Recommendation #8

That Congress require that articulation be undertaken by all units of vocational, occupational and technical education.

Recommendation #4

That Congress direct the Office of Education to conduct articulation studies and implementation programs with the "discretionary" money allowed the United States Commissioner of Education under Part D of the Act.

SECTION III. ADVISORY COUNCILS

An institution providing vocational/technical education needs an organized mechanism for assuring that its services are acceptable to the clientele and to employers, and for keeping its services current with its clientele's needs and with the needs of the labor market. Public institutions frequently are required by law to have a General Advisory Committee to fulfill this function. In addition, public institutions are normally expected to have Occupational Advisory Committees to assist each program in keeping current with the requirements of the occupation for which it prepares and to assure the acceptability of the program to the clientele.

Whether or not required by law, such committees have been found to be highly desirable and useful to vocational/technical education. It is important that where the committees exist, they be used effectively rather than pèrfunctorily.

State and National Advisory Councils could play a very important part in the planning process for vocational education. Generally speaking, state advisory councils have demonstrated their ability to serve as a communication linkeage among labor, management, education, business, industry, the public at large, and special interest groups.

To facilitate the planning and operation of occupational education programs at all levels of education, it is necessary that advisory councils represent occupational interests, the interests of the clientele and the interests of the educational institutions concerned with occupational education.

The GAO report entitled "What Is the Role of Federal Assistance for Vocational Education?" indicates that not all State Councils have been fully representative. These councils, financed at about $3 million annually, were to be comprised of persons representative of or familiar with needs for occupational education.

In New Hampshire only one member out of 18 on the State Advisory Council on Vocational Education is from a two year college. Any person connected with our system of 6 Colleges and a Technical Institute is excluded by a regulation of the United States Office of Education which stipulates that Colleges supervised by the same board which supervises the State Advisory Council shall not be represented on the Council. In New Hampshire, this regulation effectively excludes the only extensive post-secondary occupational education delivery system from participation in council activities.

Additionally, the State Advisory Councils have been delegated by the Vocational Education Act in 1968 to perform an oversight role. In fact, their evaluations have been imprecise, unscientific, invalid, and lacking a necessary amount of rigor.

Recommendation #5

That a technical amendment be added to the Act that would mandate full participation and representation by State supported 2 year colleges and technical institutes on the National Advisory Councils and State Advisory Councils. Recommendation #6

That the level of funding for state advisory councils be upgraded to provide adequate financing of precise, scientific, valid and rigorous evaluation and research as directed by the Congress.

In conclusion, I want to thank Congressman Perkins for giving me the opportunity to enter this statement as part of the record. I am sure the Congress will give full consideration to the needs of two year colleges and the outlined recommendation when drafting the final language to renew the Vocational Education Act. Thank you for the privilege of testifying before your sub-committee. We will be happy to provide, or attempt to provide, further concrete or philosophical information at your request.

52-945-75—vol. 2- 39

APPENDIX II.-NEW HAMSPHIRE POST SECONDARY VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION SYSTEM, STATUS OF JUNE 1974 GRADUATES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1974

Hon. CARL D. PERKINS,

VOCATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PERKINS: The hearings on pending legislation for federal funding of vocational education are of great concern to the Vocational Administrators of Pennsylvania. They are extremely interested in the outcome of these proposals which may well affect the cost and quality of vocational-technical education for years to come. The Vocational Administrators work at the local level where the action is because theirs is the responsibility of planning for, budgeting for, and operating schools, as well as for placing graduates on the job, all at moderate costs.

The Vocational Administrators of Pennsylvania, in a meeting held February 26, 1975, directed the Legislative Committee, which represents this group, to forward to you their opinions as expressed in the meeting.

First, however, it should be mentioned that the Vocational Act of 1963 (P.L. 88-210) and subsequent amendments provided much impetus for states and local districts to contribute their fair share of funds needed for providing facilities and employing personnel necessary to implement the great expansion of vocational education in secondary, post secondary, and adult training programs. This legislation was instrumental in enabling educators to convince taxpayers and boards of education to invest locally in this neglected, but much needed education. Since vocational education has made much progress under P.L. 88210 as amended, and since the American Vocational Association proposal does not differ greatly from this Act, the Vocational Administrators find this proposal most acceptable by far.

We should like to emphasize our position by stating the following points: 1. We support the traditional federal-state delivery system of channeling funds to local districts, a system which has been very effective in achieving results as evidenced in the greatly increased number of secondary and adult persons receiving quality vocational education since 1963.

2. We are unalterably opposed to the concept of revenue sharing.

3. We raise little opposition to removal of categorical funding within the Vocational Act, but we should like to recommend that funds for vocational education be appropriated at the federal level to be used at the discretion of the local level, since it is there that needs are most apparent and understood.

4. We maintain that vocational education at all levels should be taught whenever possible in existing facilities designed specifically for vocational education and administered under public control by qualified vocational educators.

5. We feel that limitations should be placed upon the amount of money used administratively in disbursing of federal funds.

These suggestions are respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Very sincerely yours,

NELSON F. GISH, Chairman, Legislative Committee.

Hon. CARL D. PERKINS,

LOS ANGELES CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Los Angeles, Calif., January 23, 1975.

Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatires, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: As the 94th Congress convened its first session on January 14, 1975 it was called to my attention that you, as Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, introduced three bills, all of which would continue categorical support for vocational programs now provided by the Vocational Education Act which expires June 30, 1975.

The Los Angeles Unified School District strongly supports the proposed vocational legislation introduced by the American Vocational Association which, in essence, would basically leave the 1968 amendment to the Vocational Education Act intact. I concur with the AVA that the current law is a "very good piece of legislation" and should continue. I also agree with the AVA that there is a great need for increased vocational funding at a time when unemployment rates are rising and the need for vocational training and retraining is greater than ever before.

The AVA bill would also consolidate Part C (research and training), Part D (exemplary programs), and Part I (curriculum development) and include funds to strengthen teacher training programs, provide aid to schools for job placement, and authorize a new program for statewide vocational education planning, all of which the Los Angeles Unified School District can endorse. However, the bill which was drafted by the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges concerns me greatly. As superintendent of a unified school district, I cannot support this bill because it separates the administration of vocational education programs at the secondary level, calling post secondary programs "occupational education” and high school programs "vocational education." The AACJC's bill would maintain a single appropriation for both, but proposes that the state allotments be changed so that 80% of the funds would be split equally between high schools and college programs, with the additional 20% divided between the two at the discretion of the state advisory councils on vocational education.

When one considers the concept of career education, which is a delivery system designed to prepare high school students with employable skills, it appears to me that the AACJC bill has missed the mark when one considers the number of students enrolled in the high schools of this nation compared to those enrolled in the community colleges.

Far too many vocationally trained youngsters choose to enter the world of work upon high school graduation rather than pursue post secondary “occupational training." The AACJC formula would definitely mitigate against high school districts that not only have a greater number of students to serve, but also would be subjected to the decisions of state advisory councils which are influenced and dominated with people who are higher education oriented. Therefore, the discretionary 20%, or a greater part of it, would, in my opinion, be allocated to the community colleges leaving the high schools without their fair share of VEA funds.

As a stalwart supporter of vocational education for many years and one who greatly influenced the passage of the landmark Vocational Education Act of 1963 and the 1968 amendment, I would respectfully request that you use your influence and reputation in both houses of Congress to draft legislation which would extend the provisions of the existing Vocational Education Act, devise a state allocation formula which is fair and equitable to both high school and community college districts, and incorporate those recommendations proposed by the AVA.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1975.

Hon. CARL PERKINS, !
Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN PERKINS: For the information of your staff and appropriate subcommittee staffs and members, I have enclosed a letter from Mr. Donald B. Zucco of the Johnstown School District outlining a problem involving federal funds for vocational schools.

I am sure you and your staff are already aware of this difficulty, but I pass it along to add strength to the desire for change to help schools in this situation. I thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Congressman JACK MURTHA,

JOHN P. MURTHA,
Member of Congress.

THE GREATER JOHNSTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Johnstown, Pa., February 13, 1975.

Federal Building, Johnstown, Pa.

DEAR JACK: We have been reviewing and evaluating many of the programs in The Greater Johnstown School District. One that we have assessed to be in