New curriculum thrusts

We find that the momentum built and sustained for vocational education through the basic act is allowing us to progress toward realization of many vital goals in this sector.

Yet, we find ourselves struggling equally as hard to keep pace wtih the demand for curriculum upgrade as with the demands for increased programs and facilities.

Fortunately, our successes over the past decade have given us renewed confidence that this need, too, can be met. Toward this end, our State Board of Education approved our entry as of January, 1975, into a nine-state V-TECS consortium effort.

Briefly, I would explain that this is the most sweeping program for streamlining our voc-ed curricula that we have ever undertaken. Again, we are dependent upon federal support to carry this comprehensive effort to fruition. Purpose of the consortium is to provide a mechanism for sharing, on a continuing basis, of the most modern voc-ed curricula materials developed by participating states. All six voc-ed occupational service areas in South Carolina will be included in the program, which has as its major goal to place all voc-ed instruction on an objective, measurable basis. Thus, as students graduate, we will have a standardized gauge on which to measure the quality and extent of their training.

CONSTRUCTION

The broadened scope, direction and relevance instilled within our overall voc-ed programs through our modern center network are indeed the hinge of our dynamic growth over the past decade.

With the passage of the basic act (of 1963) and its 1968 amendments, South Carolina seized the opportunity to initiate a commitment to voc-ed as represented through the development of what we advance today as one of the finest Vocational center networks in the nation serving secondary students. That network now includes 45 area vocational centers, and current plans call for continued expansion of this network as we grow toward our major goal of providing voc-ed to 100 percent of the secondary students who choose it by 1976-77.

What this distinguished committee should know is that the federal funding provided by the act and its 1968 amendments was the spark which ignited this growth. In proper perspective, this funding alone was not a "total solution" to local needs for such modern centers. Rather, it served as an incentive to our state legislature and local school districts to muster local funding and commitment toward the support of an effective voc-ed system.

Obviously, these centers have provided the essential classroom/laboratory facilities imperative for in-depth occupational instruction-facilities seldom provided within the traditional academic school structure. Too, instruction within these centers affords students training in three-hour blocks daily, as opposed to one-two hours for voc-ed offerings in (academic) high shools.

However, perhaps the most profound impact of these centers is the spirit of commitment to voc-ed which they have evoked. Students, for whom this program is appropriate, now increasingly find occupational education affords a challenge and has a purpose-a meaningful relevance to their future growth. Most significantly, local school administrators have become participants in this new commitment, and have given desired priority to voc-ed program growth-both in centers and in high school facilities.

The attached map charts our current and projected status in development of this impressive center network. Behind this map you will find another which reveals the 11 South Carolina counties of greatest population density (75,000 or more).

Note that we have erected the 45 modern centers now in operation in only the past decade. Another 11 centers are currently funded, as shown, along with expansions to 19 of the 45 centers currently in operation.

Further, it is significant that all of the 11 counties of greatest population density are served by two or more centers, or have funded construction projects to reach this level of commitment. As well, we find that most of the centers now in operation in these counties have expansions funded for their existing voc-ed centers.

There is yet another dimension to our state's sustained commitment to provide vital voc-ed facilities-that being the construction of voc-ed wings onto new or existing high schools.

Again, with the incentive of available federal-state-local monies, more and more local school districts have taken the initiative to provide these wingswhere in-depth (three-hour block) training can also be provided. There are 15 of these new wings now funded, and others are being planned to meet the tremendous need for skill training at the secondary level.

Consider, then, that South Carolina is fast approaching the point when it will have a network of voc-ed facilities sufficient to provide those skills so direly needed by our high school students. That network not only includes those centers in operation/funded and the voc-ed wings already cited, but viable vocational offerings in 202 of our 224 high schools.

My point is not merely that we have enjoyed outstanding progress on the dual fronts of voc-ed programs and construction over the past ten years. Rather, I would emphasize to this committee that this progress is a direct product of the momentum developed and sustained through the basic voc-ed act and amendments. Without that momentum we would clearly not be where we are. To break this momentum by mandating a redirection of federal voc-ed monies would be a modern day tragedy and a step backward toward the past. It would once again reflect a commitment to post-secondary preparation at the expense of the public high school.

THE FUNDING OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

It takes not a long look at federal funding for vocational programs and construction in South Carolina to realize how the basic act and amendments have been the backbone of our success.

Again, for purposes of this testimony, I will present these allocations separately.

Programs

I would direct your attention to the chart on the following two pages for a view of vocational program funding in our state over the past five years.

You will note that total expenditures (federal/state/local) for secondary vocational programs have increased some 50 percent over the past five years— an effort to keep pace with the jump in enrollment, which is also up approximately 50 percent over the same period.

With new centers, expansions to centers and voc-ed wings to high schools yet under construction, there is no doubt that South Carolina' secondary voc-ed enrollment will continue to climb over the next several years.

Thus, this combination of sustained program funding-both federal and state/local-will be crucial to meeting this demand.

We have already indicated that public confidence in vocational programs has vastly increased on the heels of strong federal leadership and support under the basic act and amendments. Attesting thereto is the allocation in 1973-74 of $13.490,183 in state/local funds for vocational education secondary programs-an all-time high for our state.

52-945-75-vol. 2-51

At the same time, South Carolina's fiscal standing has moved from an overall budgetary surplus for 1974-75 to a no-surplus condition projected for next fiscal year. Hence, there is ample indication that little or no increase in state voc-ed funds can be expected for next fiscal year, making a sustained level of federal support an even greater necessity than it is currently.

Let me now briefly address the question of the fiscal efficiency and effectiveness of voc-ed programs at the secondary level as against that of postsecondary programs.

I have already advanced the premise that the most logical-and probably the only means by which we can meet our nation's manpower needs is to train students in consonance with their normal flow through our system of education.

Further, I have testified that more than 66 percent of South Carolina's secondary students will enter the job market unskilled unless they can avail themselves of viable vocational education programs at the secondary level. Obviously, I refer to basic occupational skill training.

It appears that proponents of two major alternative bills to H.R. 20 feel that greater federal emphasis and support should go toward providing this training at the post-secondary level, and/or for the advanced vocational (technical) training now provided at that level.

Not only does this not mesh with the logic of training students in accord with their normal flow through the educational system, but the best indicators available tell me that it would also be economically less desirable to pursue this course.

Assessing fiscal efficiency of secondary versus post-secondary programs of basic skill training is a difficult science, at best. And I do not profess to have sweeping documentation at my disposal to definitively indicate any comprehensive cost analysis of the two systems.

Nevertheless, some insight into the question can be gleaned by considering outlays for the two systems in South Carolina.

Consider, for instance, that our state's post-secondary education system is currently serving about 90,000 students per year with an annual budget of some $48 million-a total (federal/state/local) outlay per student of $533; our secondary vocational education system, for its part, is serving approximately 119,000 students with a total budget of about $20 million (for secondary programs) a total outlay per student of $168.

In essence, our secondary-level programs are providing these essential job skills at an outlay which is less than one-third that of the post-secondary system.

Hence, it would seem to follow that the expenditure of federal funds to provide basic skill training at the secondary level not only puts these monies in the area of greatest need, but at the level where these skills can be effectively provided at a lower expenditure.

Finally, there is another key point which should be noted in this context of total funding for secondary-level occupational programs as against like funding for post-secondary occupational programs.

Charted on the following page is total funding for both skill training systems in South Carolina over the past six years. Behind this chart is a budget summary for this state's post-secondary programs over the six-year period, as provided by the administering agency-the State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education.

As the chart on the following page clearly reveals, funding for post-secondary occupational education in South Carolina has arched steeply upward over the six-year period. Thus, in addition to the 15 percent of federal monies under the 1968 amendments that has been allocated to post-secondary programs, funding needs for this system of occupational education have been substantially met through state allocations.

I would further note that this state's post-secondary occupational education funding spiraled from almost $17 million in 1969-70 to some $48 million this fiscal year-a jump of nearly 300 percent. Funding for our secondary-level skill training system increased from $15.3 million to $27.0 million over the same period-a jump of only some 75 percent.

Against this background, I would remind you that secondary vocational enrollment in South Carolina has increased 62 percent over the past seven years, and is continuing to climb. Also, I would reiterate that we have nearly completed a modern network of centers to accomodate this surging demand for secondary-level program opportunities.

Add to these considerations the fact that our labor force for tomorrow is flowing through our secondary system of education-and that 66 percent of South Carolina's ninth graders are shown to flow into the job market with whatever skills they have attained at the secondary level.

As you weigh these facts, you will find that they evidence a compelling need for sustained and strengthened federal support for skill training programs at the secondary level-and not a shifting of emphasis in the opposite direction.