Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2005 A Longitudinal Comparison of Vocational and Non-Vocational Education Students in Leon County Public Secondary Schools: A Study of May 1999 & May 2000 High School Graduates Ebenezer W. Erefah
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
A LONGITUDINAL COMPARISON OF VOCATIONAL AND NON-VOCATIONAL
EDUCATION STUDENTS IN LEON COUNTY PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS:
A STUDY OF MAY 1999 & MAY 2000 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES
By
EBENEZER W. A. T. EREFAH
A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2005
Copyright © 2005 Ebenezer W. A. T. Erefah All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approved the dissertation of Ebenezer W. A. T. Erefah defended on June 6, 2005.
______Hollie Thomas Professor Directing Dissertation
______Marsha Rehm Outside Committee Member
______William R. Snyder Committee Member
______Bonnie B. Greenwood Committee Member
Approved:
______Carolyn D. Herrington, Chair, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members
ii
To my father, Andrew Tolumoye Center Erefah (late), who strongly believed in the educational attainment of his children, and whose unassailable positive attitude toward education were the major inspirational forces behind my academic achievement; and to my mother, Sunday Officer Angaye, who always cared about her children.
iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This writer wishes to express his special appreciation to the many individuals whose interest, cooperation, guidance, participation, and encouragements made this dissertation possible. The author’s sincere and special thanks go to his major professor, Dr. Hollie Thomas, whose professional experience, wisdom, concerns, challenging thoughts, guidance, mentoring, and patience have helped produce this rewarding document. The author further expresses his special gratitude to other members of the supervising committee: Dr. William R. Snyder (although retired from the university, still honored the author’s request to remain on the committee), Dr. Marsha Rehm, and Dr. Bonnie B. Greenwood; for their encouragements, insights, constructive suggestions, counseling, and patience, during the development and completion of this study. The writer also wishes to express thanks to Dr. Hugh Hinely, and Dr. Victor Hernendez who were members of the supervisory committee, but respectively retired and resigned from the university prior to the completion of this study. Also, a special appreciation to Dr. Albert C. Ooterhof, a former member of the supervising committee whose expertise in the areas of methodology and statistical analyses helped to make this study possible, but left before this work was completed due to a sabbatical leave from the university. The writer further wishes to express his acknowledgments to members of his church family in Tallahassee, St. Michael’s and All Angels Episcopal Church; especially to The Reverend (Fr.) Carl C. Murray, The Reverend (Fr.) David Suellau, The Reverend Canon Laughton Thomas, the Vestry, Mr. Matthew Estaras (late), Dr. Colin Benjamin, Dr. Neil James, and Senator Al Lawson for all their prayers and encouragements during the production of this document. A feeling of indebtedness is expressed to Mr. Duane Whitefield who was the Director of the FETPIP database, and his programmer Mr. Terry Collier; Garnet Lavon Duke, Jr., the Bureau Chief of the EIAS database, and his programmers, Mrs. Priscilla Farrow, and Mrs. Martha Havnes; Dr. Thomas Fisher, the Educational policy Director in the Students Assessment Section of Florida Department of Education (FDOE). The writer’s special
iv appreciation also goes to the staff of Vocational Education and Workforce Development Section of FDOE: Mrs. Loretta Costin, Bureau Chief, Dr. Beverly A. Nash, Director, and other staff members in the division who gave special assistance during my internship, research, and collection of data towards this project. The author further wishes to express his sincere acknowledgments to these friends: Drs. Sekimonyo Magango, Hudson Nwakanma, Adeniji Odutola, Anthony AWA Zikiye (late), Arland Billups, Dana Dennard, Seward Hamilton, Joseph A. Baldwin, Ted Hemingwey, Ufot B. Inamete, Olu Moloye, Oghenekome Onokpise, Confidence Amadi, Soronaji Nnaji, Ebenezer Oriaku, Keith Simmonds, Yaw A. Owusu, Fredrick Essien, Jude Onwuli, Zacch I. Olorunnipa, and to Messrs. Norman Bellamy, Philip Owi, Aristoto Bonnie, Reuben Iyamu, Panebi Stephen Orudiakumo, Racheed Akangbe, Anthony Jack, Oluwale Ale, George Amadi, John Eze, Rabbani Muhammad, and Olurotimi T. Fadiora, and Chief Olabode Augustine Ajagbe, who throughout the author’s trying periods gave encouragements by either words of mouth or by phone calls: “Ebenezer, be on it, you are there!” The writer also wishes to recognize his brothers: Mr. Benjamin Amatari Andrew Tolumoye Erefah, Mr. Matthew Ebikiseiye Andrew Tolumoye Erefah, Dr. Augustus Zuobo Andrew Tolumoye Erefah, Mr. Bodiseowei Kevin Tamono, and Mr. Tunumubofa Apuge. Special recognitions also goes to members of my family: Reverend Freshman Ezikiel Stephen. Erefa (uncle), Dr. Cleopas Officer Angaye (uncle), Mr. Isaac Officer Angaye (uncle), Ms. Molony Officer Angaye (niece), Ambassador (Dr.) Lawrence Baraebibai Epkebu, Dr. Gesiye S. Angaye, Hon. Justice Koripamo David Ungbuku, Senator Amatari Zuofa, Dr. Bula Godknows and Mrs. Tokoni Igali, Mr. Samson James Bikikoro, Mr. Ephraim James Bikikoro, Ms. Cassandra Lawson, Mr. Fidelis Wolaebi Iyebote, Mr. Lawrence Gbaranbiri Ogionwo, Mr. Ebi Ndiamaowei, Mr. Charles Zuofa, Sgt. Kalayefa Abednigo, and Mr. Jomo Ekpebu. Finally, the author’s special and sincere appreciation is especially extended to his wife, Barrister Amadiere Modupe Zuofa-Erefah, for her selfless sacrifices, support, love, and her constant encouragements, during the duration of this study. My sincere thanks also goes to my children: Andrew Imomotimi Erefah, Sherman Imomoweni Erefah, Daniel Ebizimo Oluwafemi Erefah, Abigail Tolumoye Erefah, Edmond Ebibarabowei Erefah, and Solomon Erefah (late), for their love, supports, and patience, during the trying period of their father.
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ...... vii ABSTRACT ...... xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 3 The Background ...... 3 Research Questions ...... 4 Significance of the Study ...... 6 Definition of Terms ...... 7 Note on Definition Changes and Limitations of The Study ...... 11 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 13 III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 31 Analytical Method ...... 33 IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ...... 42 Summary of the Findings ...... 325 V. SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 332 APPENDICES APPENDIX A ...... 342 APPENDIX B ...... 343 APPENDIX C ...... 347 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 352 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 361
vi LIST OF TABLES
1. High School Vocational Education Electives ...... 8
2. The Sample of Vocational and Non-vocational Education Participants (May 1999, and May 2000 High School Graduates) ...... 34
3. Students Participation (Sample) May 1999 and May 2000 High School Graduates Data ...... 35
4. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards by Percentage of Students Who Graduated ...... 44
5. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards by Percentage of Students Who Graduated ...... 45
6. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage of Graduates by the Number of Vocational Credits (Courses) Earned in 9th through 12th Grades (Vocational and Non-vocational Percentages Taken from Table 8) ...... 48
7. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage of Graduates by the Number of Vocational Credits (Courses) Earned in 9th through 12th Grades (Vocational and Non-vocational Percentages Taken from Table 9) ...... 49
8. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates form Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by the Number of Vocational Credits (Courses) Earned in 9th through 12th Grades ...... 50
9. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates form Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by the Number of Vocational Credits (Courses) Earned in 9th through 12th Grades ...... 51
10. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates by Percentage Difference in Diploma Recipients by Gender (Percentages Taken from Table 12) ...... 54
11. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates by Percentage Difference in Diploma Recipients by Gender
vii (Percentages Taken from Table 13) ...... 55
12. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Gender ...... 56
13. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Gender ...... 57
14. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Diploma Recipients by Race (Percentages Taken from Table 16) ...... 59
15. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared Percentage Difference in Diploma Recipients by Race (Percentages Taken from Table 17) ...... 60
16. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Race ...... 61
17. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Race ...... 62
18. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Undergraduate Degree Program Enrolled ...... 65
19. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Undergraduate Degree Program Enrolled ...... 67
20. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Comparing Students Postsecondary School Plans and Actual and Actual Enrollment by Percentage Changes ...... 70
21. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Undergraduate Degree Program Enrolled and Type of 9th through 12th Grades Vocational Education Program Taken ...... 76
22. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Undergraduate Degree Program Enrolled and Type of 9th through 12th Grades Vocational Education Program Taken ...... 79
viii 23. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Students Employment Status under Each Undergraduate Degree Program ...... 87
24. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Students Employment Status under Each Undergraduate Degree Program ...... 90
25. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Differences in Percentage of Students in Each Undergraduate Degree Program by Gender ...... 96
26. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Differences in Percentage of Students in Each Undergraduate Degree Program by Gender ...... 99 27. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Differences in Percentage of Students in Each Undergraduate Degree Program by Race ...... 106
28. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Differences in Percentage of Students in Each Undergraduate Degree Program by Race ...... 109
29. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Comparing Students Postsecondary School Plans and Actual and Actual Enrollment by Percentage Changes by Gender ...... 118
30. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Comparing Students Postsecondary School Plans and Actual and Actual Enrollment by Percentage Changes by Race ...... 113
31. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Difference in Employment Type and Vocational Education Program ...... 123
32. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates
ix Compared by Percentage Difference in Employment Type and Vocational Education Program ...... 139
33. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Gender ...... 177
34. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Gender ...... 193
35. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Race ...... 223
36. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Race ...... 239
37. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Who Did Not Enroll in Postsecondary Schools Compared on Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Gender ...... 258
38. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Who Did Not Enroll in Postsecondary Schools Compared on Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Gender ...... 274
39. May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Who Did Not Enroll in Postsecondary Schools Compared on Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Race ...... 293
40. May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Who Did Not Enroll in Postsecondary Schools Compared on Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Race ...... 309
41. University Undergraduate BS Degree Program Grouping ...... 347
42. Community College Associate in Arts (AA) and Associate in Science (AS) Degree Programs ...... 349
43. Participants Place of Work in Job Categories ...... 350
x ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to compare vocational and non-vocational education students in public secondary schools in Leon County, Florida, to see whether high school graduates who were in vocational education programs in their 9th through 12th grades had more advantages in graduation, postsecondary school enrollment, employment, and wages, over their non-vocational education counterparts. In order to achieve this purpose, data for Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools’ May 1999, and May 2000, high-school and post-highschool were collected, analyzed, and compared. Eighth grade data were also collected to determine the subjects’ socioeconomic status. A sample of 2,698 students was obtained from the four high schools involved in this study. The data for the investigation were obtained from the Florida Department of Education’s (FDOE) “Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program” (FETPIP) and “Educational Information and Accountability Services” (EIAS) databases. Through “skewed” (rearranged) students identification numbers, it was possible to track each high school graduate to their eighth grade data. The analytical method heavily relied on descriptive statistics with intensive use of tables. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to summarize and analyze the data. Findings The study indicated that students in high school vocational education programs may have some advantages over non-vocational education students in terms of high school graduation, postsecondary school enrollment, employment and probably wages. The data indicated that participation in vocational education programs were distributed among the students that were representative of both the lower socioeconomic status (LSES) and the higher socioeconomic status (HSES) categories, male and female, black and white. The data further indicated that vocational education programs may have motivational values to the advantage of academically disadvantaged students, especially those within the LSES category, thereby enabling them to remain in school and graduate. Analyses of the data showed that in most cases, vocational education students, especially within the LSES, reported a higher rate of graduation from high school than their non-vocational education colleagues. The data further showed that in some cases, especially among the LSES black students, the more vocational education credits or courses a student earned in high school, the more likely the student graduates from high school. The study also indicated that vocational education high school graduates were very
xi competitive against their non-vocational education high school counterparts in terms of college enrollments. In some cases, especially among the LSES students, vocational education high school graduates reported higher rates of university enrollments than non-vocational education students. Regarding community college enrollment, the study indicated that both vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates were more attracted to the Associate in Arts (AA) degrees (college transfer option) than the Associate in Science (AS) degree programs (more professional and work option). The study further indicated that most vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in undergraduate BS degree programs were majoring in the fields similar to the vocational education programs in which they were trained in high school. Higher rates of employment were also reported among vocational education high school graduates than among non-vocational education counterparts. The study further showed that high school graduates who had participated in a Diversified Cooperative Education vocational program (internship or on-the-job training program), Business Technology Education, Computer Science Education, and Family and Consumer Science Education in high school were more likely than were non-vocational education colleagues to be employed in professional fields such as banks, doctors offices, law enforcement, hotels, and with more hours, and presumably better wages. The study also indicated that in some cases, vocational education high school graduates who were working in the fields for which they were trained in high school earned more wages with more working hours than did their non-vocational education colleagues. Since these were only high school graduates with limited occupational skills and job experience, the wage differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates may not be very wide. Conclusions Participation in vocational education enhanced the chances of high school graduation, especially if the students earn two or more vocational education credits or courses, improved the chances of enrollment in undergraduate BS, AA, and AS degree programs, and also improved the prospect of job opportunities and higher wages, especially among the students and high school graduates who worked in the fields for which they were trained in high school. These benefits of vocational education over non-vocational education were more noticeably among lower socioeconomic status black male and female, and white female students and high school graduates.
xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to compare vocational and non-vocational education students in public secondary schools in Leon County, Florida, to see whether vocational education students had more advantages over non-vocational education students in graduation from high school, postsecondary school enrollment, employment, and wages. In order to achieve this purpose, the May 1999, and the May 2000, vocational education and non-vocational education students data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools were collected, analyzed, and compared. It is well documented that vocational education in secondary schools serve several goals and objectives (Lazerson & Grubb, 1974; Hamilton, 1990; Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1990, 1991; Gray, 1991; Rosenstock, 1991; Vaughan, 1991; Wirt, 1991; Hamby, 1992; Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992; Wirth, 1992; Bodilly, Ramsey, Stasz, Eden, 1993; Finch & Crunkilton, 1993; Lankard, 1994; Stern, Finkelstein, Stone, Latting, & Dornsife, 1994; Briseid, 1995; Bragg, 1995b; Grubb, 1995a, 1995b; Shaw, 1995). The goals and objectives of vocational education include the improvement of high school graduation rates of students (Gray, 1991; Vaughan, 1991; Hamby, 1992); development of academic and job skills (Rosenstock,1991; Vaughan, 1991; Hamby, 1992; Wirth, 1992; Bodilly et al 1993; Lankard, 1994; Briseid, 1995; Shaw, 1995); work experience (Hamilton, 1990; Hamby, 1992); job training and placement (Powel, Farrar, and Cohen, cited in Wirt, 1991; Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992); higher wages (Stern et al 1994); career planning and training toward self employment (Hamilton, 1990; Shaw, 1995); and the development of applied knowledge and college preparation (Gray, 1991; Wirt, 1991; Hamby, 1992; Bodilly et al 1993; Lankard, 1994; Bragg, 1995b; Briseid, 1995; Shaw, 1995). By comparing students’ enrollment patterns and outcome variables of the May 1999, and May 2000 high school graduates using descriptive statistics with intensive use of tables methodology (Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992), we were able to determine whether high school students in vocational education have advantages over the students who were not in vocational education, by meeting the objectives and goals of vocational education. A major concern that has drawn much attention in public
1 2 secondary schools is that high school students are not well equipped for either the labor market or postsecondary education when they leave school because they lack the basic skills necessary to function successfully outside the school environment (National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983; Johnston and Parker, 1987; Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills ([SCANS], 1991, 1993; U.S. General Accounting Office [USGAO], 1993; U.S. Department of Labor [USDOL], 1994). Although these concerns have been with us over the years (Dewey, 1899, 1908, 1915, 1916; 1918, 1930; Handlin, 1966b; Lazerson & Grubb, 1974), the early 1980's witnessed renewed awareness of these concerns (NCEE, 1983). In “A Nation At Risk”, the NCEE (1983) was very critical of secondary education system in the country. One of the comments in the report captured the minds of many policymakers, educators, researchers, parents, and students stating that “The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and as a people” (NCEE, 1983, p. 5). The report cited students’ lack of basic academic and job skills, and other concerns that would enable students to succeed in the real world, and even proposed remedies for the problem. The report by Johnston & Parker (1987) of Hudson Institute further attracted attention when their study and statistical analyses supported the earlier report by NCEE (1983), and emphasized the need for high schools to teach students the basic academic and vocational skills that would help them succeed, especially in the job market. The SCANS reports, that were published later, also emphasized the skill problems high school students were facing and even recommended how the basic skills should be taught in schools (SCANS, 1993). The general belief is that vocational education provides the type of educational experience students need to function successfully in the labor market. Research reveal that “at-risk students who earn more vocational credits in an occupational specialty...are more likely to graduate from high school” (Hamby, 1992, p.1). Research also indicate that “Disadvantaged minority students who took at least a four-credit vocational education program and found employment related to that program gained important labor market advantages” (pp. 1-2). It is also on record that “cognitive psychologists have shown that students have a better understanding of abstractions and theory when taught in 3
a practical context and specific situations where they apply” (Hamby, 1992, p. 2). Other benefits gained by students when vocational programs are taught in public secondary schools have been widely explained (Grubb & Stasz, 1992; Lankard, 1992; Grubb, 1995a,1995b). Statement of the Problem Leading from this general context and the purpose of the study, the specific problem derived and examined was: To examine whether high school students (Grades 9th through 12th ) who participated in vocational education were more likely to graduate from high school, to enroll in postsecondary education, to be employed, and earn better wages or salaries, when compared to students who had not participated in vocational education. The Background Several statistical reports from various studies have connected unemployment with the rates of high school dropout. One such reports for instance, was that of the U.S. Department of Labor’s unemployment statistics for 1991 which published the unemployment rates for that year. The report indicated that at least 23.1 percent of students identified as non-completion of high school education were unemployed, compared to only 9.4 percent of students who graduated. That is, “...at least two times as many dropouts as graduates were unemployed” (cited in National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES],1991, p. 1) Such statistics support Czubaj’s (1997) argument that “When students dropout of school, their chances of obtaining employment which will sustain a comfortable lifestyle drastically declines” (p. 261). According to Czubaj, “Educators must address the needs of students prior to when the student elects to drop out of school” (p. 263). Czubaj finds vocational programs much worth solution by meeting the needs of “Special needs” students. Czubaj made the following summation: “Special needs” students are trained in employable skills while attending high school; whereas, traditional high school curriculum fell short of teaching “special needs” students employable skills” (Czubaj, 1997, p. 261). Research has also shown that students who fail to graduate “are not acquiring the competencies needed to function successfully in the American economy” 4
(NCES,1991, p. 1). It was generally believed that acquiring the necessary basic skills in high schools better prepare students for both postsecondary education and the labor market demands (Johnston & Parker, 1987; Hamilton, 1990; Hamby, 1992; SCANS, 1991, 1993). In their analyses of students’ transcripts of vocational and non-vocational concentrators in Idaho high school graduating class of 1983, Riesenberg & Stenberg (1992) found that non- vocational students scored higher in each of the subject areas in mathematics, English, science, social studies, and the composite scores. They also found that non-vocational concentrators attended postsecondary schools at the rate of 55.7 percent, compared to the 37.9 percent of vocational concentrators going to college. In the area of employment after graduation from high school, the researchers found that 76.4 percent of vocational concentrators were employed, compared to the 70.7 percent non-vocational concentrators. Whereas, more vocational students were employed in the skilled crafts, more non- vocational students were employed in the professional category (Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992). At this point, it is necessary to state the following research questions that will guide this dissertation: 1. What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on the number of students who: (a) Received high school diplomas? (b) Received high school diplomas, compared by vocational credits earned 9th through12th grades? (c) Received high school diplomas by gender? (d) Received high school diplomas by race? 2. What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on: (a) Postsecondary school enrollment by type of undergraduate degree program enrolled? (b) Postsecondary School Plans and postsecondary school enrollment? (c) Type of undergraduate degree program enrolled and type of 9th through 12th 5
grades vocational education program taken? (d) Type of undergraduate degree program enrolled and employment status? (e) Type of undergraduate degree program enrolled by gender? (f) Type of undergraduate degree program enrolled by race? (g) Postsecondary School Plans and enrollment by gender? (h) Postsecondary School Plans and enrollment by race? 3. What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on: (a) Type of employment and type of vocational education program taken in 9th through 12th grades? (b) Type of employment and type of vocational education program taken in 9th through12th grades by gender? (c) Type of employment and type of vocational education program taken in 9th through12th grades by race? 4. What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000 who did not enroll in postsecondary schools, when socioeconomic status variables is controlled, on: (a) Type of vocational education programs taken in 9th through 12th grades and employment status by gender? (b) Type of vocational education programs taken in 9th through 12th grades and employment status by race? This study was motivated by the above-mentioned research problems, research questions, advancement of knowledge, possible policy implications, and for the sake of research itself in order to understand more about high school vocational education programs and the role they play in public high schools. In order to enable the researcher to compare the students’ grades 9th through 12th courses enrollment patterns with their post-high outcome data, high school class enrollment transcripts were used to identify the type and the number of courses each student had taken by matching each student’s identification number (skewed) with the courses. Descriptive statistics and the software, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 1998) were used to summarize, 6 analyze, and compare the data. Other supporting texts and software also used were (Henderson, 1999; Morgan & Griego, 2001; Morgan, Griego, & Gloeckner, 2001; Shaffer, Nelson, Chico, Korey, Nelson, & Rose, 2001). The existing students outcome data for four public high schools in Leon County, Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools were collected from both the Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) and the Florida Information and Accountability Services (FIAS) databases for the analyses. The high school graduating classes of 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 were used for the comparison. The school year was taken from August to May. Significance of the Problem Over the years, some of the major concerns among educators, researchers, policy makers, and the business community have been the issue regarding the need for students’ acquiring the necessary academic and vocational skills before graduation from high school (NCEE, 1983; Johnston & Parker, 1987; Hamilton, 1990; Hamby, 1992; SCANS, 1991, 1993; Czubaj, 1997). The argument was that with adequate skills, high school graduates would be able to succeed in their chosen careers either in postsecondary school or in the labor market (Johnston & Parker, 1987; Hamilton, 1990; NCES, 1991; SCANS, 1991; USDOL, 1994). Vocational education was considered as having motivational incentives such as providing technical skills and work experience for work, while at the same time, students in such programs acquire academic skills for postsecondary education. The reason this study is significant is that it will help in further explaining the potential benefits from participation in vocational education. This study will also help the reading audience to be able to have a clearer insight into the differences in outcome between vocational and non-vocational participation. Law makers may be able to use the outcome of this study to formulate school improvement laws and funding policies. Schools can use the reports as necessary conditions to obtain funds for many educational programs (Worthen & Sanders, 1987). Other uses of this dissertation reports include its relevance as the basis for decision making and policy formulation. The Florida Education Department’s Workforce Development Division, and the Leon County Schools, for instance, may want to use part or all of this dissertation report to formulate policies on 7 curricula improvement, workforce development, school improvement, program accreditation, or funding procedures. In the field of intellectual development, the results of this dissertation can be helpful in further research into vocational education in public high schools. All these factors make this dissertation study very relevant and significant. Assumptions The following assumptions are made: 1. Although the researcher’s academic major is vocational education, it is assumed that the vocational background of the researcher will not influence the outcome of the study. 2. Students in both vocational and non-vocational education put in their best toward graduation from high school. 3. The high schools under study provided the students in both vocational and non- vocational education similar quality of training during their 9th through 12th grades. 4. The data collected are assumed to be trustworthy. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this study, the following terminologies will be defined as stated: 1. Vocational Education: Vocational Education is defined as career-oriented or job-preparatory instruction which “not necessarily leading to a baccalaureate degree” (Florida School Laws [FSL], 1996, p. 4), but gives “occupational competencies that are directly related to the preparation of individuals for paid or unpaid employment in current emerging occupations” (Hamby, 1992, p. 2); or “Job-preparatory instruction in the minimum competencies necessary for effective entry into an occupation, including diversified cooperative education, work experience,...” (FSL, 1996, p. 4). Such vocational courses or instructions as Family Dynamics, Construction Technology, Business Management, Business Computer Programming, Food Production, Office Supervision, Engineering Technology, Fashion Applications, Criminal Justice, Diversified Cooperative Training, etc., are taught within the four high schools under study (Table1). 8
Table 1: High School Vocational Education Electives. Where Taught Vocational Education Courses Grouped According To Programs
Godby High Business Technology Education Program: Computer Sciences Program: Leon High Accounting Business Computer Lincoln High Accounting Operations Program ming; Rickards High Business Management P.C. Support Services; Financial Records Computer Application to Marketing Graphic; Computer Programing; Digital Publishing; Web D esign Services; Electronic and Desktop Publishing.
Godby High Family & Consumer Science Education Public Service Occupations Leon High Program: Education Program: Lincoln High Childcare Provider Administrative Assistant Rickards High Early Childhood Education Criminal Justice Assisting Family Dynamics Office Supervision Fashion Applications Teacher Assisting Food P roduction Services; Pattern Design; Health Science Education
Godby High Technology Education Program: Diversified Cooperative Leon High Communications Technology Training Program: Lincoln High Construction Technology Executive Internship; Rickards High Electronic/Desktop Publishing Guided Workplace Learning; Engineering Technology Work Experience. Landscape Operations; Printing Sources: Leon County Schools ([LCS], 2000-2001, p. 11; pp. 19-30); Leon High School Academic Planner ([LHSAP], 2000-2001); FETPIP, FIAS (Database)
2. School Year: From August (Fall) through May (Spring) 3. Vocational Education Graduates: The May 1999, and May 2000 high school graduates who had earned at least one vocational course during their 9th through 12th grades (Table 1). 4. Earned: This term means that the student had taken the course and obtained a high school credit by the time the student completed the 12th grade as indicated in student academic transcript. 9
5. Non-Vocational Education Graduates: High school graduates who did not
meet the definition of vocational education given in #3 above.
6. High School Graduate: for the purpose of this study, is a student who had met all
the high school graduation requirements including statewide standardized tests (either FCAT or HSCT), and the required high school credits for graduation and was awarded either the Standard High School Diploma or the Special Diploma by May 1999, and by May 2000.
7. Non-High School Graduates: Students who did not meet the requirements
described above (i.e., definition #6) and elected or decided to leave school with the alternative, which is the “Certificates of Completion” .
8. Standard or Traditional High School Diploma: The diploma awarded to high
school students after meeting the minimum graduation requirements in their senior year or 12th grade (FSL, 1996, p. 143).
9. Certificate of Completion: Certificate awarded to students who had completed
the minimum number of credits and all other requirements prescribed by local school board but failed to pass either the High School Competency Test (HSCT) or the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT)(FDOE, 1991, 1993, 1998, 1999, Leon County Schools, 2002-2003). 10. Public High School:
Are high schools “authorized by law to be operated under the control of school board” (FSL, 1996, p. 2).
11. Employment: high school graduates employed either part-time (working less than
40 hours a week) or full-time (working at least 40 hours or more per week, or earning a wage of at least $2,678 per quarter of three months) in any Public or Private Agencies that include, but not limited to Federal, State, or Local 10
Governments, the Military, Postal Services, or Self Employed, Departmental Stores, Drug Stores (FDOE, FETPIP). 12. High School and Secondary school: High School and Secondary school are interchangeable.
13. PostSecondary Schools: For the purpose of this study, postsecondary schools
mean Two or Four-year Colleges or Universities that award undergraduate degrees, and area vocational technical schools such as Lively Technical Center in Tallahassee, Florida. 14. Employed or Unemployed: For the tables in Chapter 4 where specific employment types are specified, employed or unemployed can be interchanged with “In This Field” (ITF, that is, employed in that job) or “Not in This Field” (NITF, that is, not employed in that job).
15. Post Secondary school Plans: these are plans students had made in their senior
years in high school. Before students graduate, they fill out surveys from school authorities to indicate their future plans toward higher education beyond secondary schools.
16. Socioeconomic Status (SES) Variables: the socioeconomic status variable
chosen was the 8th grade Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program.
17. Lower Socioeconomic Status (LSES): Students who had participated in 8th
grade Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program.
18. Higher Socioeconomic Status (HSES): Students who had not participated in
8th grade Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program.
19. Minorities: For the purpose of this study, minorities are considered as Blacks,
Hispanics, Asians, American Indians, other ethnic groups from around the world and living in the United States, and Women.
20. Others: in terms of ethnic groups, and in relation to this study, mean Hispanics, 11
Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Native Alaska, and others from elsewhere around the world and living in the United States. Note on Definition Changes and Limitations of my Study
After collecting data for the study, this researcher realized the need to revise some of the definitions presented in the original prospectus to reflect the data collected. 1. There was nothing like Accounting I, II, or III. Rather, Accounting Operations or Accounting. Similarly, no Computer Programing I, II; Criminal Justice I, II, III; nor Construction Technology I, II. The vocational programs and courses were as stated in Table 1. Students may decide to take two or more elective vocational courses under a vocational program, or one or two vocational courses from one program and another course or courses from another program. 2. Fewer students had two or more vocational education courses. Thus, in order to have enough vocational education students for the study, the original definition for vocational students in the prospectus had to be adjusted in the dissertation. 3. The Non-graduates were so few that almost all the cells for this variable (Non- graduates) were empty as seen in Table 3, and were unusable for the data analyses. The Non-graduate population for both May 1999, and May 2000 were very few, 0.6 for May 1999; and 0.9% for May 2000. 4. The original questions in the prospectus had to be revised for Postsecondary School Plans in the dissertation to reflect Postsecondary School Plan definitions in the data. 5. Further, the Postsecondary School Plan data for the May 1999 high school graduates was not available. Thus, only the May 2000 high school graduates Postsecondary School Plan data was studied. 6. Another setback during the research was that it took at least 8 months after the approval of the prospectus to obtain the complete data for the study. 7. Finally, the researcher had to cope with either the early retirements (before the completion of dissertation) or the transfer and replacements of some members of the 12
dissertation committee. Scope of the Study
This study will be delimited to the following: 1. The researcher is the sole investigator in this study. 2. The study is limited to the geographical region of Leon County, Florida. 3. The study is limited to the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 12th graders in the four high schools under study. 4. Both the Educational Information and Accountability Services (EIAS) and the Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) sections skewed the actual student identification numbers in such a way that records from the two systems still link when matched, yet prevented disclosure of individually identifiable information. 5. All name data were deleted prior to data being provided to researcher. 6. No individual data will be disseminated. A review of pertinent literature are presented in Chapter II. Chapter III deals with the Methods and the Procedures used in the study; Chapter IV would deal with Data Analysis and Summary of the Findings; and Chapter V would include Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Four areas relevant to this study are reviewed in this chapter. The areas include: (1) Introduction: General Background; (2) Literature Relating to Students in Vocational and Non-Vocational Education; (3) Literature Relating to Advantages and Disadvantages of Vocational and Non-Vocational Education; (4) Literature Relating to Academic Achievement of Students in Vocational and Non-Vocational Education. Introduction
General Background: The rationale behind many of the school reform initiatives that took place since the late 1980's was the question whether public high school students were getting the basic academic and vocational skills they needed for either postsecondary education or job placement after graduation. Many publications that came out in the 1980's expressed this concern. More especially, the publication of “A Nation At Risk” (NCEE, 1983) and later others like “Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century” (Johnston & Parker,1987) of Hudson Institute; “Unfinished Agenda” (National Commission on Secondary and Vocational Education [NCSVE], 1984); “The Forgotten Half....” (W. T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship, 1988); Hamilton (1990); USDOL (1994), brought this problem in public high schools once more to the forefront of national education agenda (SCANS, 1991, 1993; American Vocational Association [AVA], 1992a, 1992b; Woodley, Homes, & Sorg, 1992; Youth Policy, 1994). Among the federal and the state governments actions that followed these reports were various school reform initiatives since late 1980's, especially, by making more vocational education courses available in public secondary schools (Wirt, 1991; AVA, 1992a, 1992b; USGAO, 1993; Youth Policy, 1994; Grubb, 1995a, 1995b). The general belief is that by teaching more vocational education courses in public secondary schools, students will have a variety of educational and job options, will acquire the necessary
13 14 basic skills that prepare them for both postsecondary education and the labor market (SCANS, 1991, 1993; AVA, 1992a, 1992b; Bailey, 1995a; Grubb, 1995a, 1995b). Over the years, educators have been pondering and debating over which educational methods would best give students most of the skills they needed to function successfully in the real world, and this has centered around the issue of whether it is vocational or academic, or both (Lazerson & Grubb, 1974). John Dewey, who was in the forefront of the arguments in favor of teaching both academic and vocational skills reflected these in many of his writings (Dewey, 1899, 1908, 1915, 1916, 1918, 1930; Dewey & Tufts, 1908; Archanbault, 1966a, 1966b; Handlin, 1966b; Lilga, 1966a; Phenix, 1966b). Dewey was writing at a time when the focus of vocational education was limited to the point of just training students for work without postsecondary or other options (Archambault, 1966a, 1966b; Cremin, 1966b; Lilga, 1966a; Lazerson & Grubb, 1974). In Dewey’s view, one aim of education is flexibility that is enough to accommodate changes and enable scholars to make choices. Thus, in “Democracy and Education” Dewey made the argument that: “Occupation is a concrete term for continuity”. “It includes the development of artistic capacity of any kind, of special scientific ability, of effective citizenship, as well as professional and business occupations,....We must avoid not only limitation of conception of vocation to the occupations where immediately tangible commodities are produced, but also the notion that vocations are distributed in an exclusive way, one and only one for each person. Such restricted specialism is impossible; nothing could be more absurd than to try to educate individuals with an eye to only one line of activity”(Dewey, 1916, p. 359). With such arguments, Dewey laid the foundation for the future reformers of public secondary education. 15
The narrowness of the scope of vocational education has been one of the major factors that distinguishes it from traditional academic education, and this has something to do with vocational history (Finch & Crunkilton, 1993). When vocational education was first introduced in the country in form of an apprenticeship it “served as a principal means of providing education for work” (Finch & McGough, 1982, p. 4). These were “practical” curriculum that emphasized “hands on learning, and prepared students for entry level jobs in agriculture, business and office occupations, manufacturing, and the trades” (Hoachlander, 1999, p. 2). This type of training differs from the traditional academic type of secondary education where, learning is tailored toward both postsecondary education and the labor market (Copa,1987; Gray, 1991). This basic distinction between the two types of education has over the years defined the nature of the two types of learning. Since Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, the federal government has become more financially involved in secondary vocational education (Lazerson & Grubb, 1974; Finch & Crunkilton, 1993). The consequences of this federal involvement was the wider public supports for vocational education and the expansion of its educational focus. By 1924 for instance, over 92 percent of the students between the ages 15 and 18 who were in vocational schools were in federally funded institutions, compared to 86 percent in 1919 (Lazerson & Grubb, 1974). Research also indicated that vocational education experienced an unprecedented growth in the 1960's and 1970's (Gray, 1991). “Between 1963 and 1984, when enrollment peaked, participation in federally aided vocational education increased over 400% nationally” (Gray, 1991, p. 439). This increase, according to Gray, was the result of increase high school enrollment, increase in federal funding for vocational education, increase in state funding, construction of new vocational education facilities, “and federal mandates to increase the number of women and minorities in vocational education programs” (Gray, 1991, p. 439). After 1984, there was a downturn in students enrollment due to several 16 factors (Gray, 1991). In 1988, 32 states experienced decline in enrollment. Pennsylvania, for instance, declined by “38% since the 1984-85 school year” (p. 439). Despite the downward trend in vocational enrollment in the 1980's, educators strongly believed that high school vocational education still held the key to career success of students (Wirt, 1991; Vaughan, 1991; Hamby, 1992; Grubb, 1995a, 1995b; Stern, 1999). In consideration of this line of thoughts, educators and policymakers, including state and federal governments made concerted efforts in the late 1980's to encourage more vocational programs in high school (AVA, 1992a, 1992b; Bodilly et al 1993; Youth Policy, 1994; Grubb, 1995a, 1995b). Some Initiatives at the end of the 20th Century: 1. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS):
The SCANS which started its mandate in May 1990 was set up by Lynn Martin, the Secretary of Labor to specifically examine the level of skills required by high school students to enter employment and to advise the secretary on any findings (SCANS, 1991). The Commission drew three conclusions from its findings that subsequently became national standards of basic skills requirements for public high school education: i. All American high school students must develop a new set of competencies and foundation skills if they are to enjoy a productive, full, and satisfying life. ii. The qualities of high performance that today characterize our most competitive companies must become the standard for the vast majority of our companies, large and small, local and global. iii. The nation’s schools must be transformed into high-performance organizations in their own right (p. vi). As a follow-up, the report specified Five Competencies to be taught in K through 12 grades (SCANS, 1991). The SCANS (1993) came out with “Teaching The SCANS Competencies”, an outline of how the Five Competencies should be taught in schools. By teaching the skills, students will “benefit from working on tasks and problems that call 17 on a range of skills” (SCANS, 1993, p. 15). The authors of SCANS also believed that the skills are needed because “Young people leaving school should have both a sufficient foundation and a level of understanding of the competencies...” (SCANS, 1991, p. xix). 2. Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act of 1990:
The Carl Perkins Law fundamentally modifies the way vocational education in the country is planned, and implemented. It forms the basic foundation of many of the public high school reforms around the country. This law also allows reforms to be initiated from the school districts (AVA, 1992a, 1992b). The law broadens the focus of vocational education, and makes connections between vocational education and traditional academic education, thereby making it easier for students in any of the two programs to transit to either postsecondary education or the labor market (AVA, 1992a). For instance, Section 403.111 (a)(3) of Carl Perkins (AVA, 1992a), specifically recommends that “students achieve both academic and occupational competencies....” (p. 109). The law also authorizes 75 percent of the funds under the “Basic Grant” to be distributed to local education agencies to support secondary education reforms (AVA, 1992a; 1992b). Many authors such as Wirth (1992) saw this move by the law mandating reform initiatives to local governments as a significant departure from the past when reforms had to come from the top policymakers who hardly understand the local education problems. The Perkins Law also requires states to report at least the following four performance indicators: “(i) Student attainment of challenging State established academic, and vocational and technical, skill proficiencies. “(ii) Student attainment of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, a proficiency credential in conjunction with a secondary school diploma, or a postsecondary degree or credential. “(iii) Placement in, retention in, and completion of, postsecondary education or advanced training, placement in military service, or placement or retention 18
in employment. “(iv) Student participation in and completion of vocational and technical education programs that lead to nontraditional training and employment.” (cited in Stern, 1999, p. 2). 3. Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994:
The “Goals 2000" (Rilley, 1994), is an 8-point educational goal for the 21st century and signed into law by president Bill Clinton in 1994. This law sets a “framework for building a national consensus for educational improvement” (Florida Department of Education [FDOE], 1997, p. 2). In other words, the law guides states and the local governments in their school improvement goals. Florida’s education “Blue Print 2000", for instance, is a reflection of national “Goals 2000" (FDOE, 1996, 1997, pp. 56- 60). 4. School-To-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) of 1994:
The STWOA which president Bill Clinton signed into law in May 1995 was a landmark effort that supports the Carl Perkins Law of 1990. The STWOA has three focus, integration of work-based and school-based learning, integration of occupational and academic learning, and the easing the transition from secondary to postsecondary education (Youth Policy, 1994). Thus, many of the public secondary schools reforms that took place around the country by the end of the 20th century took their guidelines from the initiatives mentioned above. A majority of these reforms combined vocational education with academic learning, thereby making it possible for students to have a variety of programs and career choices (Academic Planner, 2000-2001; Godby, 2000-2001; LCS, 2000-2001; Turner, 1996). Literature Relating to Students in Vocational and Non-Vocational Education
Over the years, the general notion is that vocational education is a program 19
specifically designed for some students and not for others (Copa, 1987). From the time of its implementation within the public school system in the early part of the 20th century, vocational education has been ridiculed by the mixed feelings that came with it (Copa, 1987; Gray, 1991). A general perception of vocational education is summarized as follows, that: “Vocational education has been the Lawrence Welk of public education - tolerated and occasionally patronized by the Establishment, but never really accepted” (Gray, 1991, p. 438). But as the country moved into the 21st century and the relevance of vocational education to the careers of secondary education students became clearer with the advancement of technology, especially computer age, world trade, and the needs of skills, vocational education has gained more supports from the public (Wirt, 1991; Wirth, 1992; Stern 1999). Most of the studies found that many of the students who took vocational education and graduated from high school ended up going to postsecondary schools (Wirt, 1991). For instance, “Of all the vocational education courses taken by students, nearly 29% are taken by students who plan to go to a four-year college; 20%, by students who plan to go to a community college; and 27%, by students who plan to go to a postsecondary vocational/technical school. The remaining 24% are taken by students who plan to go to work full-time after high school” (Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, cited in Wirt, 1991, p.427). From this findings, Powell and colleagues argued that the country’s public high school system “consists of one track for the some 29% of higher-ability students who are preparing to attend four-year colleges and of another track for the remaining 71% of students who are taking a variety of courses for variety of purposes” (p. 427). This brings to light the issue of tracking that will be discussed hereafter briefly. Vaughan’s finding may lend support to the above finding regarding the ability of vocational education students. In his writing, Vaughan (1991) pointed out that “students 20 in the top half of measured ability took 45% of the vocational credits (p. 449). Vaughan (1991) further pointed out that, apart from higher ability students, vocational education serve a broad range of students that include displaced and potentially displaced workers and disadvantaged students. In his view, vocational education also encourages potential dropouts to remain in school. Gray (1991) further explained that “Helping at-risk youths, particularly minorities who live in central cities, is no longer just a question of social justice, it has become a workforce issue as well. Increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in the labor force is an economic imperative” (p. 441). In other words, Gray supports Vaughan’s (1991) view that vocational education is a broad-based program that attracts a variety of students. These findings contradict the general perception that vocational education programs are taken by the bottom 20 percent in the ability rating (Wirt, 1991), or are attended by non-college bound students (Copa, 1987). In other words, vocational education is for everybody. As mentioned earlier, tracking is defined as “the practice of students’ selecting or being placed in different programs of study - such as vocational, general, or college preparations” (Maddy-Bernstein & Coyle-Williams, 1995, p. 159).“Some use the term to describe the phenomenon of students being placed in higher or lower ability groups for extended periods during elementary and high school” (Ibid. p.159). This phenomenon is not unique to only America, but is widely practiced around the world (Latka-Johring, 1991; Blank & Scaglione, 1992; Wirth, 1992; Wilson & Rossman, 1993; Witte & Kalleberg, 1994; Briseid, 1995; Shaw, 1995; Argys, Rees, & Brewer, 1996; Grubb, 1997). In the United States, the three more common ones are academic or college-bound track, general track, and vocational track (Wilson & Rossman, 1993; Argys, Rees, & Brewer, 1996). The Polish system of tracking directs students into four tracks: 2 to 3 years basic vocational schools leading to skilled worker status; 4 years vocational Lycea leading to 21
Matura and skilled worker status, 4 to 5 years Technikas leading to technician plus possible Lycea leading to Matura (Shaw, 1995). After the fall of communism in Europe in the late 1980's, Poland launched the “MOVE” program in 1995 to modernize her secondary vocational education to reflect modern economic direction. After the reform, the new system prepares secondary school graduates to enter any of the three tracks: go to college, go to work, or become self-employed (Shaw, 1995). In Norway, before their reform of 1974, the secondary school system had a deliberate attempt of tracking students to either academic or vocational career (Briseid, 1995). But after the reform, graduates from the compulsory secondary education can now enroll in a three-year upper secondary education that prepares them for either a vocational certification for job, or earn a matriculation diploma that qualifies them for college admission (Briseid, 1995). The German system of tracking is even more controlled. As Wirth (1992) explains, the system is “...highly differentiated vocational training programs geared precisely to the hierarchical skill needs of German industry” (p. 163 ). As early as ten, students attend the lower secondary school (Hauptschule), then to a middle secondary school (Realschule), or an upper secondary school (Gymnasium). After the gymnasium, it is uncommon to move between tracks (Witte & kalleberg, 1994). In his research of the educational system in the Federal Republic of Germany, Hans-Peter Blossfiel (cited in Witte & Kalleberg, 1994) found that “in the 1970's and the early 1980's, more than 90 percent of those completing their secondary education remained in the type of school they entered at age 10" (p. 3). The point is that, as seen in the German system, countries or educational institutions differ in reasons why these different tracks are maintained. Thus, American education institutions may have their reasons for the continuation of tracking. In Argys et al’s (1996) findings in their review of literature, schools in America maintain tracks to control class sizes. In their explanation, Argys and colleagues note that as registration 22
increases with the students diversity now experienced in schools, it becomes more difficult to manage students in the classrooms. Therefore, by tracking more academically able students to academic line, the motivation and academic performance of less capable students are reduced. Gray (1991) explains how tracking was used in the 1970's to reduce overcrowding in classrooms. According to Gray, “in the 1970s vocational education programs, particularly those offered in regional vocational/technical schools, were an important factor in relieving overcrowding in some high schools” (Gray, 1991, p. 439). Others argue that tracking increased students motivation, interest, and ability to learn. “Students at all levels benefit from lessons commensurate with their learning ability...” (Argys et al 1996, p. 624 ). Opponents of tracking argue that the less gifted students need the more academically bright students as motivational peers to learn (Argys et al 1996). Opponents of tracking also argue that confining “modestly-skilled occupations” to vocational institutions, students are directed to relatively low-status and low-paid jobs. Thus, students who aspires to professional and managerial positions are turned off from vocational education (Grubb, 1997, p. 84). In Wilson & Rossman’s view “By sorting students into groups, labeling those groups, conferring on them certain statuses, and certifying these statuses to a larger society, schools are powerful mechanisms for influencing students’ life chances” (Wilson & Rossman, 1993, p. 45). Wilson & Rossman researched on ethnographic studies on tracking and came up with certain findings that confirm some earlier arguments. For instance, they found that more-able students were in academic tracks, while less-able students were in general or vocational tracks. They also found that track labels shape students attitudes toward school. “Students placed in lower-ability and lower-status tracks tend to develop anti- school attitudes, those accorded the higher status of academic tracks are more likely to disengage from the schooling process” (Finn, cited in Wilson & Rossman, 1993, p. 49). 23
Hamilton (1990) argues that what vocational students need is more basic academic skills. On the German system, Hamilton points out that the students within the system were more motivated to remain in school because they have a career path to adult employment in their field training. Hamilton argues “Seeing the connection between their apprenticeship and an adult career gives them reason for learning and for behaving a personal and socially reasonable way” (Hamilton, 1990, p. 137). Literature Relating to Advantages and Disadvantages of Vocational and Non-Vocational Education.
Research on the benefits in terms of post-high school employment of vocational and non-vocational education students has focused on the differences in first time employment, employment rates, income, etc. ( Gray, 1991; Rosenstock, 1991; Vaughan, 1991; Wirt, 1991; Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992; Stern et al, 1994; Czubaj, 1997). Research findings indicate that opinion on benefits derived from vocational training are mixed (Rosenstock, 1991; Wirt, 1991; Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992; Stern et al 1994). Whereas, some studies found no significant advantage by vocational students over non- vocational students in terms of first time employment (Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1990, 1991; Rosenstock, 1991; Wirt, 1991; Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992), other studies found some advantages, especially if students work in jobs related to their training in high school (Gray, 1991; Wirt, 1991; Stern et al 1994). For instance, Wirt (1991) of the National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) pointed out that “With regards to students who go to work full-time after graduating from high school, the NAVE found that the rate at which these young people are getting jobs in the fields for which they are trained is generally low” (p. 429). A study by Riesenberg & Stenberg (1992) showed no significant differences in employment between vocational and non-vocational education students. They found that 10.4 percent of non-vocational concentrators and 7.5 percent of vocational concentrators reported either unemployed or not in school. They also found that “Over 40% of the non- 24 vocational concentrators and 33.8% of vocational concentrators reported their jobs (5 years after graduation) were not related to their high school plans” (Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992, p. 84). From his findings, Vaughan (1991) explained that vocational education students “are more likely to enter the labor force, and experience lower unemployment rates than those with less vocational training” (p. 449). Some advantages were noted for vocational education students over non-vocational education students where the former work in jobs related to their training in school (Gray, 1991; Wirt, 1991; Stern et al 1994). Stern & colleagues gave credit to late 20th century researchers on vocational and non-vocational education. They noted that, the findings from these studies, especially those of the 1980s provided better understanding of the gains from vocational education and as well laid the foundation for subsequent studies on the subject. Rumberger and Daymont, for instance, (cited in Stern et al 1994, p. 58) “found that boys who had studied trade and industry subjects and girls who had studied for office occupations faced significantly better prospects in the labor market after high school if they in fact found jobs in their fields of study”. Campbell, Elliot, Laughlin, & Sensy (also cited in Stern et al 1994) replicated the study by Rumberger and Daymont found that high school vocational graduates who worked in jobs related to their subject areas “Spent approximately 20% more time in the labor market than a comparison group of general track students and that their unemployment rate was 3 percentage point lower. In contrast, vocational participants who worked outside their field of training saw no advantage over the general track comparison group” (p. 58). Other findings indicated that students who participated in vocational education had significant labor market gains when they are employed in jobs related to their subject areas (John Bishop cited in Gray, 1991). From these findings, Gray (1991) concluded that “...acquiring marketable occupational skills can make a difference and that academic skills alone do not provide labor market advantage” (Gray, 1991, p. 442). 25
There are also research findings on wages and earning differences between vocational and non-vocational education students (Gray, 1991; Wirt, 1991; Stern et al 1994). One study indicated that “graduates who have taken vocational education are somewhat more likely than other graduates to have a job - but not a higher-paying job (John Bishop cited in Wirt, 1991, p. 429). According to Wirt (1991), “The largest and most consistently positive effects of vocational education have been found for the earnings of women who have received training in business and office occupations” p. 429). This finding is consistent with the finding by Rumberger & Daymont (cited in Stern et al 1994). In that study, girls with business and office occupational training earn more, compared with girls without such training. Wirt (1991) pointed out that “these effects generally disappear when students do not get jobs in the occupational fields in which they are trained. And, as I have noted above, they typically do not” (Wirt, 1991, p. 429). Generally, vocational education students who work in jobs related to their training “earned 7 to 8% more than vocational students who found employment in unrelated fields or student who pursued a general program in high school” (Stern et al 1994, p. 58). As Vaughan (1991) noted, many students learn better in applied setting as in vocational education. This view may be supported by the explanation given by Rosenstock (1991) that “vocational teachers see students demonstrate competence, thinking ability, and creativity in a vocational setting that some of them are unable to demonstrate in an academic setting...” (p. 435). Gray (1991) noted that vocational education, apart from teaching applied knowledge, have also “demonstrated their worth in teaching basic skills as well” (p. 442). Gray further explained that vocational education has the capability to develop applied knowledge. According to Gray, applied knowledge “defined as the ability to use traditional academic content in practical application and decision making, have been conspicuous by their absence from most high school curricula other than vocational education” (p. 442). 26
This applied capability by vocational education was tested in the NAVE in applied mathematics skills (Gray, 1991; Wirt, 1991). Mayer of the NAVE (cited in Wirt, 1991, p. 428) compared “the effects on students’ mathematical achievement of vocational education courses that have substantial mathematics content and of those that do not”. Vocational education courses with substantial mathematics contents were defined as electronics, accounting, drafting, and agricultural sciences (Wirt, 1991). The NAVE found that the students learn about the same “amount of mathematics learned in these mathematics-related vocational education courses as they would learn in a traditional mathematics course” (Wirt, 1991, p. 428). Wirt pointed out that “This was not an insignificant amount,....” Concluding that the “results clearly show that vocational education can be a vehicle for increasing student achievement in mathematics” (Wirt, 1991, p. 428). NAVE was unable to confirm the contribution of vocational education courses in other subject areas such as the development of higher order thinking skills (Wirt, 1991). Gray (1991) pointed out that research findings have indicated that participation in vocational education was associated with an increase of 6 percent in high school graduation rates. Literature Relating to Academic Achievements of Students in Vocational and Non-Vocational Education
Research findings in the area of academic achievements between students in vocational and students in non-vocational education is well documented. One of such research study was conducted by Riesenberg & Stenberg (1992). In their comparative study of vocational and non-vocational concentrators in Idaho high school graduates, using high school credits, the test scores of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the American College Test (ACT), follow-up survey, and post-high school graduation data, they found that: 1. Non-vocational students completed significantly more credits in mathematics, science, English, social studies, humanities, and fine arts, whereas, vocational 27
students completed more career-oriented or vocational credits 2. The non-vocational students had statistically higher Grade Point Average (GPA) than vocational concentrators with a mean of 2.80 and 2.72 respectively, and class mark mean percentile of 0.45 and 0.51 respectively. 3. While 627 non-vocational students sat for the ACT exam., the number of vocational students taking the same exam. was 213, and in the average composite score in the test, non-vocational concentrators had an edge of 19.50 over the 17.14 score by the vocational concentrators. 4. The percent of students going to college after graduation from high school also differ among the two groups. Whereas 55.7 percent of the non-vocational concentrators in college, 37.9 percent of vocational concentrators went to college (p. 75). In the area of career advancement, the vocational concentrators had more advantage according to the findings from the same research. More vocational concentrators used employment and placement agencies to find their first job compared to the non-vocational concentrators. In finding their first job, vocational students had direct contact with an employer in finding a job by 36 percent compared to the 28.5 percent of the non- vocational concentrators. Indicating why they left the first job, non-vocational concentrators cite college advancement as their basic reason. The vocational concentrators gave their reasons as lack of promotion. The study also found that 17.6 percent of the non-vocational concentrators had problems finding a job, as against the 14.2 percent of vocational concentrators experiencing such problems. The researchers concluded that they could not find a clearly discernible consequences of life as a result of high school course taken pattern that the study only confirmed the fact that in participating in solely vocational curriculum in high school, a student must sacrifice the academic part of study. They also found that majority of the students in vocational programs regret concentrating more on vocational curriculum 28 while in high school (Riesenberg & Stenberg, 1992). In one of their answers to a survey questionnaire, majority of the students stated that: “Given the chance to re-do my high school, I would choose a college preparation curriculum” (p. 90). In their study of pilot schools to determine the impact of extended academic subjects in vocational curriculum on academic achievement of vocational students using Princeton’s Educational Testing Service (ETS) data for analysis, Logan & Tulloch (1992) found that in 1988, at Trigg County Schools, vocational completers made up 45 percent of the graduating seniors. This figure increased to 51 percent in 1990. In reading, mathematics, and science of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) of which the schools under study were members, the 1988 results indicated that the students had a mean score of 55.3 in reading, 298.9 in math, and 270.1 in science. These scores were compared to the SREB’s benchmark score of 55.5, 301.0, and 280.7 respectively. In 1990, significant increases in mean Scores for the vocational completers were respectively noted: 56.3, 296.8, and 285.2 in reading, math, science. Logan and colleagues explain that their analysis of the findings indicate that all the ethnic groups were gaining in reading. The study indicates that in 1988, blacks had the greatest gain in mean raw scores of 47.4 compared to their average score of 52.6 in 1990, with female highest in reading mean, and male highest in math. According to the findings, black students gained 12.4 points in math, while white students showed a decline in this area. In science, black students’ mean score declined by 20.7 while that of whites increased. On the whole, the study indicate that black students had lower mean score in all three areas compared to white students, but the gap between the two groups was smaller in Trigg County than the gap between the two ethnic groups nationwide (Logan & Tulloch, 1992). Other studies, for instance, case studies by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (1996) also indicate that vocational education can make some differences in student achievement. With technological advancement, changes in labor market, needs for skills, and more students’ motivational incentives such as 29 internship and work experience, the likelihood exist that further studies involving vocational and non-vocational high school education in the 21st century would shed more light in this area of high school education. Summary
In this chapter, literature related to this study were reviewed. Literature regarding the general concerns about students’ achievements in academics and employment and the impact of vocational education on these was cited. Some recent federal government initiatives regarding high school reforms were briefly reviewed. Other studies pertaining to students in vocational and non-vocational education, advantages and disadvantages of vocational and non-vocational education, and achievement differences between vocational and non-vocational education students were reviewed. Literature relating to students in vocational and non-vocational education, the review suggested that there are still divided opinion on who should attend vocational education programs. Many believed that vocational education is for non-college bound students, while traditional academic education were for college-bound students. The literature revealed that at the turn of the 20th century, the relevance of vocational education to the achievement of high students became more realized and more attention was paid to vocational education. The literature indicated that vocational education is a broad-based program that serves variety of students with different backgrounds and purposes. Literature relating to the advantages and disadvantages of vocational and non- vocational education students indicated that opinion was mixed over benefits derived from attending vocational education. In terms of first time employment after graduation from high school between vocational and non-vocational education students, some researchers saw no clear advantages, whereas others saw some benefits, especially if graduates were employed in jobs related to their subjects in high school. In terms of employment earning and wage differences, some findings saw vocational education 30 impact on employment and wages. Students with training in vocational education, according to some researchers, have the potential of being more employable compared to students without such training. The review also pointed out that some students learn better in applied setting such as the one offered by vocational education. The literature also revealed that vocational education has demonstrated its worth in teaching basic academic skills and improves students achievement among high school students. The literature revealed that towards the end of the 20th century, vocational education as a viable learning instrument for students were more accepted with many school reform initiatives. Finally, the review showed that there is still more to learn about the role of vocational education in the 21st century. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The methods and the procedures used to collect and analyze data for this study are described in this chapter. Specifically, the following sections will be discussed: (a) Introduction; (b) Data Sources; (c) Procedure, Population and Sample; (d) Analytical Method; (e) Demographic Description and Limitation; (f) Leon County School System; (g) School Selection for the study; (h) Data Retrieval; and (i) Confidentiality. Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare vocational and non-vocational education students in public secondary schools in Leon County, Florida. By comparing May 1999, and May 2000, vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates on high school graduation, postsecondary school enrollment, employment, and wages, we will be able to understand whether vocational education students had advantages over non-vocational education students. Data Sources The two databases, the Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program (FETPIP) and the Florida Information and Accountability Services (EIAS) are the two data sources used for this study. These two databases contain student information such as food stamp data, enrollment data, high school graduates and non-graduate data, postsecondary school enrollment, and employment data. These databases are maintained by the Florida Department of Education who collected the state-wide data and stored them in the databases for reference and research purposes (Annual Outcome Report [AOR], 2000; Database Manual, 2001). The authorities of the databases had rearranged (skewed) individual student’s original identification numbers using a secrete code, making it possible for the researcher to follow-up and tracking each student’s academic and career progress from the 8th grade through the 12th grade and one year after graduation from high school, and at the same time making it impossible for the researcher to identify individual student for both security purpose and maintaining individual student’s anonymity.
31 32
Eight grade data was used to determine the Socioeconomic Status (SES) of the students. Students who had participated in 8th grade Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program were grouped as Lower Socioeconomic Status (LSES), and those students who did not participate in the 8th grade Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program were categorized as Higher Socioeconomic Status (HSES). Procedures Population: The population for this study included all the 9th grade students who enrolled in Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High schools in the school years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 and either graduated or did not graduate from their 12th grades in May 1999, and in May 2000 respectively. The school year was taken from August to May for the study. The total population for the study was 4,342. The breakdown of this number represented 2,216 from the 1995-1996 ninth grade students, and 2,126 from the1996- 1997 ninth grade students from the four high schools under study. This 4,342 students were followed through their 12th grades and one year beyond using their student identification numbers. A further breakdown of the total population according to schools gave the following figures: for the 1995-1996 school year, Leon had 591 students, Rickards had 491, Godby with 589 students, and Lincoln High with 545 students. For the 1996-1997 school year, the 9th grade students of 2,126 gave a breakdown as follows: Leon High with 439, Rickards had 500 students, Godby represented by 616 students, and Lincoln with 571 students. As the total population of 4,342 was tracked in 9th through12th grades, either an increase or a decrease in students’ population was noticed within the grade levels. Godby and Lincoln were examples of two extremes that experienced either student increase or decrease within the grade levels for the 1995-1996 class of 9th graders. In Godby High School for instance, a decrease of 29.5% was noticed between the 9th and the 10th grades. On the other hand, Lincoln had an increase in student population by 7.7% between the 10th and the 11th grades. The possible explanations to students’ increase or decrease within the grade levels were either due to students’ moving from school to school or students’ dropping out of schools. Hence, after the tracking, a net population of 3,240 students (1,470 students for May 1999; and 33
1,770 for May 2000) was noted from all the four schools under investigation. This was a decrease of 25.4% (from 4,342 to 3,240). Sample for the Study: The sample of 2,698 for this dissertation study was obtained from the net population of 3,240. This sample represented the high school graduates of May 1999, and the graduates of May 2000. The breakdown of the sample or students’ participation by school is given in Table 2. This sample represented 83.3 percent of the net population of 3240. The sample of 2,698 was obtained by tracing the 3,240 high school graduates and non-graduates back to their 8th grade classes (1994-1995 for May 1999; and 1995-1996 for May 2000), using their identification numbers, and eliminating the unusable cases from the population along the way. The purpose of this back-tracing was to obtain a comparable group of students by identifying students who had participated in Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program for the LSES (Choy, Alt, & Henke, 1994) and those students who did not participate in the Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program for the HSES, and to identify and eliminate along the way those cases that could not be used for the study, due to the lack of proper students identification numbers, indications of gender or race. Why This Sample was Selected: This sample was selected because it was representative of similar students population in similar grade levels with similar vocational and academic education curriculum in public secondary schools in the state of Florida. Analytical Method The statistical software SPSS (1998) was used to summarize and analyze the data. Other supporting texts for this analysis were OTT, 1993; Morgan & Griego, 1998; Norusis 1998; Henderson, 1999; Morgan et al 2001; Shaffer et al 2001. The analytical method in this study heavily relied on descriptive statistics with intensive use of tables (NCES, 1991; Riesenberg & Stemberg, 1992; US Department of Labor, 1994). Table 3 displays the sample of students participation in the study, including the schools represented, years under investigation, and students participation in the 8th grade Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program (Choy, Alt, & Henke, 1994). Chi-Square statistics 34
was used on a sample of the data to verify what percentage was the cut-off that determine the difference between vocational and non-vocational education students. Result from the verification indicated that the cut-off was in the range of between 14.5% and 15%. Thus, 14.5% cut-off was used for this dissertation study in all the tables that involved determination of percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education students.
Table 2: The Sample of Vocational & Non-Vocational Education Participants (May 1999, & May 2000 High School Graduates).
May1999 High School Graduates Participation High Schools Non-Vocational One Two Vocational Three or More Sample Students Vocational Students Vocational Total Students Students
Godby High 225 41 19 6 291 Leon High 231 96 17 2 346 Lincoln High 273 101 30 3 407 Rickards High 161 37 14 4 216 Total 1,260
May 2000 High School Graduates Participation High Schools Non-Vocational One Two Vocational Three or More Sample Students Vocational Students Vocational Total Students Students
Godby High 199 62 13 5 279 Leon High 274 128 42 9 453 Lincoln High 261 135 30 18 444 Rickards High 135 92 28 7 262 Total 1,438 Total May 1999, and May 2000, (Combined) 2,698 Sources: Florida Department of Education’s FETPIP & EIAS Databases Table 3: Students Participation (Sample): May 1999 and May 2000 High School Graduates Data. Schools Years Vocational Education Students Non-Vocational Education Students Under Under Study Study With High School Diploma Without High School With High School Diploma Without High School Diploma Diploma
Free/Reduce- Not in Free/Reduce- Not in Free/Reduce- Not in Free/Reduce- Not in priced Lunch Free/Reduce priced Lunch Free/Reduce priced Lunch Free/Reduce priced Lunch Free/Reduce in 8th Grade -priced in 8th Grade -priced in 8th Grade -priced in 8th Grade -priced Lunch in 8th Lunch in 8th Lunch in 8th Lunch in 8th Grade Grade Grade Grade (Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency) (Frequency)
Godby High May 1999 15 51 0 0 58 167 0 2
May 2000 48 32 0 0 77 122 4 2
Leon High May 1999 24 91 0 0 47 184 0 0
May 2000 80 99 0 0 49 225 0 0
Lincoln May 1999 39 95 0 0 62 211 0 0 High May 2000 84 99 0 0 58 203 1 2
Rickards May 1999 13 42 0 0 54 107 0 3 High May 2000 88 39 1 1 73 62 2 4
Total Frequency 391 548 1 1 478 1,281 7 13
939 2 1,759 20
Total Participation (Sample): May 1999 & May 2000 (Vocational Education, 939); May 1999 & May 2000 (Non-Vocational Education, 1,759) = 2,698 Note: Since the Students Without High School Diplomas were too few for the analysis, they were not used during the analyses.
35 36
Demographic Description and Limitation
Demographically, Tallahassee is within the Panhandle region located in the Northwest of Florida (FDOE, 1998; also see map in Appendix). Tallahassee is an urban, college, and lower, middle, and upper socioeconomic community (Prince, 1973). The three colleges in town: Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), Florida State University (FSU), and Tallahassee Community College; and other institutions like the Lively Vocational Technical School have attracted a diversity of ethnic groups into Tallahassee. This diversity in Tallahassee is derived through the aborigines, that is, those who were born and live in Tallahassee (black, white, etc.), students, professors, teachers, and other workers who moved in either individually or with families from around the United States and from around the other parts of the world. The type of jobs most common in Tallahassee include college, federal, state, city, restaurant, and retail jobs. All these different combinations draw people into Tallahassee (Prince, 1973; Statistical Abstract of Florida [SAF], 1997; United States Bureau of the Census [USBC], 1997; FDOE, 1998). Despite the diversity, Tallahassee is still seen as a whites and blacks ethnicity. This skewed nature of ethnic diversity, that is, unequal or unbalanced make- up of ethnic groups in the city, undoubtedly, determines the habitation of people within the city, and as well determines school location and the composition of students in the elementary and secondary classrooms. This limitation was apparent during the analyses of the data by race where “Others” (Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanics, American Indian/Native Alaska) were too few, compared to black and white population, to be analyzed. As Wilson & Rossman (1993) noted in their study of five schools: “The ideal research method with which to address...questions would have been to sample schools with balanced enrollment across racial groups. Unfortunately, the
demographics of American high schools in general, as well as of the five schools under study simply don’t fit the demands of traditional experimental designs” (p. 107). 37
Thus, schools in Tallahassee are not immune from the phenomena describe by Wilson &
Rossman. Leon County School System
The Leon County School System is one of the 67 school districts in the state of Florida, with its headquarters located along West Pensacola Street in Tallahassee, Florida. The administrative unit of the county’s school system is the Schools Board comprising an elected Superintendent of schools as the head, a chairman, a vice chairman, and three other board members. Within the Leon County School System, one Associate Superintendent and three other Assistant Superintendents provide administrative oversight under the direction of the superintendent of schools. Within the structure of the administrative system are other sub-divisions such as Auditors, District Advisory Council, Students Advisory Council, Planning and Policy Development, Teaching and Learning, Personnel Relations, Staff Development, Students Assessment, etc. The Schools Board which is in charge of schools at the local government level (Leon County), takes its powers from the State Board of Education that oversees every levels of educational issues throughout the state. The Leon County Schools System comprises of schools from Pre-Kindergarten through the 12th grades, Secondary-Technical schools such as Lively Technical Center, Magnet and Special schools such as the PACE, SAIL, or the Second Chance (schools for students with special needs), and Adult and Community Education Centers. The Leon County School System have five public high schools (9th through 12th grades) namely Chiles, Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards (LCS, 2000-2001, 2001-2002). Others like Maclay School, North Florida Christian School, Woodland Hall Academy, etc., are private schools. The Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Research School and the Florida State University School are research laboratory schools that are administered by the respective universities.
School Selection For The Study 38
In order to select my schools for this study, I visited all the public high schools in Leon County to verify their high school curricular contents. I did not visit the private schools because they did not fall within the scope of my study. The scope of my study included only the public high schools. The public high schools, Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, already had well established vocational programs that had existed for at least four years (possible students’ participation in vocational programs 9th through 12th grades) at the time this study was designed. Since these four schools met the study criteria of: (a) public school, (b) have vocational programs, and (c) vocational programs established long enough for students to participate, I picked them for my study. Chiles High School, although it met the first two criteria, did not meet the third factor because it was a relatively new school that was established in August 1999. Florida State University/Florida High School is a research high school funded by Florida State University. Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University High School is also a research school that is funded by the university. Pace, SAIL, and Second Chance are either magnet or special schools for students with special needs. The following descriptions give brief profiles of the high schools under this study:
Rickards High School:
Rickards is located in the southeast side of Tallahassee where majority of the inhabitants are black. Thus, it is expected that this population will be reflected in Rickards’ classrooms. The 1999-2000 12th grade student population was made up of 74.4 percent black, 23.5 percent white, and 2.1 percent other ethnic groups that include Hispanic, American Indians, Asians, and other international students (Registrar’s Office, September,27, 2000; FETPIP & EIAS Databases, 2003). The socioeconomic status of the students is diverse from lower to upper socioeconomic families because of the International Baccalaureate (IB) program in Rickards that draws students from all parts of the county, irrespective of ethnic background, and nationality. A preliminary investigation revealed that Rickards High School has vocational 39
education program in existence (Table 1; LCS, 2000-2001; L. Bridges, S. L. Pines, Personal Communication, March 5, 2001; FETPIP, EIAS, 2003). Such vocational programs as Business Technology Education, Diversified Cooperative Training, Technology Education, etc., were taught in Rickards (Table 1). Interested students, apart from their academic curriculum toward standard high school diploma, could also take an occupational vocational course or program as elective, starting from either the 9th or the 10th grade. This vocational area prepares them toward either a career in the workplace after high school or toward postsecondary education. The FDOE’s FETPIP graduate follow-up data indicated that 47.6 percent of the graduating class of 1999-2000 completed at least one of the elective occupational vocational areas in grades 9th through 12th. Leon High School:
Leon high also had vocational curriculum in place (Table 1; LCS, 2000-2001; M. West, personal communication, March 5, 2001). Leon High is located in downtown area of Tallahassee. In 1999-2000 school year, the composition of the 12th graders were 82 percent white, 15 percent black, and 3 percent others (Registrar’s Office, December 6, 2000; FETPIP, EIAS, 2003). Leon High School taught vocational programs such as Business Technology Education, Diversified Cooperative Training, Technology Education that includes Building Design and Construction, Engineering Technology, etc. (Table 1; Academic Planner, 2000-2001; FETPIP, EIAS). According to M. West, the academic curriculum specialist for Leon High School, Students took these courses on campus because the facilities were available (Personal Communication, March 5, 2001). Just as Rickards, in Leon High, interested students, apart from their academic curriculum toward standard high school diploma, could also take an occupational vocational course or program as elective, starting from either the 9th or the 10th grade. This vocational area prepared them toward either a career in the workplace after 40 high school or toward postsecondary education. The FDOE’s FETPIP graduate follow- up data indicated that 28.3 percent of the senior class of 1999-2000 completed at least one of the elective occupational vocational areas during their grades 9th through 12th.
Lincoln High School:
Lincoln High School is located in the Northeast side of Tallahassee, off Capital Circle Northeast in Tom Brown Park (Trojan Trail). During the 1999-2000 school year, the graduating class population reflected: 72.3 percent white, 21.7 percent black, and 6.0 percent others (Registrar’s Office, December 5, 2000; FETPIP, EIAS, 2003). Lincoln’s vocational education elective programs include, Business Technology Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, Technology Education, etc. (LCS, 2000-2001; FETPIP, EIAS, 2003). In Lincoln, just as in the other two schools, interested students, apart from their academic curriculum toward standard high school diploma, could also take an occupational vocational course or program as elective, starting from either the 9th or the 10th grade. This vocational area prepares them toward either a career in the workplace after high school or toward postsecondary education. The FDOE’s FETPIP graduate follow-up data indicates that 39.5 percent of the graduating class of 1999-2000 completed at least one of the elective occupational vocational areas in grades 9th through 12th. Amos Godby High School:
Godby High School, located in the northwest side of Tallahassee, also had existing vocational education program. During the 1999-2000 school year, the population of the graduating seniors were 56 percent white, 40.3 percent black, and 3.7 percent others that included the Hispanics, native Americans, Asians, etc (Registrar’s Office, September 13, 2000; FETPIP, EIAS, 2003). Vocational electives such as Technology Education that include Drafting Technology, Construction Technology, Printing, Consumer Sciences, etc, were available for students who were interested in 41 some particular areas of occupational training (LCS, 2000-2001; Godby, 2000-2001; G. Burns, personal communication, September 19, 2000, FETPIP, EIAS, 2003). Apart from their academic curriculum toward standard high school diploma, students could also take an occupational vocational electives, starting from either the 9th or the 10th grade. This vocational area prepared them toward either a career in the workplace after high school or toward postsecondary education. The FDOE’s FETPIP graduate follow-up data indicated that 28.1 percent of the graduating class of 1999-2000 completed at least one of the elective occupational vocational areas in grades 9 through 12. Data Retrieval
The Florida Department of Education maintains the FETPIP and the EIAS databases where students’ outcome data were stored. These databases were my main sources of data. Students’ data already stored in the department were retrieved from the databases and stored in compact disk by the authorities in charge of the databases and handed the disk to me for data analyses. Confidentiality
Both the EIAS and FETPIP sections in the DOE skewed (rearranged with special codes) the actual student identification numbers in such a way that records from the two systems (EIAS and FETPIP) still linked when matched, yet prevented disclosure of individually identifiable information. All name data were deleted prior to data being provided to researcher. No individual data were disseminated. CHAPTER IV THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY Introduction
This chapter presents the analysis and the findings from the data of the study comparing vocational and non-vocational education May 1999, and May 2000 graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools in Leon County, Florida. The vocational and non-vocational education students were compared on percentage of high school graduates, employment, type of employment, wages, postsecondary school plans, and postsecondary school enrollment. The data for the study were collected from the FETPIP and the EIAS databases with the Florida Department of Education in Tallahassee, Florida. The data were collected on the total population of 4,342 from the 1995-1996 and the 1996-1997 Ninth grade students who attended the four high schools and were followed to their 12th grades in high school, and one year after high school. The final sample was obtained by tracing the graduates back to their 8th grades to verify their socioeconomic backgrounds. Student’s identification numbers were used for both the follow-up and tracing. The authorities of the databases had rearranged (skewed) individual students’s original identification numbers using secrete code, making it possible for the researcher to follow-up and tracking each student, and at the same time making it impossible for the researcher to identify individual student for both security purpose and maintaining individual student’s anonymity. The total sample for this study were given in Tables 2 and 3 in Chapter III. The analytical methods involved were descriptive statistics with intensive use of tables, where the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to analyze the data, and the descriptions were expressed as frequencies, percentages, and interpreted. Analysis of the data indicated that 939 (34.8%) of the sample had completed at least one vocational education course or credit (Table 1) during their 9th through 12th grades, and were therefore classified as vocational students.
42 43
The results of the analyses of the data supported many of the findings already in the literature. The following section answers the research questions presented in this study. Question 1a What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on the number of students who received High School Diplomas?
Question 1a is an attempt to verify percentage differences in high school diploma recipients between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools. Analysis of the data in Table 4 (May 1999 high school graduates) indicates that there was no percentage difference (no advantage) between vocational and non- vocational education high school graduates. Analyses of the data in Table 5 (May 2000 high school graduates) showed a percentage difference of at least 14.5 percent between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates. Godby High recorded 21.3 percent difference in graduation between vocational and non-vocational education, Leon High noted a percentage difference of 26.8 percent, Lincoln High had 23.7 percent difference, and Rickards High School recorded 15.3 percent difference in graduation between vocational and non-vocational education high school students. Summary The May 1999 data showed no percentage difference (no advantage) in high school graduation between vocational and non-vocational education students in all the four high schools (Table 4). May 2000 data on the other hand indicated that LSES vocational education students in all the four high schools reported higher rate of graduation (advantage) than their non-vocational education colleagues (Table 5). When compared from the perspective of the HSES, the data indicated that non- vocational education students recorded higher rate of graduation (advantage) than were vocational education students (Table 5). Table 4: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards by Percentage of Students Who Graduated. High Vocational Education Graduates Non-Vocational Education Graduates Percentage Schools Difference in Under Study Graduation Graduates SES Frequency Percentage Graduates Frequency Percentage (Vocational & F % (%) F % (%) Non-V ocational)
Godby 66 100.0 HSES 51 77.3 225 100.0 167 74.2 3.1
LSES 15 22.7 58 25.8 -3.1
Leon 115 100.0 HSES 91 79.1 231 100.0 184 79.7 -0.6
LSES 24 20.9 47 20.3 0.6
Lincoln 134 100.0 HSES 95 70.9 273 100.0 211 77.3 -6.4
LSES 39 29.1 62 22.7 6.4
Rickards 55 100.0 HSES 42 76.4 161 100.0 107 66.5 9.9
LSES 13 23.6 54 33.5 -9.9 Note: SES= Socioeconomic Status; HSES= Higher Socioeconomic; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Signs Indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs Indicate Advantages; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
44 Table 5: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards by Percentage of Students Who Graduated. High Vocational Education Graduates Non-Vocational Education Graduates Percent Difference in Schools Graduation (Vocational Under Study Graduates SES Frequency Percentage Graduates Frequency Percentage & Non-Vocational) F % (%) F % (%)
Godby 80 100.0 HSES 32 40.0 199 100.0 122 61.3 -21.3
LSES 48 60.0 77 38.7 21.3
Leon 179 100.0 HSES 99 55.3 274 100.0 225 82.1 -26.8
LSES 80 44.7 49 17.9 26.8
Lincoln 183 100.0 HSES 99 54.1 261 100.0 203 77.8 -23.7
LSES 84 45.9 58 22.2 23.7
Rickards 127 100.0 HSES 39 30.7 135 100.0 62 46.0 -15.3
LSES 88 69.3 73 54.0 15.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES= Higher Socioeconomic; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Signs Indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs Indicate Advantages; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
45 46
Question 1b What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on the number of students who received High School Diplomas, compared by vocational credits earned 9th through 12th grades?
Question 1b is an attempt to verify percentage difference in high school diploma recipients between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools by the number of vocational education credits (courses) earned in 9th through 12th grades. Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9, were used to answer Question (1b). In order to simplify the tables for easier reading and interpretation, Tables 6 and 7 were created as summaries of Tables 8 and 9, using percentages taken from Tables 8 and 9 respectively.
As indicated in Table 6, in May 1999, there were no differences in percentage of high school graduation between the students who earned either one or two vocational education credits or courses and the students who did not participate in vocational education. For those students who earned three or more vocational credits in high school, Table 6 showed percentage differences of at least 14.5 percent and above in Godby, Leon, and Lincoln High Schools. In Godby High, the percentage was 24.2 percent; in Leon High, the percentage difference was 20.3 percent; and in Lincoln High, the percentage difference was 22.7 percent.
For the May 2000 high school graduates data (Table 7), the result was mixed. In Godby High, the data showed that among the LSES, the more vocational education credits or courses a student earned in high school, the higher the rate of graduation over non-vocational education students. Thus, the rate differences varied from19.4 percentage for one vocational education course, 22.8 percentage for two vocational education courses, and 41.3 percentage for three or more vocational education courses or credits 47
(Table 7). In Leon High, the percentage difference was higher among the high school graduates with one vocational education course or credit, 36.8 percentage. Lincoln High followed similar pattern as Godby High, indicating high school graduates’ with three or more vocational education credits or courses with rate difference of 16.6 percent, to the advantage of HSES vocational education students over non- vocational education students. Rickards High experienced similar pattern as Godby and Lincoln High Schools, with rate difference of 15.6 percent for one vocational credit or course, and 17.4 percent difference for two vocational education credits or courses in which LSES vocational education students were at advantage over LSES non-vocational education students (Table 7). Summary
The data showed a mixed result for both May 1999 and May 2000 high school graduates in all the four schools on the question of whether earning two or more high school vocational education credits or courses would enhance the chances of graduation
(Tables 6 and 7). Whereas, in Godby high school the May 1999 data showed that earning two or more vocational education credits could improve the chances of graduation among LSES vocational education students over LSES non-vocational education students, the data for Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards high schools indicated a mixed result (Table 6). Whereas, May 2000 data for Rickards high school followed similar pattern as Godby high school’s 1999 data to some extent, on the other hand,
Godby high school’s May 2000 data still followed similar trend as the previous year (Table 7). May 2000 data for Leon and Lincoln high schools still indicated a mixed result as in the May 1999 data (Table 7). Table 6: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates, Compared by Percentage of Graduates by the Number of Vocational Credits (Courses) Earned in 9th Through 12th Grades, (Vocational and Non-Vocational Graduates Percentages taken from Table 8) High SES Vocational & Non-Vocational Vocational & Non-Vocational Vocational & Non-Vocational Schools Education Graduates Compared (%) Education Graduates Compared (%) Education Graduates Compared Under (%) Study 1 Voc. Non-Voc. % 2 Voc. Non-Voc. % 3 or More Non- % Diff. Education Difference Education Difference Voc. Ed. Voc.
Godby HSES 87.8 74.2 13.6 68.4 74.2 -5.8 50.0 74.2 -24.2
LSES 12.2 25.8 -13.6 31.6 25.8 5.8 50.0 25.8 24.2
Leon HSES 80.2 79.7 0.5 70.6 79.7 -9.1 100.0 79.7 20.3
LSES 19.8 20.3 -0.5 29.4 20.3 9.1 0.0 20.3 -20.3
Lincoln HSES 69.3 77.3 -0.8 73.3 77.3 -4.0 100.0 77.3 22.7
LSES 30.7 22.7 8.0 26.7 22.7 4.0 0.0 22.7 -22.7
Rickards HSES 75.7 66.5 9.2 78.6 66.5 12.1 75.0 66.5 8.5
LSES 24.3 33.5 -9.2 21.4 33.5 -12.1 25.0 33.5 -8.5 Note: SES= Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Negative Signs Indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs Indicate Advantages; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
48 Table 7: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates, Compared by Percentage of Graduates by the Number of Vocational Credits(Courses) Earned in 9th Through 12th Grades, (Vocational and Non-Vocational Graduates Percentages taken from Table 9) High SES Vocational & Non-Vocational Vocational & Non-Vocational Vocational & Non-Vocational Schools Education Graduates Compared (%) Education Graduates Compared (%) Education Graduates Compared Under (%) Study 1 Voc. Non-Voc. % 2 Voc. Non-Voc. % 3 or More Non-Voc. % Diff. Education Difference Education Difference Voc. Ed.
Godby HSES 41.9 61.3 -19.4 38.5 61.3 -22.8 20.0 61.3 -41.3
LSES 58.1 38.7 19.4 61.5 38.7 22.8 80.0 38.7 41.3
Leon HSES 45.3 82.1 -36.8 78.6 82.1 -3.5 88.9 82.1 6.8
LSES 54.7 17.9 36.8 21.4 17.9 3.5 11.1 17.9 -6.8
Lincoln HSES 68.9 77.8 -8.9 83.3 77.8 5.5 94.4 77.8 16.6
LSES 31.1 22.2 8.9 16.7 22.2 -5.5 5.6 22.2 -16.6
Rickards HSES 30.4 46.0 -15.6 28.6 46.0 -17.4 42.9 46.0 -3.1
LSES 69.6 54.0 15.6 71.4 54.0 17.4 57.1 54.0 3.1 Note: SES= Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Negative Signs Indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs Indicate Advantages; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
49 Table 8: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by the Number of Vocational Education Courses (Credits) Earned in 9th through 12th Grades High SES 1 Vocational 2 Vocational 3 or M ore Voc. Vocational Non-V ocational Schools Education Education Education Education Total Education Total Under Study F % F % F % F (%) F (%)
Godby Graduates 41 62.1 19 28.8 6 9.1 66 100.0 225 100.0
HSES 36 87.8 13 68.4 3 50.0 52 78.8 167 74.2
LSES 5 12.2 6 31.6 3 50.0 14 21.2 58 25.8
Leon Graduates 96 83.5 17 14.8 2 1.7 115 100.0 231 100.0
HSES 77 80.2 12 70.6 2 100.0 91 79.1 184 79.7
LSES 19 19.8 5 29.4 0 0.0 24 20.9 47 20.3
Lincoln Graduates 101 75.4 30 22.4 3 2.2 134 100.0 273 100.0
HSES 70 69.3 22 73.3 3 100.0 95 70.9 211 77.3
LSES 31 30.7 8 26.7 0 0.0 39 29.1 62 22.7
Rickards Graduates 37 67.3 14 25.4 4 7.3 55 100.0 161 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
HSES 28 75.7 11 78.6 3 75.0 42 76.4 107 66.5
LSES 9 24.3 3 21.4 1 25.0 13 23.6 54 33.5 Note: SES= Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency.
50 Table 9: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by the Number of Vocational Education Courses (Credits) Earned in 9th through 12th Grades High SES 1 Vocational 2 Vocational 3 or More Vocational Ed. Non-Vocational Schools Education Education Vocational Ed. Total Education Total Under Study F % F % F % F (%) F (%)
Godby Graduates 62 77.5 13 16.2 5 6.3 80 100.0 199 100.0
HSES 26 41.9 5 38.5 1 20.0 32 40.0 122 61.3
LSES 36 58.1 8 61.5 4 80.0 48 60.0 77 38.7
Leon Graduates 128 71.5 42 23.5 9 5.0 179 100.0 274 100.0
HSES 58 45.3 33 78.6 8 88.9 99 55.3 225 82.1
LSES 70 54.7 9 21.4 1 11.1 80 44.7 49 17.9
Lincoln Graduates 135 73.7 30 16.4 18 9.8 183 100.0 261 100.0
HSES 93 68.9 25 83.3 17 94.4 135 73.8 203 77.8
LSES 42 31.1 5 16.7 1 5.6 58 26.2 58 22.2
Rickards Graduates 92 72.4 28 22.0 7 5.5 127 100.0 135 100.0
HSES 28 30.4 8 28.6 3 42.9 39 30.7 62 46.0
LSES 64 69.6 20 71.4 4 57.1 88 69.3 73 54.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency.
51 52
Question 1c What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on the number of students who received high school diplomas by gender?
Question 1c is an attempt to verify percentage difference in high school diplomas recipients between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools by gender.
Tables 10, 11, 12, and 13 were used to answer the question under this section. Tables 10 and 11 were created out of Tables 12 and 13 for easier explanation and understanding. Based on Table 10 (May 1999 high school graduates), a comparison of the percentages of graduates from vocational and non-vocational education by gender indicated that the only percentage difference was 14.9 percent among the female high school graduates in Rickards High School where HSES vocational education students reported a higher rate of graduation (advantage) over HSES non- vocational education students (Table 10).
For the May 2000 high school graduates data (Table 11), apart from Rickards High which show no percentage difference in graduation among the male vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, the other three schools recorded percentage difference of between 16.2 percent and 21.0 percent. Within the female vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, percentage difference of between 20.4 percent and 33.1 percent were recorded in all the four high schools under study. Summary 53
Inspection of the May 1999 high school graduates data indicated that there were no percentage difference (no advantage) in graduation between vocational and non-vocational education male students in all the four schools (Table 10). Among the female students, however, the data showed that HSES vocational education students in
Rickards high school recorded higher rate of graduation (advantage) than their HSES non-vocational education colleagues (Table 10). May 2000 data indicated that with the exception of Rickards high school, LSES male vocational education students in Godby, Leon, and Lincoln high schools reported higher rate of graduation (advantage) than were their LSES non-vocational education male counterparts (Table 11). Among the female students, the data further showed that LSES vocational education students in all the four high schools reported higher rate of graduation (advantage) than were LSES non-vocational education female students (Table 11). Table 10: May 1999 High School Vocational & Non-Vocational Education Graduates Compared by Percentage Difference in Diploma Recipients by Gender. High SES Percentages Taken from Table 12 Vocational & Non-V ocational Education Graduates. Schools Under Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education High Percentage Difference in High School Diplomas Recipients Study High School Graduates School Graduates Vocational & Non-Vocational Vocational & Non-Voc. Education Education
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Godby HSES 73.3 77.8 70.2 78.3 3.1 -0.5
LSES 26.7 22.2 29.8 21.7 -3.1 0.5
Leon HSES 88.6 72.6 74.8 84.0 13.8 -11.4
LSES 11.4 27.4 25.2 16.0 -13.8 11.4
Lincoln HSES 72.9 68.4 79.4 75.2 -6.5 -6.8
LSES 27.1 31.6 20.6 24.8 6.5 6.8
Rickards HSES 73.7 78.7 69.1 63.8 4.6 14.9
LSES 26.3 21.3 30.9 36.2 -4.6 -14.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Negative Signs Indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs Indicate Advantages; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
54 Table 11: May 2000 High School Vocational & Non-Vocational Education Graduates Compared by Percentage Difference in Diploma Recipients by Gender. High SES Percentages Taken from Table 13 Vocational & Non-V ocational Education Graduates. Schools Under Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education High Percentage Difference in High School Diplomas Recipients Study High School Graduates School Graduates Vocational & Non-Vocational Vocational & Non-Voc. Education Education
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Godby HSES 43.0 37.7 61.4 61.2 -18.4 -23.5
LSES 57.0 62.3 38.6 38.8 18.4 23.5
Leon HSES 63.0 51.5 79.2 84.6 -16.2 -33.1
LSES 37.0 48.5 20.8 15.4 16.2 33.1
Lincoln HSES 54.2 53.7 75.2 80.1 -21.0 -26.4
LSES 45.8 46.3 24.8 19.9 21.0 26.4
Rickards HSES 34.0 29.0 41.1 49.4 -7.1 -20.4
LSES 66.0 71.0 58.9 50.6 7.1 20.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Negative Signs Indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs Indicate Advantages; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
55 Table 12: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Gender. High Schools SES Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education Under Study Male Female Male Female
Frequenc Percent Frequenc Percent Frequenc Percent Frequenc Percent y y y y
Graduates 15 100.0 51 100.0 121 100.0 104 100.0 Godby HSES 11 73.3 40 77.8 85 70.2 82 78.3
LSES 4 26.7 11 22.2 36 29.8 22 21.7
Graduates 44 100.0 71 100.0 115 100.0 116 100.0 Leon HSES 39 88.6 52 72.6 86 74.8 98 84.0
LSES 5 11.4 19 27.4 29 25.2 18 16.0
Graduates 59 100.0 75 100.0 136 100.0 137 100.0 Lincoln HSES 43 72.9 52 68.4 108 79.4 103 75.2
LSES 16 27.1 23 31.6 28 20.6 34 24.8
Graduates 19 100.0 36 100.0 81 100.0 80 100.0 Rickards HSES 14 73.7 28 78.7 56 69.1 51 63.8
LSES 5 26.3 8 21.3 25 30.9 29 36.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES= Higher Socioeconomic; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status.
56 Table 13: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Gender High SES Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education Schools Under Male Female Male Female Study Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Graduates 28 100.0 52 100.0 101 100.0 98 100.0 Godby HSES 12 43.0 20 37.7 62 61.4 60 61.2
LSES 16 57.0 32 62.3 39 38.6 38 38.8
Graduates 65 100.0 114 100.0 125 100.0 149 100.0 Leon HSES 40 63.0 59 51.5 99 79.2 126 84.6
LSES 25 37.0 55 48.5 26 20.8 23 15.4
Graduates 77 100.0 106 100.0 125 100.0 136 100.0 Lincoln HSES 42 54.2 57 53.7 94 75.2 109 80.1
LSES 35 45.8 49 46.3 31 24.8 27 19.9
Graduates 47 100.0 80 100.0 56 100.0 79 100.0 Rickards HSES 16 34.0 23 29.0 23 41.1 39 49.4
LSES 31 66.0 57 71.0 33 58.9 40 50.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES= Higher Socioeconomic; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status.
57 58 Question 1d. What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on the number of students who received High School Diplomas by Race?
Question 1d is an attempt to investigate percentage difference in high school diplomas recipients between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools by race. Tables 14, 15, 16, and 17 were used to answer the question under this section. In order for easy reading and interpretation, Tables 14 and 15 were created from Tables 16 and 17. Analysis of the May 1999 high school graduate data (Table 14) revealed no differences in percentage (no advantage) of high school graduates among the white vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates. When black vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates were compared, a percentage difference of 23.9 percent was recorded in Leon High with LSES vocational education students reporting graduation advantage over non-vocational education students. The result for the May 2000 high school graduates (Table 15) was quite different from that of the May 1999 graduates. A close look at May 2000 data revealed that among the white vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, a percentage difference of 26.1 percent was recorded in Godby High, 30.9 percentage difference in Leon High, 30.5 percentage difference in Lincoln High, and a percentage difference of 61.9 percent in Rickards High School with LSES students recording graduation advantage over LSES non-vocational education counterparts (Table 15). When the black vocational education and the black non-vocational education students were compared, the only percentage difference in graduation was noted in Godby High with 20.0 percent, where LSES vocational education students reported graduation advantage over LSES non-vocational education colleagues (Table 15). Table 14: May 1999 Vocational & Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Difference in Diploma Recipients by Race. Schools SES Percentages Taken from Table 16 Vocational & Non-Vocational Education Graduates. Under Study Vocational Education Non-Vocational Percentage Difference in High School Diploma Graduates Education Graduates Recipients
Vocational & Non- Vocational & Non- Vocational Education Vocational Education
White Black White Black White Black
Godby HSES 86.8 65.4 78.6 63.6 8.2 1.8
LSES 13.2 34.6 21.4 36.4 -8.2 -1.8
Leon HSES 86.5 47.1 82.9 71.0 3.6 -23.9
LSES 13.5 52.9 17.1 29.0 -3.6 23.9
Lincoln HSES 77.8 53.1 82.8 59.6 -5.0 -6.5
LSES 22.2 46.9 17.2 40.4 5.0 6.5
Rickards HSES 71.4 77.5 75.5 64.3 -4.1 13.2
LSES 28.6 22.5 24.5 35.7 4.1 -13.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic; Others (Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Native Alaska, etc.) could not be compared because the frequencies for Others vocational students for Question (1d) were too few and will make no sense; Negative Signs Indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs Indicate Advantages; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
59 Table 15: May 2000 Vocational & Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Difference in Diploma Recipients by Race. Schools SES Percentages Taken from Table 17 Vocational & Non-Vocational Education Graduates. Under Study Vocational Education Non-Vocational Percent D ifference in High School Diploma Recipients Graduates Education Graduates Vocational & Non- Vocational & Non- Vocational Education Vocational Education
White Black White Black White Black
Godby HSES 45.5 29.4 71.6 49.4 -26.1 -20.0
LSES 54.5 70.6 28.4 50.6 26.1 20.0
Leon HSES 59.1 27.0 90.0 31.3 -30.9 -4.3
LSES 40.9 73.0 10.0 68.7 30.9 4.3
Lincoln HSES 58.6 42.0 89.1 43.4 -30.5 -1.4
LSES 41.4 58.0 10.9 56.6 30.5 1.4
Rickards HSES 4.8 35.8 66.7 34.5 -61.9 1.3
LSES 95.2 64.2 33.3 65.5 61.9 -1.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic; Others (Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Native Alaska, etc.) could not be compared because the frequencies for Others vocational students for Question (1d) were too few and will make no sense; Negative Signs Indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs Indicate Advantages; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
60 Table 16: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Race: High SES Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education Schools Under White Black Others Total White Black Others Total Study (F) (F) F % F % F % F % F % F %
Godby Graduates` 38 58.5 26 40.0 2 3.0 66 140 62.2 77 34.2 8 3.6 225
HSES 33 86.8 17 65.4 1 50.0 51 110 78.6 49 63.6 8 100.0 167
LSES 5 13.2 9 34.6 1 50.0 15 30 21.4 28 36.4 0 0.0 58
Leon Graduates 96 83.5 17 14.8 2 1.7 115 187 80.9 31 13.4 13 5.6 231
HSES 83 86.5 8 47.1 0 0.0 91 155 82.9 22 71.0 7 53.8 184
LSES 13 13.5 9 52.9 2 100.0 24 32 17.1 9 29.0 6 46.2 47
Lincoln Graduates 99 73.9 32 23.9 3 2.2 134 203 74.4 52 19.0 18 6.6 273
HSES 77 77.8 17 53.1 1 33.3 96 168 82.8 31 59.6 12 66.7 211
LSES 22 22.2 15 46.9 2 66.7 38 35 17.2 21 40.4 6 33.3 62
Rickards Graduates 14 25.5 40 72.7 1 1.8 55 53 32.9 98 60.9 10 6.2 161
HSES 10 71.4 31 77.5 1 100.0 42 40 75.5 63 64.3 4 40.0 107
LSES 4 28.6 9 22.5 0 0.0 13 13 24.5 35 35.7 6 60.0 54 Note SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Others=Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Native Alaska, etc; F=Frequency
61 Table 17: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Race: High SES Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education Schools Under White Black Others Total White Black Others Total Study (F) (F) F % F % F % F % F % F %
Godby Graduates 44 55.0 34 42.5 2 2.5 80 109 54.8 81 40.7 9 4.5 199
HSES 20 45.5 10 29.4 2 100.0 32 78 71.6 40 49.4 4 44.4 122
LSES 24 54.5 24 70.6 0 0.0 48 31 28.4 41 50.6 5 55.6 77
Leon Graduates 149 83.2 26 14.5 4 2.2 179 231 84.3 32 11.7 11 4.0 274
HSES 88 59.1 7 27.0 4 100.0 140 208 90.0 10 31.3 7 63.6 225
LSES 61 40.9 19 73.0 0 0.0 39 23 10.0 22 68.7 4 36.4 49
Lincoln Graduates 133 70.5 50 27.3 0 0.0 183 193 73.9 53 20.3 15 5.7 261
HSES 78 58.6 21 42.0 0 0.0 125 172 89.1 23 43.4 8 53.3 203
LSES 55 41.4 29 58.0 0 0.0 58 21 10.9 30 56.6 7 46.7 58
Rickards Graduates 21 16.5 106 83.5 0 0.0 127 45 33.3 84 62.2 6 4.4 135
HSES 1 4.8 38 35.8 0 0.0 50 30 66.7 29 34.5 3 50.0 62
LSES 20 95.2 68 64.2 0 0.0 77 15 33.3 55 65.5 3 50.0 73 Note SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Others=Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Native Alaska, etc; F= Frequency
62 63 Question 2a What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on postsecondary school enrollment by type of undergraduate degree program enrolled?
Tables 18 and 19 present the data for Research Question 2a. Before discussing these data, it is worthwhile to explain the differences between the Associate in Arts (AA) and the Associate in Science (AS) degrees. These are two different types of degrees awarded by either Community Colleges, like the Tallahassee Community College (TCC), or a four-year College or University. Whereas, the AA degree is a transitional degree, that is, transferable to a four-year college or university as a junior, the AS is more of technology or vocational, with the goal of preparing students toward vocational skills and employment. In some cases, the AS student or graduate may decide to take additional credit hours in General Education such as Mathematics, English Language, Social Sciences, or the Humanities, and become eligible for advance placement in a four-year college or university. Question 2a is an attempt to verify whether there is a percentage difference in enrollment in each of the undergraduate degree disciplines between vocational and non- vocational education high school graduates (HSG) from the four high schools under study. Inspection of Table 18 (May 1999 HSG data) shows no percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education students in enrollment in any of the undergraduate degree programs listed in the table. But Table 19 (May 2000 high school graduates data), on the other hand, noted some percentage difference in enrollment between vocational and non-vocational education students. In Table 19, the exception of the AA and the AS degree programs which show no percentage difference in enrollments between vocational and non-vocational education students, differences in percentage are clearly recorded between vocational and non- vocational education students in all the other undergraduate degree programs. In all the degree programs that show a difference in percentage, the lower socioeconomic status vocational students recorded higher percentages in undergraduate degree programs enrollment, compared with their non-vocational colleagues. In Biological and Agricultural Sciences degree programs enrollments, the percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education is 34.9 percent (37.5% for vocational, 71.4% for non-vocational, HSES students; 63.5% for vocational, and 28.6% for non-vocational 64 education, LSES students). In Business and Management degree programs enrollments, the percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education students is 15.6 percent (52.0% for vocational, 67.6% for non-vocational, HSES students; 48.0% for vocational, and 32.4% for non-vocational education, LSES students). Enrollments in Mathematics and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Sciences degree programs, a percentage difference of 27.3 percent (53.3% for vocational, 80.6% for non-vocational, HSES students; 46.7% for vocational, and 19.4% for non-vocational education, LSES students) was noted. Fine and Applied Sciences enrollments recorded a percentage difference of 34.0 percent (58.3% for vocational, 92.3% for non-vocational, HSES students; 41.7% for vocational, and 7.7% for non-vocational education, LSES students) between vocational and non-vocational education students. Enrollments in the Health and Human Sciences undergraduate degree programs noted a percentage difference of 39.7 percent (47.8% for vocational, 87.5% for non-vocational, HSES students; 52.2% for vocational, and 12.5% for non-vocational education, LSES students) between vocational and non-vocational education students. Humanities disciplines recorded percentage difference of 89.5 percent (0.0% for vocational, 89.5% for non-vocational, HSES students; 100.0% for vocational, and 10.5% for non-vocational education, LSES students) between vocational and non-vocational education students. Students enrollment in the Social Sciences degree programs recorded a percentage difference of 26.7 percent (58.3% for vocational, 85.0% for non-vocational, HSES students; 41.7% for vocational, and 15.0% for non-vocational education, LSES students) between vocational and non-vocational education students. Summary May 1999 high school graduates data indicated that there were no percentage difference in enrollment (no advantage) between vocational and non-vocational education students in undergraduate BS, AA, and AS degree programs (Table 18). May 2000 data on the other hand showed that in the exception of the AA and the AS degree programs which recorded no percentage difference (no advantage) in enrollment between vocational and non-vocational education students in all the four high schools under study, LSES vocational education students enrolled at higher rate than were LSES non- vocational education students in the undergraduate BS degree programs (Table 19). Table 18: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Undergraduate Degree Program Enrolled. SES Biological & Agricultural Sciences Business & Management Mathematics & Mathematics-Related (BS. degree programs) (BS. degree programs) Engineering, & Sciences (BS. degree programs)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Total 15 100.0 30 100.0 34 100.0 45 100.0 49 100.0 75 100.0
HSES 13 86.7 22 73.3 13.4 30 88.2 35 77.8 10.4 35 71.4 60 80.0 - 8.6
LSES 2 13.3 8 26.7 -13.4 4 11.8 10 22.2 -10.4 14 28.6 15 20.0 8.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; The Undergraduate Degree Program Groups are Listed in Appendix D; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
65 Table 18 (Contd.): SES Fine & Applied Arts (BS. degree programs) Health & Human Sciences Humanities (BS. degree programs) (BS. degree programs).
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Total 22 100.0 34 100.0 24 100.0 43 100.0 9 100.0 22 100.0
HSES 17 77.3 23 67.6 9.7 18 75.0 34 79.1 - 4.1 6 66.7 17 77.3 -10.6
LSES 5 22.7 11 32.4 -9.7 6 25.0 9 20.9 4.1 3 33.3 5 22.7 10.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; The Undergraduate Degree Program Groups are Listed in Appendix D; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage.
Table 18 (Contd.): SES Social Sciences (BS. degree programs) Associate In Arts (AA) Associate In Science (AS)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Total 35 100.0 35 100.0 107 100 .0 270 100 .0 34 100.0 83 100.0
HSES 27 77.1 25 71.4 5.7 80 74.8 209 77.4 -2.6 21 61.8 59 71.1 -9.3
LSES 8 22.9 10 28.6 -5.7 27 25.2 61 22.6 2.6 13 38.2 24 28.9 9.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; The Undergraduate Degree Program Groups are Listed in Appendix D; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
66 Table 19: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Compared by Percentage Difference in Undergraduate Degree Program Enrolled. SES Biological & Agricultural Sciences Business & Management Mathematics, Mathematics-Related (BS. degree programs) (BS. degree programs) Engineering & Sciences (BS. degree programs)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Total 8 100.0 14 100.0 25 100.0 34 100.0 30 100.0 36 100.0
HSES 3 37.5 10 71.4 -34.9 13 52.0 23 67.6 -15.6 16 53.3 29 80.6 -27.3
LSES 5 63.5 4 28.6 34.9 12 48.0 11 32.4 15.6 14 46.7 7 19.4 27.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; The Undergraduate Degree Program Groups are Listed in Appendix D; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage.
67 Table 19 (Contd.): SES Fine & Applied Arts (BS. degree programs) Health & Human Sciences (BS deg. programs) Humanities (BS. degree programs)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Total 12 100.0 13 100.0 23 100.0 16 100.0 1 100.0 19 100.0
HSES 7 58.3 12 92.3 -34.0 11 47.8 14 87.5 -39.7 0 0.0 17 89.5 -89.5
LSES 5 41.7 1 7.7 34.0 12 52.2 2 12.5 39.7 1 100.0 2 10.5 89.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Negative Signs indicate Disadvantages; Positive Signs indicate Advantages; The Undergraduate Degree Program Groups are Listed in Appendix D.
Table 19 (Contd.): SES Social Sciences (BS. degree programs) Associate In Arts (AA) Associate In Science (AS)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Total 12 100.0 40 100.0 167 100 .0 254 100 .0 55 100.0 45 100.0
HSES 7 58.3 34 85.0 -26.7 119 71.3 208 81.9 -10.6 35 63.6 30 66.7 -3.1
LSES 5 41.7 6 15.0 26.7 48 28.7 46 18.1 10.6 20 36.4 15 33.3 3.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; The Undergraduate Degree Program Groups are Listed in Appendix D; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage. Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
68 69 Question 2b What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on postsecondary school plans and postsecondary school enrollment?
In their senior years in high school, students were given questionnaires by school authorities to indicate where they would be going after their high school (Postsecondary School Plans). In this analysis, Question 2b was due to investigate whether students actually did what they had indicated they would do after high school. In an attempt to collect data for this question, the May 1999 high school graduate data were not available in the databases. Thus, only the May 2000 high school graduates data were collected and analyzed (Table 20). Three categories of students were identified from the data: (1) those that planned to attend Community Colleges; (2) those who indicated that they would go to Universities or Colleges; and (3) students who indicated that they would attend Vocational Technical Schhools (Voc. Tech.). A close look at Table 20 (May 2000 high school graduates) reveal 19.8 percentage change (30.0% for Postsecondary School Plan; and 10.2% for Actual Enrollment) in BS degrees enrollment among the HSES vocational education students who indicated in their postsecondary school plans that they would attend universities or colleges; and 14.8 percent (4.6% for Postsecondary School Plan; and 19.4% for Actual Enrollment) change among the HSES vocational education students who indicated in their postsecondary school plans that they would attend vocational technical schools. Among the non-vocational education HSES students who indicated in their Postsecondary School Plans that they would attend universities or colleges, a percentage change of 14.8 percent (30.8 % for Postsecondary School Plan; and 16.0% for Actual Enrollment) was observed in actual enrollment of students. Summary The data indicated that higher percentage of HSES students from both vocational and non-vocational education, compared with LSES students, changed from their original plans for universities and colleges to other areas such as vocational technical schools and employment after graduation from high school (Table 20). The data further revealed that HSES vocational education students were more likely than were their non-vocational education colleagues to change their original plans after graduation from high school. Table 20: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates From Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Comparing Students Postsecondary School Plans and Actual Enrollments by Percentage Changes. Postsecondary SES Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education School Plans Postsecondary Actual Enrollment in Percentage Postsecondary School Actual Enrollment in Percentage School Plans College Change Plans College Change
Total % Total % Total % Total %
Community 561 100.0 561 100.0 869 100.0 869 100.0 Colleges HSES 159 28.3 154 27.5 -0.8 189 21.7 238 27.4 5.7
LSES 85 15.1 68 12.1 -3.0 50 5.8 61 7.0 1.2
Universities HSES 168 30.0 57 10.2 -19.8 268 30.8 139 16.0 -14.8 or Colleges LSES 93 16.6 54 9.6 -7.0 122 14.0 33 3.8 -10.2
Vocational HSES 25 4.6 109 19.4 14.8 47 5.4 65 7.5 2.1 Technical Schools LSES 25 4.5 67 11.9 7.4 19 2.2 34 3.9 1.7
Did No t Enroll HSES 2 0.4 34 6.1 5.7 108 12.4 170 19.6 7.2 in Postsecondary Schools LSES 4 0.7 18 3.2 2.5 66 7.6 129 14.8 7.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Negative Sign=Lost Students; Positive Sign=Gained Students; Percentage Change=14.5% and Above.
70 71
Question 2c What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, by type of undergraduate degree program enrolled and type of 9th through 12th grades vocational education program taken?
Question 2c is an attempt to verify the percentage difference in undergraduate BS and Associate degree programs enrollment between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999, and May 2000, from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools by vocational education program and socioeconomic status. In order to establish the percentage difference in enrollments in each of the undergraduate degree programs, the percentages of HSES and LSES students who enrolled from each of the 9th through 12th grade vocational education program is compared with the percentages of HSES and LSES students who enrolled from non- vocational education. Thus, in Tables 21 and 22, the same non-vocational education students data are repeated for each vocational education program, and the percentages were compared against each undergraduate BS and Associate degree program. This repetition enables us to know which vocational programs showed percentage differences in enrollment when compared individually with non-vocational enrollments. The percentages were calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled in each undergraduate BS degree program by the total number of students in each vocational or non-vocational education program, and multiplying the result by 100. Taking Business Technology Education vocational program in Table 21 as an example for this calculation: the Business Technology Education program (May 1999 high school graduates) had 62 HSES students, and 21 LSES students from the four high schools in 12th grade. Out of the 62 HSES students, 15 enrolled in the undergraduate BS degrees in Business and Management. From the 21 LSES students, 2 were also enrolled in the Business and Management BS degrees. In order to calculate the percentage of HSES Business Technology Education vocational students who enrolled in Business and Management BS degrees, the number (15) HSES students was divided by the total number of HSES students (62) in Business Technology Education in 12th grade. The result of 15 divided by 62 was 0.2419. The 0.2419 was further multiplied by 100, which 72 gave 24.2 percent as the percentage of HSES Business Technology Education students who enrolled in Business and Management BS degrees. Similar calculations were done for LSES students, and corresponding levels of non-vocational education students, and subsequently throughout the table. Inspection of Table 21 (May 1999 high school graduates) indicated that among the HSES Business Technology Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Business and Management undergraduate BS degree program, a percentage difference of 19.0 percent (24.2% for Business Technology Education, and 5.2% for non- vocational) was noted. For the LSES Business Technology Education and non- vocational education students who enrolled in Social Sciences undergraduate BS degree program, a percentage difference of 14.5 percent (19.0% for Business Technology Education, and 4.5% for non-vocational) was recorded. For the HSES Family & Consumer Science Education vocational education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Biological and Agricultural Sciences BS undergraduate degree program, a percentage difference of 20.5 percent (23.8% for Family & Consumer Science Education, and 3.3% for non-vocational) was recorded. Within the LSES Family & Consumer Science Education vocational education and non- vocational education students who enrolled in Health and Human Sciences undergraduate degree program, percentage difference of 29.2 percent (33.3% for Family & Consumer Science Education, and 4.1% for non-vocational) was noted. For the HSES Technology Education vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in undergraduate degree Mathematics and Mathematics-Relates Courses, percentage difference of 53.2 percent (63.2% for Technology Education, and 10.0% for non- vocational), and for LSES Technology Education vocational and non-vocational education students in Mathematics and Mathematics-Relates degree program, percentage difference of 43.2 percent (50.0% for Technology Education, and 6.8% for non- vocational) were recorded. Among the LSES Technology Education vocational and non- vocational education students who were in Health and Human Sciences undergraduate degree program, percentage difference of 20.9 percent (25.0% for Technology Education, and 4.1% for non-vocational) in enrollment was noted. For the HSES Technology Education vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the 73
Associate in Arts degree, percentage difference of 15.4 percent (15.8% for Technology Education, and 31.2% for non-vocational) was recorded, and for the LSES Technology Education vocational and non-vocational students, percentage difference of 27.6 percent (0.0% for Technology Education, and 27.6% for non-vocational education) in enrollment was noted. Among the HSES Computer Science Education and non-vocational education students who were in Business and Management undergraduate BS degree program, percentage difference of 17.0 percent (22.2% for Computer Science Education, and 5.2% for non-vocational) in enrollment was noted. Within the HSES Computer Science Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Mathematics and Mathematics-Related undergraduate BS degree program, a percentage difference of 23.3 percent (33.3% for Computer Science Education, and 10.0% for non-vocational) was noted. For the LSES Computer Science Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Mathematics and Mathematics-Related undergraduate BS degree program, percentage difference of 26.5 percent (33.3% for Computer Science Education, and 6.8% for non-vocational) was recorded. Among the LSES Computer Science Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Health and Human Sciences undergraduate BS degree program, percentage difference of 15.1 percent (22.2% for Computer Science Education, and 4.1% for non-vocational) was noted. For the LSES Computer Science Education and non- vocational education students who enrolled in Social Sciences undergraduate BS degree program, percentage difference of 17.7 percent (22.2% for Computer Education, and 4.5% for non-vocational) was recorded. Among the HSES Computer Science Education program and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Associate in Arts degrees, a percentage difference of 25.7 percent (5.5% for Computer Science Education; 31.2% for non-vocational education) was recorded. Within the LSES Public Service Education vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Mathematics and Mathematics-Related undergraduate BS degree program, a percentage difference of 18.2 percent (25.0% for 74
Public Service Education, and 6.8% for non-vocational) was noted. For the LSES Public Service Education vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Social Sciences undergraduate BS degree program, percentage difference of 20.5 percent (25.0% for Public Service Education, and 4.5% for non-vocational) was noted. Within the HSES Public Service Education vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts degree, percentage difference of 26.1 percent (5.1% for Public Service Education, and 31.2% for non-vocational) was recorded, and for the LSES Public Service Education vocational and non-vocational education students, 15.1 percentage difference (12.5% for Public Service Education, and 27.6% for non-vocational) was noted (Table 21). For the May 2000 high school graduates data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High (Table 22), among the LSES Business Technology Education and non- vocational education students, percentage difference of 15.7 percent (20.0% for Business Technology Education, and 3.3% for non-vocational education) was noted for students who enrolled in the Business and Management undergraduate BS degrees. Among the LSES Family and Consumer Science Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts degree, percentage difference of 14.5 percent (3.4% for Family and Consumer Science Education, and 17.9% for non- vocational) was recorded. For the HSES Technology Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in undergraduate degree Mathematics and Mathematics-Relates Courses, percentage difference of 35.3 percent (40.0% for Technology Education, and 4.7% for non-vocational), and for LSES Technology Education and non-vocational education students in Mathematics and Mathematics-Related undergraduate degree program, percentage difference of 47.3 percent (50.0% for Technology Education, and 2.7% for non-vocational) were recorded. Within the HSES Technology Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in undergraduate degree Fine and Applied Arts program, percentage difference of 58.1 percent (60.0% for Technology Education, and 1.9% for non- vocational), and for the LSES Technology Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in undergraduate degree Fine and Applied Arts program, 75 percentage difference of 24.6 percent (25.0% for Technology Education, and 0.4% for non-vocational) were recorded. For the HSES Technology Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts degree, percentage difference of 33.9 percent (0.0% for Technology Education, and 33.9% for non-vocational) was recorded, and for the LSES Technology Education and non-vocational education students, percentage difference 17.9 percent (0.0% for Technology Education, and 17.9% for non-vocational) was noted. Among the LSES Technology Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Science degree programs, percentage difference of 19.2 percent (25.0% for Technology Education, and 5.8% for non-vocational) was recorded. Among the LSES Diversified Cooperative Education and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts degree percentage difference of 36.8 percent (54.7% for Diversified Cooperative Education, and 17.9% for non- vocational) was noted. Summary The data indicated that most vocational education students enrolled in the undergraduate BS degree programs similar to the vocational education programs they were trained in high school. The data further showed that vocational education students, especially within the LSES, who enrolled in the undergraduate BS degree programs similar to the vocational education programs they were trained in high school reported higher rate of enrollment (advantage) than were their non-vocational education counterparts (Tables 21 and 22). When AA degrees enrollment was compared by vocational programs, the data further showed that only the students who had Diversified Cooperative Education vocational program (internship, on-the-job training, or work experience) in high school reported higher rate of enrollment (advantage) than did non- vocational education students (Tables 21 and 22). The data also indicated that when AS enrollment was compared by vocational programs, LSES vocational education students who had Technology Education training in high school recorded higher rate of enrollment (advantage) than their LSES non-vocational education colleagues (Table 22). Table 21: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Differences in Undergraduate Degree Program Enrolled and Type of 9th through 12th Grades Vocational Education Program Taken. Description SES Undergraduate Degree Programs (BS degrees) Associate Degrees Total Enrollment Biological Business & Maths. & Fine & Health & Humanities Social AA AS & Agric. Mngt. Maths- Applied Human Sciences Sciences Related Arts Sciences N% F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Non-Voc. Ed. H 22 3.3 35 5.2 60 10.2 23 3.4 34 5.1 17 2.5 25 3.7 209 31.2 59 8.8 484 72.3 (Total): HSES=669 L 8 3.6 10 4.5 15 6.8 11 5.0 9 4.1 5 2.3 10 4.5 61 27.6 24 10.9 153 69.2 LSES=221
Business H 0 0.0 15 24.2 5 8.1 1 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 16.1 14 22.6 5 8.1 50 80.6 Tech. Ed. (Total): HSES=62 L 0 0.0 2 9.5 3 14.2 2 9.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 19.0 8 38.1 2 9.5 21 100.0 LSES=21
Family & H 5 23.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 9.5 3 14.3 0 0.0 2 9.5 7 33.3 2 9.5 21 100.0 Consumer Science Ed. (Total): L 1 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 11.1 3 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 33.3 1 11.1 9 100.0 HSES=21 LSES=9
% Diff. H 3.3 19.0 1.9 1.8 5.1 2.5 12.4 8.6 0.7 Business Tech. & L 3.6 5.0 7.4 4.5 4.1 2.3 14.5 10.5 1.4 Non-Voc. Ed.
% Diff. H 20.5 5.2 10.0 6.1 9.2 2.5 5.8 2.1 0.7 Family Sc. & Non-Voc. Ed. L 7.5 4.5 6.0 6.1 29.2 2.3 4.5 5.7 0.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency of Students Enrollment from Each Vocational and Non-Vocational Education Program; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above
76 Table 21 (Contd.): Description SES Undergraduate Degree Programs (BS degrees) Associate Degrees Total Enrollment Biological Business & Maths. & Fine & Health & Humanities Social AA AS & Agric. Mngt. Maths- Applied Human Sciences Scs. Related Arts Sciences N% F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Non-Voc. Ed. H 22 3.3 35 5.2 60 10.0 23 3.4 34 5.1 17 2.5 25 3.7 209 31.2 59 8.8 484 72.3 (Total): HSES=669 L 8 3.6 10 4.5 15 6.8 11 5.0 9 4.1 5 2.3 10 4.5 61 27.6 24 10.9 153 69.2 LSES=221
Technology H 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 63.2 0 0.0 2 10.5 1 5.3 0 0.0 3 15.8 1 5.3 19 100.0 Ed.(Total): HSES=19 L 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 4 100.0 LSES=4
Computer Ed. H 0 0.0 8 22.2 12 33.3 0 0.0 4 11.1 0 0.0 3 8.3 1 5.5 7 19.4 36 100.0 (Total): HSES=36 L 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 33.3 0 0.0 2 22.2 0 0.0 2 22.2 2 22.2 0 0.0 9 100.0 LSES=9
% Diff. H 3.3 5.2 53.2 3.4 5.4 2.8 3.7 15.4 3.5 Tech. Ed. & Non-Voc. L 3.6 4.2 43.2 5.0 20.9 2.3 4.5 27.6 14.1 Education.
% Diff. H 3.3 17.0 23.3 3.4 5.6 2.5 4.6 25.7 10.6 Computer Science Ed. & Non-Voc. L 3.6 4.2 26.5 5.0 15.1 2.3 17.7 5.4 10.9 Education Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency of Students Enrollment from Each Vocational and Non-Vocational Education Program; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above
77 Table 21 (Contd.): Description SES Undergraduate Degree Programs (BS degrees) Associate Degrees Total Enrollment Biological Business & Maths. & Fine & Health & Humanities Social AA AS & Agric. Mngt. Maths- Applied Human Sciences Scs. Related Arts Sciences N% F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Non-Voc. Ed. H 22 3.3 35 5.2 60 10.0 23 3.4 34 5.1 17 2.5 25 3.7 209 31.2 59 8.8 484 72.3 (Total): HSES=669 L 8 3.6 10 4.2 15 6.8 11 5.0 9 4.1 5 2.3 10 4.5 61 27.6 24 10.9 153 69.2 LSES=221
Public H 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 5.1 0 0.0 1 2.6 4 10.3 6 15.4 2 5.1 3 7.7 18 46.2 Service Ed. (Total): HSES=39 L 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 12.5 2 25.0 1 12.5 0 0.0 6 75.0 LSES=8
Diversified H 8 7.5 7 6.5 3 2.8 14 13.1 8 7.5 1 0.9 5 4.7 53 49.5 4 3.7 103 96.3 Cooperative Ed. (Total): HSES=107 L 1 2.6 2 5.3 2 5.3 2 5.3 1 2.6 2 5.3 2 5.3 13 34.2 9 23.7 34 89.5 LSES=38
% Diff. H 3.3 5.2 4.9 3.4 2.5 7.8 11.7 26.1 1.1 Public Service Ed. & Non-Voc. L 3.6 4.2 18.2 5.0 4.1 10.2 20.5 15.1 10.9 Education
% Diff. H 4.2 1.3 7.2 9.7 2.4 1.6 1.0 18.3 5.1 Diversified Coop. Ed. & L 1.0 1.1 1.9 0.3 1.5 3.0 0.8 6.6 12.8 Non-Voc. Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency of Students Enrollment from Each Vocational and Non-Vocational Education Program; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above
78 Table 22: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Differences in Undergraduate Degree Program Enrolled and Type of 9th through 12th Grades Vocational Education Program Taken. Description SES Undergraduate Degree Programs (BS degrees) Associate Degrees Total Enrollment Biological Business & Maths. & Fine & Health & Humanities Social AA AS & Agric. Mngt. Maths- Applied Human Sciences Scs. Related Arts Sciences N% F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Non-Voc. Ed. H 10 1.6 23 3.8 29 4.7 12 1.9 14 2.3 17 2.8 34 5.6 208 33.9 30 4.9 377 61.6 (Total): HSES=612 L 4 1.6 11 4.3 7 2.7 1 0.4 2 0.8 2 0.8 6 2.3 46 17.9 15 5.8 94 36.6 LSES=257
Business H 0 0.0 6 7.3 2 2.4 1 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.4 25 30.5 7 8.5 43 52.3 Technology Ed. (Total): HSES=82 L 0 0.0 7 20.0 2 5.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 5.7 2 5.7 2 5.7 15 42.9 LSES=35
Family & H 1 2.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 13.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 26.7 6 13.3 25 55.6 Consumer Ed. (Total): HSES=45 L 2 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.4 0 0.0 6 20.7 LSES=29
% Diff. H 1.6 3.5 2.3 0.7 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.6 Business Tech. Ed. & L 1.6 15.7 3.0 0.4 0.8 0.8 3.4 12.2 0.1 Non-Voc.
% Diff. H 0.6 3.8 4.7 1.9 11.0 2.8 5.6 7.2 8.4 Family & Consumer Ed. & Non- L 5.3 4.3 2.7 0.4 9.5 0.8 2.3 14.5 5.8 Voc. Ed. Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency of Students Enrollment from Each Vocational and Non-Vocational Education Program; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above
79 Table 22 (Contd.): Description SES Undergraduate Degree Programs (BS degrees) Associate Degrees Total Enrollment Biological Business & Maths. & Fine & Health & Humanities Social AA AS & Agric. Mngt. Maths- Applied Human Sciences Scs. Related Arts Sciences N% F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Non-Voc. Ed. H 10 1.6 23 3.8 29 4.7 12 1.9 14 2.3 17 2.8 34 5.6 208 33.9 30 4.9 377 61.6 (Total): HSES=612 L 4 1.6 11 4.3 7 2.7 1 0.4 2 0.8 2 0.8 6 2.3 46 17.9 15 5.8 94 36.6 LSES=257
Technology H 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 40.0 3 60.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 100.0 Ed. (Total): HSES=5 L 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 50.0 2 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 25.0 8 100.0 LSES=8
Computer H 0 0.0 2 3.1 8 12.3 0 0.0 4 6.1 0 0.0 2 3.1 24 36.9 0 0.0 40 61.5 Science Ed. (Total): HSES=65 L 0 0.0 3 8.8 3 8.8 0 0.0 2 5.9 0 0.0 2 5.9 2 5.9 0 0.0 12 34.3 LSES=34
% Diff. H 1.6 3.8 35.3 58.1 2.3 2.8 5.6 33.9 4.9 Technology Ed. & Non- L 1.6 4.3 47.3 24.6 0.8 0.8 2.3 17.9 19.2 Voc. Ed.
% Diff. H 1.6 0.7 7.6 1.9 3.8 2.8 3.3 3.0 4.9 Computer Science Ed. & Non-Voc. L 1.6 4.5 6.1 0.4 3.8 0.8 3.6 12.0 5.8 Education. Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency of Students Enrollment from Each Vocational and Non-Vocational Education Program; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above
80 Table 22 (Contd.): Description SES Undergraduate Degree Programs (BS degrees) Associate Degrees Total Enrollment Biological Business Maths. & Fine & Health & Humanities Social AA AS & Agric. & Mngt. Maths- Applied Human Sciences Sciences Related Arts Sciences N% F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
Non-Voc. Ed. H 10 1.6 23 3.8 29 4.7 12 1.9 14 2.3 17 2.8 34 5.6 208 33.9 30 4.9 377 61.6 (Total): HSES=612 L 4 1.6 11 4.3 7 2.7 1 0.4 2 0.8 2 0.8 6 2.3 46 17.9 15 5.8 94 36.6 LSES=257
Public Service H 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.3 2 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.3 16 36.4 5 11.4 25 56.8 Ed. (Total): HSES=44 L 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.8 1 3.8 1 3.8 1 3.8 2 7.7 1 3.8 7 26.9 LSES=26
Diversified H 2 1.7 5 4.4 3 2.4 1 0.9 1 0.9 0 0.0 2 1.7 42 37.2 17 15.0 73 64.6 Cooperative Ed. (Total): HSES=113 L 3 4.0 2 2.7 5 6.7 2 2.7 6 8.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 41 54.7 15 20.0 74 98.7 LSES=75
% Diff . Public H 1.6 3.8 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.8 3.3 2.5 6.5 Service Ed. & Non-Voc. L 1.6 4.3 2.7 3.4 3.0 3.0 1.5 10.2 2.0 Education
% Diff. H 0.2 0.6 2.3 1.0 1.4 2.8 3.9 3.3 10.1 Diversified Coop. Ed. & Non-Voc. L 2.4 1.6 4.0 2.3 7.2 0.8 2.3 36.8 14.2 Education. Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency of Students Enrollment from Each Vocational and Non-Vocational Education Program; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above
81 82
Question 2d What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, by type of undergraduate degree program enrolled and employment status?
Question 2d is an attempt to verify the percentage differences in employment status between vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled under each undergraduate degree program listed in Tables 23 and 24. The data presented in Table 23 (May 1999 high school graduates) and Table 24 (May 2000 high school graduates) were analyzed to establish the percentage difference in employment. Percentages were calculated by dividing the number employed or unemployed by the corresponding number of students enrolled in undergraduate degree program, and multiplying the result by 100. Taking Biological and Agricultural Science undergraduate BS. degree program in Table 23 as an example for this calculation: the Biological and Agricultural Science undergraduate BS. degree program (May 1999 high school graduates) had 13 HSES vocational education students enrolled, and 2 LSES students enrolled from the four high schools in 12th grade. Out of the 13 HSES vocational education students, 2 vocational education students were employed as part time workers. No HSES vocational education student was employed as full time worker. In order to calculate the percentage of HSES vocational education students who enrolled Biological and Agricultural Science undergraduate BS. degree program and employed PT, 2 HSES vocational education students employed PT was divided by the13 HSES vocational education students who enrolled. The result of 2 divided by 13 was 0.1538. The 0.1538 was further multiplied by 100, which gave 15.4 percent as the percentage of HSES vocational education students who enrolled in Biological and Agricultural Science undergraduate BS. degree program and at the same time employed PT. Similar calculations were done for the FT workers, subsequent vocational and non-vocational, and the unemployed students, depending on the students’ employment and corresponding SES. An inspection of Table 23 (May 1999 high school graduates) indicates some percentage difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational education students. Among the vocational and non-vocational education LSES students who enrolled in Biological and Agricultural Sciences degree programs and working Part Time (PT)(wages between $0.00 and $2,677.00 per quarter of three months), a percentage 83 difference of 75.0 percent (100.0% for vocational, 25% for non-vocational) was recorded. Among the LSES students who enrolled in Business and Management degree programs working PT, percentage difference of 40.0 percent (100.00% for vocational, 60.0% for non-vocational) was recorded. For the HSES students who were in Mathematics, and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Science programs, the percentage difference of 25.5 percent (11.4 percent for vocational, 36.7 percent for non-vocational) and for the LSES students, 78.6 percent (21.4 percent for vocational, 100.0 percent for non- vocational) were noted between vocational and non-vocational education students (Table 23). A further look at Table 23 (May 1999 high school graduates) also revealed the following employment difference between HSES vocational and non-vocational education students: Fine and Applied Arts programs enrollment noted percentage difference of 28.4 percent (41.2% for vocational, 69.6% for non-vocational) and for LSES students also working PT, percentage difference of 40.0 percent (60.0% for vocational, 100.0% for non-vocational) were noted between vocational and non-vocational education students. No percentage differences in employment were recorded for vocational and non-vocational education students who were in Health and Human Sciences degree programs. The percentage difference for HSES students was 15.7 percent (33.3% for vocational, 17.6% for non-vocational) and 26.7 percentage difference (66.7% for vocational, 40.0% for non-vocational) for LSES vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Humanities and working PT (Table 23). Among the HSES students who enrolled in the Social Sciences degree programs, percentage difference of 41.2 percent (14.8% for vocational, 56.0% for non-vocational) and for LSES students, percentage difference of 27.5 percent (87.5% for vocational, 60.0% for non-vocational) in employment was recorded. For the HSES vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts (AA) degree programs, percentage difference of 45.8 percent (91.3% for vocational, 45.5% for non- vocational) in employment was noted. For the Associate in Science (AS) degree programs, percentage difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational education HSES students were 31.1 percent (66.7% for vocational, 35.6% for non- vocational) and 25.4 percent (46.2% for vocational, 20.8% for non- vocational), working PT (wages between $0.00 and $2,677.00 per quarter), and for LSES students, percentage difference was 14.8 percent (23.1% for vocational, 8.3% for non- vocational) with Full Time (FT) employment (wages, $2,678.00 and over per 84 quarter)(Table 23). For the May 2000 high school graduates (Table 24), several percentage differences in employment were also recorded between vocational and non-vocational education students. Among the HSES students who enrolled in Biological and Agricultural Sciences undergraduate degree programs, percentage difference of 25.0 percent (100.0% for vocational, 75.0% for non-vocational) was noted for the students working PT, and for the LSES students percentage difference of 25.0 percent (0.0% for vocational, 25.0% for non-vocational) was recorded, working FT. For the HSES students who enrolled in Business and Management degree programs, the percentage difference in employment between vocational and non- vocational education students was 44.1 percent (61.5% for vocational, 17.4% for non- vocational), working PT; for the LSES students, the percentage difference was 21.2 percent (66.7% for vocational, 45.5% for non-vocational) working PT; and 19.0 percentage difference (8.3% for vocational, 27.3% for non-vocational) in FT employment among the students in LSES. Within the HSES students who were in Mathematics, and Mathematics-Related engineering and Sciences degree programs and working PT, the percentage difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational education students was 19.0 percent (50.0% for vocational, 31.0% for non-vocational), and 78.6 percent (21.4% for vocational, 100.0% for non-vocational). Fine and Applied Sciences degree programs recorded 20.0 percent (80.0% for vocational, 100.0% for non-vocational) difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational education students. The employment percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education LSES students in Health and Human Sciences degree programs was 16.7 percent (83.3% for vocational, 100.0% for non-vocational). For the Humanities degree programs, the employment percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education HSES students was recorded as 94.1 percent (0.0% for vocational, 94.1% for non-vocational) working PT. For the Social Sciences undergraduate degree program, the percentage difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational HSES students was 19.8 percent (28.6% for vocational, and 8.8% for non-vocational education students). Among the LSES students who enrolled in the AA degree programs, the percentage difference in employment was 14.8 percent (58.3% for vocational, 43.5% for non-vocational), working PT. Within the vocational and non-vocational education LSES 85 students who enrolled in AS degree programs, employment percentage difference of 41.1 percent (25.0% for vocational, 66.7% for non-vocational) working PT, and 48.3 percentage difference (75.0% for vocational, 26.7% for non-vocational) among the LSES students working FT. Tables 23 (May 1999 high school graduates) and Table 24 (May 2000 high school graduates) also display the data for those vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in each of the undergraduate degree programs (either the BS or the Associate degree programs) but were not employed. The percentage difference was also calculated between the unemployed vocational and non-vocational education students. Inspection of Table 23 indicates a 40.0 percent difference (0.0% for vocational, and 40.0% for non-vocational education) in unemployment among the LSES students who enrolled in Business and Management degree programs. Among the HSES students who enrolled in Mathematics and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Science programs, the percentage difference in unemployment was 25.3 percent (88.6% for vocational, and 63.3% for non-vocational education) and for the LSES students, 78.6 percent difference (78.6% for vocational, and 0.0% for non-vocational education) were observed. For the HSES students who were in Fine and Applied Arts degree programs, the percentage difference in unemployment between vocational and non-vocational education students was 32.7 percent (58.8% for vocational, and 26.1% for non- vocational education) and 40.0 percent difference (40.0% for vocational, and 0.0% for non-vocational education) for LSES students. In Humanities degree programs, the unemployment percentage differences between vocational and non-vocational education HSES students was 15.7 percent (66.7% for vocational, and 82.4% for non-vocational education) and 26.7 percent difference (33.3% for vocational, and 60.0% for non- vocational education) for LSES students. Within the HSES students in Social Science degree programs, the recorded percentage difference in unemployment was 41.2 percent (85.2% for vocational, and 44.0% for non-vocational education) and 27.5 percent difference (12.5% for vocational, and 40.0% for non-vocational education) was noted for LSES students. In the AA degree programs, the noted unemployment percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education students of the HSES was 44.0 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 44.0% for non-vocational education). Within the students who enrolled in the AS degree programs, the unemployment percentage difference of 37.2 percent (23.8% for vocational, and 61.0% for non-vocational education) was recorded for students in the HSES, and 40.0 percentage difference (30.8% 86 for vocational, and 70.8% for non-vocational education) were noted between vocational and non-vocational education students LSES. In Table 24 (May 2000 high school graduates), within the HSES students, unemployment percentage difference of 44.1 percent (38.5% for vocational, and 82.6% for non-vocational education) was noted between vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Business and Management degree programs. For those vocational and non-vocational education HSES students who were in Mathematics and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Science degree programs, the unemployment percentage difference of 25.2 percent (43.8% for vocational, and 69.0% for non- vocational education) was noted. Among the LSES students, unemployment percentage difference of 78.6 percent (78.6% for vocational, and 0.0% for non-vocational education) was recorded. In Fine and Applied Arts degree programs, unemployment percentage difference of 20.0 percent (20.0% for vocational, and 0.0% for non-vocational education) was recorded between vocational and non-vocational education LSES students. Among the vocational and non-vocational education LSES students who enrolled in Health and Human Sciences degree programs, the unemployment percentage difference of 16.7 percent (16.7% for vocational, and 0.0% for non-vocational education) was recorded. In the Social Sciences degree programs, the unemployment percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education HSES students who enrolled was 30.2 percent (28.6% for vocational, and 58.8% for non-vocational education). Summary The data showed that most of the students from both vocational and non-vocational education were working part time and going to school. The data also showed that most vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in undergraduate BS, AA, and AS degree programs reported higher rate of employment (advantage) than were non- vocational education students. The data further indicated that non-vocational education students who enrolled in Mathematics and Mathematic-related Engineering and Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts (Tables 23 and 24), Health and Human Sciences, the Humanities (Table 24) reported higher rate of employment (advantage) than were their vocational education counterparts. Table 23: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Differences in Students Employment Status Under Each Undergraduate Degree Program. SES Job Biological & Agricultural Business & Management Mathematics, Math-Related Employed and Status Science (Number Enrolled, BS. Degrees): Engineering & Sciences Unemployed in the (Number Enrolled , BS. Degrees): Voc. Ed. HSES= 30 LSES=4 (Number Enrolled, BS. Degrees) Three U ndergraduate Voc. Ed. HSES=13 LSES=2 Non-Voc. Ed. Voc. Ed. HSES= 35 BS. Degree Programs. Non-Voc. Ed. HSES= 35 LSES=10 LSES=14 HSES=22 LSES=8 Non-Voc. Ed. (Total) HSES= 60 LSES=15
Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Voc. Non-Voc. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
15 30 34 45 49 75 98 100.0 150 100.0 HSES PT 2 15.4 3 13.6 1.8 5 16.7 7 20.0 3.3 4 11.4 22 36.7 25.3 11 11.2 32 21.3
FT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
LSES PT 2 100.0 2 25.0 75.0 4 100.0 6 60.0 40.0 3 21.4 15 100.0 78.6 9 9.2 23 15.3
FT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
HSES Unem 11 84.6 19 86.4 1.8 25 85.3 28 80.0 3.3 31 88.6 38 63.3 25.3 67 68.4 85 56.7 ployed LSES 0 0.0 6 75.0 75.0 0 0.0 4 40.0 40.0 11 78.6 0 0.0 78.6 11 11.2 10 6.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter=Part Time; $2678 and Over Per Quarter=Full Time. The data in the table represents the sample of students from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools; F=Frequency of Students Employment Status Under Each Undergraduate Degree Program; PT=Part Time Worker; FT=Full Time Worker; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
87 Table 23 (Contd.): SES Job Fine & Applied Arts Health & Human Sciences Humanities Employed and Status (Number Enrolled, BS. (Number Enrolled , BS. (Number Enrolled, BS. Degrees): Unemployed in the Three Degrees): Degrees): Voc. Ed. HSES=6 LSES=3 Undergraduate BS. Voc. Ed. HSES= 17 LSES=5 Voc. Ed. HSES= 18 LSES=6 Non-Voc. Ed. Degree Programs. Non-Voc. Ed. Non-Voc. Ed. HSES=17 LSES=5 (Total) HSES= 23 LSES=11 HSES= 34 LSES=9
Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Voc. Non-Voc. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
HSES 22 34 24 43 9 22 55 100.0 99 100.0
PT 7 41.2 16 69.6 28.4 3 16.7 2 5.9 10.8 2 33.3 3 17.6 15.7 12 21.8 21 21.2
FT 0 0.0 1 4.3 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.0
LSES PT 3 60.0 11 100.0 40.0 4 66.7 5 55.6 11.1 2 66.7 2 40.0 26.7 9 16.4 18 18.2
FT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
HSES Unem 10 58.8 6 26.1 32.7 15 83.3 32 94.1 10.8 4 66.7 14 82.4 15.7 29 52.7 52 52.5 ployed LSES 2 40.0 0 0.0 40.0 2 33.3 4 44.4 11.1 1 33.3 3 60.0 26.7 5 9.1 7 7.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter=Part Time; $2678 and Over Per Quarter=Full Time. The data in the table represents the sample of students from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools; F=Frequency of Students Employment Status Under Each Undergraduate Degree Program; PT=Part Time Worker; FT=Full Time Worker; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
88 Table 23 (Contd.): SES Job Social Sciences Associate In Arts (AA degree) Associate In Science (AS degrees) Employed and Status (Number Enrolled, BS. (Number Enrolled): (Number Enrolled): Unemployed in the Three Degrees): Voc. Ed. HSES=80 LSES=27 Voc. Ed. HSES=21 LSES=13 Undergraduate Degree Voc. Ed. HSES= 27 LSES=8 Non-Voc. Ed. Non-Voc. Ed. Programs. Non-Voc. Ed. HSES=209 LSES=61 HSES= 59 LSES=24 HSES= 25 LSES=10 (Total)
Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
HSES PT 35 35 107 270 34 83 176 100.0 388 100.0
4 14.8 14 56.0 41.2 73 91.3 95 45.5 45.8 14 66.7 21 35.6 31.1 91 51.7 130 33.5
FT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 8.7 22 10.5 1.8 2 9.5 2 3.4 6.1 9 5.1 24 6.2
LSES PT 7 87.5 6 60.0 27.5 14 51.9 30 49.2 2.7 6 46.2 5 20.8 25.4 27 15.3 41 10.6
FT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 6 22.2 7 11.5 10.7 3 23.1 2 8.3 14.8 9 5.1 9 2.3
HSES Unem 23 85.2 11 44.0 41.2 0 0.0 92 44.0 44.0 5 23.8 36 61.0 37.2 28 15.9 139 35.8 ployed LSES 1 12.5 4 40.0 27.5 7 25.9 24 39.3 13.4 4 30.8 17 70.8 40.0 12 6.8 45 11.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter=Part Time; $2678 and Over Per Quarter=Full Time. The data in the table represents the sample of students from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools; F=Frequency of Students Employment Status Under Each Undergraduate Degree Program; PT=Part Time Worker; FT=Full Time Worker; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
89 Table 24: May 2000. Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Differences in Students Employment Status Under Each Undergraduate Degree Program. SES Job Biological & Agric. Sciences. Business & Management Mathematics, Math-Related Employed and Status (Number Enrolled , BS. Degrees): (Number Enrolled , BS. Engineering, & Sciences. Unemployed in the Three Voc. Ed. HSES=3 LSES=5 Degrees): (Number Enrolled, BS. Degrees): Undergraduate BS. Non-Voc. Ed. Voc. Ed. HSES= 13 LSES=12 Voc. Ed. HSES=16 LSES=14 Degree Programs. HSES=10 LSES=4 Non-Voc. Ed. Non-Voc. Ed. HSES= 23 LSES=11 HSES=29 LSES=7 (Total)
Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education F F % F F % F F F % F % % % % %
HSES 8 14 25 34 30 36 63 100.0 84 100.0
PT 2 66.7 8 80.0 13.3 8 61.5 4 17.4 44.1 8 50.0 9 31.0 19.0 18 28.6 21 25.0
FT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 1 1.6 0 0.0
LSES PT 5 100.0 3 75.0 25.0 8 66.7 5 45.5 21.2 3 21.4 7 100.0 78.6 16 25.4 15 17.9
FT 0 0.0 1 25.0 25.0 1 8.3 3 27.3 19.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 1.6 4 4.8
HSES Unem 1 33.3 2 20.0 13.3 5 38.5 19 82.6 44.1 7 43.8 20 69.0 25.2 13 20.6 41 48.8 ployed LSES 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 3 25.0 3 27.3 2.3 11 92.9 0 0.0 78.6 14 22.2 3 3.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter=Part Time; $2678 and Over Per Quarter=Full Time. The data in the table represents the sample of students from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools; F=Frequency of Students Employment Status Under Each Undergraduate Degree Program; PT=Part Time Worker; FT=Full Time Worker; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
90 Table 24 (Contd.): SES Job Fine & Applied Arts Health & Human Sciences Humanities Employed and Status (Number Enrolled, BS. (Number Enrolled , BS. (Number Enrolled, BS. Degrees): Unemployed in the Three Degrees): Degrees): Voc. Ed. HSES= 0 LSES=1 Undergraduate BS. Voc. Ed. HSES=7 LSES=5 Voc. Ed. HSES=11 LSES=12 Non-Voc. Ed. Degree Programs. Non-Voc. Ed. Non-Voc. Ed. HSES= 17 LSES=2 (Total) HSES=12 LSES=1 HSES=14 LSES=2
Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
HSES 12 13 23 16 1 19 36 100.0 48 100.0
PT 2 28.6 4 33.3 4.7 8 72.7 12 85.7 13.0 0 0.0 16 94.1 94.1 10 27.8 32 66.7
FT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1 5.9 5.9 0 0.0 1 2.1
LSES PT 4 80.0 1 100.0 20.0 10 83.3 2 100.0 16.7 1 100.0 1 50.0 50.0 15 41.7 4 8.3
FT 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 50.0 0 0.0 1 2.1
HSES Unem 5 71.4 8 66.7 4.7 3 27.3 2 14.3 13.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 8 22.2 10 20.8 ployed LSES 1 20.0 0 0.0 20.0 2 16.7 0 0.0 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 3 8.3 0 0.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter=Part Time; $2678 and Over Per Quarter=Full Time. The data in the table represents the sample of students from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools; F=Frequency of Students Employment Status Under Each Undergraduate Degree Program; PT=Part Time Worker; FT=Full Time Worker; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
91 Table 24 (Contd.): SES Job Social Sciences Associate In Arts (AA Degree) Associate In Science (AS Employed and Status (Number Enrolled , BS. Degrees): (Number Enrolled): Degrees) Unemployed in the Three Voc. Ed. HSES=7 LSES=5 Voc. Ed. HSES= 119 LSES=48 (Number Enrolled): Undergraduate Degree Non-Voc. Ed. Non-Voc. Ed. Voc. Ed. HSES=35 Programs. HSES=34 LSES=6 HSES= 208 LSES=46 LSES=20 Non-Voc. Ed. (Total) HSES=30 LSES=15
Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. % Vocational Non-Voc. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education Diff. Education Education F % F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
HSES 12 40 167 254 55 45 234 100.0 339 100.0
PT 3 42.9 11 32.4 10.5 65 54.6 95 45.7 8.9 12 34.3 12 40.0 5.7 80 34.2 118 34.8
FT 2 28.6 3 8.8 19.8 49 41.2 81 38.9 2.3 23 65.7 18 60.0 5.7 74 31.6 102 30.1
LSES PT 2 40.0 2 33.3 6.7 28 58.3 20 43.5 14.8 5 25.0 10 66.7 41.7 35 14.9 32 9.4
FT 3 60.0 4 66.7 6.7 14 29.2 18 39.1 9.9 15 75.0 4 26.7 48.3 32 13.7 26 7.7
HSES Unem 2 28.6 20 58.8 30.2 5 4.2 32 15.4 11.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 7 2.99 52 15.3 ployed LSES 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 6 12.5 8 17.4 4.9 0 0.0 1 6.7 6.7 6 2.6 9 2.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter=Part Time; $2678 and Over Per Quarter=Full Time. The data in the table represents the sample of students from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools; F=Frequency of Students Employment Status Under Each Undergraduate Degree Program; PT=Part Time Worker; FT=Full Time Worker; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
92 93
Question 2e What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on type of undergraduate degree program enrolled by gender?
Question 2e attempts to verify whether there are percentage difference in undergraduate degree programs enrollment in college between vocational and non- vocational education students when compared by gender. A close look at Table 25 (May 1999 high school graduates data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards) reveal some percentage differences in enrollments between vocational and non-vocational education students. Among the male vocational and non- vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in Business and Management BS degree programs, percentage difference of 18.7 percent (89.5% for vocational, and 70.8% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 18.7 percent (10.5% for vocational, and 29.2% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were observed. In Mathematic and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Sciences BS degree programs, percentage differences of 14.5 percent (69.2% for vocational, and 83.7% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 14.5 percent (30.8% for vocational, and 16.3% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were noted between vocational and non-vocational education male students who enrolled in the programs. For the male vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in the Humanities BS degree programs, percentage differences of 22.2 percent (100.0% for vocational, and 77.8% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 22.2 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 22.2% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were noted. Among the female vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Humanities, the percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational students were 23.1 percent (100.0% for vocational, and 76.9% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 23.1 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 23.1% for non-vocational; LSES, students). No percentage difference were recorded for the remaining undergraduate degree programs (Table 25). For the May 2000 high school graduates (Table 26), percentage difference of 25.0 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 75.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 25.0 94 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 25.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were recorded for the male vocational and non-vocational students who enrolled in Biological and Agricultural Sciences undergraduate BS degree programs. Among the female vocational and non-vocational education students in the same undergraduate degree programs, percentage difference of 36.7 percent (33.3% for vocational, and 70.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 36.7 percent (66.7% for vocational, and 30.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were recorded. In Mathematic and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Sciences BS degree programs, percentage difference of 37.0 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 87.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 37.0 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 13.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were noted between vocational and non-vocational education male students who enrolled in the programs. For the vocational and non-vocational education male students who enrolled in the Fine and Applied Arts undergraduate BS degree programs, the percentage difference recorded were 40.0 percent (60.0% for vocational, and 100.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 40.0 percent (40.0% for vocational, and 0.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students). Among the vocational and non-vocational education females students in Fine and Applied Arts undergraduate BS degree programs, percentage difference of 31.8 percent (57.1% for vocational, and 88.9% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 31.8 percent (42.9% for vocational, and 11.1% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were noted. Among the vocational and non-vocational education male students who enrolled in Health and Human Sciences BS degree programs, percentage differences of 25.0 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 75.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 25.0 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 25.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were noted. Among the female vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Health and Human Sciences undergraduate BS degree program, percentage difference of 45.0 percent (46.7% for vocational, and 91.7% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 45.0 percent (53.3% for vocational, and 8.3% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were observed. For the male vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who 95 enrolled in the Humanities BS degree programs, percentage difference of 85.7 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 85.7% for non-vocational; HSES, students) was recorded. Among the female vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Humanities, the percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational students were 91.7 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 91.7% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 91.7 percent (100.0% for vocational, and 8.3% for non-vocational; LSES) were noted. Among the vocational and non-vocational education male students who enrolled in the Social Sciences BS degree programs, percentage differences of 20.0 percent (60.0% for vocational, and 80.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 20.0 percent (40.0% for vocational, and 20.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were noted. Among the female vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Social Sciences undergraduate degree program, percentage difference of 30.9 percent (57.1% for vocational, and 88.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 30.9 percent (42.9% for vocational, and 12.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were recorded. Percentage difference in enrollment were not noted for vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts (AA) and the Associate in Science (AS) degree programs (Table 26). Summary Although May 1999 data indicated no percentage difference (no advantage) between vocational and non-vocational education students on undergraduate BS degree program enrollments in Biological and Agricultural Sciences, Health and Human Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts, and the Social Sciences when compared by gender and by socioeconomic status (Table 25), May 2000 data on the other hand showed that both male and female LSES vocational education students, compared with their respective LSES non-vocational education colleagues, reported a higher rate (advantage) of undergraduate BS degree programs enrollment (Table 26). The data also showed that for both May 1999 and May 2000 data, there were no percentage difference (no advantage) between vocational and non-vocational education students Associate in Arts and Associate in Science degree programs’ enrollment when compared by gender and by socioeconomic status (Tables 25 and 26). Table 25: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools, Compared by Differences in Percentage of Students in Each Undergraduate Degree Program by Gender. Gender SES Biological & Agricultural Sciences Business & Management Mathematics & Mathematics-Related (BS. degrees) (BS. degrees) Engineering & Sciences (BS. degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Male 6 100.0 10 100.0 19 100.0 24 100.0 26 100.0 43 100.0
HSES 5 83.3 7 70.0 13.3 17 89.5 17 70.8 18.7 18 69.2 36 83.7 -14.5
LSES 1 16.7 3 30.0 -13.3 2 10.5 7 29.2 -18.7 8 30.8 7 16.3 14.5
Female 9 100.0 20 100.0 15 100.0 21 100.0 23 100.0 32 100.0
HSES 8 88.9 15 75.0 13.9 13 86.7 18 85.7 1.0 17 73.9 24 75.0 -1.1
LSES 1 11.1 5 25.0 -13.9 2 13.3 3 14.3 -1.0 6 26.1 8 25.0 1.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
96 Table 25 (Contd.):
Gender SES Fine & Applied Arts (BS. degrees) Health & Human Sciences (BS. degrees) Humanities (BS. degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Male 9 100.0 11 100.0 12 100.0 18 100.0 4 100.0 9 100.0
HSES 7 71.4 7 63.6 7.8 9 75.0 15 83.3 -8.3 4 100.0 7 77.8 22.2
LSES 2 28.6 4 36.4 -7.8 3 25.0 3 16.7 8.3 0 0.0 2 22.2 -22.2
Female 13 100.0 23 100.0 12 100.0 25 100.0 5 100.0 13 100.0
HSES 10 76.9 16 69.6 7.3 9 75.0 19 76.0 -1.0 5 100.0 10 76.9 23.1
LSES 3 23.1 7 30.4 -7.3 3 25.0 6 24.0 1.0 0 0.0 3 23. -23.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
97 Table 25 (Contd.): Gender SES Social Sciences (BS. degrees) Associate in Arts (degree) Associate in Science (degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Male 14 100.0 13 100.0 49 100.0 121 100.0 14 100.0 39 100.0
HSES 12 85.7 11 84.6 1.1 36 73.5 95 78.5 -5.0 9 64.3 30 76.9 -12.6
LSES 2 14.3 2 15.4 -1.1 13 26.5 26 21.5 5.0 5 35.7 9 23.1 12.6
Female 21 100.0 22 100.0 58 100.0 149 100.0 20 100.0 44 100.0
HSES 18 85.7 20 90.9 -5.2 44 75.9 114 76.5 -0.6 12 60.0 29 65.9 -5.9
LSES 3 14.3 2 9.1 5.2 14 24.1 35 23.5 0.6 8 40.0 15 34.1 5.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
98 Table 26: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools, Compared by Percentage of Students in Each Undergraduate Degree Program by Gender. Gender SES Biological & Agricultural Sciences Business & Management Mathematics & Mathematics-Related (BS. degrees) (BS. degrees) Engineering & Sciences (BS. degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Male 2 100.0 4 100.0 8 100.0 19 100.0 14 100.0 23 100.0
HSES 1 50.0 3 75.0 -25.0 5 62.5 14 73.7 -11.2 7 50.0 20 87.0 -37.0
LSES 1 50.0 1 25.0 25.0 3 37.5 5 26.3 11.2 7 50.0 3 13.0 37.0
Female 6 100.0 10 100.0 17 100.0 15 100.0 16 100.0 13 100.0
HSES 2 33.3 7 70.0 -36.0 8 47.1 9 60.0 -12.9 9 56.2 9 69.2 -13.0
LSES 4 66.7 3 30.0 36.0 9 52.9 6 40.0 12.9 7 43.8 4 30.8 13.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
99 Table 26 (Contd.): Gender SES Fine & Applied Arts (BS. degrees) Health & Human Sciences (BS. degrees) Humanities (BS. degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Male 5 100.0 4 100.0 8 100.0 4 100.0 0 100.0 7 100.0
HSES 3 60.0 4 100.0 -40.0 4 50.0 3 75.0 -25.0 0 0.0 6 85.7 85.7
LSES 2 40.0 0 0.0 40.0 4 50.0 1 25.0 25.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 -14.3
Female 7 100.0 9 100.0 15 100.0 12 100.0 1 100.0 12 100.0
HSES 4 57.1 8 88.9 -31.8 7 46.7 11 91.7 -45.0 0 0.0 11 91.7 -91.7
LSES 3 42.9 1 11.1 31.8 8 53.3 1 8.3 45.0 1 100.0 1 8.3 91.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
100 Table 26 (Contd.): Gender SES Social Sciences (BS. degrees) Associate in Arts (degree) Associate in Science (degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Male 5 100.0 15 100.0 75 100.0 137 100.0 19 100.0 23 100.0
HSES 3 60.0 12 80.0 -20.0 52 69.3 108 78.8 -9.5 12 63.2 17 73.9 10.7
LSES 2 40.0 3 20.0 20.0 23 30.7 29 21.2 9.5 7 36.8 6 26.1 -10.7
Female 7 100.0 25 100.0 92 100.0 117 100.0 36 100.0 22 100.0
HSES 4 57.1 22 88.0 -30.9 67 72.8 100 85.5 -12.7 23 63.9 13 59.1 4.8
LSES 3 42.9 3 12.0 30.9 25 27.2 17 14.5 12.7 13 36.1 9 40.9 -4.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
101 102 Question 2f What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on type of undergraduate degree program enrolled by race?
Question 2f is an attempt to investigate whether there are percentage differences in undergraduate degree programs enrollment in college between vocational and non- vocational education students when compared by race. An inspection of Table 27 (May 1999 high school graduates data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards) reveal some percentage difference in enrollments between vocational and non-vocational education students. Among the white vocational and non- vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in Biological and Agricultural Sciences BS degree programs, percentage difference of 16.9 percent (87.5% for vocational, and 70.6% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 16.9 percent (12.5% for vocational, and 29.4% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were recorded. Among the black vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in the Humanities BS degree programs, a percentage difference of 20.0 percent (100.0% for vocational, and 80.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 20.0 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 20.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were recorded. Among the white vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Humanities, the percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education students were 25 percent (100.0% for vocational, and 75.0% for non- vocational; HSES, students) and 25.0 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 25.0% for non- vocational; LSES, students). Among the vocational and non-vocational education white students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts (AA) degree programs, the percentage difference of 21.9 percent (61.9% for vocational, and 83.8% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 21.9 percent (38.1% for vocational, and 16.2% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were noted. No percentage difference in enrollment were recorded for vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Science (AS) degree programs (Table 27). In Table 28 (May 2000 high school graduates data for Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and 103
Rickards), for the black vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in Biological and Agricultural Sciences BS degree programs, the percentage difference of 46.7 percent (33.3% for vocational, and 80.0% for non- vocational; HSES, students) and 46.7 percent (66.7% for vocational, and 20.0% for non- vocational; LSES, students) were recorded. Among the white vocational and non- vocational education students who enrolled in similar undergraduate degree programs, percentage difference of 22.5 percent (40.0% for vocational, and 62.5% for non- vocational; HSES, students) and 22.5 percent (60.0% for vocational, and 37.5% for non- vocational; LSES, students) were observed. For the Others (racial groups) vocational and non-vocational education students who also enrolled in Biological and Agricultural Sciences BS degree programs, percentage difference of 100.0 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 100.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) was recorded. Among the white vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in Business and Management BS degree programs, percentage difference of 28.9 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 78.9% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 28.9 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 21.1% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were observed. In Mathematic and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Sciences BS degree programs, percentage difference of 20.0 percent (42.9% for vocational, and 63.6% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 20.0 percent (57.1% for vocational, and 36.4% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were noted between vocational and non-vocational education black students. Among the white vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Mathematic and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Sciences BS degree programs, percentage difference of 25.0 percent (62.5% for vocational, and 87.5% for non- vocational; HSES, students) and 25.0 percent (37.5% for vocational, and 12.5% for non- vocational; LSES, students) were noted. For the black vocational and non-vocational education who enrolled in the Fine and Applied Arts undergraduate BS. degree programs, the percentage differences of 50.0 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 100.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 50.0 percent (50.0% for vocational, and 0.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) were recorded. Among the white vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in similar undergraduate degree programs, percentage difference of 23.3 percent (66.7% for vocational, and 90.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 23.3 percent 104
(33.3% for vocational, and 10.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) was recorded. Among the black vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in Health and Human Sciences BS degree programs, the percentage difference of 22.9 percent (57.1% for vocational, and 80.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 22.9 percent (42.9% for vocational, and 20.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) was noted. For the white vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in similar undergraduate degree programs, percentage differences of 56.7 percent (33.3% for vocational, and 90.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students) and 56.7 percent (66.7% for vocational, and 10.0% for non-vocational; LSES, students) was observed. Among the black vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Humanities, the percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational education students was 88.9 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 88.9% for non-vocational; HSES, students). For the white vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in Humanities undergraduate BS degree programs, the percentage difference was 90.0 percent (0.0% for vocational, and 90.0% for non-vocational; HSES, students). Among the vocational and non-vocational education white students who enrolled in the Social Sciences undergraduate BS degree programs, the percentage difference of 31.7 percent (57.2% for vocational, and 88.9% for non-vocational; HSES, students); and 31.7 percent (42.8% for vocational, and 11.1% for non-vocational) was noted within the LSES students. No percentage differences in enrollment was recorded for vocational and non- vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts (AA) and the Associate in Science (AS) degree programs (Table 28). Summary May 1999 data showed that the only percentage difference in undergraduate BS degree programs enrollment between vocational and non-vocational education students were in the Biological and Agricultural Sciences where HSES white vocational education students reported higher rate of enrollment (advantage) than were HSES non-vocational education students, and in the Humanities where both black and white HSES vocational education students recorded higher rate of enrollment (advantage) than were their respective HSES non-vocational education colleagues (Table 27). May 2000 data, on the 105
other hand, indicated that both black and white LSES vocational education students reported higher rate of enrollment (advantage) in most of the undergraduate BS degree programs than were their respective black and white LSES non-vocational education colleagues (Table 28). No percentage difference (no advantage) in Associate in Arts and the Associate in Science degree programs enrollment were reported between vocational and non-vocational education students when compared by race and by socioeconomic status (Tables 27 and 28). Question 2g What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on postsecondary school plans and postsecondary school enrollment by gender?
Question 2g is an attempt to verify whether there were percentage change between what students indicated in their postsecondary school plans while in high school and what they actually did after high school when they were compared by gender. As explained earlier, data for May 1999 high school graduates for this question were not available in the databases, thus, only the data for May 2000 high school graduates were collected and analyzed. Inspection of Table 29 (May 2000 high school graduates) indicated no percentage changes between the students postsecondary school plans and actual enrollment in postsecondary schools when compared by gender. Question 2h: What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on postsecondary school plans and postsecondary school enrollment by race?
Question 2h attempts to verify whether there were percentage changes between what students indicated in their postsecondary school plans while in high school and what they actually did after high school when they were compared by race. As explained earlier, data for May 1999 high school graduates for this question were not available in the databases, thus, only the data for May 2000 high school graduates were collected and analyzed. Inspection of Table 30 (May 2000 high school graduates) showed no percentage change between the students postsecondary school plans and actual enrollment in postsecondary schools when compared by race. Table 27: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools, Compared by Percentage of Students in Each Undergraduate Degree Program by Race. Gender SES Biological & Agricultural Sciences Business & Management Mathematics & Mathematics-Related (BS. degrees) (BS. degrees) Engineering & Sciences (BS. degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Black 7 100.0 12 100.0 14 100.0 18 100.0 20 100.0 28 100.0
HSES 6 85.7 9 75.0 10.7 12 85.7 14 77.8 7.9 15 75.0 24 85.7 -10.0
LSES 1 14.3 3 25.0 -10.7 2 14.3 4 22.2 -7.9 5 25.0 4 14.3 10.0
White 8 100.0 17 100.0 20 100.0 24 100.0 29 100.0 40 100.0
HSES 7 87.5 12 70.6 16.9 18 90.0 20 83.3 6.7 20 69.0 32 80.0 -11.0
LSES 1 12.5 5 29.4 -16.9 2 10.0 4 16.7 -6.7 9 31.0 8 20.0 11.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
106 Table 27 (Contd.): Gender SES Fine & Applied Arts (BS. degrees) Health & Human Sciences (BS. degrees) Humanities (BS. degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Black 12 100.0 13 100.0 12 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 10 100.0
HSES 9 75.0 9 69.2 5.8 9 75.0 12 75.0 0.0 5 100.0 8 80.0 20.0
LSES 3 25.0 4 30.8 -5.8 3 25.0 4 25.0 0.0 0 0.0 2 20.0 -20.0
White 8 100.0 21 100.0 11 100.0 26 100.0 4 100.0 12 100.0
HSES 6 75.0 14 66.7 8.3 9 81.8 22 84.6 -2.8 4 100.0 9 75.0 25.0
LSES 2 25.0 7 33.3 -8.3 2 18.2 4 15.4 2.8 0 0.0 3 25.0 -25.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
107 Table 27 (Contd.): Gender SES Social Sciences (BS. degrees) Associate in Arts (degree) Associate in Science (degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Black 17 100.0 11 100.0 36 100.0 80 100.0 12 100.0 45 100.0
HSES 14 82.4 9 81.8 0.6 25 69.4 56 70.0 -0.6 7 58.3 27 60.0 -1.7
LSES 3 17.6 2 18.2 -0.6 11 30.6 24 30.0 0.6 5 41.7 18 40.0 1.7
White 18 100.0 24 100.0 57 100.0 179 100.0 21 100.0 37 100.0
HSES 16 88.9 22 91.7 -2.8 45 78.9 145 81.0 -2.1 13 61.9 31 83.8 -21.9
LSES 2 11.1 2 8.3 2.8 12 21.1 34 19.0 2.1 8 38.1 6 16.2 21.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
108 Table 28: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools, Compared by Percentage of Students in Each Undergraduate Degree Program by Race. Gender SES Biological & Agricultural Sciences Business & Management Mathematics & Mathematics-Related (BS. degrees) (BS. degrees) Engineering & Sciences (BS. degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Black 3 100.0 5 100.0 11 100.0 12 100.0 14 100.0 11 100.0
HSES 1 33.3 4 80.0 -46.7 6 54.5 7 58.3 -3.8 6 42.9 7 63.6 -20.0
LSES 2 66.7 1 20.0 46.7 5 45.5 5 41.7 3.8 8 57.1 4 36.4 20.0
White 5 100.0 8 100.0 14 100.0 19 100.0 16 100.0 24 100.0
HSES 2 40.0 5 62.5 -22.5 7 50.0 15 78.9 -28.9 10 62.5 21 87.5 -25.0
LSES 3 60.0 3 37.5 22.5 7 50.0 4 21.1 28.9 6 37.5 3 12.5 25.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
109 Table 28 (Contd.): Gender SES Fine & Applied Arts (BS. degrees) Health & Human Sciences (BS. degrees) Humanities (BS. degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Black 6 100.0 3 100.0 14 100.0 5 100.0 0 100.0 9 100.0
HSES 3 50.0 3 100.0 -50.0 8 57.1 4 80.0 -22.9 0 0.0 8 88.9 88.9
LSES 3 50.0 0 0.0 50.0 6 42.9 1 20.0 22.9 0 0.0 1 11.1 11.1
White 6 100.0 10 100.0 9 100.0 10 100.0 1 100.0 10 100.0
HSES 4 66.7 9 90.0 -23.3 3 33.3 9 90.0 -56.7 0 0.0 9 90.0 90.0
LSES 2 33.3 1 10.0 23.3 6 66.7 1 10.0 56.7 1 100.0 1 10.0 90.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
110 Table 28 (Contd.): Gender SES Social Sciences (BS. degrees) Associate in Arts (degree) Associate in Science (degrees)
Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Vocational Non-Voc. Percentage Education Education Difference Education Education Difference Education Education Difference
F % F % F % F % F % F %
Black 5 100.0 11 100.0 53 100.0 78 100.0 26 100.0 22 100.0
HSES 3 60.0 8 72.7 -12.7 26 49.1 48 61.1 -12.0 11 42.3 12 54.5 -12.2
LSES 2 40.0 3 27.3 12.7 27 50.9 30 38.9 12.0 15 57.7 10 45.5 12.2
White 7 100.0 27 100.0 104 100.0 169 100.0 28 100.0 22 100.0
HSES 4 57.2 24 88.9 -31.7 88 84.6 156 92.3 -7.7 23 82.1 18 81.8 0.3
LSES 3 42.8 3 11.1 31.7 16 15.4 13 7.7 7.7 5 17.9 4 18.2 -0.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; F=Frequency; Negative Sign=Disadvantage; Positive Sign=Advantage; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
111 Table 29: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards, Comparing Students Postsecondary School Plans and Actual Enrollments by Percentage Changes by Gender. Postsecondary Sex SES Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education School Plans Postsecondary Actual Enrollment in Percentage Postsecondary Actual Enrollment in Percentage School Plans College Change School Plans College Change
Total % Total % Total % Total %
561 100.0 561 100.0 869 100.0 869 100.0
Community Male HSES 66 11.8 64 11.4 -0.4 107 12.3 125 14.4 2.1 Colleges LSES 34 6.1 30 5.3 -0.8 28 3.2 35 4.0 0.8
Female HSES 93 16.6 90 16.0 -0.6 82 9.4 113 13.0 3.6
LSES 51 9.1 38 6.8 -2.3 22 2.5 26 2.9 0.4
Universities or Male HSES 70 12.5 23 4.1 -8.4 110 12.7 62 7.1 -5.6 Colleges LSES 34 6.1 19 3.4 -2.7 66 7.6 14 1.6 -6.0
Female HSES 98 17.4 34 6.1 -11.3 158 18.2 77 8.9 -9.3
LSES 59 10.5 35 6.2 -4.3 56 6.4 19 2.2 -4.2
Vocational Male HSES 15 2.7 29 5.2 2.5 17 2.0 26 3.0 1.0 Technical Schools LSES 11 2.0 15 2.7 0.7 7 0.8 15 1.7 0.9
Female HSES 10 1.8 32 5.7 3.9 30 3.5 39 4.5 1.0
LSES 14 2.5 24 4.3 1.8 12 1.4 19 2.2 0.8
Did Not Enroll in Male HSES 0 0.0 31 5.5 5.5 44 5.1 65 7.5 2.4 Postsecondary Schools LSES 1 0.2 20 3.6 3.4 28 3.2 65 7.5 4.3
Female HSES 2 0.4 51 9.1 8.7 64 7.4 105 12.1 4.7
LSES 3 0.5 26 4.6 4.1 38 4.4 64 7.4 3.0 Note: Positive Sign=Gained Students; Negative Sign=Lost Students; Percentage Change=14.5% and Above.
112 Table 30: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High S chool Graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and R ickards, Co mparing Students Postsecondary School Plans and Actual Enrollments by Percentage Changes by Race.
Postsecondary Race SES Vocational Education Non-Vocational Education School Plans Postsecondary Actual Enrollment Percentage Postsecondary Actual Enrollment in Percentage School Plans in College Change School Plans College Change
Total % Total % Total % Total %
550 100.0 550 100.0 828 100.0 828 100.0
Community Black HSES 39 7.1 37 6.7 -0.4 40 4.8 60 7.2 2.4 Colleges LSES 49 8.9 42 7.6 -1.3 35 4.2 40 4.8 0.6
White HSES 114 20.7 111 20.1 -0.6 145 17.5 174 21.0 3.5
LSES 31 5.6 21 3.8 -1.8 11 1.3 17 2.1 0.8
Universities or Black HSES 68 12.4 27 4.9 -7.5 61 7.4 41 5.0 -2.4 Colleges LSES 40 7.3 26 4.7 -2.6 74 8.9 15 1.8 -7.1
White HSES 100 18.2 30 5.5 -12.7 201 24.3 92 11.1 -13.2
LSES 53 9.6 28 5.1 -4.5 46 5.6 16 1.9 -3.7
Vocational Technical Black HSES 5 1.0 23 4.2 3.2 1 0.1 1 0.1 0.0 Schools LSES 7 1.3 20 3.6 2.3 22 2.7 24 2.9 0.2
White HSES 8 1.5 35 6.4 4.9 49 5.9 64 7.7 1.8
LSES 4 0.7 19 3.5 2.8 12 1.4 10 1.2 -0.2
Did No t Enroll in Black HSES 3 0.5 28 5.1 4.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 Postsecondary Schools LSES 6 1.1 16 2.9 1.8 17 2.1 69 8.3 6.2
White HSES 11 2.0 57 10.4 8.4 92 11.1 158 19.1 8.0
LSES 12 2.2 30 5.5 3.3 21 2.5 47 5.7 3.2 Negative Sign=Lost Students; Positive Sign=Gained Students; Percentage Change=14.5% and Above. Other Races Not Included.
113 114
Question 3a What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, by type of employment and type of vocational education program taken in 9th through 12th grades?
Question 3a is an attempt to verify the percentage difference between vocational education and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999, and May 2000, from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools by vocational education program and employment type or field by socioeconomic status (SES). The data in Tables 31 and 32 were used to answer Question 3a. In order to establish the percentage difference in each employment field by employment status between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, the percentages of either HSES or LSES high school graduates (depending on which SES level is under consideration) who were either employed or unemployed in each field from each vocational education program were compared with the percentages of the respective HSES or LSES non-vocational education high school graduate who were either employed or unemployed in similar field. In Table 31 (May 1999 high school graduates) and Table 32 (May 2000 high school graduates), for each employment type or field, the percentages of non-vocational education high school graduates who were either employed (in this field; ITF) or unemployed (not in this field; NITF) are repeated for each vocational education program that comparison in employment in that particular field was made. The percentages were calculated by dividing the number of high school graduates employed (ITF), part time or full time, or unemployed (NITF) by the number of high school graduates in the vocational education program, according to SES level, and multiply by the number (100). Taking the Business Technology Education vocational program in Table 31 (May 1999 high school graduates) for instance; the Business Technology Education vocational program had 62 HSES high school graduates from the four high schools in 12th grade. Out of the 62 HSES vocational education high school graduates, 2 were employed PT in Business and Banking and related jobs. In order to calculate the percentage of HSES Business Technology Education high school graduates INF, the number (2) of HSES high school graduates was divided by the number (62) of HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education vocational program, which gave the number (0.0322). 115
The number (0.0322) was further multiplied by the number (100) to give 3.2 percent. Similar calculations with the corresponding employment field and employment and socioeconomic status were done for ITF and NITF vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates in Tables 31 and 32. A close look at Table 31 (May 1999 high school graduates) shows that among the LSES Family and Consumer Science Education vocational non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Business, Banking, and Related-Jobs, in this field (ITF) percentage difference of 19.5 percent (22.2% for Family and Consumer Science Education; 2.7% for non-vocational education) was recorded. NITF percentage difference was 19.5 percent (77.8% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 97.3% for non-vocational education). Among the LSES Technology Education and non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Engineering, Technology, Computer, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 47.3 percent (50.0% for students in Technology Education program; and 2.7% for non-vocational education) was noted. NITF percentage difference was 46.8 percent (50.0% for Technology Education; and 96.8% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES Business Technology Education vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates employed in Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 20.6 percent (23.8% for Business Technology Education: and 3.2% for non-vocational education) was recorded. NITF percentage difference recorded among the LSES Business Technology Education and non-vocational education high school graduates was 20.8 percent (76.2% for Business Technology Education; and 97.0% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES Public Service Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates who were employed in Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 15.9 percent (20.5% for Public Service Education; and 4.6% for non-vocational education) was recorded, and within the LSES Public Service Education vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, the ITF percentage difference was 71.8 percent (75.0% for Public Service Education; and 3.2% for non-vocational education). NITF percentage difference for HSES Public Service Education vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates was15.7 percent (79.5% for Public Service Education; and 95.2% for non-vocational education), and among the LSES Public 116
Service Education vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF percentage difference of 72.0 percent (25.0% for Public Service Education: and 97.0% for non-vocational education) was observed. Among the HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education programs and non-vocational education high school graduates employed in Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 17.8 percent (22.2% for Diversified Cooperative Education; and 4.6% for non-vocational education) was recorded. NITF percentage difference among the HSES students in Diversified Cooperative Education programs and non-vocational education high school graduates was 17.6 percent (77.6% for Diversified Cooperative Education; and 95.2% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates who were working in Other Jobs (unclassifiable jobs), NITF percentage difference of 94.9 percent (100.0% for Computer Education; and 94.9% for non-vocational education) was observed. In Grocery and Retail Stores, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference for HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and non- vocational education students was 39.9 percent (58.1% for Business Technology Education program; and 18.2% for non-vocational education); among the LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF percentage difference of 35.7 percent (61.9% for Business Technology Education; and 26.2% for non-vocational education) was noted. NITF percentage differences in Grocery and Retail Stores, and related jobs recorded for HSES Business Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, was 40.5 percent (38.7% for Business Technology Education; and 79.2% for non-vocational education); and among the LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF percentage difference was 36.8 percent (33.3% for Business Technology Education; and 70.1% for non-vocational education). Continue with Grocery and Retail Stores, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference for HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and non-vocational education was 18.2 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 18.2% for non-vocational education); and within the LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education and non-vocational 117 education high school graduates working PT, ITF percentage difference of 26.2 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 26.2% for non-vocational education) was noted. Within the LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and non-vocational high school graduates working full time, ITF percentage difference of 18.6 percent (22.2% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 3.6% for non-vocational education) was observed. NITF percentage recorded a percentage difference of 20.8 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 79.2% for non-vocational education) among the HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates in Grocery and Retail Stores, and related fields. Further inspection of Table 31 (May 1999 high school graduates) shows that among the HSES high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores, ITF percentage difference of 18.2 percent (0.0% for Technology Education; and 18.2% for non-vocational education) was noted. Among the LSES high school graduates also working part time, ITF percentage difference of 26.2 percent ( 0.0% for Technology Education; and 26.2% for non-vocational education) was noted. NITF percentage difference among the HSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates in Grocery and Retail fields was15.5 percent (94.7% for Technology Education; and 79.2% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non-vocational education, NITF percentage difference of 29.9 percent (100.0% for Technology Education; and 70.1% for non-vocational education) was recorded. Among the LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and non- vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and related retail jobs, the percentage difference recorded was 18.2 percent (44.4% for Computer Education; and 26.2% for non-vocational education). NITF percentage difference among the LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates was 14.5 percent (55.6% for Computer Education; and 70.1% for non- vocational education). Within the HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and retail-related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 18.2 percent (0.0% for Public Service Education; and 118
18.2% for non-vocational education) was noted. Among the LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education students working PT in Grocery and retail-related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 26.2 percent (0.0% for Public Service Education; and 26.2% for non-vocational education) was observed. NITF percentage difference of 20.8 percent (100.0% for Public Service Education; and 79.2% for non-vocational education) was noted among the HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education students in Grocery and retail-related jobs. Within the LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 29.9 percent (100.0% for Public Service Education; and 70.1% for non-vocational education) was recorded (Table 31). For the May 2000 high school graduates from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, Rickards High Schools (Table 32), the following ITF and NITF percentage differences were recorded. Inspection of Table 32 showed that among the LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the LSES non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Business, Banking, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 19.8 percent (22.9% Business Technology Education; and 3.1% for non- vocational education). In Business and Banking and related jobs, NITF percentage difference for HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates was16.6 percent (80.5% for Business Technology Education; and 97.1% for non-vocational education), and within the LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF percentage difference of 32.2 percent (68.6% for Business Technology Education; and 94.2% for non-vocational education) was recorded. Within the LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the LSES non-vocational education high school graduates working in Business, Banking and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 35.1 percent (38.2% for Computer Education; and 3.1% for non-vocational education) was noted. Within the HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF in Business, Banking and related jobs recorded a percentage difference of 17.1 percent (80.0% for Computer Education; and 97.1% for non-vocational education), and among the LSES category, 119
NITF noted percentage difference of 32.4 percent (61.8% for Computer Education; and 94.2% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, a 16.1 percent difference (19.2% for Public Service Education; and 3.1% for non-vocational education) was recorded for ITF in Business, Banking and related jobs. A further inspection of Table 32 indicated that among the HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF in Business and Banking and related jobs recorded a percentage difference of 18.3 percent (78.8% for Diversified Cooperative Education; and 97.1% for non-vocational education). In Engineering and related jobs, among the HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF percentage difference was 18.6 percent (78.5% for Computer Education; and 97.1% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the HSES non-vocational education high school graduates employed in Engineering and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 18.3 percent (78.8% for Diversified Cooperative Education; 97.1% for non-vocational education) was recorded. A further look at Table 32 indicated that among the HSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Information, Entertainment, and Information-related jobs, ITF percentage difference was 21.0 percent (20.0% for Technology Education; and 0.3% for non- vocational education); and among the LSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF percentage difference was 24.2 percent (25.0% for Technology Education; and 0.8% for non- vocational education). Within the HSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non-vocational education, NITF percentage difference of 18.7 percent (80.0% for Technology Education; and 98.7% for non-vocational education) was recorded in Information, Entertainment, and Information-related jobs, and among the LSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF percentage difference of 23.8 percent (75.0% for Technology Education; and 98.8% for non-vocational education) was noted. 120
A further look at the Information, Entertainment, and Information-related jobs in Table 32 indicated that among the HSES high school graduates in Computer Education and non-vocational education program, NITF percentage difference was 18.7 percent (80.0% for Computer Education; and 98.7% for non-vocational education); and among the LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and LSES non- vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.4 percent (82.4% for Computer Education; 98.8% for non-vocational education). In Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 16.7 percent (75.6% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 92.3% for non-vocational education) was recorded among the HSES Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES non-vocational education NITF high school graduates. Continue with Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related jobs, among the HSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non- vocational education high school graduates, ITF percentage difference of 18.5 percent (20.0% for Technology Education; and 1.5% for non-vocational education) was noted. NITF recorded a percentage difference of 32.3 percent (60.0% for Technology Education; and 92.3% for non-vocational education) within the HSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and the HSES non-vocational education high school graduates. In Law Enforcement and related jobs in Table 32, among the HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 30.2 percent (36.4% for Public Service Education; and 6.2% for non-vocational education); and within the LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education, ITF percentage difference in was 18.0 percent (30.8% for Public Service Education; and 12.8% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF in Law Enforcement and related jobs recorded a percentage difference of 28.7 percent (63.6% for Public Service Education; and 92.3% for non-vocational education); and within the LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 19.0 percent (65.4% for Public Service Education; and 84.4% for non-vocational education). 121
For Medical and Health-related types of employment, within the LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES non-vocational education high school graduates working part time, ITF percentage difference of 29.4 percent (31.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 1.6% for non-vocational education) was noted; and among the LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES non-vocational education, NITF percentage difference of 29.4 percent (69.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 98.4% for non-vocational education) was observed. Further inspection of Table 32 showed that within the LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES non-vocational education high school graduates employed in Grocery, Retail, and related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 15.9 percent (27.6% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 11.7% for non-vocational education) was recorded Among the LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery, Retail, and retail-related jobs, ITF percentage difference of 18.7 percent (24.1% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 5.4% for non- vocational education) was observed. Continue with Grocery and Retail and related jobs, between the HSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates employed part time, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 35.8 percent (40.0% for Technology Education; and 4.2% for non-vocational education); and among the LSES students in Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF percentage difference of 25.8 percent (37.5% for Technology Education; and 11.7% for non-vocational education) was noted. NITF percentage difference of 20.4 (62.5% for Technology Education; and 82.9% for non-vocational education) was noted for LSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates. Within the HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery, Retail, and retail-related jobs, ITF noted a percentage difference of 27.6 percent (31.8% for Public Service Education; and 4.2% for non-vocational education); and among the HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education working full time, ITF percentage difference was 14.6 percent (15.9% for Public Service 122
Education; and 1.3% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, also employed full time, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 17.7 percent (23.1% for Public Service Education; and 5.4% for non-vocational education). NITF percentage difference was 22.1 percent (52.3% for Public Service Education; and 74.4% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 29.1 percent (53.8% for Public Service Education; and 82.9% for non-vocational education) in Grocery, Retail, and retail-related jobs (Table 32). Summary 1. Most of the fields where a higher rate of employment, that is, ITF (14.5% and above) were reported between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates were part time employment with wages between $0.00 and $2,677.00 per quarter (Tables 31 and 32). 2. In the fields where higher rates of employment (ITF) were noted between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, most vocational education high school graduates were working in the fields for which they were trained in high school (advantage) (Tables 31 and 32). 3. The only field where non-vocational education high school graduates reported higher rate of employment (ITF) (advantage) than their vocational education colleagues was in Grocery and Retail Stores and Related-jobs (Table 31), contrary to vocational education high school graduates who recorded higher rates of employment (ITF) (advantage) in most of the fields (Tables 31 and 32). 4. In the fields where full time employment were reported, vocational education high school graduates, compared with their non-vocational education colleagues, recorded higher rates of employment (ITF), with wages of $2,678.00 and over per quarter (advantage) (Table 32). Table 31: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Differences in Employment Type and Vocational Education Program. Employment Job SES Business Tech. Education % Family & Consumer % Technology Ed. % Non-Voc. Ed. Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Science Education Diff. (In this Program) Diff. (Number) (In this Program) HSES=669 HSES=62 HSES=21 HSES=19 LSES=221 LSES=21 LSES=9 LSES=4 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Business & PT HSES 2 3.2 0.4 1 4.8 1.2 0 0.0 3.6 24 3.6 Banking- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 2.7 2 22.2 19.5 0 0.0 2.7 6 2.7 FT HSES 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 1 0.1
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or HSES 60 96.8 0.4 20 95.2 1.1 19 100.0 3.7 644 96.3 Employed in another Field LSES 21 100.0 2.7 7 77.8 19.5 4 100.0 2.7 215 97.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
123 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service Ed. % Diversified % Non-Voc. Ed. Type Status (In this Program) Diff (In this Program) Diff. Cooperative Ed. Diff. (Number) HSES=35 . HSES=39 (In this Program) HSES=669 LSES=9 LSES=8 HSES=107 LSES=221 LSES=38 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Business & PT HSES 1 2.9 0.6 2 5.1 1.5 4 3.7 0.1 24 3.6 Banking- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 2 5.3 2.6 6 2.7 FT HSES 0 0.0 0.1 3 7.7 7.6 2 1.9 1.8 1 0.1
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 34 97.1 0.8 34 87.2 9.1 101 94.4 1.9 644 96.3 in another Field LSES 9 100.0 2.7 8 100.0 2.7 36 94.7 2.6 215 97.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
124 Table 31 (Contd.):
Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % Non-Vocational Type Status Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. Education (In this Program) (In this Program) (In this Program) (Number) HSES=62 HSES=21 HSES=19 HSES=669 LSES=21 LSES=9 LSES=4 LSES=221 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Engineering, PT HSES 1 1.6 0.5 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 14 2.1 Techno logy, LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 2 50.0 47.3 6 2.7 Computer, Environm ental, FT HSES 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 5 0.7 & Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 0.5 0 0.0 0.5 0 0.0 0.5 1 0.5
Unemployed or HSES 61 98.4 1.2 21 100.0 2.8 19 100.0 2.8 650 97.2 Employed in another Field LSES 21 100.0 3.2 9 100.0 3.2 2 50.0 46.8 214 96.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
125 Table 31 (Contd.):
Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service Ed. % Diversified % Non-Voc. Ed. Type Status (In this Program) Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Cooperative Ed. Diff. (Number) HSES=35 HSES=39 (In this Program) HSES=669 LSES=9 LSES=8 HSES=107 LSES=221 LSES=38 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Engineering, PT HSES 0 0.0 2.1 1 2.6 0.5 10 9.3 7.2 14 2.1 Techno logy, LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 6 15.8 13.1 6 2.7 Computer, Environm ental, FT HSES 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 1 0.9 0.2 5 0.7 & Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 0.5 0 0.0 0.5 0 0.0 0.5 1 0.5
Unemployed or HSES 35 100.0 2.8 38 97.4 0.2 95 88.8 8.4 650 97.2 Employed in another Field LSES 9 100.0 3.2 8 100.0 3.2 36 94.7 2.1 214 96.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
126 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % Non-Vocational Type Status Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. Education (In this Program) (In this Program) (In this Program) (Number) HSES=62 HSES=21 HSES=19 HSES=669 LSES=21 LSES=9 LSES=4 LSES=221
Total % Total % Total % Total %
Fashion & PT HSES 1 1.6 0.6 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 7 1.0 Fashion- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 6 2.7 FT HSES 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 5.3 5.0 2 0.3
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or HSES 61 98.4 0.3 21 100.0 1.3 18 94.7 4.0 660 98.7 Employed in another Field LSES 21 100.0 2.7 9 100.0 2.7 4 100.0 2.7 215 97.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
127 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non-Voc. Ed. Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. (Number) HSES=35 (In this Program) (In this Program) HSES=669 LSES=9 HSES=39 HSES=107 LSES=221 LSES=8 LSES=38 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Fashion & PT HSES 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 5 4.7 3.7 7 1.0 Fashion- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 4 10.5 7.8 6 2.7 FT HSES 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.9 0.6 2 0.3
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 35 100.0 1.3 39 100.0 1.3 101 94.4 4.3 660 98.7 in another Field LSES 9 100.0 2.7 8 100.0 2.7 34 89.5 7.8 215 97.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
128 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business % Family & Consumer % Technology % Non- Type Status Technology Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. Vocational Education (In this Program) (In this Program) Education (In this Program) HSES=21 HSES=19 (Number) HSES=62 LSES=9 LSES=4 HSES=669 LSES=21 LSES=221 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Information, PT HSES 1 1.6 4.1 1 4.8 0.9 0 0.0 5.7 38 5.7 Entertainment, & Information-Related LSES 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 9 4.1 Jobs FT HSES 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 1 0.1
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 61 98.4 4.2 20 95.2 8.9 19 100.0 5.8 630 94.2 in another Field LSES 21 100.0 4.1 9 100.0 4.1 4 100.0 4.1 212 95.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed in or Unemployed Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
129 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified % Non-Vocational Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Cooperative Diff. Education HSES=35 (In this Program) Education (Number) LSES=9 HSES=39 (In this Program) HSES=669 LSES=8 HSES=107 LSES=221 LSES=38 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Information, PT HSES 0 0.0 5.7 1 2.6 3.1 8 7.5 1.8 38 5.7 Entertainment, & Information- LSES 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 4 10.5 6.4 9 4.1 Related Jobs FT HSES 0 0.0 0.1 1 2.6 2.5 0 0.0 0.1 1 0.1
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 35 100.0 5.8 37 94.9 6.7 99 92.5 1.7 630 94.2 in another Field LSES 9 100.0 4.1 8 100.0 4.1 34 89.5 6.4 212 95.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
130 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business % Family & % Technology Education % Non-Vocational Type Status Technology Diff Consumer Science Diff. (In this Program) Diff Education Education . Education HSES=19 . (Number) (In this Program) (In this Program) LSES=4 HSES=669 HSES=62 HSES=21 LSES=221 LSES=21 LSES=9 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Law PT HSES 5 8.1 3.5 1 4.8 0.2 0 0.0 4.6 31 4.6 Enforcem ent, Public Service, LSES 5 23.8 20.6 1 11.1 7.9 0 0.0 3.2 7 3.2 Education, & FT HSES 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 1 0.1 Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 57 91.9 3.3 20 95.2 0.0 19 100.0 4.8 637 95.2 in another Field LSES 16 76.2 20.8 8 88.9 8.1 4 100.0 3.0 214 97.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
131 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Vocational HSES=35 (In this (In this Program) Education LSES=9 Program) HSES=107 (Number) HSES=39 LSES=38 HSES=669 Total % LSES=8 Total % LSES=221 Total % Total %
Law PT HSES 1 2.9 1.7 8 20.5 15.9 24 22.4 17.8 31 4.6 Enforcem ent, Public Service, LSES 1 11.1 7.9 6 75.0 71.8 4 10.0 7.3 7 3.2 Education, & FT HSES 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 1 0.1 Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 34 97.1 1.9 31 79.5 15.7 83 77.6 17.6 637 95.2 in another Field LSES 8 88.9 8.1 2 25.0 72.0 34 89.5 7.5 214 97.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
132 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & % Technology Education % Non-Vocational Type Status Education Diff. Consumer Science Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Education (In this Program) Education HSES=19 (Number) HSES=62 (In this Program) LSES=4 HSES=669 LSES=21 HSES=21 LSES=221 LSES=9 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Medical, & PT HSES 1 1.6 0.6 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 7 1.0 Health- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 4 1.8 FT HSES 1 1.6 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 1 0.1
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 60 96.8 2.0 21 100.0 1.2 19 100.0 1.2 661 98.8 in another Field LSES 21 100.0 1.8 9 100.0 1.8 4 100.0 1.8 217 98.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
133 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non-Vocational Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Education HSES=35 (In this Program) (In this Program) (Number) LSES=9 HSES=39 HSES=107 HSES=669 LSES=8 LSES=38 LSES=221 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Medical, & PT HSES 2 5.7 4.7 1 2.6 1.6 6 5.6 4.6 7 1.0 Health- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 5.3 3.5 4 1.8 FT HSES 1 2.9 2.8 1 2.6 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 1 0.1
LSES 1 11.1 11.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 32 91.4 7.4 37 94.9 3.9 101 94.4 4.4 661 98.8 in another Field LSES 8 88.9 9.3 8 100.0 1.8 36 94.7 3.5 217 98.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
134 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % Non- Type Status Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Vocational (In this Program) (In this Program) HSES=19 Education HSES=62 HSES=21 LSES=4 (Number) LSES=21 LSES=9 HSES=669 Total % Total % Total % LSES=221 Total %
Other PT HSES 3 4.8 0.2 1 4.8 0.2 0 0.0 4.6 31 4.6 Jobs LSES 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 12 1.8
FT HSES 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 3 0.4
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 59 95.2 0.3 20 95.2 0.3 19 100.0 5.1 635 94.9 in another Field LSES 21 100.0 5.4 9 100.0 5.4 4 100.0 5.4 209 94.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
135 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Vocational HSES=35 (In this Program) (In this Program) Education LSES=9 HSES=39 HSES=107 (Number) LSES=8 LSES=38 HSES=669 Total % Total % Total % LSES=221 Total %
Other PT HSES 0 0.0 4.6 0 0.0 4.6 12 11.2 6.6 31 4.6 Jobs LSES 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 3 7.9 6.1 12 1.8
FT HSES 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 3 0.4
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 35 100.0 94.9 39 100.0 5.1 95 88.8 6.1 635 94.9 in another Field LSES 9 100.0 5.4 8 100.0 5.4 35 92.1 2.5 209 94.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
136 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % Non-Vocational Type Status Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Education (In this Program) (In this Program) HSES=19 (Number) HSES=62 HSES=21 LSES=4 HSES=669 LSES=21 LSES=9 LSES=221 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Grocery & PT HSES 36 58.1 39.9 0 0.0 18.2 0 0.0 18.2 122 18.2 Retail Stores, Restaurants, LSES 13 61.9 35.7 0 0.0 26.2 0 0.0 26.2 58 26.2 Hotels, & FT HSES 2 3.2 0.7 0 0.0 2.5 1 5.3 2.8 17 2.5 Related-Jo bs. LSES 1 4.8 1.2 2 22.2 18.6 0 0.0 3.6 8 3.6
Unemployed or Employed HSES 24 38.7 40.5 21 100.0 20.8 18 94.7 15.5 530 79.2 in another Field LSES 7 33.3 36.8 7 77.8 7.6 4 100.0 29.9 155 70.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
137 Table 31 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Vocational HSES=35 (In this Program) (In this Program) Education LSES=9 HSES=39 HSES=107 (Number) LSES=8 LSES=38 HSES=669 Total % Total % Total % LSES=221 Total %
Grocery & PT HSES 8 22.9 4.7 0 0.0 18.2 10 9.3 8.9 122 18.2 Retail Stores, Restaurants, LSES 4 44.4 18.2 0 0.0 26.2 7 18.4 7.8 58 26.2 Hotels, & FT HSES 2 5.7 3.2 0 0.0 2.5 11 10.3 7.8 17 2.5 Related-Jobs LSES 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 4 10.5 6.9 8 3.6
Unemployed or Employed HSES 25 71.4 7.8 39 100.0 20.8 86 80.4 1.2 530 79.2 in another Field LSES 5 55.6 14.5 8 100.0 29.9 27 71.1 1.0 155 70.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
138 Table 32: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Compared by Percentage Differences in Employment Type and Vocational Education Program. Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Ed. % Non-Vocational Type Status Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Education (In this Program) (In this Program) HSES=5 (Number) HSES=82 HSES=45 LSES=8 HSES=612 LSES=35 LSES=29 LSES=257 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Business & PT HSES 10 12.2 10.9 1 2.2 0.9 0 0.0 1.3 8 1.3 Banking- Related Jobs LSES 8 22.9 19.8 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 8 3.1 FT HSES 6 7.3 5.7 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 10 1.6
LSES 3 8.6 5.9 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 7 2.7
Unemployed or Employed HSES 66 80.5 16.6 44 97.8 0.7 5 100.0 2.9 594 97.1 in another Field LSES 24 68.6 32.2 29 100.0 5.8 8 100.0 5.8 242 94.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
139 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Vocational HSES=65 (In this Program) (In this Program) Education LSES=34 HSES=44 HSES=113 (Number) LSES=26 LSES=75 HSES=612 Total % Total % Total % LSES=257 Total %
Business & PT HSES 9 13.8 12.5 6 13.6 12.3 17 15.0 13.7 8 1.3 Banking- Related Jobs LSES 13 38.2 35.1 5 19.2 16.1 7 9.3 6.2 8 3.1 FT HSES 4 6.2 4.6 0 0.0 1.6 7 6.2 4.6 10 1.6
LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 6 8.0 5.3 7 2.7
Unemployed or Employed HSES 52 80.0 17.1 38 86.4 10.7 89 78.8 18.3 594 97.1 in another Field LSES 21 61.8 32.4 21 80.8 13.4 62 82.7 11.5 242 94.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
140 Table 32 (Contd.):
Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & % Technology Education % Non-Vocation Type Status Education Diff. Consumer Science Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Education (In this Program) Education HSES=5 (Number) HSES=82 (In this Program) LSES=8 HSES=612 LSES=35 HSES=45 LSES=257 Total % LSES=29 Total % Total % Total %
Engineering, PT HSES 6 7.3 6.0 3 6.7 5.4 0 0.0 1.3 8 1.3 Techno logy, LSES 2 5.7 2.2 1 3.4 0.1 0 0.0 3.5 9 3.5 Computer, Environm ental, FT HSES 4 4.9 3.3 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 10 1.6 & Related Jobs LSES 2 5.7 2.6 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 8 3.1
Unemployed or Employed HSES 72 87.8 9.3 42 93.3 3.8 5 100.0 2.9 594 97.1 in another Field LSES 31 88.6 4.8 28 96.6 3.2 8 100.0 6.6 240 93.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
141 Table 32 (Contd.):
Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education. Diff. Vocational HSES=65 (In this Program) (In this Program) Education LSES=34 HSES=44 HSES=113 (Number) LSES=26 LSES=75 HSES=612 Total % Total % Total % LSES=257 Total %
Engineering, PT HSES 10 15.4 14.1 0 0.0 1.3 14 12.4 11.1 8 1.3 Techno logy, LSES 6 17.6 14.1 0 0.0 3.5 7 9.3 5.8 9 3.5 Computer, Environm ental, FT HSES 4 6.2 4.6 0 0.0 1.6 10 8.8 7.2 10 1.6 & Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 6 8.0 4.9 8 3.1
Unemployed or Employed HSES 51 78.5 18.6 44 100.0 2.9 89 78.8 18.3 594 97.1 in another Field LSES 28 88.4 5.0 26 100.0 6.6 62 82.7 10.7 240 93.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
142 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % Non-Vocational Type Status Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Education (In this Program) (In this Program) HSES=5 (Number) HSES=82 HSES=45 LSES=8 HSES=612 LSES=35 LSES=29 LSES=257 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Fashion & PT HSES 0 0.0 1.8 6 13.3 11.5 0 0.0 1.8 11 1.8 Fashion- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 8 3.1 FT HSES 1 1.2 1.2 5 11.1 11.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 81 98.8 0.6 34 75.6 22.6 5 100.0 1.8 601 98.2 in another Field LSES 35 100.0 3.1 29 100.0 3.1 8 100.0 3.1 249 96.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
143 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Vocational HSES=65 (In this Program) (In this Program) Education LSES=34 HSES=44 HSES=113 (Number) LSES=26 LSES=75 HSES=612 Total % Total % Total % LSES=257 Total %
Fashion & PT HSES 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 5 4.4 2.6 11 1.8 Fashion-Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 9 12.0 8.9 8 3.1 FT HSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 65 100.0 1.8 44 100.0 1.8 108 95.6 2.6 601 98.2 in another Field LSES 34 100.0 3.1 26 100.0 3.1 66 88.0 8.9 249 96.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
144 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Ed. % Non-Voc. Type Status Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (In this Diff. Ed. (In this Program) (In this Program) Program) (Number) HSES=82 HSES=45 HSES=5 HSES=612 LSES=35 LSES=29 LSES=8 LSES=257 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Information, PT HSES 6 7.3 7.0 0 0.0 0.3 1 20.0 21.0 2 0.3 Entertainment, & Information- LSES 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 25.0 24.2 2 0.8 Related Jobs FT HSES 3 3.7 2.7 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 6 1.0
LSES 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 1 12.5 12.1 1 0.4
Unemployed or Employed HSES 73 89.0 9.7 45 100.0 1.3 4 80.0 18.7 604 98.7 in another Field LSES 35 100.0 1.2 29 100.0 1.1 6 75.0 23.8 254 98.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
145 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Ed. % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non-Voc. Ed. Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. (Number) HSES=65 (In this Program) (In this Program) HSES=612 LSES=34 HSES=44 HSES=113 LSES=257 LSES=26 LSES=75
Total % Total % Total % Total %
Information, PT HSES 9 13.8 13.5 0 0.0 0.3 7 6.2 3.8 2 0.3 Entertainment, & Information- LSES 4 11.8 11.0 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 2 0.8 Related Jobs FT HSES 4 6.2 5.2 0 0.0 1.0 9 8.0 4.9 6 1.0
LSES 2 5.9 5.5 2 7.7 7.3 0 0.0 0.4 1 0.4
Unemployed or Employed HSES 52 80.0 18.7 44 100.0 1.3 97 85.9 12.8 604 98.7 in another Field LSES 28 82.4 16.4 24 92.3 6.5 95 100.0 1.2 254 98.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
146 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % Non- Type Status Technology Diff. Science Education Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Vocational Education (In this Program) HSES=5 Education (In this Program) HSES=45 LSES=8 (Number) HSES=82 LSES=29 HSES=612 LSES=35 Total % Total % LSES=257 Total % Total %
Law PT HSES 5 6.1 0.1 5 11.1 4.9 1 20.0 13.8 38 6.2 Enforcem ent, Public Service, LSES 2 5.7 7.1 4 13.8 1.0 1 12.5 0.3 33 12.8 Education, & FT HSES 4 4.9 3.4 6 13.3 11.8 1 20.0 18.5 9 1.5 Related Jobs LSES 2 5.7 3.0 1 3.4 0.7 1 12.5 9.8 7 2.7
Unemployed or Employed HSES 73 89.0 3.3 34 75.6 16.7 3 60.0 32.3 565 92.3 in another Field LSES 31 88.6 4.2 24 82.8 1.6 6 75.0 9.4 217 84.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
147 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff Vocational HSES=65 (In this Program) (In this Program) . Education LSES=34 HSES=44 HSES=113 (Number) LSES=26 LSES=75 HSES=612 Total % Total % Total % LSES=257 Total %
Law PT HSES 6 9.2 3.0 16 36.4 30.2 6 8.2 2.0 38 6.2 Enforcem ent, Public Service, LSES 4 11.8 1.0 8 30.8 18.0 6 8.0 4.8 33 12.8 Education, FT HSES 4 6.2 4.7 0 0.0 1.5 3 4.1 2.6 9 1.5 & Related Jobs LSES 2 5.9 3.2 1 3.8 1.1 0 0.0 2.7 7 2.7
Unemployed or Employed HSES 55 84.6 7.7 28 63.6 28.7 104 92.0 0.3 565 92.3 in another Field LSES 28 82.4 2.0 17 65.4 19.0 69 92.0 7.6 217 84.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
148 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % Non- Type Status Education Diff. Science Education Diff (In this Program) Diff. Vocational (In this Program) (In this Program) . HSES=5 Ed. HSES=82 HSES=45 LSES=8 (Number) LSES=35 LSES=29 HSES=612 Total % Total % Total % LSES=257 Total %
Medical, & PT HSES 2 2.4 0.6 7 15.6 13.8 0 0.0 1.8 11 1.8 Health- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 1.6 9 31.0 29.4 0 0.0 1.6 4 1.6 FT HSES 1 1.2 0.4 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 5 0.8
LSES 2 5.7 5.7 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 79 96.3 1.1 38 84.4 13.0 5 100.0 2.6 596 97.4 in another Field LSES 33 94.3 4.1 20 69.0 29.4 8 100.0 1.6 253 98.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
149 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non-Vocational Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Education HSES=65 (In this Program) (In this Program) (Number) LSES=34 HSES=44 HSES=113 HSES=612 LSES=26 LSES=75 LSES=257 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Medical, & PT HSES 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 3 2.7 0.9 11 1.8 Health- Related Jobs LSES 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 4 1.6 FT HSES 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 2 1.8 1.0 5 0.8
LSES 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 3 4.0 4.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Employed HSES 65 100.0 2.6 44 100.0 2.6 108 95.6 1.8 596 97.4 in another Field LSES 34 100.0 1.6 26 100.0 1.6 72 96.0 2.4 253 98.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
150 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % Non- Type Status Ed. Diff. Science Education Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Vocational (In this Program) (In this Program) HSES=5 Education HSES=82 HSES=45 LSES=8 (Number) LSES=35 LSES=29 HSES=612 Total % Total % Total % LSES=257 Total %
Other PT HSES 8 9.8 8.0 1 2.2 0.4 0 0.0 1.8 11 1.8 Jobs LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 7 2.7
FT HSES 6 7.3 3.4 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 24 3.9
LSES 3 8.6 5.9 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 7 2.7
Unemployed or Employed HSES 68 82.9 11.4 44 97.8 3.5 5 100.0 5.7 577 94.3 in another Field LSES 32 91.4 3.2 22 100.0 5.4 8 100.0 5.4 243 94.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
151 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Vocational HSES=65 (In this Program) (In this Program) Education LSES=34 HSES=44 HSES=113 (Number) LSES=26 LSES=75 HSES=612 Total % Total % Total % LSES=257 Total %
Other PT HSES 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 7 6.2 4.4 11 1.8 Jobs LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 7 9.3 6.6 7 2.7
FT HSES 0 0.0 3.9 1 2.3 1.6 5 4.4 0.5 24 3.9
LSES 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 6 8.0 5.3 7 2.7
Unemployed or Employed HSES 65 100.0 5.7 43 97.7 3.4 101 89.4 4.9 577 94.3 in another Field LSES 34 100.0 5.4 26 100.0 5.4 62 82.7 11.9 243 94.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
152 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Business T echnology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % Non-Vocational Type Status Education Diff. Science Ed. Diff. (In this Program) Diff. Education (In this Program) (In this Program) HSES=5 (Number) HSES=82 HSES=45 LSES=8 HSES=612 LSES=35 LSES=29 LSES=257 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Grocery & PT HSES 9 11.0 6.8 5 11.1 6.9 2 40.0 35.8 26 4.2 Retail Stores, Restaurants, LSES 4 11.4 0.3 8 27.6 15.9 3 37.5 25.8 30 11.7 Hotels, & FT HSES 5 6.1 4.8 6 13.3 12.0 0 0.0 1.3 8 1.3 Related-Jo bs. LSES 5 14.3 8.9 7 24.1 18.7 0 0.0 5.4 14 5.4
Unemployed or Employed HSES 68 82.9 8.5 34 75.6 1.2 3 60.0 14.4 578 74.4 in another Field LSES 26 74.2 8.7 14 48.3 26.1 5 62.5 20.4 213 82.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
153 Table 32 (Contd.): Employment Job SES Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % Non- Type Status (In this Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. Vocational HSES=65 (In this Program) (In this Program) Education LSES=34 HSES=44 HSES=113 (Number) LSES=26 LSES=75 HSES=612 Total % Total % Total % LSES=257 Total %
Grocery & PT HSES 7 10.8 6.6 14 31.8 27.6 7 6.2 2.0 26 4.2 Retail Stores, Restaurants, LSES 2 5.9 5.8 6 23.1 11.4 9 12.0 0.3 30 11.7 Hotels, & FT HSES 8 12.3 11.0 7 15.9 14.6 6 5.3 4.0 8 1.3 Related-Jobs LSES 2 5.9 0.5 6 23.1 17.7 9 12.0 6.6 14 5.4
Unemployed or Employed HSES 50 76.9 2.5 23 52.3 22.1 100 88.5 14.1 578 74.4 in another Field LSES 30 88.2 5.3 14 53.8 29.1 57 76.0 6.9 213 82.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; HSES=Higher Socioeconomic Status; LSES=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=$2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type; PT=Part Time Employee; FT=Full Time Employee; Percentage Difference=14.5% and Above.
154 155
Question 3b What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on type of employment and type of vocational education program taken in 9th through 12th grades by gender?
Question 3b is an attempt to verify the percentage difference between vocational education and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999, and May 2000, from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools by vocational education program and employment type or field by gender and socioeconomic status (SES). The data in Tables 33 and 34 were used to answer Question 3b. In order to establish the percentage difference in each employment field by employment status between vocational and non-vocational high school graduates, the percentages of either male or female HSES and LSES high school graduate (depending on which gender and SES level is under consideration) who were either employed (in this field; ITF) or unemployed (not in this field; NITF) in each field from each vocational education program were compared with the percentages of respective male or female HSES or LSES non-vocational education high school graduate who were either employed (in this field; ITF) or unemployed (not in this field; NITF) in similar field. In Table 33 (May 1999 high school graduates) and Table 34 (May 2000 high school graduates), for each employment type or field, the percentages of non-vocational education high school graduates who were either ITF or NITF are repeated for each vocational education program that comparison in employment in that particular field was made. The percentages were calculated by dividing the number of either male or female ITF, part time or full time (PT or FT) or NITF by the total number of male or female (depending on which gender and SES category was under consideration) in the vocational education program, and multiplying by the number (100). Taking the Business Technology Education vocational education program in Table 33 (May 1999 high school graduates) for instance; the Business Technology Education vocational program had 20 HSES male students who graduated from the four 156 high schools in May, 1999. Out of the 20 HSES male high school graduates, 1 was employed (ITF), PT and 19 were not employed (NITF) in Business, Banking, and related fields. In order to calculate the percentage of HSES male Business Technology Education high school graduates ITF, the number (1) HSES male high school graduate ITF was divided by the number (20) HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education vocational program, which gave the number (0.05). The number (0.05) was further multiplied by the number (100) to give 5.0 Percent. Similar calculations with the corresponding employment field and socioeconomic status level were done for the ITF and NITF vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates throughout Tables 33 and 34. A close look at Table 33 (May 1999 high school graduates) showed that among the LSES female high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and non-vocational education high school graduates who were working PT in Business, Banking, and related jobs, INF percentage difference was 23.1 percent (25.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 1.9% for non-vocational education). NITF percentage difference of 23.1 percent (75.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 98.1% for non-vocational education) was recorded among the LSES female high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the non-vocational education LSES female high school graduates in Business, Banking, and related fields. Among the LSES male high school graduates in Computer Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education male high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 96.6 percent (0.0% for Computer Education program; and 96.6% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Within the HSES male high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 15.0 percent (15.0% for Public Service Education program; and 0.0% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related jobs. NITF percentage difference among the HSES male high school graduates in Public Service 157
Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education male high school graduates was 17.3 percent (80.0% for Public Service Education program; and 97.3% for non-vocational education). In Engineering and related jobs or fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 98.3 percent (100.0% for Technology Education program; and 1.7% for non-vocational education) among the LSES male high school graduates in Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates. NITF noted a percentage difference of 98.3 percent (0.0% for Technology Education program; and 98.3% for non-vocational education) within the LSES male students in Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the LSES male high school graduates in Computer Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 98.3 percent (0.0% for Computer Education program; 98.3% for non-vocational education) in Engineering and related jobs. Within the LSES male high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and LSES male non-vocational education students, ITF in Engineering and related jobs percentage difference was15.0 percent (16.7% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 1.7% for non-vocational education). NITF percentage difference among the LSES male high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates was 15.0 percent (83.3% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 98.3% for non-vocational education). In Fashion and related fields, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 98.3 percent (0.0% for Computer Education; and 98.3% for non-vocational education) among the LSES male high school graduates in Computer Education program a and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates. Information and related fields recorded NITF percentage difference of 95.8 percent (0.0% for Computer Education; and 95.8% for non-vocational education) within the LSES male high school graduates in Computer Education program and the LSES 158 male non-vocational education male high school graduates. In Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related jobs, the ITF noted a percentage difference of 17.5 percent (20.0% for Business Technology Education; and 2.5% for non-vocational education) among the LSES male high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education male high school graduates; and within the female LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the female LSES non-vocational education, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 21.1 percent (25.0% for Business Technology Education; and 3.9% for non-vocational education). NITF percentage difference in Law Enforcement and related fields among the LSES male Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates was 17.5 percent (80.0% for Business Technology Education; and 97.5% for non-vocational education). Within the female LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the female LSES non-vocational education, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 21.1 percent (75.0% for Business Technology Education; and 96.1% for non-vocational education). Continue with Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related fields in Table 23 (May 1999 high school graduates), NITF noted a percentage difference of 97.5 percent (0.0% for Computer Education program; and 97.5 % for non-vocational education) among the LSES male high school graduates in Computer Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the LSES male high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 97.5 percent (100.0% for Public Service Education program; and 2.5% for and non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields. Among the HSES female high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a 22.9 percent (26.3% for Public Service Education program; and 3.4% for non- vocational education) difference in Law Enforcement and related fields; and within the 159
LSES female high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 62.8 percent (66.7% for Public Service Education program; and 3.9% for non-vocational education); whereas, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 97.5 percent (0.0% for Public Service Education program; and 97.5% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields among the LSES male high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 20.6 percent (73.7% for Public Service Education program; and 94.3% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; and within the LSES female high school graduates in Public Service Education program and LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded of 62.8 percent (33.3% for Public Service Education program; and 96.1% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields. Within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 22.0 percent (25.4% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 3.4% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Diversified Cooperative Education program and HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 19.7 percent (74.6% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 94.3% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields. In Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF noted a percentage difference of 31.6 percent (45.0% for Business Technology Education program; and 13.4% for non- vocational education) among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Business 160
Technology Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates; and within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 30.3 percent (60.0% for Business Technology Education program; and 29.7% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related field, a percentage difference of 41.2 percent (64.3% for Business Technology Education program; and 23.1% for non-vocational education) was noted; and within the LSES female high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates ITF as PT workers, a percentage difference of 40.2 percent (62.5% for Business Technology Education program; and 22.3% for non-vocational education) was observed. Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, a percentage difference of 17.5 percent (20.0% for Business Technology Education program; and 2.5% for non- vocational education) was recorded. Within the HSES male high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF in Grocery and Retail Stores and related jobs recorded a percentage difference of 29.2 percent (55.0% for Business Technology Education program; and 84.2% for non- vocational education); and among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates in Grocery and Retail Stores, NITF noted a percentage difference of 47.8 percent (20.0% for Business Technology Education program; and 67.8% for non- vocational education). 161
Within the female HSES female high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 43.3 percent (31.0% for Business Technology Education program; and 74.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; and among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 35.3 percent (37.5% for Business Technology Education program; and 72.8% for non- vocational education). Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, a 29.7 percentage difference (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 29.7% for non-vocational education) was recorded. Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, a percentage difference of 23.1 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 23.1% for non-vocational education) was recorded; and within the LSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, a percentage difference of 22.3 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 22.3% for non- vocational education) was observed. Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related jobs, a percentage difference of 97.5 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 2.5% for non-vocational education) was noted. 162
NITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.8 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 84.2% for on-vocational education) among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields. Within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 67.8 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 67.8% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields. Within the female HSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 25.7 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 74.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; and among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 14.7 percent (87.5% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 72.8% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, a percentage difference of 29.7 percent (0.0% for Technology Education program; and 29.7% for non-vocational education) was recorded. Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.8 percent (100.0% for Technology Education program; and 84.2% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; and within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Technology 163
Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, NITF noted a percentage difference of 32.2 percent (100.0% for Technology Education program; and 67.8% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a un percentage difference of 16.6 percent (90.9% for Technology Education program; and 74.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; and among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 27.2 percent (100.0% for Technology Education program; and 72.8% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 29.7 percent (0.0% for Computer Education program; and 29.7% for non-vocational education). in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields. Continued with Grocery and Retail Stores and related jobs, NITF percentage difference of 15.8 percent (100.0% for Computer Education program; and 84.2% for non- vocational education) was recorded among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates; and within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 67.8 percent (0.0% for Computer Education program; and 67.8% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.0 percent (58.3% for Computer Education program; and 74.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; whereas, among the LSES female high school graduates who were in 164
Computer Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 17.2 percent (55.6% for Computer Education program; and 72.8% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF noted a percentage difference of 29.7 percent (0.0% for Public Service Education program; and 29.7% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF recorded a percent difference of 23.1 percent (0.0% for Public Service Education program; and 23.1% for non-vocational education). Among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF noted a 22.3 percentage difference of 22.3 percent (0.0% for Public Service Education program; and 22.3% for non-vocational education); and NITF among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates was 15.8 percent (100.0% for Public Service Education program; and 84.2% for on-vocational education). Within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 32.2 percent (100.0% for Public Service Education program; and 67.8% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields. Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates who were working in Grocery and Retail Stores and related jobs, NITF noted a 165 percentage difference of 25.7 percent (100.0% for Public Service Education program; and 74.3% for non-vocational education); whereas, among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES female non- vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 27.2 percent (100.0% for Public Service Education program; and 72.8% for non- vocational education). Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related jobs, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.2 percent (7.9% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 23.1% for non-vocational education)(Table 33). Inspection of Table 34 (May 2000 high school graduates) reveal that among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Business, Banking and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 34.6 percent (38.5% for Business Technology Education program; and 3.9% non-vocational education). Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 16.5 percent (80.6% for Business Technology Education program; and 97.1% for non-vocational education) in Business and Banking and related fields; and within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates NITF indicated a percentage difference of 31.5 percent (61.5% for Business Technology Education program; and 93.0% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.6 percent (80.4% for Business Technology Education program; and 97.0% for non-vocational education) in 166
Business, Banking, and related fields; and within the LSES female high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES female non- vocational education high school graduates, NITF indicated a percentage difference of 22.6 percent (72.7% for Business Technology Education program; and 95.3% for non- vocational education). Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 42.8 percent (46.7% for Computer Education program; and 3.9% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Between the LSES female high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 29.3 percent (31.6% for Computer Education program; and 2.3% for non-vocational education) in Business and Banking and related jobs; and among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF indicated a percentage difference of 39.7 percent (53.3% for Computer Education program; and 93.0% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Business, Banking, and related jobs, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 22.0 percent (75.0% for Computer Education program; and 97.0% for non-vocational education); and within LSES female high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 26.9 percent (68.4% for Computer Education program; and 95.3% for non-vocational education). Among the LSES male high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NTF noted a percentage difference of 16.1 percent (20.0% for Public Service Education program; and 3.9% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. 167
Within the LSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.5 percent difference (18.8% for Public Service Education program; and 2.3% for non-vocational education) in Business and Banking and related fields. Among the HSES female high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 14.7percent (15.9% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 1.2% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Within the HSES male high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.1percent (82.0% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 97.1% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF indicated a percentage difference of 13.4 percent (69.6% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 93.0% for non-vocational education) in Business and Banking and related fields; and within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 20.8 percent (76.2% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 97.0% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES male high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 23.0 percent (69.2% for Business Technology Education; 92.2% for non-vocational education). Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education 168 program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 18.6 percent (20.0% for Computer Education program; and 1.4% for non-vocational education) in Engineering, Technology, and related fields. In Engineering and related fields, ITF indicated a percentage difference of 22.0 percent (26.7% for Computer Education program; and 4.7% for non-vocational education) among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF in Engineering and related fields recorded a percentage difference of 24.4 percent (72.0% for Computer Education program; and 96.4% for non-vocational education); while within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 18.9 percent (73.3% for Computer Education program; 92.2% for non- vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF in Engineering and related fields recorded a percentage difference of 15.1 percent (82.5% for Computer Education program; and 97.6% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 18.3 percent (73.9% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 92.2% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.1 percent (82.5% for
Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 97.6% for non-vocational education); and among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Diversified Cooperative 169
Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 17.6 percent (76.9% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; and 94.5% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF indicated a percentage difference of 18.6 percent (80.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 98.6% for non-vocational education); and among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 25.9 percent (72.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 97.9% for non-vocational education) in Engineering and related fields. In Information, Entertainment, and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 27.0 percent (28.6% for Technology Education program; and 1.6% for non- vocational education) among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 20.0 percent (80.0% for Technology Education program; and 100.0% for non-vocational education) in Information, Entertainment, and related fields; and within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 26.3 percent (71.4% for Technology Education program; and 97.7% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.9 percent (17.5% for Computer Education 170 program; and 0.6% for non-vocational education) in Engineering and related fields; while among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 25.1 percent (72.5% for Computer Education program; and 97.6% for non-vocational education); and within the LSES category, a percentage difference of 21.1 percent (78.9% for Computer Education program; and 100.0% for non-vocational education) in NITF was observed. In Law Enforcement and related jobs, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 17.8 percent (75.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 92.8% for non-vocational education); and among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES male non- vocational education high school graduates; and within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.9 percent (76.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 91.9% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 29.6 percent (35.0% for Public Service Education program; and 5.4% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; and within the LSES male high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 19.1 percent (30.0% for Public Service Education program; and 10.9% for non-vocational education) was noted. Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF in Law Enforcement and related fields noted a percentage difference of 30.6 percent (37.5% for Public Service Education program; and 6.9% for non-vocational 171 education) was recorded. Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 27.8 percent (65.0% for Public Service Education program; and 92.8% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; and within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 17.6 percent (70.0% for Public Service Education program; and 87.6% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 29.4 percent (62.5% for Public Service Education program; and 91.9% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields. Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Medical and Health related fields, a percentage difference of 15.4 percent (15.4% for Technology Education program; and 0.0% for non-vocational education) was recorded. Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Medical and Health-related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 23.4 percent (25.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 1.6% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Medical and Health-related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 27.8 percent (29.4% for Family and Consumer Science 172
Education program; and 1.5% for non-vocational education). Among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Medical and Health- related fields, ITF noted a percentage difference of 27.8 percent (29.4% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 1.6% for non-vocational education). In Medical and Health-related fields, NITF reported a percentage difference of 23.4 percent (75.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 98.4% for non-vocational education) among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates. Within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 17.0 percent (80.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 97.0% for non-vocational education) in Medical and Health-related fields. Within the LSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 27.8 percent (70.6% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 98.4% for non-vocational education) in Medical and Health-related fields. In Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 28.3 percent (35.3% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 7.0% for non-vocational education) among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school 173 graduates, working full time (FT) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 30.2 percent (33.3% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 3.1% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF noted a percentage difference of 14.5 percent (16.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 1.5% for non-vocational education). Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF indicated a percentage difference of 30.6 percent (50.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 80.6% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail fields. Within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 22.3 percent (72.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 94.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail related fields; and among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 38.1 percent (47.1% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; and 85.2% for non-vocational education). In Grocery and Retail related fields, ITF noted a percentage difference of 36.3 percent (40.0% for Technology Education program; and 4.3% for non-vocational education) among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates; and within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF 174 reported a percentage difference of 26.6 percent (42.9% for Technology Education program; and 16.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail related fields. Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 36.6 percent (60.0% for Technology Education program; and 94.6% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail related fields; whereas, within the LSES male high school graduates who were in Technology Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 23.5 percent (57.1% for Technology Education program; and 80.6% for non-vocational education). Among the HSES female high school graduates who were in Computer Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 21.8 percent (72.5% for Computer Education program; and 94.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail related fields. Among the HSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 25.7 percent (30.0% for Public Service Education program; and 4.3% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES female high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 29.1 percent (33.3% for Public Service Education program; and 4.2% for non-vocational education) working PT in Grocery and Retail and related fields. Among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 18.0 percent (25.0% for Public Service Education program; and 7.0% for 175 non-vocational education). Among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.9 percent (20.0% for Public Service Education program; and 3.1% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF indicated a percentage difference of 15.2 percent (16.7% for Public Service Education program; and 1.5% for non-vocational education). Among the LSES female high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 17.2 percent (25.0% for Public Service Education program; and 7.8% for non- vocational education). Within the HSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 34.6 percent (60.0% for Public Service Education program; and 94.6% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; and among the LSES male high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES male non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 20.6 percent (60.0% for Public Service Education program; and 80.6% for non-vocational education). Within the HSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the HSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 44.3 percent (50.0% for Public Service Education program; and 94.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and 176
Retail Stores and related fields; and among the LSES female high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the LSES female non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 35.2 percent (50.0% for Public Service Education program; and 85.2% for non-vocational education)(Table 34). Summary 1. Most of the fields where a higher rate of employment, that is, ITF (14.5% and above) were reported between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates were part time employment with wages between $0.00 and $2,677.00 per quarter (Tables 33 and 34). 2. In most of the fields where percentage difference in employment (ITF) were recorded between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, vocational education high school graduates, especially within the LSES male and female were in the fields for which they were trained in high school (advantage) (Tables 33 and 34). 3. The only fields where non-vocational education high school graduates reported higher rate of employment (advantage) (ITF) than were their vocational education colleagues were in Grocery and Retail and Related fields, both LSES and HSES male (Table 33), and Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and Related fields, LSES female (Table 34). 4. In the fields where full time employment were recorded, vocational education high school graduates, especially among the LSES male, compared with their non- vocational education counterparts, reported higher rates of employment (ITF) (advantage) with wages of $2,678.00 and over per quarter (Tables 33 and 34). Table 33: May 1999 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Gender. Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Ed. Type Status (Number) Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % M: H=335 Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. L=118 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In F: H=334 M: H=2 L=5 M: H=8 L=1 Program) L=103 F: H=42 L=16 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 Total % Total % F: H=11 L=2 Total % Total %
Business & Part M H 1 5.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.7 9 2.7 Banking- Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 4 3.4 Jobs F H 1 2.4 2.1 1 7.7 3.2 0 0.0 4.5 15 4.5
L 0 0.0 1.9 2 25.0 23.1 0 0.0 1.9 2 1.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 19 95.0 2.3 8 100.0 2.7 8 100.0 2.7 326 97.3 Employed in Another Field. L 5 100.0 3.4 1 100.0 3.4 2 100.0 3.4 114 96.6 F H 41 97.6 2.4 12 92.3 2.9 11 100.0 4.8 318 95.2
L 16 100.0 2.9 6 75.0 23.1 2 100.0 2.9 101 98.1 Note: SE S=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L= Lower SE S; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677 .00 Per Q uarter; FT=Wages, $267 8 and Over Per Q uarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% Above.
177 Table 33 (Contd.):
Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Ed. Type Status (Number) M: H=335 L=118 Computer Education % Public Service Ed. % Diversified Coop. Ed % F: H=334 (Number In Program) Diff. (Number In Program) Diff. (Number In Diff. L=103 M: H=9 L=0 M: H=20 L=2 Program) Total % F: H=24 L=9 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 Total % Total % F: H=63 L=20 Total %
Business & Part M H 1 11.1 8.4 1 5.0 2.3 2 4.5 1.8 9 2.7 Banking- Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 2 11.1 7.7 4 3.4 Jobs F H 0 0.0 4.5 1 5.3 0.8 2 3.2 1.3 15 4.5
L 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 2 1.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 3 15.0 15.0 1 2.3 2.3 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 1.6 1.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 8 88.9 8.4 16 80.0 17.3 41 93.2 4.1 326 97.3 Employed in Another Field. L 0 0.0 96.6 2 100.0 3.4 16 88.9 7.3 114 96.6 F H 24 100.0 4.8 18 94.7 0.5 60 95.2 0.0 318 95.2
L 9 100.0 2.9 6 100.0 2.9 20 100.0 2.9 100 97.1 Note: SE S=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L= Lower SE S; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Q uarter; FT=Wages, $267 8 and Over Per Q uarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
178 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 M: H=20 M: H=8 Program) F: H=334 L=5 L=1 M: H=8 L=103 F: H=42 F: H=13 L=2 L=16 L=8 F: H=11 Total % Total % L=2 Total % Total %
Engineering, Part M H 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 9 2.7 Techno logy, Time Computer, (PT) L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 100.0 98.3 2 1.7 Environm ent, F H 1 2.4 0.9 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 1.5 & Related Jobs. L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 1 1.0
Unemployed or M H 20 100.0 3.6 8 100.0 3.6 8 100.0 3.6 323 96.4 Employed in Another Field. L 5 100.0 1.7 1 100.0 1.7 0 0.0 98.3 116 98.3 F H 41 97.6 0.3 13 100.0 2.1 11 100.0 2.1 327 97.9
L 16 100.0 4.9 8 100.0 4.9 2 100.0 4.9 98 95.1 Note: SE S=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L= Lower SE S; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Q uarter; FT=Wages, $267 8 and Over Per Q uarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
179 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 M: H=9 (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 L=0 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=24 L=2 M: H=44 L=103 L=9 F: H=19 L=18 L=6 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=20 Total % Total %
Engineering, Part M H 0 0.0 2.7 1 5.0 2.3 4 9.1 6.4 9 2.7 Techno logy, Time Computer, (PT) L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 3 16.7 15.0 2 1.7 Environm ent, F H 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 6 9.5 8.0 5 1.5 & Related Jobs. L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 3 15.0 11.0 4 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 1 1.6 1.0 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 1 1.0
Unemployed or M H 9 100.0 3.6 19 95.0 1.4 40 90.0 5.5 323 96.4 Employed in Another Field. L 0 0.0 98.3 2 100.0 1.7 15 83.3 15.0 116 98.3 F H 24 100.0 2.1 19 100.0 2.1 56 88.9 9.0 327 97.9
L 9 100.0 4.9 6 100.0 4.9 17 85.0 10.1 98 95.1 Note: SE S=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L= Lower SE S; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Q uarter; FT=Wages, $267 8 and Over Per Q uarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
180 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 M: H=20 M: H=8 Program) F: H=334 L=5 L=1 M: H=8 L=103 F: H=42 F: H=13 L=2 L=16 L=8 F: H=11 Total % Total % L=2 Total % Total %
Fashion Part M H 1 5.0 4.1 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9 & Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 1.7 Jobs F H 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 1 9.1 8.5 2 0.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 19 95.0 4.1 8 100.0 0.9 8 100.0 0.9 332 99.1 Employed in Another Field. L 5 100.0 1.7 1 100.0 1.7 2 100.0 1.7 116 98.3 F H 42 100.0 1.8 13 100.0 1.8 10 90.9 7.3 328 98.2
L 16 100.0 3.9 8 100.0 3.9 2 100.0 3.9 99 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
181 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 M: H=9 (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 L=0 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=24 L=2 M: H=44 L=103 L=9 F: H=19 L=18 L=6 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=20 Total % Total %
Fashion Part M H 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 6.8 5.9 3 0.9 & Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 11.1 9.4 2 1.7 Jobs F H 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 2 3.2 2.0 4 1.2
L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 2 10.0 6.1 4 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 1 1.6 1.0 2 0.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 9 100.0 0.9 20 100.0 0.9 41 93.2 5.9 332 99.1 Employed in Another Field. L 0 0.0 98.3 2 100.0 1.7 16 88.9 9.4 116 98.3 F H 24 100.0 1.8 19 100.0 1.8 60 95.2 3.0 328 98.2
L 9 100.0 3.9 6 100.0 3.9 18 90.0 6.1 99 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
182 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 M: H=20 M: H=8 Program) F: H=334 L=5 L=1 M: H=8 L=103 F: H=42 F: H=13 L=2 L=16 L=8 F: H=11 Total % Total % L=2 Total % Total %
Information, Part M H 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 13 3.9 & Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 4.2 0 0.0 4.2 0 0.0 4.2 5 4.2 Jobs F H 1 2.4 5.1 1 7.7 0.2 0 0.0 7.5 25 7.5
L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 20 100.0 3.9 8 100.0 3.9 8 100.0 3.9 322 96.1 Employed in Another Field. L 5 100.0 4.2 1 100.0 4.2 2 100.0 4.2 113 95.8 F H 41 97.6 5.4 12 92.3 0.1 11 100.0 7.8 308 92.2
L 16 100.0 3.9 8 100.0 3.9 2 100.0 3.9 99 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
183 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 M: H= (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 L= M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H= L=2 M: H=44 L=103 L= F: H=19 L=18 L=6 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=20 Total % Total %
Information, Part M H 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 6 13.6 9.7 13 3.9 & Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 4.2 0 0.0 4.2 2 11.1 6.9 5 4.2 Jobs F H 0 0.0 7.5 1 5.3 2.2 2 3.2 4.3 25 7.5
L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 2 10.0 6.1 4 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.3 1 5.3 5.0 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 9 100.0 3.9 20 100.0 3.9 38 86.4 9.7 322 96.1 Employed in Another Field. L 0 0.0 95.8 2 100.0 4.2 16 88.9 6.9 113 95.8 F H 24 100.0 7.8 17 89.5 2.7 61 96.8 4.6 308 92.2
L 9 100.0 3.9 6 100.0 3.9 18 90.0 6.1 99 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
184 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 M: H=20 M: H=8 Program) F: H=334 L=5 L=1 M: H=8 L=103 F: H=42 F: H=13 L=2 L=16 L=8 F: H=11 Total % Total % L=2 Total % Total %
Law Part M H 2 10.0 6.1 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 13 3.9 Enforcem ent, Time Public (PT) L 1 20.0 17.5 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 3 2.5 Service, F H 3 7.1 3.7 1 7.7 4.3 0 0.0 3.4 18 3.4 Education, & L 4 25.0 21.1 1 12.5 8.6 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9 Related Jobs Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 18 90.0 6.1 8 100.0 3.9 8 100.0 3.9 322 96.1 Employed in Another Field. L 4 80.0 17.5 1 100.0 2.5 2 100.0 2.5 115 97.5 F H 39 92.9 1.4 12 92.3 2.0 11 100.0 5.7 315 94.3
L 12 75.0 21.1 7 87.5 8.6 2 100.0 3.9 99 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
185 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 M: H=9 (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 L=0 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=24 L=2 M: H=44 L=103 L=9 F: H=19 L=18 L=6 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=20 Total % Total %
Law Part M H 0 0.0 3.9 3 15.0 11.1 8 18.2 14.3 13 3.9 Enforcem ent, Time Public (PT) L 0 0.0 2.5 2 100.0 97.5 2 11.1 8.6 3 2.5 Service, F H 1 4.2 0.8 5 26.3 22.9 16 25.4 22.0 18 3.4 Education, & L 1 11.1 7.2 4 66.7 62.8 2 10.0 6.1 4 3.9 Related Jobs Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 9 100.0 3.9 17 85.0 11.1 36 81.8 14.3 322 96.1 Employed in Another Field. L 0 0.0 97.5 0 0.0 97.5 16 88.9 8.6 115 97.5 F H 23 95.8 1.5 14 73.7 20.6 47 74.6 19.7 315 94.3
L 8 88.9 7.2 2 33.3 62.8 18 90.0 6.1 99 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
186 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 M: H=20 M: H=8 Program) F: H=334 L=5 L=1 M: H=8 L=103 F: H=42 F: H=13 L=2 L=16 L=8 F: H=11 Total % Total % L=2 Total % Total %
Medical M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Part Health Time L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related (PT) F H 1 2.4 0.3 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 Jobs L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 1 2.4 2.1 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 20 100.0 0.0 8 100.0 0.0 8 100.0 0.0 335 100 .0 Employed in Another Field. L 5 100.0 0.0 1 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 0.0 118 100 .0 F H 40 95.2 2.4 13 100.0 2.4 11 100.0 2.4 326 97.6
L 16 100.0 3.9 8 100.0 3.9 2 100.0 3.9 99 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
187 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 M: H=9 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 L=0 L=2 M: H=44 L=103 F: H=24 F: H=19 L=18 L=9 L=6 F: H=63 Total % L=20 Total % Total % Total %
Medical Part M H 0 0.0 0.0 1 5.0 5.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Time Health (PT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related F H 2 8.3 6.1 0 0.0 2.1 6 9.5 7.4 7 2.1 Jobs L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 2 10.0 6.1 4 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 1 5.0 5.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 1 4.2 3.9 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 1 11.1 11.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 9 100.0 0.0 18 90.0 10.0 44 100.0 0.0 335 100 .0 Employed in Another Field. L 0 0.0 100.0 2 100.0 0.0 18 100.0 0.0 118 100 .0 F H 23 95.3 2.3 19 100.0 2.4 57 90.5 7.1 326 97.6
L 8 88.9 7.2 6 100.0 3.9 18 90.0 6.1 99 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
188 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 M: H=20 M: H=8 Program) F: H=334 L=5 L=1 M: H=8 L=103 F: H=42 F: H=13 L=2 L=16 L=8 F: H=11 Total % Total % L=2 Total % Total %
Other M H 3 15.0 10.2 0 0.0 4.5 0 0.0 4.5 15 4.5 Jobs Part Time L 0 0.0 4.2 0 0.0 4.2 0 0.0 4.2 5 4.2 (PT) F H 0 0.0 4.8 1 7.7 2.9 0 0.0 4.8 16 4.8
L 0 0.0 6.8 0 0.0 6.8 0 0.0 6.8 7 6.8
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 17 85.0 10.5 8 100.0 4.5 8 100.0 4.5 320 95.5 Employed in Another Field. L 5 100.0 4.2 1 100.0 4.2 2 100.0 4.2 113 95.8 F H 42 100.0 5.7 12 92.3 2.0 11 100.0 2.0 315 94.3
L 16 100.0 6.8 8 100.0 6.8 2 100.0 6.8 96 93.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
189 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 M: H=9 (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 L=0 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=24 L=2 M: H=44 L=103 L=9 F: H=19 L=18 L=6 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=20 Total % Total %
Other Jobs Part M H 0 0.0 4.5 0 0.0 4.5 5 11.1 6.9 15 4.5 Time (PT) L 0 0.0 4.2 0 0.0 4.2 3 16.7 12.5 5 4.2 F H 0 0.0 4.8 0 0.0 4.8 7 11.1 6.3 16 4.8
L 0 0.0 6.8 0 0.0 6.8 0 0.0 6.8 7 6.8
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 9 100.0 4.5 20 100.0 4.5 39 88.6 6.9 320 95.5 Employed in Another Field. L 0 0.0 95.8 2 100.0 4.2 15 83.3 12.5 113 95.8 F H 24 100.0 2.0 19 100.0 2.0 56 88.9 5.4 315 94.3
L 9 100.0 6.8 6 100.0 6.8 20 100.0 6.8 96 93.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
190 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 M: H=20 M: H=8 Program) F: H=334 L=5 L=1 M: H=8 L=103 F: H=42 F: H=13 L=2 L=16 L=8 F: H=11 Total % Total % L=2 Total % Total %
Grocery & M H 9 45.0 31.6 0 0.0 13.4 0 0.0 13.4 45 13.4 Retail Stores, Part Restaurant Time L 3 60.0 30.3 0 0.0 29.7 0 0.0 29.7 35 29.7 & Hotels, (PT) F H 27 64.3 41.2 0 0.0 23.1 0 0.0 23.1 77 23.1 Gasoline Stations, L 10 62.5 40.2 0 0.0 22.3 0 0.0 22.3 23 22.3 & Related Full M H 0 0.0 2.4 0 0.0 2.4 0 0.0 2.4 8 2.4 Jobs Time (FT) L 1 20.0 17.5 1 100.0 97.5 0 0.0 2.5 3 2.5 F H 2 4.8 2.1 0 0.0 2.7 1 9.1 6.4 9 2.7
L 0 0.0 4.9 1 12.5 7.6 0 0.0 4.9 5 4.9
Unemployed or M H 11 55.0 29.2 8 100.0 15.8 8 100.0 15.8 282 84.2 Employed in Another Field. L 1 20.0 47.8 0 0.0 67.8 2 100.0 32.2 80 67.8 F H 13 31.0 43.3 13 100.0 25.7 10 90.9 16.6 248 74.3
L 6 37.5 35.3 7 87.5 14.7 2 100.0 27.2 75 72.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
191 Table 33 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=335 M: H=9 (Number In Program) (Number In L=118 L=0 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H= 24 L=2 M: H=44 L=103 L=9 F: H= 19 L=18 L=6 F: H= 63 Total % Total % L=20 Total % Total %
Grocery & Part M H 0 0.0 13.4 0 0.0 13.4 5 11.4 2.0 45 13.4 Retail Stores, Time Restaurant (PT) L 0 0.0 29.7 0 0.0 29.7 3 16.7 13.0 35 29.7 & Hotels, F H 8 33.3 10.2 0 0.0 23.1 5 7.9 15.2 77 23.1 Gasoline Stations, L 4 44.4 22.1 0 0.0 22.3 2 10.0 12.3 23 22.3 & Related Full M H 0 0.0 2.4 0 0.0 2.4 6 13.6 11.2 8 2.4 Jobs Time (FT) L 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 2 11.1 8.6 3 2.5 F H 2 8.3 5.6 0 0.0 2.7 5 7.9 5.2 9 2.7
L 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 2 10.0 5.1 5 4.9
Unemployed or M H 9 100.0 15.8 20 100.0 15.8 33 75.0 9.2 282 84.2 Employed in Another Field. L 0 0.0 67.8 2 100.0 32.2 13 72.2 4.4 80 67.8 F H 14 58.3 16.0 19 100.0 25.7 53 84.1 9.8 248 74.3
L 5 55.6 17.2 6 100.0 27.2 16 80.0 7.2 75 72.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
192 Table 34: May 2000 Vocational and Non-Vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Gender. Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 M: H=31 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 L=13 L=12 M: H=5 L=128 F: H=51 F: H=25 L=7 L=22 L=17 F: H=0 Total % Total % L=1 Total % Total %
Business & Part M H 4 12.9 11.5 1 5.0 3.6 0 0.0 1.4 4 1.4 Banking- Time Related (PT) L 5 38.5 34.6 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 5 3.9 Jobs F H 6 11.8 10.6 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 3 13.6 11.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Full M H 2 3.9 2.5 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 4 1.4 Time (FT) L 0 8.3 5.2 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 4 3.1 F H 4 7.8 6.0 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 6 1.8
L 3 13.6 11.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Unemployed or M H 25 80.6 16.5 19 95.0 2.1 5 100.0 2.9 270 97.1 Employed in Another Field. L 8 61.5 31.5 12 100.0 7.0 7 100.0 7.0 120 93.0 F H 41 80.4 16.6 25 100.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 324 97.0
L 16 72.7 22.6 17 100.0 4.7 1 100.0 4.7 122 95.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
193 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 M: H=25 (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 L=15 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=40 L=10 M: H=50 L=128 L=19 F: H=24 L=23 L=16 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=52 Total % Total %
Business & Part M H 3 12.0 10.6 3 15.0 13.6 7 14.0 12.6 4 1.4 Banking- Time Related (PT) L 7 46.7 42.8 2 20.0 16.1 4 17.4 13.5 5 3.9 Jobs F H 6 15.0 13.8 3 12.5 11.3 10 15.9 14.7 4 1.2
L 6 31.6 29.3 3 18.8 16.5 3 5.8 3.5 3 2.3
Full M H 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 2 4.0 2.6 4 1.4 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 3 13.0 9.9 4 3.1 F H 4 10.0 8.2 0 0.0 1.8 5 7.9 6.1 6 1.8
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 5.8 3.5 3 2.3
Unemployed or M H 22 88.0 9.1 17 85.0 12.1 41 82.0 15.1 270 97.1 Employed in Another Field. L 8 53.3 39.7 8 80.0 13.0 16 69.6 23.4 120 93.0 F H 30 75.0 22.0 21 87.5 9.5 48 76.2 20.8 324 97.0
L 13 68.4 26.9 13 81.3 14.0 46 88.5 6.8 122 95.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
194 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 M: H=31 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 L=13 L=12 M: H=5 L=128 F: H=51 F: H=25 L=7 L=22 L=17 F: H=0 Total % Total % L=1 Total % Total %
Engineering, Part M H 3 9.7 8.3 2 10.0 8.6 0 0.0 1.4 4 1.4 Techno logy, Time Computer, (PT) L 2 15.4 10.7 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 6 4.7 Environm ent, F H 3 5.9 4.7 1 4.0 2.8 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2 & Related Jobs. L 0 0.0 2.3 1 5.9 3.6 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Full M H 2 6.5 4.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 6 2.2 Time (FT) L 2 15.4 12.3 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 4 3.1 F H 2 3.9 2.7 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 4 3.1
Unemployed or M H 26 83.9 12.5 18 90.0 6.4 5 100.0 3.6 268 96.4 Employed in Another Field. L 9 69.2 23.0 12 100.0 7.8 7 100.0 7.8 119 92.2 F H 46 90.2 7.4 24 96.6 1.0 0 0.0 97.6 326 97.6
L 22 100.0 5.5 16 94.1 0.4 1 100.0 5.5 121 94.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
195 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 M: H=25 (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 L=15 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=40 L=10 M: H=50 L=128 L=19 F: H=24 L=23 L=16 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=52 Total % Total %
Engineering, Part M H 5 20.0 18.6 0 0.0 1.4 6 12.0 10.6 4 1.4 Techno logy, Time Computer, (PT) L 4 26.7 22.0 0 0.0 4.7 2 8.7 4.0 6 4.7 Environm ent, F H 5 12.5 11.3 0 0.0 1.2 8 12.7 11.5 4 1.2 & Related Jobs. L 2 10.5 8.2 0 0.0 2.3 5 9.6 7.3 3 2.3
Full M H 2 8.0 5.8 0 0.0 2.3 2 4.0 1.8 6 2.2 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 4 17.4 14.3 4 3.1 F H 2 5.0 3.8 0 0.0 1.2 3 4.8 3.6 4 1.2
L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 7 13.5 10.4 4 3.1
Unemployed or M H 18 72.0 24.4 20 100.0 3.6 42 84.0 12.4 268 96.4 Employed in Another Field. L 11 73.3 18.9 10 100.0 7.8 17 73.9 18.3 119 92.2 F H 33 82.5 15.1 24 100.0 2.4 52 82.5 15.1 326 97.6
L 17 89.5 5.0 16 100.0 5.5 40 76.9 17.6 121 94.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
196 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 M: H=31 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 L=13 L=12 M: H=5 L=128 F: H=51 F: H=25 L=7 L=22 L=17 F: H=0 Total % Total % L=1 Total % Total %
Fashion Part M H 0 0.0 1.4 2 10.0 8.6 0 0.0 1.4 4 1.4 & Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3 Jobs F H 0 0.0 2.1 4 16.0 13.9 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1
L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 5 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 2 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 2.0 3 12.0 12.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 31 100.0 1.4 16 80.0 18.6 5 100.0 1.4 274 98.6 Employed in Another Field. L 13 100.0 2.3 12 100.0 2.3 7 100.0 2.3 126 97.7 F H 51 98.0 0.1 18 72.0 25.9 0 0.0 2.1 327 97.9
L 22 100.0 3.9 17 100.0 3.9 1 100.0 3.9 123 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
197 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 M: H=25 (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 L=15 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=40 L=10 M: H=50 L=128 L=19 F: H=24 L=23 L=16 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=52 Total % Total %
Fashion Part M H 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 2 4.0 2.6 4 1.4 & Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 2 8.7 6.4 3 2.3 Jobs F H 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 3 4.8 2.7 7 2.1
L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 7 13.5 9.6 5 3.9
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 25 100.0 1.4 20 100.0 1.4 48 96.0 2.6 274 98.6 Employed in Another Field. L 15 100.0 2.3 10 100.0 2.3 21 91.3 6.4 126 97.7 F H 40 100.0 2.1 24 100.0 2.1 60 95.2 2.7 327 97.9
L 19 100.0 3.9 16 100.0 3.9 45 86.5 9.6 123 96.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
198 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. (Number) Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % M: H=278 Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. L=129 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In F: H=334 M: H=31 M: H=20 Program) L=128 L=13 L=12 M: H=5 F: H=51 F: H=25 L=7 L=22 L=17 F: H=0 Total % Total % Total % L=1 Total %
Information, Part M H 2 6.5 6.5 0 0.0 0.0 1 20.0 20.0 0 0.0 & Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 2 28.6 27.0 2 1.6 Jobs F H 4 7.8 7.2 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 1 0.8 F H 3 5.9 4.1 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 6 1.8
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0 100.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 29 93.5 6.5 20 100.0 0.0 4 80.0 20.0 278 100 .0 Employed in Another Field. L 13 100.0 2.3 12 100.0 2.3 5 71.4 26.3 126 97.7 F H 44 86.3 11.3 25 100.0 2.4 0 0.0 97.6 326 97.6
L 22 100.0 0.0 17 100.0 0.0 0 0.0 100.0 128 100 .0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
199 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 M: H=25 (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 L=15 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=40 L=10 M: H=50 L=128 L=19 F: H=24 L=23 L=16 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=52 Total % Total %
Information, Part M H 2 8.0 8.0 0 0.0 0.0 3 6.0 6.0 0 0.0 & Time Related (PT) L 2 13.3 11.7 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6 Jobs F H 7 17.5 16.9 0 0.0 0.6 4 6.3 5.7 2 0.6
L 2 10.5 10.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 3 6.0 6.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 1 0.8 F H 4 10.0 8.2 0 0.0 1.8 6 9.5 7.7 6 1.8
L 2 10.5 10.5 2 12.5 12.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 23 92.0 8.0 20 100.0 0.0 44 88.0 12.0 278 100 .0 Employed in Another Field. L 13 86.7 11.0 10 100.0 2.3 23 100.0 2.3 126 97.7 F H 29 72.5 25.1 24 100.0 2.4 53 84.1 13.5 326 97.6
L 15 78.9 21.1 14 87.5 12.5 52 100.0 0.0 128 100 .0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
200 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 M: H=31 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 L=13 L=12 M: H=5 L=128 F: H=51 F: H=25 L=7 L=22 L=17 F: H=0 Total % Total % L=1 Total % Total %
Law Part M H 2 6.5 1.1 2 10.0 4.6 1 20.0 14.6 15 5.4 Enforcem ent, Time Public (PT) L 1 7.7 3.2 2 16.7 5.8 1 14.3 3.4 14 10.9 Service, F H 3 5.9 1.0 3 12.0 5.1 0 0.0 6.9 23 6.9 Education, & L 1 4.5 10.3 2 11.8 3.0 0 0.0 14.8 19 14.8 Related Jobs Full M H 2 6.5 4.7 3 15.0 13.2 1 20.0 18.2 5 1.8 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 1 14.3 12.7 2 1.6 F H 2 3.9 2.7 3 12.0 10.8 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 2 9.1 5.2 1 5.9 2.0 0 0.0 3.9 5 3.9
Unemployed or M H 27 87.2 5.7 15 75.0 17.8 3 60.0 32.8 258 92.8 Employed in Another Field. L 12 92.3 4.7 10 83.3 4.3 5 71.4 16.2 113 87.6 F H 46 90.2 0.9 19 76.0 15.9 0 0.0 91.9 307 91.9
L 19 86.4 5.1 14 82.4 1.1 1 100.0 18.7 104 81.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
201 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. (Number) M: H=278 L=129 Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % F: H=334 (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. L=128 M: H=25 (Number In Program) (Number In L=15 M: H=20 Program) F: H=40 L=10 M: H=50 Total % L=19 F: H=24 L=23 L=16 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=52 Total %
Law Part M H 2 8.0 2.6 7 35.0 29.6 4 8.0 2.6 15 5.4 Enforcem ent, Time Public (PT) L 2 13.3 2.4 3 30.0 19.1 2 8.7 2.2 14 10.9 Service, F H 4 10.0 3.1 9 37.5 30.6 2 3.2 3.7 23 6.9 Education, & L 2 10.5 4.3 5 31.3 16.5 4 7.7 7.1 19 14.8 Related Jobs Full M H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 3 6.0 4.2 5 1.8 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 1.6 1 10.0 8.4 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6 F H 4 10.0 8.8 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 2 10.5 6.6 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 5 3.9
Unemployed or M H 23 92.0 0.8 13 65.0 27.8 43 86.0 6.8 258 92.8 Employed in Another Field. L 13 86.7 0.1 7 70.0 17.6 21 91.3 3.7 113 87.6 F H 32 80.0 11.9 15 62.5 29.4 61 96.8 4.9 307 91.9
L 15 78.9 2.4 11 68.8 12.5 48 92.3 11.0 104 81.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
202 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. (Number) M: H=178 L=129 Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % F: H=334 Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. L=128 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In M: H=31 M: H=20 Program) L=13 L=12 M: H=5 Total % F: H=51 F: H=25 L=7 L=22 L=17 F: H=0 Total % Total % L=1 Total %
Medical M H 1 3.2 1.0 2 10.0 7.8 0 0.0 2.2 6 2.2 & Part Health Time L 0 0.0 1.6 3 25.0 23.4 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6 Related (PT) F H 1 2.0 0.5 5 20.0 18.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 1.5 Jobs L 0 0.0 1.6 5 29.4 27.8 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 2 15.4 15.4 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 1 2.0 0.5 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 1.5
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 30 96.8 1.0 18 90.0 7.8 5 100.0 2.2 274 97.8 Employed in Another Field L 11 84.6 13.8 9 75.0 23.4 7 100.0 21.6 127 98.4 F H 49 96.1 0.9 20 80.0 17.0 0 100.0 97.0 324 97.0
L 22 100.0 1.6 12 70.6 27.8 1 100.0 1.6 126 98.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
203 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. (Number) M: H=178 L=129 Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % F: H=334 (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. L=128 M: H=25 (Number In Program) (Number In L=15 M: H=20 Program) F: H=40 L=10 M: H=50 Total % L=19 F: H=24 L=23 L=16 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=52 Total %
Medical Part M H 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 6 2.2 & Time Health (PT) L 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6 Related F H 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 3 4.8 3.3 5 1.5 Jobs L 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6
Full M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 F H 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 2 3.2 1.7 5 1.5
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 3 6.3 6.3 0 0.0
Unemployed or M H 25 100.0 2.2 20 100.0 2.2 50 100.0 2.2 274 97.8 Employed in Another Field L 15 100.0 21.6 10 100.0 21.6 23 100.0 31.6 127 98.4 F H 40 100.0 97.0 24 100.0 3.0 58 92.1 4.9 324 97.0
L 19 100.0 1.6 16 100.0 1.6 49 94.2 4.2 126 98.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
204 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. (Number) M: H=278 L=129 Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % F: H=334 Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. L=128 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In M: H=31 M: H=20 Program) L=13 L=12 M: H=5 Total % F: H=51 F: H=25 L=7 L=22 L=17 F: H=0 Total % Total % L=1 Total %
Other M H 3 9.7 6.8 1 8.3 5.4 0 0.0 2.9 8 2.9 Jobs Part Time L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 10.2 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3 (PT) F H 5 9.8 8.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 4 3.1
Full M H 2 6.5 1.5 0 0.0 5.0 0 0.0 5.0 14 5.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3 F H 4 7.8 4.8 0 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 10 3.0
L 2 9.1 6.0 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 3.1 4 3.1
Unemployed or M H 26 83.9 8.2 20 100.0 7.9 5 100.0 7.9 256 92.1 Employed in Another Field L 13 100.0 4.7 12 100.0 4.7 7 100.0 4.7 123 95.3 F H 42 82.4 13.7 25 100.0 3.9 0 0.0 96.1 321 96.1
L 20 90.9 2.9 17 100.0 8.1 1 100.0 6.2 120 93.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
205 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. (Number) M: H=278 L=129 Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % F: H=334 (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. L=128 M: H=25 (Number In Program) (Number In L=15 M: H=20 Program) F: H=40 L=10 M: H=50 Total % L=19 F: H=24 L=23 L=16 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=52 Total %
Other Part M H 0 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 2.9 4 8.0 5.1 8 2.9 Jobs Time (PT) L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 2 8.7 6.4 3 2.3 F H 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 4.8 3.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 5 9.6 6.5 4 3.1
Full M H 0 0.0 5.0 1 5.0 0.0 3 6.0 1.0 14 5.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 2 8.7 6.4 3 2.3 F H 0 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 2 3.2 0.2 10 3.0
L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 4 7.7 4.6 4 3.1
Unemployed or M H 25 100.0 7.9 19 95.0 2.9 43 86.0 6.1 256 92.1 Employed in Another Field L 15 100.0 4.7 10 100.0 4.7 19 82.6 12.7 123 95.3 F H 40 100.0 3.9 24 100.0 3.9 58 92.1 4.0 321 96.1
L 19 100.0 6.2 16 100.0 6.2 43 82.7 11.1 120 93.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
206 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. (Number) M: H=278 L=129 Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % F: H=334 Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. L=128 (Number In Program) (Number In Program) (Number In M: H=31 M: H=22 Program) L=13 L=12 M: H=5 Total % F: H=51 F: H=25 L=7 L=22 L=17 F: H=0 Total % Total % L=1 Total %
Grocery & M H 4 12.9 8.6 2 9.1 4.8 2 40.0 36.3 12 4.3 Retail Stores, Part Restaurant Time L 1 7.7 8.6 2 16.7 0.4 3 42.9 26.6 21 16.3 & Hotels, (PT) F H 5 9.8 5.6 3 12.0 7.8 0 0.0 4.2 14 4.2 Gasoline Stations, L 3 13.6 6.6 6 35.3 28.3 0 0.0 7.0 9 7.0 & Related Full M H 2 6.5 5.3 2 9.1 7.9 0 0.0 1.2 3 1.2 Jobs Time (FT) L 2 15.4 12.3 4 33.3 30.2 0 0.0 3.1 4 3.1 F H 3 9.7 8.2 4 16.0 14.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 1.5
L 3 13.6 5.8 3 17.6 9.8 0 0.0 7.8 10 7.8
Unemployed or M H 25 80.6 14.0 18 81.8 12.8 3 60.0 36.6 263 94.6 Employed in Another Field L 10 76.9 3.7 6 50.0 30.6 4 57.1 23.5 104 80.6 F H 43 84.3 10.0 18 72.0 22.3 0 0.0 94.3 315 94.3
L 16 72.7 12.5 8 47.1 38.1 1 100.0 14.8 109 85.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
207 Table 34 (Contd.): Employment Job Sex SES Percentage Difference in Employment by Vocational Program (Voc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Type Status Non-Voc. Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number In Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. M: H=278 M: H=25 (Number In Program) (Number In L=129 L=15 M: H=20 Program) F: H=334 F: H=40 L=10 M: H=50 L=128 L=19 F: H=24 L=23 L=16 F: H=63 Total % Total % L=52 Total % Total %
Grocery & Part M H 2 8.0 3.7 6 30.0 25.7 3 6.0 1.7 12 4.3 Retail Stores, Time Restaurant (PT) L 2 13.3 3.0 2 20.0 3.7 3 13.0 3.3 21 16.3 & Hotels, F H 5 12.5 8.3 8 33.3 29.1 4 6.3 2.1 14 4.2 Gasoline Stations, L 0 0.0 7.0 4 25.0 18.0 6 11.5 4.5 9 7.0 & Related Full M H 2 8.0 6.8 2 10.0 8.8 3 6.0 4.8 3 1.2 Jobs Time (FT) L 0 0.0 3.1 2 20.0 16.9 3 13.0 9.9 4 3.1 F H 6 15.0 13.5 4 16.7 15.2 3 4.8 3.3 5 1.5
L 2 10.5 2.7 4 25.0 17.2 6 11.5 3.7 10 7.8
Unemployed or M H 21 84.0 10.6 12 60.0 34.6 44 88.0 6.6 263 94.6 Employed in Another Field. L 13 86.7 7.9 6 60.0 20.6 17 73.9 6.7 104 80.6 F H 29 72.5 21.8 12 50.0 44.3 56 88.9 5.4 315 94.3
L 17 89.5 4.3 8 50.0 35.2 40 76.9 8.3 109 85.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed/Unemployed in Each Job; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
208 209
Question 3c What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on type of employment and type of vocational education program taken in 9th through 12th grades by race?
Question 3c is an attempt to verify the percentage difference between vocational and non-vocational high school graduates of May 1999 and the May 2000, from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards high schools by vocational education programs and employment type or field by race and socioeconomic status (SES). The data in Table 35 and Table 36 were used to answer Question 3c. In order to establish the percentage difference in each employment field by employment status by race between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates, the percentages of either Black or White Higher Socioeconomic Status (HSES) or Lower Socioeconomic Status (LSES) high school graduates (depending on which Race and level of SES was under consideration) who were either employed “in this field” (ITF) (type of job or field under consideration) or unemployed “not in this field” (NITF) (type of job or field under consideration) from each vocational education program were compared with the percentages of respective Black or White HSES or LSES non- vocational education high school graduates who were either ITF or NITF. In Table 35 (May 1999 high school graduates) and Table 36 (May 2000 high school graduates), for each employment type or field, the percentages of non-vocational education high school graduates who were either ITF or NITF were repeated for each vocational education program with which comparison in employment (ITF) was made. The percentages were calculated by dividing the number of either black or white ITF, part time or full time (PT or PT) or NITF by the total number of black or white (depending on which race and level of SES was under consideration) in the vocational education program, and multiplying by the number (100). Taking the Business Technology Education vocational education program in Table 35 (May 1999 high school graduates) for instance; the Business Technology Education program had 29 blacks from the HSES category who graduated through the four high schools in May 1999. Out of the 29 HSES black high school graduates, 2 were employed (ITF) FT, and 27 was not unemployed (NITF) in Business, Banking, and related fields. In order to calculate the percentage of HSES black high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program ITF, the number (2) HSES black 210 high school graduates ITF was divided by the number (29) HSES high school graduates who were in Business Technology Education program, which gave the number (0.0689). The number (0.0689) was further multiplied by the number (100) to give 6.9 percent. Similar calculations were done for the ITF and NITF vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates throughout Tables 35 and 36. A closer look at Table 35 (May 1999 high school graduates) revealed that among the LSES white high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES white non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 97.3 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 2.7% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields; and among the LSES white high school graduates who were in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the LSES white non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 97.3 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 97.3% for non-vocational education). In Engineering, Technology, and related fields, within the LSES black high school graduates in Technology Education program and LSES black non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 96.8 percent (100.0% for Technology Education program; 3.2% for non-vocational education); whereas, NITF reported a percentage difference of 95.7 percent (0.0% for Technology Education program; 95.7% for non-vocational education) among the LSES black high school graduates in Technology Education program and the LSES black high non- vocational education high school graduates. Among the black LSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF indicated a percentage difference of 15.6 percent (18.8% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 3.2% for non-vocational education) in Engineering, Technology, and related fields. In information and related fields, NITF reported a percentage difference of 23.2 percent (100.0% for public Service Education program; 76.8% for non-vocational education) among the black LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates. In Law Enforcement and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 22.8 percent (25.0 % for Business Technology Education program; 2.2% for non- vocational education) within the black LSES high school graduates in Business 211
Technology Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates; whereas, NITF reported a percentage difference of 22.8 percent (75.0% for Business Technology Education program; 97.8% for non-vocational education) among the black LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF noted a percentage difference of 33.0 percent (37.5% for Business Technology Education program; 4.5% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; and within the white LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 33.0 percent (62.5% for Business Technology Education program; 95.5% for non-vocational education). Among the white LSES high school graduates in Computer Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF indicated a percentage difference of 28.8 percent (66.7% for Computer Education program; 95.5% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields. Within the black HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 39.9 percent (42.9% for Public Service Education program; 3.0% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; and among the black LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 97.8 percent (100.0% for Public Service Education program; 2.2% for non-vocational education). NITF reported a percentage difference of 39.3 percent (57.1% for Public Service Education program; 96.4% for non-vocational education) among the black HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the black HSES non- vocational education high school graduates in Law Enforcement and related fields; and among the black LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 97.8 percent(0.0% for Public Service Education program; 97.8% for non-vocational education). Within the white LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education 212 program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 55.5 percent (60.0% for Public Service Education program; 4.5% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; whereas among the white LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 55.5 percent (40.0% for Public Service Education program; 95.5% for non-vocational education). Among the black HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 22.0 percent (25.0% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 3.0% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; and NITF reported a percentage difference of 21.4 percent (75.0% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 96.4% for non-vocational education) within the black HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the white HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 16.1 percent (21.6% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 5.5% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; whereas, NITF within the white HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates was 16.1percent (78.4% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 94.5% for non-vocational education). In Medical and Health related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 25.0 percent (25.0% for Computer Education program; 0.0% for non-vocational education) among the black HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates working PT; and within the black LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates working FT, ITF reported a percentage difference of 50.0 percent (50.0% for Computer Education program; 0.0% for non- vocational education). Among the black HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 36.9 percent (62.5% for Computer Education program; 99.4% 213 for non-vocational education) in Medical and Health related fields; and within the black LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the black LSES non- vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 50.0 percent (50.0% for Computer Education program; 100.0% for non-vocational education). In “Other” jobs (unclassifiable fields), within the black HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the black HSES non- vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 15.8percent (18.8% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 3.0% for non- vocational education); and among the black HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.7 percent (81.3% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 97.0% for non-vocational education). Regarding Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF noted a percentage difference of 46.0 percent (69.0% for Business Technology Education program; 23.0% for non-vocational education) within the black HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates working PT; and among the black LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference 40.6 percent (75.0% for Business Technology Education program; 34.4% for non-vocational education). Among the black HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 49.8 percent (24.1% for Business Technology Education program; 73.9% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; and within the black LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 36.3 percent (25.0% for Business Technology Education program; 61.3% for non-vocational education). Among the white HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 25.1 percent (42.4% for Business Technology Education program; 17.3% for non- vocational education); and within the white LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high 214 school graduates also working PT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 27.3 percent (50.0% for Business Technology Education program; 22.7% for non-vocational education). Within the white HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 22.5 percent (57.6% for Business Technology Education program; 80.1% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retails Stores and related fields; and among the white LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 36.1 percent (37.5% for Business Technology Education program; 73.6% for non-vocational education). Within the black HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 23.0 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 23.0% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; and among the black LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF indicated a percentage difference of 34.4 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 34.4% for non-vocational education). Within the black LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates also working FT in Retail Stores, ITF reported a percentage difference of 24.3 percent (28.6% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 4.3% for non-vocational education). Among the white HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates in Grocery and Retail Stores and related jobs, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 17.3 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 17.3% for non- vocational education); and within the white LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 22.7 percent (0.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 22.7% for non-vocational education). Among the black HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, 215
NITF recorded a percentage difference of 26.1 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 73.9% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, Within the white HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 19.9 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 80.1% for non-vocational education); and among the white LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 26.5 percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 73.6% for non-vocational education) (Table 35, May 1999 high school graduates). Inspection of Table 36 (May 2000 high school graduates) revealed that among the black LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 23.0 percent (25.0% for Business Technology Education program; 2.0% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Within the black HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 14.5 percent (78.6% for Business Technology Education program; 93.1% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields; and among the black LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 35.9 percent (60.0% for Business Technology Education program; 95.9% for non-vocational education). Within the white HSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 16.9 percent (80.8% for Business Technology Education program; 97.7% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields; and among the white LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF indicated a percentage difference of 18.0 percent (72.0% for Business Technology Education program; 90.0% for non-vocational education). Within the white HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science 216
Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 97.7percent (100.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 97.7% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Among the black LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF indicated a percentage difference of 35.5 percent (37.5% for Computer Education program; 2.0% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Within the white LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 33.3 percent (38.9% for Computer Education program; 5.6% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields; whereas, among the white HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.9 percent (76.2% for Computer Education program; 93.1% for non-vocational education). Among the black LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 36.6 percent (62.5% for Computer Education program; 95.9% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Within the white HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 15.9 percent (81.8% for Computer Education program; 97.7% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields; and among the white LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 28.9 percent (61.1% for Computer Education program; 90.0% for non-vocational education). Among the white LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 15.8 percent (21.4% for Public Service Education program; 5.6% for non-vocational education) in Business, Banking, and related fields. Continued with Business, Banking, and related fields, NITF recorded a Percentage difference of 16.4 percent (76.7% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 93.1% 217 for non-vocational education) among the black HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates. In Engineering and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 14.9 percent (15.9% for Computer Education program; 1.0% for non-vocational education) among the white HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates; and within the white LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white LSES non- vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 17.8 percent (22.2% for Computer Education program; 4.4% for non-vocational education). Within the black HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF noted a percentage difference of 17.9 percent (76.2% for Computer Education program; 94.1% for non-vocational education) in Engineering and related fields. Among the white HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 18.0 percent (79.5% for Computer Education program; 97.5% for non-vocational education) in Engineering and related fields. Within the black LSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 18.8 percent (75.8% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 94.6% for non-vocational education) in Engineering and related fields. Among the white HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 21.5 percent (77.3% for Computer Education program; 98.8% for non-vocational education) in Information and related fields; and within the white LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white LSES non- vocational education high school graduates, NITF indicated a percentage difference of 22.2 percent (77.8% for Computer Education program; 100.0% for non-vocational education). In Law Enforcement and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 16.6 percent (6.7% for Business Technology Education program; 23.3% for non- vocational education) among the white LSES high school graduates in Business 218
Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates; NITF recorded a percentage difference of 20.0 percent (93.3% for Business Technology Education program; 73.3% for non-vocational education). Among the white HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates working full time (FT) in Law Enforcement and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 15.9 percent (16.7% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 0.8% for non-vocational education); and NITF within the white HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white HSES non- vocational education high school graduates reported a percentage difference of 24.3 percent (70.8% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 95.1% for non- vocational education). Within the white HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates working PT in Law Enforcement and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 35.9 percent (40.0% for Public Service Education program; 4.1% for non-vocational education); and among the white LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates working PT., ITF noted a percentage difference of 19.6 percent (42.9% for Public Service Education program; 23.3% for non-vocational education). Among the black LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 16.2 (75.0% for Public Service Education program; 91.2% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related fields. Within the white HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 35.1 (60.0% for Public Service Education program; 95.1% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement and related fields; and among the white LSES Public Service Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.2 (57.1% for Public Service Education program; 73.3% for non-vocational education). Among the black HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, 219
NITF noted a percentage difference of 17.3 (96.7% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 79.4% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement, Public Service, and related fields. Within the white LSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 17.2 percent (90.5% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 73.3% for non-vocational education) in Law Enforcement, Public Service, and related fields.. In Medical and Health related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 14.9 percent (16.7% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 1.8% for non- vocational education) among the white HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates; whereas, among the white LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 26.7 percent (26.7% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 0.0% for non-vocational education). Among the black LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 18.7 percent (78.6% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 97.3% for non-vocational education) in Medical and Health related fields. Within the white LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 26.7 percent (73.3% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 100.0% for non-vocational education) in Medical and Health related fields. For “Other” jobs (unclassifiable jobs or fields), NITF reported a percentage difference of 16.1 percent (80.8% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 96.9% for non-vocational education) among the white HSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates; whereas, within the white LSES high school graduates in Diversified Cooperative Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 22.1 percent (69.0% for Diversified Cooperative Education program; 91.1% for non-vocational 220 education). Regarding Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels, and related fields, NITF reported a percentage difference of 14.9 percent (75.0% for Business Technology Education program; 89.9% for non-vocational education) among the black LSES high school graduates in Business Technology Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates. Among the black LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 28.3 percent (35.7% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 7.4% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels, and related fields. Among the black LSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 54.2 percent (36.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 89.9% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields. Within the white HSES high school graduates in Family and Consumer Science Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 17.5 percent (79.2% for Family and Consumer Science Education program; 96.7% for non-vocational education).in Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels, and related fields. Among the black LSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 42.6 percent (50.0% for Technology Education program; 7.4% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels, and related fields. Among the white HSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 64.0 percent (66.7% for Technology Education program; 2.7% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels, and related fields; whereas, within the white LSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 17.8 percent (0.0% for Technology Education program; 17.8% for non-vocational education). Among the black LSES high school graduates in Technology Education program 221 and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 39.9 percent (50.0% for Technology Education program; 89.9% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retails Stores, Hotels, and related fields. Within the white HSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 63.4 percent (33.3% for Technology Education program; 96.7% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retails Stores, Hotels, and related fields; whereas, within the white LSES high school graduates in Technology Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 26.7 percent (100.0% for Technology Education program; 73.3% for non-vocational education). Within the white HSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields, NITF reported a percentage difference of 19.4 percent (77.3% for Computer Education program; 96.7% for non-vocational education); and among the white LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates also working FT in Grocery and Retail stores, Hotels, and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.6 percent (88.9% for Computer Education program; 73.3% for non-vocational education). Within the white HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF reported a percentage difference of 34.0 percent (36.7% for Public Service Education program; 2.7% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields. Among the white HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates working FT in Grocery and Retail Stores and related jobs, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 16.1 percent (16.7% for Public Service Education program; 0.6% for non-vocational education); and within the white LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates also working full time, ITF reported a percentage difference of 19.7 percent (28.6% for Public Service Education program; 8.9% for non-vocational education). Among the black HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education 222 program and the black HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.9 percent (71.4% for Public Service Education program; 87.3% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; and within the black LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 23.2 percent (66.7% for Public Service Education program; 89.9% for non-vocational education). Among the white HSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white HSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF reported a percentage difference of 50.0 percent (46.7% for Public Service Education program; 96.7% for non-vocational education) in Grocery and Retail Stores and related fields; whereas, within the white LSES high school graduates in Public Service Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, NITF recorded a percentage difference of 30.4 percent (42.9% for Public Service Education program; 73.3% for non-vocational education) was recorded for Grocery and Retail Stores and related jobs (Table 36). Summary 1. Most of the fields where a higher rate of employment, that is, ITF (14.5% and above) were reported between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates were part time employment with wages between $0.00 and $2,677.00 per quarter (Tables 35 and 36). 2. In most of the fields where a higher rate of employment, that is, ITF (14.5% and above) were recorded between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates (advantage), vocational education high school graduates, especially LSES black and white, were employed in the fields for which they were trained in high school (Table 35 and 36). 3. The only fields where non-vocational education high school graduates reported higher rates of employment (ITF) (advantage) than were their vocational education colleagues were in Grocery and Retail and related fields, (Tables 35 and 36), and Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and Related fields, both HSES and LSES black and white respectively (Table 36). 4. In the fields where full time employment were recorded, LSES vocational education high school graduates, especially blacks, compared with non-vocational education high school graduates, reported higher rates of employment (ITF) (advantage), with wages of $2,678.00 and above per quarter (Tables 35 and 36). Table 35: May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Race. Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational Programs (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=165 (Number in Program) (Number in Program) B: H=0 L=2 L=93 B: H=29 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 W: H=473 W: H=33 L=8 W: H=19 L=2 L=110 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Business & Part Black H 2 6.9 5.1 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 3 1.8 Banking- Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 3 3.2 Jobs White H 0 0.0 2.3 1 5.3 3.0 0 0.0 2.3 11 2.3
L 0 0.0 2.7 2 100.0 97.3 0 0.0 2.7 3 2.7
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.2 1 0.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 27 93.1 5.1 2 100.0 1.8 0 0.0 98.2 162 98.2 Employed in Another Field. L 8 100.0 3.2 7 100.0 3.2 2 100.0 3.2 90 96.8 White H 33 100.0 2.5 18 94.7 2.8 19 100.0 2.5 461 97.5
L 8 100.0 2.7 0 0.0 97.0 2 100.0 2.7 107 97.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
223 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service Ed. % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Program) Diff (Number in Program) Diff. Education Diff B: H=165 B: H=8 L=2 . B: H=7 L=3 (Number in Program) . L=93 W: H=28 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=473 W: H=74 L=21 L=110 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Business & Part Black H 0 0.0 1.8 1 14.3 12.5 2 6.3 4.5 3 1.8 Banking- Time Related (PT) L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 2 12.5 9.3 3 3.2 Jobs White H 1 3.6 1.3 1 3.1 0.8 2 2.7 0.4 11 2.3
L 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 3 2.7
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.2 3 9.4 9.2 2 2.7 2.5 1 0.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 8 100.0 1.8 6 85.7 12.5 30 93.8 4.5 162 98.2 Employed in Another Field. L 2 100.0 3.2 3 100.0 3.2 14 87.5 9.3 90 96.8 White H 27 96.4 1.1 28 87.5 10.0 70 94.6 2.9 461 97.5
L 3 100.0 2.7 5 100.0 2.7 21 100.0 2.4 107 97.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
224 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=165 (Number in (Number in Program) B: H=0 L=93 Program) B: H=2 L=2 W: H=473 B: H=29 L=7 W: H=19 L=110 L=8 W: H=19 L=2 W: H=33 L=2 L=8 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Engineering, Part Black H 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 9 5.5 Techno logy, Time Computer, (PT) L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 2 100.0 96.8 3 3.2 Environmental White H 1 3.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 5 1.1 & Related Jobs L 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 3 2.7
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 White H 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 5 1.1
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 29 100.0 5.5 2 100.0 5.5 0 0.0 94.5 156 94.5 Employed in Another Field. L 8 100.0 4.3 7 100.0 4.3 0 0.0 95.7 89 95.7 White H 32 97.0 0.9 19 100.0 2.1 19 100.0 2.1 463 97.9
L 8 100.0 2.7 2 100.0 2.7 2 100.0 2.7 107 97.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
225 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified C oop. % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. B: H=165 Program) (Number in Program) (Number in Program) L=93 B: H=8 B: H=7 B: H=32 W: H=473 L=2 L=3 L=16 L=110 W: H=28 W: H=32 W: H=74 L=3 L=5 L=21 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Engineering, Part Black H 0 0.0 5.5 1 14.3 8.8 2 6.3 0.8 9 5.5 Techno logy, Time Computer, (PT) L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 3 18.8 15.6 3 3.2 Environm ental, White H 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 8 10.8 9.7 5 1.1 & Related Jobs L 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 3 14.3 11.6 3 2.7
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 White H 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.4 0.3 5 1.1
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 8 100.0 5.5 6 85.7 8.8 30 93.8 0.7 156 94.5 Employed in Another Field. L 2 100.0 4.3 3 100.0 4.3 13 81.3 14.4 89 95.7 White H 28 100.0 2.1 32 100.0 2.1 65 87.8 10.1 463 97.9
L 3 100.0 2.7 5 100.0 2.7 18 85.7 11.6 107 97.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
226 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff B: H=165 (Number in (Number in Program) B: H=0 . L=93 Program) B: H=2 L=2 W: H=473 B: H=29 L=7 W: H=19 L=110 L=8 W: H=1 L=2 L=2 W: H=33 L=8 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Fashion Part Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Time Related Jobs (PT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
White H 1 3.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 7 1.5
L 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 6 5.5
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 1 5.3 4.9 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 29 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 0.0 0 0.0 100. 165 100.0 Employed in Another 0 Field. L 8 100.0 0.0 7 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 0.0 93 100.0
White H 32 97.0 1.1 19 100.0 1.9 18 94.7 3.4 464 98.1
L 8 100.0 5.5 2 100.0 5.5 2 100.0 5.5 104 94.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
227 Table 35 (Contd): Employmen Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational Programs (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. t Status Education Type Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Program) Diff. Education Diff Education Diff. B: H=165 B: H=8 (Number in Program) . (Number in Program) L=93 L=2 B: H=7 B: H=32 W: H=473 W: H=28 L=3 L=16 L=110 L=3 W: H=32 W: H=74 L=5 L=21 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Fashion Part Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Time Related Jobs (PT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 2 12.5 12.5 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 6.8 5.3 7 1.5
L 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 2 9.5 4.0 6 5.5
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 1 1.4 1.0 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 8 100.0 0.0 7 100.0 0.0 32 100.0 0.0 165 100.0 Employed in Another Field. L 2 100.0 0.0 3 100.0 0.0 14 87.5 12.5 93 100.0 White H 28 100.0 1.9 32 100.0 1.9 68 91.9 6.2 464 98.1
L 3 100.0 5.5 5 100.0 5.5 19 90.5 4.0 104 94.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
228 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=165 (Number in Program) (Number in Program) B: H=0 L=93 B: H=29 B: H=2 L=2 W: H=473 L=8 L=7 W: H=19 L=110 W: H=33 W: H=19 L=2 L=8 L=2 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Information, Part Black H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 3 1.8 Entertainment, Time & (PT) L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 3 3.2 Related White H 1 3.4 4.0 1 5.3 2.1 0 0.0 7.4 35 7.4 Jobs L 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 6 5.5
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 1 0.6 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 29 100.0 2.4 2 100.0 2.4 0 0.0 2.4 161 97.6 Employed in Another Field. L 8 100.0 3.2 7 100.0 3.2 2 100.0 3.2 90 96.8 White H 32 97.0 4.4 18 94.7 2.1 19 100.0 7.4 438 92.6
L 8 100.0 5.5 2 100.0 5.5 2 100.0 5.5 104 94.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
229 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. B: B: H=8 (Number in Program) (Number in Program) H=165 L=2 B: H=7 B: H=22 L=93 W: H=28 L=3 L=16 W: L=3 W: H=32 W: H=74 H=473 L=5 L=21 L=110 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Information, Part Black H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 4 12.5 10.7 3 1.8 Entertainment, Time & (PT) L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 2 12.5 9.3 3 3.2 Related Jobs White H 0 0.0 7.4 1 3.1 4.3 4 5.4 2.0 35 7.4
L 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 2 9.5 4.0 6 5.5
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.6 1 14.3 13.7 0 0.0 0.6 1 0.6 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 8 100.0 2.4 6 85.7 11.9 28 87.5 10.1 161 97.6 Employed in Another Field. L 2 100.0 3.2 3 100.0 23.2 14 87.5 10.7 90 96.8 White H 28 100.0 7.4 31 96.9 4.3 70 94.6 2.0 438 92.6
L 3 100.0 5.5 5 100.0 5.5 19 90.5 4.0 104 94.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
230 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff. B: (Number in Program) (Number in Program) B: H=0 H=165 B: H=29 B: H=2 L=2 L=93 L=8 L=7 W: H=19 W: W: H=33 W: H=19 L=2 H=473 L=8 L=2 L=110 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Law Part Black H 2 6.9 3.9 1 50.0 47.0 0 0.0 3.0 5 3.0 Enforcem ent, Time Public (PT) L 2 25.0 22.8 1 14.3 12.1 0 0.0 2.2 2 2.2 Service, White H 3 9.1 3.6 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 26 5.5 Education, & L 3 37.5 33.0 0 0.0 4.5 0 0.0 4.5 5 4.5 Related Jobs Full Black H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 1 0.6 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 27 93.1 3.3 1 50.0 46.4 0 0.0 96.4 159 96.4 Employed in Another Field. L 6 75.0 22.8 6 85.7 12.1 2 100.0 2.2 91 97.8 White H 30 90.9 3.6 19 100.0 5.5 19 100.0 5.5 447 94.5
L 5 62.5 33.0 2 100.0 4.5 2 100.0 4.5 105 95.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
231 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number in Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. B: H=165 B: H=8 (Number in Program) (Number in Program) L=93 L=2 B: H=7 B: H=32 W: H=473 W: H=28 L=3 L=16 L=110 L=3 W: H=32 W: H=74 L=5 L=21 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Law Part Black H 1 12.5 9.5 3 42.9 39.9 8 25.0 22.0 5 3.0 Enforcem ent, Time Public Service, (PT) L 0 0.0 2.2 3 100.0 97.8 2 12.5 10.3 2 2.2 Education, White H 0 0.0 5.5 5 15.6 10.1 16 21.6 16.1 26 5.5 & Related Jobs L 1 33.3 28.8 3 60.0 55.5 2 9.5 5.0 5 4.5
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 1 0.6 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 7 87.5 8.9 4 57.1 39.3 24 75.0 21.4 159 96.4 Employed in Another Field. L 2 100.0 2.2 0 0.0 97.8 14 87.5 10.3 91 97.8 White H 28 100.0 5.5 27 84.4 10.1 58 78.4 16.1 447 94.5
L 2 66.7 28.8 2 40.0 55.5 19 90.5 5.0 105 95.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
232 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff. B: (Number in Program) (Number in Program) B: H=0 H=165 B: H=29 B: H=2 L=2 L=93 L=8 L=7 W: H=19 W: W: H=33 W: H=19 L=2 H=473 L=8 L=2 L=110 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Medical Part Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Time Health - (PT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs White H 1 3.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 7 1.5
L 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 4 3.6
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 1 0.6 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 1 3.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 29 100.0 0.6 2 100.0 0.6 0 0.0 99.4 164 99.4 Employed in Another Field. L 8 100.0 0.0 7 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 0.0 93 100.0 White H 31 93.9 4.6 19 100.0 1.5 19 100.0 1.5 466 98.5
L 8 100.0 3.6 2 100.0 3.6 2 100.0 3.6 106 96.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
233 Table 35 (Contd): Employmen Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. t Status Education Type Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Program) Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. B: B: H=8 (Number in Program) (Number in Program) H=165 L=2 B: H=7 B: H=32 L=93 W: H=28 L=3 L=16 W: L=3 W: H=32 W: H=74 H=473 L=5 L=21 L=110 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Medical Part Black H 2 25.0 25.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Time Health - (PT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs White H 0 0.0 1.5 1 3.1 1.6 6 8.1 6.6 7 1.5
L 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 2 9.5 5.9 4 3.6
Full Black H 1 12.5 11.9 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 1 0.6 Time (FT) L 1 50.0 50.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.0 1 3.1 3.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 5 62.5 36.9 7 100.0 0.6 32 100.0 0.6 164 99.4 Employed in Another Field. L 1 50.0 50.0 3 100.0 0.0 16 100.0 0.0 93 100.0 White H 28 100.0 1.5 30 93.8 4.7 68 91.9 6.6 466 98.5
L 3 100.0 3.6 5 100.0 3.6 19 90.5 5.9 106 96.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
234 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff. B: (Number in Program) (Number in Program) B: H=0 H=165 B: H=29 B: H=2 L=2 L=93 L=8 L=7 W: H=19 W: W: H=33 W: H=19 L=2 H=473 L=8 L=2 L=110 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Other Jobs Part Black H 0 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 5 3.0 (Unclassifiable Time Jobs) (PT) L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 3 3.2 White H 3 9.1 3.6 1 5.3 0.2 0 0.0 5.5 26 5.5
L 0 0.0 8.2 0 0.0 8.2 0 0.0 8.2 9 8.2
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 29 100.0 3.0 2 100.0 3.0 0 0.0 97.0 160 97.0 Employed in Another Field. L 8 100.0 3.8 7 100.0 3.2 2 100.0 3.2 90 96.8 White H 30 90.9 3.0 18 94.7 0.8 19 100.0 6.1 444 93.9
L 8 100.0 8.2 2 100.0 8.2 2 100.0 8.2 101 91.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
235 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. B: Program) (Number in Program) (Number in Program) H=165 B: H=8 B: H=7 B: H=32 L=93 L=2 L=3 L=16 W: W: H=28 W: H=32 W: H=74 H=493 L=3 L=5 L=21 L=110 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Other Jobs Part Black H 0 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 6 18.8 15.8 5 3.0 (Unclassifiable Time Jobs) (PT) L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 1 6.3 3.1 3 3.2 White H 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 6 8.1 2.6 26 5.5
L 0 0.0 8.2 0 0.0 8.2 2 9.5 1.3 9 8.2
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 8 100.0 3.0 7 100.0 3.0 26 81.3 15.7 160 97.0 Employed in Another Field. L 2 100.0 3.2 3 100.0 3.2 15 93.8 3.0 90 96.8 White H 28 100.0 6.1 32 100.0 6.1 68 91.9 2.0 444 93.9
L 3 100.0 8.2 5 100.0 8.2 19 90.5 1.3 101 91.8 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
236 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational Programs (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. Education Diff. B: H=165 (Number in Program) (Number in (Number in Program) L=93 B: H=29 Program) B: H=0 W: H=473 L=8 B: H=2 L=2 L=110 W: H=33 L=7 W: H=19 L=8 W: H=19 L=2 Total % L=2 Total % Total % Total %
Grocery and Part Black H 20 69.0 46.0 0 0.0 23.0 0 0.0 23.0 38 23.0 Retail Stores, Time Restaurant, (PT) L 6 75.0 40.6 0 0.0 34.4 0 0.0 34.4 32 34.4 Hotels, White H 14 42.4 25.1 0 0.0 17.3 0 0.0 17.3 82 17.3 Gasoline Stations, L 4 50.0 27.3 0 0.0 22.7 0 0.0 22.7 25 22.7 & Related Jobs. Full Black H 2 6.9 3.9 0 0.0 3.0 0 0.0 3.0 5 3.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 4.3 2 28.6 24.3 0 0.0 4.3 4 4.3 White H 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 1 5.3 2.8 12 2.5
L 1 12.5 8.9 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 4 3.6
Unemployed or Black H 7 24.1 49.8 2 100.0 26.1 0 0.0 73.9 122 73.9 Employed in Another Field. L 2 25.0 36.3 5 71.4 10.1 2 100.0 38.7 57 61.3 White H 19 57.6 22.5 19 100.0 19.9 18 94.7 14.6 379 80.1
L 3 37.5 36.1 2 100.0 26.5 2 100.0 26.4 81 73.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
237 Table 35 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=165 Program) (Number in Program) . B: H=32 L=93 B: H=8 B: H=7 L=16 W: H=473 L=2 L=3 W: H=74 L=110 W: H=28 W: H=32 L=21 L=3 L=5 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Grocery and Part Black H 2 25.0 2.0 0 0.0 23.0 5 15.6 7.4 38 23.0 Retail Stores, Time Restaurant, (PT) L 1 50.0 15.6 0 0.0 34.4 4 25.0 9.4 32 34.4 Hotels, Gasoline White H 6 21.4 4.1 0 0.0 17.3 5 6.8 10.5 82 17.3 Stations, & L 2 66.7 44.0 0 0.0 22.7 3 14.3 8.4 25 22.7 Related Jobs. Full Black H 2 25.0 22.0 0 0.0 3.0 5 15.6 12.6 5 3.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 4.3 0 0.0 4.3 2 12.5 8.2 4 4.3 White H 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 6 8.1 5.6 12 2.5
L 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 2 9.5 5.9 4 3.6
Unemployed or Black H 4 50.0 23.9 7 100.0 26.1 22 68.8 5.1 122 73.9 Employed in Another Field. L 1 50.0 11.3 3 100.0 38.7 10 62.5 1.2 57 61.3 White H 22 78.6 1.5 32 100.0 19.9 63 85.1 5.0 379 80.1
L 1 33.3 40.3 5 100.0 26.4 16 76.2 2.6 81 73.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
238 Table 36: May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education High School Graduates Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards Compared by Employment Type or Field and Vocational Education Program by Race. Employmen Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non- t Status Vocational Type Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % Education Education Diff. Science Education Diff (Number in Program) Diff. (Number) (Number in (Number in Program) . B: H=2 B: H=102 Program) B: H=21 L=4 L=148 B: H=28 L=14 W: H=3 W: H=488 L=20 W: H=24 L=3 L=90 W: H=52 L=15 L=15 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Business & Part Black H 4 14.3 10.4 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9 Banking- Time Related (PT) L 5 15.5 23.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0 Jobs White H 6 11.5 10.7 1 4.2 3.4 0 0.0 0.8 4 0.8
L 3 20.0 14.4 0 0.0 5.6 0 0.0 5.6 5 5.6
Full Black H 2 7.1 4.2 0 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 0.0 3 2.9 Time (FT) L 3 9.1 13.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0 White H 4 7.7 6.3 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 7 1.4
L 0 8.0 4.0 0 0.0 4.0 0 0.0 4.0 4 4.0
Unemployed or Black H 22 78.6 14.5 21 100.0 6.9 2 100.0 6.9 95 93.1 Employed in Another Field. L 12 76.4 35.9 14 100.0 4.1 4 100.0 4.1 142 95.9 White H 42 80.8 16.9 23 100.0 97.7 3 100.0 2.3 477 97.7
L 12 72.0 10.0 15 100.0 10.0 3 100.0 10.0 81 90.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
239 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff Education Diff B: H=102 Program) (Number in Program) . (Number in Program) . L=148 B: H=21 B: H=14 B: H=30 W: H=488 L=16 L=12 L=33 L=90 W: H=44 W: H=30 W: H=83 L=18 L=14 L=42 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Business & Part Black H 3 14.3 10.4 2 14.3 10.4 5 16.7 12.8 4 3.9 Banking- Time Related (PT) L 6 37.5 35.5 2 16.7 14.7 3 9.1 7.1 3 2.0 Jobs White H 6 13.6 12.8 4 13.3 12.5 12 14.5 13.7 4 0.8
L 7 38.9 33.3 3 21.4 15.8 4 9.5 3.9 5 5.6
Full Black H 2 9.5 6.6 0 0.0 2.9 2 6.7 3.8 3 2.9 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 9.1 7.1 3 2.0 White H 2 4.5 3.1 0 0.0 1.4 5 6.0 4.6 7 1.4
L 0 0.0 4.0 0 0.0 4.0 3 7.1 3.1 4 4.0
Unemployed or Black H 16 76.2 16.9 12 85.7 7.4 23 76.7 16.4 95 93.1 Employed in Another Field. L 10 62.5 36.6 10 83.3 12.6 27 81.8 14.1 142 95.9 White H 36 81.8 15.9 26 86.7 11.0 66 79.5 18.2 477 97.7
L 11 61.1 28.9 11 78.6 11.4 35 83.3 6.7 81 90.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
240 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational Programs (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=103 (Number in Program) (Number in Program) . B: H=2 L=148 B: H=28 B: H=21 L=4 W: H=488 L=20 L=14 W: H=3 L=90 W: H=52 W: H=24 L=3 L=15 L=15 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Engineering, Part Black H 2 7.1 4.3 1 4.8 1.9 0 0.0 2.9 3 2.9 Techno logy, Time Computer, (PT) L 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 5 3.4 Environmental White H 4 7.7 6.7 2 8.3 7.3 0 0.0 1.0 5 1.0 & Related L 2 13.3 8.9 1 6.7 2.3 0 0.0 4.4 4 4.4 Jobs Full Black H 2 7.1 4.2 0 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 2.9 3 2.9 Time (FT) L 2 10.0 8.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0 White H 2 3.8 2.4 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 7 1.4
L 0 0.0 5.6 0 0.0 5.6 0 0.0 5.6 5 5.6
Unemployed or Black H 24 85.7 8.4 20 95.2 1.1 2 100.0 5.9 96 94.1 Employed in Another Field. L 18 90.0 4.6 14 100.0 5.4 4 100.0 5.4 140 94.6 White H 46 88.5 0.9 22 91.7 5.8 3 100.0 2.5 476 97.5
L 13 86.7 3.3 14 93.3 3.3 3 100.0 10.0 81 90.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
241 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified C oop. % (Number) (Number in Program) Diff. Education Diff Education Diff B: H=102 B: H=21 (Number in Program) . (Number in Program) . L=148 L=16 B: H=14 B: H=30 W: H=488 W: H=44 L=12 L=33 L=90 L=18 W: H=30 W: H=83 L=14 L=42 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Engineering, Part Black H 3 14.3 11.4 0 0.0 2.9 4 13.3 10.4 3 2.9 Techno logy, Time Computer, (PT) L 2 12.5 9.1 0 0.0 3.4 4 12.1 8.7 5 3.4 Environm ental, White H 7 15.9 14.9 0 0.0 1.0 10 12.0 11.0 5 1.0 & Related Jobs L 4 22.2 17.8 0 0.0 4.4 3 7.1 2.7 4 4.4
Full Black H 2 9.5 6.6 0 0.0 2.9 2 6.7 3.8 3 2.9 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 4 12.1 10.1 3 2.0 White H 2 4.5 3.1 0 0.0 1.4 3 3.6 2.2 7 1.4
L 0 0.0 5.6 0 0.0 5.6 7 16.7 11.1 5 5.6
Unemployed or Black H 16 76.2 17.9 14 100.0 5.9 24 80.0 14.1 96 94.1 Employed in Another Field. L 14 87.5 7.1 12 100.0 5.4 25 75.8 18.8 140 94.6 White H 35 79.5 18.0 30 100.0 2.5 70 84.3 13.2 476 97.5
L 14 77.8 12.2 14 100.0 10.0 32 76.2 13.8 81 90.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
242 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff Science Education Diff (Number in Program) Diff B: H=102 (Number in Program) . (Number in Program) . B: H=2 . L=148 B: H=28 B: H=21 L=4 W: H=488 L=20 L=14 W: H=3 L=90 W: H=52 W: H=24 L=3 L=15 L=15 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Fashion Part Black H 0 0.0 3.9 2 9.5 5.6 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9 & Time Related Jobs (PT) L 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 4 2.7 White H 0 0.0 1.4 4 16.7 15.3 0 0.0 1.4 7 1.4
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 4 4.4
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 2 9.5 9.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.0 3 12.5 12.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 28 100.0 3.9 17 81.0 15.1 2 100.0 3.9 98 96.1 Employed in Another Field. L 20 100.0 2.7 14 100.0 2.7 4 100.0 2.7 144 97.3 White H 52 100.0 1.4 17 70.8 28.6 3 100.0 1.4 481 98.6
L 15 100.0 4.4 15 100.0 4.4 3 100.0 4.4 86 95.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
243 Table 36 (Contd): Employmen Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. t Status Education Type Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff Education Diff. B: H=102 Program) (Number in Program) . (Number in Program) L=148 B: H=21 B: H=14 B: H=30 W: H=488 L=16 L=12 L=33 L=90 W: H=44 W: H=30 W: H=83 L=18 L=14 L=42 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Fashion Part Black H 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 2 6.7 2.8 4 3.9 & Time Related Jobs (PT) L 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 3 9.1 6.4 4 2.7 White H 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 3 3.6 2.2 7 1.4
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 6 14.3 9.9 4 4.4
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 21 100.0 3.9 14 100.0 3.9 28 93.3 2.8 98 96.1 Employed in Another Field. L 16 100.0 2.7 12 100.0 2.7 30 90.9 6.4 144 97.3 White H 44 100.0 1.4 30 100.0 1.4 80 96.4 2.2 481 98.6
L 18 100.0 4.4 14 100.0 4.4 36 85.7 9.9 86 95.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
244 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=102 (Number in (Number in Program) B: H=2 L=148 Program) B: H=21 L=4 W: H=488 B: H=28 L=14 W: H=3 L=90 L=20 W: H=24 L=3 W: H=52 L=15 L=15 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Information, Part Black H 2 7.1 5.1 0 0.0 2.0 1 50.0 48.0 2 2.0 Entertainment Time , & (PT) L 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 1 25.0 23.6 2 1.4 Related Jobs White H 4 7.7 7.7 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 33.3 33.3 0 0.0
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 1 0.7 White H 3 5.8 4.6 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 6 1.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 33.3 33.3 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 26 92.9 5.1 21 100.0 2.0 1 50.0 48.0 100 98.0 Employed in Another Field. L 20 100.0 2.0 14 88.9 2.0 3 75.0 23.0 145 98.0 White H 45 86.5 12.3 24 100.0 1.2 3 100.0 1.2 482 98.8
L 15 100.0 0.0 15 100.0 0.0 1 33.3 66.7 90 100.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
245 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Ed. Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. B: H=102 Program) (Number in (Number in Program) L=148 B: H=21 Program) B: H=30 W: H=488 L=16 B: H=14 L=33 L=90 W: H=44 L=12 W: H=83 L=18 W: H=30 L=42 L=14 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Information, Part Black H 3 14.3 12.3 0 0.0 2.0 2 6.7 4.7 2 2.0 Entertainment, Time & (PT) L 2 12.5 11.1 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 2 1.4 Related Jobs White H 6 13.6 13.6 0 0.0 0.0 5 6.0 6.0 0 0.0
L 2 11.1 11.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 1.8 1.8 0 0.0
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 2 6.7 6.7 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 1 0.7 White H 4 9.1 7.9 0 0.0 1.2 7 8.4 7.2 6 1.2
L 2 11.1 11.1 2 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 18 85.7 12.3 14 100.0 2.0 26 86.7 11.3 100 98.0 Employed in Another Field. L 14 87.5 10.5 12 100.0 2.0 33 100.0 2.0 145 98.0 White H 34 77.3 21.5 30 100.0 1.2 71 85.5 13.3 482 98.8
L 14 77.8 22.2 12 85.7 14.3 42 100.0 0.0 90 100.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
246 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff. (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=102 (Number in (Number in B: H=2 L=148 Program) Program) L=4 W: H=488 B: H=28 B: H=21 W: H=3 L=90 L=20 L=14 L=3 W: H=52 W: H=24 L=15 L=15 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Law Part Black H 3 10.7 5.0 2 9.5 6.2 1 50.0 34.3 16 15.7 Enforcem ent, Time Public (PT) L 1 5.0 1.1 2 14.3 8.2 1 25.0 18.9 9 6.1 Service, White H 2 3.8 0.3 3 12.5 8.4 0 0.0 4.1 20 4.1 Education, & L 1 6.7 16.6 2 13.3 10.0 0 0.0 23.3 21 23.3 Related Jobs Full Black H 2 7.1 2.2 2 9.5 4.6 0 0.0 4.9 5 4.9 Time (FT) L 1 5.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 4 2.7 White H 2 3.8 3.0 4 16.7 15.9 1 33.3 32.5 4 0.8
L 0 0.0 3.3 1 6.7 3.4 1 33.3 30.0 3 3.3
Unemployed or Black H 23 82.1 2.7 17 81.0 1.6 1 50.0 29.4 81 79.4 Employed in Another Field. L 18 90.0 1.2 12 85.7 5.5 3 75.0 16.2 135 91.2 White H 48 92.3 2.8 17 70.8 24.3 2 66.7 28.4 464 95.1
L 14 93.3 20.0 12 80.0 6.7 2 66.7 6.6 66 73.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
247 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. B: H=102 Program) (Number in Program) (Number in Program) L=148 B: H=21 B: H=14 B: H=30 W: H=488 L=16 L=12 L=33 L=90 W: H=44 W: H=30 W: H=83 L=18 L=14 L=42 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Law Part Black H 3 14.3 1.4 4 28.6 12.9 1 3.3 12.4 16 15.7 Enforcem ent, Time Public Service, (PT) L 2 12.5 6.4 2 16.7 10.6 2 6.1 0.0 9 6.1 Education, White H 3 6.8 2.7 12 40.0 35.9 5 6.0 1.9 20 4.1 & Related Jobs L 2 11.1 12.2 6 42.9 19.6 4 9.5 13.8 21 23.3
Full Black H 1 4.8 0.1 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 5 4.9 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 2.7 1 8.3 5.6 0 0.0 2.7 4 2.7 White H 3 6.8 6.0 0 0.0 0.8 3 3.6 2.8 4 0.8
L 2 11.1 7.8 0 0.0 3.3 0 0.0 3.3 3 3.3
Unemployed or Black H 17 81.0 1.6 10 71.4 8.0 29 96.7 17.3 81 79.4 Employed in Another Field. L 14 87.5 3.9 9 75.0 16.2 31 93.9 2.7 135 91.2 White H 38 86.4 8.7 18 60.0 35.1 75 90.4 4.7 464 95.1
L 14 77.8 4.5 8 57.1 16.2 38 90.5 17.2 66 73.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
248 Table 36 (Contd): Employmen Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. t Status Education Type Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=102 (Number in (Number in Program) . B: H=2 L=148 Program) B: H=21 L=4 W: H=488 B: H=28 L=14 W: H=3 L=90 L=20 W: H=24 L=3 W: H=52 L=15 L=15 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Medical Part Black H 0 0.0 2.0 3 14.3 12.3 0 0.0 2.0 2 2.0 & Time Health - (PT) L 0 0.0 2.7 3 21.4 10.7 0 0.0 2.7 4 2.7 Related Jobs White H 2 3.8 2.0 4 16.7 14.9 0 0.0 1.8 9 1.8
L 0 0.0 0.0 4 26.7 26.7 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 2 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 White H 1 1.9 0.9 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 5 1.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 28 100.0 2.0 18 85.7 12.3 2 100.0 2.0 100 98.0 Employed in Another Field. L 18 90.0 7.3 11 78.6 18.7 4 100.0 2.7 144 97.3 White H 49 94.2 2.9 20 83.3 13.8 3 100.0 2.9 474 97.1
L 15 100.0 0.0 11 73.3 26.7 3 100.0 0.0 90 100.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
249 Table 36 (Contd): Employmen Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. t Status Education Type Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Program) Diff. Education Diff Education Diff B: H=102 B: H=21 (Number in Program) . (Number in Program) . L=148 L=16 B: H=14 B: H=30 W: H=488 W: H=44 L=12 L=33 L=90 L=18 W: H=30 W: H=83 L=14 L=42 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Medical Part Black H 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 2 2.0 & Time Health - (PT) L 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 4 2.7 Related Jobs White H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 3 3.6 1.8 9 1.8
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Full Black H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 2 6.1 6.1 0 0.0 White H 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 2 2.4 1.4 5 1.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 1.8 1.8 0 0.0
Unemployed or Black H 21 100.0 2.0 14 100.0 2.0 30 100.0 2.0 100 98.0 Employed in Another Field. L 16 100.0 2.7 12 100.0 2.7 31 93.9 3.4 144 97.3 White H 44 100.0 2.9 30 100.0 2.9 78 94.0 3.1 474 97.1
L 18 100.0 0.0 14 100.0 0.0 41 97.6 2.4 90 100.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
250 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology Education % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=102 (Number in Program) (Number in Program) . B: H=2 L=148 B: H=28 B: H=21 L=4 W: H=488 L=20 L=14 W: H=3 L=90 W: H=52 W: H=24 L=3 L=15 L=15 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Other Jobs Part Black H 2 7.1 0.2 0 0.0 6.9 0 0.0 6.9 7 6.9 (Unclassifiable Time Jobs) (PT) L 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0 White H 6 11.5 10.7 1 4.2 3.4 0 0.0 0.8 4 0.8
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 4 4.4
Full Black H 2 7.1 0.2 0 0.0 6.9 0 0.0 6.9 7 6.9 Time (FT) L 2 10.0 8.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0 White H 4 7.7 5.4 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 11 2.3
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 4 4.4
Unemployed or Black H 24 85.7 0.6 21 100.0 13.7 2 100.0 13.7 88 86.3 Employed in Another Field. L 18 90.0 5.9 14 100.0 4.1 4 100.0 4.1 142 95.9 White H 42 80.8 16.1 23 95.8 1.1 3 100.0 3.1 473 96.9
L 15 100.0 8.9 15 100.0 8.9 3 100.0 8.1 82 91.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
251 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Cooperative % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff. Education Diff. B: Program) (Number in Program) (Number in Program) H=102 B: H=21 B: H=14 B: H=30 L=148 L=16 L=12 L=33 W: W: H=44 W: H=30 W: H=83 H=488 L=18 L=14 L=42 L=90
Total % Total % Total % Total %
Other Jobs Part Black H 0 0.0 6.9 0 0.0 6.9 0 0.0 6.9 7 6.9 (Unclassifiable Time Jobs) (PT) L 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0 White H 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 7 8.4 7.6 4 0.8
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 7 16.7 12.3 4 4.4
Full Black H 0 0.0 6.9 0 0.0 6.9 0 0.0 6.9 7 6.9 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0 White H 0 0.0 2.3 1 3.3 1.0 5 6.0 3.7 11 2.3
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 6 14.3 9.9 4 4.4
Unemployed or Black H 21 100.0 13.7 14 100.0 13.7 30 100.0 13.7 88 86.3 Employed in Another Field. L 16 100.0 4.1 12 100.0 4.1 33 100.0 4.1 142 95.9 White H 44 100.0 3.1 29 96.7 0.2 71 85.5 11.4 473 96.9
L 18 100.0 8.1 14 100.0 8.9 29 69.0 22.1 82 91.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
252 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Business Technology % Family & Consumer % Technology % (Number) Education Diff. Science Education Diff Education Diff. B: H=102 (Number in (Number in Program) . (Number in Program) L=148 Program) B: H=21 B: H=2 W: H=488 B: H=28 L=14 L=4 L=90 L=20 W: H=24 W: H=3 W: H=52 L=15 L=3 L=15 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Grocery and Part Black H 3 10.7 0.9 3 14.3 4.5 0 0.0 9.8 10 9.8 Retail Stores, Time Restaurant, (PT) L 2 10.0 2.6 5 35.7 28.3 2 50.0 42.6 11 7.4 Hotels, Gasoline White H 6 11.5 8.8 2 8.3 5.6 2 66.7 64.0 13 2.7 Stations, & L 2 13.3 4.5 3 20.0 2.2 0 0.0 17.8 16 17.8 Related Jobs. Full Black H 2 7.1 4.2 3 14.3 11.4 0 0.0 2.9 3 2.9 Time (FT) L 3 15.0 12.3 4 28.6 25.9 0 0.0 2.7 4 2.7 White H 3 5.8 5.2 3 12.5 11.9 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 2 13.3 4.4 3 20.0 11.1 0 0.0 8.9 8 8.9
Unemployed or Black H 23 82.1 5.2 16 76.2 11.1 2 100.0 12.7 89 87.3 Employed in Another Field. L 15 75.0 14.9 5 36.0 54.2 2 50.0 39.9 133 89.9 White H 43 82.7 14.0 19 79.2 17.5 1 33.3 63.4 472 96.7
L 11 73.3 0.0 9 60.0 13.3 3 100.0 26.7 66 73.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
253 Table 36 (Contd): Employment Job Race SES Percentage Difference in Emplo yment by Vocational P rograms (V oc. Ed. & Non-Voc. Ed.) Non-Voc. Type Status Education Computer Education % Public Service % Diversified Coop. % (Number) (Number in Diff. Education Diff (Number in Program) Diff. B: H=102 Program) (Number in Program) . B: H=30 L=148 B: H=21 B: H=14 L=33 W: H=488 L=16 L=12 W: H=83 L=90 W: H=44 W: H=30 L=42 L=18 L=14 Total % Total % Total % Total %
Grocery and Part Black H 3 14.3 4.5 3 21.4 11.6 2 6.7 3.1 10 9.8 Retail Stores, Time Restaurant, (PT) L 2 12.5 5.1 2 16.7 9.3 4 12.1 4.7 11 7.4 Hotels, Gasoline White H 4 9.1 6.4 11 36.7 34.0 5 6.0 3.3 13 2.7 Stations, & L 0 0.0 17.8 4 28.6 10.8 5 11.9 5.9 16 17.8 Related Jobs. Full Black H 2 9.5 6.6 1 7.1 4.2 2 6.7 3.8 3 2.9 Time (FT) L 0 0.0 2.7 2 16.7 14.0 3 9.1 6.4 4 2.7 White H 6 13.6 13.0 5 16.7 16.1 4 4.8 4.2 3 0.6
L 2 11.1 2.2 4 28.6 19.7 6 14.3 5.4 8 8.9
Unemployed or Black H 16 76.2 11.1 10 71.4 15.9 26 86.7 0.6 89 87.3 Employed in Another Field. L 14 87.5 2.4 8 66.7 23.2 26 78.8 11.1 133 89.9 White H 34 77.3 19.4 14 46.7 50.0 74 89.2 7.5 472 96.7
L 16 88.9 15.6 6 42.9 30.4 31 73.8 0.5 66 73.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher SES; L=Lower SES; PT=Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Wages, $2678 and Over Per Quarter; Total=Number Employed or Unemployed in Each Employment Type or Field; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
254 255
Question 4a What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000 who did not enroll in postsecondary schools, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on type of vocational education program taken in 9th through 12th grades and type of employment by gender?
Question 4a is an attempt to verify whether there was percentage difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools when compared by vocational programs and gender by socioeconomic status (SES). The data presented in Table 37 (May 1999 high school graduates) and Table 38 (May 2000 high school graduates) were analyzed to establish the percentage difference in employment. High school graduates (HSG) who were employed in a particular field or job type are described in this paper as “in this field” (ITF), whereas, HSG not employed in that particular field or job type are described as “not in this field” (NITF). The percentages were calculated by dividing the number of either male or female high school graduates ITF or NITF by the corresponding number (by Socioeconomic Status) of high school graduates in 12th grade, and multiplying the result by 100. Taking Business Technology Education vocational program in Table 37 (May 1999 high school graduates) for instance; the Business Technology Education vocational program (May 1999 high school graduates) had 20 HSES male high school graduates in the program. Out of the 20 HSES male high school graduates, 1 of the 3 male HSES high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools was employed in Business, Banking, and related fields (ITF) as PT and 2 were NITF. In order to calculate the percentage of HSES male Business Technology Education HSG who did not enroll in postsecondary schools but ITF, the number (1) HSES male high school graduates ITF was divided by the number (20) HSES male high school graduates in Business Technology Education vocational program, which gave the number (0.05). The number (0.05) was further multiplied by the number (100) to give 5.0 percent, as the percentage of HSES 256 male Business Technology Education HSG who did not enroll in postsecondary schools but was employed in Business, Banking, and related fields (ITF) (Table 37). Similar calculations with the corresponding field and socioeconomic status (SES) level were done for the ITF and NITF vocational and non-vocational education HSG throughout Tables 37 and 38. A close look at Table 37 (May 1999 high school graduates) reported no percentage difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational education HSG who did not enroll in postsecondary schools when compared by vocational education programs and SES by gender. Inspection of Table 38 (May 2000 high school graduates) revealed that in Business, Banking, and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 19.4 percent (20.0% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 0.6% for non- vocational education) among HSES female HSG who were in Family and Consumer Science Education vocational program and female HSES non-vocational education HSG; and within the LSES male HSG who were in Computer Education and LSES male non- vocational education HSG, a percentage difference of 24.4 percent (26.7% for Computer Education; and 2.3 percent for non-vocational education) ITF was recorded. Among the LSES female HSG who were in Family and Consumer Science Education vocational program and the LSES female non-vocational HSG working part time (PT) in Fashion and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 17.6 percent (17.6% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 0.0% for non- vocational education); and within the LSES female HSG who were in Family and Consumer Science Education vocational program and the LSES female non-vocational HSG working full time (FT) in Fashion and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 17.6 percent (17.6% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 0.0% for non-vocational education). Within the LSES male HSG who were in Public Service Education 257 vocational program and the LSES male non-vocational HSG working full time (FT) in Information, Entertainment, and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 37.7 percent (40.0% for Public Service Education; and 2.3% for non-vocational education); and among the LSES female HSG who were in Public Service Education vocational program and the LSES female non-vocational HSG working full time (FT) in Information, Entertainment, and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 29.7 percent (31.3% for Public Service Education; and 1.6% for non-vocational education). Among the LSES female HSG who were in Family and Consumer Science Education vocational program and the LSES female non-vocational HSG working full time (FT) in Medical and Health related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 17.6 percent (17.6% for Family and Consumer Science Education; and 0.0% for non- vocational education). Summary 1. In the fields where higher rate of employment, that is ITF (14.5% and above) were reported between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary school, most vocational education high school graduates, especially LSES male and female, were working full time, with wages of $2,678.00 and above per quarter (Table 38). 2. In most of the fields where higher rates of employment, that is, ITF (14.5% and above) were recorded between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools, vocational high school graduates were working in the fields for which they were trained in high school (advantage) (Table 38). 3. In no field were both male and female LSES and HSES non-vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools report higher rate of employment (ITF) than their respective vocational education colleagues (advantage) (Tables 37 and 38). Table 37: May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln High Schools, Compared on Percentage Difference in High School Graduates Who Did Not Enroll in Postsecondary Schools by Vocational Program and Employment by gender. Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=8 L=13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 M: H= 20 L= 5 F: H= 42 L=16 L=2 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=8 L= 13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 M: H=15 L=5 F: H=35 L =16 L=2 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H= 0 L= 0 F: H=0 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 M: H= 2 L= 0 F: H=3 L=0 L=0 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Business, PT M H 1 5.0 4.1 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9 Banking, & L 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 1 0.8 Related Jobs FH 1 2.4 1.5 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 2 4.8 4.8 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 2 10.0 13.0 0 0.0 23.0 0 0.0 23.0 77 23.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.8 0 0.0 28.8 0 0.0 28.8 34 28.8
(NITF) FH 1 2.4 11.7 0 0.0 14.1 0 0.0 14.1 47 14.1
L 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 11 10.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
258 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=20 L=2 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 F: H=63 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 L=20 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=10 L=4 M: H=42 L=15 F: H=61 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 L=19 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H= 0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H=7 L=0 F: H=5 L=2 M: H=2 L=3 F: H=2 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 L=1 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Business, PT M H 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9 Banking, & L 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 1 0.8 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 2 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 0 0.0 23.0 3 15.0 8.0 0 0.0 23.0 77 23.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.8 0 0.0 28.8 0 0.0 28.8 34 28.8
(NITF) FH 0 0.0 14.1 4 21.1 7.0 0 0.0 14.1 47 14.1
L 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 11 10.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
259 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=8 L=13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 M: H= 20 L= 5 F: H= 42 L=16 L=2 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=8 L= 13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 M: H=15 L=5 F: H=35 L =16 L=2 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H= 0 L= 0 F: H=0 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 M: H= 2 L= 0 F: H=3 L=0 L=0 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Eng., PT M H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6 Tech., Environ- L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 mental, Computer FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs. FT MH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 1.7
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 3 15.0 7.7 0 0.0 22.7 0 0.0 22.7 76 22.7 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 33 28.0
(NITF) FH 4 9.5 10.0 0 0.0 19.5 0 0.0 19.5 65 19.5
L 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 11 10.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
260 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=20 L=2 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 F: H=63 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 L=20 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=10 L=4 M: H=42 L=15 F: H=61 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 L=19 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H= 0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H=7 L=0 F: H=5 L=2 M: H=2 L=3 F: H=2 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 L=1 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
PT M H 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6 Eng., Tech., L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Environ- mental, FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Computer & L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs. FT MH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 1.7
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 0 0.0 22.7 5 25.0 2.3 0 0.0 22.7 76 22.7 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 33 28.0
(NITF) FH 0 0.0 19.5 4 21.1 1.6 0 0.0 19.5 65 19.5
L 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 11 10.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
261 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=8 L=13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 M: H= 20 L= 5 F: H= 42 L=16 L=2 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=8 L= 13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 M: H=15 L=5 F: H=35 L =16 L=2 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H= 0 L= 0 F: H=0 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 M: H= 2 L= 0 F: H=3 L=0 L=0 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Fashion PT M H 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 1.7
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 3 15.0 8.6 0 0.0 23.6 0 0.0 23.6 79 23.6 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 33 28.0
(NITF) FH 4 10.0 5.0 0 0.0 15.0 0 0.0 15.0 50 15.0
L 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 11 10.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
262 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=20 L=2 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 F: H=63 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 L=20 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=10 L=4 M: H=42 L=15 F: H=61 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 L=19 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H= 0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H=7 L=0 F: H=5 L=2 M: H=2 L=3 F: H=2 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 L=1 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
PT M H 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3 Fashion & L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 1.7
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 0 0.0 23.6 5 25.0 1.4 0 0.0 23.6 79 23.6 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 33 28.0
(NITF) FH 0 0.0 15.0 4 21.1 6.1 0 0.0 15.0 50 15.0
L 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 11 10.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
263 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=8 L=13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 M: H= 20 L= 5 F: H= 42 L=16 L=2 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=8 L= 13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 M: H=15 L=5 F: H=35 L =16 L=2 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H= 0 L= 0 F: H=0 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 M: H= 2 L= 0 F: H=3 L=0 L=0 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Informati PT M H 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 on, Entertain- L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 1.7 ment, & FH 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 9 2.7 Related Jobs L 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 1 1.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 3 15.0 5.9 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 70 20.9 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 33 28.0
(NITF) FH 4 10.0 2.3 0 0.0 12.3 0 0.0 12.3 41 12.3
L 0 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 9.7 10 9.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
264 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=20 L=2 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 F: H=63 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 L=20 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=10 L=4 M: H=42 L=15 F: H=61 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 L=19 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H= 0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H=7 L=0 F: H=5 L=2 M: H=2 L=3 F: H=2 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 L=1 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
PT M H 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 Informati on, L 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 0 0.0 1.7 2 1.7 Entertain- ment, FH 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 9 2.7 & Related L 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 1 1.0 Jobs FT MH 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.0 2 10.5 10.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 0 0.0 20.9 5 25.0 4.1 0 0.0 20.9 70 20.9 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 0 0.0 28.0 33 28.0
(NITF) FH 0 0.0 12.3 2 10.5 1.8 0 0.0 12.3 41 12.3
L 0 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 9.7 10 9.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
265 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=8 L=13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 M: H= 20 L= 5 F: H= 42 L=16 L=2 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=8 L= 13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 M: H=15 L=5 F: H=35 L =16 L=2 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H= 0 L= 0 F: H=0 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 M: H= 2 L= 0 F: H=3 L=0 L=0 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Law PT M H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 6 1.8 Enforce- ment, L 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 1 0.8 Public Service, FH 1 2.4 0.3 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 Education & L 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 2 1.9 Related Jobs FT MH 2 10.0 9.4 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 1 5.0 16.5 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 72 21.5 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.8 0 0.0 28.8 0 0.0 28.8 34 28.8
(NITF) FH 3 7.1 5.8 0 0.0 12.9 0 0.0 12.9 43 12.9
L 0 0.0 8.7 0 0.0 8.9 0 0.0 8.9 9 8.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
266 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=20 L=2 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 F: H=63 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 L=20 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=10 L=4 M: H=42 L=15 F: H=61 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 L=19 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H= 0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H=7 L=0 F: H=5 L=2 M: H=2 L=3 F: H=2 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 L=1 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
PT M H 0 0.0 1.8 1 5.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 6 1.8 Law Enforce- L 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 1 0.8 ment, Public FH 0 0.0 2.1 2 10.5 8.4 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 Service, Education L 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 2 1.9 & Related FT MH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6 Jobs L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 0 0.0 21.5 4 20.0 1.5 0 0.0 21.5 72 21.5 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 28.8 0 0.0 28.8 0 0.0 28.8 34 28.8
(NITF) FH 0 0.0 12.9 2 10.5 2.4 0 0.0 12.9 43 12.9
L 0 0.0 8.9 0 0.0 8.7 0 0.0 8.9 9 8.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
267 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=8 L=13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 M: H= 20 L= 5 F: H= 42 L=16 L=2 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=8 L= 13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 M: H=15 L=5 F: H=35 L =16 L=2 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H= 0 L= 0 F: H=0 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 M: H= 2 L= 0 F: H=3 L=0 L=0 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Medical PT M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Health- L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 3 15.0 8.9 0 0.0 23.9 0 0.0 23.9 80 23.9 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 29.7 0 0.0 29.7 0 0.0 29.7 35 29.7
(NITF) FH 4 9.5 4.9 0 0.0 14.4 0 0.0 14.4 48 14.4
L 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 11 10.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
268 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=20 L=2 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 F: H=63 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 L=20 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=10 L=4 M: H=42 L=15 F: H=61 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 L=19 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H= 0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H=7 L=0 F: H=5 L=2 M: H=2 L=3 F: H=2 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 L=1 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Medical PT M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Health- L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 0 0.0 23.9 5 25.0 1.1 0 0.0 23.9 80 23.9 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 29.7 0 0.0 29.7 0 0.0 29.7 35 29.7
(NITF) FH 4 0.0 14.4 4 21.1 6.7 0 0.0 14.4 48 14.4
L 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 0 0.0 10.7 11 10.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
269 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=8 L=13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 M: H= 20 L= 5 F: H= 42 L=16 L=2 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=8 L= 13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 M: H=15 L=5 F: H=35 L =16 L=2 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H= 0 L= 0 F: H=0 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 M: H= 2 L= 0 F: H=3 L=0 L=0 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Other PT M H 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 Jobs L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 2 1.9
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 1.5
FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 3 15.0 6.8 0 0.0 21.8 0 0.0 21.8 73 21.8 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 22.9 0 0.0 22.9 0 0.0 22.9 27 22.9
(NITF) FH 4 9.5 4.3 0 0.0 13.8 0 0.0 13.8 46 13.8
L 0 0.0 8.7 0 0.0 8.7 0 0.0 8.7 9 8.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
270 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=20 L=2 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 F: H=63 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 L=20 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=10 L=4 M: H=42 L=15 F: H=61 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 L=19 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H= 0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H=7 L=0 F: H=5 L=2 M: H=2 L=3 F: H=2 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 L=1 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Other PT M H 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 Jobs L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 2 1.9
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 2 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 1.5
FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 0 0.0 21.8 3 15.0 6.8 0 0.0 21.8 73 21.8 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 22.9 0 0.0 22.9 0 0.0 22.9 27 22.9
(NITF) FH 0 0.0 13.8 4 21.1 7.3 0 0.0 13.8 46 13.8
L 0 0.0 8.7 0 0.0 8.7 0 0.0 8.7 9 8.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
271 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=8 L=13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 M: H= 20 L= 5 F: H= 42 L=16 L=2 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=8 L= 13 F: H=13 L=8 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=11 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 M: H=15 L=5 F: H=35 L =16 L=2 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H= 0 L= 0 F: H=0 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 M: H= 2 L= 0 F: H=3 L=0 L=0 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Grocery PT M H 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 9 2.7 & Retail Stores, L 0 0.0 6.8 0 0.0 6.8 0 0.0 6.8 8 6.8 Restau- rants & FH 0 0.0 6.0 0 0.0 6.0 0 0.0 6.0 20 6.0 Hotels, Gasoline L 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 5 4.9 Stations, & FT MH 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2 Related Jobs L 0 0.0 9.3 0 0.0 9.3 0 0.0 9.3 11 9.3
FH 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 1.5
L 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 2 1.9
Unemployed or MH 3 15.0 5.0 0 0.0 20.0 0 0.0 20.0 67 20.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 13.6 0 0.0 13.6 0 0.0 13.6 16 13.6
(NITF) FH 4 9.5 2.0 0 0.0 7.5 0 0.0 7.5 25 7.5
L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
272 Table 37 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=20 L=2 F: H=19 L=6 M: H=44 L=18 F: H=63 M: H=335 L=118 F: H=334 L=20 L=103 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=11 L=0 F: H=24 L=9 M: H=8 L=2 F: H=10 L=4 M: H=42 L=15 F: H=61 M: H=220 L=66 F: H=264 L=19 L=87 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H= 0 L=0 F: H=0 L=0 M: H=7 L=0 F: H=5 L=2 M: H=2 L=3 F: H=2 M: H=35 L=17 F: H=20 L=1 L=5
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Grocery PT M H 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 9 2.7 & Retail Stores, L 0 0.0 6.8 0 0.0 6.8 0 0.0 6.8 8 6.8 Restau- rants & FH 0 0.0 6.0 0 0.0 6.0 0 0.0 6.0 20 6.0 Hotels, Gasoline L 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 5 4.9 Stations, & FT MH 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2 Related Jobs L 0 0.0 9.3 0 0.0 9.3 0 0.0 9.3 11 9.3
FH 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 0 0.0 1.5 5 1.5
L 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 2 1.9
Unemployed or MH 0 0.0 20.0 5 25.0 5.0 0 0.0 20.0 67 20.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 13.6 0 0.0 13.6 0 0.0 13.6 16 13.6
(NITF) FH 0 0.0 7.5 4 21.1 13.6 0 0.0 7.5 25 7.5
L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 4 3.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
273 Table 38: May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln High Schools, Compared on Percentage Difference in High School Graduates Who Did Not Enroll in Postsecondary Schools by Vocational Program and Employment by gender. Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=20 L=12 F: H=25 L=17 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=278 L=129 F:H=334 M: H=31 L=13 F: H=51 L=22 L=1 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=10 L=2 F: H=15 L=4 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 M: H=17 L=6 F: H=26 L=12 L=1 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=5 L=3 F: H=0 L=4 M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 M: H=6 L=7 F: H=20 L=9 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Business, PT M H 0 0.0 0.0 1 5.0 5.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Banking, & L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 5 3.9 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 2.1 3 12.0 9.9 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1
L 1 4.5 2.9 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6
FT MH 2 6.5 6.5 2 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
FH 3 5.9 5.3 5 20.0 19.4 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Unemployed or MH 6 19.4 4.0 2 10.0 13.4 0 0.0 23.4 65 23.4 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 44.2 7 58.3 14.1 0 0.0 44.2 57 44.2
(NITF) FH 2 3.9 24.8 2 8.0 20.7 0 0.0 28.7 96 28.7
L 0 0.0 46.1 9 52.9 6.8 0 0.0 46.1 59 46.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
274 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=25 L=15 F: H=40 L=19 M: H=20 L=10 F: H=24 L=16 M: H=50 L=23 F: H= 63 M: H=278 L=129 F: H=334 L=52 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=15 L=5 F: H=25 L=7 M: H=11 L=2 F: H=14 L=5 M: H=29 L=22 F: H=44 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 L=52 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=4 L=2 F: H=2 L=8 M: H=6 L=2 F: H=3 L=3 M: H=8 L=1 F: H=7 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Business, PT M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 6 12.0 12.0 0 0.0 Banking, & L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 5 3.9 Related Jobs FH 2 5.0 2.9 0 0.0 2.1 5 7.9 5.8 7 2.1
L 2 10.5 8.9 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6
FT MH 2 8.0 8.0 0 0.0 0.0 6 11.5 11.5 0 0.0
L 4 26.7 24.4 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
FH 5 12.5 11.9 2 8.3 7.7 7 11.1 10.5 2 0.6
L 2 10.5 8.2 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Unemployed or MH 4 16.0 7.4 3 15.0 8.4 1 2.0 21.4 65 23.4 Employed in another Field L 4 26.7 17.5 6 60.0 15.8 0 0.0 44.2 57 44.2
(NITF) FH 6 15.0 13.7 5 20.8 7.9 0 0.0 28.7 96 28.7
L 0 0.0 46.1 8 50.0 3.9 0 0.0 46.1 59 46.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
275 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=20 L=12 F: H=25 L=17 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=278 L=129 F:H=334 M: H=31 L=13 F: H=51 L=22 L=1 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=10 L=2 F: H=15 L=4 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 M: H=17 L=6 F: H=26 L=12 L=1 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=5 L=3 F: H=0 L=4 M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 M: H=6 L=7 F: H=20 L=9 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Eng., PT M H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Tech., Environ- L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3 mental, Computer FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs. FT MH 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 3 1.1
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 8 25.8 3.5 5 25.0 2.7 0 0.0 22.3 62 22.3 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 48.1 0 0.0 48.1 0 0.0 48.1 62 48.1
(NITF) FH 5 9.8 21.6 10 40.0 8.6 0 0.0 31.4 105 31.4
L 1 4.5 45.5 9 52.9 2.9 0 0.0 50.0 64 50.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
276 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=25 L=15 F: H=40 L=19 M: H=20 L=10 F: H=24 L=16 M: H=50 L=23 F: H= 63 M: H=278 L=129 F: H=334 L=52 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=15 L=5 F: H=25 L=7 M: H=11 L=2 F: H=14 L=5 M: H=29 L=22 F: H=44 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 L=52 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=4 L=2 F: H=2 L=8 M: H=6 L=2 F: H=3 L=3 M: H=8 L=1 F: H=7 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Eng., PT M H 2 8.0 8.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Tech., Environ- L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3 mental, Computer FH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs. FT MH 2 8.0 6.9 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 3 1.1
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 1 2.5 2.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 2 8.0 14.3 3 15.0 7.3 13 26.0 3.7 62 22.3 Employed in another Field L 8 53.3 5.2 6 60.0 11.9 0 0.0 48.1 62 48.1 (NITF) FH 12 30.0 1.4 7 29.2 2.2 12 19.0 12.4 105 31.4
L 4 21.1 28.9 8 50.0 0.0 0 0.0 50.0 64 50.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
277 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=20 L=12 F: H=25 L=17 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=278 L=129 F:H=334 M: H=31 L=13 F: H=51 L=22 L=1 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=10 L=2 F: H=15 L=4 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 M: H=17 L=6 F: H=26 L=12 L=1 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=5 L=3 F: H=0 L=4 M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 M: H=6 L=7 F: H=20 L=9 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
PT M H 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.7 Fashion & L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 3 17.6 17.6 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 1.1 2 10.0 8.9 0 0.0 1.1 3 1.1
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.6 2 8.0 7.4 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 3 17.6 17.6 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 8 25.8 4.2 3 15.0 6.6 0 0.0 21.6 60 21.6 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 50.4 7 58.3 7.9 0 0.0 50.4 65 50.4
(NITF) FH 5 9.8 20.1 8 32.0 2.1 0 0.0 29.9 100 29.9
L 1 4.5 45.5 3 17.6 32.4 0 0.0 50.0 64 50.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
278 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=25 L=15 F: H=40 L=19 M: H=20 L=10 F: H=24 L=16 M: H=50 L=23 F: H= 63 M: H=278 L=129 F: H=334 L=52 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=15 L=5 F: H=25 L=7 M: H=11 L=2 F: H=14 L=5 M: H=29 L=22 F: H=44 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 L=52 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=4 L=2 F: H=2 L=8 M: H=6 L=2 F: H=3 L=3 M: H=8 L=1 F: H=7 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
PT M H 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.7 Fashion & L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 3 1.1
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 6 24.0 2.4 3 15.0 6.6 13 26.0 4.4 60 21.6 Employed in another Field L 8 53.3 2.9 6 60.0 9.6 0 0.0 50.4 65 50.4
(NITF) FH 13 32.5 2.6 7 29.2 0.7 12 19.0 10.9 100 29.9
L 4 21.1 28.9 8 50.0 0.0 0 0.0 50.0 64 50.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
279 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=20 L=12 F: H=25 L=17 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=278 L=129 F:H=334 M: H=31 L=13 F: H=51 L=22 L=1 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=10 L=2 F: H=15 L=4 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 M: H=17 L=6 F: H=26 L=12 L=1 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=5 L=3 F: H=0 L=4 M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 M: H=6 L=7 F: H=20 L=9 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Informati PT M H 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.7 on, Entertain- L 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 0 0.0 3.9 5 3.9 ment, & FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6 Related Jobs L 0 0.0 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 8 6.3
FT MH 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 3 1.1
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
FH 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6
Unemployed or MH 8 25.8 4.2 5 25.0 3.4 0 0.0 21.6 60 21.6 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 29.6 0 0.0 44.2 0 0.0 44.2 57 44.2
(NITF) FH 5 9.8 19.8 10 40.0 10.4 0 0.0 29.6 99 29.6
L 1 4.5 37.7 9 52.9 10.7 0 0.0 42.2 54 42.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
280 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=25 L=15 F: H=40 L=19 M: H=20 L=10 F: H=24 L=16 M: H=50 L=23 F: H= 63 M: H=278 L=129 F: H=334 L=52 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=15 L=5 F: H=25 L=7 M: H=11 L=2 F: H=14 L=5 M: H=29 L=22 F: H=44 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 L=52 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=4 L=2 F: H=2 L=8 M: H=6 L=2 F: H=3 L=3 M: H=8 L=1 F: H=7 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
PT M H 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.7 Informati on, L 0 0.0 3.9 1 10.0 6.1 0 0.0 3.9 5 3.9 Entertain- ment, FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6 & Related L 0 0.0 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 8 6.3 Jobs FT MH 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 3 1.1
L 0 0.0 2.3 4 40.0 37.7 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
FH 2 5.0 3.8 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 0 0.0 1.6 5 31.3 29.7 0 0.0 1.6 2 1.6
Unemployed or MH 6 24.0 2.4 3 15.0 6.6 13 26.0 4.4 60 21.6 Employed in another Field L 8 53.3 9.1 1 10.0 34.2 0 0.0 44.2 57 44.2
(NITF) FH 11 27.5 2.1 7 29.2 0.4 12 19.0 10.6 99 29.6
L 4 21.1 21.1 3 18.8 23.4 0 0.0 42.2 54 42.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
281 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=20 L=12 F: H=25 L=17 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=278 L=129 F:H=334 M: H=31 L=13 F: H=51 L=22 L=1 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=10 L=2 F: H=15 L=4 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 M: H=17 L=6 F: H=26 L=12 L=1 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=5 L=3 F: H=0 L=4 M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 M: H=6 L=7 F: H=20 L=9 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Law PT M H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 5 1.8 Enforce- ment, L 0 0.0 5.4 0 0.0 5.4 0 0.0 5.4 7 5.4 Public Service, FH 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 9 2.7 Education & L 0 0.0 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 8 6.3 Related Jobs FT MH 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.7
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Unemployed or MH 8 25.8 4.9 5 25.0 4.1 0 0.0 20.9 58 20.9 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 45.0 0 0.0 45.0 0 0.0 45.0 58 45.0
(NITF) FH 5 9.8 17.7 10 40.0 12.5 0 0.0 27.5 92 27.5
L 1 4.5 36.9 9 52.9 11.5 0 0.0 41.4 53 41.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
282 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=25 L=15 F: H=40 L=19 M: H=20 L=10 F: H=24 L=16 M: H=50 L=23 F: H= 63 M: H=278 L=129 F: H=334 L=52 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=15 L=5 F: H=25 L=7 M: H=11 L=2 F: H=14 L=5 M: H=29 L=22 F: H=44 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 L=52 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=4 L=2 F: H=2 L=8 M: H=6 L=2 F: H=3 L=3 M: H=8 L=1 F: H=7 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
PT M H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 5 1.8 Law Enforce- L 0 0.0 5.4 0 0.0 5.4 0 0.0 5.4 7 5.4 ment, Public FH 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 9 2.7 Service, Education L 0 0.0 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 0 0.0 6.3 8 6.3 & Related FT MH 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.7 Jobs L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 1.2 2 8.3 7.1 0 0.0 1.2 4 1.2
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Unemployed or MH 6 24.0 3.1 3 15.0 5.9 13 26.0 5.1 58 20.9 Employed in another Field L 8 53.3 8.3 6 60.0 15.0 0 0.0 45.0 58 45.0
(NITF) FH 13 32.5 5.0 5 20.8 6.7 12 19.0 8.8 92 27.5
L 4 21.1 20.3 8 50.0 8.6 0 0.0 41.4 53 41.4 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
283 Table 38: Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=20 L=12 F: H=25 L=17 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=278 L=129 F:H=334 M: H=31 L=13 F: H=51 L=22 L=1 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=10 L=2 F: H=15 L=4 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 M: H=17 L=6 F: H=26 L=12 L=1 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=5 L=3 F: H=0 L=4 M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 M: H=6 L=7 F: H=20 L=9 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Medical PT M H 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 3 1.1 & Health- L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 3 17.6 17.6 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 8 25.8 3.5 5 25.0 2.7 0 0.0 22.3 62 22.3 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 50.4 0 0.0 50.4 0 0.0 50.4 65 50.4
(NITF) FH 5 9.8 21.0 10 40.0 9.5 0 0.0 30.5 102 30.5
L 1 4.5 45.5 6 35.3 14.7 0 0.0 50.0 64 50.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
284 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=25 L=15 F: H=40 L=19 M: H=20 L=10 F: H=24 L=16 M: H=50 L=23 F: H= 63 M: H=278 L=129 F: H=334 L=52 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=15 L=5 F: H=25 L=7 M: H=11 L=2 F: H=14 L=5 M: H=29 L=22 F: H=44 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 L=52 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=4 L=2 F: H=2 L=8 M: H=6 L=2 F: H=3 L=3 M: H=8 L=1 F: H=7 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Medical PT M H 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 3 1.1 & Health- L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs FH 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 0 0.0 0.3 1 0.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT MH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 2 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or MH 6 24.0 1.7 3 15.0 7.3 13 26.0 3.7 62 22.3 Employed in another Field L 8 53.3 2.9 6 60.0 9.6 0 0.0 50.4 65 50.4
(NITF) FH 13 32.5 2.0 7 29.2 1.3 12 19.0 11.5 102 30.5
L 4 21.1 28.9 8 50.0 0.0 0 0.0 50.0 64 50.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
285 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=20 L=12 F: H=25 L=17 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=278 L=129 F:H=334 M: H=31 L=13 F: H=51 L=22 L=1 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=10 L=2 F: H=15 L=4 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 M: H=17 L=6 F: H=26 L=12 L=1 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=5 L=3 F: H=0 L=4 M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 M: H=6 L=7 F: H=20 L=9 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Other PT M H 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 6 2.2 Jobs L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 4 3.1
FH 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
FT MH 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 7 2.5
L 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 6 4.7
FH 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 6 1.8
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Unemployed or MH 8 25.8 7.1 5 25.0 6.3 0 0.0 18.7 52 18.7 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 42.6 0 0.0 42.6 0 0.0 42.6 55 42.6
(NITF) FH 5 9.8 18.9 10 40.0 11.3 0 0.0 28.7 96 28.7
L 1 4.5 40.8 9 52.9 7.6 0 0.0 45.3 58 45.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
286 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=25 L=15 F: H=40 L=19 M: H=20 L=10 F: H=24 L=16 M: H=50 L=23 F: H= 63 M: H=278 L=129 F: H=334 L=52 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=15 L=5 F: H=25 L=7 M: H=11 L=2 F: H=14 L=5 M: H=29 L=22 F: H=44 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 L=52 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=4 L=2 F: H=2 L=8 M: H=6 L=2 F: H=3 L=3 M: H=8 L=1 F: H=7 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Other PT M H 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 6 2.2 Jobs L 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 0 0.0 3.1 4 3.1
FH 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
FT MH 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 7 2.5
L 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 6 4.7
FH 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 6 1.8
L 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 0 0.0 2.3 3 2.3
Unemployed or MH 6 24.1 5.4 3 15.0 3.7 13 26.0 7.3 52 18.7 Employed in another Field L 8 53.3 10.7 6 60.0 17.4 0 0.0 42.6 55 42.6
(NITF) FH 13 32.5 10.1 7 29.2 0.5 12 19.0 9.7 96 28.7
L 4 21.1 24.2 8 50.0 4.7 0 0.0 45.3 58 45.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
287 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Business Technology Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status Education (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) (In this vocational program) M: H=20 L=12 F: H=25 L=17 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=278 L=129 F:H=334 M: H=31 L=13 F: H=51 L=22 L=1 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=10 L=2 F: H=15 L=4 M: H=5 L=7 F: H=0 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 M: H=17 L=6 F: H=26 L=12 L=1 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=5 L=3 F: H=0 L=4 M: H=0 L=0 F: H=0 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 M: H=6 L=7 F: H=20 L=9 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Grocery PT M H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 5 1.8 & Retail Stores, L 0 0.0 6.2 0 0.0 6.2 0 0.0 6.2 8 6.2 Restau- rants & FH 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 Hotels, Gasoline L 0 0.0 7.0 1 5.9 1.1 0 0.0 7.0 9 7.0 Stations, & FT MH 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.7 Related Jobs L 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 6 4.7
FH 2 3.9 3.0 1 4.0 3.1 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 5.5 2 11.8 6.3 0 0.0 5.5 7 5.5
Unemployed or MH 8 25.8 4.9 5 25.0 4.1 0 0.0 20.9 58 20.9 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 39.5 0 0.0 39.5 0 0.0 39.5 51 39.5
(NITF) FH 3 5.9 22.5 7 28.0 0.4 0 0.0 28.4 95 28.4
L 1 4.5 33.0 9 52.9 15.4 0 0.0 37.5 48 37.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
288 Table 38 (Contd.): Job Job Sex SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) M: H=25 L=15 F: H=40 L=19 M: H=20 L=10 F: H=24 L=16 M: H=50 L=23 F: H= 63 M: H=278 L=129 F: H=334 L=52 L=128 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) M: H=15 L=5 F: H=25 L=7 M: H=11 L=2 F: H=14 L=5 M: H=29 L=22 F: H=44 M: H=187 L=49 F: H=190 L=52 L=45 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) M: H=4 L=2 F: H=2 L=8 M: H=6 L=2 F: H=3 L=3 M: H=8 L=1 F: H=7 M: H=26 L=15 F: H=39 L=0 L=19
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Grocery PT M H 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 5 1.8 & Retail Stores, L 0 0.0 6.2 0 0.0 6.2 0 0.0 6.2 8 6.2 Restau- rants & FH 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 0 0.0 2.1 7 2.1 Hotels, Gasoline L 0 0.0 7.0 0 0.0 7.0 0 0.0 7.0 9 7.0 Stations, & FT MH 0 0.0 0.7 1 5.0 0.7 0 0.0 0.7 2 0.7 Related Jobs L 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 6 4.7
FH 0 0.0 0.9 2 8.3 7.4 0 0.0 0.9 3 0.9
L 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 0 0.0 5.5 7 5.5
Unemployed or MH 6 24.1 3.2 2 10.0 10.9 13 26.0 6.9 58 20.9 Employed in another Field L 8 53.3 13.8 6 60.0 20.5 0 0.0 39.5 51 39.5
(NITF) FH 13 32.5 4.1 5 20.8 7.6 12 19.0 9.4 95 28.4
L 4 21.1 16.4 8 50.0 12.5 0 0.0 37.5 48 37.5 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; M=Male; F=Female; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
289 290
Question 4b What are the differences between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates of May 1999 and May 2000 who did not enroll in postsecondary schools, when socioeconomic status variable is controlled, on type of vocational education program taken in 9th through 12th grades and type of employment by race?
Question 4b is an attempt to verify whether there was percentage difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates (HSG) who did not enroll in postsecondary schools when compared by vocational programs and race by socioeconomic status (SES). The data presented in Table 39 (May 1999 high school graduates) and Table 40 (May 2000 high school graduates) were analyzed to establish the percentage difference in employment. The HSG who were employed in a particular field or job are described in this paper as “in this field” (ITF), whereas, HSG not employed in that particular field or job are described as “not in this field” (NITF). The percentages were calculated by dividing the number of either black or white high school graduates ITF or NITF by the corresponding number of HSG in 12th grade (by socioeconomic status), and multiplying the result by 100. Taking Business Technology Education vocational program in Table 39 (May 1999 high school graduates) as an example, the Business Technology Education vocational program had 29 HSES black high school graduates in the program. Out of the 29 HSES black high school graduates, 2 out of the 5 black HSES high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools were employed as PT workers in Business, Banking, and related fields (ITF), whereas, 3 were NITF. In order to calculate the percentage of HSES black Business Technology Education HSG who did not enrolled in postsecondary schools but ITF, the number (2) HSES black high school graduates ITF was divided by the number (29) HSES black high school graduates in Business Technology Education vocational program, which gave the number (0.0689). The number (0.0689) was further multiplied by the number (100) to give 6.9 percent, as the percentage of HSES black HSG from Business Technology Education vocational program who did not enroll in postsecondary schools but were employed PT in Business, Banking, and related fields (ITF) (Table 39). Similar calculations with the corresponding field and socioeconomic status were 291 done for the ITF and NITF vocational and non-vocational education HSG throughout Tables 39 and 40. A close look at Table 39 (May 1999 high school graduates) reported no percentage difference in employment between vocational and non-vocational education HSG who did not enroll in postsecondary schools when compared by vocational education program and race by SES. Inspection of Table 40 (May 2000 high school graduates) revealed that in Business, Banking, and related fields, ITF among the HSES black HSG who were in Business Technology Education vocational program and the HSES black non-vocational education HSG reported a percentage difference of 17.9 percent (17.9% for Business Technology Education; and 0.0% for Non-vocational Education). Among the HSES white HSG who were in Family and Consumer Science Education vocational program and the HSES white non-vocational education high school graduates working part time (PT)in Business, Banking, and related fields, ITF recorded a percentage difference of 15.3 percent (16.7% for Family and Consumer Science; and 1.4% for non-vocational education); and within the HSES white HSG who were in Family and Consumer Science Education vocational program and the HSES white non- vocational education high school graduates working full time (FT) in Business, Banking, and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 20.4 percent (20.8% for Family and Consumer Science; and 0.4% for non-vocational education). Within the black LSES high school graduates in Computer Education program and the black LSES non-vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecodary schools and working FT in Business, Banking, and related fields, ITF reported a percentage difference of 18.7 percent (18.8% for Computer Education program; and 0.1% for Non-vocational Education). In Fashion and related fields, ITF among the LSES white HSG who were in Family and Consumer Science Education vocational program and the LSES white non- vocational education HSG reported percentage difference of 20.0 percent (20.0% for Consumer Science Education; and 0.0% for non-vocational education). In Information, Entertainment, and related fields, ITF within LSES black HSG who were in Public Service Education vocational program and the LSES black non- vocational education HSG reported percentage difference of 23.0 percent (25.0% for 292
Public Service Education; and 2.0% for non-vocational Education), and among the white LSES high school graduates who were in Public Service Education program and the white LSES non-vocational education high school graduates, ITF recorded percentage difference of 40.7 percent (42.9% for Public Service Education; and 2.2% for non- vocational education). Regarding Medical and Health related fields, ITF among the LSES white HSG who were in Family and Consumer Science Education vocational program and the LSES white non-vocational education high school graduates reported a percentage difference of 20.0 percent (20.0% for Family and Consumer Science; and 0.0% for non-vocational education). In Grocery and Retail Stores, Restaurants, Hotels, and related fields, ITF within HSES black HSG who were in Public Service Education vocational program and the HSES black non-vocational education HSG reported percentage difference of 21.4 percent (21.4% for Public Service Education; and 0.0% for non-vocational Education). Summary 1. In the fields where higher rate of employment, that is, ITF (14.5% and above) were recorded between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools, most vocational education high school graduates, especially LSES black and white, were working full time, with wages of $2,678.00 and above per quarter (Table 40). 2. In most fields where higher rates of employment, that is, ITF (14.5% and above) were noted between vocational and non-vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools, vocational education high school graduates, especially LSES black and white were working in the fields for which they were trained in high school (advantage) (Table 40). 3. No field where both black and white LSES and HSES non-vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools reported higher rate of employment, that is, ITF (14.5% and above) than their vocational education colleagues (advantage) (Tables 39 and 40). Table 39: May 1999 Vocational and Non-vocational Education Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln High Schools, Compared on Percentage Difference in High School Graduates Who Did Not Enroll in Postsecondary Schools by Vocational Program and Employment by Race. Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=29 L=8 W: H=33 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=22 L=8 W: H=28 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=2 L=0 W: H=3 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Business, PT B H 2 6.9 6.9 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Banking, & L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 Related Jobs WH 0 0.0 1.3 0 0.0 1.3 0 0.0 1.3 6 1.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 2 6.1 6.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 3 10.3 10.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 19 20.4
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 24.9 0 0.0 24.9 0 0.0 24.9 118 24.9
L 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 23 20.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
293 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=7 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=74 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=21 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=6 L=2 W: H=12 L=4 B: H=29 L=14 W: H=73 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=19 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=1 W: H=12 L=1 B: H=3 L=2 W: H=1 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=2 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Business, PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Banking, & L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 Related Jobs WH 0 0.0 1.3 0 0.0 1.3 0 0.0 1.3 6 1.3
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.0 2 6.3 6.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 0 0.0 0.0 1 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 19 20.4
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 24.9 6 18.8 6.1 0 0.0 24.9 118 24.9
L 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 23 20.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
294 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=29 L=8 W: H=33 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=22 L=8 W: H=28 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=2 L=0 W: H=3 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Eng., PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Tech., Environ- L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 mental, Computer WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
Unemployed or BH 5 17.2 17.2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 20 21.5
(NITF) WH 2 6.1 19.3 0 0.0 25.4 0 0.0 25.4 120 25.4
L 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 21 19.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
295 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=7 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=74 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=21 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=6 L=2 W: H=12 L=4 B: H=29 L=14 W: H=73 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=19 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=1 W: H=12 L=1 B: H=3 L=2 W: H=1 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=2 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Eng., PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Tech., Environ- L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 mental, Computer WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs. FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
Unemployed or BH 0 0.0 0.0 1 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 20 21.5
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 25.4 8 25.0 0.4 0 0.0 25.4 120 25.4
L 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 21 19.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
296 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=29 L=8 W: H=33 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=22 L=8 W: H=28 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=2 L=0 W: H=3 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Fashion PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs. WH 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.0 0.2 1 0.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
Unemployed or BH 5 17.2 17.2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 20 21.5
(NITF) WH 2 6.1 19.9 0 0.0 26.0 0 0.0 26.0 123 26.0
L 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 21 19.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
297 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=7 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=74 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=21 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=6 L=2 W: H=12 L=4 B: H=29 L=14 W: H=73 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=19 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=1 W: H=12 L=1 B: H=3 L=2 W: H=1 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=2 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Fashion PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs. WH 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.0 0.2 0 0.0 0.2 1 0.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
Unemployed or BH 0 0.0 0.0 1 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 20 21.5
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 26.0 8 25.0 1.0 0 0.0 26.0 123 26.0
L 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 21 19.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
298 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=29 L=8 W: H=33 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=22 L=8 W: H=28 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=2 L=0 W: H=3 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Informa- PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 tion, Entertain- L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 ment, & WH 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 16 3.4 Related Jobs. L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 5 17.2 17.2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 19 20.4
(NITF) WH 2 6.1 16.1 0 0.0 22.2 0 0.0 22.2 105 22.2
L 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 21 19.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
299 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=7 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=74 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=21 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=6 L=2 W: H=12 L=4 B: H=29 L=14 W: H=73 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=19 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=1 W: H=12 L=1 B: H=3 L=2 W: H=1 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=2 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Informa- PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 tion, Entertain- L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 ment, & WH 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 16 3.4 Related Jobs. L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.6 2 6.3 5.7 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 0 0.0 0.0 1 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 19 20.4
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 22.2 6 18.8 3.4 0 0.0 22.2 105 22.2
L 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 21 19.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
300 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=29 L=8 W: H=33 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=22 L=8 W: H=28 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=2 L=0 W: H=3 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Law PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Enforce- ment, L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 Public Service, WH 1 3.0 0.3 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 13 2.7 Education & L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8 Related Jobs FT BH 2 6.9 6.9 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 3 10.3 10.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 19 20.4
(NITF) WH 1 3.0 20.0 0 0.0 23.0 0 0.0 23.0 109 23.0
L 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 21 19.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
301 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=7 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=74 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=21 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=6 L=2 W: H=12 L=4 B: H=29 L=14 W: H=73 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=19 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=1 W: H=12 L=1 B: H=3 L=2 W: H=1 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=2 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Law PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 1 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Enforce- ment, L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 Public Service, WH 0 0.0 2.7 2 6.3 3.6 0 0.0 2.7 13 2.7 Education & L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8 Related Jobs FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 0 0.0 20.4 19 20.4
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 23.0 6 18.8 4.2 0 0.0 23.0 109 23.0
L 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 0 0.0 19.1 21 19.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
302 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=29 L=8 W: H=33 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=22 L=8 W: H=28 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=2 L=0 W: H=3 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Medical PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Health L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 5 17.2 17.2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 20 21.5
(NITF) WH 2 6.1 19.7 0 0.0 25.8 0 0.0 25.8 122 25.8
L 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 23 20.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
303 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=7 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=74 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=21 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=6 L=2 W: H=12 L=4 B: H=29 L=14 W: H=73 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=19 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=1 W: H=12 L=1 B: H=3 L=2 W: H=1 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=2 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Medical PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Health L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 0 0.0 0.0 1 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 0 0.0 21.5 20 21.5
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 25.8 8 25.0 0.8 0 0.0 25.8 122 25.8
L 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 0 0.0 20.9 23 20.9 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
304 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=29 L=8 W: H=33 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=22 L=8 W: H=28 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=2 L=0 W: H=3 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Other PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 9 1.9
L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 3 3.2
WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
Unemployed or BH 5 17.2 17.2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 18.3 0 0.0 18.3 0 0.0 18.3 17 18.3
(NITF) WH 2 6.1 17.8 0 0.0 23.9 0 0.0 23.9 113 23.9
L 0 0.0 17.3 0 0.0 17.3 0 0.0 17.3 19 17.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
305 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=7 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=74 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=21 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=6 L=2 W: H=12 L=4 B: H=29 L=14 W: H=73 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=19 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=1 W: H=12 L=1 B: H=3 L=2 W: H=1 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=2 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Other PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 0 0.0 1.9 9 1.9
L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 0 0.0 3.2 3 3.2
WH 0 0.0 0.4 2 6.3 5.9 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 2 1.8
Unemployed or BH 0 0.0 0.0 1 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 18.3 0 0.0 18.3 0 0.0 18.3 17 18.3
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 23.9 6 18.8 5.1 0 0.0 23.9 113 23.9
L 0 0.0 17.3 0 0.0 17.3 0 0.0 17.3 19 17.3 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
306 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=29 L=8 W: H=33 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=22 L=8 W: H=28 L=8 B: H=2 L=7 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=0 L=2 W: H=19 L=2 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=2 L=0 W: H=3 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Grocery PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Retail L 0 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 9.7 9 9.7 Stores, Restua- WH 0 0.0 6.1 0 0.0 6.1 0 0.0 6.1 29 6.1 rants & Hotels, L 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 4 3.6 Gasoline Stations, FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 5.4 0 0.0 5.4 0 0.0 5.4 5 5.4 Jobs WH 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 9 1.8
L 0 0.0 7.3 0 0.0 7.3 0 0.0 7.3 8 7.3
Unemployed or BH 5 17.2 17.2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 6.5 0 0.0 6.5 0 0.0 6.5 6 6.5
(NITF) WH 2 6.1 12.1 0 0.0 18.2 0 0.0 18.2 86 18.2
L 0 0.0 10.0 0 0.0 10.0 0 0.0 10.0 11 10.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
307 Table 39 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=7 L=3 W: H=32 L=5 B: H=32 L=16 W: H=74 B: H=165 L=93 W: H=473 L=21 L=110 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=8 L=2 W: H=28 L=3 B: H=6 L=2 W: H=12 L=4 B: H=29 L=14 W: H=73 B: H=165 L=65 W: H=294 L=19 L=73 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=0 L=1 W: H=12 L=1 B: H=3 L=2 W: H=1 B: H=0 L=8 W: H=55 L=2 L=14
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Grocery PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Retail L 0 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 9.7 0 0.0 9.7 9 9.7 Stores, Restua- WH 0 0.0 6.1 0 0.0 6.1 0 0.0 6.1 29 6.1 rants & Hotels, L 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 0 0.0 3.6 4 3.6 Gasoline Stations, FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 5.4 0 0.0 5.4 0 0.0 5.4 5 5.4 Jobs WH 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 9 1.8
L 0 0.0 7.3 0 0.0 7.3 0 0.0 7.3 8 7.3
Unemployed or BH 0 0.0 0.0 1 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 6.5 0 0.0 6.5 0 0.0 6.5 6 6.5
(NITF) WH 0 0.0 18.2 8 25.0 6.8 0 0.0 18.2 86 18.2
L 0 0.0 10.0 0 0.0 10.0 0 0.0 10.0 11 10.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
308 Table 40: May 2000 Vocational and Non-vocational Education Data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln High Schools, Compared on Percentage Difference in High School Graduates Who Did Not Enroll in Postsecondary Schools by Vocational Program and Employment by Race. Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=28 L=20 W: H=52 L=15 B: H=21 L=14 W: H=24 L=15 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=102 L=148 W:H=488 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=15 L=13 W: H=25 L=2 B: H=12 L=5 W: H=11 L=1 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=6 L=7 W: H=20 L=9 B: H=5 L=3 W: H=0 L=4 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Business, PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Banking, & L 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 5 9.7 Related Jobs WH 0 0.0 1.4 4 16.7 15.3 0 0.0 1.4 7 6.1
L 1 6.7 4.5 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 2 3.6
FT BH 5 17.9 17.9 2 9.5 9.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 2 5.4
WH 0 0.0 0.4 5 20.8 20.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 1.8
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 4 7.3
Unemployed or BH 2 7.1 7.1 2 9.5 9.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 41.9 6 42.9 1.0 0 0.0 41.9 62 41.9
(NITF) WH 7 13.5 17.0 3 12.5 18.0 0 0.0 30.5 149 30.5
L 3 20.0 25.6 10 66.7 21.1 0 0.0 45.6 41 45.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
309 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=21 L=16 W: H=44 L=18 B: H=14 L=12 W: H=30 L=14 B: H=30 L=33 W: H=83 B: H=102 L=148 W: H=488 L=42 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=14 L=4 W: H=23 L=8 B: H=6 L=5 W: H=17 L=2 B: H=15 L=33 W: H=42 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=41 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=1 L=7 W: H=5 L=3 B: H=3 L=3 W: H=4 L=2 B: H=8 L=0 W: H=6 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=1 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Business, PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 3 10.0 10.0 0 0.0 Banking, & L 2 12.5 9.1 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 5 9.7 Related Jobs WH 2 4.5 3.1 0 0.0 1.4 8 9.6 8.2 7 6.1
L 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 2 3.6
FT BH 2 9.5 9.5 2 14.3 14.3 3 10.0 10.0 0 0.0
L 3 18.8 18.7 0 0.0 0.1 0 0.0 0.1 2 5.4
WH 5 11.4 11.0 0 0.0 0.4 10 12.0 11.6 2 1.8
L 3 16.7 12.3 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 4 7.3
Unemployed or BH 3 14.3 14.3 3 21.4 21.4 1 3.3 3.3 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 41.9 4 33.3 8.6 0 0.0 41.9 62 41.9
(NITF) WH 6 13.6 16.9 9 30.0 0.5 17 20.5 10.0 149 30.5
L 4 22.2 23.4 10 71.4 25.8 0 0.0 45.6 41 45.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
310 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=28 L=20 W: H=52 L=15 B: H=21 L=14 W: H=24 L=15 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=102 L=148 W:H=488 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=15 L=13 W: H=25 L=2 B: H=12 L=5 W: H=11 L=1 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=6 L=7 W: H=20 L=9 B: H=5 L=3 W: H=0 L=4 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Eng., PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Tech., Environ- L 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 2 1.4 mental, Computer WH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 Jobs FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 7 25.0 25.0 4 19.0 19.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 45.3 6 42.9 2.4 0 0.0 45.3 67 45.3
(NITF) WH 7 13.5 18.3 13 54.2 22.4 0 0.0 31.8 155 31.8
L 4 26.7 24.4 10 66.7 15.6 0 0.0 51.1 46 51.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
311 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=21 L=16 W: H=44 L=18 B: H=14 L=12 W: H=30 L=14 B: H=30 L=33 W: H=83 B: H=102 L=148 W: H=488 L=42 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=14 L=4 W: H=23 L=8 B: H=6 L=5 W: H=17 L=2 B: H=15 L=33 W: H=42 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=41 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=1 L=7 W: H=5 L=3 B: H=3 L=3 W: H=4 L=2 B: H=8 L=0 W: H=6 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=1 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Eng., PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Tech., Environ- L 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 2 1.4 mental, Computer WH 2 4.5 4.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 0 0.0 1.1 1 1.1 Jobs. FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 3 6.8 6.2 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 6 28.6 28.6 5 35.7 35.7 7 23.3 23.3 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 5 31.3 14.0 4 33.3 12.0 0 0.0 45.3 67 45.3
(NITF) WH 11 25.0 6.8 9 30.0 1.8 35 42.2 10.4 155 31.8
L 7 38.9 12.2 10 71.4 20.3 0 0.0 51.1 46 51.1 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
312 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=28 L=20 W: H=52 L=15 B: H=21 L=14 W: H=24 L=15 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=102 L=148 W:H=488 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=15 L=13 W: H=25 L=2 B: H=12 L=5 W: H=11 L=1 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=6 L=7 W: H=20 L=9 B: H=5 L=3 W: H=0 L=4 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Fashion PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs. WH 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 5 4.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 3 20.0 20.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 2 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 1 7.1 7.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.6 2 8.3 7.7 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 0 0.0 2.2 2 14.3 12.1 0 0.0 2.2 2 2.2
Unemployed or BH 7 25.0 25.0 2 14.3 14.3 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 46.6 5 35.7 10.9 0 0.0 46.6 69 46.6
(NITF) WH 7 13.5 17.2 11 45.8 15.1 0 0.0 30.7 150 30.7
L 4 26.7 23.3 5 33.3 16.7 0 0.0 50.0 45 50.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
313 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=21 L=16 W: H=44 L=18 B: H=14 L=12 W: H=30 L=14 B: H=30 L=33 W: H=83 B: H=102 L=148 W: H=488 L=42 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=14 L=4 W: H=23 L=8 B: H=6 L=5 W: H=17 L=2 B: H=15 L=33 W: H=42 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=41 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=1 L=7 W: H=5 L=3 B: H=3 L=3 W: H=4 L=2 B: H=8 L=0 W: H=6 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=1 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Fashion PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs. WH 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 0 0.0 4.9 5 4.9
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.6 3 0.6
L 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 2 2.2
Unemployed or BH 6 28.6 28.6 5 35.7 35.7 7 23.3 23.3 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 5 31.3 15.3 4 33.3 13.3 0 0.0 46.6 69 46.6
(NITF) WH 16 36.4 5.7 9 30.0 0.7 35 42.2 11.5 150 30.7
L 7 38.9 11.1 10 71.4 21.4 0 0.0 50.0 45 50.0 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
314 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=28 L=20 W: H=52 L=15 B: H=21 L=14 W: H=24 L=15 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=102 L=148 W:H=488 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=15 L=13 W: H=25 L=2 B: H=12 L=5 W: H=11 L=1 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=6 L=7 W: H=20 L=9 B: H=5 L=3 W: H=0 L=4 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Informa- PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 tion, Entertain- L 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 6 4.1 ment, & WH 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 4 0.8 Related Jobs. L 0 0.0 7.8 0 0.0 7.8 0 0.0 7.8 7 7.8
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0
WH 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 7 1.4
L 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 2 2.2
Unemployed or BH 7 25.0 25.0 4 19.0 19.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 40.5 6 42.9 2.4 0 0.0 40.5 60 40.5
(NITF) WH 7 13.5 16.6 13 54.2 24.1 0 0.0 30.1 147 30.1
L 4 26.7 15.5 10 66.7 24.5 0 0.0 42.2 38 42.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
315 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=21 L=16 W: H=44 L=18 B: H=14 L=12 W: H=30 L=14 B: H=30 L=33 W: H=83 B: H=102 L=148 W: H=488 L=42 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=14 L=4 W: H=23 L=8 B: H=6 L=5 W: H=17 L=2 B: H=15 L=33 W: H=42 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=41 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=1 L=7 W: H=5 L=3 B: H=3 L=3 W: H=4 L=2 B: H=8 L=0 W: H=6 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=1 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Informa- PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 tion, Entertain- L 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 6 4.1 ment, & WH 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 4 0.8 Related Jobs. L 0 0.0 7.8 1 7.1 0.7 0 0.0 7.8 7 7.8
FT BH 2 9.5 9.5 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 2.0 3 25.0 23.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0
WH 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 0 0.0 1.4 7 1.4
L 0 0.0 2.2 6 42.9 40.7 0 0.0 2.2 2 2.2
Unemployed or BH 4 19.0 19.0 5 35.7 35.7 7 23.3 23.3 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 5 31.3 9.2 1 8.3 32.2 0 0.0 40.5 60 40.5
(NITF) WH 16 36.4 6.3 9 30.0 0.1 35 42.2 12.1 147 30.1
L 7 38.9 3.3 3 21.4 20.8 0 0.0 42.2 38 42.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
316 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=28 L=20 W: H=52 L=15 B: H=21 L=14 W: H=24 L=15 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=102 L=148 W:H=488 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=15 L=13 W: H=25 L=2 B: H=12 L=5 W: H=11 L=1 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=6 L=7 W: H=20 L=9 B: H=5 L=3 W: H=0 L=4 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Law PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Enforce- ment, L 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 6 4.1 Public Service, WH 0 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 2.9 14 2.9 Education & L 0 0.0 10.0 0 0.0 10.0 0 0.0 10.0 9 10.0 Related Jobs FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0
WH 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 0 0.0 1.2 6 1.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 7 25.0 25.0 4 19.0 19.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 40.5 6 42.9 2.4 0 0.0 40.5 60 40.5
(NITF) WH 7 13.5 14.8 13 54.2 25.9 0 0.0 28.3 138 28.3
L 4 26.7 15.5 10 66.7 24.5 0 0.0 42.2 38 42.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
317 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=21 L=16 W: H=44 L=18 B: H=14 L=12 W: H=30 L=14 B: H=30 L=33 W: H=83 B: H=102 L=148 W: H=488 L=42 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=14 L=4 W: H=23 L=8 B: H=6 L=5 W: H=17 L=2 B: H=15 L=33 W: H=42 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=41 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=1 L=7 W: H=5 L=3 B: H=3 L=3 W: H=4 L=2 B: H=8 L=0 W: H=6 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=1 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Law PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Enforce- ment, L 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 0 0.0 4.1 6 4.1 Public Service, WH 0 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 2.9 14 2.9 Education & L 0 0.0 10.0 0 0.0 10.0 0 0.0 10.0 9 10.0 Related Jobs FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 0 0.0 2.0 3 2.0
WH 0 0.0 1.2 2 6.7 5.5 0 0.0 1.2 6 1.2
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 6 28.6 28.6 5 35.7 35.7 7 23.3 23.3 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 5 31.3 9.2 4 33.3 7.2 0 0.0 40.5 60 40.5
(NITF) WH 16 36.4 8.1 7 23.3 5.0 35 42.2 13.9 138 28.3
L 7 38.9 3.3 10 71.4 29.2 0 0.0 42.2 38 42.2 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
318 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=28 L=20 W: H=52 L=15 B: H=21 L=14 W: H=24 L=15 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=102 L=148 W:H=488 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=15 L=13 W: H=25 L=2 B: H=12 L=5 W: H=11 L=1 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=6 L=7 W: H=20 L=9 B: H=5 L=3 W: H=0 L=4 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Medical PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Health L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs WH 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 4 0.8
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 0.0 3 20.0 20.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 7 25.0 25.0 4 19.0 19.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 46.6 6 42.9 3.7 0 0.0 46.6 69 46.6
(NITF) WH 7 13.5 17.6 13 54.2 23.1 0 0.0 31.1 152 31.1
L 4 26.7 18.9 7 46.7 1.1 0 0.0 45.6 47 45.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
319 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=21 L=16 W: H=44 L=18 B: H=14 L=12 W: H=30 L=14 B: H=30 L=33 W: H=83 B: H=102 L=148 W: H=488 L=42 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=14 L=4 W: H=23 L=8 B: H=6 L=5 W: H=17 L=2 B: H=15 L=33 W: H=42 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=41 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=1 L=7 W: H=5 L=3 B: H=3 L=3 W: H=4 L=2 B: H=8 L=0 W: H=6 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=1 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Medical PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Health L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Related Jobs WH 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 0 0.0 0.8 4 0.8
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
WH 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 2 0.4
L 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Unemployed or BH 6 28.6 28.6 5 35.7 35.7 7 23.3 23.3 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 5 31.3 15.3 4 33.3 13.3 0 0.0 46.6 69 46.6
(NITF) WH 16 36.4 5.3 9 30.0 1.1 35 42.2 11.1 152 31.1
L 7 38.9 6.7 10 71.4 25.8 0 0.0 45.6 47 45.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
320 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=28 L=20 W: H=52 L=15 B: H=21 L=14 W: H=24 L=15 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=102 L=148 W:H=488 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=15 L=13 W: H=25 L=2 B: H=12 L=5 W: H=11 L=1 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=6 L=7 W: H=20 L=9 B: H=5 L=3 W: H=0 L=4 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Other PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs L 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 5 3.4
WH 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 9 1.8
L 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 2 2.2
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 5 3.4
WH 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 13 2.7
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 4.4 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 4 4.4
Unemployed or BH 7 25.0 25.0 4 19.0 19.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 39.9 6 42.9 3.0 0 0.0 39.9 59 39.9
(NITF) WH 7 13.5 14.4 13 54.2 26.3 0 0.0 27.9 136 27.9
L 4 26.7 18.9 7 46.7 21.1 0 0.0 45.6 41 45.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
321 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=21 L=16 W: H=44 L=18 B: H=14 L=12 W: H=30 L=14 B: H=30 L=33 W: H=83 B: H=102 L=148 W: H=488 L=42 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=14 L=4 W: H=23 L=8 B: H=6 L=5 W: H=17 L=2 B: H=15 L=33 W: H=42 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=41 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=1 L=7 W: H=5 L=3 B: H=3 L=3 W: H=4 L=2 B: H=8 L=0 W: H=6 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=1 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Other PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Jobs L 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 5 3.4
WH 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 1.8 9 1.8
L 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 2.2 2 2.2
FT BH 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
L 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 0 0.0 3.4 5 3.4
WH 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 0 0.0 2.7 13 2.7
L 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 0 0.0 4.4 4 4.4
Unemployed or BH 6 28.6 28.6 5 35.7 35.7 7 23.3 23.3 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 5 31.3 8.6 4 33.3 6.6 0 0.0 39.9 59 39.9
(NITF) WH 16 36.4 8.5 9 30.0 2.1 35 42.2 14.3 136 27.9
L 7 38.9 6.7 10 71.4 25.8 0 0.0 45.6 41 45.6 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
322 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Business Technology Ed. Family & Consumer Science Ed Technology Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=28 L=20 W: H=52 L=15 B: H=21 L=14 W: H=24 L=15 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=102 L=148 W:H=488 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=15 L=13 W: H=25 L=2 B: H=12 L=5 W: H=11 L=1 B: H=2 L=4 W: H=3 L=3 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=6 L=7 W: H=20 L=9 B: H=5 L=3 W: H=0 L=4 B: H=0 L=0 W: H=0 L=0 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Grocery PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Retail L 0 0.0 6.1 1 7.1 1.0 0 0.0 6.1 9 6.1 Stores, Restua- WH 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 12 2.5 rants & Hotels, L 0 0.0 8.9 0 0.0 8.9 0 0.0 8.9 8 8.9 Gasoline Stations, FT BH 2 7.1 7.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 4.7 2 14.3 9.6 0 0.0 4.7 7 4.7 Jobs WH 0 0.0 1.0 1 4.2 3.2 0 0.0 1.0 5 1.0
L 0 0.0 6.7 0 0.0 6.7 0 0.0 6.7 6 6.7
Unemployed or BH 5 17.9 17.9 4 19.0 19.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 0 0.0 40.5 3 21.4 19.1 0 0.0 40.5 60 40.5
(NITF) WH 7 13.5 15.4 12 50.0 21.1 0 0.0 28.9 141 28.9
L 4 26.7 10.0 10 66.7 30.0 0 0.0 36.7 33 36.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
323 Table 40 (Contd.): Job Job Race SES Computer Education Public Service Education Diversified Coop. Education Non-Vocational Education Type Status (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (In this vocational program) (Number in Non-Voc. Ed.) B: H=21 L=16 W: H=44 L=18 B: H=14 L=12 W: H=30 L=14 B: H=30 L=33 W: H=83 B: H=102 L=148 W: H=488 L=42 L=90 (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) (Enrolled in BS, AA, AS ) B: H=14 L=4 W: H=23 L=8 B: H=6 L=5 W: H=17 L=2 B: H=15 L=33 W: H=42 B: H=101 L=55 W: H=266 L=41 L=33 (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) (Enrolled in Voc. Tech.) B: H=1 L=7 W: H=5 L=3 B: H=3 L=3 W: H=4 L=2 B: H=8 L=0 W: H=6 B: H=1 L=24 W: H=64 L=1 L=10
Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled % % Diff. Not Enrolled %
Grocery PT B H 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Retail L 0 0.0 6.1 0 0.0 6.1 0 0.0 6.1 9 6.1 Stores, Restua- WH 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 0 0.0 2.5 12 2.5 rants & Hotels, L 0 0.0 8.9 0 0.0 8.9 0 0.0 8.9 8 8.9 Gasoline Stations, FT BH 2 7.1 7.1 3 21.4 21.4 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 & Related L 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 0 0.0 4.7 7 4.7 Jobs WH 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 0 0.0 1.0 5 1.0
L 0 0.0 6.7 0 0.0 6.7 0 0.0 6.7 6 6.7
Unemployed or BH 6 28.6 28.6 2 14.3 14.3 7 23.3 23.3 0 0.0 Employed in another Field L 5 31.3 9.2 4 33.3 7.2 0 0.0 40.5 60 40.5
(NITF) WH 16 36.4 7.5 9 30.0 1.1 35 42.2 13.3 141 28.9
L 7 38.9 2.2 10 71.4 34.7 0 0.0 36.7 33 36.7 Note: SES=Socioeconomic Status; H=Higher Socioeconomic Status; L=Lower Socioeconomic Status; PT=Part Time, Wages, $0.00 to $2677.00 Per Quarter; FT=Full Time, Wages, $2678 & Over per Quarter; B=Black; W=White; Percentage Diff.=14.5% & Above.
324 325
Summary of the Findings The purpose of this study was to show whether vocational education students had more advantage over non-vocational education students in graduation from high school, postsecondary school enrollment, employment, and wages. Analyses of May 1999 and May 2000 high school graduates data using descriptive statistics and tables show that vocational education students, especially within the lower socioeconomic status, may have advantages over non-vocational education students in high school graduation, postsecondary school enrollment, employment, and wages. The following findings were noted from the study: High School Graduation: 1. LSES vocational education students may have benefitted from vocational education programs as they reported a higher graduation rate than their non-vocational education colleagues (Table 5). 2. At the level of the HSES, most non-vocational education students graduated at a higher rate than vocational education counterparts (Table 5). 3. Among the male students, the May 2000 data indicated that, with the exception of Rickards high school which showed no percentage difference (no advantage) in high school graduation between vocational and non-vocational education students, the other three schools recorded a higher percentage difference for LSES vocational education students over LSES non-vocational education colleagues (Table 11). Among the female students, the data showed that LSES vocational education students reported a higher percentage difference in graduation (advantage) in all the four high schools, compared with LSES non-vocational education female students (Tables11). 4. When vocational and non-vocational education students were compared by race, the May 1999 data showed that it was only in Leon high school that LSES black vocational education students recorded a higher percentage difference (advantage) of graduates than their LSES black non-vocational education colleagues (Table 14). According to the May 2000 data, LSES white vocational education students reported a higher percentage difference (advantage) of high school graduates in all the four high schools under study, 326 compared with LSES white non-vocational education students. Among the black students, the data indicated that it was only in Godby high school that LSES vocational education students, compared with LSES non-vocational education colleagues, graduated at a higher percentage (Table 15). Looking at the data from the HSES perspective gave a reverse finding, which was that non-vocational education students graduated at higher rate than their vocational colleagues (Tables 11, 14, and15). 5. On the question of whether earning two or more vocational credits or courses will boost the chances of high school graduation, the data showed a mixed result for both May 1999 and May 2000 high school graduates from all the four schools, depending on the school. Whereas, in Godby High School the May 1999 data showed that earning two or more vocational education courses or credits may have improved the chances of graduation from high school among the LSES students over their LSES non- vocational education colleagues, the data for Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards high school indicated mixed results (Table 6). The May 2000 data analyses for Rickards High followed similar pattern to Godby high schools to some extent (Tables 7). Postsecondary School Enrollment: 1 The LSES vocational education students tended to record higher percentage difference in undergraduate BS degrees enrollment over their LSES non-vocational education colleagues as indicated in the May 2000 data (Table 19). 2. Both the May 1999 and May 2000 data showed that when vocational education and non-vocational education students were compared on enrollment in the Associate in Arts (AA) and the Associate in Science (AS) degree programs, no percentage difference (no advantage) were recorded (Tables 18 and 19). 3. On the other hand, when vocational and non-vocational education students were compared by vocational programs, the data showed that with the exception of those vocational education students who had Diversified Cooperative Education training in high school (internship, on-the-job training, work experience), both HSES and LSES non- vocational education students reported higher rate of enrollment (advantage) in the AA degrees over vocational education students (Tables 20 and 21). 327
4. The data further showed that LSES vocational education students who had Technology Education training in high school reported a higher percentage difference (advantage) in the AS degree programs enrollment, compared with LSES non-vocational education Colleagues (Table 22). 5. HSES high school graduates from both vocational education and non-vocational education were more likely to change the original plans they had for college while in school when they graduated from high school than were LSES students (May 2000 data, Table 20). 6. HSES female high school graduates from both vocational education and non- vocational education were more likely to change the original plans they had for college while in school when they graduate from high school than were LSES female students (May 2000 data, Table 29). 7. HSES white high school graduates from both vocational education and non-vocational education were more likely to change the original plans they had for college while in school when they graduated from high school (May 2000 data, Table 30). 8. The data indicated that most vocational education students who enrolled in the undergraduate BS degree programs were in the academic disciplines similar to the vocational education programs they had in high school. For instance, students who had Business Technology Education vocational program in high school were found enrolled in Business and Management undergraduate BS degree programs. Similarly, students who were trained in a Family and Consumer Science vocational education program were found enrolled in undergraduate BS degree program in Health and Human Sciences. Also, students who had training in Computer Education vocational program were found enrolled in Mathematics and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Sciences undergraduate BS degree programs. 9. When enrollment was compared by vocational programs, the data further showed that students, especially within the LSES, who enrolled in the undergraduate academic degree disciplines similar to their high school vocational training recorded a higher percentage difference (advantage) over their non-vocational education colleagues 328
(Tables 21 and 22). 10. The data indicated that male students were more likely to enroll in Business and Management, Mathematics and Mathematics-Related Engineering and Sciences undergraduate BS degree programs (Tables 25 and 26). 11. Although the May 1999 data showed that there were no percentage difference (no advantage) between vocational and non-vocational education students on undergraduate BS degree programs enrollment in Biological and Agricultural Sciences, Health and Human Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts, and the Social Sciences, when compared by gender and by socioeconomic status (Table 25), the May 2000 data showed that both male and female LSES vocational education students, compared with their non- vocational education colleagues, reported enrollment advantage in the BS degree programs indicated above (Table 26). 12. The data also showed that among the LSES students there was no percentage difference (no advantage) between vocational and non-vocational education students in the Associate in Arts and the Associate in Science degree programs enrollment when compared by gender (Tables 25 and 26). 13. Both black and white vocational and non-vocational education students tended to enroll at a higher rate in undergraduate BS degree programs in Health and Human Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts, the Social Sciences, and the Humanities (Table 28). 14. The May 1999 data indicated that LSES white vocational education students enrolled at a higher rate in the Associate in Science degree programs over their LSES non- vocational education colleagues (Table 27). On the other hand, the May 2000 data showed no percentage difference (no advantage) between vocational and non-vocational education students who enrolled in the Associate in Arts and the Associate in Science degree programs when compared by socioeconomic status and by race (Table 28). College Enrollment and Employment: Vocational education high school graduates who enrolled in the undergraduate BS, AA, and AS degree programs were more likely than their non-vocational education 329 counterparts to be employed while in school (Tables 23 & 24). Employment: 1. When compared by vocational education programs, vocational education high school graduates were more likely than were their non-vocational education colleagues to be employed (Tables 31 and 32, 33 and 34, 35 and 36). 2. The data further indicated that most vocational education high school graduates, especially within the LSES, were working in the fields for which they were trained in high school (Tables 31 and 32, 33 and 34, 35 and 36). 3. The data showed that high school graduates who had Diversified Cooperative Education vocational program (internship, work experience, or on-the-job training) were more likely than their non-vocational education counterparts to be employed in specialized fields such as Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related fields; Engineering, Technology, and related fields; and Business, Banking, and related fields. 4. Non-vocational education high school graduates were more likely than vocational education high school graduates to be employed in such fields as Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels and related fields; Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related fields; and Information, Entertainment, and related fields. 5. Female vocational education high school graduates were more likely than female non- vocational education high school graduates to be employed in fields such as Business, Banking, and related fields; Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related fields; Information, Entertainment, and related fields; Medical and Health related fields; and Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels and related fields. 6. The employment of male vocational education high school graduates were distributed in almost all the fields. 7. The data indicated that both black and white vocational education high school graduates were working in almost all the fields. 8. A higher rate of female vocational education high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools, especially among the LSES, compared with LSES non- vocational education colleagues, were found working full time in Business and Banking, 330
Fashion, Information and Entertainment, and Medical and Health-related fields where they dominated their non-vocational education colleagues (Table 38). 9. A higher rate (advantage) of LSES and HSES black and white high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools, but had vocational training in Family and Consumer Science Education, Technology Education, Computer Education, and Public Service Education, compared with their non-vocational education counterparts, were found working either part time or full time in Business and Banking, Fashion, Information and Entertainment, Medical, and Grocery and Retail fields (Table 40). Wages: 1. Most of the fields in which both the vocational and the non-vocational education high school graduates were employed were part time jobs with wages between $0.00 and $2,677.00 per quarter ($0.00 means that there were no wages paid, either through voluntary or non-wage internship employment). 2. The data showed that Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels and related fields; Business, Banking, and related fields; Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related fields; Information, Entertainment, and related fields; Medical and Health related fields; and Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels and related fields were more likely than other fields to hire full time employees and pay full time wages of $2,678.00 and above per quarter. 3. Most male high school graduates who were trained in Business Technology Education; Family and Consumer Science Education; Technology Education; Public Service Education vocational programs were working full time in Business, Banking, and related fields; Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related fields; and Medical and Health related fields. 4. Most black high school graduates who were trained in Computer Education; Family and Consumer Science Education vocational programs were working full time in Medical and Health related fields; Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels and related fields. 5. The data further indicated that white high school graduates who had training in Technology Education; Family and Consumer Science Education; Public Service 331
Education vocational programs were working full time in Law Enforcement, Public Service, Education, and related fields; and Grocery and Retail Stores, Hotels and related fields. CHAPTER V Summary of Methodology and Findings, Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare vocational and non-vocational education students in public secondary schools in Leon County, Florida, to see whether vocational education students had more advantages over non-vocational education students in graduation from high school, postsecondary school enrollment, employment, and wages. In order to achieve this purpose, the May 1999, and the May 2000, vocational education and non-vocational education students data from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickard’s High Schools were collected, analyzed, and compared by gender, by race, and by socioeconomic status. Research Procedures: Sample: The sample of 2,698 subjects was obtained from the net population of 3,240. This sample represented the high school graduates of May 1999, and May 2000, from Godby, Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards high schools. This sample was obtained by tracing the 3,240 high school graduates and non-graduates back to their 8th grade classes (1994- 1995 for May 1999; and 1995-1996 for May 2000), using their students identification numbers. The numbers were skewed (rearranged by special codes) in the data bases by the authorities responsible for the data at Florida Department of Education to guide against misuse of the data and for the security of the students. The purpose of the back- tracing was to obtain a common measure of socioeconomic status of the students that were being studied. The second purpose of the tracing was to eliminate unusable data for the study, such as problems with students identification numbers. Data Source and Analytical Method The Florida Department of Education’s “Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program”(FETPIP) and “Florida Information and Accountability Services”
332 333
(EIAS) databases were the two data sources used for this study. These databases are maintained by the Florida Department of Education which collected and stored the statewide students’ data including those used for this study. Through individual student’s identifiable numbers built into the system, it was possible to follow-up individual student’s academic and career progress over the years. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to summarize and analyze the data. The statistical analysis in this study heavily relied on descriptive statistics with intensive use of tables (NCES, 1991; Riesenberg and Stenberg, 1992; US Department of Labor, 1994). Findings The data collected in the conduct of this study indicate that vocational education programs served a broad range of students that included both the LSES and the HSES, male and female, black and white students. The data further indicate that vocational education programs may have motivational values to the advantage of academically disadvantaged students, especially within the LSES category, thereby enabling them to remain in school and graduate. Analyses of the May 2000 data indicated that LSES vocational education students, compared with non-vocational education colleagues, recorded a higher percentage of graduates. When viewed from the perspective of the HSES, non-vocational education students reported a higher percentage of high school graduates compared with their vocational education counterparts (Table 5). Among the male students, the May 2000 data indicated that with the exception of Rickards high school which showed no percentage difference (no advantage) in high school graduation between vocational and non-vocational education students, a higher percentage difference among LSES vocational education students over LSES non- vocational education colleagues were reported in Godby, Leon, and Lincoln high schools (Table 11). Among the female students, the data showed that LSES vocational education students reported a higher percentage difference in graduation in all the four high schools, compared with LSES non-vocational education female students (Tables11). When vocational and non-vocational education students were compared by race, the May 1999 data showed that it was only in Leon high school that LSES black 334 vocational education students recorded a higher percentage difference (advantage) of graduates than their LSES black non-vocational education colleagues (Table 14). According to the May 2000 data, LSES white vocational education students reported a higher percentage difference (advantage) of high school graduates in all the four high schools under study, compared with LSES white non-vocational education students. Among the black students, the data indicated that it was only in Godby high school that LSES vocational education students, compared with LSES non-vocational education colleagues, graduated at a higher percentage (Table 15). Looking at the data from the HSES perspective gave a reverse finding, where non-vocational education students graduated at a higher rate (advantage) than their vocational colleagues (Tables 11, 14 and15). On the question of whether earning two or more vocational credits or courses will boost the chances of high school graduation, the data showed a mixed result for both May 1999 and May 2000 high school graduates from all the four schools, depending on the school (Tables 6 and 7). In Godby High School for instance, the May 1999 data showed that earning two or more vocational education courses or credits, compared with non-vocational education students, improved the chances of graduation from high school among the LSES students. On the other hand, the data analyses for Leon, Lincoln, and Rickards High Schools indicated a mixed results (Table 6). The May 2000 high school graduates data showed that Rickards high school followed similar pattern as Godby high school to some extent (Tables 7). The May 1999 data showed no difference in undergraduate BS, Associate in Arts (AA), and Associate in Science (AS) degree programs enrollment between vocational and non-vocational education students (Table 18). The May 2000 data on the other hand, found that among the LSES students who enrolled in BS degree programs, vocational students reported a higher rate (advantage) in enrollment over their non-vocational colleagues (Table 19). Regarding Community College (AA and AS degree programs) enrollments, the data indicated that both vocational students and non-vocational students were more attracted to the AA degree (College transfer option) than the AS degree 335 programs (more professional orientation and job option). The data further showed that vocational education students, compared with non-vocational education students, were more likely to enroll in the AS degree programs. The data further indicated that most vocational education students who enrolled in undergraduate BS degree programs similar to the vocational education programs they were trained in high school recorded a higher rate of enrollment (advantage) than were their non-vocational education colleagues (Tables 21 and 22). The data also indicated that HSES vocational education students, compared with their HSES non-vocational education colleagues, were more likely to change their original plans for college to other areas such as vocational technical schools after graduating from high school high (May 2000 data, Table 20). The data further showed that HSES female high school graduates from both vocational and non-vocational education were more likely to change the original plans they had for college while in school when they graduate from high school than were LSES female students (Tables 29). The data also showed that HSES white high school graduates from both vocational education and non-vocational education were more likely to change the original plans they had for college while in school when they graduate from high school than were LSES white students (Table 30). Undergraduate BS Business and Management, Mathematics and Mathematics- Related Engineering and Sciences degree programs seemed to attract a higher percentage of male vocational education students, compared to male non-vocational education students. The data further showed that both male and female vocational and non- vocational education students tended to enroll at higher numbers in undergraduate BS degree programs in Biological and Agricultural Sciences, Health and Human Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts, the Social Sciences, and the Humanities. The data indicated that both black and white vocational and non-vocational education students tended to enroll at higher percentages in undergraduate BS degree programs in Biological and Agricultural Sciences, Health and Human Sciences, Fine and Applied Arts, the Social Sciences, and the Humanities. 336
Analyses of the data showed that vocational education students were more likely than their non-vocational education counterparts to be employed while enrolled in undergraduate BS, AA, and AS degree programs (Tables 23 & 24). When field of employment was compared by vocational programs taken in high school, analyses of the data indicated that in most fields, vocational education HSG reported higher percentages of employment when compared with non-vocational education high school graduates (Tables 31 & 32, 33 &34, 35 & 36, 37 & 38, 39 & 40). The data also showed that high school graduates who had Diversified Cooperative Education (a internship or on-the-job training program), compared with non-vocational education colleagues, were more likely to be employment in professional fields such as banks, doctors’ offices, law enforcement, and hotels, with more hours, and better wages. The data further indicated that vocational education high school graduates who were trained in Business Technology Education, Computer Education, Family and Consumer Science Education were also more likely than non-vocational education high school graduates to be employed in professional fields such as banks, doctors’ offices, law enforcement, and hotels. Analyses of the data also indicated that vocational education high school graduates who were employed in the fields for which they were trained in high school reported higher wages with more working hours when compared with non- vocational education colleagues. Conclusions Based on the findings from this study, the following major conclusions were made: 1. Participation in vocational education enhanced the chances of high school graduation among lower socioeconomic status black and white, male and female students. This is particularly evident among black students who had two or more vocational education credits or courses in high school. 2. Participation in vocational education enhanced the chances of lower socioeconomic black and white, male and female students’ enrollment in undergraduate BS, AA, and AS degree programs. This is more evident among those students who 337 enrolled in undergraduate degree programs similar to their high school vocational training. 3. Participation in vocational education enhanced the prospect of job opportunities and higher wages for lower socioeconomic status black male and female students. This is more evident for those who worked in the fields for which they were trained in high school. Theoretical Base These three conclusions are in conformity with both the Carl Perkins vocational and Applied Technology Act of 1990 (AVA, 1992a, 1992b) and the School-To-Work Opportunity Act of 1994 which President Bill Clinton signed into Law in May 1995 (Youth Policy, 1994). Both Laws provided for academic and vocational training in secondary schools with the goals that secondary school graduates should be able to make easy transition to either postsecondary school education or employment with the basic technical and academic skills they had acquired in high school. Such goals, both the President and the United States Congress believed would improve students’ chances for higher education and employment, particularly among the students from the lower socioeconomic status. Implications In the 1980s and the early 1990s the benefits of vocational education in public secondary schools was strongly debated among educators, educational policy makers, researchers, and individuals or groups interested in the educational quality of schools across the United States. This debate was sparked off by the perceived lowering standard of public secondary school education in the country, and the means, if any, to elevate the standard. As a result, several educational policies such as the “School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994", the “Blue Print 2000", and others were put in place. In all these educational policies, the goal was to provide vocational education as a supplemental curriculum to secondary school academic curriculum. In order to throw more light into this on-going debate, this study was carried out. The following implications were drawn from the results: 338
1. The overall findings of this study provides support to secondary school vocational education curriculum development in Florida by serving as a reference document for educators, educational policy makers, and curriculum developers who may want to revise and update the state secondary school vocational education programs. 2. Since the data from Godby and Rickards high schools showed that earning two or more vocational education credits or courses may have improved the chances of high school graduation among lower socioeconomic status students, the need to encourage students’ participation and to take more vocational education credits in high school, particularly among lower socioeconomic black male students, is not out of place. 3. Since the data indicated that participation in vocational education may have improved the chances of postsecondary school enrollment among lower socioeconomic status students, structuring secondary school class curriculum to include topics that discuss the connections between classroom instructions (academic and vocational subjects) and various undergraduate degree programs such as Medicine, Engineering, Social Sciences, will enable the students to understand early in high school about the various career options open to them as they graduate from high school. Such class discussions as “Math, Physics, and Chemistry”, as prerequisite to becoming a “Medical Doctor” or taking “Technology Education Vocational Program” in high school as a move toward a career in the “Building or Construction Industry” might further enhance the career prospects among lower socioeconomic status black and white, male and female students. 4. The data in Tables 37, 38, 39, and 40 show high school graduates from both vocational and non-vocational education who did not enroll in postsecondary schools were working either part time or full time in the various fields specified in the tables. Effort should be made to encourage these high school graduates to enroll in postsecondary schools, particularly the lower socioeconomic status male and female, black and white. Such encouragement should be in the form of workshops, lectures, or communication by mail, explaining to high school graduates issues in family planning, financial planning and saving, and benefits resulting from enrollment in postsecondary 339 school education. 5. A major responsibility at the college-level vocational education teacher preparation is for educators to include adequate technology in their classroom curriculum. Such technological focus as Computer Information Technology, and Methods of Teaching in Middle and High School levels would enhance the teaching skills of future vocational educators or teachers. In this regard, Colleges of Education must make sure that their Departments of Vocational or Technical Education are provided with the necessary computer laboratories, up-to-date textbooks, and professors specialized in vocational or technical education. Recommendations For Further Research The following recommendations for further research are made from the findings of this study: 1. A follow-up study should be undertaken on why at the lower socioeconomic status level a higher rate of vocational education students graduated from high school compared with their non-vocational education colleagues, whereas, at the level of the higher socioeconomic status, higher percentage of non-vocational education students graduated over their vocational education counterparts. 2. A follow-up study similar to the study done in this dissertation is recommended at the undergraduate level to determine the difference in course enrollment and enrollment patterns between vocational and non-vocational education students. 3. There is the need for further research on the high school graduates who did not enroll in postsecondary schools (Tables 37, 38, 39, and 40). Such a study should look at the reasons why they did not enroll in postsecondary schools and their future career plans. The study should look at the gender, race, and socioeconomic status. 4. A follow-up study is needed to determine why only the vocational education high school graduates (higher and lower socioeconomic status) who had training in Diversified Cooperative education (Internship, On-the-job Training, or Work Experience) program, and not the high school graduates trained in other specialties of vocational education, reported higher rate of enrollment in Associate in Arts (4-year college transfer 340 option) degrees over non-vocational education high school graduates (May 1999 and May 2000 data). 5. Further study is needed to determine why higher rate of white students, compared with black students, enrolled in the Associate in Science degree programs (May 1999, Table 27; and May 2000, Table 28). 6. Since there were no clear difference on wages between vocational and non- vocational education students as indicated in the data, there is the need for a follow-up study on wages at least two years after graduation from high school and two years after graduation from college to determine the possible or actual wage differences between vocational and non-vocational students, among socioeconomic status, by gender and by race. By two years period, high school graduates may be working on their career paths with additional job skills and experience. 7. More sophisticated statistical methodology, such as the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), Dunkan’s New Multiple Range Test, Fisher’s Least significant Difference (LSD), or the Turkey’s W. Procedure may be used for replication with different schools to confirm the findings of this study and to establish how significant were the differences between vocational and non-vocational education students. 8. Since there was not enough data to study the non-graduates in this dissertation, there is a need for such a study in the future. This study should be made across socioeconomic status male and female, and all the available ethnic groups. 9. Since this dissertation study was done on only public secondary schools, there is need to conduct a similar study on private secondary schools and compare the results from the two systems to determine which better prepare students for employment. 10. A study should be undertaken to determine the effect of vocational education teachers’ academic qualification and teaching experience on academic and career success of vocational education students. 11. A major inadequacy or limitation of this research was the absence of Eighth grade Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) scores which would have been used in addition to Free/Reduce-priced Lunch program as another variable to use to 341 determine whether vocational education had impact on the students. The Florida FCAT is a standardized math and reading test administered by Florida Department of Education to eight grade students throughout the state to test their math and reading ability. The FCAT scores for eight students were not available at the time when this dissertation study was designed. If I were to do this research again, since the eighth grade FCAT scores are available, I would use it to measure students academic achievement.
APPENDIX C
Table 41: University Undergraduate BS Degree Program Grouping. Biological Sciences & Business & Fine & Applied Arts Agriculture Management
Animal Sciences. Business, Gen. Architecture Biology. Accounting Landscape Architecture Zoology Finance Drama/Theater Arts Environmental Sciences & Management Sciences Film & Cinema Studio Studies. Business Administration Studio/Fine Arts Microbiology International Business Art History, Critic & Marketing Conservative Studies Music, Gen. Dance Graphic Design/Commercial Arts Interior Design Music/General Performance Source: FETPIP Database. Note: Grouping made in reference from: Directory of Graduate Programs (1988-1989); Tallahassee Community College (1999); Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University (FAMU)(1998-2000); Florida State University (FSU)(2001-2003a); Florida State University (2001-2003b).
347 348
Table 41 (Contd): Mathematics/Engineering/Technology, Physical/Pure Social Sciences Sciences, Computer Sciences
Engineering, General Systems Engineering Advertising Aerospace & Aeronautical Computer Science Journalism Chemical Engineering Construction Technology Public Relations Civil Engineering, Building Technology Radio & Television Gen./Technology Mathematics Broadcasting Computer Engineering Mathematical Statistics Paralegal/Legal Assisting Electrical Engineering/Technology Mechanical Engineering Library Science Electronic Engineering/Technology Computer & Information Science Criminal Justice Communications Engineering Biochemistry History, Gen. Engineering Science Chemistry, Gen. Political Science Materials Engineering Physics, Gen. Sociology Geography Hydro-Geology Parks & Recreation International Relations Elementary Teacher Education Music Teacher Education Communication, Gen. Social Work Source: FETPIP Database. Note: Grouping made in reference from: Directory of Graduate Programs (1988-1989); Tallahassee Community College (1999); Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University (FAMU)(1998-2000); Florida State University (FSU)(2001-2003a); Florida State University (2001-2003b). 349
Table 41 (Contd): Health & Human Sciences Humanities
Pharmacy Linguistics Home Economics English Language & Literature Human Nutrition Philosophy Individual & Family Portuguese Language & Literature Cloth & Textile Studies Religious Study Movement Science Anthropology Psychology, Gen. Classics Health Science Family & Community Studies Nursing Music Therapy Occupational Therapy Speech/Language Pathology Source: FETPIP Database. Note: Grouping made in reference from: Directory of Graduate Programs (1988-1989); Tallahassee Community College (1999); Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University (FAMU)(1998-2000); Florida State University (FSU)(2001-2003a); Florida State University (2001-2003b).
Table 42: Community College Associate in Arts (AA) & Associate In Science (AS) Degree Programs AA & AS Degree Programs AS Degree Programs
Associate In Arts (General Transfer) AS Interpreter Training AS Accounting AS Legal Assisting AS Building Construction Technology AS Nursing AS Business Administration & Management AS Office Systems AS Civil Engineering Technology AS Respiratory Care AS Computer Programming AS Internet Service Teaching AS Criminal Justice Technology AS Fire Science Administration AS Dental Hygiene AS Emergency Medical Services AS Early Childhood Education AS Financial Services AS Electronic Engineering AS Networking Services AS Forest Management AS Internet Service Technology AS Graphic Design Technology Source: FETPIP Database. 350
Table 43: Participants Place of Work in Job Categories. Business, Banking, & Engineering, Technology, Environmental Science, Related Jobs (Fields) Computer, & Related Jobs (Fields)
National Commercial Banks Vegetables & Melons Residential Care State Commercial Banks Ornamental Nursery Products Engineering Services Federal Commercial Banks Landscape & Horticultural Air, Water, & Solid Waste Federal Savings Institutions Services Management Federal Credit Unions Forestry Services Land, Mineral, Wildlife State Credit Unions Residential Building Conservation Insurance Agencies Construction Regulation, Administration of Collection Services Carpenter Work Transportation Credit Reporting Services Plumbing, Heating, Air Regulation of Misc. Commercial Business Services Conditioning Sector Accounting, Auditing, & Electronic/Computers Airport Flying Field & Service Bookkeeping Services Air Transportation Food Crops Grown Under Cover Commercial Nonphysical Refrigeration Equipment Electrical Work Research Supplies Metal Coat & Allied Services Management Services Petroleum Products Electrical Apparatus & Administration of General Building Materials Equipment Economic Programs Radio, TV., & Electronic Stores Hardware Personal Credit Institutions Computer Software Stores Air Conditioning Systems Security Brokers Real Estate Agents Petroleum Title Abstract Offices General Automotive Repair Real Estate Management Consulting Shop Urban & Community Services Automotive Services Development Source: FETPIP Database.
Table 43 (Contd.): Fashion & Related Jobs (Fields) Medical & Health Related Jobs (Fields)
Curtains & Draperies Offices & Clinics of Medical Doctors Beauty Shops Skilled Nursing Care Facilities Misc. Personal Services General Medical & Surgical Hospitals Tops & Body Repair & Paint Shops Health & Allied Services Physical Fitness Facilities Veterinary Services Individual & Family Services Offices of Dentists Child Daycare Services Offices of Clinics of Optometrists Private Household Kidney Dialysis Center Source: FETPIP Database. 351
Table 43 (Contd.): Information Communication., Law Enforcement, Public Service, Entertainment, & Related Jobs (Fields) Education, & Related Jobs (Fields)
Newspapers Stationery Office Supplies Book Publishing Patent Owners & lessors Commercial Printing/Lithograph Legal Services Manifold Business Forms Elementary & Secondary Schools Radiotelephone Communication Colleges & Universities Telephone Communication Junior Colleges Direct Mail Advertising Services Schools & Educational Services News Syndicate Job Training & Related Services Services Allied to Motion Pictures Social Services Theaters, Video Tape Rental Professional Organizations Dance Studios, & School Halls Labor Organizations Public Gulf Courses Civil & Social Organizations Amusement Parks Non-Commercial Research Organizations Member Clubs Executive Offices Public Relation Services Executive & Legislative Combined Periodicals General Government Photographic Studio & Portraits Courts Video Tape Rental Police Protection Museum & Art Galleries. Legal Counsel & Protection Correctional Institutions Public Order & Safety Administration of Educational Programs Source: FETPIP Database.
Table 43 (Contd.): Other Jobs (Fields) Grocery & Drug Stores, Restaurant & Hotels, Gasoline Stations, and Related Jobs (Fields)
General Contractors Women’s & Children Clothing Sporting Goods & Bicycle Painting & Paper Hanging Durable Goods Stores Roofing Nurseries & Garden Stores Jewelry Stores Concrete Work Department Stores Hobby, Toy, & Game Stores Glass & Glazing Work Meat & Fish Market Gift Novelty, & Souvenir Shops Building Maintenance Services Grocery Stores Florists Equipment Rental New & Used Car Dealers Optical Goods Stores Defective & Armor Car Service Shoe Store Hotels & Motels Help Supply Service Apparel & Accessaries Stores Power Laundry & Family Carwashes Furniture Stores Commercial Local Trucking Eat & Drinking Places Dry Cleaning Plants Non-classifiable Establishments Drug Stores Source: FETPIP Database. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Academic Planner (2000-2001). Leon High School Academic Planner For Sophomores, Juniors, & Seniors. [Handbook]. Leon High School, Tallahassee, Florida: Author.
American Federation of Teachers (1996). Profile Three: William H. Turner Technical Arts High School, Dade County, Florida. Washington, D..C: Author.
Andrew, E. N. & Grubb, W. N. (1995a). The Power of Curriculum Integration: Its relationship to other Reforms. In W. N. Grubb (Ed.). Education Through Occupations in American High Schools: Approaches to Integrating Academic and Vocational Education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Annual Outcomes Report (2000). Florida Education & Training Placement Information Program. (FETPIP)( Fall Data). Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Education.
Archambault, R. D. (Ed.) (1966a). LECTURES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION: 1899 By JOHN DEWEY. New York: Random House.
Archambault, R. D. (Ed.) (1966b). DEWEY ON EDUCATION: APPRAISALS. New York: Random House, Inc.
Argys, L. M.; Rees, D. I. & Brewer, D. J. (1996). Detracking America’s Schools: Equity at Zero Cost? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Vol.15(4). pp. 623-645.
American r. Vocational Association (AVA) (1992a). The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Educational Act of 1990: The Final Regulations. Alexandria, VA: AVA, Inc.
AVA (1992b). The AVA Guide to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 (Updated Edition). Alexandria, VA: AVA, Inc.
Bailey, T. R. (1995a). The Integration of Work and School: Education and the Changing Workplace. In W. L. Grubb (Ed.). Education Through Occupations in American High Schools: Approaches to Integrating Academic and Vocational Education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Bodilly, S; Ramsey, K; Stasz, C; & Eden, R. (1993). Integrating Academic and Vocational Education: Lessons from Eight Early Innovations. National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE) University of California, Berkeley: RAND.
352 353
Bragg, D. D. (1995b). Linking High Schools to Postsecondary Institutions: The Role of the Tech Prep. In W. N. Grubb (Ed.). Education Through Occupations In American High Schools: The Challenges of Implementing Curriculum Integration. New York: Teachers College Press.
Briseid, O. (1995). Comprehensive Reform in Upper Secondary Education in Norway: A Retrospective View: European Journal of Education. Vol. 30 (3). pp. 255- 264).
Choy, S. P; Alt, M. N; & Henke, R. R. (1994). Profile of the Target Population for School-to-Work Transition Initiatives. In School-to-Work: What Does Research Say About It? Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
Copa, G. H. (1987, April 20-24). Vocational Education: Appropriate Education for Some? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C.
Cremin, L. A. (1966b). John Dewey and the Progressive Education Movement: 1915- 1952. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.). DEWEY ON EDUCATION: APPRAISAL. New York: Random House, Inc.
Czubaj, C. A. (1997). School-To-Work Programs Offered By Technical Schools Provide a Viable Alternative to Traditional High Schools. Journal of Vocational Education Research. Vol. 116 (2). pp. 260-267.
Database Manuals (2001). Education Information & Accountability Services. Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Education.
Dewey, J. (1899). Lectures In The Philosophy of Education. New York: Random House.
Dewey, J. & Tufts, J. (1908). ETHICS. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Dewey, J. (1915). The School and Society. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Dewey, J. (1918, Jan. 25). Vocational Education in the Light of the World War. A Speech read at the Convention of the Vocational Education Association of the Middle West, Chicago, Illinois. 354
Dewey, J. (1930). Individualism Old and New. New York: Minton, Balch and Company.
Directory of Graduate Programs (1988-1989). The Official GRE/CGS: Vol. A,B,C,D., Educational Testing Service.
Finch, C. R. & McGough, R. (1982). Administering and Supervising Occupational Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Finch, C. R. & Crunkilton, J. R. (4th Ed.) (1993). Curriculum Development in Vocational and Technical Education: Planning, Content, and Implementation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Florida A & M University (1998-2000). [General Catalog]. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Education (2nd Ed.)(nd.). Acronyms and Definitions: Applied Technology and Adult Education. [Brochure]. Bureau of Development, Planning, and Information Systems. Tallahassee, Florida: Author.
Florida Department of Education (1991). DOE Database Requirements: Automated Student Information System. Vol.1. [Report]. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Education (1993). The High School Competency Test October 1993 Technical Report. Division of Public Schools and Community Education, Bureau of Assessment and Evaluation Section. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Education (2000). The Florida Education and Training Placement Information Program. [Report]. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Education (1996). Florida’s System of School Improvement and Accountability: [Brochure]. Florida Commission on Education Reform and Accountability. FDOE, Tallahassee, Florida: Author.
Florida School Laws, Fla. Stat. §§ 228-246 (1996)
Florida Department of Education (1997). Goals 2000 Educate America Act: Florida’s Annual Report 1995-1996 (Jan.). Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Education.
Florida Department of Education (1998). Technical Report:. 1998 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Division of Public Schools and Community Education, Bureau of Assessment and Evaluation Section. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Department of Education (1999). High School Competency Test: State, 355
District, and School Report of Statewide Assessment Results. [Statistical Report]. Division of Public Schools and Community Education, Bureau of Assessment and Evaluation Section. Tallahassee, Florida: Author.
Florida International University (2002-2003). [Undergraduate Catalog]. Miami, Florida.
Florida State University (2001-2003a). [General Bulletin]. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida State University (2001-2003b). [Bulletin]. Graduate Edition.
Godby (2000-2001). Amos P. Godby High School 9th Grade Course Request Form, 2000-2001. [Brochure]. Godby High School, Tallahassee, Florida: Author.
W. T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family, and Citizenship (1988). The Forgotten Half: Pathways to Success for America’s Youth and Family. Washington, D. C: Youth and America’s Future.
Grubb, W. N. (Ed.) (1995a). Education Through Occupations In American High Schools: Approaches To Integrating Academic and Vocational Education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Grubb, W. N. (1995a). A Continuum of Approaches to Curriculum Integration. In W. N. Grubb (Ed.). Education Through Occupations in American High Schools: Approaches to Integrating Academic and Vocational Education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Grubb, W. N. (1995a). Coherence for All Students: High Schools with Career Clusters and Majors. In W. N. Grubb (Ed.). Education Through Occupations in American High Schools: Approaches to Integrating Academic and Vocational education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Grubb, W. N. (1995a). The Promises of Curriculum Integration. In W. N. Grubb (Ed.). Education Through Occupations in American High Schools: Approaches to Integrating Academic and Vocational Education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Grubb, W. N. (Ed.)(1995b). Education through Occupations in American High Schools: The Challenges of Implementing Curriculum integration. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Grubb, W. N. & Stasz, C. (1992). Assessing The Integration of Academic and Vocati onal Education: Methods and Questions. National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE). MDS-445. Berkeley: University of California. RAND. 356
Grubb, W. N. (1997). Not There Yet: Prospects and Problems for “Education Through Occupation”. Journal of Vocational Education Research. Vol. 22(2), pp. 77-94.
Hamby, J. V. D. (1992). Vocational Education for the 21st Century. Clemson, South Carolina: National Dropout Prevention Center.
Hamilton, F. S. (1990). Apprenticeship For Adulthood: Preparing Youth For The Future. New York: The Free Press.
Handlin, O. (1966b). John Dewey’s Challenge to Education. In Archamblault, R. D. (Ed.), DEWEY ON EDUCATION: APPRAISAL. New York: Random House.
Henderson, C. (1999). Research and Statistical Support. SPSS Programming Workshop 1. University of North Texas.
Hoachlander, G. (1999). More Than a Name Change? Transitioning From Vocational to Career and Technical Education. Centerwork. National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE). Vol. 10 (3-4), Fall-Winter, p. 2. Berkeley, University of California.
James Rickards (1999-2000). James S. Rickards High School. [Handout]. James Rickards High School, Tallahassee, Florida: Author.
.Johnston, W. B. & Parker, A. H. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis, Indiana: HUDSON INSTITUTE.
Lankard, B. A. (1992). Integrating Academic and Vocational Education: Strategies for Implementation. (Report No. 120.). Columbus, Ohio: Center on Education and Training for Employment. (ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. No. EDO-CE-92-120) Lankard, B. A. (1994). Integration of Academic and Vocational Education Myths and Realities (Report No. XXXXX). Columbus, Ohio: National Center of Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education Center on Education and Training for Employment.
Lazerson, M. & Grubb, N. W. (Eds.) (1974). American Education and Vocationalism: A Documentary History, 1870-1070. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Lee, J. & Tu, Z. N. (1997). Statistical Computing and Graphics: A Versatile One- Dimensional Distribution Plot. The BLiP Plot. The American Statistician: A Publication of the American Statistical Association. Vol. 51(4). pp. 353-358.
Leon County Schools (2000-2001). Leon County Schools Educational Programs and 357
Graduation Requirements: Great Expectations! [Brochure]. Tallahassee, Florida.
Leon County Schools (2001-2002). Leon County Schools Educational Programs and Graduation Requirements: Great Expectations! [Brochure]. Tallahassee, Florida
Leon County Schools (2002-2003). Leon County Schools Educational Programs and Graduation Requirements: Great Expectations! [Brochure]. Tallahassee, Florida
Leon High (1999-2000). Leon High School. [Brochure], Leon High School, Tallahassee, Florida: Author.
Lilga, F. (1966a). The Vain Quest for Unity: John Dewey’s Social and Educational Thought in Perspective. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), Dewey on Education: Appraisals. New York: Random House, Inc.
Logan, J. P. & Tulloch, C. (1992). Raising Academic Achievement of Vocational Students: A Case Study. Journal of Vocational Education Research. Vol. 17(2). pp. 45-70.
Morgan, G. A. & Griego, O. V. (1998). Easy Use and Interpretation of SPSS For Windows: Answering Research Questions with Statistics. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morgan, G. A., Griego, O. V., & Gloeckner, G. W. (2001). SPSS For Windows: An Introduction to the Use and Interpretation in Research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
National Center for Educational Statistics ( NCES )(92-129) (1991). Dropout Rates in the United States. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D. C: U. S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Secondary Vocational Education (1984). Unfinished Agenda. NCRVE
Norusis, M. J. (1998). Guide to Data Analysis: SPSS 8.0. Chicago, Illinois: Prentice- Hall, Inc.
OTT, R. L. (1993). An Introduction To Statistical Methods and Data Analysis. (4th Ed.). Belmont, California: Duxbury Press.
Phenix, P. H. (1966b). John Dewey’s War on Dualism: Its Bearing on Today’s 358
Educational Problems. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), DEWEY ON EDUCATION: APPRAISALS. New York: Random House, Inc.
Prince, M. A. (1973). A Comparison of Three Types of Kindergarten Programs in the Leon District Schools. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University. Dissertation Abstract International.
Riesenberg, L. E. & Stenberg, L. A. (1990). High School and Beyond: a Profile of Idaho’s 1983 high school graduates. (Report VE 247) Research. Boise, ID: State Division of Vocational Education.
Riesenberg, L. E. & Stenberg, L. A. (1990). A profile of high school and beyond experiences of 1983 high school graduates described within the high school curriculum concentration of the graduates. Proceedings of the 17th National Agricultural Education Research Meeting. Vol. 17, pp. 327-333.
Riesenberg, L. E. & Stenberg, L. A. (1991). A profile of employment and related experiences of 1983 high school graduates describes within the high school curriculum concentration of the graduates. Proceedings of the 18th National Agricultural Education Research Meeting. Vol. 18, pp. 88-94.
Riesenberg, L. E. & Stenberg, L. A. (1992). High School and Employment Experiences of Vocational and Nonvocational Concentrators of the Idaho High School Graduating Class of 1983. Journal of Vocational Education Research. Vol. 17(4). pp. 67-92.
Riley, R. W. (1994). Goals 2000 Educate America Act: “National Education Goals” In Florida Department of Education (1997). Goal 2000: Educate America Act, Florida’s Annual Report 1995-96 (Jan.). Appendix A.
Rosenstock, L. (1991). The Walls Come Down: The Overdue Reunification of Vocational and Academic Education. KAPPAN Feb. pp. 434-436.
School-to-Work: What Does Research Say About It? (1994). Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (1991). What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report For America 2000. Washington, D. C., U. S. Department of Labor.
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (1993). Teaching The SCANS Competencies. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Labor.
Shaffer, R.; Nelson, E.; Chico, N.; Korey, J.; Nelson, E. & Rose, J. (2001). SPSS for 359
Windows, Version 9: A Brief Tutorial. : San Luis Obispo: McGraw-Hill, Inc., California Polytechnic University.
Shaw, G. (1995). Modernizing Curricula in Vocational Education and Training in Poland: A Case Study. European Journal of Education. Vol. 30 (3). pp. 265- 275.
SPSS (1998). SPSS Base 8.0: Applications Guide. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS, Inc.
SPSS (1998). SPSS Graduate Pack 8.0 For Windows. Chicago, Illinois: SPSS, Inc.
Statistical Abstract of Florida (3rd. Ed.) (1997). Bureau of Economic Research, Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
Stern, D; Finkelstein, N; Stone, J. R; Latting, J; & Dornsife, G. (1994). Research on School-To-Work Transition Programs in the United States. National center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE). Report # MDS-771. (March).
Stern, D. (1999). Whose Performance Should Count? Centerwork. National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE). Vol. 10 (2), p. 1. Berkeley: University of California.
Tallahassee Community College (1999). The Bulletin of Tallahassee Community College. [Catalog] Vol. 22(5).
Turner, W. H. (1996). Profile Three: William Turner Technical Arts High School-Dade County, Florida. Miami, Florida: American Federation of Teachers.
U. S. Bureau of the Census (1997). Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D. C. U.S. Department of Commerce.
U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1994, April). The American Workforce: 1992-2005 (Bulletin 2452), Washington, DC: Author
U. S. Department of Labor (1996, Fall). Occupational Employment Statistics: Dictionary of Occupations. Washington, DC: Author, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO) (1993). Transition from School to Work.: States are Developing New Strategies to Prepare Students for Jobs. Washington, D. C: Author.
Vaughan, R. J. (1991). The New Limits to Growth: Economic Transformation and Vocational Education. KAPPAN. Feb. pp. 446-449. 360
Wilsom, B. L. & Rossman, G. B. (1993). Mandating Academic Excellence: High School Responses to State Curriculum Reform. In Natriello, G. (Ed.). Sociology of Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wirt, J. G. (1991). A New Federal Law on Vocational Education: Will Reform Follow? PHI DELTA KAPPAN. Feb. pp. 425-433.
Wirth, A. G. (1992). Education and Work for the Year 2000: Choices We Face. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wirth, A. G. (1992). Vocational Education: An Instrument for Educational Transformation. In A. G. Wirth (Book Chapter), Education and Work for the Year 2000: Choices We Face. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. (pp. 155-184).
Witte, J. C. & Kalleberg, A. L. (1994). Determinants and Consequences of Fit Between Vocational Education and Employment in Germany. In School-to-Work: What Does Research Say About It? Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C. Woodley, C. D; Holmes, W. S.; & Sorg, S. E. (1992). Integrating Academic and Vocational Education: Best Practices in Florida. Division of Vocational, Adult and Community Education. Florida Department of Education, Tallahassee, Florida.
Worthen, B. R. & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. White Plains, New York: Pitman Publishing Inc.
Youth Policy (1994). Creating A Successful, Comprehensive, School-To-Work System: The Focus For A Dialogue Among Industry, Education, and Community Stakeholders. Vol. 15 & 16 (12 & 1). BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH I was born in Olorunshogo, Mushin, in Mushin District Council Area of the former Western Region, Lagos, Nigeria. But my parents were originally from Sabagreia in the present Kolokuma-Opokuma Local Government Area in BAYELSA State of Nigeria. As a result of my birth history, I am very fortunate to be a bi-lingual, speaking Izun, my parents dialect, and Yoruba, the dialect of my place of birth. I had my early education in Megbum District Council (MDC) Primary School, Mushin, Lagos. When my parents transferred, I later enrolled in Christian Missionary School (CMS) in Ajegunle, Apapa, Lagos. Another transfer of my parents got me into St. Peter’s Primary School, Sabagreia, from where I completed my primary education in 1970, despite three and half years setback within which schools in my area were closed due to Nigerian Civil War. I attended Bishop Dimieri Grammar School (BDGS), Yenagoa, and later, Government Secondary School, Kaiama. I finally completed my high school at Western Ahoada County High School, Ahoada, and Okrika Grammar School, in Okrika. All these schools were in the former Rivers State of Nigeria. In August, 1982, I left Nigeria for Miami Dade Community College (MDCC), North Campus, in Miami where I had admission to read Architecture. In January, 1983, I enrolled in MDCC’s Building Construction program for the Associate In Arts (AA) degree. After my AA, I enrolled at the joint MDCC/FAMU Bachelor of Science Architecture/Construction Engineering Technology degree program in Miami. At the Senior year, I did not attend classes for at least 2 years due to the in-availability of professors to teach the required courses to graduate. Through the advice of the faculty both in Miami and Tallahassee, I moved to Tallahassee in January 1991 and registered for the Spring classes at FAMU. In the Spring of 1992, I got my BS degree and went on to continue my MS program in the Summer of the same year at FAMU. In fact, I was the first graduate of the MDCC/FAMU Architecture/Construction Engineering Technology program. As a
361 362
honor, I was invited to attend the MDCC/FAMU Commencement in Miami, having attended an earlier FAMU Commencement in Tallahassee. In the Fall of 1994, I received the MS degree in Social Sciences with Major in Public Administration; and Minors in School and Community Psychology, and Environmental Sciences. In the Spring of 1995, I dually enrolled for both my Doctorate in Comprehensive Vocational Education at FSU, and a Second Masters in Environmental Sciences at FAMU. But due to constraining financial resources and time, I finally pulled out of the MS Environmental Sciences degree program, having earned 30 credit hours of the 48 total credit hours to graduate including a thesis. In the Summer of 1998, I received the Specialist in Education (Ed.S.) degree in Comprehensive Vocational Education from FSU, while continuing my doctoral program. After my Comprehensive (Preliminary) doctoral examination, I was admitted to the Masters in Urban and Regional Planning degree at FSU. While preparing my dissertation prospectus, I was also enrolled and taking classes toward the Planning degree. My earlier plan was to combine the Masters in Urban Planning degree with my degree in Education, and the Environmental Sciences and become Educational Facilities Planner. But this plan did not work out due to resources constrains that further led to my withdrew from the Planning degree. My professional career has been varied. In Nigeria, I was a Journalist with the New Nigerian Newspaper, a Federal Government Newspaper. My bits were Courts, Politics, Sports, Accidents, Features, Investigation and General Reporting. In fact, many of my writings were published in the Nigerian National Papers. I also worked as Telephone Technologist with the Engineering Department of Nigerian Federal Ministry of Post and Telecommunication in Port Harcourt. I was trouble shooting and problems solving in overhead and underground telephone lines. In Miami, Florida, I was a Laboratory Assistant with Inter County Labs., a civil engineering laboratory, where I was involved in soil, concrete, steel, and core drilling and testing, construction quality control, certification of concrete and steel, especially culverts for construction, foundation design for commercial and high rising buildings, skyscrapers. At FAMU I worked with a professor as Research Assistant. At the Florida Department of Education 363 in Tallahassee, during my Internship, I worked with the Division of Vocational Education and Workforce Development, where I involved in research, curriculum revision for statewide high school and adult vocational education programs. Currently, I am an Area Representative of STS Foundation, a not-for-profit intercultural student exchange program. I am also a member of FSU Chapter of Phi Delta Kappa, American Vocational Education Research Association, and a member of the Vestry at St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church, Tallahassee. I am currently given a temporary certification by the Florida Department of Education to teach Middle School Mathematics and Science, and high school Industrial Arts-Technology Education. Recently, I had Real Estate Investors training. I wish to combine academics and real estate as my career. Gulf and Photography are my hobby. Despite some setbacks along the way, including parents separation and divorce and untimely death of my loving and caring father, thank God that I have made it to this point in life.