EXHIBIT B.-POPULATION, LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS OF CLEVELAND, 1965 AND 1960

September 22, 1966 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census] [Page 5 of Current Population Reports, Technical Studies, Series P-23 No. 20. TABLE 1.-TOTAL AND NEGRO POPULATION OF CLEVELAND, BY NEIGHBORHOOD, 1965 AND 1960

TABLE 2-TOTAL AND NEGRO LABOR FORCE PARTCIPATION RATE BY SEX, FOR CLEVELAND,

TABLE 3.-TOTAL AND NEGRO UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY SEX, FOR CLEVELAND, BY NEIGHBORHOOD, 1965 AND 15

Mr. CALKINS. Thank you very much.

The four points I would like to mention briefly are these:

First, the National School Boards Association very warmly endorses the main thrust of Senate bill 3099 and the main thrust of the bill which has now been introduced by the American Vocational Association; the bulk of which is to consolidate the programs in vocational education and to eliminate most of the categories which have tended to the proliferation of a multitude of programs.

Second, we endorse warmly the principle embodied in both bills of establishing a new title of exemplary programs and projects dealing primarily with those young people who are not now profiting as much as they should from vocational education.

Third, we would endorse including vocational education in the principle of advanced funding which is now underway with respect to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Fourth, we would urge as soon as available funds permit that the eighth grade limitation which is now found in the legislation dealing with adult basic education be eliminated. It is our experience that adult high schools conducted in many cities, and probably many other school districts, perform a real educational function for the substantial number of people in our population who did not obtain a high school certificate when they were of high school age.

The limitation to the eighth grade, while it does have the effect of concentrating available Federal funds on a group who badly need basic education, also has the effect of eliminating from Federal support a number of daytime high schools conducted in our inner cities which we believe have a very high payout with respect to their contributions toward making people self-supporting.

COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY COUNCILS

Now, there are two matters on which I would like to comment in more detail. The first of them relates to the composition of the State advisory councils. NSBA warmly supports the creation of these councils, but we have two suggestions to make with respect to them which would differ from the legislation which is before you.

First, we would urge that they be given independent funding so that they can have a small staff of their own. There are, as the committee well knows, many different currents of thought in vocational education and substantial differences of opinion with respect to, for example, controversies between those who believe in the comprehensive vocational program and those who believe in the separate school. If the advisory councils do not have independent financing and are dependent upon the State departments of education for staff work, they are likely to reflect the same points of view on these basic questions as the State departments of education. It seems to us that one of their functions is to raise questions and see that other points of view also get presented and considered. For this reason, we think independent funding would be important.

For a similar reason, we would urge that the legislation specifically require that school board members be included on these councils. If there is no such specific requirement, the likelihood is that the representatives of school districts on the council will be members of the administrative staff. And while it is no doubt proper that there should

be included upon a council some representatives of administrative staffs, we believe that the board members can present a different point of view which may again serve the purpose of raising for consideration questions as to whether the prevailing programs in the State may or may not be going down the right channels.

The Senator is acquainted with a number of the members of the Portland Board of Education and I think can well visualize that such representatives on a State advisory council could make a substantial contribution. We would specifically suggest that there be three: one representing a large city, one representing a suburban area, and one representing a rural area, this being approximately the division of schoolchildren in this country.

FUNDING

Now, the problem to which I would like to turn and devote the balance of my remarks is the problem which I think is the most difcult of all of the problems the committee will face. It is the problem that arises out of limitations of funding. I listened this morning with great interest and attention to the testimony from the American Vocational Association representatives and I have had a brief opportunity since it was introduced this morning to scan their bill. There is a great deal in it which the National School Boards Association warmly and enthusiastically supports.

It may interest the committee to know that at the convention of the National School Boards Association in Detroit yesterday, a resolution. was adopted by the delegate assembly of the National School Boards Association to the effect that NSBA urges the Federal Government to increase its contributions to elementary and secondary education and if this should prove necessary to provide the funds for such an increase, NSBA endorses an increase in Federal income tax rates for tat purpose.

It is, I think, of some significance that an organization which as recently as a few years ago was uncertain whether or not Federal a-sistance to education was appropriate has now reached the position of saying not merely is Federal assistance to education appropriate, bur it is of such importance that this organization representing 1150** local school board members throughout the United States is prepare to support an increase in Federal income taxes for that purpose. I am not aware that most other organizations which come to the Congress pleading for funds for cities, for harbors, or for any number of other purposes which to them appear important, have coupled ther request for Federal assistance with a specific commitment that in the event that assistance requires an increase in Federal income tax rate the organization is prepared to support the necessary income tax in

crease.

The reason NSBA is willing to do this is very simple: We are, all of us board members, constantly on the firing line with the local voter and with the State legislature. In recent years, local and State Tax rates, unlike Federal tax rates, have been going dramatically upwards. To the extent the Federal Government does not increase its own tax rates and make Federal income tax funds available for education, local board members are required to raise those funds from the sale tax and even more particularly from the property tax, which we are all aware is an unfair regressive, unsatisfactory form of taxation.

Now, while the NSBA, therefore, would warmly support the kind of I substantial additional appropriation that the ABA is talking about, we recognize, as the Senator said before lunch, that in 1968 and 1969, and perhaps 1970 and so long as the war in Vietnam lasts, it is unlikely that there will be large additional amounts of money available for domestic programs. We regret that; we wish it were contrary. We would support higher taxes to make it contrary. But we believe that in commenting to the Senators and Congressmen with respect to legislation, we must face up to the fact that Congress has the job of trying to squeeze many public purposes within a limited budget.

Yesterday, the Senate approved by a 2 to 1 vote a $6 billion cut in the present budget. A cut of that size seems to us to indicate that it is quite possible that in 1969, there will not be available for vocational education any significant increase over present funding levels. And the question which I would like now to comment upon is what does Congress do in such a situation?

TWO PROBLEMS

As a preface to those comments, I would like to observe that there are not one but two vocational education problems in the United States. They are quite different problems. One is the overall vocational education problem typified in the statistic that tells us that 12 percent of the young people in this country 16 to 19 who are not in school are unemployed. Now, that 12 percent figure is a slightly misleading figure, because it includes a large number of young people who are simply in the process of shifting from one job to another. We know that young people hop from job to job. When the unemployment census takers take a tally at any one time, they count quite a number of young people who simply left one job last week and have not gotten into the job they are going to move into next week. It has been estimated to me by a highly responsible person in the Ohio Employment Service that probably this percentage is about 4 percentage points and that the true unemployment rate among young people in the United States is about 8 percent, or about twice the national unemployment rate. Well, that is a problem of some significance and one which I think substantial additional funds into vocational educationwould help resolve. But I suggest to the committee that it is not a crisis problem. A crisis problem arises in the inner cities and in the poor rural areas where the unemployment rates among young people are staggeringly high.

CRISIS PROBLEM

A few years ago, we conducted a door-to-door survey in the low income areas in Cleveland. We found that between 45 and 65 percent of the young men and women 16 to 21 who were not in school were without a full-time job. Some of them had some kind of a parttime job, but basically, they were unemployed. This figure includes in the employed category those who were in the armed services.

Now, that figure is characteristic of the big cities throughout the country. I will submit as a part of our testimony the specific figures with respect to low income areas in Cleveland and the figures resulting from a Census Bureau survey made a year later in the same

neighborhoods. This problem is the crisis problem. It is this concentration of unemployment in New York and Detroit and Cincin 1 nati and St. Louis and Cleveland and San Francisco and Chicago and every other major city which makes every mayor and every school superintendent nervous about what is going to happen this

summer.

Now, it is a fair question for this committee to ask, to which problem is the present vocational education legislation on the books directed! And the answer to that question is very clear: The present vocational education legislation on the books-Smith-Hughes act, the GeorgeBarden act, and the Vocational Education Act of 1963-taken together are dealing with the first problem and not with the second problem. They are dealing with the overall problem and not the crisis problem. I will illustrate this by figures from Ohio. I do not have figures from other States and perhaps the committee would like to get figures from other States. I am told by superintendents in other States that Ohio's experience is typical.

In 1967, $10,600,000 of vocational education money came to Ohio under these three acts. Of that $10,600,000, $1,069,000 was allocated to Cleveland. That is about 9.5 percent. The Cleveland school district has within its borders 7 percent of all of the children of the State of Ohio, and about 20 percent of all of the unemployed youth in the State of Ohio. The fact of the matter is that the present vocational education money allocated to Ohio is being distributed around the State in proportion roughly to the number of children and not in proportion to the number of unemployed young people.

Senator MORSE. Say that again.

BASIS OF ALLOCATION

Mr. CALKINS. The present vocational education money being allocated to the State of Ohio is being distributed around the State in proportion to the number of children in the State and not in proportion to the number of unemployed youth.

This, as I say, I am quite sure is a condition which is characteristic of most States. If you look at Pennsylvania or New York or Michigan. I think you will find the same thing: vocational educational money provided by the Federal Government is distributed in a kind of veneer over all of the school districts in the State in some kind of reasonable relationship to the number of students they have; it is not being channeled with any recognizable priority to those parts of the State where there is the crisis problem of unemployment.

Now, what should be done about it? The legislation which is before the committee, both the administration bill, S. 3099, and the more recent bill from the AVA, makes some attempt at dealing with this problem. The AVA bill goes somewhat further, substantially further than S. 3099. But both of these bills essentially have the same characteristic; namely, the additional priority given to the places of high unemployment will be applicable only with respect to additional money which may be appropriated over and above present levels. And unfortunately, so long as the crisis in Vietnam continues, it seems likely there will not be very much additional money; therefore, the conclusion seems to the National School Boards Association to be rather inescapable that under this legislation, the legislation which is now