for skilled people together with those people who want to learn those particular kinds of skills and to fill these jobs.

My second point. I think we serve three kinds of people. We provide programs attracting new job entries, people coming into a particular skill area for the first time.

We provide training for people who want further vertical mobility, who want to move up in their jobs, and we provide new training. I would stress that third point. It is becoming more and more important in this society where we have some kinds of economic problems at the moment. We have jobs for which people are not trained. Some way or another, we are going to have to fit these two things together.

The particular school that I represent currently has over 350 people this semester who have bachelor's and master's degrees who are taking technical work in order to qualify for better jobs or, in many instances,

to find a job. Period.

The third point of quality control. I think this is important throughout all kinds of education. It is especially important in the technical occupations area. The programs are only as good as the performance of the product.

We have to build a partnership between employer and the college, and we start in by building programs on the very solid data base which determines their need.

We jointly with business and professions and industry-We evaluate the quality of that program as we go along, and we operate only programs that have a high demand for the particular product.

I think that the school I represent is typical of Oklahoma colleges and technical institutes, and we maintain at this particular point an 87.3 percent placement in our technical-occupational programs. Enrollment in these programs currently in our State is over 12,000 students. We have over 358 programs, and this has grown about sevenfold in the last 10 years.

I don't know, Mr. Congressman, whether the committee would be interested or not, but I spoke of a partnership between the colleges, and business, and industry. I brought along a list representing industry involvement at Tulsa Junior College if any members of the committee would be interested in it. We use it very much in our community for indicating community involvement.

It has 195 businesses and industries in the city and in the surrounding area that are involved with our college. This is what it is all about, matching people and jobs.

Dr. CREECH. Mr. Wayne Miller, Oklahoma University.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Congressman Risenhoover and members of the subcommittee.

For more than 22 years it has been my pleasure to serve as instructor, staff member, and director of a unique and highly effective branch campus of the university, specializing in vocational/technical education.

During these years, I have had the pleasure of seeing mature technician graduates and employers from business and industry happily meet for the future of these young people.

There is strong evidence that the kinds of technicians being sought by these industry and business leaders are not and perhaps cannot

be trained in the vocational programs primarily leading up to 12th grade even though they might stay 1 or 2 years longer.

There is not the mature atmosphere where you are able to meet a number of instructors with varied industrial backgrounds, an amount of sophisticated equipment, all of these things that should be combined to provide a technician that is truly postsecondary in nature.

My fellow employees and I worry about the future of our vocational/technical world, about its ability to serve mankind. We feel it must include a separate and positive postsecondary segment.

We know of the commitment of the State of Oklahoma, demonstrated by an increase to our campus in budgetary support from less than $2 million 10 years ago to $1 million in the current year.

However, during that same period of time, the funds from Federal Vocational education have gone from $61,000 to $71,000 annually. Stated another way, we receive some 3.7 percent of our support from Federal vocational funds 10 years ago. Today we are receiving only 1.7 percent in supplemental funds.

To put it quite bluntly, the present arrangement is not working. We have confidence that the State Regents for Higher Education in Oklahoma will continue their strong support of postsecondary occupational and technical education. We leave it to Members of the Congress to find some way to make certain that the appropriate amount of Federal funds will also be made available to support this educational action.

Thank you, sir.

Dr. CREECH. Dr. John Cleek, State regents of higher education. Dr. CLEEK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to summarize our presentation this morning by saying that the future well-being of postsecondary technical and occupational education in our State is at issue.

Postsecondary education in Oklahoma institutions that we represent have a committment, as demonstrated by the development of programs over the past 10 years. They have the capability in terms of the staff and facilities to meet the need.

There is one critical element that is missing. That is, the provision of an equitable share of Federal supplementary funds so as to make possible the further development to respond to the urgent needs of our citizens, and these funds need to be made available in such a way that we can plan for their use as we plan programs.

That means that, rather than being diverted through an agency responsible primarily for secondary education, funds need to be made available so that they can be anticipated at the time the programs of our institutions are developed at the beginning of the year, rather than piecemeal during the year.

It is very difficult to make good use of funds if you don't know at the beginning of the year when you are planning a program, planning a staff, just what funds might be available.

State regents for higher education have the legal responsibility, the only agency in our State that has such responsibility, for approving all postsecondary programs and for allocating all postsecondary educational funds.

Therefore, our desire is that those funds intended for postsecondary technical and occupational education in our State be made available

in the same way that all other postsecondary funds are in Oklahoma. That is, allocated directly to the State regents for higher education. who in turn will use the funds wisely and equitably to supplement the funds available from the State for the planning and implementation of programs in postsecondary technical and occupational education. The institutions of higher education in Oklahoma are proud of the progress that has been made. Ten years ago, as you will note in the prepared statement that we have submitted, only 75 programs of postsecondary technical and occupational education were being offered. Today the number is 358, and we have provided the members of the committee as a supplement to our prepared statement a document which is entitled "An Inventory of Technical Education Programs in the States of Oklahoma," which details the programs offered in each of the 27 different campuses offering postsecondary technical and occupational education. I hope you will have an opportunity to peruse that document in detail.

Something in excess of 12,000 students are involved in the State of Oklahoma through the State regents in providing $15 million, and in our budgets $0.94 out of every dollar comes from State funds. The remaining less than $0.06 comes from the Federal vocational education supplement.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend on behalf of my colleagues an invitation to all members of the committee-and you certainly are familiar with our postsecondary technical and occupational system in the State, but we would invite other members of the committee to visit our campuses and to see for yourselves the outstanding work that is being done there.

Thank you. That concludes our formal remarks.

Mr. RISENHOOVER. Thank you. Did anyone else have remarks to make?

[No response.]

Mr. RISENHOOVER. Thank you very much. Of course you know, being a new Member of Congress and having known many of you gentleman before, I am a little bit in awe, to be honest with you, sitting in the presence of some of these distinguished people who are on this committee and this subcommittee that we have had dealings with through the years.

You know what kind of people they are and their interest in education, especially our chairman and our minority members, Mr. Quie, and Mr. Bell, but for the record I would like to tell you how proud it makes me feel, being from Oklahoma and knowing that we have the kind of people that you gentlemen are involved in administering education in our State.

I am sure most of or many of you on the committee here are familiar with Dr. Dunlap, our chancellor of regents in Oklahoma. He is certainly one of the outstanding educators in this country, and I am certainly glad to have you welcomed here before this committee, and I thank you for the fine testimony that you have given us.

I would like to ask you just a few questions and whomever you feel is best qualified can answer for the record. If you will identify yourself when you respond we can identify you for the record.

First of all, what part-in your opinion-has Federal funds played

in the growth of postsecondary technical and occupational education in Oklahoma?

Dr. CLEEK. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to that. As I indicated earlier, 10 years ago our institutions were offering only 15 programs in postsecondary technical and occupational education. Today the number has grown to 358.

This is as a direct result of the action of the State regents some 10 or 12 years ago as they assigned priorities to these kinds of programs and began the development, not in the response to the availability of Federal funds, but rather in response to the needs of our citizens.

Now, we certainly appreciate and have a very-we don't want to minimize the role of Federal funds, but frankly the development of postsecondary technical education in Oklahoma has been the result primarily of a State effort rather than a Federal effort, but they have allowed us to expand beyond what we might have been able to do if we had not had these funds. They are a supplement rather than the primary reason for our growth.

Mr. RISENHOOVER. Thank you. What is your reaction to the claim of critics that institutions of higher education are not sincerely interested in technical education, but are only interested in monetary considerations?

Dr. PHILIPS. Mr. Chairman, I think I can speak rather directly to that. That may be an allegation that some have made, but it is certainly not true of higher education in this day and age.

I can speak more specifically to the school that I represent, but in the mere 5 years of life-and that is only how old it is--we measure enrollment in terms of 50-percent technical/occupational areas, some 2.700 people.

We have been instrumental in the city of Tulsa in attracting three major industries: American Airlines' worldwide computer system, moved from New York; Metropolitan Life regional office in that area; and Avis-Rent-a-Car regional office.

We are involved heavily in industry constantly, and this kind of statement arises my ire tremendously because, if we were in this for monetary purposes, there would be a good many other areas in higher. education that would be much more lucrative as far as the institution gaining knowledge.

We spend a tremendous number of dollars in our State, and the State regents are putting up the bulk of this money now. Very little of the Federal money intended for postsecondary education in 2-year colleges is coming to the 2-year colleges in Oklahoma.

Mr. RISENHOOVER. The percentage of your budget money really hasn't amounted to that much?

Dr. PHILIPS. Fifteen percent, Mr. Chairman. Only a fraction. Mr. RISENHOOVER. In the overall budget, Federal funds haven't amounted to much?

Dr. PHILIPS. A very small percentage.

Mr. RISENHOOVER. What percentage of Federal vocational education funds go to higher education institutions in Oklahoma?

Dr. CLEEK. Mr. Chairman, I wish we could answer that question, but the actual fact is that we have been unable to determine that.

We understand the legislation provides a minimum of 15 percent to go to postsecondary educational institutions.

We are receiving-on the last page of the document that we have attached to our testimony, you will see a summary of technical and occupational programs in Oklahoma, and the locations of those programs, and near the end of the table you will see a column headed State Vo-Tech Supplemental Funds for 1974-75," which shows that we are receiving in our postsecondary institutions in Oklahoma $968,000, which represents 5.9 percent of the budgets of our postsecondary programs.

We don't know frankly what percent that represents of the funds, but we know that the General Accounting Office audit indicates some 30 percent going to postsecondary institutions in Oklahoma. Frankly, that is not coming to our institutions. I am not sure where it is going because legally the only institutions that can offer postsecondary education in Oklahoma are those for which the State regents are responsible, but that is how much we receive.

Mr. RISENHOOVER. How many postsecondary educational institutions do you have in Oklahoma?

Dr. CLEEK. We have got 41 different institutions in Oklahoma, postsecondary institutions. Of that number, 14 are private institutions and the remaining are public institutions. We have recently seen a report from the Office of Education that would indicate that there are some 20 area vocational schools that are reported to the office of education as being postsecondary in nature. This is not possible under Oklahoma law. The constitution very clearly sets forth that only those institutions authorized by the State regents to offer postsecondary programs may do so, so, if you add those 20 that are contained in the office of education report, it would nearly double the number, so the number again is a little bit indefinite.

Mr. RISENHOOVER. Thank you. Mr. Quie, did you have questions? Mr. QUIE. NO.

Mr. RISENHOOVER. Mr. Lehman?

Mr. LEHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Risenhoover, for affording us the opportunity of having these people from your State here. I just have a couple of questions.

I know you are saying that the beginning and the end of vocational education should not be in the secondary schools and it should be moved forward to the postsecondary institutions.

I am also interested in reallocating some of this vocational education not only upward, but downward. I would just wonder what your reaction would be to the idea of making presecondary education a part to be developed and be devoted to-what happens in the attitudes of the prevocational and vocational training for young people before they get to high school? The main reason is that the ones that are going to drop out usually drop out because they lack self-identity or a goal or a realistic type of career development long before they get to high

school.

I would like you to react to that statement.

Dr. CREECH. The State board for vocational and technical education in Oklahoma has a responsibility for secondary and presecondary programs. While I am not intimately familiar with the programs, I