VOCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) and Hon. Ted Risenhoover, presiding. Members present: Representatives Perkins, Risenhoover, Lehman, Miller, Mottl, Quie, Bell, Pressler, and Goodling. Staff members present: John Jennings, counsel; Toni Painter, staff assistant, and Yvonne Franklin, minority legislative associate. Chairman PERKINS. At this time I am going to call on Dr. Jack Nix, superintendent of schools, Georgia State Department of Educaiton, whom I have known for many, many years. Dr. Nix, we will be delighted to hear from you at this time. Go ahead. STATEMENT OF DR. JACK NIX, SUPERINTENDENT, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Dr. Nix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman PERKINS. Mr. Risenhoover is here. I have already told your constituency of your great work on this committee. Go right ahead. Dr. Nix. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is indeed a privilege to have this opportunity to come back before your committee again and bring to your attention some concerns that we have in our State for the continuation of our total educational plan as it relates to occupational education. You are personally, Mr. Chairman, somewhat familiar with our area vocational-technical school development that we started several years ago. I have in the written document rather detailed description, but I would just like to briefly summarize it. Chairman PERKINS. Without objection, your prepared statement will be entered in the record, and you may summarize it. Dr. Nix. Thank you, sir. [The prepared statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JACK P. NIX, GEORGIA SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Jack P. Nix, State Superintendent of Schools in Georgia. I am distinctly honored to have this opportunity to offer testimony on some educational programs we in Georgia are concerned about as they relate to the extension of the 1968 vocational education amend ments. Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by commending you and members of the Congress for the demonstrated support you have given to the total educational effort and, particularly, the emphasis placed on education as it relates to developing an individual's ability to earn a living. Your continuous concern for the development of knowledge and skills leading toward employment contributes to the Nation's high level of productivity and support for the free enterprise system. The emphasis Congress has placed on vocational education through the years, beginning with the Smith Hughes Act in 1917, has contributed immensely to state and local educational efforts to more adequately serve the people of this Nation. Prior to my becoming State Superintendent of Schools in January 1966, I served five and one-half years as State Director of Vocational Education. This period was preceded with experience as a system superintendent and eleven years as a vocational teacher. This background experience, including the past nine years as State Superintendent of Schools, has reinforced my belief in the necessity for a realistic, functional program of education; one that is relevant and viable to the needs of individuals to live a productive and rewarding life. Certainly, such a life must, of necessity, include meeting the daily challenges of a career in some field compatible with a person's interest and abilities. In order to meet his basic needs for food, clothing and shelter, an individual must be able somehow, to support himself financially. We need only to look at the decline in our Nation's economy and the tremendous problems created by unemployment to give proper significance to this statement. The Smith Hughes Act of 1917 and succeeding acts, such as the George Barden Act of 1946, the George Dean Act of 1936, Title VIII of the National Defense Education Act dealing with technical education, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, and more recently the 1968 vocational amendments, have all assisted Georgia in building our present program of vocational education. I am confident that without these federal statutes as a stimulus, it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for our State to have begun effective vocational education programs and to have developed them to their present levels of service. Time does not permit me to give you a detailed description of how each of these Acts contributed to the development of vocational education in Georgia, but I would like to share with you some of the highlights. In July 1960, when I became State Director of Vocational Education, one of the first duties assigned to me by the State School Superintendent and State Board of Education was to initiate the construction of a network of area postsecondary vocational-technical schools. Our plan was to build 26 of these centers so that no Georgian would live more than 35 miles from a school. This construction program, which is complete today, required a state-local partnership arrangement involving 50 percent state and 50 percent local funds for both building and equipment costs. The planning effort required local advisory committees to work with local educators, local boards and state staff in selecting a building design and in identifying the occupational training areas and equipment needed for the instructional program. It was our plan that these schools be so designed and operated that tuition-free courses could be offered to many Georgians seeking training or retraining opportunities. This would include the high school dropout as well as the graduate and unemployed or underemployed persons who wished to upgrade themselves. This tuition-free policy is still in effect. The only fee charged is a consumable supply fee. For students who are not able to meet even this obligation, school officials can work out arrangements for a scholarship, a local grant or a work-study program. Educational opportunities in post-secondary vocational-technical schools are a substantial departure from the traditionally academically oriented college program. In the 1974 fiscal year, these schools had in attendance 24,900 full-time and 101,400 part-time students, with a total operational expenditure of $20.6 million in state funds and $6.8 million in federal funds. Since construction began in 1960, we have expended state, local and federal equipment and construction funds amounting to $59.4 million, excluding the cost of land. Mr. Chairman, you are familiar with our area vocational-technical school program. As you recall, we were privileged to have you as the speaker at the dedication of one of these schools honoring a former distinguished member of this committee-Honorable Phil Landrum. It was quite evident, after the initiation of our area vocational-technical schools, that this program could also serve existing business and industry in Georgia and help some of these companies expand. However, we needed an additional activity to attract new industry into our historically predominantly agricultural State. You see, Mr. Chairman, we were attempting to bring about a balance in our State's economy between agriculture and industry. We needed to provide employment for those persons displaced from the farm because of the rapid mechanization of agriculture. In 1968, at our request, the Georgia General Assembly enacted a law authorizing the Georgia Department of Education to develop a training program we call "Quick Start." Under this Act, money is appropriated each year to train people for specific jobs in a given company. Our state and local vocational staffs, working with industry officials, can design and conduct training programs that will guarantee that when a specific company opens for business, it will have a trained work force to do the jobs needed. We feel "Quick Start" has been an important factor in attracting new industries moving into Georgia. Since the program began, nearly 200 businesses and industries have taken advantage of some or all of its provisions. Last year alone, we trained 1,366 individuals for immediate employment in 57 industries. An official of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce recently stated that he rarely sends a letter to an industrial prospect without describing the advantages offered incoming industry by the Quick Start program. He also claims that the Quick Start training effort is part of an economic mix of industrial services which has brought in almost one and a half billion dollars in new Georgia industry during 1973 and 1974. We are now getting electronics and metal industriesthe high-paying jobs-in the South. Mr. Chairman, after operating the area vocational-technical school network for approximately five years, we began the second phase of a plan to improve our total vocational education effort. We initiated the comprehensive high school program. Policies were adopted in 1965 and four centers were identified. This year, FY 1975, we have 76 comprehensive high schools in operation with an enrollment of 36,500 students. An additional 37 are currently funded, for a total of 113. We estimate this to be approximately half the number needed to adequately serve the secondary school students in Georgia. Let me share with you briefly the procedure we followed in developing this program. It was our decision again to follow a partnership arrangement with local school systems. The State committed itself to contributing 50 percent of the cost for construction and equipment, plus reimbursement for the staff who operate the schools. It was agreed that no center would offer courses in less than six occupational areas. The total investment of $63.9 million in this program since it was begun includes $11.2 million in state funds; $27.2 million in local funds, and $25.4 million in federal funds. Of the federal funds, $19.3 million came from Appalachian and Coastal Plains monies. After the comprehensive high school program was initiated, it became obvious that many students would need considerable assistance in education and career planning if they were to take advantage of the vocational education opportunities provided in our State at the secondary, post-secondary and adult levels. So, in the middle 1960's, we began two career development orientation or introductory programs. Our CVAE Program (Coordinated Vocational and Academic Education) is designed for the disadvantaged student or potential dropout in grades eight through twelve. CVAE attempts to coordinate the students' onthe-job training with in-school vocational and academic courses, to help them begin to see a direct relationship between their classroom activities and how these skills apply to jobs and life. This is a program that does not limit or define what a student has to be, do or say in order to be accepted. Instead, it accepts him as he is and helps him develop the traits and attitudes necessary for success in life. We now have 163 coordinators serving 7,400 students primarily in grades nine and ten. In another exploratory course called PECE (Program of Education and Career Exploration), junior high students perform simple tasks in worksimulated environments using tools, materials, processes and products peculiar to a given work setting. The PECE program is designed to allow a student to acquire a base of experience, knowledge and skills for future decision-making and to tentatively choose a broad occupational area. At present, the program reaches 25 percent of Georgia students at the junior high school level. In the early 1970's, our State initiated further efforts to enable students to see the relationship between education and work. At the elementary, junior high and secondary levels, programs of career exploration, career awareness, career decision making and career planning have been developed. These programs have proven quite beneficial in terms of increasing students' awareness of the world of work, improving their career decision making and planning skills and their overall career maturity. At present, this effort is in the developmental and demonstration stage, being implemented in 61 elementary schools. Career guidance programs are under development in grades 7-12 in 16 pilot schools. In addition, two years ago, our State began at the secondary level a program of job placement and follow through to assist both the high school graduate and the high school dropout to obtain employment and move up the job ladder. We have discovered many of our students need not only preparation for work, but also assistance in making the transition from school into employment. Currently, we provide job placement services in 77 of our high schools. Also, Mr. Chairman, this year for the first time we have 23 vocational teachers assigned to work specifically with handicapped students in high school. We call this the Vocational Education Awareness Program (VEAP). VEAP coordinators evaluate each eligible student, taking into consideration his particular handicap, abilities and interest. Then the coordinator writes an educational prescription that follows the student through school and until he is either employed or enrolled in a post-secondary school. The 23 programs are in areas with the largest concentrations of handicapped students reaching approximately 500 students in grades nine through twelve. Of course, still important to our total vocational program in Georgia are the traditional agriculture, home economics and trade and industrial education programs. Our teachers and staff in these areas have done an excellent job of keeping abreast of new techniques and skills to pass along to the 109.000 students in 347 high schools taking courses in production agriculture, home economics and day trade programs. Other secondary vocational areas include our cooperative programs in distributive education, vocational office training, diversified cooperative training, vocational agriculture and home economics. In co-op programs, students attend classes part of the day and work part-time. We now have 507 teachers and 24,500 secondary school students in these programs. Mr. Chairman and committee members, this gives you a brief, general description of the vocational and occupational offerings included in the total education program in Georgia. Let me reiterate that these programs could not have reached this high level of development if the Congress had not had the vision and foresight to provide federal funds as you have through the years. In the last decade Congress has expanded the activities for which federal funds may be spent, and for this we are grateful. Still, it is my considered judgment that there are categories that should be consolidated and doing so would provide for a more efficient administration at the local, state and federal levels. For example, I propose that funds provided for career guidance, exploration and job placement be consolidated into a single section thus enabling each state to .develop a comprehensive program of career guidance and exploration for elementary and secondary students. Second, I propose that funds for teacher education, leadership development, curriculum development, research and development be consolidated into a single section allowing each state to develop the support activities needed to give direction and leadership to its program. Finally, I recommend that residential vocational education programs, consumer and homemaking, cooperative education, work-study programs and basic state vocational programs be consolidated. Another problem that has developed in recent years relates to a congressional mandate of procedures for identifying membership on state advisory councils for vocational education. Since we began our area vocational-technical schools in 1960 until now, the State Board of Education, the Georgia Department of Education, my predecessor and I have required local vocational centers to have advisory committees. In addition, specific programs within centers also have advisory committees. It has always been our contention that the educator working in isolation from those in business and industry cannot plan and implement an effective occupational training program. Therefore, it is essential that we involve the consumers of the education product in formulating and operating educational programs designed for employement purposes. I would hasten to point out, Mr. Chairman, that at no time have we, at the state level, designated the appointment of a local advisory committee. This is the responsibility of the legally constituted, local boards of education. I rely on this experi ence and practice within our state as a basis for my personal belief that the Congress should leave to each state body constitutionally and/or statutorily responsible for public education the authority to designate individuals to serve on state advisory councils. I have no quarrel with the Congress indicating broad areas of representation, but I do believe that more effective program planning and evaluation can be carried out, and more efficient utilization of funds for advisory councils would result if a state body legally responsible for education as sumes responsibility for designating individual membership on advisory councils. This leads me to another area of concern that has developed in recent years as we have worked to implement federal legislation. I refer to the super-advisory committee or commission known as the 1202 Commission. Georgians, through the democratic process have adopted a State Constitution that places the responsibility for public education on the Georgia Board of Education and the responsibility for public colleges and universities on the Georgia Board of Regents. I strongly believe it is wrong for Congress to ignore this organizational structure and require the appointment of a commission seperate from these two boards. In Georgia, the State Board of Education and State Board of Regents have an excellent cooperative relationship. Both boards feel it is important to consider the total educational effort-from kindergarten through graduate school. In fact, several years ago the two boards developed a standing contract to provide for joint occupational programs in area postsecondary vocational technical schools and in the junior and/or senior colleges. This cooperative plan has been followed through the years with good results. For example, it has been agreed that the State Board of Education will not use its limited resources to construct additional vocational schools, and the State Board of Regents will not construct additional junior colleges unless they resulted from joint planning efforts. In fact, several years ago, the State Board of Education declared a moratorium on building additional postsecondary Vocational centers. The chancellor of the University System of Georgia, serving as the constitutional officer for the State Board of Regents, and I, serving as the constitutional officer for the State Board of Education, meet periodically to review our joint programs and to initiate new ones to serve the needs of our people. If we have need in a particular geographical area for an occupational training program and there is no area vocational-technical school nearby, we attach the program to a junior college, with a joint operation at the nearest Vocational-technical school. In other locations, the junior colleges and vocationaltechnical schools develop continuing joint programs in areas of distribution, marketing, secretarial training, drafting, data processing, etc. We have found these programs to be most effective and to serve our needs well. If Congress substantially finances 1202 commissions across the nation, it will be building another layer of bureaucracy. Additional red tape will greatly delay and hamper a state's efforts to get the educational job done. If it is the intent of Congress to mandate state planning for occupational education, let me suggest that you place that responsibility specifically on the shoulders of the state constitutional and/or statutory authorities already responsible for public education. We have no trouble in our State operating joint programs. In the final analysis, the development of policies and priorities is the management responsibiliy of agencies charged with carrying out programs, and these responsibilities cannot be delegated to an outside advisory group superimposed by federal statute. The present federal statutes for mandating 1202 commissions indicate that the State Board of Education and the State Board of Regents in Georgia would be subservient to the 1202 Commission. Mr. Chairman, I plead with you not to create additional bureaucratic structures that will consume our limited resources. Mr. Chairman. all of the concerns I have expressed about the 1202 Commission can be applied to portions of proposed legislation for vocational education. Proposals are made to separate the administration of vocational education programs at the post-secondary level from the administration of such programs at the secondary level. When we developed the post-secondary vocationaltechnical education program in Georgia, we felt we needed a tuition-free occupational training program for Georgians different from the programs offered at the junior or senior college levels. This program has been successful. It is accomplishing the purpose for which it was established-to make people employable. Since post-secondary vocational education is the culmination of an educational process that precedes employment, the instruction must result in individual |