tion on these programs is not reliable; whether that is true or not, almost everyone agrees that the information available is incomplete. There has been a degree of confusion over whether the stress on "area" vocational schools constitutes an effort to introduce a new level or unit in the hierarchy of education in these states. There has been dissatisfaction with efforts and responsibilities in job placement of vocational students. It has been felt that the lower age limit of adult education programs should be reduced. All these needs are recognized in the Administration bill and proposals are made to deal with them, in most cases with specific statutory provisions and in the case of job placement, as I understand it, with administrative proposals under more general statutory authority to encourage vocational school officials to take up more responsibility without reducing the responsibility of employment officials. I hope these proposals will meet with your approval. VII. Work-study programs offer great promise, although in operation they have met with criticism. Also, residential vocational schools were originally proposed as a promising means of meeting an important need, although they are not funded. While there is some authority for work-study programs in this bill, it is my understanding that such programs would be concentrated under the poverty program rather than remain within the vocational program. Authorization for both the work-study programs and residential schools in the 1963 act is due to expire, and there appears to be no provision requested in the bill for residential schools. In view of the strong recommendation in the Advisory Council report for both work-study programs and residential schools, I urge the Committee to consider carefully how work-study programs may be continued and residential schools undertaken. At the same time, there is a tendency toward proliferation of work-study and work experience program. Hopefully, the movement toward consolidation and simplification might be applied to these programs with a view toward reducing the complexity faced by state and local officials and the number of federal bureaus with which they are required to deal. Similarly, the development of realistic, workable, and harmonious regulations for these programs implicit in consolidation should make them more effective while reducing the administrative difficulties involved in implementing them. VIII. My final point deals with the insufficiency of funding which characterizes federal vocational programs and the resulting overmatching of funds on the part of the states and disproportionate share borne by local communities. Available figures indicate that of the approximately $1 billion now spent annually for activities classified as vocational education, state and local governments provide nearly three-quarters. There is little doubt that the states and local governments are unable to make the massive increases in vocational expenditures that would be required to meet our real needs in this area. There must be an increase in the federal contribution if the nation is not to fall behind. The Administration is to be commended for its proposal to increase funds for adult education to $50 million, to allocate 25 percent of additional funds made available under the Vocational Eductaion Act of 1963 for the handicapped and disadvantaged, to remove the funding ceiling from that act, and to provide $15 million for exemplary programs. But, taking all programs together, much more money is needed. I have no figure of my own to offer as the amount required to fill the gap. I can only refer to the almost $1.6 billion called for in the Advisory Council's report as the amount needed annually to achieve objectives at the levels of enrollment currently contemplated. The report of the Education Committee of the National Governors' Conference, of which I am privileged to be chairman, addressed the funding problem, and if I may I would like to read the appropriate recommendation: "... in the face of mounting evidence that vocational and technical education may well be in the field of our greatest unmet educational needs, given the high unemployment and unrest among our urban youth and the necessity for continual retraining among the labor force, we further recommend that the Conference call upon the Administration and the Congress to increase substantially the funding to be provided under the Partnership for Learning and Earning Act of 1968." 93-989-68-pt. 6 -18 Perhaps more compelling is a single sentence from the recommendation of the Advisory Council, referring to the figure of $1.6 billion cited a moment ago. I would like to read it and conclude my statement with it: "It is our unanimous conviction that no sounder investment can be made by the citizens of the United States than this-an investment in their own, their chil dren's and their economy's future." Senator MORSE. Dr. Carstrenson and Mr. Fichter, will you come forward? STATEMENT OF DR. BLUE A. CARSTENSON, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH W. FICHTER, FORMER PRESIDENT, STATE OF OHIO FARMERS UNION Mr. CARSTENSON. Mr. Chairman. Mr. CARSTENSON. I would like to skip my part of the testimony and move after one brief remark to the gentleman that is with me today. Before I introduce him I would like to say that we in the Farmers Union appreciate the work of this subcommittee, and speaking for the membership of Farmers Union, I know that if the history of education is ever truly written, the contribution of this subcommittee and of its chairman will go down as one of the really great contributors in the history of the whole public education in America. I want to tell you that we are going to be bringing in some 200 women the latter part of this month and early next month to lobby for increased education appropriations to help carry out the programs that your committee has enacted, and we put this as a top target program for the National Farmers Union. I would like to introduce at this time Mr. Joseph Fichter, a former rural school teacher, principal, superintendent, college professor 22 years, deputy director of education for the State of Ohio, and our Farmers Union president in Ohio, and also a former Grange president. Joe Fichter. Senator MORSE. We are very glad to have Mr. Fichter with us. Before we hear both of you, I want to express, on behalf of the committee, appreciation for the fine cooperation that the Farmers Union has given us over the years on our education bills. I think it is very easy to attribute undue credit to either the chairman or to the committee when the real credit belongs out at the grassroots. If we had not had the support of various organizations which have been testifying last week and this week, and the same organizations that have testified heretofore, we never would have passed any of this legislation. That is the way it works. You, Mr. Fichter, and the others deserve great credit for the accomplishments that we have made in the committee. I am ready to hear you in any way that you want to present your material. I have your statement. I can put it in the record or you can read it and summarize it. Which would you prefer? 1 Mr. CARSTENSON. I would like to put it in the record and then I would ask Mr. Fichter to say a few words and then I will say a few words. Senator MORSE. Let the record show that Dr. Carstenson's statement will be inserted in the record. He can summarize it later. (The prepared statement of Dr. Carstenson follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BLUE A. CARSTENSON, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION FARMERS UNION GENERAL POSITION ON THE LEVEL OF FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION For some time the level of state and local taxes and the expenses of state and local government have continued to push upward. In our farm states with fewer and fewer farmers to carry the load, sales and property taxes are taking a big bite out of our farm income which has not kept pace with that of other parts of the economy. We believe that a decent education for our young people is an important national resource. We know that a good education costs more today. Tuitions and per student costs continue to climb. It will cost still more next year, but it is becoming more and more difficult for farmers to support good schools through state and local property and sales taxes. Property and sales taxes were a less burdensome form of raising tax revenue 50 years ago in a different economy. The price of farm lands today are overinflated with the resulting high property taxes. The farmer must have modern equipment and buildings which are also taxed. Few other businesses pay as high a level of sales taxes on the materials and equipment that they purchase in order to do business as does the farmer. Almost everything he has to buy has a sales tax included. He has no way of adding this onto the sale price of his product. This really hurts the farmer who has had lower and lower farm prices. For many family farmers, sales and property taxes run $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000. To alleviate the pressure for increased state sales and property taxes we feel that at least one-fourth of the expense of education should be borne from federal sources. This would tax wealth where wealth is to educate children for the benefit of the entire nation. Business, industry and labor in the industrial states continue to attract large numbers of our rural youth. It is unfair to ask our rural states and farmers to carry a disproportionate load for the education of rural youth when the rural states do not gain the benefit of these youth. Those rural states which do a good job of supporting education often do without other essential services. Many rural states cannot maintain an adequate level of education and the result is the migration to the cities of poorly educated youth. We urge that Congress continue to act to give relief to the rural states and the farmer on his property and sales tax by increasing further the federal expenditure for education. This will provide better education and put the tax load where it should be. We congratulate this Committee for developing the forty Federal aid-toeducation programs that have become law during the past four years and tripling the level of Federal spending in a manner which has left the basic control of education with the local school district. We hope that this year this Committee will continue to move ahead toward the goal of 25% of our school and college expenditures coming from Federal income tax sources. Farmers Union supports the Higher Education Amendments of 1968, S. 3098. This program has provided assistance to over 200 colleges and universities and assisted over 660,000 students during the last year. S. 3098 would extend and improve these programs and would provide for advance appropriations in order that colleges and universities can better plan ahead for education. College enrollment has risen from 2.4 million in 1964 to 5.4 million in 1965, and it is estimated to go to 8 million by 1973. The number of colleges and universities has increased 21⁄2 times since World War II. State and local financial resources simply do not have the capability to carry the load alone for higher education. Federal Aid to Higher Education has been carried out in a publicly accepted manner, which has not encroached on academic freedom. It has helped hundreds of thousands of students obtain or continue education who would not hair otherwise been able to do so, and has helped to meet our national nds for expanded college and university training. S. 3098, sponsored by Senator Wayne Morse, would provide for a bal planning and programing of Federal Aid to Education over the next five years Farmers Union, at its annual convention, passed many resolutions concert.g education which are attached. The main thrust of these resolutions calls fe "increased Federal Aid to Education appropriations", and is directly tied to our concern for local and state taxes (see attached statements). We realize that this is the year of "curtailed federal spending", and we have placed our priorit on the need for continuation of funds for several of the key agricultural per grams, plus the plight of the American family farmer and for continuation and expansion of funds for Federal Aid to Education. We hope that Congress wi continue to approve and expand Federal Aid to Education, and the H her Education Amendments of 1968 should be enacted. Farmers Union particularly supports those programs including the student opportunity grants, loans and work opportunity programs which move is very close to our goal so that no student will be denied higher education because a lack of financial resources. College tuition has continued to increase. In public colleges, the tuig averaged $770 ten years ago, now it is $1,110, and it will probably go up $45 next year. In private schools, the tuition averaged $1,345 ten years ago, now it is $2,266, and is expected to go up to $2,382 next year. Even more effort will te needed if tuition costs are not to become a major economic stumbling block for many young people. The second priority is for aid for higher education operating expense. ITare unhappy that the Administration has decided to delay loans and grat's to higher education institutions in 1968 with a net reduction of $216 million We regret to see the cuts that have come to libraries in relationship to institutions of higher learning. Even though this is not germane, to the Higher Educat. a Bill it is germane. We would like to call special attention to an education problem which affents farmers. Over 150 of our young farmers who are members of Farmers Tran have been in Washington this week lobbying for change in the Veterans Edu tion legislation. We are attaching material relating to the short comings of this education_program as many young farmers are currently being left out of the Veterans Education Program. CONVENTION RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Aid to education Every American child is entitled to as much education as he wants and can usefully absorb. This is a basic principle. It is basic to the American way of life and it is bast to the future of the United States as a Nation. Great strides were taken by the previous Congress, but there are further efforts needed if this principle is to become a reality. They include: (1) Increased Federal aid to schools which serve large numbers of educationally disadvantaged children from low income families; (2) Expanded opportunity for vocaries! training in agriculture and home economics at the high school level and other skills related to job opportunity, including work-study programs; (3) Furber development, through assistance of the Federal Government to promote Area Vocational-Technical Schools for out-of-school youth; (4) To expand the coz pre hensive assistance embracing scholarships, expanded student loans, and work. study opportunities for junior college and vocational education students. Evert rural school system should have a pre-school program, free books for needy children, guidance and counseling, and special help for disadvantaged children. We urge the appropriation of additional Federal funds to further the establishment and growth of community junior colleges to provide a minimum of 14 years of free education. Such colleges should be within commuting distance of any student. Such funds should include both operating and construction funds. The Nation, as well as the states, counties and local districts should be used as a base for educational support and Federal funds should constitute 25% of all public expenditures for education. Colleges and higher education Increased Federal appropriations should be provided for grants-in-aid and loans to state land-grant and other colleges and to college students. Federal aids should be designed and administered in a way which will encourage the reduction of tuition or educational costs for college students. Community adult and extension education All adults should have an opportunity to participate throughout life in meaningful educational programs. Urban, city and rural people alike have need for a broad-based educational and cultural program which the Extension Service should develop in cooperation with all departments of land-grant colleges and universities. Transformation of the Extension Service in some areas to serve these needs should be extended to other areas. As progress is made toward the goal, the feasibility of merging, at national and state levels, general and extension service programs should be thoroughly explored as the means to better coordination of adult educational programs. Land-grant colleges have helped create the technological revolution in agriculture and should now focus on helping to solve some of the social problems which this revolution has created. We commend those state and Federal officials who have taken action to prevent state agricultural extension services from engaging in any activity which discriminates against any private farm organization. We will oppose allocation of Federal Funds to any state where a private group dominates and controls the Extension Service through financial aid or other association which is self-serving for the group and is discriminatory to other organizations. Local control All Federal and state aid for elementary, secondary, college and graduate level education, and adult education should be completely safeguarded to preserve local control. Veterans education The requirement that farm-training classes under the Veterans' Training Program meet for not less than 12 hours a week of classroom instruction is neither realistic nor compatible with full-time farming. The 12 hour rule serves to bar most eligible young men from participating. We urge clarification or amendment of the Act so that farmers can avail themselves of the training which Congress intended to be available to them. Educational TV We support Federal Aid for a nationwide educational television network. Aid to education 1968 TARGET PROGRAM We urge increased federal aid to education appropriations as the major action needed to improve education and give tax relief for state and local governments. Veterans farm training We urge revision of the Veteran Training Act to allow young farmers to participate on less than full time (12 hours) basis. |