A descriptive study of family life education programs in Georgia public schools [May 1968]

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
IN GEORGIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ALEENE A. CROSS
JACK P. NIX, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ATLANTA ,GEORGIA

Research Coordinating Unit Vocationa I Education Division Office of Instructional Services Georgia Deportment of Education Atlanta, Georgia 30334
1968

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION IN HOME ECONOMICS
A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF FAMILY LIFE
EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN GEORGIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
by
A1eene A. Cross Professor of Education The University of Georgia
This report is a project of the Georgia Research Coordinating Unit,
Georgia Department of Education, under a grant from the
United States Office of Education May, 1968

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I PROBLEM DESCRIPTION ------------------------------------Statement of the Problem -------------------------------Objectives ---------------------------------------------Limitations of the Study -------------------------------Definitions of Terms ------------------------------------
II METHODOLOGY --------------------------------------------Development of Questionnaire ---------------------------Selection of Population --------------------------------Collection of Data -------------------------------------Analysis of the Data ------------------------------------
III THE DATA -----------------------------------------------Extent of Family Life Programs -------------------------Concepts Taught ----------------------------------------Type and Preparation of Teachers -----------------------Plans for the Future ------------------------------------
IV SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------Conclusions --------------------------------------------Recommendations -----------------------------------------
APPENDIX I ---------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX II --------------------------------------------------

PAGE
1
1 2
2 3
4 4 4
5
5
7
7 13 21
26
29 29 30
31
34

CHAPTER I
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
Preparation for the occupation of homemaking has always been and continues to be the major goal of home economics at the secondary school level. The scope of the program has expanded from basic skills in clothing construction and food preparation to emphasize interpersonal relationships and management of resources. Programs are more and more being planned for boys as well as girls as the role of homemaker is being assumed by both husbands and wives.
Concern about the increasing number of teenage marriages, the percentage of young marriages ending in divorce, and the number of teenage girls giving birth to illegitimate children has prompted many groups to suggest sex education in public schools. The Georgia Department of Public Health, the Department of Family and Children Services, and the Georgia Congress of Parents and Teachers are among these groups.
Many questions have been asked about the scope of family life education in Georgia's schools. Not all groups asking these questions seem to be aware of the efforts made through home economics. Because of this growing interest and the concern of home economics educators, this study was undertaken.
Statement of the problem. A description of family life education programs in Georgia public schools that would reveal the quantity as well as the scope of subject matter content was the problem selected for this
I

research project. The specific questions that seemed to require answers were:
1. How many schools offer family life programs?
2. At what grade levels are programs offered? 3. How many students are enrolled in these courses?
4. What is the length of time for courses in family life education? 5. What emphases or concepts are taught in family living courses
and in each year of home economics?
6. Who teaches courses in family life education? 7. What kind of college preparation have the teachers had?
8. Why are family life courses not included in the curriculum? 9. What are the possibilities of offering a family life program in
schools where it is not currently being offered? The objectives. The specific questions listed above gave direction
to the selection of the following objectives: 1. To determine the extent of family life programs in Georgia public schools 2. To ascertain the concepts or subject matter content emphasized in family life programs 3. To determine the kinds of teachers in these programs and their preparation for teaching 4. To discover the reasons why family life education programs are not offered and the possibility of their being offered in the future The limitations of the study. The study was limited to the school
year 1966-67, and to the home economics teachers included on lists issued by the State Department of Education, Fulton County Public
Schools, and Atlanta Public Schools.
2

The definitions of terms. The definitions given below are those used as a basis for this study but are consistent with generally used terms.
1. Family life education is any course that gives major emphasis to the area of human development and the family whether it be considered home economics, family relations, sociology or psychology.
2. Home economics education refers to any course that includes all areas of home economics. The subject includes not only human development and the family but also food and nutrition, housing, management and family economics, and textiles and clothing.
3. Vocational home economics teachers are those who are reimbursed for over time work such as directing of Future Homemakers, teaching adult classes, supervising home projects, and attending in-service meetings. Non-vocational teachers are not reimbursed nor required to assume the above responsibilities although most of them do serve as advisors to Future Homemakers.
This chapter has stated the problem, listed questions of concern, outlined the objectives, given the limitations, and defined the terms. Chapter two gives an explanation of the methodology used.
3

CHAPTER II
ME THODOLOGY
This chapter summarizes the research procedures utilized to (1) develop the questionnaire, (2) select the population, (3) collect the data, and (4) analyze the data.
The development of the questionnaire. Each of the nine questions outlined in chapter one was used to formulate the various sections of the questionnaire. The first question ascertained whether or not the school offered a program of family life education. The second section asked for the grade level, number of courses, total enrollment, concepts, length of course, teacher's name and her preparation. This section was completed only by those teachers who answered "yes" to the first question. The third section was completed by those teachers who answered "no" to the first section. It asked why there was not a program and what was the possibility of having such a program in the future, according to the school administration. The fourth section asked what family and child development concepts were taught in home economics courses. (See Appendix I for sample questionnaire.)
The questionnaire was pilot-tested with a group of experienced teachers studying full time at the University of Georgia. Revisions were made in accord with their suggestions.
Selection of the population. All teachers listed by the Vocational
4

Division of the State Department of Education were sent a questionnaire. However, only one letter (see Appendix II for sample letter) was sent to each school. Letters were also sent to teachers on the lists supplied by the Fulton County and Atlanta school systems. These two systems have the majority of non-vocational teachers in the state.
The decision was made to send a questionnaire to all teachers in an effort to identify as many programs of family life education as possible. A random sampling could not have resulted in as many identified programs.
Collection of the data. The questionnaire was sent to teachers in 522 schools. A follow-up was not sent; therefore the return was not as high as possible.
The number of schools represented in the study is 199, or 38.12%. The researcher feels that most teachers who had programs of family life education returned the questionnaire whereas teachers who did not failed to do so.
Analysis of the data. The answers to each question were tabulated. Questionnaires that were poorly answered or largely incomplete were discarded. Percentages were computed for those data that were appropriate for this type of statistics. The remaining data are presented in summarized totals.
The data are presented in four sections and sixteen tables. Each section represents an objective stated in the first chapter.
This chapter has described the methodology used in the study. The
5

next chapter presents the data and the last chapter contains the summary, conclusions, and recommendations.
6

CHAPTER III
THE DATA
The data obtained from the 199 schools reported in this study are presented in four sections: (1) extent of family life program, (2) concepts taught, (3) type and preparation of teachers, and (4) promise for the future.
Extent of family life programs. Almost four of five schools returning questionnaires reported a family life education program. However, the data in Table I cannot be interpreted as representing the extent of such programs in Georgia schools. The researcher has stated earlier that a subjective analysis leads to the conclusion that teachers without a program tended not to return the questionnaire. One can conclude that there were at least 155 programs in Georgia in 1966-67.
Table II reveals that family life education programs were offered more often to twelfth graders than to any group. Approximately two of five programs were limited to seniors, and one of four were for eleventh and twelfth graders. A few programs were available to junior high students and a few enrolled students of all grades in the same class.
Enrollment data are presented in Table III and reveal that threefourths of the students were in the eleventh or twelfth grade. A total of 9142 were enrolled in family life education programs.
The length of time allotted to family life courses is summarized in
7

Table IV. The majority (53.4%) were for an entire school year. Most of the remainder (36.2%) were for a semester. The proportion for a year was greater at the twelfth grade level (93 of 130 programs).
8

TABLE I
NUMBER OF FAMILY LIFE PROGRAMS IN GEORGIA PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS

Number

Schools reporting a program

155

Schools reporting no program

44

Total schools reporting 199

Percent 77.9 22.1
100.0

9

TABLE II
NUMBER OF FAMILY LIFE PROGRAMS REPORTED IN GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOLS BY GRADES; ALSO NUMBER
OF CLASSES IN EACH SCHOOL BY GRADES

Grade
12 11-12 11 10-12 10-11 10 9-12 9 8-12 8-9 8 7

Schools with programs by grades

Number

Percent

74

42.3

52

29.7

6

3.4

5

2.9

3

1.7

4

2.3

5

2.9

17

9.7

1

.6

2

1.1

2

1.1

4

2.3

Totals

175

100.0

10

Classes in schools by grades

Number

Percent

133

41.6

84

26.3

20

6.3

12

3.8

8

2.5

4

1.3

15

4.7

17

5.3

4

1.3

8

2.5

4

1.3

11

3.4

320

100.0

TABLE III
ENROLLMENT IN FAMILY LIFE CLASSES IN GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOLS AT VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS

Grade
12 11-12 11 10-12 10-11 10 9-12 9 8-12 8-9 8 7

Enrollment
3958 2365 547
118 250 115 427 624
60 260
95 323

Totals

9142

Percent
43.3 25.9
6.0 1.3 2.7 1.3 4.7 6.8
.7 2.8 1.0 3.5
100.0

11

TABLE IV LENGTH OF FAMILY LIFE COURSES AT EACH GRADE LEVEL

Grade level
12 11-12 11 10-12 10-11 10 9-12 9 8-12 8-9 8 7

Year 93 67 10
1

Number of classes

Semester

Less than a semester

37

3

16

1

7

3

12

8

4

5

10

16

4

8

4

7

4

Totals

171

116

33

Percent

53.4

12

Concepts taughto The concepts selected for response are those listed in "Education for Family Living for Juniors and Seniors, Home Economics Education in Georgia", 1907. No concepts were identified for the home economics courses; the questions were open-ended.
The concepts presented in Table V are those identitied for the courses taught to juniors and seniors. The total range for the seven concepts was narrow (98-115). This would indicate that approximately equal emphasis was gl.ven to each concept. The "individual in the family" was the concept given the most emphasis, with "children in the family" and "self-understanding" following very closelyo Two other concepts--"marriage as a way of life" and "management of family resources"-- were of almost equal importance. "Housing for the family" and "familes in our society and other cultures" were the least otten included.
The next four tables present the family and child development concepts taught in each of the four years of home economics. Table VI reveals that the most important concept in tirst year home economics was "children in the family." The next two concepts were "self-understanding" and "personal improvement", and "the individual in the family." Second year, Table VII, emphasized the "individual in the family", "children in the family", and "management of personal and tamily resources", in that order. "Harriage as a way of lite" was the top concept in tnird and tourth years, Table VIII and IX, followed by "children in the family" and "management of resources". These data revealed a great
13

amount of sim11arity in the family and child development units in each of the tour years of home econom1CS.
A comparison ot concepts by rank order for each year is presented in Table X. "Children in the tam11y" ranked tirst in tirst year and second in every other year 0 "Selt-understanding" was important in tirst year, ranking second, but of increasingly less importance in the other three years. "The individual in tne family" was more important in second year than any other year. "Harriage as a way of lite" ranked first in third and fourth year home economics and last in first year. "Dating problems" was limited to second ana thira years. "Preparation for parenthood" and "courtship and engagement" w~re emphasized only in fourth year. The ranked concepts seem to reveal more scope and sequence than the previous tour tables.
14

TABLE V CONCEPTS INCLUDED IN FAHILY LIFE EDUCATION COURSES

Concept

12th 11-12 Total

The individual in the family

08

47

115

Children in the family

67

46

113

Self-understanding

67

46

113

Marriage as a way of life

64

47

III

Management of family resources

66

45

III

Housing for the family

64

40

104

Families in our society and other cultures

57

41

98

15

TABLE VI
FAMILY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS INCLUDED IN FIRST YEAR HOME ECONOMICS COURSES

Concept
Children in the family Self-understanding and personal improvement The individual in the family Management of personal and family resources Mother and baby care Families in our society and other cultures Marriage as a way of life

Number
134
84
78 32 10 4
2

16

TABLE VII
FAMILY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS INCLUDED IN SECOND YEAR HOME ECONOMICS COURSES

Concept
The individual in the family Children in the family Management of personal and family resources Marriage as a way of life Self-understanding Dating problems and etiquette Families in our society and other cultures Mother and baby care

Number
65 56 52
33 30 26
15
8

17

TABLE VIII
FAMILY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS INCLUDED IN THIRD YEAR HOME ECONOMICS COURSES

Concept
Marriage as a way of life Children in the family Management of personal and family resources Families in our society and other cultures The individual in the family Self-understanding Dating, morality, sex education Mother and baby care

Number
75 57
44
19 18 12 10 11

18

TABLE IX
FAMILY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS INCLUDED IN FOURTH YEAR HOME ECONOMICS COURSES

Concept
Marriage as a way of life Children in the family Management of family resources Preparation for parenthood The individual in the family Families in our society and other cultures Self-understanding Courtship and engagement Mother and baby care

Number
34 30 22 19 16
9 8 5 4

19

TABLE X
COMPARISON OF CONCEPTS INCLUDED IN EACH YEAR OF HOME ECONOMICS BY RANK ORDER

Concepts
Children in the family Self-understanding and
personal improvement The individual in the family Management of personal
and family resources Mother and baby care Families in our society
and other cultures Marriage as a way of life Dating problems and etiquette Preparation for parenthood Courtship and engagement

First Second Third Fourth

1st

2nd

2nd

2nd

2nd

5th

6th

7th

3rd

1st

5th

5th

4th

3rd

3rd

3rd

5th

8th

8th

9th

6th

7th

4th

6th

7th

4th

1st

1st

6th

7th

4th

8th

20

Type and preparation of teachers. A great majority of teachers of family life education courses were home economics teachers. Data in Table XI reveal that 87.4% were in this category. Other types were social studies teachers, physical education teachers, and counselors.
Table XII presents data about preparation of teachers at the bachelor's degree level. These data substantiate the same data as Table XI since the same percentage received B.S.R.E. degrees as were home economics teachers.
Sixty-four of the 199 teachers held a master's degree. A little more than two-thirds had majored at this level in home economics education. One-fourth had majored in some area other than home economics. Only two had majored in family development. These data are presented in Table XIII.
The data in Table XIV indicate more preparation in family and child development than do the data presented in the above paragraph. Nearly half (44.8%) had at least one graduate course in family and child development. Thirteen of the 199 teachers had more than four courses in this area at the graduate level.
21

TABLE XI WHO TEACHES FAMILY LIFE COURSES IN GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOLS

Type of teacher
Home economics teacher Social science teacher Physical education teacher Math teacher English teacher Counselor

Number of schools
174 18 3 1 1 2

Total schools

199

Percent
87.4 9.0 1.5 .5 .5 1.0
100.0

22

TABLE XII PREPARATION OF TEACHERS

Degree
B.S.H.E. degree- Education major Other bachelor's degree AB degree
Totals

Number
140 16
4
160

Percent
87.5 10.0
2.5
100.0

Major
Social science Elementary education Guidance English Science Horne economics Horne economics education

18 1 1 1 1 7 140

Totals

160

10.7 .6 .6 .6 .6
4.1 82.8
100.0

23

TABLE XIII
NUMBER OF TEACHERS OF FAMILY LIFE PROGRAMS WITH MASTER'S DEGREES

Major
Home economics education Family development Clothing and textiles Other than home economics areas
Totals

Number
44 2 2
16
64

Percent
68.8 3.1 3.1 25.0
100.0

24

TABLE XIV
GRADUATE COURSES IN FAMILY AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT AS REPORTED BY TEACHERS

Number of courses
One
Two
Three Four More None

Totals

Teachers

Number

Percent

24

12.1

26

13.1

17

8.5

9

4.5

13

6.5

110

55.3

199

100.0

25

Plans for the future. One of the major questions about family life education is why many schools do not include the subject in the curriculum. The data in Table XV indicate that unavailability of teachers is the most usual reason. Scheduling problems and subject covered in other courses were the other two major reasons.
The respondents asked the principal or curriculum director the possibility of adding family life education to the curriculum. Nearly half said it would be added in the future. Another 18.4% said there was a possibility it could be added. Table XVI also reveals that 28.9% said there was no possibility of adding a course.
This chapter has presented the data. The last chapter summarizes the study and presents conclusions.
26

TABLE XV
WHY FAMILY LIFE COURSES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN CURRICULUM OF GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL

Reasons

Number Percent

Difficulty with scheduling and number of students 10

Lack of administrative support

4

Subject covered in other courses

9

No teacher available

15

Planned for near future

3

21. 7
8.7 19.6 32.6 17.4

Total

46

100.0

27

TABLE XVI
PRINCIPAL'S OR CURRICULUM DIRECTOR'S REACTION TO POSSIBILITY OF ADDING PROGRAM

Reaction
Will be added in future Possibility of adding it No possibility of adding it Offered but students do not elect it Integration problem prohibits
Total

Number
18 7
11
1 1
38

Percent
47.4 18.4 28.9
2.6 2.6
100.0

28

CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY
The problem of this project was to describe family life education programs in Georgia public schools so as to reveal the quantity as well as the scope of subject matter content. The specific objectives to (1) determine the extent of family life programs in Georgia public schools, (2) ascertain the concepts or subject matter content emphasized, (3) determine the kinds of teachers and their preparation for teaching, and (4) discover why family life education programs are not offered and the possibility of their being offered in the future.
A questionnaire was sent to all vocational home economics teachers and to non-vocational teachers in Fulton County and Atlanta School Systems. The total number of schools represented in the study was 199.
Conclusions. The following conclusions were drawn from the data: 1. At least 155 programs of family life education existed in
Georgia public schools in 1966-67. 2. Family life programs were more often offered to juniors and
seniors than to young students, with very few for young teenagers. 3. More courses were offered for a year than for any other length of time. 4. The seven major concepts identified in the Georgia curriculum material for the family life programs received almost equal emphasis.
29

5. The concepts taught in regular home economics classes had a great deal of similarity, with most concepts being repeated in all four years.
6. Discussion of dating problems was limited to second and third year; preparation for parenthood, courtship, and engagement were emphasized only in fourth year.
7. Home economics teachers were almost always the persons who taught family life courses.
8. Approximately one-third of the teachers of family life courses held a master's degree, usually with a major in home economics education.
9. Nearly half of the teachers had taken graduate courses in family and child development.
10. The major difficulties in providing family life courses were lack of available teachers and scheduling.
11. Nearly half of the schools where family life education was not offered said it would be in the future.
Recommendation. The above conclusions dictate the following
recommendations:
1. More schools should be encouraged to offer family life education, not only to juniors and seniors, but also to seventh and eighth graders.
2. Research is needed to determine whether a year or a semester should be alloted to family life courses.
3. The family and child development units in regular home economics classes should emphasize different concepts in each year.
4. Teachers of family life education courses should be expected to take graduate courses in family and child development.
5. A survey of available teachers should be made and distributed to school administrators.
30

APPENDIX I
QUESTIONNAIRE CONCERNING FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION

School" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Address :

_

1. Do you have a program of family life education? YES

NO

~_

(Family life education is any course that give major emphasis to the

area of human development and the family whether it be considered

home economics, family relations, sociology, or psychology.)

2. If your answer is ~, complete the following questions. If it is E, go to question 3.

(a) How many courses and at what grade levels are the courses offered?

Grade Level

Number of Classes

Total Number Enrolled

(b) Check the following emphasis or concepts that are included and list any additional ones.

The individual in the family

Families in our society and other cultures

__

Marriage as a way of life

Children in the family

Management of family resources

Housing for the family

Self-understanding

(c) How long does the course last?

A semester A year

(d) Who teaches the course?

Home economics teacher Social science teacher Physical education teacher Other

31

(e) What preparation has the teacher had? B.S.H.E. degree-education major Other bachelor's degree Major
Graduate courses in family and child development: one two three four more
A master's degree: Home economics education Family development Other home economics areas Other than home economics
3. If your answer is no to question one, complete the following questions: (a) List reasons why family life courses are not included in your curriculum.
(b) Ask your principal or curriculum director what possibility there is for including such courses and record his or her answer below.
32

4. What family and child development emphases or concepts do you include in your home economics courses7 Use terms similar to those in question 2.

Year of home economics

Emphases or concepts

First year

Second year

Third year

Four year

33

APPENDIX II
TO: Home Economics Teachers FROM: Aleene Cross I think you know that all of us are trying to find more ways to reach boys and girls through home economics and family living courses. We are often asked how many students are being reached, at what grade level, and what is included in the course. Would you help us by answering the enclosed questionnaire and returning it immediately? All questionnaires for one school are included in this letter. One answer per school will be sufficient. You will need to fill out the questionnaire even if you don't teach family living; the last question is about regular homemaking classes. Many thanks for your help.
34