in each community continuously as school programs are developed and operated to be sure that current local needs are being met.

What is vocational education?

The definition of the term "vocational education" has been debated in educational circles for many years, and the whole of the argument need not be reviewed here. In part, it is a matter of semantics. In a broad sense all education, formal or informal, contributes to vocational competence. For certain occupations, adequate preparation may require years of collegiate preparation. Other occupations obviously demand less formal education. In one sense the subsequent use made of knowledge or a skill determines its categorization in a large Thus, every subject is vocational, or perhaps none is inherently that. For the purposes of this study, however, vocational education is intended to mean any high school, junior college, or adult education program that deals specifically in an organized and systematic manner with the acquisition of skills, understandings, attitudes, and abilities that are necessary for entry into and successful progress within a specific occupation or job family.

measure.

The concerns of this study extend beyond the mere specific skill acquisition needed for an initial job. We are concerned with the whole program of occupational information collection and dissemination, with occupational counseling, and with the use of practical and manual subjects such as were indicated earlier in this report as avenues toward and alternate approaches for many pupils for securing satisfying additional general education.

Washington, D.C., programs in vocational education

The sound public school education program in Washington, D.C., as elsewhere, should do the following:

1. Provide adequate occupational information about present and future job opportunities locally, regionally, and nationally.

2. Assist each pupil to determine as well as can be done some satisfying occupational goal and as realistically as possible, a plan for achieving this goal. 3. Develop a school program for every pupil that is as worthwhile and personally satisfying as possible for each pupil. This should include:

(a) Intellectual development to the full capability of each pupil irrespective of his vocational goal.

(b) Meeting of the technical requirements for entrance at an appropriate college of his choice for those pupils who are to continue their formal schooling beyond current available programs.

(c) Meeting of the specific skill and knowledge requirements for entrance into any available jobs for those pupils who do not continue their formal schooling.

(d) Adaptation of the school requirements and structuring of the learning program to meet individual pupil interests and abilities, so that most pupils will find satisfaction in regular school attendance through the 12th grade.

4. Offer day and evening year-around programs for adults and post-highschool youth, including courses designed to bring about vocational upgrading, occupational retraining, etc.

As shown in previous chapters of this report, each Washington vocational school is achieving many aspects of the foregoing program. No school is completely satisfied, however, with its present accomplishment.

The present scope of vocational programs offered by the secondary schools of Washington, D.C., include instruction in each of the areas defined as "vocational education" by the various Federal acts under which financial assistance is offered. However, the qualifications for Federal assistance are substantially restrictive, and some instruction is offered outside of the Federal program. Thus, while the number of pupils enrolled in federally qualifying vocational education programs in the vocational high schools of Washington. D.C., is limited, the number of career-oriented programs being offered, and the number of students enrolled in such programs are significant. The highest enrollments are those courses designed to prepare youth for entry-level jobs in the clerical/kindred occupations, with lesser numbers enrolled in courses in the field of domestic/ household service.

Recommendations

To provide for the sound public school multipath education program that is obviously desired by the schools of Washington, D.C., and especially to provide for those aspects of education which are, or might be, classified as vocational education, we offer the following recommendations.

1. Every pupil irrespective of his term of schooling needs a continuous contact with reliable and appropriate (for him) occupational information. Studies have shown that this need begins earlier than is commonly supposed-in the early elementary grades. Thus, in any school system there must be developed a plan for gathering, interpreting, and disseminating occupational information that is relevant to the local situation and to the age and level of the pupil concerned. Such a program must be continuous, perpetual, and well-articulated. 2. The task of accomplishing the objective stated above is a mammoth one and will require the cooperation and assistance of many within a planned program. Specially qualified persons should be available to assist and coordinate the activities of the counseling and teaching staff in matters concerning occupational information and counseling. This might be organized so that one coordinator would service one high school, plus its feeder junior highs and elementary schools.

3. Additionally, a citywide center for occupational information materials collection, preparation, and dissemination should be established in the Office of the Assistant Superintendent (Vocational Education). A staff member in this Office should be assigned the responsibility of coordinating these activities with the identification and development of new programs designed to fulfill local and/or citywide needs.

4. Together, the coordinators assigned to the schools, and the central office staff member, should constitute a professional occupational education coordinating committee. This committee should continuously review the programs offered and the occupational needs defined to determine the initiation and location of new programs. This committee should also contribute the nucleus of a broader committee involving all agencies conducting, or planning to begin, vocational programs (Department of Employment, Welfare Department, Economic Opportunities Commission, etc.).

5. The counseling staff at each secondary school should be increased (as economically feasible) to the ratio where each counselor has only 250 advisees. In addition, conferences should be held to acquaint each counselor with occupational materials available, techniques, and goals of the program. Further involvement of the teaching staff is also necessary in such conferences.

6. To provide for a continuous, consistent flow of information about career plans of inschool students, about students who leave school prior to graduation, and about the actual experiences of graduates, a citywide data gathering program is urged. Such a program would be established and supervised by the Occupational Education Coordinating Committee and might be programed for data processing equipment. It is anticipated that the initial stages of such a program for the followup of all students in the District will yield data which will serve every aspect of school district programing, and would qualify for funding under the various vocational acts.

7. Looking still further into the future, it is recommended that, as plans for new schools are being developed or older schools are being reconstituted, the possibility of providing a greater range of specialized facilities at the high schools be considered. These might become available at all times of the day and evening for such specialized adult vocational programs as the community needs.

8. Examination of the types of vocational programs presently offered in Washington, D.C., high schools indicates that these are relatively common and are designed for entry into certain beginning jobs available in the area, as is appropriate. These programs will need expansion and continuous evaluation if they are to remain instructionally productive and capable of meeting the needs of the community and students.

9. Begin now to provide ways and means for the burgeoning impact of educating youth beyond the 12th grade. To build the proposed Vocational-Technical-Occupational Center would be a good beginning.

10. Make financial needs known and propose a superior program and/or facility for whatever area is under consideration. Mediocrity or less, in education, is a luxury which the people of Washington, D.C., can no longer afford. Senator MORSE. Our next witness is Dr. Ellis Haworth, chairman of the Legislation Committee, District of Columbia Congress of Parents & Teachers.

Glad to have you. I would be disappointed if I had an education. bill and you didn't come in to testify.

STATEMENT OF DR. ELLIS HAWORTH, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATION COMMITTEE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS & TEACHERS

Mr. HAWORTH. You can be assured, Mr. Senator, that we will be on hand.

We greatly appreciate all the interest you have shown over the years of educational matters for the country and especially for the District of Columbia.

I have a statement to present on behalf of the District of Columbia Congress of Parents & Teachers, of which organization I serve as chairman of its legislation committee. I would like to read that to you and comment on it, if I may.

Senator MORSE. Very well.

Mr. HAWORTH. Several years ago, in our annual convention, we passed the following items in our action program which is the basis for our statements that we submit to you and other committees of the Congress. This statement is as follows dealing with public higher education in the District of Columbia.

1. We support a program of higher education at public expense and under public control, including a junior college, a college of liberal arts and sciences, a college of education, a graduate school, and such other programs as the needs of the community may indicate as desirable.

2. We believe that the program of higher education should be under the control of a board of education, the composition and method of appointment or election to be considered at a later date.

3. We are opposed to any program of subsidies for higher education in privately controlled colleges and universities.

4. We support a program of higher education with no tuition fees for residents of the District of Columbia.

5. We support the maximum of institutional self-control over the finances of the program of higher education.

6. We support an admission policy on the part of the District of Columbia institution of higher education which shall be flexible and appropriate to the various programs concerned.

7. We support a program of cooperation between the institution of higher education and the District of Columbia public schools and the other colleges and universities of the metropolitan area.

In accordance with the first item in our action program listed above, we recommend that the bills under consideration be amended to provide for the establishment of a university of the District of Columbia. There is need for such an institution.

Every one of the 50 States and many of the larger cities maintain at least one publicly supported and publicly controlled university. The young people of the District of Columbia are the only persons in this country who do not have such a facility for higher education available to them.

Each year, both private and State-supported universities are adopting more restrictive policies with regard to the admission of non-State residents. Examples of which I have personal knowledge:

(a) The University of Maryland is decreasing the number of nonresidents (especially women) to be admitted and is increasing the cutoff point in class rank of high school graduates;

(b) Pennsylvania State University cut the number of admissions of graduates of Woodrow Wilson High School from the usual 12 to 15 students down to only 2 for this last year, because of the need to accommodate applicants from the State of Pennsylvania. Other out-of-State high schools were cut in admissions in a similar manner;

(c) Cornell University has recently announced that admissions of new students for 1966 will be reduced by 25 percent of the number admitted in the freshman class of 1965.

Thus, each year, unless a local high school graduate elects to follow a teacher-training course in the District of Columbia Teachers College, he will find it more and more difficult to gain admission to a Statesupported university at reasonable cost.

All of the colleges and universities in the District of Columbia (except the District of Columbia Teachers College) are privately controlled, have student fees which are beyond the means of many of our young people, and have admission policies which would exclude many of our local high school graduates who might wish to continue in school beyond the 12th grade.

May I add at this point, sir, since the testimony of last week before your committee the public press carried announcements that both George Washington University and American University were increasing tuition fees beginning next fall by $150 a year, so that the figures you were given should be increased by those amounts to represent the full tuition fees.

This spokesman has, ever since 1953, called the attention of the District of Columbia Commissioners and various committees of the U.S. Congress to the statistics published annually by the U.S. Bureau of the Census under the titles of "Compendium of State Finances" and "Compendium of Large City Finances." These publications for fiscal 1964 show, among other facts, that

(a) The District of Columbia has a population which exceeds that of 11 of the 50 States.

(b) The District of Columbia spent $2.26 per capita on institutions of higher education, as compared with the national average of $28.87. (Maryland spent $21.33; Virginia, $19.40; six States over $50; only one State, Massachusetts, spent less than $10 ($9.87).

This spokesman questions the accuracy of the figure for the District of Columbia, since some costs have been assigned to the District of Columbia Teachers College which should be assigned to the costs of operating the elementary schools.

That leads to the cost of the two laboratory schools, the cost over and above that as a regular elementary school should be assigned to the regular teachers college. If that correction were made, a more accurate figure would be $1.25 per capita.

Of the 11 States with a smaller population than the District of Columbia, the largest amount spent on higher education was by Alaska ($13,200,000), and the smallest amount was by Wyoming ($1,900,000).

Other data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce show that the District of Columbia has a per capita income greater than that of all the States save that of Nevada; and that the District of Columbia spends a smaller percentage of its per capita income on education than any of the 50 States.

These figures show clearly that the District of Columbia can afford to support a public university for its residents.

May I point out that the testimony presented by Dr. Muirhead last week before you I think greatly underestimates that anticipated enrollment in a 4-year liberal arts and sciences college. He indicated that

he felt that had it been in operation for 2 or 3 years, it would have an enrollment of approximately 2,000 students. He neglected to consider the figures given by Senator Yarborough and by some other witnesses today as to the number of veterans who were now eligible under the new veterans benefit laws just passed by the Congress ranging from 25,000 to 27,000 in the District who would be eligible for those benefits, many of whom might be interested in this institution.

There is another aspect that no witness has heretofore touched upon. Many families of relatively modest means, not at the poverty level but somewhat above, are not to a point where they can send their children to private institutions, have seen fit although employed in the District to take up residence in neighboring counties of Maryland or Virginia so their young children could qualify as residents of Maryland or Virginia universities.

It is my belief that if these institutions under the present bills are authorized and established, that many of these families would find it desirable to move back into the District to the ultimate benefit of the District, as well as to themselves. I think that would again greatly increase the potential number of students who might attend these institutions.

Senator Gruening mentioned this afternoon the large increased enrollment in junior colleges in the State of Alaska. There are 31 junior colleges at the present time in the State of Florida; every one of them has started out and within 2 or 3 years has greatly exceeded their anticipated enrollment. The seven State-supported universities in Florida have all in 3 years more than doubled the anticipated enrollment. So, I think Mr. Muirhead's figures are a gross understatement of the enrollment to be expected in the colleges once established.

Now, in view of many criticisms of the method of appointing the present Board of Education, this spokesman would like to suggest the following change in S. 293 which he believes in certain respects to be a better bill than S. 1612:

That the Board of Education should consist of 21 members, 9 of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States; 9 of whom shall be appointed by the District of Columbia Commissioners; and 3 of whom shall be elected by and from the graduates of the University of the District of Columbia.

All of the members appointed by the President of the United States and by the District of Columbia Commissioners shall have been residents of the District of Columbia for a period of not less than 5 years immediately prior to their appointments and shall be ineligible to continue in office should they cease to be residents of the District of Columbia.

The three alumni members of the Board of Higher Education shall have held a degree from the University of the District of Columbia or from the District of Columbia Teachers College or its predecessor institutions for at least 5 years prior to election.

The terms of office of the first Board of Higher Education shall be: For onethird of the Board, 2 years; for one-third of the Board, 4 years; and for onethird of the Board, 6 years. Thereafter, the terms for all members of the Board shall be for 6 years, provided that any member of the Board shall be eligible for reappointment.

The idea of a term of 6 years seems to be a desirable one in view of the fact that it takes some time for Board members to begin to be well enough acquainted to furnish useful services to the Board and then the Board should have the benefit of that experience over a long enough time to make it worthwhile for a person to serve as a member.