We see a danger in adult basic education being attached to the V cational Education bill and losing its identity and people confusing and thinking it is essentially vocational education. Perhaps it is preVocational education.

I have tried within a few minutes here to make my views know representing the people whom I do represent. I do appreciate having the chance to talk.

Senator MORSE. We are glad to have your testimony. We are very much interested in your comments raising the serious question ab the 20- to 40-percent set-aside.

The testimony of Dr. Sullivan yesterday sets forth all that I know of the Department's title III.

"Beginning in fiscal year 1970, the proposed legislation would lo the minimum-age eligibility requirement for participation in the Ad Education program from 18 to 16 years of age. Lowering the legs participant age would thus make the Adult Basic Education progra consistent with the manpower and vocational education legislation. such as Job Corps, Vocational Education, and Neighborhood Youth Corps. Moreover, the amendment would provide communities with atother option to serve the age group between 16 and 18 years of age The fact that over 1 million high school students drop out of school each year also renders the amendment important. One key reason for dropping out is low academic performance. An adult basic education. program could provide the needed remedial component to help stu dents begin training for an occupational career.

The proposed legislation would also increase the set-aside for specia projects in Adult Education to a variable 20 to 40 percent starting a fiscal year 1970. Increased funds for this purpose would come out of additional appropriations for the Adult Education Act and would not reduce the amounts of money available for State-administered pro grams. Since the inception of the Adult Basic Education program fiscal year 1965, over $100 million has been allocated for this progra Well over 90 percent of this money has been administered by State departments of education for local programs of instruction benefitting approximately 1.2 million undereducated adults. Only a small amount of State-managed resources has been available for basic education research or demonstration projects, thus limited innovative learning techniques have emanated from the local level and have been picked up across the country. For the first time, in fiscal year 1967, $1.5 mi lion was granted for experimentation and demonstration. This limite amount of money has already resulted in several major new approac that can be integrated in State and local programs. Examples of the program innovations are attached to my testimony as appendix III. The proposed amendment is also important because of the magnitude of the problem-over 24 million people cannot function at an eight grade reading level. Advanced learning methods must be develope that will result in large numbers of people learning more effectively.

I think that the most effective leadership posture that the Offe of Education can assume is to provide additional effort through a spe cific focus on national problems by making grants directly to educttional agencies and nonprofit agencies for research and demonstra tion in Adult Basic Education. The results of this approach can be rapidly integrated into the various education manpower programs

now operating through various Federal agencies to achieve an effective blend of learning and earning training capabilities.

Were you familiar with that testimony before you presented your statement?

Mr. DORLAND. Yes, I am. It is almost identical to that Commissioner Howe made on H.R. 15066 last month.

Senator MORSE. You do not think that testimony of Dr. Sullivan in any way eliminates any basis for your comment of opposition to the 20-40? Is that because you think that we may be headed for the same kind of controversy within the Congress that developed over title III funds last year in the elementary and secondary school bill, where we had the amendment in the House that sought eventually to give the States complete jurisdiction over the expenditure of the funds?

Mr. DORLAND. There are several ways to reply. We are not seeking complete jurisdiction for the States, obviously, but rather to maintain the status quo, which we feel has been fairly effective. Of course, Dr. Sullivan is basing his testimony on the assumption that Congress will be increasing the appropriations resulting in considerably increased appropriations. We are not at this point in time ready to take that gamble.

I do not think there is any assurance how much money is going to become available from year to year. We could just as easily assume that there will be the same amount. Then the Federal Government would be taking 40 percent of the same amount.

Senator MORSE. Or less.

Mr. DORLAND. Or less. As to the testimony that a million youngsters are dropping out of high school each year-we are aware that this is one of the most staggering educational statistics we have. It is loaded with social dynamite. But right now, many of these youngsters are not, cannot get into an adult basic education program, which is grade zero through eight. Many of them have completed 10 grades or 11 grades, or something like that.

We submit that there is a need, as we lower the age limit, to make high school programs available for these dropouts. This legislation, title III of S. 3099, as you well know, is basic education, which is equated with elementary school education.

Now, in terms of the evaluation of the nine special projects of the attachmens, and I believe that those are not the only nine which were funded, those are the nine that were submitted as part of the appendix, really these were funded, I believe, and Dr. Venn will correct me, I am sure I believe these were funded out of last fiscal year's money. We are talking about $30 million, and last year the Commissioner opted for the 10 percent. So he really spent $3 million for special projects for special reasons. $1.5 million went for teacher training.

We think that teacher training is an excellent expenditure of funds and we worked closely with the Office of Education and the prime contractor in that instance. These other special projects were funded with $1.5 million. We are not sure of their evaluation yet.

This year, the Commissioner has opted for the 20 percent. I think it is rather significant that when the Bureau of the Budget did cut back, they cut back program operation money this year, even after the appropriations were made. They did not cut back special project

93-989-68-pt. 6-14

money. They permitted the full 20 percent, the full $8 million. I be lieve that Dr. Venn's Bureau is in the process now of deciding how they are going to allocate that $8 million yet this fiscal year.

So really, the assessment that has been made has been on the basis of $1.5 million of expenditure and I submit that it is a little early for us to accept that we are committed to this to the extent of doubling the share.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Venn, can you help us with this? This raises certainly a great difference of opinion between the position of the Department and the position of those represented by Mr. Dorland.

Dr. VENN. Yes, I think this is true. The lowering of the age level to 16, which is a minor point, of course, is an attempt to try to match up present programs so that the adult basic programs can be more closely tied to job training, so there is a flow through from basis educational job training into the labor market.

The 10 to 20 percent set-aside which is presently in the bill has allowed, this year it would be $8 million, roughly $1.5 million for teacher training and $6.5 million for special projects. We are now in the proc ess of evaluating teacher training proposals in the special projects

submitted.

The assumption, I believe, in terms of going to the 20 to 40 percent was that there would be increased funding and that there would be no decrease to the States. I think this was the basic thinking on this proposal submitted by the administration.

I think, as the Commissioner said in his testimony, regardless of the funding level, if I recall his statement correctly, there would be ro decrease in the State allotment, the allotments to the State. This would be possible even within the 20 to 40 percent, because of the flexible

amount.

Senator MORSE. I have two questions.

Assume hypothetically that the Congress included the 20 to 40 percent set-aside. I understand from your last statement that that would not result in the States getting less than they would have gotten.

anyway.

Dr. VENN. Yes, because if the funding reduced, if the increase was so small that the Commissioner could use the option of the smaller amount, the 20 percent, which is the present level.

Senator MORSE. My next question is assuming we go to the 40 percent, to the extent that there is a 40-percent set-aside, would the administration of those special projects be under the Federal Department or under the States?

Dr. VENN. Well, they would be under the administration of the Commission rather than the States.

Senator MORSE. I see.

Now, a third question: If we do that, are we not headed into somewhat the same controversy we got into in the elementary and secondary bill, which caused me to work hours and hours to try to work out an acceptable compromise, both within my subcommittee and then in full committee and then on the floor of the Senate and then in conference? I became a master general in orderly retreat during that battle and finally ended up, I think, with the war won but the battle lost. Will I not be running the risk of walking into the same kind of difficulty with this proposed increase of 40-percent set-aside, particularly when

you add to it something that is clearer this year than last year; that is, that there will be less funds rather than more?

Dr. VENN. Well, on the basis of comments that have been made to me, I think I would have to agree with you. The evidence does indicate that this would be very possible.

Senator MORSE. I am talking completely off the top of my head now because I had not given any thought to it until I heard Mr. Dorland and you. But what the Department has in mind, if I interpret you correctly, is that you have an area here in which certain types of special projects are sorely needed and you probably would have very little difficulty convincing your adult education groups on the State level that they are needed. Is it not feasible to work out a compromise whereby funds could be made available for those special projects if the project is accepted by the State administration and they could, in effect, say we need this project and then permit them to go ahead and administer it as part of a so-called State plan, for example, and transfer the administration from the Commissioner to the State adult education authorities?

Dr. VENN. Yes, I think this would be possible. I think the idea behind the set-aside, of course is to focus on some of those situations in the disadvantaged and the hard core, because the demand is so great for the amount of money to attempt to get some focus on it.

I might mention that this month, in San Antonio, we are having a meeting of all the adult basic education State directors, of all the managers of special projects, and of the regional people in the Office of Education to discuss the whole adult basic education picture. I would be very happy to report to the committee the thinking of that group following this conference, if it would be helpful.

Senator MORSE. I would appreciate that, Dr. Venn. I would also like to have the San Antonio conference explore this very shortly thought-out suggestion I have just made of trying to work out an administrative compromise whereby the Department, on the basis of the facts as it finds them, recognizing that certain special projects need to be promulgated, would have a discretionary authority to work out with State adult education groups their acceptance to conduct specific special projects and assume their administration in connection with their adult education program. Because if it develops that that issue is raised over an alleged transfer of greater authority to the Commissioner at the expense of the growing insistence on maximum State administrative control, I think we might weaken the whole bill and create unnecessary concern about it, when both the Commissioner and the adult education people would probably, upon discussion of it, find themselves in complete agreement as to the need for the projects that you have in mind when you ask for the increase for set-asides.

I do not know; I just do not know enough about it. I am talking about the two things-about the procedural compromise and I am also talking about not wanting to get into the same situation I was in on the elementary and secondary school bill.

So I will just say no more, because I do not know enough to say more about the technical problems involved. You people do. So I would just simply say, and may I say to the counsel of the subcommittee, I think they ought to explore it together and see if you cannot work out a compromise so that I do not have to take either to the

full committee or to the floor of the Senate an issue here that could create legislative problems, but one that I do not think involves any difference in the substantive objectives on the part of either group. Dr. VENN. Yes, sir; we would be happy to do that.

Senator MORSE. Do you have anything further?

Mr. DORLAND. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Our people, the State directors and local directors, have asked the question, Is it possible, does a set-aside have to be strictly a Federal set-aside? Could a set-aside be split two ways: A set-aside for the Commissioner and a set-aside for State departments of adult education? That is essentially what you have said. I feel relatively certain that a compromise could be worked out. We would be interested in that kind of compromise if that is a compromise.

Senator MORSE. I do not think there is anything inconsistent in what I have said and what you have suggested. I think that is up to some of the people in the Department and you people to try, in good faith, to reach some kind of understanding, if you can, and if you cannot, to submit to us what your respective offers to each other happen to be at San Antonio or any other conference, and we will have to decide it as far as the language of the bill is concerned.

Mr. DORLAND. I am aware of that and I do want to say for the record that we have enjoyed nothing but the finest relationship with Dr. Venn and the Bureau. In fact, we are helping them with the San Antonio conference and I am going from here to a planning session for that conference.

Senator MORSE. I think as spokesman for the adult education group, you owe it to this subcommittee to bring forward the very points you have brought forward this afternoon. It does not help my subcommittee any if you have this feeling within the group and do not testify to it before the subcommittee, only to have me get caught on the Floor of the Senate with the adult education people having raised it with other Senators and I cannot show a record of a hearing on it. So I appreciate your raising it.

I appreciate the typical fairness of Dr. Venn in giving me his judgment as to what they are willing to do for further exploration of the problem.

I want to thank you, Mr. Dorland. I want to thank Dr. Vean and Dr. Johnson again. You have helped me a lot.

We stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the hearing recessed to reconvene April 4, 1968, at 10 a.m.)