coordination and cooperation between the two authorities to insure the elimination of duplication of effort. Question 2. Would you say you were unable to use the OTIS Report and why? Answer. The OTIS Report is prepared by a state agency responsible for public -elementary and secondary education. Question 3. How do you explain the apparent bias of state vocational boards toward institutions of higher education? Answer. Prior to the 1960's, state vocational boards of education had the authority and responsibility for most all technical and vocational education in the state. Very little vocational education was being offered in institutions of higher education. During the sixties and seventies there has been a constantly increas ́ing demand for technical and vocational education in higher education. I feel that Vocational boards are reluctant to give up the authority which has been theirs for so many years and are refusing to recognize the changing demand for technical and vocational education in institutions of higher education. Question 4. In your statement you suggest that too much is being spent for state administration, yet you recommend the establishment of two separate administrative arrangements. Would this not tend to increase the cost of administration? Answer. I do not believe that administrative costs would be increased by giving the State Regents for Higher Education the responsibility for technical and vocational programs in higher education. The staff of the State Regents is already organized to administer all phases of higher education, including technical and occupational programs, and I believe the additional responsibility could be accomplished with the present staff. These is a real possibility that the staff of the State Board for Vocational Education could be reduced in number since some of their staff are presently employed in areas of postsecondary and higher education. Sincerely, D. D. CREECH, President. Mr. RISENHOOVER. I would like to ask one further question of Dr. Dunlap. I haven't heard it mentioned, but I am fairly familiar with your success on talk-back television in the higher education institutions in Oklahoma, and I would like to ask if you have any plans for incorporating this into the postsecondary vocational technical schools in Oklahoma. Dr. DUNLAP. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to say that the reason I haven't participated in the recitation is because I am scheduled to appear before this committee on May 8, and I didn't want to shoot my gun this morning because I might not have anything to shoot then. Incidentally, I will be appearing at that time and offering a statement and testimony on behalf of the executive officers of the statewide boards of higher education in the Nation, an association of chancellors and commissioners of higher education and directors of higher education in the several States, about 49, that have statewide boards for coordinating and planning postsecondary education. Now, with respect to your specific question, Oklahoma is unique in the development of closed circuit microwave television for education purposes. We are the only State that is developing a statewide system that includes connecting all colleges and universities, both public and private, by closed circuit microwave where the student at a remote location from a campus can be enrolled in the class as it takes place on the campus and see, and hear and talk back, and engage in the class goings-on and receive credit, residence credit, for the work he is enrolled in, as though he were on the campus. Now, our legislature in 1970, which directed the State regents to establish and maintain such a technological mechanism whereby education could be extended off campus for business and industry graduate education, as well as education for the undergraduate lower division and upper division The legislature directed that the regents not only establish the initial system which had been proposed, but to plan for expansion of the system throughout the State, not only to universities and colleges, but to junior colleges and area vocational and technical schools and institutes. We have developed a 5-year plan for full expansion of this system, and we have accomplished 3 phases of the expansion program, so today we have connected 27 campuses, colleges, and universities, and there are 8 area vocational and technical schools that are connected. Phases 4 and 5 will wrap up the further extremities of the areas of the State institutions that are not now connected, so eventually, within 2 years, if our funding comes on through from the State on schedule, we will have connected all colleges and universities, public and private-incidentally, the private institutions are connected also and all of the area schools that have made application for being in-being made a part of the State talk-back television system. Mr. RISENHOOVER. Thank you very much. You have no other questions? The subcommittee is adjourned. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 25, 1975.] [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] Hon. CARL PERKINS, VOCATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS OF PENNSYLVANIA, April 2, 1975. Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: The hearings on pending legislation for federal funding of vocational education are of great significance to the Vocational Administrators of Pennsylvania. We are also concerned with the lack of representation from Pennsylvania at these Congressional hearings. We 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 of Pennsylvania (VAP) work at the local level-where the action is. Theirs is the responsibility for planning, budgeting, and operating Vocational schools. This is culminated and enhanced by job placement for Vocational students, all at moderate costs. The Vocational Administrators of Pennsylvania, in a meeting held February 26, 1975, directed the following action to forward to you their opinions as expressed in this meeting. Furthermore, we forward this to you as the views of VAP and most hopefully, those of Pennsylvania's Department of Education. 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 phase of education. Since vocational education has enjoyed substantial progress under P.L. 88-210 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 would 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 effective in achieving results as evi denced 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 voice opposition to removal of categorical funding within the Vocational Act. We should like to recommend that funds for vocational education be appropriated at the federal level with reasonable guidelines to assure broad distribution for all special emphasis areas at the local level. It is at the local level that needs are most apparent and understood and every effort should be exerted to meet these needs. 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 established certified vocational educators. 5. We feel that limitations should be placed upon the amount of money used administratively in disbursing of federal funds. We strongly voice objection to H.B. 17305 which can only lead to unnecessary duplication of facilities and serve as a divergent stimulus at a time when a more harmonious effort is so vital to vocational education's goals. For the future of vocational education, passage of H.B. 17304 should be forthcoming before your August recess. Your help in realizing this endeavor will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Hon. CARL D. PERKINS, DANIEL A. CLARK, State President, Vocational Administrators of Pennsylvania. METROPOLITAN TULSA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: Since its inception in 1970, Tulsa Junior College has played an important role in our community's economic development efforts. Specifically, TJC has been most helpful in arranging courses and curriculum that would help meet the manpower skill needs of companies locating or expanding facilities within the Tulsa area. During our negotiations with firms who have expressed an interest in our area, we must-in many instances-satisfy their concern that efficient skilled manpower is either presently available or can be supplied. TJC's receptiveness . . . and their ability to develop programs. . . has been a tremendous help to us in this regard. Among those firms that have located facilities in Tulsa and who have benefited from TJC's vocational-technical capabilities are American Airlines, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Avis Rent A Car and Cities Service Oil Company. In addition, a number of local firms that have undergone expansion have also benefited from TJC's abilities to implement courses and curriculum tailored to their particular needs. In summation, TJC is a vital "partner" in Tulsa's economic development efforts... and we wholeheartedly support Federal programs that would provide more adequate funding for post-secondary vocational-technical programs. We would respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record of Dr. Alfred M. Phillips' appearance before the Sub-committee on Vocational Education on March 20. Sincerely, CLYDE C. COLE, Executive Vice President. VOCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:36 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William Lehman presiding. Members present: Representatives Perkins, Meeds, Lehman, Risenhoover, Mottl, Hall, and Pressler. Staff member present: Yvonne Franklin, minority legislative associate. Chairman PERKINS. The Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary,. and Vocational Education will come to order. We will let Dr. Sheppard and Mr. Standridge come up first and then we will hear from Mr. Lincoln. Come on up, gentlemen. First let me state that it is a great pleasure to welcome you distinguished educators here before this committee on such an important subject matter. I am especially pleased to welcome you here because of your great Congressman from the State of Florida, Congressman Lehman. Congressman Lehman during his tenure on this committee. has contributed as much as any other individual for the advancement of all education in this country at the elementary, secondary, and the higher education level and is now working at the vocational manpower level. It is a great pleasure for me this morning to ask Congressman Lehman to chair these hearings. Come on over, Congressman Lehman. We are working on a bill to go to the floor today and we have no better individual and no greater American than Congressman Lehman to preside at this hearing. Mr. LEHMAN. Before I take the chairman's chair I just would like to thank Chairman Perkins for helping us set up these hearings. He has done a fantastic job in the chairmanship of this committee. Chairman PERKINS. Thank you. Mr. LEHMAN [presiding]. Mr. Stanridge or Dr. Sheppard, whoever wants to get started. You might as well get the show on the road and show them how good we are in Dade County. STATEMENT OF JOHN F. STANDRIDGE, SUPERINTENDENT, VOCATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION, DADE COUNTY, FLA. Mr. STANDRIDGE. Thank you, Congressman Lehman. |