Statement of the Problem: The central problem of this study was to identify training sponsor perceptions regarding the coordination phase of secondary cooperative-plan distributive education. Specifically, training sponsors from four United States Office of Education codes and classifications for secondary cooperative-plan distributive education programs in Roanoke City and County, Virginia, were interviewed. The purpose of each interview was to identify perceptions regarding objectives, training sponsor roles, training agreements, training plans, training sponsor benefits, and recommendations for improvement of the coordination phase of program operation. Research Procedures: The case study form of descriptive research was used. Twenty training sponsors were randomly selected to participate in the case study. The researcher served as the interviewer for semistructured interviews utilizing open-ended questions on an interview guide. Respondents’ answers, comments, and recommendations were recorded on audio tape during each interview and then transcribed. An interview validation summary which contained a summary of each interview was developed and mailed to each participant. Telephone interviews were conducted to validate the interview summaries. Interview transcripts served as the source material for the content analysis portion of the study. The theme was the unit of analysis selected, and a frequency count of themes was the system of enumeration used to measure the characteristics of the content. Every theme representing a different perception was coded as one category for which a frequency count was indicated. Accuracy of transcripts and content analysis was measured by three experienced teacher-coordinators for cooperative-plan distributive education. Conclusions and Recommendations: 1. Distributive education training sponsors in Roanoke City and County, Virginia, perceived the current use of the training agreement as adequate for quality control in the coordination phase of cooperative-plan distributive education program operation. It was recommended that steps be taken to insure student compliance with the provisions of the training agreement and that the provisions of the training agreement be honored by all parties and enforced by the teacher-coordinator. 2. The majority of distributive education training sponsors in Roanoke City and County, Virginia were not involved in the joint development of training plans, but perceived the training plan as having potential to improve the performance of students, teacher-coordinators, and training sponsors. It was recommended that training sessions be conducted to instruct teacher-coordinators in the use of the training plan concept. Emphasis should be placed on how training plans achieve quality control in the operation of cooperative-plan distributive education programs, how to develop a training plan, and how to promote the use of training plans with training sponsors. Teacher-coordinators should initiate the use of training plans with all cooperative distributive education training sponsors in Roanoke City and County, Virginia. 3. It was recommended that distributive education teacher-coordinators in Roanoke City and County, Virginia, assume the role of career counselor and assist with screening of students who apply for enrollment in distributive education. This would facilitate the enrollment of students with a genuine career interest in cooperative-plan distributive education. 4. It was recommended that distributive education teacher-coordinators in Roanoke City and County, Virginia, schedule appointments, and make more frequent coordination visits. At least twice a month was suggested as most desirable with one visit a month as a minimum of coordination visits. 5. The majority of recommendations for improvement of the coordination phase of program operation in Roanoke City and County, Virginia, were proposals that would be acted on by distributive education teacher-coordinators and would not require additional financial resources. / Ed. D.