INFORMATION TO USERS · INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us...

INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.

UniversityMkJOTlms

International3 0 0 N. ZEEB ROAD. ANN A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 BED FO RD ROW. LONDON WC1R 4 E J . ENGLAND

8013793

Seney, M a c k W illiam

REGIONAL AND STATE-WIDE COMPARISON OF ADDED COSTS OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN

Michigan S tate University PH.D. 1979

University Microfilms

International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4EJ, England

Copyright 1979

by

Seney, Mack William

Ail Rights Reserved


By

Mack William Seney

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1979

ABSTRACT


By

Mack William Seney

The purpose of this study was to determine the adequacy of secondary

vocational funding relative to actual vocational costs for the eleven

Occupational Outlook Economic Regions of Michigan and for the entire

state, and, to determine the degree of uniformity of vocational expendi

tures by expenditure category among the eleven regions of the state. The

funding of secondary vocational education is predicated on the assumption

that vocational education costs more to operate than basic or general

instruction. With the effects of continued inflation, the leveling off

of secondary vocational enrollments, and the increased state commitment

to secondary vocational education through added cost money, an analysis

of added cost funding in Michigan seemed quite appropriate.

Fiscal year 1977-78 vocational expenditure data was compiled from

the Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education

Service on form DS-4033 Expense Activity Report. Expenditure data from

all secondary fiscal agents operating the following twelve vocational

programs was included in this study: Cooperative Education, Agriculture

Production, General Merchandise, Nursing Assistant Aide, Food Management

Production and Service, Stenographers, Clerk-Typist, Steno/Clerical Lab,

Auto Mechanics, Graphic Arts, Machine Shop, and Welding and Cutting.

Expenditure data was aggregated to the eleven Occupational Outlook

Economic Regions of Michigan, as well as to the state-wide level.

Mack William Seney

Vocational program expenditures were analyzed by the following

expenditure categories: Instructional Salaries, Instructional Travel,

Contracted Programs, Instructional Supplies, Equipment Rental, Mainten

ance and Purchase, Transportation, In-Service, Vocational Administration,

Placement and Follow-Up, Other Direct Costs, and Indirect Costs.

The total cost per student hour of each vocational program was

determined on a regional and state-wide basis. The state-wide cost per

student hour of nonvocational instruction was also determined. The

difference between the vocational and nonvocational cost per student hour

was determined for each of the twelve vocational programs for each of the

eleven regions. The difference, which represented the actual added cost

of the vocational program, was compared to the funding amount. The

adequacy of vocational funding relative to vocational costs was then

determined for each of the twelve vocational programs within each of the

eleven regions and for the entire state.

The degree of uniformity of vocational expenditures by expenditure

category was also determined for each region of the state for each of the

twelve vocational programs.

Within the limitations of the study, the following conclusions

seemed reasonable:

1. The state-wide funding amount, which differed for all twelve

vocational programs analyzed, rarely reimbursed accurately the

actual added cost of any of the twelve programs in any of the

regions.

2. The amount of vocational funding was not adequate to meet

actual added costs in most regions of the state for five of

the twelve vocational programs analyzed.

Mack William Seney

3. The amount of vocational funding was too high, relative to

actual added costs, in most regions of the state for five of

the twelve programs analyzed.

4. Nearly an equal number of regions had excessive and inadequate

funding for two of the twelve programs analyzed.

5. Two regions had vocational costs which were lower than the

other regions, while four regions had vocational costs which

were higher than the other regions.

6. There was a high degree of uniformity of expenditures by

expenditure category among the eleven regions for vocational

programs.

7. Vocational costs of all programs analyzed were most highly

concentrated in the Instructional Salary expenditure category.

Instructional Supplies, Equipment Rental, Maintenance and

Purchase, Vocational Administration, and Indirect Costs also

accounted for a high proportion of vocational costs.

8. There was a noticeable lack of expenditures in the categories

of Instructional Travel, Contracted Programs, Transportation,

In-Service, and Other Direct Costs.

Copyright byMACK WILLIAM SENEY1979

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his appreciation to the many people

who have made this dissertation possible:

To Dr. Peter G. Haines, Chairman of his doctoral committee, who

gave his time and wise counsel in guiding the writer through the

research project. The guidance was professional, appropriate and

positive.

To Dr. M. Bixby Cooper, Dr. George Ferns, and Dr. Howard Hickey

for their helpful suggestions and encouragement.

To Mr. Richard Shupe, Supervisor of the Management Information

and Finance Unit, Vocational-Technical Education Service, Michigan

Department of Education for his technical and professional counsel.

To Miss Joan Church for her expertise, accuracy and speed in

typing this dissertation.

And most Importantly, to his wife, Donna, for her unending

encouragement and patience, he expresses his gratitude and love.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES.................................................. vi

ChapterI. THE PROBLEM .............................. 1

The P u r p o s e ..................................... 3Need for the Study............................... 4Outcomes of the S t u d y ........................... 5Delimitations of the Study ....................... 6Procedures ....................................... 6Definition of Terms ............................. 9

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................... 16

III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY................................... 27Selection of the Population..................... 27Description of the Population................... 28Procedures....................................... 29

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ................................. 35Cooperative Education ............ 36Agriculture Production ........................... 40General Merchandise ............................. 43Nursing Assistant Aide ........................... 46Food Management Production & Service . . . . . . . 49Stenographers ................................... 52Clerk-Typist ..................................... 55Steno/Clerical L a b ........................ 58Auto Mechanics................................... 61Graphic Arts Occupations ......................... 61Machine S h o p ..................................... 64Welding & C u t t i n g ............................... 67S u m m a r y ......................................... 70

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS............ 76S u m m a r y ......................................... 76Conclusions......... 83Recommendations ................................. 85Implications..................................... 86

iv

Page

APPENDICESA. Career Education Planning Districts .................. 89B. Occupational Outlook Economic Regions ................ 90C. Cooperative Education ................................. 91D. Cooperative Education ................................. 92E. Agriculture Production .............................. 96F. Agriculture Production ...................... 976. General Merchandise......... 101H. General Merchandise........................ 102I. Nursing Assistant A i d e ................................. 106J. Nursing Assistant A i d e ................................. 107K. Food Management Production & Service ................ IllL. Food Management Production & S e r v i c e .................. 112M. Stenographers........................................... 116N. Stenographers........................................... 1170. Clerk-Typist........................................... 121P. Clerk-Typist........................................... 122Q. Steno/Clerical L a b ..................................... 126R. Steno/Clerical L a b ..................................... 127S. Auto Mec h a n i c s ......................................... 131T. Auto M e chanics......................................... 132U. Graphic Arts Occupations............................... 136V. Graphic Arts Occupations............................... 137W. Machine S h o p .......................... 141X. Machine S h o p ........................................... 142Y. Welding & Cutting......... 156Z. Welding & Cutting....................................... 157

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................... 161

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Cooperative Education . . 38

II. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by CategoryDiffered from the State Average % for the O.E. Code byMore Than 5% - Cooperative Education................ 39

III. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Agriculture Production . 41

IV. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by CategoryDiffered from the State Average % for the O.E. Code byMore Than 5% - Agriculture Production.............. 42

V. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - General Merchandise . . . 44

VI. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by CategoryDiffered from the State Average % for the O.E. Code byMore Than 5% - General Merchandise.................. 45

VII. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Nursing Assistant Aide . 47

VIII. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by CategoryDiffered from the State Average % for the O.E. Code byMore Than 5% - Nursing Assistant A i d e .............. 48

IX. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and Funding Per Student Hour by Region - Food Management Production & Service ................................. 50

X. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by CategoryDiffered from the State Average % for the O.E. Code byMore Than 5% - Food Management Production & Service . 51

XI. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Stenographers.......... 53

XII. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by CategoryDiffered from the State Average % for the O.E. Code byMore Than 5% - Stenographers.........................54

vi

Table Page

XIII. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Clerk-Typist.............56

XIV. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by Category Differed from the State Average % for the O.E. Code by More Than 5% - Clerk-Typist . ....................... 57

XV. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Steno/Clerical Lab . . . 59

XVI. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by Category Differed from the State Average % for the O.E. Code by More Than 5% - Steno/Clerical L a b ..................... 60

XVII. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Auto Mec h a n i c s...........62

XVIII. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by Category Differed from the State Average % for the O.E. Code by More Than 5% - Auto M e c hanics......................... 63

XIX. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Graphic Arts Occupations............................................ 65

XX. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by Category Differed from the State Average % for the O.E. Code by More Than 5% - Graphic Arts Occupations............... 66

XXI. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Machine Shop . . . . . . 68

XXII. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by Category Differed from the State Average % for the O.E. Code by More Than 5% - Machine S h o p .................... 69

XXIII. Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs and FundingPer Student Hour by Region - Welding & Cutting . . . . 71

XXIV. Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by Category Differed from the State Average % for the O.E. Code by More Than 5% - Welding & Cutting....................... 72

XXV. Adequacy of Funding by Region and by VocationalP r o g r a m ................................................ 73

XXVI. Expenditure Category Average Percentages by VocationalP r o g r a m ................................................ 75

XXVII. Regional Average Teacher Salaries - 1977-78 83

vli

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

The cost of vocational education, as with most of secondary educa

tion, continues to increase each year. Vocational education, however,

is recognized as having higher operating costs than nonvocational

education because of such things as lower teacher-pupll ratios, special

ized instructional supplies, equipment rental, maintenance and replace

ment costs, and job placement and follow-up costs. This presents the

difficulty faced by local school districts in financing a form of

education which is more costly than others.

The legislature of the State of Michigan recognized the existence

of this problem, and in Public Act 100 of the 1970 legislative session,

provided state funds to reimburse school districts for vocational

education on what was termed an "added cost basis."

As a result of this legislation, the Michigan Department of

Education contracted with the Institute for Research on Human Resources,

The Pennsylvania State University, to conduct a survey of the costs of

vocational and nonvocational education.^* The results of this study

formed the basis of added cost reimbursement in Michigan. Both vocation

al and nonvocational programs were sampled in this study. Information on

^Jacob J. Kaufman, et al., The Costs of Vocational and Nonvocational Programs, University Park, Pennsylvania: Institute for Research on HumanResources, The Pennsylvania State University, 1972, p. 2.

student hours and expenditures was collected. The nonvocational program

costs were used to compute an average nonvocational cost per student

hour for the state. The vocational program costs were used to compute

the average vocational cost per student hour for selected secondary

vocational programs. The difference between the vocational and

nonvocational cost per student hour represents the added cost of the

vocational program over the nonvocational program, and is that amount

which should theoretically be reimbursed to local districts for their

vocational programs. This difference varied widely among vocational

programs because of the wide difference in total vocational program costs.

Since the Kaufman study, the Vocational-Technical Education Service

of the Michigan Department of Education has periodically updated the

state-wide added cost factors for secondary vocational programs. This

updating of added cost factors has been done as a result of state-wide

average expenditures for particular vocational programs, as reported

by local districts.

This study involved a state with total secondary vocational enroll

ments in 1977-78 of 220,325 students in 4,842 vocational programs.^ Of

these, 129,030 students were enrolled in 4,334 wage-earning vocational3programs (excluding Consumer and Homemaking, 09.0100). The total

1977-78 public high school enrollment (9-12) in Michigan was 622,506 students.

^Secondary Funding by O.E. Code, X0108, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service, Lansing, Michigan, June 16, 1978.

3Ibid.

^Final 1977-r78 School District Fourth Friday State-Aid Membership by Grade Report, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational- Technical Education Service, Lansing, Michigan, June 23, 1978, p. 17.

3

THE PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine if the State of Michigan

was actually reimbursing the added cost of vocational education over

nonvocational education, both on a state-wide and regional basis. A

second purpose was to determine the degree of uniformity of vocational

expenditures by expenditure category among the eleven regions of the

state. A current issue in vocational education in Michigan at the time

of this study involved (1) higher cost of vocational education over

nonvocational education, (2) the specific amounts reimbursed by the

state to individual districts which operate vocational programs, and

(3) the "feeling" of many district vocational administrators that added

cost reimbursements were insufficient. The added cost factors are based

on state-wide averages. Districts in different regions of the state may

be receiving inadequate or excessive reimbursement for their vocational

programs. In addition, on a state-wide basis, Michigan may not be

reimbursing the actual added cost of vocational programs.

Specifically, the research question were:

1. Is there a difference between the actual added cost amount per

student hour and the funding amount per student hour for selected

secondary vocational programs by region and for the state? This

question was answered for each of the following categories:

A. Cooperative EducationB. Agriculture ProductionC. General MerchandiseD. Nursing Assistant AideE. Management Production & ServiceF. Stenographers

4

G. Clerk-TypistH. Steno/Clerical LabI. Auto MechanicsJ. Graphic Arts OccupationsK. Machine ShopL. Welding & Cutting

2. Is there a difference between state and regional expenditure,

amounts by expenditure category for each of the twelve vocational pro

grams listed above? Within each of the twelve vocational programs, this

question was answered for each of the following expenditure categories:

A. Instructional SalariesB. Instructional TravelC. Contracted ProgramsD. Instructional SuppliesE. Equipment (purchase/rental/maintenance)F. Vocational TransportationG. InserviceH. Vocational AdministrationI. Placement and Follow-upJ. Other Direct CostsK. Indirect Costs

NEED FOR THE STUDY

The adoption of added cost for secondary vocational reimbursement

in Michigan was in 1972. Since that year, there has been no state-wide

analysis to determine if added cost is actually reimbursing local

districts for the actual added costs of their vocational programs.

There has also been no analysis to determine if there are regional dif

ferences in vocational costs sufficient to warrant varying added cost

factors for particular vocational programs by regions within Michigan.

In addition, there has been no analysis to determine the degree of

uniformity of expenditures regionally by expenditure category. For

example, do regions generally spend the same percentage of their

Agriculture Production funding for salaries or for inservice?

5

Michigan has determined added cost factors for vocational programs

based on state-wide averages of eligible costs as incurred by local

districts. Eligible costs are not the total costs of vocational educa

tion, but rather, are only that part of the total vocational costs

allowable within the state guidelines for the expenditure of added cost

monies. (See definition of Eligible Costs, page 11.)

In Michigan, total vocational expenditures are allocated to

vocational programs based on percentage guidelines. Only expenditures

properly allocated within these percentage guidelines are eligible costs

for added cost reimbursement. In terms of the original concept of added

cost, the present added cost factors in Michigan may not represent the

additional cost of the vocational program over the nonvocational program.

This study was done partially to determine if these added cost factors

are actually reimbursing vocational education's actual added cost.

OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY

A state-wide and regional study of the added cost of vocational

programs over nonvocational programs provides needed information for

vocational funding at the local, regional, state, and national levels.

As outcomes, it was intended that:

1. Local districts would be provided with information regarding

the varying costs of vocational programs across the state and

the adequacy of state added cost reimbursement.

2. Career Education Planning Districts (53 in Michigan) would be

provided with information for use in annual and long range

vocational planning.

6

3. The State Department of Education, Vocational-Technical

Education Service, would be provided with information which

potentially could change state-wide added cost factors and

possibly change funding policy, accommodating such things as

regional added cost factors. The results of this study would

also be useful to members of the state legislature who deter

mine Michigan's vocational funding amounts.

4. Nationally, Michigan's added cost technique is recognized as

being an innovative model for other states' adoption. Further

refinement of Michigan's model would assist other states to

determine if they wish to use the technique.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

1. Only secondary vocational programs approved by the Michigan Depart

ment of Education and reimbursed in 1977-78 were examined.

Consumer and Homemaking, O.E. code 09.0100, was excluded from this

study because it was federally funded and received no added cost

funding.

2. Only those wage-earning vocational O.E. code programs which received

added cost reimbursement in most of Michigan's eleven regions were

included in this study. To ensure a reasonable population size for

each O.E. code analyzed, only those O.E. codes with more than 100

total programs state-wide were included in the study.

PROCEDURES

Fiscal year 1977-78 was the seventh year of added cost vocational

funding in Michigan and was used for this study. The data was analyzed

by region, using the eleven Michigan Employment Security Commission

Occupational Outlook Economic Regions of Michigan, as well as for the

entire state, to determine if adequate vocational funding was present

within selected vocational programs.^

There were 129,030 students enrolled in wage-earning programs in

Michigan in 1977-78 who participated in 93 different O.E. program

codes.^ All vocational programs in Michigan were not reimbursed with

state added cost money. After all added cost programs were funded,

those programs not reimbursed with state added cost monies were reimbursed

at a much lower rate with federal instructional money.

The reimbursement of vocational programs in Michigan was tied very

closely to the state and regional employment demand for those programs.^

Programs with higher employment demand were generally funded before pro

grams with less employment demand. Therefore, in order to examine

vocational programs which were reimbursed with state added cost money,

only those programs relatively high in employment demand were chosen for

this study. In order to ensure that O.E. codes would be represented

from all eleven regions of the state, all O.E. codes selected for this

study had to have more than 100 programs in the state. The use of this

criteria resulted in thirteen O.E. codes being chosen for inclusion in

this study. However, the Construction and Maintenance On-Site program

was excluded because of expenditure reporting inconsistencies resulting

from the accounting methods used in recording the sale of constructed

Ânnual and Long Range State Plan for Vocational Education in Michigan, 1978, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service, Lansing, Michigan, 1978, p. 94.

^Funding Factor Development Report, X0110, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service, June 4, 1978.

Âdministrative Guide for Vocational Education in Michigan,Funding Procedures Section, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service, October 1978, p. C-l.

8

units. Each vocational program area (Agriculture, Distributive

Education, Health, Occupational Home Economics, Office, and Trade and

Industry) was represented by at least one operating vocational program.

The remaining twelve O.E. codes selected for inclusion in this

study were:

Number ofProgram Descriptor O.E. Code Programs

1. Cooperative Education 1,1082. Agriculture Production 01.0100 1513. General Merchandise 04.0800 2954. Nursing Assistant Aide 07.0303 1125. Food Management Production & Service 09.0203 1376. Stenographers 14.0703 1587. Clerk-Typist 14.0901 1048. Steno/Clerical Lab 14.9800 2629. Auto Mechanics 17.0302 245

10. Graphic Arts Occupations 17.1900 10611. Machine Shop 17.2302 14912. Welding & Cutting 17.2306 119

Total expenditures by expenditure category for each of these

vocational programs were collected from local districts by the Michigan

Department of Education on form DS-4033, Expense Activity Report. The

resulting data, first aggregated up to the Career Education Planning

District level, was then tabulated on a regional and state-wide basis.

The cost of nonvocational programs was determined from state-wide

data collected by the Michigan Department of Education on the "Annual

School District Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30,

1978 - State Totals.” To ensure comparability of vocational and

nonvocational cost data, only certain cost categories included in

vocational costs were included in the instructional costs used in deter

mining the nonvocational program cost. The nonvocational cost was then

converted to a cost per student hour basis, so that a common base for

comparison existed with vocational cost data. This was done by dividing the state-wide nonvocational cost amount by the amount of student hours

generated by the grade 9-12 state-wide enrollment in 1977-78. Each

grade 9-12 enrollee was assumed to generate £ive student hours per day.

A comparison was then done, by each of the twelve vocational O.E. codes,

for each region and for the state, to determine the adequacy of the

added cost factors used. A variance factor of plus or minus 5% was

used in analyzing the data. Any vocational program with costs with

more than a 5% variance from the actual added cost factor for that

vocational program was identified. A 5% arbitrary figure was used in

order to account for reporting errors which invariably occurred in the

process of reporting vocational expenditures on form DS-4033, Expense

Activity Report.

An analysis was also done to determine how vocational expenditures

varied by category regionally for each of the twelve O.E. code programs.

The state average for each expenditure category, such as instructional

travel or inservlce, was determined for each O.E. code program. The

regional average was also determined for each expenditure category for

each of the twelve O.E. code programs. All expenditures were converted

to percentages. For example, the state average for General Merchandise,

O.E. code 04.0800, for instructional supplies was 6%. A similar per

centage figure was computed for each region within General Merchandise

and then compared to the 6% state average for General Merchandise. Each

region whose percent of total costs by expenditure category varied by

more than 5% from the state-wide percentage by expenditure category was

identified separately for each of the twelve O.E. code programs.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Accounting Provisions. Michigan received federal funds which are

used for equipment, construction, project grants, and other uses. In

10

addition, added cost funds are appropriated by the State Legislature as

a line Item of categorical state aid. Funds so earmarked by the

Legislature for added cost are used solely for the purpose of vocational

education program support and Improvement. The accounting system

utilized by the local education agency must be capable of providing

expenditure data at the program or O.E. code level. Program costs are

those costs which can be identified as being directly associated withQa particular O.E. program.

Added Cost. The added cost of a vocational program is measured by

calculating the difference between the average cost per student hour of

the vocational program and the average cost per student hour of the

secondary academic or "general" education program.9

Added Cost Factor. This is the amount reimbursed by the state for

each vocational program per student hour. The amount varied in 1977-78

from $51 for Cooperative Education to $388 for Lithography, Photography,

and Platemaking. The added cost factor represents 75% of the added cost

of vocational programs. In fiscal year 1976, state added cost reimburse

ment was reduced from 100% in order to conform with the Michigan Depart

ment of Education policy on support of categorical programs.^

CEPD. Career Education Planning Districts. These are composed of

a county or group or parts of counties. Organization for coordination

of vocational programming has resulted in fifty-three CEPD's in

Michigan (See Appendix A).

8Ibid., p. A-8.

9Ibid., p. A-2.

10Ibid., p. A-9.

11

Contracted Programs. This category includes costs incurred in

contracting with private business or industry, private schools or

community colleges for instruction in such programs as cosmetology.

The cost of contracted programs may be charged to added cost funds on

the basis of the contract cost per student hour or the average added

cost factor, whichever is lower.

Eligible Costs. The extra costs incurred by local districts in

operating vocational programs. Eligible costs are dictated by percent

age minimums and maximums for the following expenditure categories and

do not reflect total vocational added costs

Instructional Salaries and Salaries of Aides and Paraprofessionals

Instructional Travel

Contracted Programs

Instructional Supplies

Equipment (Purchase/Rental/Maintenance)

Vocational Transportation

Inservice

Vocational Administration

Placement and Follow-Up

20% Maximum No Minimum Required

No Minimum or Maximum 0-7% Is Suggested

Dependent Upon District Expenditures

10% Minimum No Maximum Applicable

10% Minimum No Maximum Applicable

Dependent Upon District Expenditures

0-5% Is Suggested

4% MinimumNo Maximum Applicable

12% Maximum No Minimum Required

5% MinimumNo Maximum Applicable

u Ibid., p. A-11.

12Ibid., p. A-10.

12

Other Direct Costs Dependent Upon DistrictExpenditures

0-8% Is Suggested

Indirect Costs 15% Maximum

Equipment Purchase, Rental, and Maintenance. Expenditures in this

category are for rental or periodic purchase of equipment items. An

equipment increment factorf representing the average annual equipment

cost needed to maintain a quality laboratory, has been developed for

each vocational program.^

Indirect Costs. Included in this category are the unrestricted

Indirect costs as computed by the Michigan Department of Education

Accounting Office from each district's audited form DS-4169 (form B),

"Annual School District Financial Report." Indirect costs are a

recognition that vocational program laboratories are usually larger,

require additional maintenance and utilities, and are therefore more

costly than regular programs. The indirect cost rate multiplied by the

total direct costs provides the indirect cost amount.^*4

Inservice. This category includes the cost of inservice training

activities directly related to the vocational program. Inservice edu

cation associated with the use of performance objectives and competency

based instruction are examples of inservice costs.^

Instructional Salaries. This category includes regular teachers,

paraprofessionals, teacher aides, and all other instructional staff.

This expenditure is chargeable to added cost, up to 20% of total added

cost reimbursement, provided the average vocational program's student/

13Ibid., p. A-12.

l4Ibid., p. A-14.

15Ibid., p. A-12.

13

teacher ratio is lower than the district's secondary (9-12) student/

teacher ratio. For a full 20% charge, a vocational program must have a

class size at least 20% smaller than the average secondary class.^

Instructional Supplies. Included in this category are supply costs

for such items as welding rods, specialized resource materials, lumber,

stock steel, and routine supplies. Basic nonvocational supplies, such

as paper, pencils, and regular textbooks, are not included in this

category.

Instructional Travel. Instructional travel for purposes of co-op

coordination, field work of agricultural teachers, and other similar

activities are included in this category.

Nonvocational Costs. Costs of secondary general or academic

education. These costs exclude such areas as Special Education or19Vocational Education.

Occupational Outlook Employment Regions. Michigan is divided into

eleven labor market areas. Employment demand (job openings) information

is available for each region in Michigan (See Appendix B).^®

Other Direct Costs. This category includes costs not normally

considered as a part of the program, but directly associated with the

instructional program. Examples would be title fees associated with

ISibid., p. A-ll.

17Ibid., p. A-12.

18Ibid., p. A-ll.

Îbid., p. A-8.

^State Flan, loc. cit.

14

building trades programs and certain youth club activities meeting

federal rules and regulation requirements.21

Per Pupil Allowance. All wage-earning secondary vocational pro

grams in Michigan are reimbursed in order of state-wide employment

demand and CEPD funding options with state added cost money until this

money is depleted. Remaining unfunded programs are reimbursed at a

much lower rate per student hour with federal per pupil allowance22instructional money.

Placement and Follow-Up. This category includes the pro-rated

cost (salary and office costs) of vocational job placement and follow-

up personnel (professional and clerical). The costs are pro-rated to

the particular program by multiplying the pro-rata factor times the

total vocational placement and follow-up costs (salaries and office

costs) .22

Number of students enrolled in thePro-rata Factor2^ « particular vocational program______

Number of students enrolled in all vocational programs (excluding Consumer

and Homemaking, 09.0100 programs)

Reimbursement Amount. Because Michigan now reimburses only 75% of

the added cost of secondary vocational programs, a comparison of voca

tional and nonvocational costs for all vocational programs necessitated

a conversion of added cost factors to the 100% reimbursement rate. For

Âdministrative Guide, op. cit., p. A-13.

22Ibid., p. A-7.

23lbid., p. A-13.

2Âddison S. Hobbs, Memorandum to School Business Offices, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service, Lansing, Michigan, June 12, 1978.

15

example, the 1977-78 added cost factor for Cooperative Education was

$51, which represents only 75% of the added cost of that program. By

multiplying $51 by 1.33, the 100% amount becomes $68. This represents

the total added cost of Cooperative Education, including both the

state's 75% and the 25% local district matching requirement. The

difference between vocational and nonvocational costs per student hour

for Cooperative Education was then compared to $68 to determine the

adequacy of reimbursement.

Student Hour. Represents one vocational student for the equivalent25of 60 minutes per day, five days per week, for a full school year.

Vocational Administration. This category includes funds for

partial reimbursement of vocational directors, area skill center prin-2 6cipals, vocational supervisors, and their secretarial staff.

25Administrative Guide, op. cit., p. A-4.

26Ibid., p. A-13.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The review of related literature is organized under three major

headings. These are: (A) Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; (B) Cost-

Benefit Analysis; and (C) Program Cost Analysis. Research findings in

these areas provide the basis for this study.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Wentling and Lawson1 explained that

cost-benefit analysis determines costs and benefits of a single program,

while cost-effectiveness analysis requires the identification of costs

and benefits for more than one program. Cost effectiveness evaluation

was used to assist in selecting among alternative courses, programs,

teaching methods, or materials.2Harris and Kim said cost effectiveness simply equals outcomes

divided by costs. The resulting cost effectiveness ratio is a compari

son of alternative courses of action in accomplishing some specific

objectives. By encompassing objectives (planned outcomes and costs)

1Tim L. Wentling and Tom E. Lawson, Evaluating Occupational Education and Training Programs. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1975, p. 309.

^Robert C. Harris and Jin Eun Kim, Management System Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Model, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, April 4-8, 1977.

16

17

with actual outcomes and costs, they developed the following

performance ratio:

Performance Ratio = actual outcomes/actual costsplanned outcomes/planned costs

Expenditures or costs are the numerator; and objectives, expressed

In numerical value, become the denominator. The performance ratio was

designed to provide an estimate of the effectiveness and efficiency of

a program's management and operation.

Massachusetts^ field tested a system for estimating the cost of

Individual vocational programs. The program cost data, when used with

program evaluation data, provided the basis for cost-effectlveness

analysis. Data collected In the 1974-75 school year reinforced the

premise that high cost programs, when identified, could be examined in

light of output. Inefficient programs could then be evaluated yearly

and disapproved by the State if certain criteria were not met within a

time limit. The "blank check" nature of funding in Massachusetts at

the time of this study could thereby be corrected at considerable

taxpayer savings.^

Molnar’’ collected data from twelve school districts in three

states which showed no clear difference in costs between cooperative

education and non-coop vocational programs when aggregate cost measures

^Massachusetts State Department of Education, Field Test Results of the Management Information System for Occupational Education Program Cost Accounting System for Occupational Programs, Document No. 10, Division of Occupational Education, Boston Massachusetts, 1975.

4Ibid., p. 23.

^Daniel E. Molnar and Robert Pesut, Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Selected Vocational Programs with Cooperative Components Versus In- School Vocational Programs,. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus,Ohio, 1975.

18

were used. The results suggested the possibility of analyzing cost and

effectiveness of a selected vocational program.

Cost-effectiveness analysis is relatively new to vocational

education and has not been widely applied, although studies which have

been done seem to indicate that as the quality of vocational cost data

improves, cost-effectiveness analysis will be more widely applied.

Cost-Benefit Analysis. Voelkner and Ollis^ explained that in cost

benefit analysis studies, the total value of program benefits is re

lated to the total cost of programs. The analysis should be designed

to maximize benefits for a given cost level or to minimize costs for a

given benefit level. Benefits are economic in nature and are expressed

in monetary terms. The authors also stated that, although vocational

education is more expensive than general education, this must be

related to added benefits gained by the vocational education graduate.

A major problem, according to Voelkner and Ollis,^ was that,

although vocational education appeared more aggreeable to rigorous,

quantifiable evaluation than general education, in actuality neither

input or output measures have been clearly delineated.oColorado Economic Issues cited some problems associated with cost-

benefit analysis. They include: (1) the difficulties of measurement

and the assessment of value to benefits; (2) the questions of kinds of

benefits which accrue, either to individuals or the community, and

Âlvin R. Voelkner and Harvey T. Ollis, "The Economic Evaluation of Vocational Education," Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, pp. 55-60, Winter, 1973.

Îbid., p. 55.

^Colorado Economic Issues, Center for Economic Education,Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, March, 1979, p. 1.

19

whether indirect benefits should be included. Also cited is the

confusion in cost-benefit analysis resulting from differing economic

and financial concepts. The economists define costs as the value of

products not produced or consumed, i.e., the opportunity cost of

foregone consumption or production; while the accountant sees costs as

financial outlays for a given project.

Sparks1® goal was to list benefits of vocational education and to

support those benefits. A common argument discussed by Sparks was that,

since vocational education costs more per pupil than academic or general

education, it should yield greater benefits. However, Sparks felt there

were greater direct and indirect benefits of vocational education,

including: (1) the post-schooling status of vocational graduates,

usually continuing their education or employed; (2) the economic value

of vocational education; and (3) satisfaction values, such as employee

and employer satisfaction with employment. Academic and general

education, he said, are not held to the same high effectiveness stan

dards as vocational education. They are not required to provide data

proving they benefit their students in tangible, economic ways upon

graduation.

Gallaway and Ghazalah^ studied fourteen vocational programs in

eighteen Ohio high schools offering vocational education in 11th or 12th

9Douglas Sparks, A Synthesis of Research Findings Which Describe Selected Benefits and Outcomes for Participants in Vocational Education, Bureau of Occupational and Adult Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Washington, D.C., October, 1977.

•^Lowell E. Gallaway and Ismail A. Ghazalah, The Role of Vocational Education in Improving Skills and Earning Capacity in the State of Ohio: A Cost-Benefit Study. College of Business Administration, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, 1972.

20

grades. This study evaluated the private and social costs and returns

of vocational programs. The rate of return differed distinctly between

programs and schools, but the data lead the authors to conclude that

vocational programs should be maintained and expanded. The researchers

also found a great need for data more useful in economic analysis of

vocational education.

Ghazalahdeveloped a system for evaluating investment in voca

tional programs. This system calculated the rate of return and present

value of investment in the training of an individual in a vocational

program. With an economic framework, this study assumed that vocational

education is a form of investment in a human resource. Vocational edu

cation upgrades this supply of human resources and enhances their

production of goods and services. A basic premise of this study was

that a rational decision-maker could be expected to operate a vocational

program only if the anticipated benefits (as measured by an increase in

earning power of vocational participants) are greater than anticipated

costs.12Swanson found that there seems to be a minimum, although

unspecified, cost for any vocational program which is necessary to

bring together necessary instructional staff, space, and equipment.

Îsmail A. Ghazalah, A Computerized, Regional Cost-Benefit Formula System, College of Business Administration, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, 1978.

Âustin D. Swanson, A Study of the Costs, Benefits, and Effectiveness of Occupational Education, Faculty of Education Studies,State University of New York, Buffalo, New York, 1976.

21

Marson15 conducted a one-year cost benefit analysis study with a

sample of nine full-time secondary vocational programs and sixty-three

adult vocational courses. He found that the benefits of vocational

education outweighed the costs for both the student and for society in

general.

Harris1^ divided Florida into regions and randomly selected two

area centers from each region. He found that regions had different

price levels and different labor market conditions. Rates of return

for all four vocational programs examined were positive. The study did

not account for length of student contact time, however. Therefore,

programs with more student contact time always cost more than programs

with less student contact time.

Cost-benefit analysis appears to have benefit for vocational

education if the data necessary for quantifying benefits and costs

becomes more available. At the present time, however* cost-benefit

analysis does not seem to offer concensus among educators as to what

benefits of vocational education should be included nor sufficient

preciseness and reliability in the benefit and cost data that is

collected.

Program Cost Analysis. Wentling and Lawson15 provided the fol

lowing reasons for conducting cost analysis evaluation: to justify

n oArthur A. Marson, et al., Cost Benefit Model Development. Final Report, Wisconsin State Board of Vocational, Technical, and Adult Education, Madison, Wisconsin, 1977.

^Marshall A. Harris, Benefit-Cost Comparison of Vocational Education Programs, Statewide Evaluation of Vocational-Technical Education in Florida, Volumn 2, Department of Education Administration, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, 1972.

15Tim L. Wentling and Tom E. Lawson, Evaluating Occupational Education and Training Programs. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, 1975, p. 287.

22

resource allocation decisions, to promote better utilization of

facilities, to determine optimum staff assignments, to determine

optimum scheduling, to determine optimum load for a particular program,

to decrease costs of high-cost/low-incidence programs, to determine the

advisability of financing the development of a new program, to compare

alternative programs, and to provide fiscal accountability.

Limitations of cost analysis evaluation mentioned by Wentling and

Lawson included: costs are infrequently linear (fixed and variable

costs), cost records and data are inadequate (inaccurate cost account

ing), relevant costs are unavailable, and cost data on projects are

unreliable.16

Sheldon^ reported that funds for education are tight and the

pressure to cut back on programming is great. He cited stiff competi

tion, both for scarce educational dollars and for students, among

educational institutions.18Aldrich cited the increased attention being given to the cost of

instruction programs caused by both (1) increased competition among all

levels of government for a greater share of the tax dollar; and (2) con

tinuously mounting public demands upon the educational system for

accountability. One obstacle to the initiative and expansion of

vocational education cited by Aldrich has been the contention that it

is more costly than other instructional programs. Aware of this problem,

16Ibid., p. 323.17Richard V. Sheldon, "What Do You Say to the Naked Taxpayer?",

American Vocational Journal, Vol. 51, No. 7, October, 1976, pp. 46-48.

l®Daniel G. Aldrich III, An Analysis of Vocational Program Costs, Graduate School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, 1972.

23

Congress, in the 1968 Vocational Education Amendments, established the

difference in cost between vocational and other instructional programs

as one of the criteria states must use to distribute federal vocational

funds. In order to determine that cost difference, accurate vocational

program total costs and unit costs had to be determined.1 9A study done by The Ohio State Department of Education cate

gorized the value of vocational cost data as useful for either internal

analysis of cost among expenditure categories or for comparative

analysis among vocational programs. Cost data could provide local

administrators with standards for evaluation of vocational programs and

also to plan budgets for existing and new programs. At the state level,

vocational cost data could help find ways to improve, develop, and

expand vocational programs, and also to help plan legislative action

for support of existing and expanding programs.

The U.S. Office of Education's Handbook 11^ standardized cost

definitions of programs as follows: Direct costs can be defined as

expenditures directly related to the instructional program (annual

salaries of teaching staff within the instructional program, fringe

benefits, travel costs for instruction related to the program, instruc

tional supplies and materials assigned to the program, costs of class

room and laboratory facilities and equipment used by the instructional

program, and building use costs assigned to the instructional program.)

19The Ohio State Department of Education, Program Review for Improvement, Development, and Expansion in Vocational Education and Guidance, The Ohio State Department of Education, Columbus, Ohio,1974.

^Û.S. Office of Education, Financial Accounting: Classificationsand Standard Terminology for Local and State School Systems, Handbook II, Revised, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973.

24

Indirect costs include student support services, instructional staff

services, general administrative services, school administrative

services, business services, and central support services.21Hale reported that vocational program cost data considered

essential for program planning purposes were found in the data bases

of only twelve states. Only Florida had established a procedure for

annually reviewing costs of each vocational program in each district

and community college. Another finding was that- costs based on student

hours, i.e., cost per individual student hour in the program, seemed

most effective in cost analysis.

Florida weighted cost factors which represented relative cost

differences of programs. There was also a district cost differential

factor resulting from a comparison of vocational funds generated with

actual program costs.22A study was conducted in Tennessee to analyze a sample of

vocational courses to determine the cost of a contact hour per pupil.

Data from six secondary schools showed that per pupil costs tend to

decrease as a school approaches maximum or capacity enrollments in total

vocational programming. No relationship was found between size of

school, breadth of program, and level of cost. Based on the sample, the

authors recommended a study which would extend this cost analysis

concept to all secondary vocational programs in Tennessee.

21james A. Hale, The Development and Testing of a Model for Determining the Costs of Vocational Education Programs and Courses, Executive Summary. Institute for Education Finance, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1977.

22George W. Harrie, et al, Cost Analysis of Secondary School Vocational-Technical Education Programs, State Department of Education, Division of Vocational-Technical Education, Nashville, Tennessee, 1973.

25

In the Kaufman4"-* study previously mentioned, the added cost of

vocational programs was defined as the difference between the average

cost per student hour of the vocational program and the average cost per

student hour of the alternative secondary academic program. The total

sample included 251 Michigan school districts; however, only 108 dis

tricts returned completed questionnaires. The sample represented

different: vocational programs, types of schools, regions of the state,

and community types.2^ Two problems in this study were: (1) rural

areas were most overrepresented in responses, while metropolitan areas

were most underrepresented; and (2) the small sample size for most of

the vocational programs made it difficult to present reliable estimates

of costs.

In determining student hours, Kaufman assumed five hours per day

and 180 school days per year.2 ̂ The study found that the average cost

per student hour of all nonvocational instruction was $183, while the

average cost per student hour of all vocational programs was $278.

Nugent conducted a further analysis of added costs in Oakland

County, Michigan.2 ̂ He found that local districts were not being

reimbursed adequately by the state for the added costs of secondary

vocational programs. This study did not examine total vocational and

22Jacob j, Kaufman, et al., loc. cit.

24Ibid., p. 69.

25Ibid., p. 180.

26Ibid., p. 85.

2?Robert Martin Nugent, "A Comparison of Actual Costs of Operating Reimbursable Secondary Vocational Education Programs with the Amount Received Under the 'Added Cost Concept' in Oakland County, Michigan," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1977.

26

nonvocational costs per student hour. The added cost factor per student

hour was compared to the total eligible vocational costs per student

hour,, based on expenditure percentage guidelines.

On the basis of the studies which have been reviewed, there

appeared to be a general lack of accurate, uniform vocational cost data

in many states and local districts. Until such data is improved, its

usefulness in making sound decisions regarding vocational programming

seems limited. The actual application of either cost-benefit or cost-

effectiveness analysis in vocational program evaluation at the state

level is very limited.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

SELECTION OF THE POPULATION

In fiscal year 1977-78, 129,030 students were enrolled in 93

different wage-earning O.E. code programs in Michigan.^- Of these 93

different O.E. codes, the twelve with the largest number of programs

in the state were selected for inclusion in this study. Each of these2twelve was reimbursed with state added cost monies. All twelve O.E.

code programs were being taught in all eleven Economic Outlook Regions

of Michigan and there were more than 100 programs reimbursed across the

state for each of the twelve O.E. codes selected. Agriculture,

Distributive Education, Health, Wage-earning Home Economics, Office

Education, and Trade and Industry were all represented by at least one

O.E. code program.

The occurrence of these twelve O.E. code programs within all eleven

regions made it possible in this study to analyze, for each O.E. code

program, the adequacy of state added cost reimbursement for each region,

as well as for the entire state.

•̂Funding Factor Development Report, X0110, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service, Lansing, Michigan, June 4, 1978.

2Ibid.27

28

DESCRIPTION OF THE POPULATION

This study dealt with twelve selected secondary O.E. code programs

which were reimbursed in fiscal year 1977-78 with added cost monies by


Service.

Each of these twelve O.E. code programs was reimbursed by the

Michigan Department of Education at a different rate per student hour

reflecting the differing costs involved in program operation. The state

wide added cost factor for each O.E. code program represents 75% of the

added cost of a particular vocational program over nonvocational

education. The remaining 25% of the added cost of a vocational program

must be matched by the local educational agency operating the vocational

program. In order to examine the total added cost of a vocational

program, the 75% state reimbursed amount and the 25% local match amount

were combined. This combined amount represents the total amount of

added cost funding for the vocational program, representing both state

and local contribution. Following are the twelve O.E. code programs, the

state-wide total number of student hours for each O.E. code program, the

75% added cost factor amount reimbursed by the Michigan Department of

Education, and the 100% amount representing both state and local

contribution for each O.E. code program:

75% State 100% State + Reimb. Amount Local Amount

Student Hours Per Student Per Student O.E. Code and Descriptor State-Wide Hour Hour

Cooperative Education 22,555 $ 51 $ 6901.0100 Agriculture Production 7,726 96 12804.0800 General Merchandise 15,818 64 8507.0303 Nursing Assistant Aide 7,935 68 9009.0203 Food Management 12,278 124 165

Production & Service

29

75% State 100% State +Reimb. Amount Local Amount

Student Hours Per Student Per StudentO.E. Code and Descriptor State-Wide Hour Hour

14.0703 Stenographers 8,126 $ 82 $10914.0901 Clerk-Typist 4,743 50 6714.9800 Steno/Clerical Lab 13,956 66 8817.0302 Auto Mechanics 22,032 112 14917.1900 Graphic Arts Occupations 5,736 144 19217.2302 Machine Shop 8,298 250 33317.2306 Welding & Cutting 8,242 171 227

PROCEDURES

This study determined the total vocational costs per student hour

of twelve selected O.E. code programs through the analysis of the

expenditures reported on the form DS-4033 Expense Activity Report and

Vocational Supplement. These forms were completed at the local level

for each reimbursed vocational program. This expenditure data was then

aggregated to the region and state levels.

The cost of nonvocational secondary education per student hour was

also determined in this study. This cost of nonvocational education was

then compared to the cost of each vocational O.E. code program to deter

mine the actual added cost of the vocational O.E. code program over

nonvocational education. This actual added cost amount was then com

pared to the 100% reimbursement amount to determine the adequacy of

added cost reimbursement for each of the twelve O.E. code programs for

each region and for the state.

A 5% variance factor was used to compute a range for each of the

twelve O.E. code programs in determining the adequacy of funding. For

example, the 100% funding amount for Agriculture Production was $128

per student hour. With a 5% variance, the actual added cost range

assumed to be adequate was therefore $122 - $134 per student hour. If

30

the actual added cost of Agriculture Production for the state or any

region fell within this range, the $128 amount was assumed to be

adequate. If, however, the actual added cost amount fell outside this

range, it was assumed that the reimbursement amount was either inade

quate, if actual costs were above $134, or excessive, if actual costs

were below $122. An assumption of this study was that any O.E. code

program amounts which fell outside their respective ranges signaled a

potential problem worthy of further analysis respective to future

funding policy.

This study also assessed the uniformity of vocational program

expenditures by expenditure category among regions for each of the

twelve O.E. code programs. For each expenditure category within each

of the twelve O.E. code programs, the regional cost per student hour

was determined and then compared to the state average cost per student

hour. Again the 5% variance factor was used for purposes of analysis.

Each region whose costs for each expenditure category as a percentage

of total costs varied by more than 5% from the state average was

identified for each of the twelve O.E. code programs. For example, if

the state average per student hour in Agriculture Production for

instructional salaries was 40% of total costs, any region with an

average cost per student hour for instructional salaries in Agriculture

Production below 35% or above 45% of total costs was identified.

Following are the specific procedures used in this study:

1. The state-wide grades 9-12 nonvocational cost of instruction

was computed. This data was obtained from the Michigan

Department of Education "Annual School District Financial

Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1978 - State Totals."

Only basic program instruction costs for grades 9-12 were

included. Costs unique to Special Education, Compensatory

Education, and Vocational Education were excluded. Only those

direct costs included in Vocational Education’s costs were

included in this nonvocational cost computation. Following are

the specific categories and cost amounts included:

Basic Program Instruction $455,552,527Employee Benefits 54,970,443Direct Support Services 107.371,429Indirect Costs (15% of all costs above) 92,684,160Capital Outlay 5.720,862Total 9-12 Nonvocational Costs $716,299,421

The state-wide total number of student hours in nonvocational

instruction was computed. The "Final 1977-78 School District

Fourth Friday State-Aid Membership by Grade Report," from the

Michigan Department of Education was used to determine a 9-12

state enrollment of 666,506 students. Although there was no

actual state-wide information regarding the actual number of

student hours, this study assumed that students averaged five

hours of class time per day. By multiplying 666,506 students

by five hours per student, the number of student hours state

wide was computed to be 3,112,530.

The nonvocational 9-12 cost per student hour was computed. In

order to compare vocational and nonvocational costs, it was

essential to have both costs on a common base. For this study,

that common base was the student hour. By dividing the state

wide 9-12 nonvocational costs of $716,299,421 by the state-wide

9-12 student hours of 3,112,530, a cost per student hour for

nonvocational education of $230 was derived.

A copy of the printout X1503, "1977-78 Total Cost/Revenue

Report by CEPD," Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-

Technical Education Service, was obtained. The source document

for this printout was the form DS-4033 Expense Activity Report

and Vocational Supplement. This printout provided the total

costs of each of the twelve selected O.E. code programs for all

53 CEPD's. The cost information was provided on the X1503

printout under the following format:

CEPDO.E. Code + Name

Program Cost Categories Total Cost Cost/Student Hour

Instructional Salary Salaries of Aides + Parapros Instructional Travel Instructional Supplies Equipment Rental + Maintenance Voc. Pupil Transportation InserviceVoc. Administration Placement + Follow-up Contracted Instruction Other Direct Costs Indirect Costs Equipment Purchase

Total Cost

Number of Programs Reimbursed Student Hours Number of Programs in State Reimbursed Student Hours in State

All total cost data for each of the twelve O.E. code programs

was aggregated to the regional and state levels.

All regional cost data was converted to a per student hour

basis by dividing regional costs by the number of regional stu

dent hours for each of the twelve O.E. code programs.

For eaich of the twelve selected O.E. code programs, the

regional and state cost per student hour was compared to the

33

$230 nonvocational cost per student hour. The difference

between the vocational and nonvocational costs represent the

actual added cost of the vocational program. For example, if

the vocational cost per student hour was $400, the actual

added cost of the vocational program per student hour was

$400 - $230 = $170.

8. The 100% reimbursement amount was computed for each of the

twelve O.E. code programs. This was done by adding the state

75% reimbursement amount and the local 25% required match.

For example, Agriculture Production had a state 75% reimburse

ment amount of $96. The local 25% match requirement was

$96 x .33 or $32, resulting in a 100% funding amount of $128

per student hour.

9. A 5% variance was then applied to each O.E. code program's

100% reimbursement amount in order to determine a range of

adequate funding. For example, in Agriculture Production, this

range was from 5% above $128 to 5% below $128, or from $122

to $134.

10. The actual added cost of each O.E. code program was then

compared to this 100% reimbursement range. If the actual added

cost amount was below this range, it was assumed that reimburse

ment was excessive. If the actual added cost amount was above

this range, it was assumed that reimbursement was inadequate.

This was done for each of the twelve O.E. code programs, both

on a regional and state-wide basis.

11. In order to assess the uniformity of expenditures within each

O.E. code program for the vocational expenditures listed in

34

item number 4 above, a state average expenditure percentage

per student hour was computed for each expenditure category.

This state average was compared to the regional average

percentage expenditure per student hour for each expenditure

category. A 5% variance was used for purposes of analysis.

Each region whose expenditure category costs as a percent of

total regional costs varied from the corresponding state

average percentage by 5 percentage points or more for each

particular expenditure category within the twelve different

O.E. code programs was identified. For example, if the

state average expenditure in Agriculture Production for

Instructional Salaries was 40% of total state expenditures,

any region whose instructional salaries as a percent of total

expenditures was below 35% or above 45% were identified.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Twelve secondary vocational education United States Office of

Education (O.E.) code programs funded under added cost in Michigan in

school year 1977-78 were analyzed on a regional and state-wide basis.

Each of the twelve O.E. code programs was analyzed to determine:

(1) the adequacy of total vocational reimbursement per student hour

relative to actual vocational costs per student hour for eleven

regions and for the entire state; and (2) the degree of uniformity of

vocational expenditures by expenditure category among the eleven

regions of the state. The following sections of Chapter IV are organ

ized by individual O.E. code program. Additional data on each O.E.

code program is provided in Appendices C-Z.

The Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical

Education Service form DS-4033, "Expense Activity Report and Vocational

Supplement," was used as the source document for all vocational expendi

ture information. For each of the twelve selected O.E. code programs,

all vocational expenditure information submitted by local districts to

the Vocational-Technical Education Service was included in the study.

The source documents used for the state-wide nonvocational cost

computation were the Michigan Department of Education "Annual School

District Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1978 -

State Totals" and Michigan Department of Education "Final 1977-78

35

36

School District Fourth Friday State-Aid Membership by Grade Report."

Nonvocational costs per student hour were subtracted from vocational

costs per student hour in order to find actual vocational added costs.

The tables in Chapter IV refer to the eleven Occupational Outlook

Economic Regions of Michigan. For the convenience of the reader, the

regional map, shown in Appendix B, is also reproduced here.

COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

The first vocational education program analyzed was Cooperative

Education. Programs included in Cooperative Education were in the

following vocational program areas: agriculture, distributive

education, health, home economics, office, and trade and industry.

Cooperative Education was offered and reimbursed with state added

cost monies in all eleven regions in Michigan in 1977-78. A total of

26,836 students were enrolled in Cooperative Education (Appendix C).

The 100% funding amount per student for Cooperative Education was

$69, resulting in a funding range of $66-$72. Any region with costs

below $66 or above $72 were identified in Table I as having either

"excessive" or "inadequate" funding, respectively.

An analysis of the regional funding and expenditure information

indicated that the state average added cost of Cooperative Education was

$229. As shown in Table I, the added cost of Cooperative Education

exceeded the acceptable funding range for all eleven regions, and for

the state average. Reimbursement for Cooperative Education does not

meet the actual added cost of the program.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table II, revealed

little variance among regions. One category, namely instructional

salaries, varied by more than 5% from the state average in three regions.

37

OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK ECONOMIC REGIONS AND CAREER EDUCATION PLANNING DISTRICTS

ii (7-11, 13)

(14, 19-21)

(12, 15-18, 23-26

(28,29,30)22,32,33,50,53)

(31,51,52)(27, 38-44)

(35,36,47)pJ g(37,45,46)(34,43,49)

1 - Detroit2 - Grand Rapids3 - Saginaw

- Flint5.- Kalamazoo6 - Lansing7 - Benton Harbor 3 - Jackson9 - Muskegon

10 “ Upper Peninsula11 - Northern Lower

Peninsula

*Regions are Ranked by Total Employment

Regions in Large Type

CEPD's in Parenthesis

38

TABLE X

Comparison of Actual Vocational Added Costs andFunding Per Student Hour by Region

Program Descriptor Cooperative Education Added Cost Factor at 100% Reimbursement $69.00

Actual Vocational Funding Excessive/InadequateRegion Added Cost Range Funding

1 $ 235 $ 66 — 72 Inadequate

2 $ 280 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

3 $ 127 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

4 $ 164 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

5 $ 125 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

6 $ 218 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

7 $ 327 $ 66 - 72 " Inadequate

8 $ 188 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

9 $ 596 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

10 $ 123 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

11 $ 172 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

State $ 229 $ 66 - 72 Inadequate

39

TABLE II

Regions Whose Expenditure % Per Student Hour by Category Differed fromthe State Average % for the O.E. Code by More Than 5%

Program Descriptor Cooperative Education

Expenditure State Regions - %Categories Average % Above Below

Instructional Salaries 69% 8-58%10-58%11-63%

Instructional Travel 1%

Contracted Programs -- 11-7%

Instructional Supplies 1%

Equipment Rental, Maintenance & Purchase ---

Transportation ---

Inservice 1% 10-11%

Vocational Administration 7% 8-15%

Placement & Follow-Up 4%

Other Direct Costs 2%

Indirect Costs 15%

40

Instructional salaries accounted for the greatest proportion of the

program costs.

More than half of the total student hours in Cooperative Education

were in Region 1 (Appendix C).

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION

01.0100

The second vocational education program analyzed was Agriculture

Production, O.E. code 01.0100. Agriculture Production was taught and

reimbursed in all eleven regions of Michigan in 1977-78.

There was a total of 7,726 student hours in this program

(Appendix D). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $128, with

a funding range of $122 - $134. Any regions with costs below $122 or

above $134 were identified in Table III as having either "excessive" or

"inadequate" funding, respectively.

An analysis of the actual added costs in Table III indicated that

the state average added cost of Agriculture Production was $115 per

student hour. Funding exceeded the actual added cost for nine regions,

and for the state average.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table IV, revealed

some variance among regions. One category, namely Instructional

salaries, varied by more than 5% from the state average in five regions.

Instructional salaries accounted for 66% of total costs state-wide for

this program.

Agriculture Production operated throughout the state, with no

region having more than 24% of the total student hours (Appendix D).

41

TABLE III


O.E. Code 01.0100 Program Descriptor Agriculture Production

Added Cost Factor at 100% Reimbursement $128.00


1 $ 76 $CMCMt—1 — 134 Excessive

2 $ 113 $ 122 - 134 Excessive

3 $ 100 $ 122 - 134 Excessive

4 $ 99 ■$ 122 - 134 Excessive

5 $ 113 $ 122 - 134 Excessive

6 $ 101 $ 122 - 134 Excessive

7 $ 107 $ 122 - 134 Excessive

8 $ 258 $ 122 - 134 Inadequate

9 $ 134 $ 122 - 134 --

10 $ 99 $ 122 - 134 Excessive

11 $ 57 $ 122 - 134 Excessive

State $ 115 $ 122 — 134 Excessive

42

TABLE IV




Instructional Salaries 66% 2-74%9-76%

7-59%8-44% 10-57%

Instructional Travel 1%

Contracted Programs ---


Equipment Rental, Maintenance & Purchase 6% 8-28% 10-0%

Transportation --

Inservice 1%

Vocational Administration 3% 7-10%10-12%



Indirect Costs 11%

43

GENERAL MERCHANDISE

04.0800

The third vocational education program analyzed was General

Merchandise, O.E. code 04.0800. General Merchandise was taught and



(Appendix E). The 100% funding amount was $85, with a funding range

of $81 - $89. Any regions with costs below $81 or above $89 were

identified in Table V as having either "excessive" or "inadequate"

funding, respectively.

An analysis of the actual added costs in Table III indicated

that the state average added cost of General Merchandise was $116

per student hour. Funding exceeded added costs in five regions,

while added costs exceeded funding for four regions and for the

state average. Added costs were within the funding range in two

regions.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table IV,

revealed very little variance among regions. Instructional salaries

varied by more than 5% from the state average in two regions.

Instructional salaries accounted for 59% of total costs for this

program.

Nearly half of the total student hours in General Merchandise

were in Region 1 (Appendix E).

44

TABLE V


O.E. Code 04.0800 Program Descriptor General Merchandise



1 $ 160 $ 81 — 89 Inadequate

2 $ 71 $ 81 - 89 Excessive

3 $ 112 $ 81 - 89 Inadequate

4 $ 93 $ 81 - 89 Inadequate

5 $ 50 $ 81 - 89 Excessive

6 $ 87 $ 81 - 89 --

7 $ 86 $ 81 - 89 --

8 $ 163 $ 81 - 89 Inadequate

9 $ 21 $ 81 89 Excessive

10 $ 62 $ 81 - 89 Excessive

11 $ 74 $ 81 - 89 Excessive


45

TABLE VI



ExpenditureCategories

State Average %

Regions - % Above Below

Instructional Salaries 59% 9-66% 6-51%

Instructional Travel ---

Contracted Programs 1% 6-9%Instructional Supplies 6%

Equipment Rental, Maintenance & Purchase 3%

Transportation ---

Inservice 1%

Vocational Administration 9%



Indirect Costs 14%

46

NURSING ASSISTANT AIDE

07.0303

The fourth vocational education program analyzed was Nursing

Assistant Aide, O.E. code 07.0303. Nursing Assistant Aide was

taught in all eleven regions of Michigan in 1977-78.


(Appendix F). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $90, with


above $95 were identified in Table VII as having either "excessive"

or "inadequate" funding, respectively.

An analysis of the actual added costs in Table VII indicated

that the state added cost of Nursing Assistant Aide was $88 per

student hour, which fell within the funding range. Funding exceeded

the added cost for six regions, while added cost exceeded funding in

four regions.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table VIII

revealed that instructional salaries varied by more than 5% from the

state average in six regions. Instructional salaries accounted for

58% of total program costs state-wide.

Region 1 accounted for 43% of the total student hours in this

program (Appendix F).

47

TABLE VII


O.E. Code 07.0303 Program Descriptor Nursing Assistant Aide



1 $ 97 $ 86 — 95 Inadequate

2 $ 15 $ 86 - 95 Excessive

3 $ 86 $ 86 - 95 ------

4 $ 70 $ 86 - 95 Excessive

5 $ 82 $ 86 - 95 Excessive

6 $ 29 $ 86 - 95 Excessive

7 $ 111 $ 86 - 95 Inadequate

8 $ 159 $ 86 - 95 Inadequate

9 $ 53 $ 86 - 95 Excessive

10 $ 103 $ 86 - 95 Inadequate

11 $ 33 $ 86 - 95 Excessive

State $ 88 $ 86 — 95

48

TABLE VIII




Instructional Salaries 58% 10-65%11-71%

4-50%6-45%7-52%8-51%


Contracted Programs 3%

Instructional Supplies 5% 4-12%

Equipment Rental, Maintenance & Purchase 2%

Transportation 2% 6-18%

Inservice 1%

Vocational Administration 10% 6-3%11-1%



Indirect Costs 13% 2-6%

49

FOOD MANAGEMENT PRODUCTION & SERVICE

09.0203

The fifth vocational education program analyzed was Food

Management Production & Service, O.E. code 09.0203. This program

was taught in all elevel regions of Michigan in 1977-78.

There was a total of 12,278 student hours in Food Management

Production & Service (Appendix G). The 100% funding amount per

student hour was $165, with a funding range of $157 - $173. Any

regions with costs below $157 or above $173 were identified in

Table IX as having either "excessive'1 or "inadequate" funding,

respectively.

An analysis of the actual added costs in Table IX indicated

that the state average added cost of this program was $121 per

student hour. Funding exceeded added costs for nine regions, and

for the state average.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table X,

revealed some variance among regions. One category, namely

instructional salaries, varied by more than 5% from the state

average in four regions. Instructional salaries accounted for 53%

of total program costs state-wide.

Region 1 accounted for 56% of the total student hours in

this program (Appendix G).

50

TABLE IX


O.E. Code 09.0203 Program Descriptor Food Management Production & Service



1 $ 134 $ 157 — 173 Excessive

2 $ 69♦

$ 157 - 173 Excessive

3 $ 128 $ 157 - 173 Excessive

4 $ 84 $ 157 - 173 Excessive

5 $ 128 $ 157 - 173 Excessive

6 $ 220 $ 157 - 173 Inadequate

7 $ 175 $ 157 - 173 Inadequate

8 $ 133 $ 157 - 173 Excessive

9 $ 110 $ 157 - 173 Excessive

10 $ 84 $ 157 - 173 Excessive

11 $ 37 $ 157 - 173 Excessive


51

TABLE X




State Average %


Instructional Salaries 53% 2-63% 6-42%3-59%5-59%

Instructional Travel -----

Contracted Programs 2% 6-17%


Equipment Rental,Maintenance & Purchase 7% 6-15%

11-13% *

Transportation — -

Inservice 1%




Indirect Costs 13% 2-7%

52

STENOGRAPHERS

14.0703

The sixth vocational education program analyzed was Stenographers,

O.E. code 14.0703. This program was taught and reimbursed in ten

regions of Michigan in 1977-78.


(Appendix H). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $109, with


above $114 were identified in Table XI as having either "excessive"


An analysis of the actual added costs in Table XI indicated that

the state average added cost of Stenographers was $137 per student

hour. Added costs exceeded funding in seven regions, and also for the

state average.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table XII,

Indicated that two expenditure categories, instructional salaries and

equipment, varied by more than 5% from the state average in six

regions and three regions, respectively. Instructional salaries

accounted for 62% of total costs state-wide for this program.


program (Appendix H).

53

TABLE XI


O.E. Code 14.0703 Program Descriptor Stenographers



1 $ 150 $ 104 — 114 Inadequate2 $ 84 $ 104 - 114 Excessive

3 $ 121 $ 104 - 114 Inadequate

4 $ 180 $ 104 - 114 Inadequate

5 $ 143 $ 104 - 114 Inadequate

6 $ 167 $ 104 - 114 Inadequate

7 $ 28 $ 104 - 114 Excessive

8 --- $ 104 - 114 ---

9 $ 118 $ 104 - 114 Inadequate

10 $ 123 $ 104 - 114 Inadequate

11 $ 61 $ 104 - 114 Excessive


54

TABLE XII




Instructional Salaries 62% 2-68% 4-55%5-55% 7-54% 9-50%

10-52%


Contracted Programs


Equipment Rental, Maintenance & Purchase 9% 4-16%

7-17%10-15%

Transportation ---

Inservice 1%Vocational Administration 5%


Other Direct Costs 1%Indirect Costs 14%

55

CLERK-TYPIST

14.0901

The seventh vocational education program analyzed was Clerk-

Typlst, O.E. code 14.0901. This program was taught and reimbursed

in all eleven regions of Michigan in 1977-78.


(Appendix I). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $67»

with a funding range of $64 - $70. Any regions with costs below $64

or above $70 were identified in Table XIII as having either ''excessive"


An analysis of the actual added costs in Table XIII indicated

that the state average added cost of Clerk-Typist was $110. Actual

added costs exceeded funding in eight regions and for the state

average.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table XIV,

revealed some variance among regions. Two expenditure categories,

namely instructional salaries and equipment, varied by more than 5%

from the state average in three regions and four regions,

respectively. Instructional salaries accounted for 61% of total

costs state-wide for this program.

Region 1 accounted for 47% of the total student hours in the

program (Appendix I).

12

3

4

5

6

7

891011

56

TABLE XIII


O.E. Code 14.0901 Program Descriptor Clerk-Typist


Actual Vocational Funding Excessive/InadequateAdded Cost Range Funding

$ 120 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

$ 6 3 $ 64 - 70 Excessive

$ 8 5 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

$ 104 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

$ 4 3 $ 64 - 70 Excessive

$ 5 2 $ 64 - 70 Excessive

$ 8 4 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

$ 125 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

$ 200 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

$ 228 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

$ 191 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

$ 110 $ 64 - 70 Inadequate

57

TABLE XIV




State Average %


Instructional Salaries 61% 5-73% 6-50%8-55%





6-19%8-1%9-5%

Transportation ---

Inservice 1%



Other Direct Costs ---

Indirect Costs 14%

58

STENO/CLERICAL LAB

14.9800

The eighth vocational education program analyzed was Steno/

Clerical Lab, O.E. code 14.9800. This program was taught and



(Appendix J). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $88,

with a funding range of $84 - $92. Any regions with costs below

$84 or above $92 were identified in Table XV as having either

"excessive" or "inadequate" funding, respectively.

An analysis of the actual added costs in Table XV indicated

that the state average added cost of Steno/Clerical Lab was $140

per student hour. Added costs exceeded funding in nine regions

and for the state average.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table XVI,

revealed that one category, instructional salaries, varied by more

than 5% from the state average in four regions. Instructional

salaries accounted for 58% of total costs state-wide for this

program.


program (Appendix J).

59

TABLE XV


O.E. Code 14.9800 Program Descriptor Steno/Clerical Lab



1 $ 148 $ 84 — 92 Inadequate

2 $ 95 $ 84 - 92 Inadequate

3 $ 152 $ 84 - 92 Inadequate

4 $ 224 $ 84 - 92 Inadequate

5 $ 111 $ 84 - 92 Inadequate

6 $ 68 $ 84 - 92 Excessive

7 $ 238 $ 84 - 92 Inadequate

8 $ 158 $ 84 - 92 Inadequate

9 $ 116 $ 84 - 92 Inadequate

10 $ 24 $ 84 - 92 Excessive

11 $ 103 $ 84 - 92 Inadequate


60

TABLE XVI








Equipment Rental» Maintenance & Purchase 11% 6-19%

Transportation ---

Inservice 1%


Placement & Follow-Up 4% 4-10%


Indirect Costs 13%

61

AUTO MECHANICS

17.0302

The ninth vocational education program analyzed was Auto Mechanics,

O.E. code 17.0302. This program was taught and reimbursed In all eleven

regions of Michigan in 1977-78.


(Appendix K). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $149, with


above $156 were identified in Table XVII as having either "excessive"


An analysis of the actual added costs in Table XVII indicated that

the state average added cost of Auto Mechanics was $122 per student hour.

Funding exceeded added costs for eight regions and for the state

average.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table XVIII,

revealed little variance among regions. Instructional salaries varied

by more than 5% from the state average in three regions. Instructional

salaries accounted for 56% of total costs state-wide for this program.


program (Appendix K).

GRAPHIC ARTS OCCUPATIONS

17.1900

The tenth vocational education program analyzed was Graphic Arts

Occupations, O.E. code 17.1900. This program was taught and reimbursed

in all eleven regions of Michigan in 1977-78.

62

TABLE XVII


O.E. Code 17.0302 Program Descriptor Auto Mechanics



1 $ 121 $ 142 — 156 Excessive

2 $ 143 $ 142 - 156 ------

3 $ 137 $ 142 - 156 Excessive

4 $ 126 $ 142 - 156 Excessive

5 $ 126 $ 142 - 156 Excessive

6 $ 179 $ 142 - 156 Inadequate

7 $ 94 $ 142 - 156 Excessive

8 $ 183 $ 142 - 156 Inadequate

9 $ 102 $ 142 - 156 Excessive

10 $ 64 $ 142 - 156 Excessive

11 $ 50 $ 142 - 156 Excessive

State $ 122 $ 142 - 156 Excessive

63

TABLE XVIII




State Average %



Instructional Travel -----

Contracted Programs 1% 10-14%


Equipment Rental,Maintenance & Purchase 10% 10-3%

Transportation — -

Inservice 1%




Indirect Costs 12%

64

There was a total of 5,736 student hours In this program

(Appendix L). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $192, with


above $202 were identified In Table XIX as having either "excessive”


An analysis of the actual added costs in Table XIX indicated that

the state average added cost of Graphic Arts Occupations was $253 per

student hour. Added costs exceeded funding in seven regions and for

the state average. Funding exceeded added costs in three regions.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table XX,

revealed some variance among regions. Equipment varied by more than

5% from the state average in four regions, while instructional

salaries, contracted programs, and instructional supplies each varied

by more than 5% from the state average in two regions. Instructional

salaries accounted for 49% of total costs state-wide for this program.


program (Appendix L).

MACHINE SHOP

' 17.2302

The eleventh vocational education program analyzed was Machine

Shop, O.E. code 17.2302. Machine Shop was taught and reimbursed in

all eleven regions of Michigan in 1977-78.


(Appendix M). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $333, with


65

TABLE XIX


O.E. Code 17.1900 Program Descriptor Graphic Arts Occupations



1 $ 279 $ 182 — 202 Inadequate

2 $ 195 $ 182 - 202 ---

3 $ 171 $ 182 - 202 Excessive

4 $ 229 $ 182 - 202 Inadequate

5 $ 349 $ 182 - 202 Inadequate

6 $ 326 $ 182 - 202 Inadequate

7 $ 139 $ 182 - 202 Excessive

8 $ 389 $ 182 - 202 Inadequate

9 $ 217 $ 182 - 202 Inadequate

10 $ 280 $ 182 - 202 Inadequate

11 $ 114 $ 182 - 202 Excessive


66

TABLE XX




Instructional Salaries 49% 11-60% 6-42%


Contracted Programs 1% 7-7%10-14%

Instructional Supplies 11% 5-21%8-19%


7-4%8-5% 11-4%

Transportation 1%

Inservice 1%




Indirect Costs 12%

67

above $350 were identified in Table XXI as having either "excessive"


An analysis of the actual added costs in Table XXI indicated that

the state average added cost of Machine Shop was $251 per student hour.

Funding exceeded added costs for ten regions and for the state average.

Only region 6, with exceptionally high costs, had added costs which

exceeded funding.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table XXII,

revealed that instructional salaries, instructional supplies, and

equipment each varied by more than 5% from the state average in three

regions, while contracted programs varied by more than 5% from the

state average in two regions. Instructional salaries, instructional

supplies, and equipment accounted for 74% of total costs state-wide

for this program.


program (Appendix M).

WELDING & CUTTING

17.2306

The twelfth vocational education program analyzed was Welding &

Cutting, O.E. code 17.2306. Welding & Cutting was taught and



(Appendix N). The 100% funding amount per student hour was $227, with


above $238 were identified in Table XXIII as having either "excessive"


68

TABLE XXI


O.E. Code 17.2302 Program Descriptor Machine Shop



1 $ 261 $ 316 — 350 Excessive

2 $ 209 $ 316 - 350 Excessive

3 $ 217 $ 316 - 350 Excessive

4 $ 184 $ 316 - 350 Excessive

5 $ 231 $ 316 - 350 Excessive

6 $ 781 $ 316 - 350 Inadequate

7 $ 221 $ 316 - 350 Excessive

8 $ 135 $ 316 - 350 Excessive

9 $ 153 $ 316 - 350 Excessive

10 $ 165 $ 316 - 350 Excessive

11 $ 152 $ 316 - 350 Excessive


69

TABLE XXII




State Average %





Instructional Supplies 11% 5-21%9-20%

6-4%


8-10%9-5%

Transportation ---

Inservice 1%




Indirect Costs 11%

70

An analysis of the actual added costs in Table XXIII indicated

that the state average added cost of Welding & Cutting was $175 per

student hour. Funding exceeded added costs for eight regions and for

the state average.

An analysis by expenditure category, as shown in Table XXIV,

revealed considerable variance among regions. Equipment rental,

maintenance, and purchase varied by more than 5% from the state

average in seven regions. Instructional salaries varied by more than

5% in five regions and contracted programs varied by more than 5% in

four regions. Instructional salaries, instructional supplies, and

equipment rental, maintenance, and purchase accounted for 76% of

total costs in this program.

Region 1 accounted for 36% of total student hours in the state

(Appendix N).

SUMMARY

An analysis of the adequacy of funding for all twelve vocational

programs for all eleven regions of the state indicated that Regions 2.

and II had excessive funding for eight and nine programs, respectively.

Further analysis indicated that Regions 1, 4, 6, and 8 had excessive

funding for five, five, four, and three programs, respectively. These

four regions had vocational costs which were greater than the funding

amounts for most of their vocational programs, while Regions 2 and 11

had vocational costs which were less than the funding amounts for most

of their vocational programs.

Table XXV also indicated that very few vocational programs had

costs which fell within the funding range and were classified as having

71

TABLE XXIII


O.E. Code 17.2306 Program Descriptor Welding & Cutting



1 $ 163 $ 216 - 238 Excessive

2 $ 160 $ 216 - 238 Excessive

3 $ 156 $ 216 - 238 Excessive

4 $ 240 $ 216 - 238 Inadequate

5 $ 308 $ 216 - 238 Inadequate

6 $ 250 $ 216 - 238 Inadequate

7 $ 159 $ 216 - 238 Excessive

8 $ 195 $ 216 - 238 Excessive

9 $ 126 $ 216 - 238 . Excessive

10 $ 109 $ 216 - 238 Excessive

11 $ 205 $ 216 - 238 Excessive


72

TABLE XXIV




State Average %



11-36%



10-9%11-19%


Equipment Rental, Maintenance & Purchase 13% 4-21% 3-5%

6-7%

Transportation 1%

Inservice 1%



Other Direct Costs 1% 9-7%

Indirect Costs 12%

73

TABLE XXV

Adequacy of Funding by Region and by Vocational Program

RegionsVocationalPrograms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Cooperative Education I I I I I I I I I I I I

Agriculture Production E E E E E E E I A E E E

General Merchandise I E I I E A A I E E E I

Nursing Assistant Aide I E A E E E I I E I E A

Food Mgt Prod & Serv E E E E E I I E E E E E

Stenographers I E I I I I E A I I E I

Clerk-Typist I E I I E E I I I I I I

Steno/Clerical Lab I I I I I E I I I E I I

Auto Mechanics E A E E E I E I E E E E

Graphic Arts Occupations I A E I I I E I I I E I

Machine Shop E E E E E I E E E E E E

Welding & Cutting E E E I I I E E E E E E

Excessive Funding Number of Programs 5 8 6 5 7 4 6 3 6 7 9 5

Inadequate Funding Number of Programs 7 2 5 7 5 7 5 8 5 5 3 6

Adequate Funding Number of Programs 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

E = Excessive Funding I = Inadequate Funding A ■ Adequate Funding

Stat

e

74

adequate funding. Nearly all funding amounts in all regions for all

vocational programs were either excessive or inadequate.

An analysis of the state averages for each expenditure category

for all twelve vocational programs (Table XXVI) indicated that

instructional salaries are the major cost of operating all programs

studied. Instructional salaries varied from 46% of total costs in

Machine Shop and Welding & Cutting to 69% of total costs in Cooperative

Education. Instructional supplies; equipment rental, maintenance, and

purchase; vocational administration; and indirect costs also accounted

for a significant share of the costs of most of the vocational programs

analyzed. A very small percentage of total costs were in

instructional travel, contracted programs, transportation, in-service,

and other direct costs.

An additional column (Table XXVI) displayed the average expenditure

by expenditure category for all twelve programs selected for this study.

TABLE XXVI

Expenditure Category Average Percentages by Vocational Program

ExpenditureCategories Coop

AgProd

GenMdse

Percent of State

Nurs Food Asst Mngt Steno

Total Program Expenditures

Clerk Sten/ Auto Graph Typ Cler Mech Arts

MachShop

Weld & Cut

TwelveProgram'sAverage

Instructional Salaries 69% 66% 59% 58% 53% 62% 61% 58% 56% 49% 46% 46% 57%Instructional Travel 1% 1% --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Contracted Programs --- --- 1% 3% 2% --- --- --- 1% 1% 2% 3% 1%Instructional Supplies 1% 5% 6% 5% 11% 6% 5% 6% 8% 11% 11% 17% 8%Equipment Rental, Maintenance & Purchase --- 6% 3% 2% 7% 9% 11% 11% 10% 15% 17% 13% 9%Transportation --- --- --- 2% --- --- --- --- --- 1% --- 1% ---

Inservice 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%Vocational Administration 7% 3% 9% 10% 6% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%Placement & Follow-Up 4% 4% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4%Other Direct Costs 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% --- 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%Indirect Costs 15% 11% 14% 13% 13% 14% 14% 13% 12% 12% 11% 12% 13%

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to determine: (1) the adequacy of

total secondary vocational funding per student hour relative to actual

vocational costs per student hour for the eleven regions of Michigan

and for the entire state; and (2) the degree of uniformity of

vocational expenditures by expenditure category among the eleven regions

of the state. The 1977-78 expenditure data for twelve vocational

programs, as reported on form DS-4033 Expense Activity Report by all

districts in Michigan with fiscal responsibility for secondary voca

tional programs, was included in this study. Those twelve vocational

programs were: Cooperative Education, Agriculture Production, General

Merchandise, Nursing Assistant Aide, Food Management Production &

Service, Stenographers, Clerk-Typist, Steno/Clerical Lab, Auto Mechanics,

Graphic Arts Occupations, Machine Shop, and Welding & Cutting.

The total cost per student hour of these vocational programs was

determined on a regional and state-wide basis. The state-wide average

cost of secondary nonvocational instruction per student hour was also

determined. The difference between the total cost per student hour of

each of the twelve vocational programs and the nonvocational cost per

student hour was computed. This difference was then compared to the

76

77

per student hour amount reimbursed for each of the twelve programs by


Service. The adequacy/inadequacy/excessiveness of funding was then

determined for each of the twelve vocational programs within each of

the eleven state regions and for the entire state. Funding was

determined to be inadequate if the actual added costs of the vocational

program, represented by the actual vocational cost minus the state-wide

nonvocational cost, exceeded the funding amount by 5% or more. Funding

was determined to be excessive if the actual added cost of the

vocational program was less than the funding amount by 5% or more.

Funding was determined to be adequate if the actual added cost of the

vocational program was within the funding range, meaning costs were

neither 5% greater nor 5% less than the reimbursement amount.

The degree of uniformity of vocational expenditures by expenditure

category was determined by first computing the state average percentage

that each expenditure category comprised of the total vocational

expenditures for each of the twelve vocational programs. Computations

were also done for each region of the state for each of the twelve

programs. Comparisons were then done to determine, within each

vocational program, the amount of uniformity in expenditures across all

eleven regions. Each region was identified if the percentage for any

expenditure category differed from the state average percentage for

that same expenditure category by more than five percent. For example,

with a state average of 69% for instructional salaries in Cooperative

Education programs, three regions were identified as having expended

58%, 58%, and 63%, respectively, of their total vocational costs for

instructional salaries. The other eight regions of the state expended

78

amounts which fell within the plus or minus range from 69%, or

from 64% to 74%.

Funding was found to be excessive relative to costs in most

regions for the following vocational programs: Agriculture Production,

Food Management Production & Service, Auto Mechanics, Machine Shop,

and Welding & Cutting. Funding was found to be inadequate to cover

costs in most regions for the following vocational programs:

Cooperative Education, Stenographers, Clerk-Typist, Steno/Clerical Lab,

and Graphic Arts Occupations. Funding was found to be mixed, with

generally equal numbers of regions with excessive and inadequate funding

for the following vocational programs: General Merchandise and Nursing

Assistant Aide.

Analysis of the data indicated inadequate funding in Cooperative

Education in all eleven regions as well as for the state average

(Table I). Vocational added costs ranged from $123 to $596 in the

regions, while the reimbursement amount was $69.

Expenditure category analysis in Cooperative Education (Table II)

indicated that instructional salaries state-wide averaged 69% of total

costs. Three regions differed from this figure for instructional

salaries by more than 5%. Expenditures for all other categories rarely

differed from state averages by more than 5%.

Analysis of the data indicated generally excessive funding in

Agriculture Production (Table III). Only one region had added costs

higher than funding. Vocational added costs ranged from $57 to $258

in the regions, while the funding amount was $128.

Expenditure category analysis in Agriculture Production (Table IV)

indicated that, while instructional salaries accounted for 66% of total

costs state-wide, five regions had instructional salary costs which

79

varied from this figure by more than 5%. Expenditures for all other

categories rarely differed from state averages.

Analysis of the data for General Merchandise (Table V) indicated

four regions which had inadequate fundings five regions which had

excessive funding, and two regions which had adequate funding.

Vocational added costs ranged from $21 to $163 in the regions, while

the funding amount was $85.

Expenditure category analysis in General Merchandise (Table VI)

indicated that there was a high degree of uniformity among all eleven

regions. While instructional salaries accounted for 59% of total costs

state-wide, two regions had instructional costs which varied from this

figure by more than 5%.

Analysis of the data for Nursing Assistant Aide (Table VII)

indicated that, while the state average funding amount was adequate,

four regions had inadequate funding and six regions had excessive

funding. Vocational added costs ranged from $15 to $159 in the regions,

while the funding amount was $90.

Expenditure category analysis in Nursing Assistant Aide (Table VIII)

indicated that, while instructional salaries accounted, for 58% of total

costs state-wide, six regions had instructional salary costs which varied

from this figure by more than 5%.

Analysis of the data for Food Management Production & Service

(Table IX) indicated that funding was generally excessive, with only two

regions which had inadequate funding and nine regions which had

excessive funding. Vocational added costs ranged from $37 to $220 in

the regions, while the funding amount was $165.

80

Expenditure category analysis in Food Management Production &

Service (Table X) indicated that, while instructional salaries accounted

for 53% of total costs state-wide, four regions had instructional

salary costs which varied from this figure by more than 5%. Five other

expenditure categories each had at least one region which varied from

the respective state average by more than 5%.

Analysis of the data for Stenographers (Table XI) indicated that

funding was generally inadequate. Seven regions had inadequate funding

while three regions had excessive funding. Vocational added costs ranged

from $28 to $180 in the regions, while the funding amount was $109.

Expenditure category analysis in Stenographers (Table XII) indicated

that six regions had instructional salary costs which varied from the

state average by more than 5%, and three regions had equipment costs

which varied from the state average by more than 5%.

Analysis of the data indicated generally inadequate funding in

Clerk-Typist programs (Table XIII). Eight regions had inadequate fund

ing, while the funding amount of $67 was also Inadequate to cover state

average costs of $110. Vocational added costs ranged from $43 to $228

in the regions.

Expenditure category analysis in Clerk-Typist programs (Table XIV)

indicated that three regions had instructional salary costs which

varied from the state average by more than 5% and four regions had

equipment costs which varied from the state average by more than 5%.


Steno/Clerical Lab programs (Table XV). Nine regions had inadequate

funding while only two regions had excessive funding. Vocational added

costs ranged from $24 to $238 in the regions, while the funding amount

was $88.

81

Expenditure category analysis In Steno/Clerical Lab programs

(Table XVI) Indicated that four regions had costs for Instructional

salaries which varied from the state average of 58% by more than 5%.

Expenditures for all other categories rarely differed from the

respective state averages by more than 5%.

Analysis of the data Indicated generally excessive funding In Auto

Mechanics programs (Table XVII). Funding was excessive for eight regions

and also for the state average. Vocational added costs ranged from $50

to $183 In the regions, while the funding amount was $149.

Expenditure category analysis In Auto Mechanics (Table XVIII)

indicated that three regions had instructional salary costs which varied

from the state average by more than 5%. Expenditures for all other

categories rarely differed from the respective state averages by more

than 5%.


Graphic Arts Occupations programs (Table XIX). Seven regions had

inadequate funding, while three regions had excessive reimbursement.

Vocational added costs ranged from $114 to $389 in the regions, while

the funding amount was $192.

Expenditure category analysis in Graphic Arts Occupations programs

(Table XX) indicated that four regions had equipment costs which varied

from the state average by more than 5%. Three other expenditure

categories each had two regions which had costs which varied from the

respective state averages by more than 5%.

Analysis of the data for Machine Shop programs (Table XXI) indi

cated that ten regions had excessive funding, while only one region with

exceptionally high costs had inadequate funding. Vocational added costs

ranged from $135 to $781, while the funding amount was $333.

82

Expenditure category analysis in Machine Shop programs (Table XXII)

indicated that three regions had costs which varied from state averages

by more than 5% for three expenditure categories. Those categories were

instructional salaries, instructional supplies, and equipment.

Analysis of the data for Welding & Cutting programs (Table XXIII)

indicated that eight regions had excessive funding, while three regions

had inadequate funding. Vocational added costs ranged from $109 to $308

in the regions, while the funding amount was $227.

Expenditure category analysis in Welding & Cutting programs

(Table XXIV) Indicated a considerable degree of variance. Five regions

had costs for instructional salaries which varied from the state average

by more than 5%. Four regions had costs for contracted programs which

varied from the state average by more than 5%. Three regions had costs

for equipment which varied from the state average by more than 5%.

A further analysis of teacher salaries by region partially explained

some of the cost differences between regions. The average teacher

salary for all grades was computed for each region of the state.'*' An

analysis of the average teacher salaries should provide some indication

of higher vocational salary costs in particular regions. In particular,

regions 1, 4, and 6 had the highest average teacher salaries and also

generally had the highest vocational costs. Region 11 had nearly the

lowest average teacher salaries and also had generally lower vocational

costs than other regions.

•̂1977-78 Summary of Expenditure Data for Michigan Public Schools, Bulletin 1013, Michigan Department of Education, Department Services, Lansing, Michigan, 1978,

83

TABLE XXVII

Regional Average Teacher Salaries - 1977-78

Region Average Salary

1 $ 16,620

2 14,756

3 14,874

4 15,329

5 14,809

6 14,933

7 13,438

8 14,702

9 14,526

10 14,134

11 13,801

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the study, the following conclusions seem

reasonable:

1. The state-wide funding amount, which differed for all twelve

vocational programs analyzed, very rarely reimbursed accurately

the actual added cost of any vocational programs in any

regions. In almost all cases, actual added costs were either

above or below the funding range.

The amount of vocational funding was not adequate to meet

actual added costs in most regions of the state for the

following vocational programs: Cooperative Education,

Stenographers, Clerk-Typist, Steno/Clerical Lab, and Graphic

Arts Occupations.

The amount of vocational funding was too high, relative to

actual added costs, in most regions of the state for the

following vocational programs: Agriculture Production, Food

Management Production & Service, Auto Mechanics, Machine Shop,

and Welding & Cutting.

Nearly an equal number of regions had excessive and inadequate

funding for General Merchandise and Nursing Assistant Aide

programs.

Regions 2 and 11 had actual vocational costs per student hour

which were generally lower than the other regions.

Regions 1, 4, 6, and 8 had actual vocational costs per student

hour which were generally higher than the other regions.

These four regions are all in southeast Michigan (See

Appendix B).

There was a high degree of uniformity of vocational expendi

tures by expenditure category among the eleven regions of the

state within vocational programs. Although there was wide

variation in the total amounts of vocational expenditures among

regions for each program, the percentages expended within

expenditure categories by regions did not differ greatly within

each of the twelve programs.

Vocational expenditures of all vocational programs analyzed

were most highly concentrated in the area of instructional

salaries. Instructional supplies, equipment rental, mainte

nance, and purchase, vocational administration, and indirect

costs also accounted for a high proportion of vocational

costs.

9. There was a noticeable lack of expenditures in the categories

of instructional travel, contracted programs, transportation,

inservice, and other direct costs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education

Service should adopt the actual added cost method for funding all

secondary vocational programs, rather than the eligible cost method

presently used to determine funding amounts for vocational programs.

Funding of secondary vocational programs should be based on regional

vocational costs, rather than being based on one state-wide funding

amount. Eleven different state reimbursement amounts would not

necessarily result for each vocational program, since many regions

have very similar costs.

No vocational program should be reimbursed at a rate which is higher

than the program's regional actual average added cost. This would

discourage excessive costs since regions with high vocational costs

would not be reimbursed for any costs above the regional average.

There is a need to study the relationship between cost of vocational

programs and the quality of vocational programs, as measured, for

example, by placement.

There is a need for further analysis to determine why costs for any

particular vocational program differed so extensively within the

86

eleven regions of the state. Although average teacher salaries

do differ regionally, other factors may also cause some of the

cost differences.

6. There is a need to study multi-year expenditure data to determine

the degree of change in the amounts expended within vocational

programs by expenditure category.

7. There is a need to study, nonvocational costs on a regional basis.

For purposes of this study, only one state-wide nonvocational

cost was computed. However, this nonvocational cost may also

vary within different regions of the state.

IMPLICATIONS

It is my opinion that this study offers a new dimension to the

study of reimbursement of secondary vocational education program costs.

The findings of this study suggest that the present method of reimbursing

secondary vocational programs, with one state funding amount for each

vocational program, is not sensitive to the variations in program costs

among the eleven regions of Michigan. Analysis of the data indicated

that, for the twelve programs analyzed, funding was excessive about as

often as funding was inadequate. The adoption of regional funding would

not necessarily require additional total state funding. Further study in

this area should be done to determine the total funding needs which would

result if regional funding were implemented.

With the effects of inflation, the costs of operating vocational

education have increased and will probably continue to increase in the

future. The amount of added cost funding state-wide has increased from

$3,000,000 for 1972, to $22,400,000 for 1978, and to $29,000,000

2The writer has been employed in the Vocational-Technical Education Service of the Michigan Department of Education since December, 1977.

87

from $3,000,000 for 1972, to $22,400,000 for 1978, and to $29,000,000qfor 1980. With this degree of increase in state-wide funding and

commitment to secondary vocational education, coupled with inflation,

it seems only a matter of time before the return on this vocational

investment becomes more heavily scrutinized.If vocational program costs were analyzed in comparison to

program quality indicators, such as related placement after training

or wage rates, conclusions could be drawn and decisions could be made

which would lead to funding for those programs deemed most effective,

while withdrawing funding, if necessary, from programs deemed to be

ineffective. Considering the general mood of today's taxpayer, such a

qualitative analysis would be both wise and appropriate.

In past years, a case could be made for additional state added

cost funding because of the continued increases in secondary

vocational enrollments. However, secondary vocational enrollments are

no longer increasing and no longer provide a rationale for increased

added cost funding. Enrollments in secondary vocational education for

all programs eligible for added cost funding increased from 118,237

students in 1974 to 125,109 students in 1976. Enrollments were

128,942 in 1977 and 129,030 in 1978.^ There appears to have been a

leveling off at the secondary level by 1978.

The data analyzed clearly showed that there was a large difference

in total vocational costs per student hour among regions for all

3Secondary Funding Policy for Fiscal Year 1978-79, Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service, Lansing, Michigan, 1978.

4Michigan Enrollments in Vocational Education Programs. Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service, Lansing, Michigan, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978.

88

vocational programs selected for this study. It appears that many

vocational programs are operated more efficiently than others. In the

interest of encouraging such efficiency, a system for recognition of

such efficiently operated programs should be developed by the Michigan

Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service.

Qualitative factors should also be examined to be sure such low-cost

programs are not also low-quality programs.

One option for funding of added costs would be simply to reimburse

all districts for the actual added cost of their vocational programs

over the cost of nonvocational programming. This option was rejected,

however, because of the potential discriminatory funding effects. Those

districts which expended more for their vocational education programs

would receive more funding, while those that expended less would receive

less funding. More affluent districts would probably receive a dispro

portionately high share of the state added cost funds, while less

affluent districts would suffer. In addition, such a system of district

reimbursement would offer no motive for efficiency in controlling costs.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CAREER EDUCATION PLANNING DISTRICTS

APPENDIX ACAREER EDUCATION PLANNING DISTRICTS

ONTONAGON

I

QOQIilC '

ICKINfON

PRESQUE t i l l

XEJIn aOTSEGO

CRAWFORD OSCODA

■ ( M i t I GRAND |BCN2IE I T M v H S f „ 2 q

MANISTEE IOSCOWEXFORD I MISSAUKEE

13ROSCOMMON! OGEMAW

MASON | LAKE

M■ittm CLARE . GLADWIN ARENAC

OCEANA NEWAYGO

20MECOSTA

TUSCOLA 1 SANILAC

24 I 26

GENESESST. ClAm

OAKLAND IMACOM

40All e g a n

50UVWOSTON

38 5SSRTISBIVAN SUREN (ALAMAZOO

ST JOSEPH BRANCH | HILLSDALE

46

89

APPENDIX B

OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK ECONOMIC REGIONS

90Appendix B

OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK ECONOMIC REGIONS AND CAREER EDUCATION PLANNING DISTRICTS

1.W “ll> -LO

(.1*1 9

(12. 15-18, 23-26) ^J(28,29,30)22,32,33,50,53)

(31,51,52)(27, 38—4A)

(35, 36, 47)

(37,45,46)(34,48,49)

1 - Detroit2 - Grand Rapids3 - Saginaw l\ - Flint 5.- Kalaiuaz.oo6 - Lansing7 - Benton Harbor8 - Jackson9 “ Muskegon

10 - Upper Peninsula11 - Northern Lower

Peninsula

*Regions are Ranked by Total Employment

Regions in Large Type

CEPD's in Parenthesis

APPENDICES C & D

COOPERATIVE EDUCATION

91

Appendix C

Regional Vocational Costs andStudent Hours by Program

Program Descriptor Cooperative Education Added Cost Factor at 100% Reimbursement $69.00

Region

TotalVocational

Cost

TotalStudentHours

Avg Voc Cost Per

Student Hour

Avg Voc Cost Minus

Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 5,942,584 12,793 $ 465 $ 235

2 701,328 1,375 510 280

3 499,732 1,400 357 127

4 802,743 2,039 394 164

5 354,889 1,001 355 125

6 406,789 907 448 218

7 432,046 776 557 327.

8 157,650 377 418 188

9 587,797 712 826 596

10 94,381 267 353 123

11 364,850 908 402 172

State $ 10,344,789 22,555 $ 459 $ 229

92

Appendix D

Regional Vocational Program Costs by Expenditure Category


Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %

InstructionalSalaries $4,080,960 69% $ 515,184 73% $ 367,382 74%

InstructionalTravel 61,093 1% 19,819 3% 8,406 2%

ContractedPrograms 141 --- 813 --- -0- ---

InstructionalSupplies 42,958 1% 8,270 1% 4,475 1%

Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 8,939 _m 6,763 1% 1,475 _-PTC_

Transportation -0- --- 779 --- -0- ---

Inservice 49,722 1% 7,649 1% 2,882 1%

Vocational Adminis tration 415,611 7% 33,698 5% 25,648 5%

Placement & Follow-Up 239,988 4% 21,222 3% 18,947 4%

Other Direct Costs 112,639 2% 965 --- 2,312 ---

Indirect Costs 930,255 16% 86,166 12% 68,205 14%

93

Appendix D (cont'd.)



Regions

Expenditure 4 5 Categories Costs % Costs %

6Costs %

InstructionalSalaries $ 532,574 66% $ 259,276 73% $ 297,359 73%


ContractedPrograms -0- -- -0- 17 ---


Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 4,244 1% 101 --- 172 — „ —

Transportation -0- -- -o- — -0-

Inservice 7,867 1% 3,548 1% 1,051 ---

VocationalAdministration 65,878 8% 12,319 3% 13,272 3%


Other Direct Costs 6,624 1% -0- 46 — _

Indirect Costs 112,223 14% 53,012 15% 64,005 16%




Regions


9Costs %



ContractedPrograms -0- --- -0- --- -0- ---

InstructionalSupplies 5,849 1% 590 --- 8,550 1%

Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 3,884 1% 60 -0- MirT —

Transportation 1,615 --- -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 3,098 1% 1,897 1% 915 •—



Other Direct Costs 784 — m 486 --- 38,500 7%

Indirect Costs 62,445 14% 21,789 14% 68,685 12%

95



Program Descriptor Cooperative Education• Regions


10Costs %

11Costs %

State Costs %

InstructionalSalaries $ 54,482 58% $ 230,431 63% $7,162,018 69%


ContractedPrograms -0- ---- 25,842 7% 26,813 ---

InstructionalSupplies 753 1% 3,606 1% 100,490 1%

Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 29 2,837 1% 28,504

Transportation -0- --- 312 --- 2,706 --

Inservice 10,767 11% 1,765 --- 91,161 1%



Other Direct Costs 1,210 1% 83 — - 163,649 2%

Indirect Costs . 12,453 13% 45,679 13% 1,524,917 15%

APPENDICES E & F

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION

96

Appendix E




Region

TotalVocational

Cost

TotalStudentHours

Avg Voc Cost Per

Student Hour

Avg Voc Cost Minus

Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 142,432 466 306 $ 76

2 351,837 1,025 343 113

3 614,683 1,862 330 100

4 218,511 665 329 99

5 231,603 675 343 113

6 238,549 721 331 101

7 199,299 592 337 107

8 335,418 687 488 258

9 158,846 436 364 134

10 55,220 168 329 99

11 123,028 429 287 57

State $ 2,666,426 7,726 $ 345 $ 115

97

Appendix F

Regional Vocational Program Costa by Expenditure Category

0.E . Code 01•0100 Program Descriptor Agriculture Production

Regions


3Costs %


InstructionalTravel 743 1% 4,659 1% 6,437 1%

ContractedPrograms -0- --- -0- --- 190 ---


Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 5,604 4% 13,563 4% 13,620 2%

Transportation -0- --- 196 --- 1,961 ---

Inservice 1,255 1% 3,353 1% 7,806 1%



Other Direct Costs 1,964 1% 4,540 1% 4,206 1%Indirect Costs 16,772 12% 39,950 11% 69,293 11%

98

Appendix F (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs % i

5Costs %

6Costs %



ContractedPrograms -0- --- -o- --- -0- ---



Transportation 301 --- 734 129 ---

Inservice 1,645 1% 2,891 1% 1,631 1%



Other Direct Costs 2,336 1% -0- --- 1,322 1%Indirect Costs 25,432 12% 28,972 13% 29,461 12%

99



O.K. Code 01.0100 Program Descriptor Agriculture Production

Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %






Transportation 425 --- 124 --- 1,379 1%

Inservice 2,538 1% 3,039 1% 611 ---

VocationalAdministration 19,778 10% 14,312 4% 356 ---

Placement & Follow-Up 12,516 6% 11,861 4% 960 1%

Other Direct Costs 2 --- 23,625 7% 4,589 3%Indirect Costs 26,045 13% 25,741 8% 16,986 11%




Regions


State Costs %


InstructionalTravel 361 1% 900 1% 27,721 1%

ContractedPrograms -0- --- -0- -- 190 ---


Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase -0- M- 2,148 2% 156,181 6%

Transportation 101 --- 967 1% 6,317

Inservice 324 1% 1,112 1% 26,205 1%



Other Direct Costs 142 --- -0- -- 42,726 2%

Indirect Costs 6,518 12% 14,538 12% 299,708 11%

APPENDICES G & H

GENERAL MERCHANDISE

101

Appendix 6




Region

TotalVocational

Cost

TotalStudentHours

Avg Voc Cost Per

Student Hour

Avg Voc Cost Minus

Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 2,756,589 7,077 $ 390 $ 160

2 345,436 1,146 301 71

3 395,887 1,159 342 112

4 546,848 1,695 323 93

5 302,527 1,079 280 50

6 255,565 806 317 87

7 133,988 424 316 86

8 150,584 383 393 163

9 179,174 713 251 21

10 160,983 552 292 62

11 237,951 784 304 74

State $ 5,465,532 15,818 $ 346 $ 116

Appendix H



Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %


InstructionalTravel 2,043 --- 563 --- 837 — -

ContractedPrograms 1,227 --- -0- --- -0- ---



Transportation 3,347 --- -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 31,782 1% 3,265 1% 5,255 1%



Other Direct Costs 99,530 3% 682 --- 3,600 1%

Indirect Costs 413,298 15% 38,751 11% 51,450 13%

103

Appendix H (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %


InstructionalTravel 488 --- 1,600 1% 176 ---

ContractedPrograms -0- --- -0- 22,892 9%


Equipment Rental* Maintenance,& Purchase 18,500 3% 8,697 3% 7,558 3%

Transportation 20,751 4% 114 --- -0- ---

Inservice 4,530 1% 5,941 2% 2,653 1%

Vocational Adminis trat ion 48,280 9% 26,987 9% 28,298 11%


Other Direct Costs 1,976 --- 2,887 1% 554 ---

Indirect Costs 76,516 14% 37,921 13% 32,615 13%




Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel 407 -- 1,093 1% 409 --

ContractedPrograms 5,160 4% -0- --- 2,235 1%InstructionalSupplies 9,911 7% 9,241 6% 12,311 7%


Transportation -0- --- 99 — - 1,035 1%

Inservlce 485 --- 2,397 2% 181 ---



Other Direct Costs -0- --- 5,995 4% 2,144 1%Indirect Costs 16,951 13% 15,202 10% 21,109 12%

105




Regions


10Costs %

11Costs %

State Costs %


InstructionalTravel 1,573 1% 128 ----- 9,317 —

ContractedPrograms 6,643 4% 40 ---- 38,197 1%

InstructionalSupplies ' 8,469 5% 9,432 4% 303,682 6%


Transportation 132 ----- 65 ----- 25,543 -----

Inservlce 2,673 2% 2,962 1% 62,124 1%



Other Direct Costs 1,904 1% 90 ---- 119,362 2%

Indirect Costs 18,109 11% 27,125 11% 749,047 14%

APPENDICES I & J

NURSING ASSISTANT AIDE

106

Appendix I




Total Total Avg Voc Cost Avg Voc CostVocational Student Per Minus

Region Cost Hours Student Hour Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 1,123,705 3,440 $ 327 $ 97

2 96,890 395 245 15

3 344,190 1,090 316 86

4 189,407 632 300 70

5 162,842 522 312 82

6 27,159 105 259 29

7 144,461 424 341 111

8 104,515 269 389 159

9 46,207 163 283 53

10 220,747 663 333 103

11 61,129 232 263 33

State $ 2,521,252 $ 7,935 $ 318 $ 88

107

Appendix J

Regional Vocational Program Costs byExpenditure Category

O.E. Code 07.0303 Proeram Descriptor Nursine Assistant Aide

Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %


InstructionalTravel 704 --- 54 --- 1,043 ---

ContractedPrograms 28,072 3% 5,822 6% -0- ---


Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 33,055 3% 681 1% 4,595 1%

Transportation 28,800 3% 98 1,663 ---

Inservice 7,058 1% 1,246 1% 6,489 2%



Other Direct Costs 13,046 1% -0- --- 7,058 2%

Indirect Costs 171,457 15% 6,145 6% 37,854 11%

App endix J (cont'd .)


O.E. Code 07.0303 Proeram Descriptor Nursine Assistant Aide

Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %


InstructionalTravel 83 --- 956 1% -0- ---

ContractedPrograms 15,924 8% -0- --- -0- ---



Transportation 80 --- 4,470 3% 4,840 18%

Inservice 1,389 1% 4,224 3% 52 ---

VocationalAdministration 12,478 7% 13,798 8% 943 3%


Other Direct Costs -0- --- 3,648 2% -0- ---

Indirect Costs 27,445 14% 19,524 12% 4,234 16%

Appendix J (cont'd.)


O.E. Code 07.0303 Program Descriptor Nursine Assistant Aide

Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel 2,941 2% 329 -- 242 1%

ContractedPrograms 11,677 8% -0- ___ 1,100 2%


Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 4,430 3%

*

1,477 1% 1,161 3%

Transportation 2,471 2% 99 --- -0- ---

Inservice 818 1% 3,056 3% 165 ---



Other Direct Costs 138 --- 5,275 5% -0- --

Indirect Costs 20,109 14% 9,842 9% 4,760 10%

110

Appendix J (cont'd.)



Regions


10Costs %

11Costs %

State Costs %


InstructionalTravel 318 -- 732 1% 7,402 ---

ContractedPrograms 1,873 1% -0- --- 64,468 3%



Transportation -0- --- 1,402 2% 43,923 2%

Inservice 2,857 1% 691 1% 28,045 1%

VocationalAdministration 19,477 9% 632 1% 240,059 10%


Other Direct Costs 11,590 5% -0- -- 40,755 2%

Indirect Costs 24,701 11% 6,982 11% 333,053 13%

APPENDICES K & L

FOOD MANAGEMENT PRODUCTION & SERVICE

Ill

Appendix K

Regional Vocatipnal Costs andStudent Hours by Program





1 $ 2,525,599 6,936 $ 364 $ 134

2 233,336 781 299 69

3 262,892 735 358 128

4 273,090 869 314 84

5 ' 172,216 481 358 128

6 149,799 333 450 220

7 160,525 396 405 175

8 103,794 286 363 133

9 99,323 292 340 110

10 130,127 414 314 84

11 201,412 755 267 37

State $ 4,309,992 12,278 $ 351 $ 121

112

Appendix L




1Costs %

Regions

2Costs %

3Costs %


InstructionalTravel 1,077 --- 325 673 ---

ContractedPrograms 39,820 2% 5,746 2% 1,664 1%



Transportation 6,992 -- -0- --- 497 ---

Inservice 18,165 1% 1,418 1% 2,941 1%



Other Direct Costs 78,003 3% 1,930 1% 5,803 2%

Indirect Costs 363,022 14% 17,039 7% 27,028 10%

113

Appendix L (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs

6% Costs %


InstructionalTravel 937 --- 718 --- 283 ---

ContractedPrograms -0- --- -0- --- 24,984 17%



Transportation 2,138 1% 541 --- 4,060 3%

Inservice 3,923 1% 3,748 2% 449 ---

Vocational Adminis tra tion 19,436 7% 10,828 6% 5,585 4%


Other Direct Costs -0- --- 350 -- 456 ---

Indirect Costs 37,611 14% 23,409 14% 18,543 12%

114



O.E. Code 09.0203 Proeram Descriptor Food Management Production & Service

Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel 1,109 1% 222 --- 158 ---




Transportation -0- --- 99 --- -0- ---

Inservice 693 --- 2,682 3% 486 ---



Other Direct Costs 397 --- 4,689 5% -0- ---

Indirect Costs 21,344 13% 9,782 9% 11,080 11%

115





10Costs %

Regions

11Costs %

State Costs %


InstructionalTravel 162 --- -0- --- 5,664 --




Transportation 129 --- 305 14,761 ---

Inservice 1,274 1% 2,475 1% 38,254 1%Vocational

Admlnis tration 9,507 7% 9,330 5% 269,502 6%



Indirect Costs 15,148 12% 21,223 11% 565,229 13%

APPENDICES M & N

STENOGRAPHERS

116

Appendix M


O.E. Code 14.0703 Proeram Descriptor Stenographers


Region

TotalVocational

Cost

TotalStudentHours

Avg Voc Cost Per

Student Hour

Avg Voc Cost Minus

Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 1,706,696 4,493 $ 380 $ 1502 231,130 737 314 84

3 122,426 349 351 121

4 172,308 420 410 180

5 201,901 541 373 143

6 262,179 661 397 167

7

8

9

75,431 292 258 28

24,370 70 348 118

10 115,218 326 353 123

11 69,022 237 291 61

State $ 2,980,681 8,126 $ 367 $ 137

117

Appendix N



Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %

InstructionalSalaries $1.,085,785 64% $ 156,400 68% $ 70,451 58%


ContractedPrograms 477 --- 60 -0- ---



Transportation 8,306 --- -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 9,561 1% 2,780 1% 1,075 1%




Indirect Costs 254,559 15% 21,618 9% 15,913 13%

118

Appendix N (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %


InstructionalTravel 80 --- 1,173 1% 3 ---




Transportation -0- --- 73 -0-

Inservice 2,004 1% 3,941 2% 6,292 2%



Other Direct Costs -0- --- 687 -- 315 ---

Indirect Costs 21,429 12% 24,665 12% 37,659 14%

119




Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %

InstructionalSalaries $ 40,549 54%

NoPrograms $ 12,067 50%

InstructionalTravel 43 --- -0- ---

ContractedPrograms -0- --- -0- ---

InstructionalSupplies 7,484 10% 5,335 22%

Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 12,971 17% 3,075 13%

Transportation -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 515 1% -0- ---

VocationalAdministration 1,167 2% 795 3%

Placement & Follow-Up 3,737 5% 652 3%

Other Direct Costs -0- -0- ---

Indirect Costs 8,965 12% 2,446 10%

120




Regions


10Costs %

11Costs %

State Costs %


InstructionalTravel 1,855 2% -o- --- 3,634 ---

ContractedPrograms 1,222 1% -0- --- 1,759 ---



Transportation -0- --- -0- --- 8,379 --

Inservice 727 1% 763 1% 27,658 1%Vocational

Administration 9,750 8% 4,051 6% 136,077 5%


Other Direct Costs 9 --- -0- --- 24,574 1%Indirect Costs 12,138 11% 8,597 12% 407,989 14%

APPENDICES 0 & P

CLERK-TYPIST

121

Appendix 0






.1 $ 772,856 2,207 $ 350 $ 120

2 71,843 245 293 63

3 138,670 440 315 85

4 209,515 628 334 104

5 10,915 40 273 43

6 161,395 573 282 52

7 40,868 130 314 84

8 13,829 39 355 125

9 72,639 169 430 200

10 46,251 101 458 228

11 72,028 171 421 191

State $ 1,610,809 4,743 $ 340 $ 110

122

Appendix P



Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %






Transportation 1,949 --- -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 4,627 1% 732 1% 851 1%

Vocational Adminis tration 34,463 4% 580 1% 10,768 8%


Other Direct Costs -0- --- -0- — - 4,756 3%Indirect Costs 118,525 15% 7,484 10% 18,716 14%

123

Appendix P (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %


InstructionalTravel 92 --- -0- --- 3


InstructionalSupplies 13,001 6% 437 4% 8,034 5%


.Transportation -0- --- -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 1,781 1% -0- --- 811 1%

VocationalAdministration 13,850 7% -0- --- 6,260 4%

Placement & Follow-Up 5,784 3% 220 2% 13,469 8%

Other Direct Costs -0- --- -0- 295

Indirect Costs 28,508 14% 984 9% 20,925 13%

124

Appendix P (cont'd1.)



Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel -0- -- -0- --- 122 ---

ContractedPrograms -0- -- -0- --- -0- ---

Instructional ,. Supplies 2,589 6% ' 703 5% 4,699 6%

Equipment Rental, Maintenance,& Purchase 3,227 8% 162 1% 3,468 5%

Transportation -0- --- -0- 2,551 4%

Inservice 253 1% 5 --- -0- ---


Placement & Follow-Up 2,342 6% 94 1% 3,829 5%

Other Direct Costs -0- -- 158 1% 25 ---

Indirect Costs 5,244 13% 2,048 15% 8,175 11%

125

Appendix P (cont'd.)



Regions


State Costs %


InstructionalTravel 27 --- -0- --- 773 ---




Transportation -0- --- -0- --- 4,500 ---

Inservice 830 2% 536 1% 10,426 1%



Other Direct Costs -0- --- -0- — 5,234 ---

Indirect Costs 5,775 12% 9,024 13% 225,408 14%

APPENDICES Q & R

STENO/CLERICAL LAB

126

Appendix Q




Region

TotalVocational

Cost

TotalStudentHours

Avg Voc Cost Per

Student Hours

Avg Voc Cost Minus

Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 2,241,669 5,937 $ 378 $ 148

2 395,636 1,219 325 95

3 516,521 1,352 382 152

4 642,254 1,414 454 224

5 322,665 946 341 111

6 69,067 232 298 68

7 152,637 326 468 238

8 225,585 582 388 158

9 212,283 613 346 116

10 178,498 703 254 24

11 210,230 632 333 103

State $ 5,167,045 13,956 $ 370 $ 140

127

Appendix R



Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %


InstructionalTravel 1,590 --- 20 --- 446 ---

ContractedPrograms 429 -0- --- -0- —



Transportation 1,220 -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 21,207 1% 3,602 1% 5,845 1%



Other Direct Costs 38,165 2% 371 -- 1,984 ---

Indirect Costs 326,262 15% 38,601 10% 55,925 11%

128

Appendix R (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %


InstructionalTravel 516 --- 376 -- 88 ---

ContractedPrograms -0- -- -0- --- -0- ---



Transportation 22,252 3% 153 --- -fl ---

Inservice 9,443 1% 3,348 1% ies ---

Vocational Adminis trat ion 31,679 5% 13,586 4% 670 1%

Placement & Follow-Up 62,775 10% 14,534 5% 215 ---

Other Direct Costs 941 --- -0- --- 50 --

Indirect Costs 92,064 14% 43,443 13% 10,413 15%

129



O.E. Code Program Descriptor

14.9800 Steno/Clerlcal Lab

Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel 23 -- 205 --- 340 ---

ContractedPrograms -0- --- 194 --- -0- ---



Transportation -0- --- 99 --- -0- ---

Inservice 910 1% 4,315 2% 1,243 1%



Other Direct Costs -0- -- 4,803 2% 2,303 1%

Indirect Costs 18,709 12% 26,070 12% 24,106 11%

130




Regions


10Costs %

11Costs %

State Costs %


InstructionalTravel 398 --- 46 --- 4,048 --

ContractedPrograms 4,868 3% 25 — - 5,516 -—



Transportation 47 --- -0- --- 23,771 ---


Adminis tration 6,258 4% 14,463 7% 285,332 6%


Other Direct Costs 3,188 2% 613 --- 52,418 1%Indirect Costs 20,689 12% 19,771 9% 676,053 13%

APPENDICIES S & T

AUTO MECHANICS

131

Appendix S




Region

TotalVocational

Cost

TotalStudentHours

Avg Voc Cost Per

Student Hour

Avg Voc Cost Minus

Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 3,249,703 9,250 $ 351 $ 121.

2 832,746 2,230 373 143

3 829,322 2,261 367 137

4 466,124 1,311 356 126

5 462,101 1,299 356 126

6 414,918 1,014 409 179

7 350,544 1,081 324 94

8 280,622 680 413 183

9 271,565 817 332 102

10 353,690 1,203 294 64

11 248,289 886 280 50

State $ 7,759,624 22,032 $ 352 $ 122

132

Appendix T



Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %


InstructionalTravel 834 --- 493 -- 265

ContractedPrograms 1,702 --- 1,310 --- -0- ---

InstructionalSupplies 222,703 7% 70,237 8% '• 66,601 8%


Transportation 8,299 --- -0- --- 2,535 ---


Administration 179,701 6% 66,789 8% 60,114 7%


Other Direct Costs 77,535 2% 2,742 --- 21,409 3%

Indirect Costs 436,787 13% 64,373 8% 95,079 11%

133

Appendix T (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %



ContractedPrograms " 8,250 2% -0- --- 13,754 5%Instructional

Supplies 33,775 7% 32,638 7% 33,563 8%


Transportation 9,007 2% -0- --- 11,408 3%Inservice 5,260 1% 6,128 1% 2,384 1%



Other Direct Costs 673 --- 569 884 ---

Indirect Costs 62,790 13% 59,781 13% 44,766 11%

134




Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel 1,369 -- 584 --- 92 ---

ContractedPrograms -0- --- -0- --- 754 ---



Transportation 285 --- 595 --- 2,035 1%

Inservice 1,694 -- 5,495 2% 2,435 1%




Indirect Costs 42,053 12% 29,427 10% 29,373 11%

135




Regions


10Costs %

11Costs %

State Costs %



ContractedPrograms 48,883 14% -0- 79,653 1%

InstructionalSupplies 1 25,866 7% 20,293 8% 589,093 8%


Transportation 2,047 1% 145 -- 36,356 ---

Inservice 4,995 1% 1,385 1% 69,528 1%




Indirect Costs 39,626 11% 26,092 11% 930,147 12%

APPENDICES U & V

GRAPHIC ARTS OCCUPATIONS

136

Appendix U


Region

O.E. Code 17.1900 Proeram Descriptor Graphic Arts Occupations


Total Total Avg Voc Cost Vocational Student Per

Cost Hours Student Hour

Avg Voc Cost Minus

Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 1,326,738 2,604 $ 509 $ 279

2 142,785 336 425 195

3 135,575• 338 401 171

4 356,967 777 459 229

5 199,034 344 579 349

6 95,700 172 556 326

7 70,199 190 369 139

8 57,586 93 619 389

9 160,077 358 447 217

10 133,183 261 510 280

11 90,459 263 344 114

State $ 2,768,303 5,736 $ 483 $ 253

137

Appendix V


O.E. Code 17.1900 Proeram Descriptor Graphic Arts Occupations

Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %


InstructionalTravel 138 --- 437 --- 154 --

ContractedPrograms 201 -- -0- --- -0- ---



Transportation 6,411 -- -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 13,154 1% 734 1% 1,486 1%



Other Direct Costs 21,226 2% -0- --- 1,708 1%Indirect Costs 166,299 13% 9,306 7% 14,186 10%

138

Appendix V (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %


InstructionalTravel 110 -- 616 --- -0- ---




Transportation 5,167 1% -0- --- 1,820 2%

Inservice 3,266 1% 2,416 1% 551 1%



Other Direct Costs 797 --- 466 --- -0- --

Indirect Costs 49,105 14% 25,764 13% 10,333 11%

139




Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel 514 1% 37 — - 78 ---

ContractedPrograms 5,160 7%

i-0- --- 4,923 3%



Transportation -0- -- -0- --- -o- ---

Inservice 305 --- 1,052 2% 450 ---



Other Direct Costs -0- --- 2,357 4% 929 1%Indirect Costs 9,170 13% 5,889 10% 15,347 10%




Regions


10Costs %

11Costs %

State Costs %


InstructionalTravel -0- ----- -0- ---- 2,084 ----

ContractedPrograms 18,350 14% -0- ---- 28,634 1%


Equipment Rental* Maintenance,& Purchase 18,296 14% 3,523 4% 409,166 15%

Transportation -0- ----- 2,541 3% 15,939 1%Inservice 742 1% 704 1% 24,860 1%



Other Direct Costs 86 — -0- ---- 27,569 1%Indirect Costs 13,588 10% 11,236 12% 330,223 12%

APPENDICES W & X

MACHINE SHOP

141

Appendix W






1 $ 1,645,020 3,348 $ 491 $ 261

2 353,563 805 439 209

3 362,164 810 447 217

4 221,556 535 414 184

5 283,426 615 461 231

6 407,552 403 1,011 781

7 194,912 432 451 221

8 118,641 325 365 135

9 80,811 211 383 153

10 178,185 451 395 165

11 138,515 363 382 152

State $ 3,994,345 8,298 $ 481 $ 251

142

Appendix X



Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %



ContractedPrograms 231 --- 1,310 --- -0- ---



Transportation 10,222 1% -0- --- 1,949 1%

Inservice 19,860 1% 5,905 2% 2,891 1%




Indirect Costs 208,945 13% 22,600 6% 37,906 10%

143

Appendix X (cont1d.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %


InstructionalTravel 388 --- 324 -- -0- ---


InstructionalSupplies 28,022 13%“ 60,632 21% 17,815 4%


Transportation -0- --- -0- -- 2,660 1%

Inservice 1,965 1% 3,659 1% 1,332 ---



Other Direct Costs 409 --- 2,727 1% 719 ---

Indirect Costs 26,326 12% 34,143 12% 42,910 11%

144

Appendix X (cont'd.)



Regions


7Costs

8% Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel 269 --- 286 --- -0- ---




Transportation -0- --- -0- --- -0- ---

Inservice 1,670 1% 1,573 1% 85 ---



Other Direct Costs 455 --- 3,311 3% -0- --

Indirect Costs 22,612 12% 12,396 10% 8,281 10%

145

Appendix X (cont'd.)



Regions


10Costs

11% Costs %

State Costs %


InstructionalTravel 153 --- 74 --- 2,397 --




Transportation 528 --- -0- --- 15,359 ---

Inservice 863 --- 855 1% 40,658 1%Vocational

Administration 13,760 8% 8,036 6% 253,152 6%


Other Direct Costs 2,123 1% 154 -- 28,943 1%Indirect Costs 17,139 10% 14,178 10% 447,436 11%

APPENDICES Y & Z

WELDING & CUTTING

146

Appendix Y




Region

TotalVocational

Cost

TotalStudentHours

Avg Voc Cost Per

Student Hour

Avg Voc Cost Minus

Nonvoc Cost

1 $ 1,175,324 2,990 $ 393 $ 163

2 186,155 477 390 160

3 378,758 980 386 156

4 418,824 892 470 240

5 163,081 303 538 308

6 129,705 270 480 250

7 91,848 236 389 159

8 152,151 358 425 195

9 135,670 381 356 126

10 305,331 901 339 109

11 197,308 454 435 205

State $ 3,334,155 8,242 $ 405 $ 175

147

Appendix Z



Regions


1Costs %

2Costs %

3Costs %



ContractedPrograms 244 --- -0- --- -0- ---



Transportation 7,788 1% -0- --- 1,948 1%

Inservlce 9,527 1% 1,238 1% 4,633 1%Vocational

Administration 55,898 5% 19,958 11% 35,577 9%



Indirect Costs 165,695 14% 13,689 7% 40,773 11%

148

Appendix Z (cont'd.)



Regions


4Costs %

5Costs %

6Costs %


InstructionalTravel 185 -- 309 --- -0- ---

ContractedPrograms -o- --- -0- --- 25,242 19%

InstructionalSupplies 62,178 15% 25,843 16% . 15,590 12%


Transportation 3,438 1% -0- -- -0- ---

Inservice 4,165 1% 1,830 1% 2,055 2%



Other Direct Costs -0- --- 336 --- 422

Indirect Costs 48,279 12% 20,193 12% 12,913 10%

149




Regions


7Costs %

8Costs %

9Costs %


InstructionalTravel 356 --- 133 --- 540 --

ContractedPrograms 17,200 19% -0- --- -0- --


Equipment Rental} Maintenance,& Purchase 4,887 5% 7,543 5% 7,554 6%

Transportation -0- --- 1,785 1% -0-

Inservice 222 --- 2,025 1% 737 1%

VocationalAdministration 3,761 ' 4% 14,252 9% 9,164 7%


Other Direct Costs -0- --- 3,815 3% 9,771 7%

Indirect Costs 10,790 12% 16,832 11% 14,196 10%

150




Regions


10Costs %

11Costs %

State Costs %






Transportation -0- --- 2,561 1% 17,520 1%

Inservice 4,917 2% 2,005 1% 33,354 1%




Indirect Costs 33,776 11% 20,960 11% 398,096 12%

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aldrich, Daniel G. III. An analysis of Vocational Program Costs.Los Angeles: Graduate School of Education, University of California at Los Angeles, 1972.

Cage, Bob N. Cost Analysis of Selected Education Programs in the Area Schools of Iowa. Des Moines: Department of Education, 1968.

Colorado Economic Issues. Fort Collins, Colorado: Center for EconomicEducation, Colorado State University, March, 1979.

Data-Based Locally Directed Evaluation of Vocational Education Programs. Component 8: Assessment of Local Budget Policy for Support ofVocational Instructional Programs. Tallahassee: Florida StateUniversity, 1977.

Gallaway, Lowell E., and Ghazalah, Ismail A. The Role of Vocational Education in Improving Skills and Earning Capacity in the State of Ohio: A Cost-Benefit Study. Athens, Ohio: College ofBusiness Administration, Ohio University, 1972.

Ghazalah, Ismail A. A Computerized, Regional Cost-Benefit FormulaSystem. Athens, Ohio: College of Business Administration, OhioUniversity, 1978.

Hale, James A. The Development and Testing of a Model for Determining the Costs of Vocational Education Programs and Courses. Executive Summary. Gainesville, Florida: Institute for Education Finance,Florida University, 1977.

Hale, James A., and Starnes, Paul M. A Model for Determining theCosts of Vocational Education Programs and Courses. User*s Manual. Gainesville, Florida: Institute for Educational Finance,University of Florida, 1978.

Harris, George W., et al. Cost Analysis of Secondary School Vocational- Technical Education Programs. Nashville, Tennessee: StateDepartment of Education, Division of Vocational-Technical Education, 1973.

Harris, Marshall A. Benefit-Cost Comparison of Vocational Education Programs. Statewide Evaluation of Vocational-Technical Education in Florida, Volumn 2. Tallahassee, Florida: Department ofEducation Administration, Florida State University, 1972.

151

152

Harris, Robert C., and Kim, Jin Eun. Cost-Effectiveness Materials for Locally Conducted Secondary School Vocational Education Program Investigations. Final Report. Bloomington, Indiana: School ofEducation, Indiana University, 1976.

________ . Management System Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Model. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New York, New York: April 4-8, 1977.

Hobbs, Addison S. Memorandum to School Business Offices. Lansing,Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-TechnicalEducation Service, 1978.

Kaufman, Jacob J., et al. The Costs of Vocational and Nonvocational Programs. University Park, Pennsylvania: Institute for Researchon Human Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, 1972.

Kim, Jin Eun. "Cost Effectiveness Measures for Evaluating Secondary Vocational Programs.” Planning & Changing. Normal, Illinois: Illinois State University, Spring, 1977.

Lee, Arthur M. Project Baseline - Learning a Living Across the Nation. Volume 5. Flagstaff, Arizona: Northern Arizona University, 1976.

Lindman, Erick L. Financial Support for Vocational Education in thePublic Schools. Final Report. Los Angeles, California: GraduateSchool of Education, University of California at Los Angeles, 1972.

________ . Financing Vocational Education in the Public Schools.National Educational Finance Project Special Study No. 4. Los Ângeles, California: Graduate School of Education, University ofCalifornia at Los Angeles, 1970.

McKinney, Floyd. Program Evaluation in Vocational Education: A Review.Information Series No. 117. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University,1977.

Marson, Arthur A., et al. Cost Benefit Model Development. Final Report. Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin State Board of Vocational, Technical,and Adult Education, 1977.

Massachusetts State Department of Education. Field Test Results of the Management Information System for Occupational Education Program Cost Accounting System for Occupational Programs. Document No. 10. Boston, Massachusetts: Division of Occupational Education, 1975.

Michigan Department of Education. Administrative Guide for Vocational Education in Michigan. Funding Procedures Section. Lansing, Michigan: Vocational-Technical Education Service, 1978.

________ . Annual and Long Range State Plan for Vocational Education inMichigan, 1978. Lansing, Michigan: Vocational-Technical EducationService, 1978.

153

________ . Annual School District Financial Report for the Fiscal YearEnded June 30, 1978. State Totals. Lansing, Michigan: DepartmentServices, 1978.

________ . Final 1977-78 School District Fourth Friday State-AidMembership by Grade Report. Lansing, Michigan: Department Services,1978.

________ . Funding Factor Development Report, X011Q. Lansing, Michigan:Vocational-Technical Education Service, 1978.

________ . Michigan Enrollments in Vocational Education Programs.Lansing, Michigan: Vocational-Technical Education Service, for theyears 1974, 1976, 1977, and 1978.

________ . Secondary Funding by O.E. Code, X0108. Lansing, Michigan:Vocational-Technical Education Service, 1978.

________ . Secondary Funding Policy for Fiscal Year 1978-79- Lansing,Michigan: Vocational-Technical Education Service, 1978.

________ . 1977-78 Summary of Expenditure Data for Michigan PublicSchools, Bulletin 1013. Lansing, Michigan: Department Services,1978.

Molnar, Daniel E., and Pesut, Robert. Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Selected Vocational Programs with Cooperative Components Versus In-School Vocational Programs. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle MemorialInstitute, 1975.

Nugent, Robert Martin. "A Comparison of Actual Costs of Operating Reimbursable Secondary Vocational Education Programs with the Amount Received Under the 'Added Cost Concept' in Oakland County, Michigan." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1977.

The Ohio State Department of Education. Program Review for Improvement. Development, and Expansion in Vocational Education and Guidance. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State Department ofEducation, 1974.

Sheldon, Richard V. "What Do You Say to the Naked Taxpayer?" American Vocational Journal. Vol. 51, No. 7. (October, 1976): 46-48.

Sparks, Douglas. A Synthesis of Research Findings Which Describe Selected Benefits and Outcomes for Participants in Vocational Education. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Occupational and AdultEducation, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, October, 1977.

Swanson, Austin D. A Study of the Costs. Benefits, and Effectiveness of Occupational Education. Buffalo, New York: Faculty ofEducational Studies, State University of New York, 1976.

154

U.S. Office of Education. Financial Accounting; Classifications and Standard Terminology for Local and State School Systems. Handbook II, Revised. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1973.

Voelkner, Alvin R. "Analyzing the Costs of Vocational Education." School Shop. (October, 1972): 62-63.

Voelkner, Alvin R., and Ollis, T. Harvey. "The Economic Evaluation of Vocational Education." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education. (Winter, 1973): 55-60.

Wentling, Tim L., and Lawson, Tom E. Evaluating Occupational Education and Training Programs. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon,Inc., 1975.

Wilson, James A., and Wihry, David F. Investment Planning inVocational-Technical Education. A Pilot Study, Orono, Maine: Maine University, 1971.

Date post:	10-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

INFORMATION TO USERS · INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us...

Documents