a survey of university of pittsburgh child development and child care graduates, 1970–1984

A Survey o f Un ivers i ty o f P i t t s b u r g h Chi ld D e v e l o p m e n t and Chi ld Care G r a d u a t e s , 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 8 4

Carl N. Johnson, Martha A. Mattingly, and Mark E. King Uni~rs i t y of Pittsburgh

ABSTRACT.- Baccalaureate and master's graduates of the University of Pittsburgh Program in Child Development and Child Care from 1970= 1984 were surveyed on employment history, conditions of current employment, professional development, and evaluation of the Child Development and Child Care Program. The prototypical program graduate was pleased with training, committed to working in the field, and professionally active. Comparisons are made between B.S. and M.S. graduates, early graduates and later graduates, and M.S. program graduates and B.S. graduates with master 's degrees in other fields. Master's graduates were distinguished by higher salaries and greater professional activity. The findings demonstrate tha t university-based professional education for child and youth care practice can be suc- cessful along the dimensions considered in this survey.

In the last few decades the movement toward the professionalization of child and youth care work has made marked progress. A central concern in this movement has been the educational preparation of practitioners (Almy, 1981; Association for the Care of Children's Health, 1979; Austin, 1981; Beker & Maier, 1981; Mattingly, 1981; Peters, 1981; Vander Ven & Mattingly, 1981; Vander Ven & Tittnich, 1986). Various professional degrees are now offered through programs in a number of colleges and universities (Vander Ven, K. 1976; Vander Ven & Thompson, 1986).

These programs represent a variety of practice models such as child life, child mental health specialist, the developmental model, early childhood education, educateur, special education, and re-education. They also represent a variety of perspectives on the scope of the field and the degree of specialization (Vander Ven, in press). In addition to these wide ranging differences, there have been major efforts to describe commonalities (see

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Martha A. Mattingly, Program in Child Development and Child Care, School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, 1717 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. The assistance of Jill Castle, Linda Cinque, Jan Frank, Sandy Kaschalk, Jane Pampena, Rhonda Parker, and Patricia Rupert in the collection of the data is acknowledged.

Child & Youth Care Quarterly, 17(1), Spring 1988 36 ®1988 Human S~.iou:~ Pm~s

Carl N. Johnson, Martha A. Mattingly and Mark E. King 37

Principh~s and Guidelines for Child Care Personnel Preparation Pro- grams, 1982; Early Childhood Teacher Education Guidelines, 1982).

Professional educat ion has been regarded a crucial vehicle for the development and main tenance of a ma tu r e and stable cadre of professional pract i t ioners. A bacca laurea te degree with substantial field specific con ten t provides a professional foundat ion (Austin, 1981; Mattingly, 1981; Vander Ven & Mattingly, 1981). More advanced degrees are also required to facilitate clinical specialization as well as advances in the organization, education, and knowledge base of the field (supervision, administrat ion, consultation, teaching, research, and writing).

The emergence and growth of professional educat ion in child care has seemed like a good idea. But has it in fact been a success? There is almost no documenta t ion of wha t happens to graduates of professional child care programs over their professional careers. Although there are anecdotes, generally impressions, occasional unpublished repor ts and repor ts circu- lated professionally, (Mattingly, 1975; Denholm, Pence & Ferguson, 1983), there has been no comprehens ive published research. Success may be d e m o n s t r a t e d in two general ways. First, if educat ional efforts are to be of any use to the professions, then graduates mus t en ter and remain in the profession, contr ibut ing to the "mature and stable cadre of professional practit ioners." We need to know whe the r s tudents are finding employment in the field, whe the r they are staying in the field, whe the r their salaries are adequa te to mainta in them, whe the r t heyva lue their professional education, and whe the r they personal ly contr ibute to the activities of the profession. The second measure of success is whe the r professional educat ion has in fact improved professional competencies: To wha t extent are educa ted professionals t ru ly educated, and how is this evident in improved prac- tices. The present research addresses the first measure of success.

The present s tudy consists of a survey of a sizable sample of baccalaureate and masters graduates f rom the Child Development and Child Care Program at the University of Pittsburgh, who received their degrees over a b road t ime per iod (1970-1984). These da ta provide insight into the compara t ive career pa t te rns of those with different levels of educat ional preparat ion, entering the field in different t ime periods.

M e t h o d

Subjects

All subjects in the surveywere graduates of either the B.S. or M.S. programs in the Child Development and Child Care Program at the University of Pittsburgh. The program, which provides a good representation of Child Care Education nation- ally, has been a pioneer in the development of curriculum objectives, with long-

38 Child & Youth Care Quarterly

standing degree programs at both the baccalaureate and masters levels. At the baccalaureate level, education is broad-based, aimed at providing a foundation of knowledge, skills and practical experience relevant for working in the full range of child care settings. Course work covem development of children, both normal and special needs, from infancy to adulthood. Special attention is given to the ecological context in which children live and develop, linked with education about clinical/ programming tools which may affect this context to better foster development. Basic course work is combined with ongoing supervised practical experience. The masters program bolsters these foundations as well as providing the opportunity for more advanced specialization in relevant areas such as clinical work, administration, supervision, teaching and research.

Lists of B.S. and M.S. graduates from 1970 through 1984 were obtained from the University ofl~ttsburgh Alumni Affairs Office. These listed 127 M.S. graduates and 345 B.S. graduates. Of these 81 (64%) of the M.S. graduates and 122 (35%) of the B.S. graduates were surveyed. These samples were determined simply by contactability for the phone interview. Exclusion from the sample was based on failures to contact an individual after three attempts on three different days. This criteria for sample selection was made on pragmatic grounds and is not ideal. We have no way of determining whether this selection procedure significantly biased the sample.

The Interview Schedule

The interview schedule (see Appendix) was developed by Program faculty. Items one through seven elicited infomation from allinterviewees regarding job history, current employment status, long term employment plans, an evaluation of the Program, and completed or anticipated further education. Items eight through 15 were administered only to those currently employed in the human service field and dealt with aspects of employment including current position, job characteristics, types of clients, age groups, settings, working conditions (full or part time), salary and salary satisfaction and the relative ease of obtaining employment.

Questions were forced choice to facilitate data analysis with the exception of decriptions of employment. Likert judgment scales were employed for the evalu- ative questions regarding the perceived value of the educational program, ease of employment and salary satisfaction.

Procedure

All subjects were interviewed by telephone. Previous experience discouraged us from mailed questionnaires because of the typically tow return rate. The advantage of a higher response rate using the telephone was seen to outweigh the disadvan- tage of a lack of anonymity.

Seven senior students in Child Development and Child Care who were partici- pating in a senior requirement of a professional project selected participation in this telephone survey. They engaged in a four hour training session in data collection procedures conducted by two faculty members. After this instruction the student data collectors practiced by interviewing each other. Finally they demon- strated proficiency by interviewing one of the supervising faculty members.

The total list of program graduates was divided evenly among the seven data collectors. All interviews were conducted by telephone from the Program offices with faculty supervision.

Carl N. Johnson, Martha .~ Mattingly and Mark E. King 39

Results

For purposes of comparison, results of the B.S. and M.S. were tallied separately. Because of occasional missing data (due to subjects who chose not to respond, uninterpretable responses, or occasional failures to ask or record data), the full sample size for any one question ranged from 101 to 122 for B.S. graduates and 65 to 81 for M.S. graduates. However, because 21% of the B.S. sample and ten percent of the M.S. sample had gone on to obtain higher degrees from other programs, these subjects were excluded in response categories where inclusion would misrepresent the actual working conditions of graduates at different degree levels. Cases where the samples were reduced (R) in this manner are designated in Tables 1 and 2. Statistical analysis consisted of chi-square tests, corrected for continuity, and two-sample t-tests, with pooled variances.

Table 1 describes the percentage of responses of both B.S. and M.S. graduates to survey items of employment history, professional development, characteristics of occupation and salary. Table 2 describes the responses of both M.S. and B.S. graduates on the questions which employed Likert judgment scales, ~e., program evaluation, salary satisfaction, and ease of employment.

Three sets of statistical comparision will be described. First, there are comparisions between the B.S. and M.S. graduates, along dimensions of employment history, professional development, characteristics of occupation, salaries and salary satisfaction, ease of employment and program evaluation. Second, early graduates (1972-77) were compared with later graduates (1978-83), separately for each degree level, on questions about employment history, professional development, full time employment and salary level Finally, comparisons were made between graduates of the M.S. program in Child Development and Child Care and B.S. graduates who had gone on to obtain advanced degrees in related fields.

Comparisions Betu~en the B.S. and M.S. Program Graduates

The responses of B.S. versus M.S. graduates, described in Table 1, were remarkably consistent with a few notable differences. In the category of Employment History, there were no significant differences between B.S. and M.S. graduates on any of the questions, although there was a tendency for B.S. graduates to be less committed to long term employment in the field, p ~ .10.

With respect to Current Conditions of employment, B.S. and M.S. graduates were typically employed in the human service field, and equally distributed geographically. Somewhat suprisingly, the M.S. graduates were significantly/ess often employed full time (p ~ .005).


T a b l e 1

A C o m p a r i s o n o f B a c c a l a u r e a t e ( B . S . ) a n d

M a s t e r s ( M . S . ) G r a d u a t e s o n C o n d i t o n s o f W o r k

Condition %B.S. %M.S. chi z p <

Employment History (F 1)

Time to first position: • .NS Employed within 1 year 87 76 Employed within the field 93 97

Longterm plans: 3.29 .10 Longterm in the field 59 73 Moderate (up to 10 years) 27 19 No plans in the field 14 8

Current Conditions:

Position: Human Services (HS) field 66 72 Other field 9 9 Not seeldng employment 20 14 Seeking employment 5 6

Geographical location: City 53 45 In state 20 20 Out of state 27 35

Employment status: Full time 92 71 Part time 8 26

• ,NS

• .NS

8.11 .005

Occupational Focus:

Type of work: Direct care 70 64 • NS Administration/Supervision 31 37 • NS Teaching 28 34 • NS

Client group: Normal children 55 47 • NS Special needs --MR/LD 22 24 • NS --ED 25 37 • NS --Handicapped/injured 22 18 • NS --Dependent/neglected 12 14 • NS --Delinquent 6 10 • NS --Any special needs 40 51 • NS Parents and families 18 26 • NS

Ages of clients Infancy 30 28 • NS Early childhood 48 51 • NS School age 28 37 • NS Adolescence 21 45 6.54 .025 Adults 34 35 • NS

Salary (R) l 26.09 .001

Under $20,000/year 83 32 Over $20,000/year 17 68


%B.S. %M.S. Ocvupational Focus (cont.) chi z p <

Professional Development (F) 1 Professional activities

Membership in organization 50 76 12.45 .001 Officer/leader in organization 9 26 9.34 .005 Publications or presentations 23 59 24.92 .001

Professional education Graduate course work 39 Obtained graduate degree 21 10 • NS Continuing education 55 56 • NS

(F) designates the full samples of BS/MS graduates. (R) designates use of the reduced samples, excluding graduates who went on to obtain

higher degrees.

The O c c u p a t i o n a l Focus of g radua te s was general ly quite similar. Al though one might expec t M.S. g r adua t e s to be less involved in direct w o r k wi th children, wi th a g rea te r focus on adminis t ra t ion /superv is ion , teaching, and parents / famil ies , differences between the M.S. and B.S. g r adua t e s in these a reas did not even a p p r o a c h stat ist ical significance. Only one difference s tands out: M.S. s tuden ts worked more often with adolescent clients (p < .025).

T h e s a l a r i e s of B.S. and M.S. g radua tes were significantly different. All salaries were ca lcula ted on a full t ime basis. The $20,000 level a p p e a r e d to be the dividing point, wi th the major i ty of B.S. g radua te s being below this level and M.S. g radua te s being a t or above this level, p < .001. Figure 1 provides a more detailed p ic ture of the sa lary distr ibutions for B.S. and M.S. graduates . I t is c lear f rom this g raph tha t the highest p ropor t ion of B.S. g radua tes are at the $12,000 to $15,999 level, whereas the highest p ropo r t i ons of M.S. g r adua t e s lie be tween $20,000 and $30,000. Al though M.S. g radua tes also r epo r t ed s o m e w h a t more sa la ry sat isfaction and ease of employment , these differences did not a p p r o a c h stat ist ical significance. I t is notable, however, t ha t on the whole, g radua tes a t both levels leaned slightly t o w a r d dissatisfaction with salaries, bu t did not ra te obtaining emp loymen t as compara t ive ly difficult. (See Table 2).

Significant con t ras t s be tween the degree levels occur red in the a rea of P r o f e s s i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t , specifically wi th respec t to professional activities. M.S. g r adua t e s were significantly more often m e m b e r s of profess ional organizations, p < .001, officers or leaders in such organizations, p < .005, and p roduce r s of professional publ icat ions a n d / o r presentat ions, p < .001.

The p r o g r a m was eva lua ted highly by bo th B.S. and M.S. graduates . Nevertheless, M.S. g radua te s consis tent ly eva lua ted the p r o g r a m more positively t h a n B.S. graduates . Differences on the P rogram Evaluat ion quest ions were significant ( two-tailed, p < .05) on all bu t one item. Gradu- a tes a t bo th levels consis tent ly denied t h a t it would have been be t t e r to major in a different p rogram.

FIG

UR

E 1

P

ER

CE

NT

AG

E O

F B

S A

ND

MS

GR

AD

UA

TE

S A

T S

AL

AR

Y L

EV

EI~

40

35

30

25

20

15

10 5

SAL

AR

Y L

EV

EI~

Ly

B

ASI

S

138

6,00

0 6-

9-

12

- 16

- 20

- 24

- :>

30,

000

8,9

99

1

1,9

99

1

5,9

99

1

9,9

99

2

3,9

99

29

,999

Carl N. Johnson, Martha ~ Mattingly and Mark E. ~ g 43

Table 2

M e a n R e s p o n s e s o f B.S. a n d M.S. G r a d u a t e s o n Program Evaluat ion , Salary S a t i s f a c t i o n and E a s e o f E m p l o y m e n t

Condition %B.S. %M.S. t p

Program Evaluation 1 (F) Useful in current, job 1.44 1.17 2.46 .02 Useful in personal life 1.52 1.31 2.23 .05 Recommend to others 1.57 1.36 2.05 .05 Better to major in other field 2.55 3.11 3.87 .001 Better to major in other program 3.39 3.55 0 N.S.

Salary Satisfaction2(R) 2.66 2.40 0 NS Ease of Employment3(R) 2.86 3.18 0 NS

1 Scale ranged from 1 = yes, very definitely to 4 = no, very definitely not. 2 Scale ranged from 1 = very satisfied to 4 = very dissatisfied. 3 Scale ranged from 1 = comparatively much more difficult to 5 = comparatively much less

difficult.

Comparisons Between the 1972-1977and 1978-1983Program Graduates

In addit ion to a compar ison of B.S. and M.S. graduates, differences between 1972-1977 graduates and 1978-1983 graduates were examined. Compar isons were made separately for B.S. and M.S. graduates on questions about employment history, professional development, full t ime em- p loyment and salary level. In general, date of graduat ion had virtually no effect. This was part icularly t rue of B.S. graduates. For this group, only differences in salary level app roached statistical significances: whereas 49% of early B.S. g radua te s were making $16,000 or more per year only 23% of the recent g radua tes were in these higher income levels, X2(1) = 3.57, p ~ .10. For the M.S. graduates, differences between income levels were significant: whereas 84% of the early graduates were making $20,000 or more per year, only 47% of the later graduates were at these income levels, X2(1) = 5.10, p ~ .025. It is notable, however, t ha t only 59% of the ear ly M.S. g radua tes were employed full time, as c o m p a r e d to 87% of the more recent g radua tes X2(1) = 3.73, p ( 10. Thus, the lower level of full t ime employment of M.S. as compared to B.S. graduates, noted above, was due primari ly to the comparat ively low ra te of full t ime employment of the earlier M.S. graduates . Two o ther t rends among the M.S. graduates were notable, a l though not statistically significant. Early M.S. graduates were more likely than later M.S. g radua tes to be working out of s tate (44% of early g radua tes versus 27% of recent graduates) ; they were less likely to have long te rm plans to remain in the field (64% vs. 84%).


Comparisons Betwevn Child Development and Child Care M.S. Graduates and B.S. Child Development and Child Care Graduates with Masters Degrees From Other Programs.

Because 25 of the B.S. graduates surveyed had gone on to get M.S. degrees in other human service programs, comparisons were made b e t w e e n M.S. graduates from The University of Pittsburgh Child Devel- opment and Child Care Program and these masters graduates from other programs. Such comparisons showed notable differences in two areas. First, the masters graduates from other programs exhibited con- siderably less prominence in professional activities. Only two of these graduates, eight percent of the sample (vs. 26% of Program M.S. graduates) had been officers or leaders in professional organizations, and only 28% (vs. 59%) had published or presented professionallF, respectively, X~(1) = 3.10, p ~ .10; X~(1) = 5.18, p ~ .025. Even more startling were the differences in salary. Whereas 84% of Program M.S. graduates had salaries at or above the 16 to $20,000.00 range, none of the graduates from other programs reported salaries this high, X2(1) = 35.32, p ~ .0001.

D i s c u s s i o n

The results will be summarized and discussed under the main headings of the surveF, employment history, characteristics of occupation, salaries, professional development, and evaluation of training.

Employment History

Are graduates making use of their education, obtaining employment and remaining employed in the human service field? According to the present results, the answer is generally yes. The overwhelming majority of graduates surveyed became employed and continued to be employed in t h e human service field. Nearly all the graduates surveyed reported obtaining some employment in the field; the great majority were so employed at the time of the survey;, the same majority expressed long term commit- ment to continued employment in the field. Graduates also rated the ease of obtaining employment as comparable to that of other fields. There were no significant differences in these measures with respect to either degree level or time of graduation.

Characteristics of Occupation

Graduates of the Program appear to make good use of their generic training, being employed in the full range of service settings. The client


focus of the Program graduates was well distributed between normal and special needs populations, and between age groups from infancy through adulthood. The fact that 35% of graduates also report worldng with adults suggests that training in child and youth care cannot be isolated from a broader life-span perspective.

There were few differences in the job characteristics of baccalaureate versus masters graduates. We were quite surprised to fred that masters graduates continued to be so highly involved in direct work with clients, with no significantly greater role in administrative, supervisory and teaching activities. Apparently the career ladder for many graduates remains in direct clinicalwork. This finding does not appear due to limited opportuni- ties for more indirect work. In our experience there has been no dearth of job requests for such positions, which are regularly advertised through the Program and for which Program graduates are often specifically re- quested. A more likely explanation comes from the finding that a dispro- portionate number of master's graduates, principally early graduates, were currently employed part time. It seems likely that par t time employment is more compatible with direct clinical work. In turn, this par t time status seems to be due to women graduates who end up juggling career with family. It is relevant to note that our graduates, both baccalaureate and masters, are disproportionately women.

Masters graduates were more often involved in work with adolescent populations than were baccalaureate graduates. This finding is intriguing. It may reflect the age and sex of our undergraduates, most of whom are young women, ages 19 to 22. Many of these students do express hesitation about worldng with adolescents.

Salary

Against the dire impressions sometimes fostered in the field, the present salary figures should come as something of a relief. Even the salary satisfaction judgments were remarkable. Given that nearly everyone believes they should be making more money, judgments on this scale centered right around the mean between the extremes of very satisfied versus very dissatisfied.

How do the present salay levels compare with other reported levels? While caution should be exercised in making such comparisons (salary data being sensitive to differences in data collection, timing, geography and conditions of employment), they are nonetheless suggestive. The median salary for baccalaureate graduates in the present s tudywas in the 12 to $16,000 bracket. This compares favorably to the median annual salaries reported by the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) for voluntary agencies in the following categories: child care worker, $12,500; day care teacher with bachelor's degree, $11,000; and residential institu-


tion teacher with bachelor's degree, $14,500 (Botsko & Jones, 1985). The salaries are also comparable to a survey of 1980-84 baccalaureate social work graduates of the University of Pittsburgh reporting a median salary of $15,100 for those in social work positions (Yamatani, 1986).

At the masters level median salaries centered in the 20 to $24,000 bracket. This compares favorably with the median salary reported by CWLA for voluntary agencies in the following categories: day care teachers with graduate training, $14,500; and residential institution teachers with graduate training, $15,500 (Botsko & Jones, 1985). For social work MSW graduates in the above s tudy the median figure was $20,106 (Yamatani, 1986).

Professional Activities

It is encouraging to fred that sizable percentages of graduates are involved in the professional life of the field. Even at the baccalaureate level, fifty percent of graduates were members of a professional organization. It was the master's graduates, however, who stood out in the area of professional activities, showing significantly higher rates of officer/leader roles, as well as higher rates of professional membership and publications or presentations. This finding argues strongly from the importance of graduate training for the development of the field.

Program Evaluation

Did graduates of the Program fmd their education to be useful to their professional and personal lives? Would they recommend such training to others? Do they believe they made the right choice in choosing the training they did? Graduates answered all these questions positively. Such results show remarkable little disillusionment. They do not look back feeling they made the wrong decision in their choice of training. We believe this reflects not only quality education, but perhaps more importantly, realistic education. On leaving our Program, students know what to expect.

While ratings were positive overall, M.S. evaluations were significantly more positive than B.S. evaluations. This difference seems likely to reflect the fact that M.S. students enter the Program with a clearer idea of their educational and professional needs and goals.

Conclusion

The present study was initiated to fmd out whether graduates of a professional child/youth care program were making good use of the professional training they received. The results were positive. The prototypical


graduate is pleased with training, committed to worldng in the field and contributing to the life of the profession. The graduates we interviewed remained generally positive in outlook. Even their evaluations of salary satisfaction and ease of employment were not generally negative. While these findings are encouraging they should be viewed with caution. Further studies are needed, comparing students in other training programs and ensuring a representative, random sample. The present study is limited by a possible selection bias, related to contactability. In the future, we propose to encourage comparable follow-ups across several training programs, placing greater emphasis on obtaining high rates of contact in randomly selected samples.

References

Almy, M. (1981). Education and training for day care: Implications for child care education. Child Care Quarterly, 10(3), 226-241.

Association for the Care of Children's Health. (1979). Child lifeStudy section position paper. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Austin, D. (1981 ). Formal educational preparation: The structural prerequisite to the professional status of the child care worker. Child Care Quarterly, 10(3), 250-260.

Beker, J., & Maier, H. W. (1981). Emerging issues in child and youth care education: Aplatform for planning~ Child Care Quarterly, 10(3), 200-209.

Botsko, M., & Jones, M. A. (1985). Annual salary study and surt~t of selected personnel issues, 1985. New York, N.Y.: Child Welfare League of America.

Denholm, C. J:, Pence, A. R., & Ferguson, R. V. (Eds.) (1983). From gown to town: Follow-up studies on graduates from the School of Child Care. In C. J. Denholm, & R. Pence, & R. V. Ferguso n. (Eds.). The scope of professional child care in British Columbia, Part I. British Columbia, Canada= University of Victoria, School of Child Care.

Mattingly, M./~ (1981). Child care credentials: What and why. Child Care Quarterly, 11(2), 122-137.

Mattingly, M. A. (1975). Report on the evaluation of the baccalaureate program in child development and child care. In K. V. Vander Ven & M. & Mattingly. The developmental child care model of education: The baccalaureate program in child development and child care. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Department of Child Development and Child Care.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1982). Early childhood teacher education guidelines. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Peters, D. L (1981). Up the down escalator: How to open the door. Child Care Quarterly, 10(3), 261-269.

Principles and guidelines for child care personnel preparat ion programs (1982). Child Care Quarterly, ••(3), 221-224.

Vander Ven, K. (1986). "And you have a ways to go": The current status and emerging issues in training and education for child care practice. Journal of Children in Contemporary Soc/ety, •7(3).

Vander Ven, K. (1976). A compendium of training programs in the child care professions in the United States and Canada_ (Child Care Quarterly, 5(4), 319-329.

Vander Ven, K., & Mattingly, M. A. ( 1981 ). Action agenda for child care education in the 80's: From settings to systems, Child Care Quarterly, 10(3), 279-288.

Vander Ven, K., & Tittnich, E. (Eds.) (1986). Competent caregivers-competent children: Training and education for child care practice. Journal of Children in Contemporary Soc/ety, •7(3).


Vander Ven, K., & Thompson, C. (1986). International d i r ~ : q of training and education programs in child and youth care practice. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh, Program in Child Development and Child Care.

Yamatani, H. (1986). S(~6~al work alumni survey 1985 bachelor's, master's and doctoral programs. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, School of Social Worl¢

A p p e n d i x : Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

Name Interviewer B.S. Date of Graduation Date M.S. Date of Graduation

1. Job history since graduation

1st Position 2. 3. 4. 5. Current

Type of Position and Employer Date Begun/Terminated

2. Current employment status. a) Employed within the last year in the Child Development/Child Care field. b) Employed within the last year outside the Child Development/Child Care field. c) Unemployed, not seeking employment. d) Unemployed, seeking employment in Child Development/Child Care field. e) Unemployed, seeking employment outside the Child Development/Child Care field.

3. What are your long term plans with respect to employment in the Child Development/ Child Care field? a) No plans for employment in the field. b) Plan for intermittent employment in the field. c) Plan for short term employment in the field (5 years or less). d) Plan for medium term employment in the field (6 to 10 years). e) Long term employment (greater than ten years).

4. Please evaluate your education in the Child Development/Child Care Program in the following respects:

Scale: 1 - - Yes, Very Definitely 2 - - Yes, Definitely 3 - - Unsure 4 - - No, Probably Not 5 - - No, Definitely Not

. . . . . . . a) Has your education proved to be useful in your current job/career?

. . . . . . b) Has your education proved to be useful in your personal life'? _ _ c) Would you recommend the program to other interested persons? _ _ d) Do you think that it would have been better to have majored in a different

field? _ . o e) Do you think that it would have been better to have been educated in a

different Child Development/Child Care program?

Comments:

C a r l N . J o h n s o n , M a r t h a A , M a t t i n g l y a n d M a r k E . K i n g 4 9

5. Have you obtained any further education since your graduation?

_ _ a) Continuing Education Type Where

_ _ b) Graduate Education Type Where

6. Do you plan to obtain further education?

_ _ a) Continuing Education Type Where

_ _ b) Graduate Education Type Where

7. Are there any special continuing education courses that you would like to see offered by our program? (what?)

IF INTERVIEWEE HAS BEEN UNEMPLOYED FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR IS EMPLOYED IN A FIELD UNRELATED TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT/CHILD CARE, TERMI- NATE THE INTERVIEW HERE.

8. Briefly describe what you do in your current or recent position.

9. Which of the following responsibilities best characterizes your job? a) Direct work with clients b) Administration/supervision c) Teaching d) Other

10. Which of the following types of clients do you primarily serve? a) Normal children b) Gifted children c) Mentally retarded/learning disabled d) Emotionally disturbed e) Physically handicapped~inj ured f) Dependent/neglected g) Delinquent h) Parents/families i) Other professionals/students j) Other

11. Which of the following age groups do you primarily serve? a) Infants/toddlers (0-2 years) b) Preschool (3-5 years) c) School Age (6-12 years) d) Adolescence (13- 17 years) e) Adults

12. What type of child care setting do you work in? a) Day Care Center b) Preschool c) Group Home d) Pediatric/Hospital Care e) Juvenile Detention Center f) Psychiatric Unit/Hospital g) Outpatient Mental Health Unit h) Private Practice i) Other


13. Working conditions.

Part Time or Full Time? Number of hours/week employed

Monthly Salary: a) ( 500 (gross) b) ~ 500, ( 900

c) ) 900, ( 1300 d) ~ 1300, ( 1700 e) ~ 1700, ( 2100 b) > 2100

14. How do you feel about your salary?. a) Very satisfied b) Satisfied c) Neutral d) Dissatisfied e) Very dissatisfied

15. In comparison to people you know with training in other fields, how would you rate your experience in obtaining and maintaining employment? a) Comparatively much more difficult. b) Comparatively more difficulty. c) About the same as people in other fields. d) Comparatively less difficult. e) Compartively much less difficult.

a survey of university of pittsburgh child development and child care graduates, 1970–1984

Documents