained four or more distributiveeducation students over the pi,st two yearsindicated that a plan of training for each stu-dent developed by coordinator and trainingsponsor is more important to the operation ofthe distributive education program than didthe other employ er groups studied.

Analysis of Data by TeacherCoordinator Groups

The practices of the 490 teacher-coordinatorswere analyzed in relation to selected distributiveeducation programs. school, and community char-acteristics. Statistically significant differencesexisted in how important each of the coordinatorgroups studied believed the selected operationalactivities were to the success of the distributiveeducation program.'

1. Teacher- coordinators with distributive educa-tion advisory committees indicated that a

training plan for each student is more impor-tant to the operation of their distributive edu-cation program thn , did coordinators withoutadvisory committees.

2. Teacher-coordinators who work with em-ployers and/or training sponsors to developon-the-job training plans indicated that the as-signment of a training sponsor is more impor-!ant to the operation of the distributive educa-tion program than did coordinators vi ho didnot develop plans with personnel in business,

3. Teacher-coordinators with advisory commit.tees indicated that the participition of busi

'See Appcndi' C for listing of clacsification data b)teachercoordinator experience and (sscation of schools inwhich disc ributis e education programs are located,

nessmen in the classroom is more importantto the operation of the distributive educationprogram than did codrdinators without ad-visory committees.

4. Teacher-coordinators with advisory commit-tees indicated that an advisory committee ismore important to the operation of the dis-tributive education program than coordina-tors without advisory committees.

5. Teacher-coordinators with less than threeyears' experience indicated that training agree-ments were more important to the operation ofthe distributive education program than didcoordinators with three or more years' ex-perience.

6. Teacher-coordinators from inner-city highschools indicated that a training agreementwas less important to the or,...ration of thedistributive education program than did coor-dinators from schools in other types of loca-tions.

ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-COORDINATOR ACTIVITIES

The teacher-coordinators surveyed were aske,1 toreview their activities and estimate the proportionof total coordmation time devoted to selected activ-ities. Data in Table 2 show the percentage of the492 teacher-coordinators who indicated that theyhad devoted time to the selected coordinationactivities.

The highest percentage of the coordinators de-voted less than 10 percent of their time to each ofthe following activities: working with training spon-sor and/or employer in implementing an on-the-jobtraining plan; working with training sponsor and/oremployer to solve student's on-the-job problems;establishing and maintaining good working rela-tionships with personnel of the firm; and workingon public relations activities in the community. Thetypict.1 coordinator surveyed devotes 10 to 35 per-cent of his time to the following: explaining thetraining program and the role of the employer and/or training sponsor: discussing with the employ erand/or training sponsor work performed by thestudent in school that is related to the student'spresent and future employment: working with thetraining sponsor or other personnel to solve thestudent's personal problems; and working on in-school activities.

Employers were asked how important they feltselected teachercoordinator activities w ere to thesuccess of the distributive education program intheir firm. Using the scale I = very important, 2 =desirable. and 3 = unimportant. the 474 employersrated the teachcc.coordinator activities.

Employ ers rank order data in Table 3 show thatemployers consider the most important coordinatoractis it) to be establishing and maintaining goodworking relationships with officials of the firm. Thedata in Table 3 also show a comparison between the

5 ii

TA

BLE

2

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t is

the

appr

oxim

ate

perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al c

oord

inat

ion

time

devo

ted

to s

elec

ted

activ

ities

?LE

SS

MO

RE

TH

AN

DO

N'T

lN

OC

OO

RD

INA

TO

R A

CT

IVIT

YN

ON

E I

TH

AN

10%

10-3

5%35

%K

NO

W R

ES

PO

NS

E

N.-

492

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

OF

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S IN

DIC

AT

ING

Exp

lain

ing

the

trai

ning

pro

gram

and

the

role

of t

he e

mpl

oyer

and

/or

trai

ning

spo

nsor

Wor

king

with

trai

ning

spo

nsor

and/

or e

mpl

oyer

in im

plem

entin

gan

on-

the-

job

trai

ning

pla

nD

iscu

ssin

g w

ith e

mpl

oyer

and

/or

trai

ning

spo

nsor

wor

k pe

rfor

med

by th

e st

uden

t in

scho

ol r

elat

ed to

the

stud

ent's

pre

sent

and

futu

reem

ploy

men

tW

orki

ng w

ith tr

aini

ng s

pons

oran

d/or

em

ploy

er to

sol

ve s

tu-

dent

's o

n-th

e-jo

b pr

oble

ms

Wor

king

with

trai

ning

spo

nsor

or

othe

r pe

rson

nel o

f firm

to s

olve

stud

ent's

per

sona

l pro

blem

sE

stab

lishi

ng a

nd m

aint

aini

nggo

od w

orki

ng r

elat

ions

hips

with

pers

onne

l of t

he fi

rmW

orki

ng o

n in

-sch

ool a

ctiv

ities

, i.e

.pr

epar

ing

repo

rts,

gui

danc

e ac

tivi-

ties,

etc

.W

orki

ng o

n pu

blic

rel

atio

ns a

ctiv

i-tie

s in

the

com

mun

ity

.422

.252

.822

.61.

2.8

.850

.441

.64.

81.

01.

4

.439

.543

.913

.41.

41.

4

3.2

46.7

43.1

3.8

2.0

1.2

.434

.548

.514

.6.6

1.4

3.0

64.0

25.6

4.0

2.0

1.4

.43'

1.1

48.4

18.3

.41.

4

2.6

50.5

36A

7.5

1.4

1.6

TA

BLE

3

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: H

ow im

port

ant a

re th

e se

lect

ed te

ache

r-co

ordi

nato

r ac

tiviti

esin

the

oper

atio

n of

the

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t pro

port

ion

of y

our

tota

l coo

rdin

atio

n tim

e is

dev

oted

toth

e se

lect

ed a

ctiv

ities

?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

OR

DE

R*

N=

474

1 2 3.5

3.5

5 6

CO

OR

DIN

A1

ON

AC

TIV

ITIE

SC

OO

RD

INA

TO

RS

RA

NK

OR

DE

R*

To

esta

blis

h ac

id m

aint

ain

good

wor

king

rel

atio

nshi

ps w

ith o

ffi-

cial

s of

the

firm

To

wor

k w

ith y

our

trai

ning

spo

nsor

sto

solv

e st

uden

ts' o

n-th

e-jo

bpr

oble

ms

To

expl

ain

the

trai

ning

pro

gram

and

the

role

of t

he e

mp!

oyer

and

/or

trai

ning

spo

nsor

To

disc

uss

wor

k pe

rfor

med

by

the

stud

ent i

n th

e di

strib

utiv

eed

ucat

ion

clas

s w

hich

is r

elat

edto

the

stud

ent's

pre

sent

and

futu

re e

mpl

oym

ent

To

wor

k w

ith n

eces

sary

per

sonn

el to

sol

ve s

tude

nts'

per

sona

lpr

oble

ms

To

wor

k w

ith tr

aini

ng s

pons

or o

r em

ploy

er to

impl

emen

t on-

the-

job

trai

ning

pla

n

*Tw

o-T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

N =

492

6 4.5

1 2.5

2.5

4.5

importance assigned by employers and a rank orderfor coordinators, which was prepared for studypurposes only. It is important to keep in mind thateven though the above-mentioned coordinatoractivity was indicated by employers as being mostimportant. coordinators may be able to successfullyaccomplish this activity by devoting a smalleramount of coordination time than is required oneither of the coordination activities related to solv-ing student job problems.

Employer preferences and teacher-coordinatordata in Table 3 show that a number of other differ-ences do exist. For example, employers indicatethat solving students' on-the-job problems is rela-tively more important than the time priorities given19 the activity by teacher-coordinators.


Some of the teacher-coordinator activities wereconsidered to be more important by various em-ployer groups. The analysis of data yielded the fol-lowing statistically significant findings.'

1. Employers representing firms that were clas-sified as (a) general merchandise and (b)those which had trained four or more distribu-tive education students over the past two yearsindicated that establishing ..tnd maintaininggood working relationships with business firmpersonnel is a more important ;cachet-coordi-nator activity than, did other employer groups.

2, Employers from general merchandise firmsindicated that explaining the training programand role of employer and/or training sponsoris a more important teacher-coordinator activ-ity than did other types of employers.

3. Employers representing firms that had trainedfour or more distributive education studentsindicated that working with the training spon-sor in developing and implementing on-the-jobtraining plans is a more important teacher-coordinator activity than did employers whohad trained fewer distributive education stu-dents.

4. Employers representing firms that were clas-sified as (a) general merchandise and (b) thosewhich had trained four or more distributiveeducation students indicated that working withthe training sponsor or employer to solve stu-dents' on-the-job and personal problems is amore important teacher-coordinator activitythan did other employer groups.

5. Food service industry employers indicated thatdiscussing work performed by the student inthe distributive education Class v. hich is relatedto the student's present and future employmentis a /or important teacher-coordinator activitythan did employers from other types of busi-nesses.

'See Appendis B for data listing employ ers whoparticipated in the study by type of business and numbet to distributise education students trained duringthe past two cars.

8

6. Employers representing firms classified asretail trade: other indicated that establishinga good working relationship with business firmpersonnel is a less important teacher-coordina-tor activity than did employers from othertypes of businesses.

Analysis of Data by Teacher-Coordinator Groups

The statistical analysis of the data showed that asignificantly larger proportion of teacher-coordina-tors with common personal, program, school, andcommunity characteristics indicated that they de-voted a different percentage of their coordinationtime to selected activities than did all the coordina-tors studied. The statistical analysis yielded the fol-lowing results:1

I. Teacher-coordinators from area vocationalschools devoted a smaller percentage of theircoordination time to establishing and main-taining good working relationships with per-sonnel of the business firm than did coordina-tors from comprehensive high schools.

2. Teachei--coordinators from area vocationalschools devoted a smaller percentage of theircoordination time to working on in-school ac-tivities than did coordinators from comprehen-sive high schools.

3. Teacher-coordinators with three or moreyears of experience devoted a smaller percent-age of their coordination time to explainingthe training program and the role of the em-ployer and training sponsr'r than did coordina-tors with less ex'ensive experience.

4. Teacher - coordinator with one year of experi-ence devoted a smaller percentage of theircoordination time to working with trainingsponsors and/or employers in implementingon-the-job training plans than did coordina-tors with more than ore year of experience.

5. Teacher-coordinators with three or more yearsof experience devoted a smaller percentage oftheir coordination time to explaining the train-ing program than did coordinators with lessthan three y ears- experience.

6. Teacher-coordinators who did not work withemployers and/or training sponsors to developand implement training plans devoted a smallerpercentage of their coordination time to work-ing with training sponsors and/or employersin implementin on-the-job training plans thandid coordinators who work with training plans.

IDENTIFICATION OF AREAS OFCONCERN TO EMPLOYERS

AND EDUCATORS

Employers identified the major problems withwhich the school confronts them that make it dif-

'See Appendis C for listing of classification data byteacher-coordinator experience and type of school inwhich distributive education program is located.

TA

BLE

4

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat a

re th

e m

ajor

pro

blem

s w

ith w

hich

the

scho

ol c

onfr

onts

you

that

mak

e it

diffi

cult

to tr

ain

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n st

uden

ts?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t are

the

maj

or p

robl

ems

with

whi

ch e

mpl

oyer

s co

nfro

ntyo

u th

at m

ake

it di

fficu

lt to

pro

vide

qua

lity

inst

ruct

ion

indi

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

N=

474

N=

492

YE

S-1

01 (

21.3

%)

NO

-362

(76

.4%

)N

O R

ES

PO

NS

E-1

1 (2

.3%

)Y

ES

-289

(58

.7%

)N

O-1

92 (

39.0

%)

NO

RE

SP

ON

SE

-11

(2.2

%)

RA

NK

OR

DE

RP

RO

BLE

MR

AN

KO

RD

ER

PR

OB

LEM

1 2 3 4 5

Stu

dent

s vi

ew th

e pr

ogra

m p

rimar

ily a

sa

way

to e

arn

mon

ey a

nd a

re n

ot s

erio

usab

out b

eing

pro

duct

ive

wor

kers

Stu

dent

s ar

e no

t ava

ilabl

e w

hen

need

ed

Stu

dent

s vi

ew th

e pr

ogra

m a

s an

eas

yw

ay to

get

out

of s

choo

l

Cla

ssro

om e

xper

ienc

es a

re n

ot e

ffec-

tivel

y re

late

d to

on-

the-

job

trai

ning

Stu

dent

s ar

e no

t pro

perly

sel

ecte

d by

teac

her-

coor

dina

tor

1 2 3 4 5

Em

ploy

ers

desi

re s

tude

nts

havi

ng h

igh-

er a

bilit

y an

d in

tere

st le

vel t

han

thos

een

rolli

ng in

the

prog

ram

Stu

dent

s ar

e no

t em

ploy

ed th

roug

hout

scho

ol y

ear

beca

use

of b

udge

tary

re-

stric

tions

Inad

equa

te o

n-th

e-jo

b tr

aini

ng p

rovi

ded

Stu

dent

s ar

e ne

eded

for

empl

oym

ent a

tod

d tim

e of

day

A w

age

paym

ent p

lan

to e

ncou

rage

stu

-de

nts

is n

ot p

rovi

ded

TA

BLE

4

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat a

re th

e m

ajor

pro

blem

s w

ith w

hich

the

scho

ol c

onfr

onts

you

that

mak

e it

diffi

cult

to tr

ain

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n st

uden

ts?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t are

the

maj

or p

robl

ems

with

whi

ch e

mpl

oyer

s co

nfro

ntyo

u th

at m

ake

it di

fficu

lt to

pro

vide

qua

lity

inst

ruct

ion

indi

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

N.4

74N

=49

2Y

ES

-101

(21

.3%

)N

O-3

62 (

76.4

%)

NO

RE

SP

ON

SE

-11

(2.3

%)

YE

S-2

89 (

58.7

%)

NO

-192

(39

.0%

)N

O R

ES

PO

NS

E-1

1 (2

2%)

RA

NK

OR

DE

RP

RO

BLE

MR

AN

KO

RD

ER

PR

OB

LEM

6 7 8 9 10 11

Num

ber

of q

ualif

ied

stud

ents

ava

ilabl

efo

r em

ploy

men

t is

inad

equa

te

Sch

ool r

equi

rem

ents

of m

inim

um h

ours

of e

mpl

oym

ent p

er w

eek

Stu

dent

s ha

ve to

o m

any

extr

a-cu

rric

ular

activ

ities

Coo

rdin

ator

vis

its a

re n

ot c

aref

ully

plan

ned

Coo

rdin

ator

pre

ssur

es y

ou to

offe

r m

ore

trai

ning

pos

ition

s fo

r di

strib

utiv

e ed

uca-

tion

stud

ents

Coo

rdin

ator

vis

its a

re to

o tim

e co

nsum

-in

g

6 7 8

Tra

inin

g sp

onso

rs n

ot w

illin

g to

spe

ndne

eded

am

ount

of t

ime

with

coo

rdin

ator

Man

agem

ent's

com

mun

icat

ing

the

ob-

ject

ives

of t

he p

rogr

am to

the

pers

onne

lac

tual

ly w

orki

ng w

ith th

e st

uden

tsD

ress

and

gro

omin

g re

quire

men

ts

fieult to train distributive education students.Teacher-coordinators indicated the major problemswith which employers confront theni. Data in Table4 show that 289 (58,7 percent) teacher-coordinatorsand only I01 (21.3 percent) employers indicated thatmajor problems did exist which limited the effec-tiveness of the distributive education program. Themost frequently mentioned problem area indicatedby the 101 employers was that students view the pro-gram primarily as a way to earn money and are notserious about being productive workers. The Hproblem areas in terms of frequency of mentionare shown in Table 4. A number of the problems areclosely related and have major implications for im-proving the distrintive education programs usingthe cooperative plan.

The problem most frequently' mentioned by em-ployers is related l3 their desire for students to havehigher ability and .nterest levels than do those stu-dents currently enrolling in the cooperative educa-tion program. fable 4 also contains a list of theother problems that employers present to teacher-coordinators according to frequency of mention.Experienced teacher - coordinators work diligentlyeach year to ininirr ize these aid other related prob-lems so that their Qudents receive the best possibleon-the-jot training.

The statistical analysis of the data by teacher-coordinator and employer classification yielded thefollowing two significant findings

I. Teacher-coordinators %4 ho worked withoutemployers and/or training sponsors to developand implement training plans indicated thatthere were more major problems which employ-ers presented to them that caused some dif-ficulty in developing an effective distributiveeducation program than did coordinators whoworked with training plans.

2. Employ ers representing firms (a) with less than25 employees and (b) that had trained less thanfour distributive education students over thepast two }e..rr indicated more fiequemly thatthe school die confront them with problems

hich made it difficult for them to develop aneffective training program than did employers

it larger n rmbers of employees and em-ploy ers who had trained more than four stu-dents over the last two years.

Data in Table 5 show that a relatively small per-centage (16.5) of the employ ers surveyed felt thatpolicies and/or mar agemert decisions of their firmmade it difficult for them to train distributive edu-cation students. The 78 employers who did indicatethat problems existed reported That the major con-cern was budgetary controls.

The analysis of th: data by employer classificationinformation yielded the following statistically signi-ficant finCing:

Employ ers wit` more than 25 employees indicakd that main; policies and management deci-sions of their lirms 'Bede if more dOcult todevelop an effective program Er training dis-trihutiv e education students than did employers

representing firms with less than 25 employees.Teacher-coordinators surveyed indicated that

they more frequently had problems with the policies.practices. philosophies. or attitudes in their schoolthan with employers in business. Approximately 65percent of the coordinators indicated that a schoolproblem area existed that made it difficult to pro-vide quality instruction in distributive education.

The most frequently mentioned problems werethose related to the recruitment of qualified studentsinto the program. A rank order listing of the etherproblems is contained in Table 5.

COMPETENCIES OF DISTRIBUTIVEEDUCATION STUDENT/TRAINEES

Employers were asked to indicate the level of corn-peteacy development that high school students needfor employment as student/trainees in the coopera-tive-plan distributive education program. The em-ployers surveyed indicated the preferred level ofstudent development in the 17 selected competency.areas using the following scale: I = extensive; 2 =acquaintanceship; and 3 = none. Teacher-coordina-tors used the same scale to indicate the competen-cies actually possessed by students who ho entered em-ployment initially as distributive education students.It is important to note that in many distributive edu-cation programs. students have not had any formalschool instruction in distribution and marketingbefore entering employment.

Table 6 shows the relationship between the com-petencies employers feel distributive education stu-dents should possess and the competencies teacher-coordinators indicated the students did in factpossess. Data in the mean.% alue columns show thatemployers desired students to have a higher level ofproficiency than they actcally did possess in all com-petency areas except (a) understanding of how goodsand services get from producer to consumer. (b) writ-ten communications, (c) job opportunities in market-ing and distribution. (d' listribution in the free enter-prise system. (c) advertising. and (f) buy ing.

The rank order data columns show that differ-ences do exist between the competencies students dopossess upon entering employ ment as distributiveeducation students and those competencies desiredby employers. The folloxxing, competencies wereranked higher by employers: acceptence and adher-ence to company policies, knowledge of products orservices. salesmanship, and public relations.


Some competencies were indicated as being moreimportant by some employ er groups. The analysis ofdata indicated that the following findings were sta-tistically significant:'

I. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) wholesale, (b) service establishments.

'See Appendix B for data listing employers who par-ticipated in study h nature. typc. and fo.:ation ofbusiness.

11

TA

BLE

5

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat p

olic

ies

and/

or m

anag

emen

t dec

isio

ns o

f you

r fir

mm

ake

it di

fficu

lt to

trai

n di

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

?C

OO

RD

INA

TO

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat p

olic

ies,

pra

ctic

es, p

hilo

soph

ies,

or

attit

udes

in y

our

scho

ol m

ake

it di

fficu

lt to

pro

vide

qua

lity

inst

ruct

ion

indi

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

N=

474

N =

492

YE

S-7

8 (1

6.5%

)N

C-3

84 (

81%

)N

O R

ES

PO

NS

E-1

2 (2

.5%

)Y

ES

-317

(64

.4%

)N

J--1

62 (

32.9

%)

NO

RE

SP

ON

SE

-13

(2.6

%)

RA

NK

OR

DE

RP

RO

BLE

MR

AN

KO

RD

ER

PR

OB

LEM

1 2 3 4

Bud

geta

ry c

ontr

ols

Age

req

uire

men

ts fo

r em

ploy

ees

infle

xibi

lity

Uni

on r

equi

rem

ents

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

inab

ility

to r

ecru

it qu

alifi

ed s

tude

nts

Inef

fect

ive

or n

onex

iste

nt p

lan

for

voca

-tio

nal c

ouns

elin

gIn

diffe

rent

atti

tude

of f

acul

ty a

nd a

d-m

inis

trat

ion

tow

ard

prog

ram

Inab

ility

to s

ecur

e ne

cess

ary

mat

eria

ls,

supp

lies,

and

equ

ipm

ent

Inad

equa

te ti

me

for

coor

dina

tion

activ

i-tie

sA

ssig

nmen

t to

activ

ities

not

rel

ated

todi

stib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

durin

g co

ordi

na-

tion

time

Dis

cour

agem

ent f

rom

or

inab

ility

to d

e-vo

te ti

me

and

effo

rt to

you

th g

roup

act

ivi-

ties

TA

BLE

6

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat c

ompe

tenc

ies

shou

ld s

tude

nts

poss

ess

upon

ent

erin

gem

ploy

men

t as

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n st

uden

t/tra

inee

s?C

OO

RD

INA

TO

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat c

ompe

tenc

ies

do s

tude

nts

poss

ess

upon

ent

erin

gem

ploy

men

t as

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n st

uden

t/tra

inee

s?

N=

440

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

ME

AN

*O

RD

ER

tC

OM

PE

TE

NC

Y

N=

490

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

SR

AN

KO

RD

ER

tM

EA

N*

1.22

41.

5F

ollo

win

g di

rect

ions

11.

865

1.24

21.

5A

ccep

tanc

e an

d ad

here

nce

to c

ompa

ny p

olic

ies

92.

302

1.42

93

Wor

king

with

peo

ple

2.5

2.02

31.

489

4O

ral c

omm

unic

atio

ns2.

51.

961

1.68

75

Kno

wle

dge

of p

rodu

cts

or s

ervi

ces

92.

315

1.80

16

Sal

esm

ansh

ip9

2.21

51.

908

7.5

Pub

lic r

elat

ions

14.5

2.44

81.

924

7.5

Mat

hem

atic

s of

bus

ines

s5

2.13

710

259

Non

selli

ng d

utie

s9

2.37

22.

139

10U

nder

stan

ding

of h

ow g

oods

and

ser

vice

s ge

t fro

m p

ro-

duce

r to

con

sum

er5

2.10

3

2.20

013

Dec

isio

n m

akin

g14

.52.

500

2.21

313

Dis

play

14.5

2.51

92.

238

13W

ritte

n co

mm

unic

atio

ns5

2.13

52.

260

13Jo

b op

port

uniti

es in

mar

ketin

g an

d di

strib

utio

n9

2.23

62.

288

13D

istr

ibut

ion

in th

e fr

ee e

nter

pris

e sy

stem

92.

247

2.56

416

Adv

ertis

ing

14.5

2.47

62.

670

17B

uyin

g17

2.59

0*C

ode

for

Mea

n ya

lues

: 1E

xten

sive

; 2--

_-A

cqua

inta

nces

hip;

3=

Non

etT

wo-

Tai

led

T T

ests

Use

d to

Det

erm

ine

Ran

k O

rder

.

and (c) those which are located in a down-town shopping area indicated that the stu-dents who are to be employ-A as a part of thedistributive education program need a moreextensive degree of understanding and rep-aration in the written communications com-petency area than die. other employers.

2. Employers in food distribution indicated thatstudents need a less extensive degre, of un-derstanding and cr,:paration in the writtencommunications competency area than didother employers.

3. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) general merchandise, (b) apparel and ac.cessories. (c) retail. and (d) those which arelocated in a shopping center indicated thatstudents need a more extensive degree ofunderstanding and preparation in the sales-manship competency area than did otheremployers.

4. Employers operating businesses classified :is(a) food distribution and (b) other indicatedthat students need a less extensive degree ofunderstanding and preparation in the sales-manship competency arca than did otheremployers.

5. Employers operating businesses classified aswholesale indicated that students need a loseextensive degree of understanding and prep-aration in the advertising competency areathan did other employers.

6. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) apparel and accessories. (b) food service,(c) food distribution, (d) retail, and (c) the

hich are located in shopping centers indi-cated that the students need a more extensivedegree of understanding and preparation inthe display competency area than did otheremployers.

7. Employ ers operating businesses classified asIa) general merchandise establishments and(b) those which arc located in shopping cen-ters indicated that the students need a moreextemite degree of understanding and prep-ration in the buy ing competency area thandid other employer groups.

S. Employers operating businesses classified asautomotive indicated that the students need amore extemive degree of understanding andpreparation in the decision-making compe-tency area than did other employer groups.

9. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) apparel and accessories. (b) food distribu-tion. and (c) retail indicated that studentsneed a more extemive degree of understand-ing and preparation in the job opportunitiesin marketing and distribution competencyarca than did other employer groups.

10. Employers operating businesses classified asretail trade; other indicated that students needa to, eAtemil-r degree of understanding andpreparation i the job opportunities 1,i mar-keting and distribution competency area than

14

did other employer groups.11. Employers operating businesses classified as

(a) food service and (b) food distribution in-dicated that students need a more extensivedegree of understanding and preparation in theunderstanding of how goods and services getfrom producer to consume; competency areathan did other employer groups.

12. Employers operating businesses classified asgeneral merchandise indicated that studentsneed a less extensive degree of understandingand preparation in the understanding of howgoods and services get from producer to con-sumer competency area than did other em-ployer groups.

Analysis of Data by Teacher-Coordinator Groups

The statistical analysis of the data showed that asignificantly' Larger proportion of teacher-coordina-tors with common personal, program, school, andcommunity characteristics responded to the compe-tencies studied. The statistical analysis yielded thefollowing results:6

1. Teacher-coordinators with two years' experi-ence indicated that the typical student enter-ing the cooperative phase of the distributiveeducation program has more extensive prep-aration in the follow ing competency areas thandid coordinators with other amounts of co-ordinating experience: (a) oral communications;(b) advertising; (c) distribution in the free enter-prise system: and (d ) display.

2. Teacher-coordinators from suburban schoolsindicated that the typical student entering thecooperative phase of the distributive educationprogram has more extensive preparation inthe following competency areas than did co-ordinators from schools in other types of lo-cations: (a) buying: (b) nonselling duties: (c)decision making: (d) distribution in the freeenterprise sy stem: (e) job opportunities in mar-keting and distribution: (f) understanding ofhow goods and services get from producer toconsumer: (g) display; (h) knowledge of prod-ucts or services: and (i) salesmanship.

3. Teacher-coordinators from city schools indi-cated that the typical student entering the co-operative phase of the distributive educationprogram has not had any preparation in the fol-lowing competency areas as compared to thecoordinators from schools in other types of lo-cations: (a) distribution in the free enterprisesystem; and (b) job opportunities in market-ing and distribution.

4. Teacher-coordinators from comprehensivehigh schools indicated that the typical studententering the cooperative phase of the distrib-utive education program has had more even-live preparation in knowledge of products or

'See Appendix C for listing of classification data h%teaehercoordinatot experience. type of school, and Isscalion of school ,n which there are disiribut:se educationprifrarns.

services competency area than coordinators inarea vocational schools.

5. Teacher-coordinators with less than threeyears' experience indicated more frequentlythan coordinators with more experience thatthe typical student entering the cooperativephase of the distributive education program hasnot developed competency in written communi-cation.

6. Teacher-coordinators from area vocationalschools indicmed that the typical student enter-ing the cooperative phase of the distributiveeducation program has had more extensivepreparation in the advertising and buying com-petency areas than did coordinators from com-prehensive high schools.

COMPETENCIES OF DISTRIBUTIVEEDUCATION GRADUATES

Employers used the following three-point scale toindicate the extent to which distributive educationgraduates should possess selected competencies: 1 =extensive: 2 = acquaintanceship; 3 = none. Using thesame scale, teacher-coordinators indicated thelevel to which their students developed the 17 com-petencies.

Data in Table 7 show that with the exception of (a)following directions. (h) acceptance and adherenceto company policies and procedures. and (c) work-ing with people. the teacher-coordinators indicatedthat their students possessed ti e 17 competencies ata higher level of proficiency than employers indi-cated that students should possess them.

Rank order data in Table 7 show that employersplace higher priorities on t e following compe-tencies when compared with those which distribu-tive education graduates possess: (a) following direc-tions: (b) acceptance and adherence to companypolicies and procedures; (c) oral communications;(d) pubtic relations; (e) mathematics of business:(fl decision making; and (g) w ritten communication.


A number of the competencies were consideredto be more important by employer groups. The anal-ysis of data indicated that the following findings arestatistically. significant;;.

1. Employ ers in (a) wholesale and (b) service -type businesses indicated that individuals whoare to be employed as full-time workers nccda more e.vtensise understanding and prepara-tion in the written communications compe-tency area than did employers in the field ofretailing.

2. Employers in the food distribution field indi-cated that individuals who are to be employedas full-time workers need a less extensileunderstanding and preparation in the written

`See Aprcndit B for listing of employers data by nalure and type of business. number of employees. and 10cation of business.

communications competency area than didemployers in other types of businesses.

3. Employees who have trained four or morestudents over the past two years indicated thatindividuals who are to b.: employed as full-time workers need a more extensive preparation in the competency area of understandinghow goods and services get from producer toconsumer than did employers who had notparticipated as ...xtensively in the distributiveeducation program.

4. Employers operating businesses classified asgeneral merchandise indicated that individu-als who are to be employed as full-time work-ers need a more extensive understanding andpreparation in the mathematics of businesscompetency area than did employers operat-ing other types of businesses,

5. Employers operating businesses with 2S orless employees indicated that individuals whoare to be employed as full-time workers needa more extensive understanding and prepara-tion in the nonselling duties competency areathan did employers with a larger number ofemployees.

6. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) service versus wholesale and retail and tb)other indicated that individuals v. ho are to beemployed as full-time workers need a moreextensive understanding and preparation inthe decision-making competency area thandid employers in other types of businesses.

7. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) general merchandise. (h) retail. and (c)those which are located in shopping centersindicated that individuals who are to be em-ployed as full-time workers need a moreextensive understarding and preparation inthe buying competency area than did otheremployer groups.

8. Employers operating businesses with 25 orless employees indicated that individualswho are to be employed as full-time workersneed a more extensive understanding andpreparation in the knowledge of products orservices competency area than did employ erswith larger numbers'of employees.

9. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) general merchandise. (b) food distribu-tion. (c) retail. (d) those with 2S or less em-ployees. and (e) those which are located inshopping centers indicated that individualswho are to be employ ed as full-time workersneed a more extensive understanding andpreparation in the display competency areathan did other employers.

10. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) general merchandise. (b) retail. and (c)those which are located in shopping centers.(d) neighborhood shopping areas. and (e)which have 25 or less employees indicatedthat individuals who are to be employed asfull-time workers need a wort ex:et:site un-

15

tin

TA

BLE

7

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat c

ompe

tenc

ies

shou

ld d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

n gr

adua

tes

poss

ess

for

empl

oym

ent ?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t com

pete

ncie

s ar

e po

sses

ses'

by

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

ngr

adua

tes?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

ME

AN

*O

RD

ER

tC

OM

PE

TE

NC

Y

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

SR

AN

KO

RD

ER

tM

EA

N*

AV

ER

AG

E iv

-375

AV

ER

AG

E N

=49

01.

125

1F

ollo

win

g di

rect

ions

61.

290

1.13

32

Acc

epta

nce

and

adhe

renc

e to

com

pany

pol

icie

s an

dpr

oced

ures

41.

254

1.25

63

Wor

king

with

peo

ple

11.

129

1.33

24

Ora

l com

mun

icat

ions

81.

326

1.37

55

Kno

wle

dge

of p

rodu

cts

or s

ervi

ces

61.

290

1.47

96

Sal

esm

ansh

ip2

1.18

81.

658

7P

ublic

rel

atio

ns11

1.50

01.

688

8M

athe

mat

ics

of b

usin

ess

12.5

1.54

11.

798

9D

ecis

ion

mak

ing

151.

744

1.82

510

Non

selli

ng d

utie

s10

1.43

6L9

1511

.5U

nder

stan

ding

of h

ow g

ooc.

.. an

d se

rvic

es g

et fr

ompr

oduc

er to

con

sum

er3

1.23

21.

947

11.5

Writ

ten

com

mun

icat

ions

171.

793

1.95

513

Dis

play

141.

563

2.16

314

Job

oppo

rtun

ities

in m

arke

ting

and

dist

ribut

ion

61.

301

2.19

315

Dis

trib

utio

n in

the

free

ent

erpr

ise

syst

em9

1.38

92.

254

16B

uyin

g16

1.76

52.

315

17A

dver

tisin

g12

.51.

541

'Cod

e fo

r M

ean

Val

ues:

1 -

---

Ext

ensi

ve; 2

-Acq

uain

tanc

eshi

p; 3

-Non

etT

wo-

Tai

led

T T

ests

Use

d to

Det

erm

ine

Ran

k C

ider

TA

BLE

8

CO

MP

ET

EN

CIE

S W

HIC

H (

1) C

oord

inat

ors

indi

cate

d th

at s

tude

nts

who

gra

duat

efr

om th

e di

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

do

poss

ess

and

(2)

Em

ploy

ers

indi

cate

d th

at in

divi

dual

s em

ploy

ed fu

ll-tim

esh

ould

pos

sess

at a

sig

nific

antly

hig

her

leve

l tha

n th

ose

com

pete

ncie

s st

uden

ts e

nter

ing

the

coop

erat

ive

phas

e of

the

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m p

osse

ss*

Em

ploy

ers

N=

474

Coo

rdin

ator

sN

=49

2

Wor

king

with

peo

ple

Writ

ten

com

mun

icat

ion

Ora

l com

mun

icat

ion

Sal

esm

ansh

ip

Dis

play

Buy

ing

Dec

isio

n m

akin

gJo

b op

port

uniti

es in

mar

ketin

g an

d di

strib

utio

nA

ccep

tanc

e an

d ad

here

nce

to c

ompa

ny p

olic

ies

Kno

wle

dge

of p

rodu

cts

or s

ervi

ces

Adv

ertis

ing

Pub

lic r

elat

ions

Non

selli

na d

utie

sD

istr

ibut

ion

in th

e fr

ee e

nter

pris

e sy

stem

Und

erst

andi

ng o

f how

goo

ds a

nd s

ervi

ces

get f

rom

the

prod

ucer

to th

e co

nsum

er

Mat

hem

atic

s in

bus

ines

s

Fol

low

ing

dire

ctio

ns

*Tw

o-T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e if

Sta

tistic

ally

Sig

nific

ant

TA

BLE

9

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat a

re th

e re

ason

s fo

r yo

ur fi

rm's

par

ticip

atio

n in

a d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Why

do

firm

s pa

rtic

ipat

e in

a d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

OR

DE

R*

N 4

70

1 2 3 4 5

RE

AS

ON

S

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S-

RA

NK

OR

DE

R*

To

secu

re p

art-

time

wor

kers

Tu

trai

n st

uden

ts fo

r ca

reer

s w

ith fi

rmT

o be

invo

lved

in a

n ed

ucat

iona

l pro

gram

to p

repa

re y

outh

for

care

ers

in fi

eld

of d

istr

ibut

ion

To

trai

n st

uden

ts fo

r ca

reer

s in

that

type

of b

usin

ess

To

com

ply

with

dire

ctiv

e fr

om c

ompa

ny h

eadq

uart

evs

to h

ire d

is-

trib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

'Tw

o- T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

N-4

92

1 3 3 3 5

derstanding and preparation in the sales-manship competency area than did other em-ployer groups.

I I. Employers who classified their businesses asother indicated that individuals who are to beemployed as full-lime workers need a lesstvencive understanding and preparation inthe salesmanship and display competencyareas than did employers operating othertypes of businesses.

12. Employers operating businesses classified as(a) automotive. (b) food distribution. and(c) retail indicated that indiliduals who arcto be employed as full-time workers need amore extorsive understanding and preparationin the job opportunities in marketing and dis-tribution competency area titan did other em-ployers.

13. Employers operating businesses classified asother indicated that individuals who are to heemployed as full-time workers need a less ex-tensive understanding and preparation inthe competency areas of fob opportunities inmarketing and distribution and understandingof how glods and services get from producerto consumer than aid employers operatingother I) pas of businesses.

14. Employers operating businesses classified aswholesale firms indicated that individuals whoare to be employed as full-time workers needa ON ex tenshe understanding and prepdra-tion in the advertising competency area thandid employ s operating retail and service-ty pe businesses.

Analysis of Data By Teacher-Coordinator Groups

The statistical analysis of the data showed that asignificantly larger proportion of teacher-,:oordina-tors with certain personal. prop am, school, andcommunity characteristics teach competencies ata different level of student performance than do allcoordinators as a group. The statistical analysis

Meted the following results:'I. Teacher- coordinators who work with employ-

ers and/or training sponsors to develop andimplement training plans indicated that thety picas student who graduates from the distrib-utive education program has had n, )re e.v-rcniiv preparation in the following compe-tency areas than did coordinators who did notwork with training plans: (a) written communi-cations; (b) knowledge of products or services:(el decision making: and (d) following direc-tions.

2. Teacher-coordinators who teach in innercityschools indicated that the typical student whograduatt-. from the distributive education pro-gram ha., had Inure eitensive preparation inthe distribution in the free enterprise compe-tency area than did coordinators from schools

'See A ppendis (." for listing of lasilleation data h)teachercoordinatot esperience and location of schools in,shish there arcdistrihulicc education programs.

in other locations.3. Teacher-coordinators with one year of experi-

ence indicated that the typical student whograduates from the distributive education pro-gram has had less evtensive understanding ofand preparation in the following competencyareas than did coordinators with more thanone year of experience: (a) written communica-tions: (b) decision making; (c) mathematics ofbusiness; and (d) following directions.

Relationship Between Competencies Needed byStudent/Trainees and Those Needed by Full-TimeEmployees

The data in Table 8 show that business firms doprefer to employ individuals who have developed all17 of the competencies studied in this research to ahigher level than that which student/trainees pos-sess upon entering the cooperative phase of the dis-tributive education program. Based upon the s'atisti-cal analysis of the data, teacher-coordinators canfeel confident in assisting students who plan to enterthe field of distribution and marketing in developingthe 17 competencies listed in Table 8.

REASONS FOR BUSINESSPARTIC:PATION IN DISTRIBUTIVE

EDUCATION

A significantly large number of employers andteacher-coordinators indicated that the major reasonbusinesses participate in the cooperative distributiveeducation program is to secure part-time workers.The results of the statistical analysis of the teacher.coordinator and employer data are shown in fable 9.

The reasons given ta indicate why employers par-ticipate in the cooperative distributive educationprogram by various teacher - coordinator groupswere analysed." The statistical analysis yielded thefollowing results:

I. A significantly larger percentage of the teacher-coordinators with advisory committees thd.1those without advisorycommittees indicatedthat employers participate in the distributiveeducation program for the following two rea-sons: (a) to train students for future positionsin their type of business: and (b) to he involvedin an educational program to prepare youthfor future positions in the fkid of distribution.

2. A significantly larger proportion of the teacher-coordinators who work with employers and/ortraining sponsors to develop and implementtraining plans than those who do not indicatedthat employers participate in the distributiveeducation program for the following threereasons (a) to he involved in an ednedtionalprogram to prepare youth for future positionsin the field of distribution: lb) to trair studentsfor future positions with their lirms: and Ic) to

'See A ppendis ir for listing of classification data h)teachercoordinator experience and location of schoolsin which there are disttihuti%c education programs.

19 ?).

C., 8

TA

BLE

10

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat c

onta

ct te

chni

ques

are

effe

ctiv

e in

influ

enci

ng y

our

firm

topa

rtic

ipat

e in

a d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t con

tact

tech

niqu

es d

o yo

u us

e to

sec

ure

empl

oyer

part

icip

atio

n in

a d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

OR

DE

R*

TE

CH

NIQ

UE

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

SR

AN

K O

RD

ER

*

N =

215

N =

248

1P

erso

nal v

isit

by c

oord

inat

or1

2T

elep

hone

con

tact

from

sch

ool

3.5

3T

elep

hone

req

uest

to s

choo

l2

4S

choo

l pla

cem

ent c

ouns

elor

7.5

5E

mpl

oyer

pre

sent

ly c

oope

ratin

g3.

56

Adv

isor

y co

mm

ittee

mem

ber

67

Cha

mbe

r ::f

com

mer

ce9

9M

erch

ant o

r tr

ade

orga

niza

tion

7.5

9E

mpl

oyer

req

uest

follo

win

g a

f;ivi

c/se

rvic

e cl

ub p

rogr

am5

9S

tate

em

ploy

men

t ser

vice

.10

*Tw

o-T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

TA

BLE

11

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

het p

roce

dure

do

you

pref

er fo

r th

e se

lect

ion

of d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

n st

uden

ts?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t pro

cedu

re is

follo

wed

in p

laci

ng d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

nst

uden

ts in

a tr

aini

ng s

tatio

n?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

OR

DE

R*

TE

CH

NIQ

UE

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

SR

AN

K O

RD

ER

*

1C

oord

inat

or s

elec

ts s

ever

al q

ualif

ied

stud

ents

to a

pply

; fin

alse

lect

ion

left

to e

mpl

oyer

2C

oord

inat

or r

efer

s a

stud

ent w

ho m

eets

the

requ

irem

ents

of e

m-

ploy

men

t; fin

al a

ccep

tanc

e th

e de

cisi

on o

f em

ploy

er3

Coo

rdin

ator

sen

ds s

ever

al s

tude

nts

who

wis

h em

ploy

men

t; fin

alse

lect

ion

left

to e

mpl

oyer

4S

tude

nt s

eeks

his

ow

n jo

b op

port

unity

with

out r

efer

ral b

y co

or-

dina

tor

*Tw

o-T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

N=

244

1 2 3 4

TA

BLE

12

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat i

s th

e de

sire

d fr

eque

ncy

of c

oord

inat

ion

visi

ts?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t is

the

freq

uenc

yof

coo

rdin

atio

n ca

lls?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

OR

DE

R*

TIM

E IN

TE

RV

AL

OF

CO

OR

DIN

AT

ION

VIS

ITS

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

R*

ME

AN

N,2

49N

-244

39.4

1O

nce

ever

y m

onth

2.5

2.57

4

26.5

2O

nce

each

gra

ding

per

iod

2.5

2.48

4

10.0

3O

nce

each

sem

este

r5

3.04

5

8.0

4O

nly

whe

n pr

oble

m to

be

solv

ed6

3.18

0

6.4

5E

very

thre

e w

eeks

2.5

2.55

3

6.0

6E

very

two

wee

ks o

r le

ss2.

52.

525

3.6

Oth

er

'Tw

o- T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

train students for future positions in their typeof business.

3. A significantly larger proportion of coordina-tors with more than one year of experience in-dicated that employers participate in the dis-tributive education program to train studentsfor ft lure posit ons with their firms than didcoordinators wit't less experience.

4. A significantly larger proportion of inner-city teacher-coordinators than rural-area teach-er-coordinators indicated that employers par-ticipate in the distributive education grogrambecame of directives from company headquar-ters.

5. A signlicantly larger proportion of the teacher-coordi tators who work with employ ers and/or training sponsors to develop and implementtraining plans indicated that employers trainstudents for future positions with their firm.

TECHNIQUES FOR SECURINGTRAINING STATIONS

Data in Table 10 sltow that the employers indi-cated that personal visit by the teacher-coordina-tor w as the most effective technique for influencingbusiness participation in the distributive educationprogram. Likewise, ,:oordinato.s indicated theymost frequently use tht personal-approach techniquein securing employer participation. However, therank order data does show that some differencesexist bow et n what techniques were effective in in-fluencing employer participation and the frequencywith which coordinators used those techniques.

following techniqt es ranked higher in the em-ployer data column: (a) telephone contact fromschool, (b school placement counselor and (c)chamber of commerce.

STUDENT PLACEMENT PROCEDURES

Teacher-coordinators and employers are in com-plete agreement on the preferred procedures to befollowed in the placement process. Data in Table I I

show that the rank ord:r is identical. beginning withthe coordinator's selec!ion of students and the finalselection being left to the employ cr.

FREQUENCY OFCOORDINATION VISITS

Rank order data in fat, c 12 show that employersprefer to have the to ocher- coordinator visitevery month Teacher-Nordinators indicated in al-most coal numbers the following four intervals forcoordination visits: (I) once every. month; (2) onceeach grading period: (:) every two weeks; and (4)every three v.ccks. Only a small percentage of theemployers indicated that they desired to have co-ordination skits more often than once a month.

Research and published materials on cooperativevocational education concur with the practices ofthe coordinators surveyed in this study.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NUMBER OFEMPLOYEES IN FIRM AND TRAINING

EFFECTIVENESSData in Table 13 show that 38.9 percent of the

teacher-coordinators surveyed indicated that em-ployers and personnel in firms with two to ten em-ployees provide the most effective training for dis-tributive education students. The data also show thata larger percentage (30.7) of the employers who par-ticipated in the study employed two to ten employees.Likewise, it is also important to note that thereare significantly more employers in the UnitedStates who employ two to ten employees than anyother number of employees.

The analysis of the data according to the teacher-coordinator classification information yielded thefollowing statistically significant finding:

Teacher-coordinators from high schools locatedin rural areas indicated more frequently thatfirms with two to ten employees provided themost effective on-the-job training for the dis-tributive education students than did coordina-tors from school located in inner-city, city. orsuburban arec.,

PREFERENCES 4ND PRACTICESIN EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS

Data in Tables 14 through 19 show' the when7and-how phase of the employment of cooperative:planstudents. Table 14 data show' that differences do existbetween the practices of teacher-coordinators andpreferences of employers concerning the months ofthe year for employment of distributive educationstudents. A majority of the employ ers surveyed in.dicated that they prefer to employ distributiveeducation students from June through the senioryear to graduation time. Teacher-coordinators in-dicated that students are available for employ mentunder school supervision only from September tograduation time.

A further analysis of the data by employ er andteacher-coordinator characteristics revealed onestatistically significant comparison: a significantlysmaller proportion of the employers it the appareland accessories field indicated that they prefer toemploy distributive education students Jur:ng thenine-month period from September to June andthe twelve-month period from June to June thandid employers in other types of businesses.

A majority of the firms prefer to employ coopera-tive distributive education students five day s a week.The coordinator rank order data in Table 15 alsoshow thio significantly more of the teacher-coor-dinators indicated that their students do work thedays a week. Data in Table HI show that approxi-mately 75 percent of the employers prefer to has e

23 2 ;:s

TA

BLE

13

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: H

ow m

any

empl

oyee

s w

ork

in th

is fi

rm (

one

loca

tion

only

)?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Em

ploy

ers

and

pers

onne

l in

whi

k..n

siz

e fir

m p

rovi

de m

ost

effe

ctiv

e tr

aini

ng fo

r di

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

NP

ER

CE

NT

AG

EN

UM

BE

R O

F E

MP

LOY

EE

S

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

R*

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

N-4

72N

----

470

145

30.7

2-10

em

ploy

ees

133

.991

19.3

10-2

5 em

ploy

ees

227

.410

121

.426

-75

empl

oyee

s3

19.1

4910

.376

-150

em

ploy

ees

46.

2

8618

.2M

ore

than

150

em

ploy

ees

48.

3

* T

wo

- T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

rr in

e R

ank

Ord

er

TA

BLE

14

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat m

onth

s of

the

year

do

you

pref

er to

em

ploy

dis

trib

utiv

eed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t mon

ths

of th

e ye

ar a

re s

tude

nts

empl

oyed

und

ersc

hool

sup

ervi

sion

?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

OR

DE

Rt

MO

NT

HS

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

Rt

ME

AN

*

N=

474

N=

439

60.3

1Ju

ne th

roug

h gr

adua

tion

(sum

mer

plu

s sc

hool

yea

r)2

3.21

919

.22

Sep

tem

ber

thro

ugh

grad

uatio

n(s

choo

l yea

r on

ly)

11.

553

2.3

3S

epte

mbe

r th

roug

h D

ecem

ber

(firs

t sem

este

r on

ly)

3.5

3.76

43.

04

Sep

tem

ber

thro

ugh

Dec

embe

ran

d M

arch

thro

ugh

June

64.

018

1.3

5Ju

ne th

roug

h D

ecem

ber

and

Mar

ch th

roug

h Ju

ne5

3.94

3.4

6Ja

nuar

y th

roug

h gr

adua

tion

(sec

ond

sem

este

r on

ly)

3.5

3.77

613

.1O

ther

.4N

o re

spon

se

*Cod

e fo

r M

ean

Val

ues:

1=

Alw

ays;

2=

Usu

ally

; 3S

omet

imes

; 4,-

-Sel

dom

; 5=

Nev

ertT

wo-

Tai

led

T T

ests

Use

d to

Det

erm

ine

Ran

k O

rder

TA

BLE

15

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: H

ow m

any

days

per

wee

k w

ould

you

pre

fer

to s

ched

ule

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n st

uden

ts?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: How

man

y da

ys p

er w

eek

do d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

nst

uden

ts w

ork?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

OR

DE

Rt

NU

MB

ER

OF

DA

YS

PE

R W

EE

K

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

Rt

ME

AN

*

52.4

15

days

12.

209

31.6

23-

4 da

ys2

2.58

213

23

6 da

ys3

3.05

3

2.0

47

days

53.

955

51-

2 da

ys4

3.36

1

*Cod

e fo

r M

ean

Val

ues:

1=

Alw

ays;

2=

Usu

ally

; 3=

Som

etim

es; 4

=S

eldo

m; 5

=N

ever

tTw

o-T

a i l

ed T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

TA

BLE

16

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat t

ime

of d

ay d

o yo

u pr

efer

to s

ched

ule

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

nst

uden

ts to

wor

k?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t tim

e of

day

are

stu

dent

s av

aila

ble

for

wor

k?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

OR

DE

Rt

TIM

E O

F D

AY

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

R t

ME

AN

*

N=

249

N=

244

48.6

1A

ftern

oon

hour

s1

1.46

3

26.5

2E

veni

ng h

ours

22.

053

8.8

3M

orni

ng h

ours

43.

758

6.4

4S

plit

shift

33.

373

9.6

Oth

er

*Cod

e fo

r M

ean

Val

ues:

1 =

Alw

ays;

2=

Usu

ally

; 3--

--S

omet

imes

; 4=

Sel

dom

; 5=

Nev

ertT

wo-

Tai

led

TT

ests

Use

d to

Det

erm

ine

Ran

k O

rder

TA

BLE

17

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: H

owm

any

hour

s pe

r w

eek

do y

ou p

refe

r to

sch

edul

e di

strib

utiv

eed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

for

:!.-o

rk?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: How

man

y ho

urs

per

wee

k do

em

ploy

ers

sche

dule

dis

trib

utiv

eed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

for

wor

k?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

RA

NK

OR

DE

Rt

HO

UR

S P

ER

WE

EK

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

Rt

ME

AN

:

N =

250

73.6

16-2

5 ho

urs

1 J.2.

066

15.6

226

-35

hour

s2

2.75

8

9.2

3.15

hou

rs o

r le

ss3

3.11

1

1.6

4M

ore

than

35

hour

s4

3.61

5

*Cod

e fo

r M

ean

Val

ues:

1,A

lway

: 2--

-Usu

ev: 3

,Som

etim

es; 4

=S

e Ido

m; 5

---N

ever

--'e

NS÷

C17

,ed

to D

el

TA

BLE

18

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat i

s th

e ba

sis

for

dete

rmin

ing

the

hour

s di

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

are

to b

e em

ploy

ed?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

nRS

AS

KE

D: W

hat i

s th

e ba

sis

used

by

empl

oyer

s to

det

erm

ine

the

hour

sdi

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

are

to b

e em

ploy

ed?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

OR

DE

Rt

N =

215

1 2 4 5 6

BA

SIS

FO

R D

ET

ER

MIN

ING

ST

UD

EN

T W

OR

K H

OU

RS

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

SR

AN

K O

RD

ER

tt:

=24

8A

vaila

bilit

y of

stu

dent

Reg

ular

wee

kly

sche

dule

Pea

k-ho

ur n

eeds

Con

sulta

tion

with

teac

her-

coor

dina

tor

Per

sonn

el n

eeds

on

a da

y-to

-day

bas

is

Hou

rs fo

r w

hich

it is

diff

icul

t to

hire

par

t-tim

e em

ploy

ees

tTw

o- T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

4 1.5

1.5

3 6 5

8T

AB

LE 1

9

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat i

s th

e pr

efer

red

wag

e pa

ymen

t pla

n fo

r di

strib

utiv

eed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: On

wha

t wag

e pa

ymen

t pla

n ar

e di

strib

utiv

e ed

ucat

ion

stud

ents

pai

d?

EM

PLO

YE

RS R

AN

KP

ER

CE

NT

AG

EO

RD

ER

tW

AG

E P

AY

ME

NT

PLA

N

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

Rt

ME

AN

N-2

48N

=24

4

39.9

1S

ame

wag

e as

pai

d to

any

oth

er e

mpl

oyee

for

sam

e jo

b as

sign

men

t1.

52.

057

24.2

2S

ame

wag

e as

pai

d to

any

oth

er s

tude

nt1.

52.

004

17.3

3P

rodu

ctio

n an

d pe

rfor

man

ce o

f stu

dent

43.

074

10.5

4U

nion

sca

le3

2.40

63.

65

Hig

her

wag

e th

an p

aid

to s

tude

nt n

otin

trai

ning

pro

gram

53.

426

.86

Low

er w

age

than

pai

d to

stu

uent

not

in tr

aini

ng p

rogr

am6

4.02

93.

6O

ther

Cod

e fo

r M

ean

Val

ues:

1,A

lway

s;3,

-Som

etim

es; 4

= S

eldo

m; 5

---=

Nev

erfr

wo-

Tai

led

T T

ests

Use

d to

Det

erm

ine

Ran

k O

rder

TA

BLE

20

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat p

erso

nal c

hara

cter

istic

s ar

e de

sira

ble

in d

istr

ibut

ive

educ

atio

n st

uden

ts?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t per

sona

l cha

ract

eris

tics

are

poss

esse

d by

dis

trib

utiv

eed

i !ca

tion

stud

ents

?

EM

PLO

YE

RS

RA

NK

ME

AN

* O

RD

ER

t

AV

ER

AG

E N

=21

5

TY

PE

OF

CH

AR

AC

TE

RIS

TIC

1.04

61

1.06

92

1.15

23.

51.

159

3.5

1.22

16

1.24

56

1.27

56

1.40

09.

51.

408

9.5

1.41

09.

5

1.45

59.

5

1.52

412

1.65

313

1.77

414

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

R-I

.M

EA

N*

AV

ER

AG

E N

=24

81

1.75

86

2.16

96

2.16

92.

51.

931

112.

371

2.5

1.94

04

2.07

711

2.36

311

2.45

611

2.40

311

2.39

114

2.58

911

2.42

36

2.14

5

Hon

esty

Dep

enda

bilit

y

Pun

ctua

lity

Coo

pera

tion

Des

ire to

iear

n

Nea

t app

eara

nce

Ple

asan

t per

sona

lity

Pos

itive

atti

tude

Initi

ativ

eIn

dust

rious

ness

Men

tal m

atur

ityT

act

Sel

f-co

nfid

ence

Phy

sica

l mat

urity

'"C(.

. le

nor

Mea

n V

alue

s:1

= E

xten

sive

; 2=

Acq

uain

tanc

eshi

p; 3

=N

one

tTw

c T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e R

ank

Ord

er

TA

BLE

21

EM

PLO

YE

RS

AS

KE

D: W

hat p

erso

nal c

hara

cter

istic

s ar

e de

sira

ble

in fu

ll-tim

eem

ploy

ees?

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S A

SK

ED

: Wha

t per

sona

l cha

ract

eris

tics

are

poss

esse

d by

dis

trib

utiv

eed

ucat

ion

grad

uate

s?E

MP

LOY

ER

S

RA

NK

ME

AN

*O

RD

ER

tT

YP

E O

F C

HA

RA

CT

ER

IST

IC

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

RA

NK

OR

DE

Rt

ME

AN

*A

VE

RA

GE

N=

182

AV

ER

AG

E N

=24

81.

022

1.5

Hon

esty

11.

552

1.02

71.

5D

epen

dabi

lity

41.

746

1.08

63

Pun

ctua

lity

41.

742

1.12

57

Coo

pera

tion

41.

706

1.15

37

Nea

t app

eara

nce

41.

645

1.19

17

Des

ire to

lear

n14

2.04

01.

196

7In

itiat

ive

11.5

1.99

21.

213

7P

leas

ant p

erso

nalit

y8

1.87

91.

225

7In

dust

rious

ness

11.5

1.96

41.

263

7M

enta

l mat

urity

11.5

2.00

01.

279

7P

ositi

ve a

ttitu

de9

1.89

91.

264

12.5

Tac

t11

.52.

004

1.27

612

.5S

elf-

con

fiden

ce4

1.72

31.

588

14P

hysi

cal m

atur

ity7

1.83

5

*Cod

e fo

r M

ean

Val

ues:

1 =

Ext

,:nsi

ve; 2

=A

cqua

inta

nces

hip;

3=

Non

etT

wo-

Tai

led

T T

ests

Use

d to

Det

erm

ine

Ran

k O

rder

TA

BLE

22

PE

RS

ON

AL

CH

AR

AC

TE

RIS

TIC

S W

HIC

H (

1) T

each

er-c

oord

inat

ors

indi

cate

d th

atst

uden

ts w

ho g

radu

ated

from

the

dist

ribut

ive

educ

atio

n pr

ogra

m d

o po

sses

s

and

(2)

Em

ploy

ers

indi

cate

d th

at in

divi

dual

sem

ploy

ed fu

ll-tim

e sh

ould

pos

sess

at a

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

leve

l tha

n th

ose

pers

onal

cha

ract

eris

tics

stud

ents

ent

erin

gth

e co

oper

ativ

e ph

ase

of th

e di

strib

utiv

eed

ucat

ion

prog

ram

pos

sess

"'

Em

ploy

er N

=18

2C

oord

inat

or N

=24

8

Nea

t app

eara

nce

Phy

sica

l mat

urity

Men

tal m

atur

ityIn

dust

rious

ness

Initi

ativ

eP

leas

ant p

erso

nalit

yP

unct

ualit

yC

oope

ratio

n

Tac

tS

elf-

conf

iden

ce

*Tw

o-T

aile

d T

Tes

ts U

sed

to D

eter

min

e if

Sta

tistic

ally

Sig

nific

ant

students work during afternoon or evening hours.The fact that approximately 15 percent of the em-ployers prefer to have students work during morninghours or split shift is worthy of serious considera-tion by teacher-coordinators.

Rank order data are identical for the number ofhours per week that employers prefer to schedulestudents to work and the number of h:urs per weekthat distributive education students do work. Datain Table 17 show that employers prefer and usuallydo schedule distributive education students to work16 to 25 hours per week.

A larger number of employers indicated that theyused the criterion of the availability of the student asa basis of determining working hours more than anyother criterion. Data in Table its show that :.eacher-coordinators indicated that employers use either aregular weekly schedule or peak-hour needs scheduleas the basis for determining the working hours.Availability of students received a composite rankorder rating of four by the 248 coordinators res-ponding to the question of how students work hoursarc determined.

Lin ployers and teacher-coordinators data are alsovery similar on the wage payment plan for distrib-utive education students. The practice of follow-ing a wage payment plan whereby the distributiveeducation student is paid the same wage as any otheremployee for the same job assignment is preferredby employers. Coordinators indicated in almostequal proportions that distributive education stu-dents are either on the wage plan preferred by theemployers surveyed or receive the same wage asam other student (see Table 19).

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OFDISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION

STUDENT/TRAINEES

Employ ers indicated the level of development ofpersonal characteristics that high school studentsneed for employment in the cooperative distributiveeducation program. The employers surveyed indi-cated the preferred level of development by usingthe following scale: I = extensive: 2 = acquaintance-ship: and 3 - none. Teacher-coordinators used thesame scale to indicate the personal characteristicsinitially demonstrated by distributive educationstudents.

0

Data in Table 20 show the relationship betweer.the personal characteristics employers indicatedthat students should demonstrate and the personalcharacteristics teacher -coot inators believe thattheir students actually do show. Data in the meanvalue columus show that employers desire all 14

personal characteristics at a higher level than dis-tributive education students possess them. The rankorder data columns show that differences do existbetween the personal characteristics distributiveeducation students do possess upon entering em-pioYment and tilos': desired by employers. The fol-lowing personal characteristics were ranked higherby employers than by coordinators: dependability,punctuality, desire to learn, and tact.

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICSOF DISTRIBUTIVE

EDUCATION GRADUATES

Employers indicated the extent to which distribu-tive education graduates should possess selectedpersonal characteristics, using the following scale:1 = extensive: 2 = acquaintanceship: and 3 = none.Using the identical scale, teacher-coordinators in-dicated the level to which their students developedthe 14 personal characteristics.

Data in Table 21 show that employers desire full-time employees to have all 14 of the personal char-acteristics at a higher level than what is demon-strated by distributive education graduates. Rankorder data show that employers place higher priori-ties or. the following personal characteristics whencompared with the characteristics that oistributiveeducation graduates possess: dependability, punc-tuality, desire to learn, initiative. industriousness.mental maturity, and positive attitude.

Data in Table 22 show that I I of the 14 personalcharacteristics should he demonstrated at a signif-icantly higher level by graduates of distributiveeducation programs than by students entering thecooperative distributive education program. Teacher-coordinators surveyed indicated that the personalcharacteristics were developed by their students. Theemployers contacted specified the need for the de-velopment of the I I personal characteristics.

CHAPTER HIRECOMMENDATIONS

D used upon careful analysis of the data in this.13 study, recommendations are offered to facilitatethe growth and development of educational programsusing the cooperative plan. While the recommenda-tions arc most valid for distributive educators locatedin the five-state U.S. Office of Education Region Varea. it is suggested that they he considered relevantby personnel responsible for developing and imple-menting all types of programs in cooperative voca-tional education throz.ghout the United States.

1. The following should be essential operationalactivities in the cooperative plan:(al A schedule developed by the coordinator

and training sponsor for training cactistudent:

(hi An advisory cornn.ittee, comprised ofmembers representative of the businesscommunity, to advise sch 301 officials onprogram operation;

(c) Assignment of a specific individual toserve as an on-Ciejob training sponsorfor each distrihutise education student;

(di Training session to prepare trainingsponsors for their role in training distribu-tive education students;

(el Classroom instruction having a relation-ship to the learning experiences of a stu-dent in his training station;

(ft Training materials for the student to studyin school. which are related to his train-ing-station experiences;

(gt Participation by business representativesin the classroom-instruction phase of theprogram. a.c. speaker. etc;

(h) A written training agreement that estab-lishes the responsibilities of student.school, and employ er: and

(it Participation in DE.CA youth group acti-vities, i.e. serving as judges for competi-tive events, making field trips, attendingemployee-employer banquets.

2. Teacher-eoordinators should place increasedemphasis on the following three elements ofthe cooperative plan: training plans. advisorycommittees, and training sponsors.

3. Teacher-coordinators should dcsotc propor-tionately more of their coordination time to

the implementation of on-the-job trainingplans and to the solution of students' on-the-job problems.

4. Teacher-comdinatcrs must identify and com-municate the goals and objectives of the co-operative distributive education program interms of expected student outcomes. usingthe services of counselors, school administra-tors. and advisory committees.

5. Teacher-coordinators need to develop andimplement techniques and procedures forcommunicating the goals. objectives. and op-erating procedures so that the distributiveeducation program is understood by all con-cerned personnel both in the education:11 andbusiness communities.

6. Teacher-coordinators need to deveop andimplement a plan of action with key man-agement personnel in distributive businessesand trade associations that will ensuremutual understanding and pos:tive commit-ment and involvement in the distributive edu-cation program.

7. Teacher-coordinators and employers need tocarefully examine the reasons for businessparticipation in cooperative-plan distribu-tive education programs and where neces-sary develop a strategy that will result inappropriate attitude changes.

S. Distrihutive education curriculums at thesecondary school level must be expanded toinclude a mit.insum of two years of instruc-tion if the competencies students do possessupon entering employment as distributiveeducation students are to match thosedesired by employ ers.

9. Instruction in distributive education shouldbe designed so that students develop thefollowing competencies at a higher levelthan they are currently following directions,working with people. and acceptance andadherence to company policies and pro.cedures.

10. The level of development in selectee es mile-tencies needed by employers in selected loca-tions and types of businesses should he givencareful consideration in student career and

35

curriculum planning.II. Placement activities must include a review of

the con-qietencies and personal characteris-tics possessed by students in relation to theparticular expectations of employers ac-cording to type and location of business.

12. The size, location, and type of businessshould and does provide teacher-coordina-tors with a base for the planning of individ-ualized instruction.

13. Teacher-coordinators should continue to usethe personal coordination visit as the primarytechnique for securing participation of firmsin the program. Other methods should beused only to supplement the personal con-tact.

14. Coordination visits should be educationallypurposeful in nature and carefully planned.The freoency of visits should be justified toemploying officials.

15. School personnel should carefully study theneed to provide teacher-coordinators withextended contracts so that students can beemployed under school supervision during thesummer months.

16. School personnel should carefully study thepossibility of developing cooperative educa-tion with students scheduled for employ-ment at times other than afternoon hours.

17. Personnel in the educational and businesscommunities need to reach an understandingabout the kind and deree of personal char-a.:teristics which should be possessed by stu-dents and graduates. Hopefully, employers willagree upon realistic requirements that can beachieved through appropriate educationalexperiences,

18, Research should be conducted with employersrepresenting businesses classified as general

36

merchandise firms who do operate and pre-fer the distributive education program to beoperated following the practices and pro-cedures commonly subscribed to by personnelin leadership positions in distributive educa-tion iu order to determine why they believe.practice, and prefer the program to oper-ate as they do.

19. Research should be conducted with employ-ers representing businesses who have trainedmore than four distributive education stu-dents during the past two years who do oper-ate and prefer the distributive educationprogram to be operated following the prac-tices and procedures commonly subscribed toby personnel in leadership positions in distrib-utive education in order to determine whythey believe, practice, and prefer the pro-gram to operate as they do.

20. Personnel in the educational and employingcommunities need to develop meaningfuldialogue. This should result in increasedparticipation and cooperation in orderthat educational programs using the co-operative plan can provide meaningfullearning experiences for the students. Prob-lems and concerns that arc peculiar to thenature or type of business, number of em-ployees, or other similar business classifica-tion data need to be identified and resolved.

2i. Each teacher-coordinator working in con-junction with his advisory committee shouldselect and modify questions from the emplyersurvey form used in this study. Heshould then administer the instrument, com-pile the results, make recommendations,develop a plan of action, and implementthe plan.

APPENDICES

4o

4

APPENDIX A

PARTICIPATION IN REGION V DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATIONRESEARCH BY EMPLOYERS AND TEACHER-COORDINATORS

Summary of Region V Survey Participation Data

Forms Mailed

Coordinators

687

Employers

N1086

Total Responses ReceivedTotal Usable Responses

496492

72.071.6

544474

50.1

42.7

En:player Responses by Stare

State Mailed Usable Responses Percentage Response

Illinois 259 123 47.5Ohio 316 147 46.5Wisconsin 42 24 57.1Indiana IO2_ 50 49.0Michigan 365 130 35.6

Total 1,086 474 43.6

Employer Responses by Form Number

Form Number Mailed Usable Responses Percentage Response

Form I 545 224 44.3Form II 541 250 41.1

Total 1.086 474 43.6

Additional Replies Rece red from EMployas

Reply Number

I. Unable to participate. no specific reason given2. Form not received or received response too late to include in study3. Insufficient knowledge about distributive education program or student4 Owner. employer, training sponsor left firm5. Too busy6. Dist ributn e education student left firm7. Company policy

2521

I I

7

6

3

Total 75

38

Tea( lIcrCoordwat< r Responses b, Suite

State Mailed Useable Responses Percentage Response

Illinois 167 116 70.6Indiana 52 37 71.1Michigan 150 137 76.1Ohio 23b 126 53.4Wisconsin 50 38 76.0

Total 657 492 71.6

Teacher-Coordinator Responses by Form Number

Form Number Mailed Usable Responses Percentage Response

Form !Form II

347340

248240

71.571.8

Total 687 488 71.6

Additional Replies Received fro nn Teacher - Coordinators

Reply Number

1. Response received too late to include in study2. Not willing to participate in study3. Recently employed and did not feel qualified to

complete form

7

Total 9

APPENDIX B

EMPLOYER CLASSIFICATION DATA

Type of Business

N = 474Retail Molesale Service No Response

377(79.5X) 18(3.8 "c) 69(14.6;c) 10 (2.17)

Nature of Business

Classified By U.S. Office of Education Instructional Program AreaN = 474

s8 1.7 Advertising Services 4 .8 Indust, keting

65 13.7 Apparel and Accessories 1 .2 Insurance38 8.0 Automotive 1 .2 Internat:onal Trade17 3.6 Finance and Credit 7 1.5 Personnel SeiNNes4 .8 Floristry 13 2.7 Petroleum

64 13.5 Food Distribution 0 0 R al EsLite46 9.7 Food Service 1 .2 Recreation Tourism

164 34.6 General Merchandise 0 0 Transportation1,1 4.6 Hardware. Budding 13 2.7 nolesale Trade:

Materials. Farm and Other (Please Specify)Garden Supplies andEquipment 81 17.1 Retail Trade. Other

(Please Specify)15 3.2 Home Furnishings

41 8.6 Other IPlease3 .6 Hotel and Lodging Specify)

Location Of Busil1C3s

N = 474N

156 32.9 DolAntown Shopping Area129 27.2 Neighborhood Shopping Area129 27.2 Shopping Center58 12 .2 Other

2 .4 No Response

29

Number Of Employees(One Location Only)

N = 474

145 2-1030.691 19.2 11.25

101 21.3 26-7549 10.3 76-15086 18.1 More Than 150

2 1.4 No Response

Number of Distributive Education StudentsTrained over Pitt Two Years

N= 474

254 53.6 Less than 496 20.3 4. 673 15.4 7-1510 2.1 16.2526 5.5 More Than 251 i 2.3 Do Not Know4 .8 No Response

Employees in Cooperative Emplot er Firmitho Are Graduates of a Distributive Education Program

N = 474

1 61 None34.0153 32.3 1. 2

61 12.9 3- 521 4.4 6-1021 4.4 More Than 1051 10.8 No Not Know6 1.3 No Response

Orge.M:atior Of Business

N = 471_N 7c

19.0 Single Proprietorship23 4.9 Partnership

322 67.9 Corporation12 2.5 Franchise

5 1.1 Cooperative17 3.6 Other

No Response

Distributive Education Program EmployersIs'orkiag with Advisory Committees

N = 474N

123 25,9 Yes107 22.6 No

8 1.7 Majority224 47.3 1X Not Know

7 1.5 Other5 1.1 No Response

40

Distributive Educathm Emrlovers Workingwith Cooperatively Developed On-the-Job Training Plans

N = 474

172 Yes36.3217 45.8 No

7 1.5 Majority65 13.7 Do Not Know

8 1.7 Other1.1 No Response

Size of Community in Itich Business is LocatedN= 474

67 14.1 Less Than 10,000149 31.4 10,000. 50,000

78 16.5 50,000.10C,00049 10.3 100,000-250,00024 5.1 250,000. 500,00081 17.1 More Than 500,00026 5.5 No Response

APPENDIX C

TEACHER-COORDINATOR CLASSIFICATION DATA

Location of SchoolN = 488

12 1 Inner City189 35.7 City179 36.7 Suburban61 12.5 Rural

.1(114'94.y Committee Recognized be Sclm,ol

N

261 -.5765 Yes220 44.7 No

11 _ 2 No Response

Training Plans Perch ipcd urd Implom wed withEiPIrl;yers.,1,1141f i wining Sp(r-,s(

r,T

386 78.5 Yes93 18.9 No13 2.6 No Response

s,

N=N

439 90.5 Comprehensive32 6.6 AreaVoeai ional

4 .8 Trade-Tech nieal10 2.1 Other

41

Number of Years Distributive EducationProgram ht Operation

N = 488

111 Less Than 3 Years22.7155 31.8 3- 5107 21.9 6.1033 6.8 11-1582 16.8 More Than 15

ApproxUnate School EnrolhnentGrades 10-12

N = 490

51 10.4 Less Than 500124 25.3 500-1,000188 38.4 1,001.2,000

97 19.8 2,001-3,00030 6.1 More Than 3,000

Number Full -Time EquivalentDistributive Education Staff

N = 488N

66 13.6 Less Than 1.031C 63.7 1.0.1.5

68 14.0 1.6-2.0"t 1.4 2.1-2.5

28 5.7 2.6-3.08 1.6 More Than 3.0

Vumber of CooperativeDistributive Educatbn: (less Secticms

291 59.1 1

135 27 4 2

32 6.5 3

26 5.3 Other

Number of Students EnrolledDistributive. Education Subjects

by Grade Levet

N =492Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

N Number

210 42.7 60 12.2 4 .8 None37 7.5 145 '9,5 286 58.1 10- 2514 2.8 117 23.8 135 27.4 26. 506 1.2 61 12.4 40 8,1 51.1004 1.5 13 2.6 13 2.6 Over 1)0

221 44:1 96 19.5 14 2.8 No Response

42

APPENDIX D

COMBINED FORM I AND II TEACHER-COORDINATOR

Sample Survey Instrument

PART A

These questions base been prepared to determine practices which you follow in the NORMAL operetion of your cooperative distrib-utive education program.

Section 1

PLEASE CHECK THE BLANKS PROVIDED TO INDICATE THE APPROPRIATE DEGREE OF STUDENT UNDERSTAND-ING AND PREPARATION FOR EACH OE THE FOLLOWING:

I. The typical stu lent who ewers the cooperative phase of the_ __ _____ .._._.....

preparation in each of the following areas:

a. Working with people

Extensive Acquaintanceship None Don't Know' 7

h. Written cominunicaionsc. Oral communicationsd. Kno%%ledge of products or s.-ViiiS

e. Salesmanship

1. Advertising

g. Displayh. Public relation.:

i. Buyingj. Non-selling duties

k. Decision makingI.

rn.

Distribution in the free enterprise systemJob opportunities in marketing and distribution

n. UnderstanxIMg of how goods and services gel Iron,producer to consumer

o. Mathematic, of businessr. Follow ing direeti.ms

q. Acceptance and adherence to company policies andprocedures

r. Other: please specify

2. 1 he .spiral student who graduates kern the distributiveeducation program has an understanding of and preparationin cad] the follow ing aeas:

a. Working with peLyeh. Written communicationse. Oral communicationsd. Knowledge of ptoduel, and sers icese. Salesmanship

I. Adrcilisingg. Ihsplas

h. Public relation,i. Busing

iNon-selling dutiesk. Derision makingI. Distribution in the rice enterpiise. s dalni. Job opportunities in markeiirg and distributionn. Understanding of how goods and ser,ices get Trani

producer to consu.nere. the:nail, ef Istasinessp. I ollowing ducktionsq. .1,0.pt,no: and . dherenTe to company policies and

proxdutesr. Other. plea. .perils

[ I xtcrisie ANuainlanceship None Dort Know

Section Ii

PLEASE CHECK THE BLANKS PROVIDED TO INDICATE THE APPROPRIATE DEGREE OF FREQUENCY FOR EACHOF THE FOLLOWING:

3. Students whom I am presently able to recruit into the..Au ,

4.

characteristies:

a. Neal appearance

Always Usually Sometimes Seldom 1 NeseT1

b. Physical Inaturityc. Merital maturityd. Pleasant :iersonality

C.

f.

PunctualityDerndabirity

g. Industriousness11. Positive attitudei. Initiativej. Tact lk. Desire to learn

I. Hon slyin. Self -confidenee

n. Cooperation0. Other: Please specify

completion of the program arc as follows: Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

a Neat appeatanee

h.

c.

Physical maturityMental maturity

d. Pleasant personalitye.

1.

PonstualityDependability

g. Industriousnessh.

i.

Positive attitudeInitiative

j:.

k.

TactDesire to learn

1.

m.

Honesty

Self-confidencen. Cooperation0. Other: Please specify

_a

5. Employ cos pat ticipa te in the distributise education programfor the following reasons:

a. 10 Seallt.6: part-time ssorkers

h. To train students for future positions w ith 1.1elirI f.11111

c. To train students for future positions in their 1) pc ofbusinesses

d. To be involved in an educational program to prepareyouth for future positions in the held of distribution

a. Because of dircetise from company headquattets tohire distvibutive education students

f. Other: 111:JC specfy

6. Ty

a.

b.

44

Always Usually-74 Sometimes Seldom Never.

he distributive education progr..in: I Always Usual!) Sonictiines Seldom NOVI-Personal %isil 10 potential employer

-I

Telephone. contact to potential employerIcier% ism; request from interested employ er

I inplos..er request following J COI: or sers ice clubmeeting attended by ss-hssol personnel

Refctral from: ad, i .ory committee member

1

Referral front: cocperating employer________-

Refcrtal front: (11.11TIN't 01 trOmtnc i CC

Referral from: merchant of trade organilation

_Referral from: school placement sc rsisRefertal from: slate cmploy trent scrsice

i _ , ...._

___. _ _ __ __

Other: Picas,: cpcsily_ _ _ ______

I I,students work: Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

a. 1.2 days

b. 3-4 days

c. 5 days

d. 6 dayse. 7 days

12. Employers and business personnel in which size firm provide the most effective on-the- ob training for students emp oyed in thedistributive education program: (Please check only one)

a 2. 10 employeesb 10- 25 employeesc 26- 75 employeesd 76-150 employeese Over 150 employees

13.

7.

S.

procedures: Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

a. Students seek out thei, own employment without beingreferred by me

b. Send several students; employer selects student to behired

c. Several students qualified; employer makes final decisionon hiring

d. Refer a student who meets the requirements of employ-ment with a firm with final acceptance a decision of theemployer.

e. Other. please specify

students will work on the following basis: Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

a. Peak hour need

b. Those hours for which it is difficult to hire part-timeworkers

c. A regular weekly scheduled. Personnel needs on a to.y-to-day hosts

c. Availability of student1. After consultation with the coordinatorg. Other: Please specify

supervision for the follossing months of the year: Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

a. June through June (sit ntruct plus school >earl

h. September through June (school year 0151)1e, September through December (first semester only )

d.c.

January through June (second semester only )June through December. and March through June

Ig.

September through December, and ',larch through June.,._

ether: Please specify____

9. 1 lo rs schedule distribulive education students to

10

Antk: Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never 1

I. I S hours or less

16-25 hours:. 26-35 hours ______I More than 35 hours iavailable to w ork: Alss 45S Usually Sometimes Syldot I Never

a. Morning hours iJ

ts, Af ts t noon hour, ___ _______ ____c. Evening het i-s

__.t

d. Split shifte. Other: Please Testi.>

a

45

14.

15.

basis: Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

a. Same wage as paid to any studentb. Higher wage than paid to students not in the training

program

e. Lesser wage than paid to students not in the trainingprogram

d. By production and performance of studentv. Same wage as paid any other employee for the same job

assignment

f. Union scale

g. Other: Please specify

How often do you visit training station: Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Never

a. livery two weeks or lessb. Every three weekse. Once each monthd. Once each semester

e. Oree each grading periodf. Only when there is some problem to be solved

g. Other: Please specify

Section IH

THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO DETERMINE THE IMPORTANCE OE SELECTED PHASES 01' THEDISTRIBLIEIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM STRUCTURE. 1ND1CATE YOUR OPINION BY CHECKING THE APPROPRIATESPACES ON THE RIGHT:

16. As you review this past year.APPROXLItil TEL Y whatproportion of your total coorthitatioor time is devoted to thefollowing activities: None

Minor(Less Than

(a.;)Considerable

110-35;!)Major

lOser 35k) Don't Know

a. Esplaining the training program and the role of theemployer and/or training sponsor

b. Working with training sponsor and /or employer in im-plementing an on-the-job training plan

c.

-d.

Discussing with employer and/or training sponsor work,serformed by the student in the distributive educationclass which is related to the student's present and futureemplo)mentWorking with training spunsor and/or employer to solvethe student's on-the-job problems

e. Working with training supersisor (sponsor) or otherpersonnel of firm to solve student's personal problems

f. Establishing and maintaining good working relationshipswito personnel of the firm

g. Working on in- school activities (i.e. preparing reports.guidance activities. etc.)

h. Working on public relations as.tii i ties in the cummunite f17. 1 he importance of each of the following activities to the V-0-

opietalnin of your distributirs education program I in y.. ittant Desirable

a. Assignment of a specific individual to serve as an on-the- 1

bill training sponsor for cash distnhutivc educationstudent

h. !raining sessions to prepare rrainivg sponsors for theirrole in the training of distributive education students

c. business 'repro...manses participate iv the classroom in- 1situ, iron phase of the program (i.e. Teal- cr. resourceperson, etc

d. business representalise pailisipates YouthGroup astisrties: ti e. stung as judg.-. for comps:wireeven/., for field tiro. cmpii er <ntpl n ce tiarigis,its etc. i

e. Adiussrry cony nh e tmade up of wont,. is fere snou-t's,- of the emplo)ing aV111111L11111) I to anus schoolofltstal on program operation

(-1. Ciissroorn instruction related to the Is-lining cspericri

of a student in his training tairsinF. Ntatei hits Fir the student to stud) utssh,ofwhish.re

related to his on -the -ion training es7reik-rices

h. A written airs-ems nt esiablishing the isisponsibillires ofstuds-al. --shoot. and sioplii)Cr

plan of training for each student desa sped bssooldina tor and training sponsoi

U 46

Iii. Arc there any major problems with which employer!' confront you that make it difficult to develop an effective DistributiveEducation Program?

______ Yes No

If the a nsw;. to the above question is YES. please indicate the major problenits) by checking the appropriate response(s). NOTE:If +sore than one response is checked, please number responses in order of imporlanee. Consider No. I rare most imporranrproblem.

a Employer desires students having higher ability and interest level than those enrolling in the programb. Not employing students throughout school year because of budgetary restrictioi-s

Not providing a wage payment plan to encourage studentsd Inadequate on-the-job training providede Union or Federal Wage and !lour I aw; restrictions

Time of day when students are needed for employmentg Dress and grooming requirementsh Management's communication of the objectives of the program a the personnel actually working with the studentsi. Training sponsors not willlng to spend needed amount of time mmli coordinatorj. Other: Please specify

Are there any policies. practices, philosophies. or attitudes in your school which make it difficult to develop an effectiveDistributive Education Prirgram?

Yes No

If the ansvtcr to the above question is YES. please indicate the resulting major prolate ns by checking the appropriate response(s).NO1 II more shun one response is checked, plisse number revenues in order of imporlance. Consider No. I the most im-pel.; r problem.

Problems related to the recruitment of qualified students into program___ b. Unable to secure necessary materials, sup; lies, and equipment

iadequate time for courdiitation activitiesIneffective or non-ekistent plan fors ocational counseling

a. Indifferent attitude of faculty and administration toward orogram_____E Discouraged from or unable to devote time and effort Ic youth group activities

g Assigned to activities not related to distributive education during coordination timeh Other: Please specify

PART B

PERSONAL INFORMATION SHEET FOR TEACHERCOORDINATOR

DIM C MINS: Please arm% er each of the following questions as they pertain to the operation of s our cooperative program during the1969-1970 school year. I his information w 01 be considered as CON 1-1 Ft I 1. and used for primarily cross classi-fication purposes.

Approyiniate hoot enrollment in grades 10-I 2:

a. Less than 500_______ 500.1:000

,0012.000

Is,...dion of ,.root:

J. Inner Lids

b. ciis

3. 1 s pe of school:

a. %tea Voearionalompre hensit a

2.001-3.000c, Oa or 3A/00

c. Suburban________ d. Rural

c fradeleehnieal_ Other: Please specify.

\ uL)ber cat. ,orn.r.oise distrtbutisc cduti ton prograrn has been in operation:

I css than 7 tons.3-t tears

C. 6101Carsd. 11 15 scarse Ocr IS tears

5 11,,, 31,1),,N,UN/ I are t;_ 'hung dhtributkc educators ubjeste in your ,J.11001,'

a IC, thJr1_ t`. 1-1 5

I r).:. _ Yore than 3

47Jv

6. How many cooperative distributive education class sections in your school? (Please consider either a single or double period classas one section)

a Oneb Two

c. Threed Other: Please specify

How many students are enrolled in distributive education subjects foreach grade level in your school? 10th Grade 11th Grade 12th Grade

a. Noneb. 10-25c. 26-50d. 51-100e. Over 100

8. Total number of yc ars' experience as a distributive education coordinator:

a One d. Six to tenb. Two e More than tenc Three to five

9. Do you work with a Distributive Education Advisory Committee which is recognized by your school?

a Yesb No

10. Do you work with employees and/or training sponsor to develop and implement training plans?

a Yes

b. No

PLEASE RETURN THIS COMPLETED FORM IN THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE PAID ENVELOPE TO:

Dr. E. Edward HarrisProfessor of Distributive EducationCollege of BusinessNorthern Illinois UniversityDe Kalb, Illinois 601 15

i 48

APPENDIX E

COMBINED FORM I AND II EMPLOYER

Sample Surrey Instrument

PART A

Please check the classification(s) below which describe(s) your position:

Manager or Owner Department ManagerTraining Supervisor (Sponsor) ._ Other (Please specify)

Personnel Manager

Section 1

DIRECTIONS: Please check the level of achievement or attainment, (I) for students who are employed as a part of the distributiveeducation prograr (2) for individuals who might be employed full-time with your firm and hope to advance.

FOR D.E. STUDENTS FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT

Please indicate the degree of level of understanding andpreparation students employed in the D.E. program andindividuals employed full-time need in each of the followingareas:

l.::> >

7:z:4

X1--

:u

a.Evl:...)

L..)Z

t'Z'<DCYU<

:.:4Z0Z

30Z:4r.Z0r:i

a. Working with peopleb.

c.

Written communicationsOral communications

d. Knowledge of products or servicese. Salesmanshipf. Advertisingg. Displayh. Public relationsi. Buying

..._

,. Non-selling dutiesk.

I.

Decision makingDistribution in the free enterprise system

ni.

n.

o.

Job opportunities in marketing and distributionUnderstanding of how goods and seniors getfrom producer to consumerMathematics of business

p. Following directionsq. Acceptance and adherence to company policiest. Other: Please specify

""s

;.,7>Dsz.,[:4

a.Evl1:4(..)Z[Z<..D0L.)<

wz0z

30Z

--.z2

- -- --

IN

Jsj

FOR D.E. STUDENTS FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT

Please indicate the extent to which the following personalcharacteristics are needed by students you employ as a partof the D.E. program and for graduates who are employedfull-time and hope to advance.

w>4-Z4i,,,jF.XLi.

a.=in..auz<I-

<70,!..)<

rarZ.,0Z

oz:4

1z0r:a

a. Neat appearance

b. Physical maturityc. Mental maturityd. Pleasant personalitye. Punctualityf. Dependability

g. Industriousnessh. Positive altitudei. Initiativej. Tactk. Desire to learnI. Honesty

m. Self-confidencen. Cooperationo. Other: Please specify

FOR D.E. STUDENIS

3. How important are career ambition, for students employed if:in your firm a, a part of the D.E. program and for thoseemployed full-time who hope to advance?

a. Interest in a future position in the fiel I of distributionb, Interest in a future position in yomi type of businesst.. Interest in a future position in your firmd. 1rib:rot in working under a school

ii4>_inZLuhsXLia

i

0.Eantu0z<1.-Z<7ciil.)<

ti4Z0Z

3oz

1Z0CI

FOR FULL -TIME. EMPLOYMENT

,..?

>t.71Z

>IY:4

0.

5,LtLtz<tZ

0<

Z0Z

i.is*0tie

Z00

Section II

DIRT CI IONS: Prase select only the three most applicable responses and rank in order of importance by writing I, 2, and 3 in theseleeted blanks. (Consider I the most important.)

4. The icaton, yoi,r firm participates in the distributive ciaucation Timpani are:

a To secure part -time workeis

b. To train tledcritt for future positions with your firm_ _ c fo train students for future posit ns in your ty pc sf huines,d To he intolsed in an ed., at ional program to prcrite y uth for future positions in the field of distributionc Re, lute of dire.lne from company headquarr is to hire dt,itibuthr education student,f Other Please sporty

5, 1 he ,,ontact, elkstite rn influercing your firm to participate in the ifistrilouthe education program arc:

a. Personal vita be school teachertsoordinatot_ Telephone contact from school teachcricoot4inato;c. Your telephone request to the %chests!

__ d. Your request following a chic ,enree (tub program attc. e.ed by school personnel

50

e An advisory committee memberf An employer presently cooperating in the program

g The Chamber of Commerceh A merchant or trade organizationi State employment servicej A school placement counselor

_k Other: Please specify

6. The procedures for accepting distributive education students for employment with your firm are:

a Students seeking own job opportunity (nor referred by teacher-coordinator)b Teacher-coordinator sends several students; Sinai selection being left to youc. Teacher-coordinator selects several qualified students; final selection left to youd. Teacher-coordinator refers a student who meets the requirements of employment in your firm with final accep-

tance being your decisione Other: Please specify

7. The methods for determining the hours a distributive education student is to be employed in your firm are:

a. Peak hour needsb. (lours for which it is difficult to hire part-time employeesc Regular weekly schedule

d, Personnel needs on a day-to-day basis_ e. Availability of student

f. Consultation with teacher-coordinatorg Other: Please specify

Section III

DIRECTIONS: Please check only one response.

8. The months of the year your firm prefers to employ distribt live education students:

a. June through June ;summer plus schoolyear)

______b. September through June (school yearonly)

c September through December

e June through December and March throughJune

September through Des-ember and Marchthrough Jure

g Other: Please specify

9. The number of hours per week your firm prefers to schedule distributive education students:

__________ a. 15 hours or lessb 16-25 hours

c '6-35 hoursd Over 35 hours

10. The time of day your firm prefers to schedule distributive education students:

3. Morning hours d shift_ _b. Afternoon hours e Other: Please specify

c. Evening hours

II. Ple; se indicate the number of days per week your firm prefers to schedule distributive education students to work:

--_____ 3. 1-2 days ____ __A. 6 days______ b. 3-4 days _______e. 7 days

________ r. 5 days

12. The 54ago payment plan y our firm peeps to we in paying distributive education students:

a Same w age as paid to Pity other student

________ b. Higher wage than paid to students not in Ine training programc. t esser wage than paid to students not in the training programd. hodu;tion and performance of student_ Same w age as paid any other smploy re for the same job assignmentf Union scaleg Other: Please specify'

54 J1

13. 1 he teacher-coordinator should visit your firm:

a. I-very 2 weeks or le,,

h tvery 3 weeksc Once each monthd Once each semester

____e. Once each grading period

1. Gni> when there is some problem to be solved

g. Other. Please specify

Section IV

DIRI CIIONS: Please indicate your opinion by checking the appropriate spaces at the right for each item.

14. (low Unportant are each of the following to the operation of the Distributivef ducation Program?

I-zi-z

., z..-,.

> ...a

=<zl.;::

5

Hz<Hoc0z:t7w.,-

..--

"5zst-.7.0c

I. Assignment of a specific individual in your firm to serve as an on-the-job trainingsupervisor I sponsor) for each distributive education student

n. Training sessions to prepare supervisors (sponsors) for their role in working withdistributive education students.

:. lit; ci ricsc representatives participate in the classroom instruction phase of the program,de, speaker, resource person.

J. Business rCpri!,entatiVCS participate in DI CA Youth Group activities, i.e. serving asjudges for competitive events, for field trips, ern ploy:cc-ell ploye r banquet,.

a. Ads isory committee (made up of members representative of the employingL'01111111U nity 1 to advise school officuis on progriin Operation.

I. classroom instruction related to the learning everiences of the student in Iiion-the-job training esperiences.Materials fur the strident to study in school sr Inch are related to his on-the-jobtraining evcriences.

H

Id A u rit ten agreement establishing the responsibilities of student. SOIOOL and employer.i. A plan of training for each student dos:loped by coordinator and training supervisor

(sponsor). _I

15 Do, important are the folios, ing leacher-coordinator aelisities in the operation of theDrtrirrotive I du,,,Iton rrogren in tour firm?

.11I stahlisiong and miiiiiaining good %corking relationships with personnel of your firm.

Ii I spi,lining the training program and the role of the employer and /or on-the-job

training supervisor isponsor Is

c. Vi orking is ith training supervisor GI onsort in developing and implementing on-the-jobtraining plan.

d Discussing m roformed by the student in the Distributive I du,alion class sr biali is[...rated to the studcrfs present and future employ went.

c, Vi 0rAirgl,iih training ,upeRisor tyonsor) an-1/er eniplo)cr to wise student's ondhe jod;problems.

I. Ilorking cc ilb ifaining SLIrcRisor (sponsor) or other personnel of the firm to soh,:student's pcisonal prohle

52

16. Are there any major problems with which the "school" confronts you that make it difficult to develop an effective program forthe training of distributive education students?

Yes No

If the answer to the above question is YES, please indicate the orator problems by checking the appropriate responses. 1 in: Ifmore than 000 response is checked, please number responses Or order of importance. Consider No. 1 the most r variantproblem.

a Students not available when neededb. Students not properly selected by teacher-coordinator for employment in our firmc Students view the program as an easy way to get out of schoold. Students view the program primarily as a way to earn money and are not serious about being a producing workere Students have too many extra-curricular activitiesf. School requirements for hours of minimum hours of employment per week

Coordinator pressures you to offer more training positions for Distributive Education studentsh. Classroom experiences not effectively related to on-the-job trainingi Number of qualified students available for employment is inadequatej. Coordinator visits are too time consumingk Coordinator visits are not carefully planned1. Other; Please specify'

I 7. Are there any policies and/or management decisions of your firm that make it difficult to develop an effective program of trainingfor distributive education students?

Yes

If that answer to the above question is YE.S. please indicate by checking the appropriate responses. NOTE: If more 0,111 one re-sponse L. ,110.1ed, please ormolu" responses ill 01 %IC." euirrrportarnce. Consider Xo. 1 are most importma problem.

a. Inflexibilityb. Budgetary' controlsc. Age requirements for employeesd. Union requirements

Other: Please specify

PART B

BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION

DIRT C/ IONS: Please check the category in each case that best dewnbe, your firm.

I. Ty pe of business:

Retail hole,ale __ Service

2 Nature of toiness:

a. Athei tising Ser,i,e,h. Apparel and Accessoriesc Automotive

I inan,v and Credite I 1011,11Y

f. I 00d Distributiong. I ood Set %Be

It General Merchandise lie.. department store,. satiety stores. general merchandise stores. diseourt stores, and,alalog houses)

____..i. Ranks arc, Building Materials. I arm and Garden Supplies and I quipmen,

t Home I tonishing,

k. hotel and I cs4angI. Indii,trial Marketingin. tnsuranse

n. International Tradeo rirsonnel SON kr.

Petroleumq. Real I state

. Re. kalton and I our .n

5. I tanToriation

t 1) holoale Trade; other 1pleasc specify)u. Retail Trade:other (please "peeily)v. Other: Please yeelly

3. ()tont /Atkin of bu.inc.s:

. Single S opli Onip

b. Partnership

Corporation

4, Location of business: one location only not total companY)

. a. Do \s ;nut% n 'hopping area

___ b. Neighborhood ,hopping area

Siec or Corniniotity:

than 101100

b. 10,0i.11-50,000

c. 50001-100,000

\ timber of employ ee, in your time tone location only not total comp.iny)

a, 2-111 ernpioiec.b. 11-25 elnplo)ce,c. 26-75 employee,

d. Franchisee Cooperative

Other: (specify)

c. Shopping cenlem

_d. Or her: 'pecifyI

__ d. 100,001- 250,[100

e. 250,001-500,0001, Over 500p000

d. 76.150 employ ce,e. User 150 employee.

7. I lots Many of your employee, are graduate, of a dtributive education program?

a, None J. 6-10 employees

h. 1-2 empliji Over 10 V11111[0CO,

I". :1-5 employee, Don't Know

[lot\ many di.t 'hunt,. education ,tudent, ha. your fine (one liteation only riot total company'( trained over the past boo year.?

a I e.. than 4 student..44, "rodent,

c. 7.15 ,luthmis

_ _ . d. 16.25 Ytudantsc Over 25 student,1. Don't knot%

I io the di.lributicc education procranis you are current.) 000rking soith hoe atiti,ory committees?

a Ye,b No

C. 11.11011t1

. d. Don't knotte. het: ,peciry

Ill. Do ',he ditriber me t 1,r(il.111011 tii,Kr-coordniators you arc turrently tt orking ytith tIcYelop tin-the-job plan, for trainin;incooperation it Oh men IN:r of your

_ c, d, Isom knowI, So Other: site, ify

t.

1111 \K 1'01

Pi 1 151 lei f1 R\ 1111s (0\11'11 11 110101 IS (111 1'05151;1 1'11!) I SY! 11)1'1 10:

Ili. 1 .1JtYard Hato,of 1)04 ri1,Lit,%0 I Juc.irton

I' 0114.e of lin

Northern :Pinot, Um .1,11)Ile K..111,.111;11., I Ii115

54

APPENDIX F

Teacher-Coordinator Letter of Transmittal

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

4

DEKALB, ILLINOIS 60115

AIC3 Co e 615

Tclephore 7531177

FROM: Dr, E. Edward Harris, Region V Project Director

TO: Distributive Education Teacher Coordinators

SUBJECT: Region V, U. S. Office of Education, Distributive EducationSurvey

Thank you for your help! By sending us a list of those firms whichserve as training stations for your distributive education students,you have made it possible for us to conduct a study of the practices ofcoordinators and preferences of business personnel who are working di-rectly with distributive education. From the over 8,500 cooperatingemployers that were referred to us, we have randomly selected 1,000 whowill be asked to indicate their preferences in working with distributiveeducation. Will you please invest 15 minutes of your time to indicateyour normal practices in the operation of your distributive educationprogram?

Your reply will be studied carefully together with those of other teahh-er-coordinators and cooperating employers in Illinois, Indiana, Michi-gan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Your individual responses will be kept con-fidential. The results of the survey will serve as a basis for develop-ing a dialogue between Distributive and Business personnel during the1971 U. S. Office of Education Regional Distributive Education Meeting

Benton Harbor, Michigan.

I wish to express my appreciation to you in advance for the time andeffort that yo" will devote to completing the enclosed questionnaire.If jou nave any questions concerning the survey instrument, please feelfree to contact me. We hope to have your completed form by May 18, 1970.

Enclosure

6155

B.JS,FS8E11."),

APPENDIX G

Employer Letter of Transmittal

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITYDEKALBHLLN015 60115

Arco Ccde 815

Tcreph8, 752 I

FROM: Dr. E. Edward Harris, Region V Research Project Director

TO: Selected Business Leaders

SUBJECT; Region V, U. S. Office of Education, Distributive EducationSurvey

The name of your firm has been submitted by your loal high scho.:1 dis-tributive education teacher-coordinator indicating that you are activelyworking with distributive education students. On behalf of the Dis-tributive Education Program Committee Region V, U. S. Office of Educa-tion, I wish to express my sincere appreciation for what you are doingto help the youth of America to become productive citizens.

The Distributive Education Program Planning Committee, which is madeup of Business leaders and educators has, during the past five years,been vitally concerned with trying to improve working relationships be-tween business and education. We, too, feel a commitment to help theyouth of America. We have been devoting our time and services in aneffort to study the practices and preferences of individuals workingwith distributive education programs. Because of the experience andexpertise you have gained as a cooperating employer, your assistance ismost vitally needed in examining cooperative distributive education pro-grams.

Will you please invest 15 minutes of your time to complete the enclosedquestionnaire? Your reply will be studied carefully together withthose of other business personnel in the states of Illinois, Indiana,Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The results will be used to upgradedistributive education programs to better meet the needs of the busi-ness community and to strengthen the educational programs for students.You may wish to consult with other members of your staff who have beeninvolved in the distributive education program. We are anxious to havethe thinking of as many people as possible.

I wish to express my appreciation to you in advance for the time andeffort that you will devote to completing the enclosed survey. if youhave any questions concerning the survey instrument, please feel freeto contact me.

kc

Enclosure

56

Err.5 ,F.,,5 ECJr:a7 O.

APPENDIX H

Follow-up Letter

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITYDEKALB, ILLINOIS 60115

TO: REGION V, DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

FROM: DR. E. EDWARD HARRIS, REGION V PROJECT DIRECTOR

SUBJECT: REGION V DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION SURVEY

Area Coac 215

Te1epho, 1177

Approximately two weeks ago a distributive education survey formwas mailed to your office. The Region V., U.S. Office of EducationProgram Planning Committee is anxious to have a 100 percent response.

Will you please indicate the action that has been taken on thelower portion of this memorandum and please return it to me assoon as possible in the enclosed business reply envelope.

PLEASE RETURN TO: Dr. E. Edward HarrisCollege of BusinessNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalb, Illinois 60115

THE DISTRIBUTIVE EDUCATION SURVEY FORM:

Was not received or has been misplaced

Was completed and mailed

Will be completed by

Name

date

We will NOT be able to participate in the survey

Comments:

and returned

Name of Firm or School

Address

Zip Code

57

C I I

. . . .

4.cz

.01

1

DOCUMENT RESUME AUTdOR DESCRIPTORS · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 049 392 VT 012 989. AUTdOR. TITLE. SPOAS...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME AUTdOR DESCRIPTORS · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 049 392 VT 012 989. AUTdOR. TITLE. SPOAS...