FACTORS AFFECTING ATTRITION OF STUDENTS IN THE PRODUCTION

FACTORS AFFECTING ATTRITION OF STUDENTS IN THE PRODUCTION VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS OF TEXAS by DENNIS C. PATE, B.S. A THESIS IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved Accepted August 1981 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author acknowledges the leadership and motivation of Dr. Marvin Cepica and the members of the project committee: Dr. Lewis Eggenberger, Dr. John Dillingham and Dr. James Clark. I am also indebted to my wife Corlis for the moral support she has provided. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION History and Description of Vocational Agriculture ---'Statement of the Problem Purpose and Objectives II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attrition from Schools and Programs . . . . III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Population and Sample The Data Gathering Instrument Data Analysis Techniques IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA Descriptive Analysis of Student S a m p l e . . . Student Career Goals Program Participation Levels of the Student Sample Factors Influencing Students' Decision to Discontinue Production Vocational Agriculture FFA and SOEP Influence Cooperative Part-time Training and Preemployment Laboratory Training Student Open Responses Regarding Discontinuation of Production Vocational SUr€>'IARY Agriculture S t a t e m e n t of t h e Problem ii v 1 1 5 6 9 9 14 14 15 16 18 13 20 22 26 31 34 -> 39 V. 3 3^ 111 Purpose and Objectives Methods and Procedures VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40 41 45 47 49 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A. B. Cover Letters Questionnaire 50 58 IV LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. 4. Sample Delineation According to Sex Sample Delineation According to Race Student Career Goals Students' Career Goals Related to Agriculture 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Future Farmers of America Membership . . . . 21 23 24 25 26 29 Page 18 19 20 Student Leadership Team Participation . . . . Student Judging Team Participation Student Participation in Supervised Occupational Experience Programs Factors Influencing Student Attrition . . . . Influence of SOEP on Student's Decision to Discontinue Production Vocational Agriculture Influence of Monetary Requirements of SOEP on Student's Decision to Discontinue Production Vocational Agriculture Influence of FFA Participation on Student's Decision to Discontinue Production Vocational Agriculture Students Entering Other Vocational Agriculture Programs Student Open Responses Regarding Discontinuation of Production Vocational Agriculture V 32 11. 33 12. 34 35 13. 14. 37 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION History and Description of Vocational Agriculture Vocational agriculture (VA) began in Texas, as in other states, with the signing of the Smith-Hughes Act in 1917. As agriculture and agri-business have undergone change, the vocational agriculture program has maintained its effectiveness through modifications which paralleled evolution in the agricultural industry. The Smith-Hughes Act provided funds which encouraged each state to establish vocational education in agriculture, trades and industries and homemaking. The agriculture pro- gram established through this act was to provide education of less than college grade. Program participants must have been at least fourteen years of age and preparing to enter a production agriculture occupation. The writers of the Smith-Kughes legislation recognized the need for a national network for vocational training and provided an excellent opportunity for the agricultural community of 1917. As time elapsed, agriculture changed, and the Vocational Education Act of 196 3 was passed to accommodate those changes. One important change provided by the 1963 Act was establishment of a program which allowed students to receive vocational training and to be employed in their vocational field on a part-time basis. Today, in Texas, this program is known as cooperative part-time training. Vocational agriculture was further broadened through the passage of the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968. These amendments established several programs which are in existence in the current vocational agriculture program. Pre-employment laboratory training was designed to provide specialized training for students preparing to enter employment in agricultural occupations. Also established in the 1968 amendments were coordinated vocational academ.ic education (CVAE) and vocational education for the handicapped (VEH) . The two progrciras were designed to meet the specialized needs of students who are either socioeconomically, academically or physically handicapped. In Texas, the vocational agriculture program currently contains several entities which have been develped to accommiodate a wide range of students ' needs and interests. The Texas vocational agriculture programs include the special programs of CVAE and VEK and the regular programs of cooperative part-time training, preemployment laboratory training, and production vocational agriculture. Coordinated vocational academic education (CVAE) and vocational education for the handicapped are special programs which have been designed to meet the needs of students v^ith special educational requirements. Students who do not succeed in regular educational programs due to academic or socioeconomic difficulties are placed in the CVAE program. The VEH program was designed specifically for students with exceptional educational or physical handicaps. The students placed in VEH do not have the ability to succeed in traditional academic or vocational training and are determined to be eligible for special education programs. At the age of sixteen, vocational students have the option of enrolling in the cooperative part-time training program. In this program, the student continues to receive vocational agriculture instruction along with other required high school curricula and maintains a part-time job in an agriculturally related field. This allows students to gain knowledge through instruction and experience through employment in their chosen area of agriculture. Students who wish to receive specialized instruction in a particular area may enter the pre-employment laboratory training phase of vocational agriculture. In Texas, this program includes the following instructional areas: farm power and macliinery, ornamental horticulture, forest products harvesting, meats processing, feedlot employment. agricultural resources, agricultural chemicals and fertilizers, and general agricultural mechanics. program depends The upon the needs of the students and the type of agriculture which prevails in the community. Production vocational agriculture is the largest phase of the total vocational agriculture program and the main focal point of this study. In 1979-1980, the total vocational agriculture enrollment in Texas was 61,379 students. Of this total enrollment, 50,916 students were enrolled in the production agriculture phase of vocational agriculture. The production agriculture program in Texas consists of a four year curriculum based on all aspects of the agricultural industry. These four years of instruction The material are commonly known as VA I, II, III, and IV. taught in the four years is of a sequencial nature so the subject matter taught in VA I is continued in an increasingly advanced form in VA II, III, and IV. Therefore, students must take VA I before continuing into VA II, III, and IV. tSfhile enrolled in production agriculture, the student receives supplemental training through the supervised occupational experience program (SOEP). Students meet the SOEP requirements by owning and managing a plant or animal project, working on a farm or ranch not owned by their parents or guardians, or by accomplishing skills or attaining experiences taught in production agriculture. It is through the supervised occupational experience program that the student is able to apply the knowledge attained in class to "real world situations." An internal part of the production agriculture program is the Future Farmers of America (FFA) organization. The FFA is a voluntary intracurricular organiza- tion which ties the classroom instruction to the SOEP. Within the organization, students develop leadership and citizenship and have the opportunity to become involved in judging team competition, leadership competition, and livestock and crop showing. It is also through the FFA that students can use their organizational involvement to work toward numerous advanced degrees and awards. As revealed in the foregoing paragraphs, the Texas vocational agriculture program consists of a variety of options which cover a wide range of agricultural specialties. It is this variety of programs which gives voca- tional agriculture students an opportunity to select the program which will best suit their individual needs. Statement of the Problem The total 19 79-1980 production vocational agriculture enrollment was 50,916 in the state of Texas. Of this total enrollment, 23,888 students were enrolled in VA I, 15,995 in VA II, 8,133 in VA III and 2,900 in VA IV (10). This proportionate trend has been present in proTheoret- duction vocational agriculture for many years. ically, a majority of students who enroll in VA. I could continue their production vo. ag. studies through VA.II, III, and IV. As shov/n by the enrollment figures for 1979-1980, the enrollment in production agriculture III and IV is much lower than the enrollment in production agriculture I and II. Through some undetermined reason or reasons, the number of students v7ho initally enroll in the production vocational agriculture program (VA.I) do not complete the program by continuing through all production agriculture courses offered at that school. The factors affecting the attrition rate of students, from VA. I, to VA. IV is the focus of this study. Purpose and Objectives The primary purpose of this study was to determine the reason or reasons students enroll in production vocational agriculture I or production vocational agriculture I and II and then elect to discontinue their vocational studies in production vocational agriculture III and/or IV. Several aspects were examined to determine the factors which influence the attrition rate of students from this program. In order to determine the reasons students do not complete the production agriculture program, the following objectives were formulated: 7 1. To determine the career goals of those students surveyed. 2. To determine the levels of program participation among those students surveyed. 3. To determine the relationship of selected factors with the students' decisions to discontinue the production vocational agriculture program. 4. To determine the amount of influence the FFA and SOEP had upon the students' decisions to discontinue the production vocational agriculture program. 5. To determine the number of students surveyed who discontinued production vocational agriculture to take either cooperative part-time training or preemployment laboratory training. 6. To categorically classify and rank the reasons students dropped production vocational agriculture as listed by the surveyed students. CHAPTER II REVIEV7 OF LITERATURE Attrition from Schools and Programs A vast amount of previous research has been conducted concerning the general subject of students dropping out of public school before completing their secondary education. However, research addressing the subject of students leaving particular high school programs such as production vocational agriculture has been somewhat limited to this date. The findings of researchers concerned with the causes of high school attrition will be considered v/hen discussing the factors associated v/ith the attrition rate of students from production agriculture. When considering the problem of students dropping completely out of school, Dillon (4) found that the most frequent explanation offered by the students was the need to seek employment. They became dissatisfied with school and felt that the need for money overrode the need for^_ education. Dillon continued by explaining that studejit drop-out could be lessened by making an effort to show / ^ \ > l)i'^^-jV > the student the relationship between what tlie student was ) / I- doing in school and his or her_ future ^ability to make a 10 living^ Dillon (4) also said, there must be consideration of the students needs, interests, and aptitudes when selecting the courses to be taken by the student. Tunnel (11) also suggested a possible solution to the problem of students dropping out of school. In agree- ment with Dillon, he suggested that students would possibly ^ realize the importance of education if the connection^be- 7 "^ Splu^'i tween achievement in school and success_in later life v/as ^,^' presented to them. Whiteside and Merriman (12) believed ^_ / i^ ^ that the students would better realize the relevance of school if the curricula could be augmented to introduce courses which more closely related to the actual situations the student would encounter in life. VJhen considering the causes and cures of students dropping out of school, several different perspectives have been presented concerning the influence placed upon the student by individuals associated with the student. Kaufman and Le^'7is _(6 )„ discussed the effective teacher and the , teacher's ability to motivate and influence the student. the other hand, Cervantes (3) stated that only one out of sixteen students confer or counsel with their teacher before leaving school. This woula suggest that the teachers On . ^V^i/^ had little influence_9n the students' decision to drop out of school. In fact, Cervantes stated that the greatest a'lount of influence was placed upon the student by the parents and the students'„.,peers . 11 Lawrence and Thomas (7) conducted a study in 19 76 entitled, "Why Students Drop Vocational Agriculture." this study, they examined such variables as counseling, supervised occupational experience programs, the students' participation in FFA, their grades, their involvement in sports and their fathers' occupation. After analysis of In the factors involved in causing students to drop vocational agriculture, they suggested action which v/ould help prevent the loss of students. They stated that a greater number of students could be retained in vocational agriculture if teachers would encourage first year students to establish challenging and profitable experience programs, supervise the programs closely, and stress involvement and participation in Future Farmers of America activities. In another study examining attrition rates from vocational agriculture, Allen (1) found that scheduling conflicts was the primary reason students listed for not reentering vocational agriculture. Of the students involved in his study, 44.1 percent said they did not re-enter vocational agriculture because it conflicted with another course scheduled at the same time. Allen (1) also discussed the relationship between FFA involvement and non-reentry. He found that the students involved in Future Farmers of America activities were more likely to re-enter vocational agriculture than those students who were not involved in FFA activities. 12 Through the literature, the importance of the supervised occupational experience program and Future Farmers of America activities were shown to be crucial elements in a strong production vocational agriculture program. It was through the challenge of SOEP and FFA that the production programs were able to motivate students and maintain their interests. As explained by Hunsicker (5), the FFA was a school laboratory used to motivate students in their instruction and to provide essential training in future employment. In Sandra Sheradin's article (8), "FFA—A Link to Employment," she described the FFA as a vital link between the classroom lesson and real life. Further- more, the more involved that students were with FFA, the more enjoyable the related classwork became for the students. The supervised occupational experience program was the second vital link in a strong vocational agriculture program indicated by Sheradin. As stated by Burdine (2) , the SOEP v/as the bridge in the gap between school life and the world of work. Although the SOEP was a required portion of vocational agriculture, Williams (13) recorded the fact that students recognized the importance of the SOEP in developing occupational abilities The students in his study believed that the production project developed desirable work habits and taught valuable 13 skills useful in employment. ^:r ' ~^\j"- Cooperative part-time employment was one progr^.''^. which could be considered as a solution .to Dillon's (4) number one reason for dropping out of school. Sprallin (9) recommended cooperative part-time training to those students who had the need to earn an income while they continue their vocational training. As shown in the review of literature, the problem of students dropping out of school is closely related to the problem of students dropping out of production vocational agriculture. Although the causes of attrition are not totally consistent in the literature, the basic solutions offered to the problem have many similarities. The programs offered to the student must motivate the student and have a relationship with real life situations If the students realize a value in their school curricula, the problem of attrition may be reduced. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Population and Sample The vocational agriculture program in Texas represents ten geographical areas within tha state. The popu- lation examined in this study included a random sample of students in Areas I, II, and IV (Figure 1) v7ho have discontinued the production vocational agriculture program. Fig. 1. Vocational Agriculture geographical areas within Texas. Shaded areas are those considered within this study. T ' o hundred fifty-seven departments of vocational i/ agriculture are located within Areas I, II, and IV. 14 15 Through the use of a random numbers table, teachers from 200 departments were contacted via mail and were asked to complete a form listing those students, who v;ithin the last three years, enrolled in either vocational agriculture I and II and then elected to discontinue their production agriculture education before completing all of the duction agriculture offered at their high school. addition, the teachers were asked to reoort current addresses and identify those students who dropped out of production agriculture as a result of dropping out of school. Fifty teachers completed and returned the form, proIn yielding a total of 300 students who were within the parameters of the population. This group of students be- came the sample for the population examined in this research effort. The Data Gathering Instrument A questionnaire requiring restricted answers and open-ended responses was developed to obtain quantifiable data. The questionnaires were coded to identify the returned questionnaires for follow-up mailings and to keep the identity of the respondent confidential. After questions were developed to obtain data relating to the study objectives, the questionnaire was duplicated to prepare for a field test of the instrument. A school not selected in the random sample of schools was 16 used as a testing site. Through the cooperation of the vocational agriculture teachers at the test site, the proposed questionnaire was administered to tvzenty vocational agriculture students, testing the m.echanics of the instrument. The results of the field test v/ere evaluated and appropriate changes were made to counter problems discovered in the instrument. A second testing of the questionnaire was accomplished through a mailing of the instrument to a sample of twenty of the students on the mailing list obtained from the production vocational agriculture teachers. The returned questionnaires were examined to ensure the students were able to complete the questionnaire and to ensure the information obtained from the students was of a nature that would adequately ansv/er the objectives of the study. A total of three mailings of the final questionnaire was made; one initial mailing and two follow-up mailings. This data gathering procedure yielded 137 returned questionnaires (64.2 percent of the population sample). Mine questionnaires were returned because of insufficient addresses. The questionnaire and cover letters may be reviev\red in Appendix A and B. Data Analysis Techniques Remote computer terminals were utilized to enter the obtained data in preparation for the analysis of the data through the use of a Statistical Analysis Sys- 17 tem (SAS, version 79.5) and a Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) program package. Through the use of these programs the data was descriptively analyzed to determine mean values, frequencies, and percentages of portions of the data. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine significant differences in student responses obtained from racial profiles within the eleven factors of influence discussed within Chapter IV and illustrated within Table 9. Differences between male and female responses were tested through the use of "t" tests. Other demographic data tested through the use of "t" tests were the responses of students who were required to take VA I and/or II and the responses of students who were not required to take production agriculture. Chi- square analyses was used to determine differences in the yes, no portion of the questionnaire. VThen calculating tlie appropriate tests, the researcher applied the .05 level of significance. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Descriptive Analysis of Student Sample It was assumed the random sample of students who completed and returned the questionnaire was representative of the total population of students v/ho drop out of production vocational agriculture in Texas. According to the 1979-1980 Texas vocational agriculture enrollment, as reported by the Texas Education Agency, 13.3 percent of the students enrolled in vocational agriculture I, II, III and IV were female students. As revealed in Table 1, 17.6 percent of the 13 7 participants v/ere female students v/ho elected to discontinue production vocational agriculture. Eighty two percent of the student sample in this study were male students. TABLE 1 SAP'IPLE DELINEATION ACCORDING TO SEX SEX Male Female TOTAL 154 33 18 7 % 8 2.4 17.6 100.0 J. o 19 The data gathering instrument also provided a means of analyzing the total student sample according to the race of the student responding. The students were asked to identify their racial background by indicating one of four possible classifications. The racial classi- fications that were determined through the questionnaire were Black, Mexican-American, Ifnite, and Other. Those responding to the "Other" classification were asked to specify their racial background. Data in Table 2 pro- vides the ethnic profile of the students involved in this study. TABLE 2 SAI'IPLE DELINEATION ACCORDING TO RACE RACE Black Mexican-American VThite Other TOTAL N 4 15 16 4 4 18 7 % 2.1 8.0 37.8 2.1 100.0 Other demographic data obtained from the students determxined; if the vocational agriculture taken by the student was an elective or a required course, and if the student took only vocational agriculture I or vocational agriculture II. In addition, the students were asked to identify themselves according to their classification; 20 Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, High School graduate, atending College or Technical school, or High School drop out. Tns data obtained through the demographic portion of the questionnaire v/as used to test for statistical differences between groups of students within the total study group. Through the use of analysis of variance, chi square and t tests, it was determined that the students' classification or the requirement of production agriculture had no effect on the students' decision to discontinue the program. Student Career Goals An open response question within the questionnaire gave the respondents an opportunity to express their feelings concerning their job plans or career goals. The re- sponses were classified into four basic categories and a hand tabulation yielded the results shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 STUDENT CAREER GOALS STUDENT CAREER GOALS Farming or Ranching Agriculture Related Non-Agriculture Undecided TOTAL N 20 32 94 _21 177 % 11.30 13.08 5 3.10 17.52 100.00 21 The majority of the students electing to discontinue production vocational agriculture indicated their job plans or career goals were non-agriculture related. To validate the findings of the open response question, the students were asked to respond either yes or no to the question: do your future job plans include Once again, agriculture or agriculture related employment? as shown in Table 4, a total of 176 students answered 53.1 percent NO and 45.2 percent YES. The same percentage of the respondents listed their career goal as non-agriculture as indicated their future job plans did not include agriculture or agriculture related employment. TAB]LE 4 STUDENTS' CAREER GOALS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE DOES NOT APPLY N % 3 1.7 CATEGORY N Overall Student Sample 81 YES 0/ NO /o N 95 /o NO REISPONSE N 8 45.4 53.1 SEX:^ Male Female No R e s p o n s e t o Sex RACE: Black Mex i c an-Ame r i c a n White Other No R e s p o n s e t o R a c e ^^2df " 66 14 1 46.2 41.1 50.0 74 20 1 51.7 53.8 50.0 3 0 0 2.1 0 0 5 0 3 0 4 75 2 0 0 26.0 47.8 66.7 0 3 11 80 1 0 75.1 73.3 50.9 33.3 0 1 0 9 0 0 25.1 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 0 5 1 2 6.32(p>.05) ^X^df = 1 8 . 7 9 ( p > . 0 5 ) 22 Table 4 also indicates a break down of the responses in regard to sex and race. There was little difference between the response of the male and female groups. In the racial breakdown of the student sample, the Black students answered slightly higher in the YES column whereas the Mexican-American students answered slightly higher in the NO column but the number of students in each category v/as very low and the resulting percentages may not be valid. The same situation is also present in the "Other" racial classification. Since it was determined that a majority of the students that discontinued the production vocational agriculture program had career goals other than those in the agricultural field, it can be assumed that this group of students indicated that their career development was suited to another program. Program Participation Levels of the Student Sample To determine the level at which each student participated in the vocational agriculture program, the students were asked to indicate whether they were FFA members, whether they participated on judging teams and leadership teams, and whether they had a vocational agriculture enrollment. Table 5 reveals the number of students within the research sample that were members of the Future Farmers of America. 23 TABLE 5 FUTUP^ FARIIERS OF A-MERICA MEMBERSHIP DOES NOT APPLY CATEGORY YES % N 25 157 35.3 NO 13.6 NO RESPONSE N O v e r a l l S t u d e n t Sample 1.1 2 0 0 1.4 0.0 0 0 0 3 SEX: Male Female No Response to Sex 126 29 2 85.1 85.3 100.0 20 5 0 13.5 14.7 0 RACE: 4 Black Mexican-American 11 White 139 Other 3 No Response to Race 0 100.0 73.3 85.8 100.0 0 0 3 22 0 0 0 20.0 13.6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6.7 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 a 2 = 1.32(p>.05) X4df \l^^ = 6.54(p>.05) Equal percentages of male and female students indicated they were FFA members during their vocational agriculture enrollment. V-Jithin the racial breakdown of the FFA merabership, the Mexican-American student group tended to be slightly lower in membership percentage. The v/hite racial group membership percentage v/as equal to the overall m.embership percentage of the student sample The large number of students in the white group and the small numbers in the Black, Mexican-i^jnerican, and Other racial groupings explains the reason the total sample membership percentage is equal to the white membership percentage. 24 The students indicated within the questionnaire whether they were on a judging team and/or a leadersnip team. A slightly higher percentage of the students were On on a leadership team than were on a judging team. both the judging team participation and the leadership team participation, the male students showed a higher level of participation than the female students. Table 6 and 7 show the actual percentages of students participating on leadership teams and judging teams. TABLE 6 STUDENT LEADERSHIP T i x 4 PARTICIPATION E^? DOES NOT APPLY % N 1.2 CATEGORY N Overall Student Sample SEX: Male 93 Female 19 No Response to Sex 2 RACE: Black 2 Mexican-American 4 ^.'Jhite 107 Other 1 No Response to P^ace 0 114 YES % NO N 66 % NO RESPONSE 62.6 36.2 63.3 52 35.4 57.6 14 42.4 100.0 0 0 9 50.0 26.6 10 66.8 52 2 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1.3 1.3 0 0 6.7 0.7 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 2 50.0 66.7 32.5 66.7 0 ^X4df = 2.24(p>.05) X^^f = 14.12(p>.05) 25 :'ABLE 7 STUDENT JUDGING TE^^u^-l P A R T I C I P A T I O N DOES NOT APPLY /o N INO CATEGORY N YES % NO N a/ /o RESPONS] N Overall Student Sample SEX:' Male Female No Response to Sex RACE: Black Mexican-American VJhite Other No Response to Race 105 57.1 76 41.3 1.6 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 .0 0 0 0 6 .7 1 .2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 86 58.1 59 18 52.9 16 1 50.0 1 1 2 50.0 ^ 4 26.6 10 97 59.9 63 1 66.7 0 0 0 39.9 47.1 50.0 50.0 66.7 38.9 33.3 0 X;^f = 1.01(p>.05) \^^^ = 8.02(p>.05) Another factor considered in determining the level of participation of the student sample was the number and percentage of students that had a production project (SOEP) during the production vocational agriculture enrollment. Table 3 shows a breakdovm of the student sample in regard to their production projects. Of the 170 students that responded to this portion of the questionnaire, 92.4 percent had a production project. A greater percent of the male students had projects than the female students. Also, the Mexican-Ajtierican and Other student racial group had a lov/er percentage of students with production projects 26 than the other racial groups. TABLE 3 STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN SUPERVISED OCCUPATIONAL EXPERIENCE PROGRAI-IS DOES NOT APPLY % >i>) CATEGORY N Total Student Sample SE:::^ YES <7 /'o NO N 13 9 4 0 0 4 8 1 0 7.1 6.1 11.8 0 0 26.7 4.9 33.3 0 c/ /o NO RESPONSE N 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 170 92.4 93.2 88.2 100.0 100.0 73.3 94.4 66.7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.50 0.70 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 Male 138 Female 30 Ho Response to Sex 2 PJ^CE: Black 4 Mexican-American 11 White 153 Other 2 No Response to Race 0 \l^^ = 2.76(p>.05) ^^6df ^ 13.44(p>.05) Factors Influencings Students' Decisions to Discontinue Production Vocational Agriculture Through the review of literature and consultations with high school vocational agriculture teachers, a group of eleven factors that influenced students to discontinue production vocational agriculture was compiled. The eleven influencing factors compiled for consideration within this study are as follows: 1. 2. The requirement of a production project (SOEP). The amount of money required to maintain a pro- 27 duction project (SOEP). 3. 4. The student's job plans or career goals. The student's relationship with his vocational agriculture teacher. 5. 6. rne student's participation in FFA activities. Scheduling conflicts within other high school programs. 7. The student's desire to enter cooperative parttime training in agriculture (Ag. Coop.). 8. The student's desire to enter a pre-employment laboratory program in agriculture. 9. 10. 11. The high school counselor. Another high school teacher. The student's parents, guardian or other family members. These selected factors were arranged in the questionnaire in a Likert scale response configuration (refer to the questionnaire. Appendix B ) . The students responded to each of the eleven factors according to the amount of influence each factor had on the students' decisions to discontinue production vocational agriculture The student's choice of influence level for each factor was classified into five degrees of influence: som.e, little, very little and none. greatly, For analysis of the student responses, the five point Likert scale v/as assigned numerical values and real limits v/ere determined 28 for consideration of the results. As shown below, the degrees of influence were assigned numerical values and real limits were determined for use in analyzing the computed statistical values obtained. Degrees of Influence Degree of Influence Greatly Some Little Very little None Assigned Value 5 4 3 2 1 Real Limit 4.51-5.0 3.51-4.50 2.51-3.50 1.51-2.50 1.00-1.50 A mean value was obtained for each of the selected factors of influence. Through the use of the obtained mean value, the selected influencing factors were placed into a rank order according to the response of the total student sample, the male/female groups, and the four race groups (Table 9 ) . In addition, the number of students v/ho indicated each degree of influence is listed within Table 9. As disclosed in Table 9, all groupings of students listed scheduling conflicts with other high school activities as the most influencial factor in their decision to discontinue production vocational agriculture. Student career goals were ranked as the second most important influencing factor and students entering the cooperative part-time training program was ranked as the tliird most important factor. The selected factors of influence 29 :i9q:iO r-\ in CN CM vO r-^ CM r^ r>^ r^ r^ X) Race a^Tqw UEOTJamy UBDTXa;^ rH CM CO in vO d 6 aXHUia^ rH en CM 0 0 r>. in vo . XI Ran ^ O 9TBW rH CM vO CO •. CT. CO r-i o Cd rH rH rH 3 rH a Cd UOT^BTAaQ in ampl EH EH cu paepuE^s r>. >-\ (N in t^ m rH ON CO T-\ r^ CO rH as rH vo rH r^ > (U rH rH Q) Cd d rH ^1 0 3-[a3TT XjaA CO rH CM CM . O (U M >-4 4-J C U >-i 4-t 60 4-1 M O en Cfl 4-1 4J Cd ^^ (U 4J (U 0) C -tJ •H O • H C en O 4-1 • H e >> - H c C U )-i 4J C O Cd C O M < r H <\) cd >4H >-i O Xl H u •H rH o C 60 -H c C D o o C d 4-1 C O -i 4J u (U -ra 1 o (U o 6 u •H a 13 C D x: 1 I — C 1 1 C/3 O C M c w cd PL, > . <4H o <4^ X •H H V-i >. -H o M PH O 0 0 r H 4-t TJ o C 3 C X 4-1 C •H c O d C (U r H (u cr • H CO e cu cd C 00 60 cd ' H S D. >-i O (U cu P i 4-1 O < C >-t r H Cd - H . • H 4J • H >-i • >-i X C O D 3 J p (U cd cd O O cd c >-t u Cd r H O cr C S -H > 4-1 H J P 0 u l^ 14H CJ QJ Cd Q o ) c o c W CJ (ii M p^ Pi S C O 4-) ' H cd 0) O U cn CL 0) V X ^ < u 4-1 X c 0) a P^ -H X g s-i B e -H E en W ^ O cu H O (U ^ x: M rH -H . X TS o c 1 H cd ^1 T) 1 >-i OJ >-i s c >^ (U M o cu C X 0) o 3 iH 14H M • • cd W H rH O Cd 2; 3 X C U C O d cd 0) H c o ^ e «4H 30 beyond rank one and tv/o, scheduling conflicts and career goals, have very low mean values and are separated from the top two factors by a break in the calculated means. After examining the numbers of students within each degree of influence for each influencing factor, it was evident that the students tended to indicate a strong influence (greatly or some) from the factor. Even though the obtained mean values range from 3.21 to 1.11, the number of students who indicated those ranges of influence (little, very little and none) were very low. For example. Scheduling Conflicts had a calculated mean value of 3.21 but a very small portion of the students indicated an influence within the 3.21 range (little). Scheduling conflicts had the greatest number of students indicate that the factor greatly influenced their decision to discontinue production agriculture. It may be noted while observing calculated mean values and real limits of the Likert scale v/hich indicate each influencing factor as little, very little or no influence on the respondents decision to discontinue production agriculture III or IV, the first five ranking factors greatly affected some respondents decisions. VThen the mean values of the sex and race groups were ranked, there were some variations of the rank orders. Tests of significance (t-test and analysis of variance) were used to determine if the mean values obtained from the 31 sex and racial profile of the total student sample were significantly different. found. FFA and SOEP Influence As discussed earlier, the FFA and SOEP are vital elements of the total vocational agriculture program in the state of Texas. One objective of this study was to No significant differences were determine the amount of influence these two elements had on the students decision to discontinue the production agriculture program. Of course, the FFA is not a required portion of the program but it is essential in joining portions of the total program. The SOEP is a requirement of all students enrolled in production vocational agriculture . In Table 9, the SOEP requirement and the m.oney required to maintain the SOEP are ranked number four and five respectively. Even though they rank within the top five selected factors of influence, their mean values are and therefore are not considered as important factors influencing the loss of students from, the production proqram. Of the total student samole (13 7 students) only thirteen students did not maintain a production project to fulfill their SOEP requirements during their vocational agriculture enrollment. VThen asked the amount of influence this requirement had on their decision to drop production 32 agriculture, the thirteen students had a mean value of 3.0 on the five point scale. This value is much higher than the mean value obtained from the students that maintained a production project (Table 10). TABLE 10 INFLUENCE OF SOEP ON STUDENT'S DECISION TO DISCONTINUE PRODUCTION VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE Standard Error of Mean .10 Category Students t h a t maintained a production project Students t h a t did not maintain a production project N 170 Mean 1.83 13 3.00 .53 There is a varying amount of money required in maintaining a production project within the SOEP. "^he amount of money required depends upon the type of SOEP the student chooses. Ideally, the student will realize a monetary profit from the production project, however, his is not always the case. Of the students surveyed, 41 responded they did not receive a cash profit from their crop or livestock project. This group of students who did not receive a cash profit from the SOEP rated the money required for SOEP as having a greater influence on their decision to drop production agriculture than did the 131 students v/ho received a cash profit (Table 11). It is understandable 33 that the students that did not realize a cash profit, rated the monetary requirem.ents of the program as having a greater degree of influence. TABLE 11 INFLUENCE OF MONETARY REQUIREMENTS OF SOEP ON STUDENT'S DECISION TO DISCONTINUE PRODUCTION VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE Standard Error of Mean .10 .26 Category Students t h a t received a cash p r o f i t from SOEP Student t h a t did not r e c e i v e a cash p r o f i t from SOEP N 131 41 Mean 1.64 2.58 Even t h o u g h t h e F u t u r e F a r m e r s o f A m e r i c a zation is n o t a r e q u i r e d p o r t i o n of t h e p r o d u c t i o n 3 5 . 3 p e r c e n t of organiagriv/ere c u l t u r e program, FFA m e m b e r s . activities the s t u d e n t sample ISH-ien a s k e d w h e t h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n on t h e i r i n FFA drop had an i n f l u e n c e decision to production agriculture, b o t h t h e s t u d e n t s who w e r e m e m b e r s activities a n d t h e s t u d e n t s who w e r e n o t memhers r a t e d FFA a s h a v i n g no i n f l u e n c e (Table 12). 34 TABLE 12 INFLUENCE OF FFA PARTICIPATION ON STUDENT'S DECISION TO DISCONTINUE PRODUCTION VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE Standard Error of Mean .06 .13 Category FFA Members Non FFA Members N 103 72 Mean 1.27 1.36 The FFA and SOEP had little influence on the student sample in regards to their decision to drop the production agriculture program.. A small amount of influence was detected in a small portion of the students concerning the monetary requirements of the SOEP. The amount of financial requirement varies from, one project to another and the students should have been able to control their financial involvement through their selection of their production project. Cooperative Part-Time Training and Pre-emplovmccnt Laboratory framing It is knov/n that a portion of the students enrolled in production vocational agriculture land vocational agriculture II enroll in either cooperative part-time training or pre-employment laboratory training in their following high school years. Of the students involved in this study, 18.2 percent entered cooperative part-time training and 1.6 percent entered pre-employment laboratory training. 35 TABLE 13 STUDENTS ENTERING OTHER VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE PROGRAT'lS Category Cooperative part-time training Pre-employment laboratory training N 34 3 o, ' o 18.2 1.6 Student Open Responses Regarding Discontinuation of Production Vocational Agriculture The final portion of the data gathering instrument was an open response question asking students to list (in their own words) the three most important reasons they discontinued production agriculture. For the purpose of analysis, the student responses v/ere placed into the following categories: A. B. C. D. E. Scheduling conflicts with other activities Entered Cooperative part-time training SOEP requirements Entered pre-employment laboratory training Student conflicts with the vocational agriculture teacher r. Did not relate to students' interest or career goals G. K. I. Entered another vocational program Students influenced by parents or guardian FFA activities The student responses on this open question varied 36 only slightly from the student responses found within the eleven factors of influence on the Likert scale portion of the questionnaire. Once again in this portion of the questionnaire the greatest number of students listed "scheduling conflicts" as the most important reason they dropped production agriculture. As stated earlier, the students were asked to state the three most important reasons they discontinued production agriculture. In order to analyze this data, values A were placed on the reasons listed by the students. value of three was placed on the student's most important reason, a value of two on the second most important reason and a value of one v/as placed on the student's third most important reason. Through this procedure, a weighted value was obtained (Table 14). 37 TABLE 14 STUDENT OPEN RESPONSES REGARDING DISCONTINUATION OF PRODUCTION VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE Weighted Value 227 lis 10 8 96 96 24 Reasons Scheduling Conflicts Requirements of SOEP Entered Cooperative parttime Training Interest in Alternate Career Goals Conflicts with Vocational Agriculture Teacher Entered Other Vocational Program Influenced by Parents Entered Pre-employment Laboratory Training Participation in FFA Activities Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 6 7 8 9 The "requirements of SOEP" category within this portion of the analysis was a combination of two categories within the eleven influential factors portion of the analysis. This condition was the reason for the increase in rank order of this category within this portion of the study. Information gained through the evaluation of variables within the obtained demographic data (Methods and Procedures) not discussed within this chapter was found to be insignificant to the findings of this study. 38 Therefore, it is the opinion of this researcher that the rank orders of the influencing factors and students reasons for discontinuing production vocational agriculture are valid answers to the research objectives. CHAPTER V SUMMARY Statement of the Problem Production vocational agriculture is by far, the largest segment of the Texas vocational agriculture program. Within the production program there are four years of instruction available to the agriculture student. Students must initially complete vocational agriculture I to become eligible to continue the program into vocational agriculture II, III and/or IV. There is an established enrollment trend in the production vocational agriculture program of Texas. 1979-1930 enrollment figures illustrate this trend. The During that year, there were 50,916 students enrolled in production vocational agriculture. Of this total enrollm.ent, 23,883 students were enrolled in vocational agriculture I, 15,995 in vocational agriculture II, 3,133 in vocational agriculture III, and 2,900 students were enrolled in vocational agriculture IV. The enrollment in production agriculture III and IV v/as much lower than the enrollment in production agriculture I and II. This substantial loss of students from the production program is the pro39 40 blem investigated in this study. Purpose and Objectives The primary purpose of this study was to determine the reason or reasons students enroll in production vocational agriculture I or production vocational agriculture I and II and then elect to discontinue their vocational studies in production vocational agriculture III and/or IV. In order to propose possible solutions to the problem objectives were formulated: 1. To determine the career goals of those students surveyed. 2. To determ.ine the levels of program participation among those students surveyed. 3. To determine the relationship of selected factors with the students' decisions to discontinue the production vocational agriculture program. 4. To determine the amount of influence the FFA and SOEP had upon the students decision to discontinue the production vocational agriculture program. 5. To determine the number of students surveyed who discontinued production vocational agriculture to ta.ke either cooperative part-time training or pre-employment laboratory training. 6. To categorically classify and rank the reasons students dropped production vocational agriculture 41 as listed by the surveyed students. Methods and Procedures In a random sample, two hundred vocational agriculture teachers v/ithin areas I, II, and IV of Texas were contacted via mail and were asked to supply a list of students' names and addresses from their school, v/ho within the last three years, had discontinued their production program before completing all production courses offered. A list of 300 students was obtained. These students were miailed a questionnaire designed to obtain the necessary data needed to ansv/er the study objectives. The information on the returned questionnaires was coded and entered into a remote computer term.inal (\7ylbur) in preparation for data analysis. A Statistical Analysis System (SA.S, version 79.5) and a Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS) program package was used in data analysis. Initially, the student sample was descriptively analyzed to determine frequencies and percentages of sexual and racial groupings. These groupings within the sample were determined to be representative of the total population of production agriculture students in Texas. Also within the descriptive analysis of tlie sample was a determination of the participation levels of the students 42 42 in various activities available to them during their production enrollment. The review of literature stresses the importance of FFA participation as a means of retaining students. Student participation levels within this study were found to be high, however, this factor did not have a positive nor negative effect on attrition. The remaining data collection and analysis dealt with other relating factors regarding student attrition from production vocational agriculture. Iwhen students were asked to identify their future career goals, 53.10 percent of the sample indicated career goals v/hich were classified as non-agriculture careers. It was also deter- mined that 17.52 percent of the students who discontinued production agriculture were undecided in the area of career expectations. These findings were strengthened by a second portion of the questionnaire which asked the students if their future job plans included agriculture. Once again, 5 3.10 percent of the students indicated they did not plan to pursue an agricultural career. Through the review of literature and consultations with high school vocational agriculture teachers, a group of eleven factors that influence students to discontinue production vocational agriculture were compiled and listed v/ithin the questionnaire for students to indicate the amount of influence each factor had on his or her decision to drop production agriculture. A five point Likert scale 43 was used to determine the degrees of influence. Calcu- lated mean values v/ere obtained and the eleven influencing factors v/ere ranked according to m^ean as revealed in Table 9. Also noted in Table 9 are the numbers of students v/ho indicated the varying degrees of influence. "Scheduling conflicts" v/ere ranked as the most important reason students discontinue the production program.. Non-agricultural related career goals ranked second and students entering cooperative part-tim.e training ranked third among the influencing factors. Supervised occupational experience program requirements were ranked within the top five influencing factors, however, the calculated mean values were low enough to consider this portion of the program as having little influence on the students decision to drop production agriculture. A small group of students (thirteen) who did B •I r jj ^ 8 ^ not fulfill the SOEP requirem.ents indicated the portion of production program as having a greater amount of influence than the amount of influence indicated by the other students . It is known that a portion of the students enrolled in production vocational agriculture I and II enroll in either cooperative part-time training or pre-employment laboratory training in their junior and/or senior high school years. Within this student sample, 13.2 percent entered cooperative part-time training and 1.6 percent 44 entered pre-employment laboratory training. The final portion of the questionnaire gave the students the opportunity to list, in their own w o r d s , the three most important reasons they dropped the production program. These listed reasons were classified and v/eighted values were calculated for each classification. After ranking the listed reasons, it was once again determined the most important reasons students discontinue the production agriculture program were scheduling conflicts. The second most important reason for leaving the program was SOEP requirements which in this case was a combination ' ' ^ m of the monetary reauirements and the program requirement of the production project. Students' interest in non- » " m agricultural related career goals was ranked as the third most important reason. C ; ; ? CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMiMENDATIONS Conclusions Students decide to discontinue the production vocational agriculture program for many reasons; however, the most prevalent reason determined within this study was scheduling conflicts with other high school classes. Other factors of im.portance which influence students to discontinue the production program are: student career H 4 % | ! ^ ; ' i goals in areas other than agriculture, students entering cooperative part-time training, and SOEP requirements. The most important reasons students leave a production vocational agriculture program may vary within individual school system; however, the reasons presented within this research should be considered when examining the attrition of students in the production vocational agriculture programs of Texas. Recommendations After careful consideration of the findings of this study and examination of the analysis of data obtained, the follov/ing recommendations v/ere formulated: 1. vrnen developing a yearly schedule of classes, 45 ' • 46 high school administrators and teachers should consider conflicting classes to enable students to enroll in classes which meet tlieir needs and interest. Further investigation may be necessary to determine possibilities for improving high school scheduling. 2. Students who enter the production vocational agriculture program should have career goals and interest which relate to the subject matter of the program. It may be necessary to utilize 4 student interest inventories to match the student's interest with the proper high school oroaram. Vocational agriculture teachers should have planned career units of instruction incorporated in their vocational agriculture I curriculum. 3. Flexibility should be maintained within the supervised occupational experience program to accommodate special student situations. Vocational agrif I culture teachers must consider each student's interest and personal situation when counseling a student toward a particular production project. 4. v T e deciding on subject matter for local adapta'hn tion class time, vocational teachers must be able to adjust their instruction tov/ards the special interest of the students. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Allen, Larry David. ''Selected Influences on Attrition Rates from Vocational Agriculture in Losisiana." (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, 19 79). Burdine, Robert. ''S. 0. E. Programs in Agriculture — ^\hat and VJhy?'" Agricultural Education, vol. 50, no. 12 (June, 1973), pp. 271-272. Cervantes, C. The Drop-Out: Causes and Cures. University of Michigan Press, 1966. The ' ^ » 1 ? H M 2. 3. 4. Dillon, Harold J. Early School Leaves; A Major Educational Problem. National Child Labor Committee, Nev/ York, Undated. Hunsicker, H. N. "FFA's Future—A Matter of Philosophy'' Agricultural Education, vol. 49, no. 7 (February, 1977) , pp. 171-172. Kaufman, Jacob J. and Lewis, Morgan V. The School Environment and Programs for Dropouts. The Pennsylvania State University Institute for Human Resources, 1968. Lav/rence, Layle and Bean, Thomas. "V7hy Students Drop Vocational Agriculture." Agricultural Education, vol. 49, no. 15 (December, 1976), pp. 151-152. Sheradin, Sandra. "FFA--A Link to Employment." Agricultural Education, vol. 49, no. 10 (April, 1977) , p. 236. Spradlin, VJ. D. "Cooperative Education in Agriculture." Agricultural Education, vol. 49, no. 10 (April, 1977) , p. 229. "Texas Vocational Agriculture Enrollment," Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas, 1980. (Mimeographed). Tunnel 1, James V7. Vlhat Research Says About the School Dropout Problem. West Texas School Study Council, Lubbock, Texas, 196 3. 47 5. 6. B 'i ' J , ^ 7. 3. 9. 10. 11. 43 12. Whiteside, Marilyn and Merriman, Glennis. "Dropouts Look at Thin Teachers.'" Phi Delta Kappa, June, 1976, pp. 701-702. Williams, David L. ''VThat Do Students Think of Supervised Occupational Experience?" Agricultural Education, vol. 50, no. 12 (June, 1978), pp. 271970 13. ~ •I •it "J \ i « 1 "I APPENDICES 49 APPENDIX A COVER LETTERS ] •i J 1 •i 50 51 Texas Tech Unix ersit\' Depanment of Agricultural Education p o . Box 4i69 Lubbock. Texas 79.*09 Phone i80b.74r'-2S16 October 15, 1980 To Vocational Agriculture Teacher addressed: The Agricultural Education Department at Texas Tech University and Mr. G. G. Scroggins, Director, Agricultural Education, Texas Education Agency, recently posed a question concerning the number of students who enroll in Vo Ag I and Vo Ag II as compared to the number of students who complete all vocational agriculture offered at their respective high schools. It is believed that some of the answers to this dilemma are known, however, research is currently underway to determine specific causes and possible recommendations for appropriate student counseling. Your help is needed in conducting this research. We are seeking a list of names and addresses of students, who within the last three years, have comoleted either Vo Ag I or Vo Ag II but did not elect to continue their vocational studies in Vo '. III or Vo Ag IV. These students will be contacted and asked "g to complete a questionnaire expressing their reasons for discontinuing study in production vocational agriculture. The students' names and responses will be regarded as confidential information. Your cooperation is appreciated and I know that you will be interested in the results of this study. Hopefully the findings of this research can be used to enhance student counseling and/or continuous enrollment in Vocational Agriculture in the state of Texas. Sincerely, Dennis C. Pate Research Assistant M. J. Cepica Project Director agl enclosure 52 Please complete the following form with names and current addresses of students who did not go beyond Vo Ag I or Vo Ag II in your production vocational agriculture program. (If a student completes Vo Ag I and/or Vo Ag II and enrolls in a pre-lab or Coop Ag class, he is no longer ' n your ' production program.) A re_..onse from you before October 25, 1980 would be appreciated in order to include those students in our survey. °lease find the stamped, self-addressed envelope, for your convenience. (Feel free to list additional names and addresses on the back of this -orm.) NAME ADDRESS zio code NAME ADDRESS zip code NAME ADDRESS zip code NAME ADDRESS zip code NAME ADDRESS zio code NAME ADDRESS zio code NAME ADRRESS zio code NAME ADDRESS zip code 53 Texas Tech UniversinDepartment ot Agricultural Education PO. Box -H69 Lubbock. Tcxoi. -g-Kju Phonr -HJJD' r , 2 i '5« January 26, 1981 To Vocational Agriculture Teacher addressed: You recently assisted the Agriculture Education Department at Texas Tech University by providing a list of students' names and addresses who comoleted either Vo. Ag. I or Vo. Ag. II but did not elect to continue their vocational studies in Vo. Ag. Ill or Vo. Aq. IV. Your cooperation in supolyina the 1^'st was areatly appreciated. We believe that we are obtaining an accurate assessment of the reasons students discontinue their Production Aoriculture education, with one exception. There is a oroblem in accounting for those students in our study who dropped out of Vo. Aa. as a result of dropping out of school. We need your help in identifying that arouD of students. Enclosed you will find a copy of the list you mailed us. Please indicate, by placing an "X" in the blank beside those students' names who droDoed out of Vo. Aa. as a result of droonina out of school. Th^'s information will remain confidential but will assist us in oresentina an accurate and more favorable assessment of vocational agr-'culture enrollment trends. We regret having to seek this information, however with your helo , the results of our study will not be distorted. Once anain, your cooperation is aooreciated, Sincerely, Dennis C. Pate Graduate Research Assistant M. J. Cepica Project Director and Associate Professor Enclosures DCP/MJC/ckhs 54 Texas Tech University Department ot Agricultural Education PO. Box -H69 Lubbock. Texas 794^09 Phone .^uo' 7d2-2815 November 21, 1980 We need your help! The Agriculture Education Department at Texas Tech University is conducting research to determine the reasons high school students drop-out of Vocational Agriculture. This research will be used to help improve the Vo. Ag. program in the state of Texas. If you will take a moment of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire, you can become a part of this important effort and help us learn more about the feelings of past Vocational Agriculture students. Of course, the information you send will be confidential and there is no need for your name on the form. Your cooperation is appreciated and I know your comments will be very valuable in determining the findings of our study. A stamped self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Sincerely, Dennis C. Pate Research Assistant M. J. Cepica Project Director agl Enclosure 55 Texas Tech Uni\ersit\' Department of Agricultural Education P.O. Box .*i69 L u o b o c k . Texas 79.+09 Phone s O o ' 7 - 2 - 2 8 1 6 December 8, 1980 We need your help! Your High School Vocational Agriculture Teacher is cooperating with js in determining the reasons high school students drop-out of Production Vocational Agriculture III & IV. This research will be used to help improve the Vo. Ag. orogram in the state of Texas. If you will take a moment of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire, you can become a part of this important effort and help us learn more about the feelings of past Vocational Agriculture students like yourself. Of course, the information you send will be confidential and there is no need for your name on the form. Your cooperation is appreciated and I know your comments will be very valuable in determining the findings of our study. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for you to use in returning the questionnaire, ''lease return the completed form now so we can include your opinions in our survey. Sincerely, Dennis C. Pate Research Assistant M. J. Cepica, Project Director i Associate Professor mln enclosure 56 Texas Tech Uni\'ersit\' Department ot .Agricultural Education PO. Box -4-169 Lubbock. Texas 79.*09 Phone i 8 0 6 i 7 - 2 - 2 3 l 6 January 12, 1981 A Short time ago, we mailed you a letter and questionnaire concerning your decision to drop-out of Production Vocational Agriculture. We regret that we did not receive your response. It is very important that we receive a completed questionnaire from you concerning your past Vocational Agriculture experience. Your comments are a vital part of our study to determine the true reason students do not take Vo. Ag. Ill or Vo. Ag. IV. Take a moment of your time to complete the enclosed questionnaire and you will become a part of this worthwhile effort. Your cooperation and participation are appreciated. A stamped, self-addressed envelope is enclosed for you to use in returning the questionnaire. Please return the completed form now so we can include your opinions in our survey. Sincerely, Dennis C. Pate Graduate Research Assistant M. J. Cepica Project Director & Associate Professor agj Enclosure 57 Texas Tech Universit\' Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l E d u c a t i o n P.O. B o x - H 6 9 L u b b o c k . T e \ a s 79-K-)9 Phone'.-*t).->. 7'12-2S16 February 6, 1981 When you decided not to take Vo. Ag. Ill or Vo. Ag. IV in high school, you had a good reason for making that decision. This is your chance to let your reason be known! Our study to determine the reasons students drop out of Vocational Agriculture will soon be completed. Even though the results of our survey may not benefit you directly, you will certainly find satisfaction in knowing that you have helped improve the Vocational Agriculture Program of the future. Time is running short. as soon as possible! Sincerely, Please complete and return the Questionnaire Dennis C. Pate Graduate Research Assistant M. J. Cepica Project Director & Associate Professor agj Enclosures APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE 58 59 Code: DIRECTIONS: Please complete this confidential Questionnaire Dy placing an X in the appropriate answer blank or by filling in the blank on Questions which require your personal response. Each question should be answered as it applies to your own situation. Mexican-American Male White Other, please specify_ Race: ^Black Sex: Female Age: 4. School Classification: Freshman (9th grade) ^Sophomore (10th grade) Junior (11th grade) ^Senior (12th grade) ^High School graduate Attending College, Major: Attending Technical/Vocational School, Field of Study: ^Did not complete High School Which of the high school? ^Vo. Ag. Vo. Ag. Vo. Ag. following Vocational Agriculture classes were you required to take in /cur I II is not required in my high school 5. 7. Which of the following Vocational Agriculture classes did you take in high scnool? ^Vo. Ag. I ^Vo. Ag. II ^Other, please specify What are your future job plans or career goals? (please be as specific or clear as you can) List the course or courses you enrolled in which took the olace of Vocational Agricjlture. 8. After reading each of the following questions, place an X in the appropriate answer column _ as it applies to your own situation. r 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Did you have a production project (crop or livestock which you owned) during your past Vo. Ag. classes? Did you receive a cash profit from your crop or livestock project? Were you a member of the Future Farmers of America when you were enrolled in Vocational Agriculture? Did you participate on a judging team(s) (Example: livestock judging, crop judging. Aq. Mechanics or others) during your Vo Ag classes? Did you participate on a leadership team (Chapter Conducting, skill team, radio team or others) during your Vo Aq classes? Do your future job plans include Agriculture or Agricultural related employment? ^ (Please complete other side) ; es 'o .ADDI V 60 •2- Place an X in the appropriate column which best describes the amount of in*"'uence each of _ the following factors had on your decision to discontinue your Vocational Agriculture III or IV classes. Degrees of influence: fireatly Some Little Very Little None 1. The requirement of a production project (livestock or crop) influenced) my decision to discontinue Vo. ^_ IV: , 2. Tne amount of money required toAq.IH or a production project maintain influ enced my decision to discontinue Vo. Aq.III or IV: 3. My job plans for the future influenced my decision to discontinue Vo. Aq.III or IV: ^_^ ^ 4. My relationship with my past Vocational Agriculture teacher influenced! my decision to discontinue Vo. Ag III or IV ! 5. Participation in Future Farmers of America activities influenced TIV j " decision to discontinue Vo. Aa.III or IV: ' I 6. Scheduling conflicts with other courses such as athletics, band, college preparatory courses or others influenced my decision to discontinue Vo. Aq. Ill or IV: My desire to enter a cooperative part time training in Agriculture (Ag. Coop) influenced my decision to discontinue Vo. Ag.III or IV; My desire to enter a pre-employment laboratory in Agriculture (Genera' Ag. Mechanics, Horticulture or others in Agriculture) influenced my decision to discontinue Vo. Ag.III or IV: 9. My counselor influenced my decision to discontinue Vo. .Ag.III or IV: 10. Another teacher influenced my decision to discontinue Vo. Aq.III or IV: 11. My parents, guardian, or other family members influenced my decision to discontinue Vo. Aa.III or IV: 1 (U\ _J 1 ! I Please list, in order of importance, the three main reasons you decided to discontinue your studies in Production Vocational Agriculture III or IV. 1. 2. 3. (Most Important Reason) (2nd Most Important Reason) (3rd Most Important Reason) Please list any additional reasons you feel students choose to discontinue t^eir stjc'es in Vocational Agriculture.