HD29 - Evaluating the Public School and Commercial Driver Education Programs

  • Published: 1987
  • Author: Board of Education
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 135 (Regular Session, 1986)

Executive Summary:
INTRODUCTION

Driver education is one of the most evaluated areas of secondary education. Numerous studies have been carried out to determine the effectiveness of these programs in promoting traffic safety. Over the years, studies have been made of various aspects of the program, including variations in curricula, educational settings, student characteristics, and the safety performance of students across time.

During 1979-1980, the Driver Education Service of the Department of Education (DOE) contacted the Highway Division and requested funding for a cooperative study of the effectiveness of the driver education program. The Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council (VHTRC) received federal grants in 1980 and 1981 to conduct the first phase of the study. The major objectives of this first phase were to design, test, and implement a computerized student performance reporting system for use in evaluating the state's driver education program. The novel feature of this new system was to tie together the 260-plus conviction categories with instructional elements in the curriculum. The results of these efforts were given in the report entitled "A Performance Report for Use in Driver Education Evaluation."

The 1982 session of the Virginia General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution (HJR) #80 requesting that the DOE study driver education programs in Virginia. HJR #32 (1983 session) and HJR #28 (1984 session) continued this charge to study state programs. Because a performance reporting system had already been developed, the basis for a quick and efficient response to the General Assembly's request was available. The VTHRC was again contacted and asked to analyze the data obtained as a result of its previous work and to prepare a report detailing the results for use by the DOE and the General Assembly.

The second phase of this longitudinal study was to analyze educational programs by program type (traditional classroom and in-car instruction, use of simulators, use of multiple-car driving ranges, and combinations of all 4 elements), type of school attended (public, nonpublic, and commercial), and years of driving experience (less than 1 year, 1 to 2 years, and 2 to 3 years). The results of these efforts were presented in the report entitled "Driver Education in Virginia: An Analysis of Performance Report Data."

Subsequent to the publication of this second report, the 1986 session of the General Assembly passed HJR #135, which cited a number of the report findings. The resolution requested that the Board of Education (1) evaluate the driver education program at all public and commercial schools in the state to determine how they might be made more proficient and effective, (2) review the 3- and 4-phase instructional programs and make recommendations for their continuation, and (3) study the present requirements for the approval of commercial school driver education teachers and determine whether modifications were necessary.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this document is to present the DOE's response to the three charges contained in HJR #135.

RESPONSES

For the 1984-85 school year, 69 commercial schools were in operation throughout the state. Also, 288 public secondary schools in 139 school divisions were conducting a state-approved driver education program. Of the 288 public schools, 148 had the traditional classroom and on-street program for instructing novice drivers, 11 had a program in which simulators were used in addition to the traditional instruction, 116 used off-street, multiple-car driving ranges in addition to classroom and on-street instruction, and 13 combined classroom, simulators, range, and on-street training into a 4-phase curriculum package. In light of the number of schools and programs in operation throughout the state and the time limitations imposed by the language of the resolution, the DOE took an overall look at the issues rather than attempt to analyze each and every program taught throughout the state. The responses are presented below under two headings: Commercial vs. Public School Programs and 2-Phase vs. 3- and 4-Phase Programs.

Commercial vs. Public School Programs

The data in Figures 1-18 and Tables 1-3 contained in the report "Driver Education in Virginia: An Analysis of Performance Report Data," published by the VHTRC in January 1986, form the basis for this section of the response to HJR #135. These data indicate that the crash and conviction records of students who had had their driver education instruction in a commercial school had substantially different driving records than did those who had been instructed in the public schools.

Figures 10 and 14 in the report summarize the conviction data contained in Figures 7-9 and 11-13. These figures show the number of convictions for each 1-year period of driving experience. The data are also arrayed for male and female students and for the type of school attended. It is readily apparent from the data that the conviction records of commercial school students were significantly worse than those for students instructed in the public schools. For example, in a 1-year period, when drivers had between 2 and 3 years of operator experience (generally comparable to persons 18 to 19 years old) male drivers who had received their instruction in a commercial school had 71.3 (1983-84 school year data) convictions per 100 trained drivers as compared to 50.7 convictions per 100 male drivers who had received their instruction in a public school. The conviction records for the other two levels of driving experience for males and the conviction records for all three driving experience levels for females indicate the same unfavorable direction for the drivers who had received their instruction in a commercial school. In addition, the 1982-83 school year data followed the same patterns as those for the 1983-84 school year cited here. It should also be noted that the rate of convictions rose as the years of experience increased (see Figures 15 and 16 in the report).

The data in table 1 of the report are a further indication of the extreme divergence in the conviction records of public and commercial school students. Data from all three experience levels for the 1982-83 and the 1983-84 school years are combined and an average number of convictions is computed. Each average is rounded to the closest whole number. The combined average number of convictions for males who had attended a commercial school was 191 (188.5 and 194.0) per 100 drivers, and that for females was 69 (68.5 and 69.7) per 100 drivers. The comparable conviction total for males who had attended a public school was 115 (111.8 and 118.8) per 100 drivers and that for females was 40 (38.0 and 42.4) per 100 drivers. The combined average number of convictions for male commercial school students was 66.1% higher than that for public school students, and the combined average number of convictions for female commercial school students was 72.5% higher. It should also be pointed out that the year-to-year and 3-year cumulative convictions per 100 drivers for students who had been instructed in the public schools and those from nonpublic schools were very similar.

Public and commercial school crash data are contained in Figures 1-6, 17, and 18, and in Table 3 of the cited report. For each set of school year data categorized by operator experience and sex of driver, students who had successfully completed a commercial school program had a greater number of crashes per 100 drivers than did those who had successfully completed their instruction in a public school. For example, for male drivers with 2 to 3 years of operator experience, commercial school students had 16.1 (1983-84 school year data) crashes per 100 drivers while public school students had 11.9. One important difference in the conviction and crash trends is that crashes peaked at the 1-to-2-year experience level.

The data in Table 3 of the VHTRC report show that the combined average number of crashes for males who had attended a commercial school was 45 (42.9 and 47.4) per 100 drivers, while that for males who had attended public school was 30 (29.1 and 31.5) per 100 drivers. (As with the conviction data, the averages are rounded to the nearest whole number.) The comparable figure for female commercial school students was 30 (29.3 and 31.2) crashes per 100 drivers and that for female public school students was 20 (18.7 and 21.1) crashes per 100 drivers. The combined average number of crashes for both males and females who had successfully completed their instruction in a commercial school was 50% higher than that for students who had completed their instruction in a public school. As was found with the conviction data, the numbers of crashes per 100 drivers from the public and nonpublic schools were very similar.

As shown in the above analysis of the crash and conviction records, students who had successfully completed their driving instruction in a commercial school had significantly worse driving records than did those instructed in the public and nonpublic schools. In light of these factors, it is the judgment of the DOE Driver Education staff that commercial school instructors should be required to complete additional college course work in the skills, methods, and procedures of instructing students. In addition, each commercial school in the state should critically analyze the performance report of its school provided by the DOE. By performing this analysis, a school can determine the areas of instruction and student performance (for example, speeding convictions) that fall below the state average for its type of school, below the state average for all students, and below what is expected of a good instructional program in driver education.

It is also recognized that the crash and conviction records of public school students are not as good as they should be or could be. For this reason, it is also recommended that all public school driver education teachers enroll in additional course work in the skills, methods, and procedures of instructing students. It is further recommended that each division superintendent have both the division level and the individual school Performance Report analyzed in an effort to improve the local instructional program in driver education.

2-Phase vs. 3- and 4-Phase Programs

In the above cited report analyzing Performance Report data, Figures 19-24 contain conviction data and Figures 25-30 contain crash data categorized according to the four instructional programs taught in the state. One of the general conclusions reached by the authors of that report was that students who had been instructed in a 2-phase program had experienced fewer convictions per 100 drivers than had students who had been instructed in the other types of programs. The number of crashes per 100 drivers for students instructed in each of the educational settings was too variable for a general conclusion to be reached as to which type of program was most effective as a crash reduction countermeasure.

Table 1 of this present report has been prepared, using the 1983-84 school year data, to show the variations in program effectiveness as reflected in crashes and convictions per 100 drivers. The table includes data for male and female students for each operator experience level. It also tabulates the results of the statewide public school average for all schools combined and for the average performance of those instructed in a 2-phase curriculum. Data are also presented from a sample school that used a simulator, a multiple-car range, and the 4-phase curriculum. The data indicate that the crash and conviction performance of some students who had successfully completed their instruction in one of the expanded programs was better than that for both the statewide and 2-phase average in at least one instance.

In addition to the data contained in the table, there are a number of instructional, enforcement, and sociological factors that must be accounted for on a local level prior to making final determinations on the effectiveness of crash and conviction countermeasures. Among these factors are those associated with the strictness of the enforcement of traffic laws by the local police or sheriff's department; the general driving habits within the whole community as influenced by the customs and patterns of the local inhabitants; and the training, attitude, and ability of the instructional staff.

The DOE agrees that the aggregated statewide data in the VHTRC report analyzing the performance of students show that students who had successfully completed the 2-phase instructional program to learn to drive had had a significantly better conviction record that had those whose instructional program included the use of a simulator, a range, or both. It has also been shown (see Table) that there are individual schools that use one or both of the supplemental instructional techniques that also have a superior conviction or crash record when compared to the statewide or 2-phase average.

In light of these factors, the determination of whether to offer a course of instruction that includes the use of a simulator, a multiple-car range, or a combination of the two techniques should be left to the judgment of local school officials. And finally, because 133 schools have range facilities already in place and paid for, it does not seem to be appropriate at this time for the DOE to suggest that these schools use alternative methods of instruction. This same line of reasoning might also apply to the 25 schools that use a simulator in their instructional programs. The local school officials, using data available to them from the Driver Education staff of the DOE, are in the best position to judge whether simulators or ranges should be used in their instructional programs.

It is further recognized that if local officials fail to evaluate their driver education programs, it may be necessary, at some future time, for the state to carry out evaluations of individual programs and make recommendations for the continuation or elimination of simulators or ranges in the state approved driver education program.