Page images
PDF
EPUB

method would be used. In the practical legislative context of this year, it is the belief of NSBA and my own personal belief that the most fruitful approach is to apply a percentage to the existing appropriations.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much."

Mr. Calkins, would you prefer that the vocational advisory courcils be funded in the same manner as State advisory councils are funded under title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as it was revised last year? You made some comment on this matter but I want to tie it down.

Mr. CALKINS. May I ask Mr. Carlin to comment on that?

Mr. CARLIN. We would prefer that type of independent funding for those programs. As I recall, it was a percentage of the funds wher were available to the State. We would hope a similar type of pattern would emerge on the vocational educational advisory boards.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Johnson or Dr. Venn, do either one or both of you have any comments you would care to make on Mr. Calkins' statement? You may file any supplemental statement you care to and I wil, see to it that he gets a copy for any further comments he wants to make.

Dr. JOHNSON. I would like to make some comment and then defer to Dr. Venn.

Mr. Calkins' statement has been very helpful and useful and we will be glad to analyze it in detail. I think perhaps in some respects, the bill can be strengthened. I do want to point to one aspect of the administration's bill which I think is of some significance in this area. That is a provision requiring that Federal funds made available under the Vocational education program shall involve variable matching and shall not merely be expended at a rate uniform throughout a State. In other words, some of the vocational education funds in the past have been spent more or less as a flat percentage of teachers' salaries. We feel that in view of this heavy overmatching that there is in the vocational education program and in view of our other proposals that matching by purpose, by each of the categories, be eliminated, it would be possible to provide that some of the programs-for example, programs for urban areas or rural poverty areas-you might be able to have a funding with 90 percent of the project coming from the Federal share and 10 percent of the money coming from local and State funds. This would be balanced out over the whole State by the fact that there are lots of State and local resources being poured into vocational education.

As regards his comments on the advisory council, I think I ca state that we would have no objection to independent funding of the advisory councils in a similar manner to title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Venn?

Dr. VENN. Just two short comments:

First, that at the present time, any particular State may expen! any amount of funds it wishes on any particular purpose. A State could by its own decision, spend 90 percent of the vocational money in the 1963 act for the disadvantaged youth. That is presently p sible under the 1963 act. We did, in the administration bill, remove the requirement which said that the States must spend up to 25 percent for

construction and postsecondary education with the idea of giving more flexibility in the bill.

So you have sort of a policy question, since each Federal dollar is matched by $3.5 of State and local money, whether the Federal position should be that the State must spend its money this way, because of the matching basis under the regular bill.

Second, I will comment that during this past year, we had over-I believe the exact figure is 39 States, who had requested transfers from the occupational categories in the Smith-Hughes and George-Bardon acts, out of those old categories-which is possible under the guidelines in the law-into these new purposes, these special purposes. So it would be possible at the present time in a State to actually take funds out of the George-Barden and Smith-Hughes acts as well as the 1963 to focus on that problem of the disadvantaged youth. But as we know, this is a problem since you have on-going programs. But I did just want to make that comment, Senator, that you have two things that could be done.

And then the question of a Federal statute saying the State must do it, then the wide variety among the 50 States. One State has a 25 percent mandated amount, one State would see its needs one way, and so forth.

Senator MORSE. Thank you.

Mr. CALKINS. I have one comment to Dr. Johnson's remarks.
Senator MORSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. CALKINS. The language to which he referred in his first comment, that Federal funds will not be allocated in a manner which fails to take into consideration the criteria set forth here in the act is, I think, very important language. My hope is that the legislative history will indicate that it is not intended to be limited to the illustration that he gave of distributing money as a fixed percentage, for example, of teachers' salaries.

One of the problems we have had, particularly until recently in Ohio, is that there are other criteria in the State program which get in the way of the Federal objectives. Most of these criteria grew out of the old history of Smith-Hughes and George-Barden. They repreent carryovers from those statutes. As Dr. Venn says, they are no longer required by Federal law, but because they have become hallowed by decades of practice in the States, they continue to be used. They also serve the States in one very useful way. They serve to reduce the number of demands on the State treasury by local demands for a State subsidy. Typically, the States have said to the local school districts, we will pay additional moneys to you based upon the amount of vocational education which you conduct and then, to protect the State from the local school district getting more money from the State than the State has budgeted, the State invents criteria as to what constitutes vocational education.

Believe it or not, in Ohio, until this last year, one of the criteria was no vocational education counts as vocational education unless it is conducted in the 11th and 12th grades. This meant that a dropout was not entitled to State reimbursement, which means Federal reimbursement, for vocational education because he never makes it to the 11th grade.

Now, Ohio has, in part, given up that kind of a criterion, but only in part. We still find it much easier to finance 11th and 12th grade programs than we do to finance eighth, ninth, and 10th grade programs.

Our programs for kids who really are not making it in school and for whom we have to have rather basic occupational training, are struggling to get a fair share of State reimbursement. It is important that the criteria which a State uses be consistent with the Federal objec tive if the Federal objective is to try to deal with crisis unemployment. Then the States must not be allowed to use criteria which prevent the Federal money from meeting the purpose for which the Congress has provided it.

Senator MORSE. Do you have any comment on that, gentlemen?

Dr. VENN. Only to say that it is one of the Federal purposes one of the Federal purposes is the disadvantaged, and you either have to earmark or the State again makes its own determination as to what amount it puts into it. I think this is the crux of the problem.

I think I would agree with you, Mr. Calkins, that this is really the determination for the State.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much; that was a fine presentation. Now, we have as our next witness Dr. John P. Mallan, director of governmental relations of the American Association of Junior Colleges. Dr. Mallan is a substitute witness for Dr. William G. Dwyer, president of the Massachusetts Board of Regional Community Colleges in Boston, Mass. Counsel advises me that Dr. Dwyer's wife became suddenly ill. He was therefore unable to attend.

I am sorry to hear this and I hope you will express to him my sincere hope that she will recover very quickly. We are sorry not to have Dr. Dwyer, but we are delighted to have you speak for him.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN P. MALLAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES

Dr. MALLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall certainly convey your feelings to Dr. Dwyer.

If it pleases you, we would like to enter our testimony in the record in the usual way.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Mallan's prepared statement will be received in the record at this point, and he may proceed to summarize it in any way he wishes to.

Dr. MALLAN. I think the most direct concern of junior colleges and related institutions about the administration bill and the new House bill, which we have seen only very briefly, is as follows:

Over the past several years, we have been struck by the fact that the junior college, the technical institute, and other institutions of higher education are deeply involved in vocational education, are engaged in the education of a great many people across the Nation, both young people and adults, and are trying to do more and also trying to move into the cities to deal with the disadvantaged problem. Yet, at the same time, we bear a relationship to the Federal Vocational Education Act, and its administration in the States, which varies greatly from one State to another.

To put it another way, the variety of patterns of administration and fiscal responsibility from one State to another are such that in

some States junior colleges and other postsecondary institutions are heavily involved in the act, both in its planning and in the allocation of funds and decisionmaking and so on. În other States, they are not involved at all or they are involved only very slightly. In other words, a I substantial resource for vocational education, for the adult and the disadvantaged too, is being neglected in many States.

None of us questions in any way the needs that exist on the secondary school level; the needs that exist on every level in vocational education. I think, however, we do feel, as the Vocational Education Act of 1963 has gotten under way, that we are not able to participate effectively in, plannnig, discussion, decisionmaking, or the allocation of funds in many States. In effect, we are at the mercy of the particular State organization and the particular attitudes that may exist in a State.

DUAL SYSTEMS

We are concerned about a related problem which we think is costing a good deal of money to the Federal, the State, and the local taxpayer in many States. That is the development of a dual system of postsecondary and adult area school programs in some States and some localities which are already served by junior colleges.

Again, this is a pattern which varies from State to State. In some States there appear to be substantial duplication, two systems growing up side by side, postsecondary vocational programs being offered where junior colleges and other institutions of higher learning already

exist.

In other States, such a duplication does not exist.

Hard information seems to be lacking. We do not seem to be able to get the data from the U.S. Office of Education, on where duplication does or does not exist, whether Federal dollars are going into the construction of a dual system which duplicates programs already in existence.

In other words, we feel that higher education or postsecondary education in many places is not able to develop a meaningful relationship to the Vocational Education Act. This problem is intensified by the fact that in many States a separate administrative organization already exists on the State and local level for the junior college or is being created. That is, separate State boards for junior colleges are coming into existence, separate from the boards that administer vocational education, or a coordinated system of higher education is growing up which represents junior colleges and other colleges separate from and apart from the State board of vocational education.

Again, in all but three or four States vocation education is under. the board which administers elementary and secondary education and has primary responsibility in this area. Many of the personnel involved come from the secondary field. In some States this works out fine. In other states it does not.

For 3 years, Senator Morse, we have been seeking in the American Association of Junior Colleges to develop some kind of administrative approach or legislative approach which could enable us to do a better job in vocational education, not to take away from or diminish the contribution to the secondary school field, and to prevent a duplication of activity, where it seems undesirable to have two separate post

92 989-68--pt. 6- 11

neighborhoods. This problem is the crisis problem. It is this concentration of unemployment in New York and Detroit and Cincinnati 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 George Barden 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 pro vided by the Federal Government is distributed in a kind of vereer 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 chan neled 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 re cent bill from the AVA, makes some attempt at dealing with this prob lem. The AVA bill goes somewhat further, substantially further tha S. 3099. But both of these bills essentially have the same character istic; 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 fortunately, so long as the crisis in Vietnam continues, it seems lisey there will not be very much additional money; therefore, the c clusion seems to the National School Boards Association to be rather inescapable that under this legislation, the legislation which is now

« PreviousContinue »