training. Some of the stated objectives have been identical with goals of general education.

According to the definitions of "education" and "educational" contained in Webster's New International Dictionary, the issue is at least partly an educational one, however the ultimate purpose of the training proposals has been and apparently continues to be the development of a trained nonveteran reserve force for the national defense.

The question is one of establishment of a long-term military and educational policy.

From the educational viewpoint, the historical background of the military training proposals is significant in that through the years they have often been associated with other educational or training proposals or provisions. Congressional consideration of UMT legislation after World War I was accompanied by proposals for combining it with vocational education. Congress rejected UMT but made provision for extension of military training through the ROTC at educational institutions and for the utilization of the Civilian Military Training Corps as a source of reserve officers.

Other educational considerations in the historical background of UMT are: (1) That a multiplicity of substitute educational propositions were advanced at the time of intense agitation of the UMT issue about 1945; and (2) that the Army-Navy-Air Force Register credited a substitute proposal to utilize educational institutions for military training with being the "entering wedge for the eventual UMŤ defeat" in 1952.

Many bills introduced in Congress, and articles in periodical literature within the last several years have set forth various educational proposals as alternatives to UMT plans developed or approved by the Department of Defense. A few of the basic substitute ideas have been the following:

1. Establish a National Security Training Commission which would supervise a National Security Training Corps consisting of every male high-school student in the United States. Service in the corps would last through 2 academic years, plus 6 weeks of training at summer camp during the summer preceding or following graduation. During that period courses prescribed by the Secretary of Defense designed to serve as a basis for future service in any branch of the Armed Forces would be taught.

2. Besides a draft under the Selective Service System a threefold military preparedness program would provide 3 months of military training in summer for every male high school or college student. In addition, a civilian-selectee training system would provide military training in his home community for every nonstudent male citizen between the ages of 17 and 35.

3. The Nation's public school system would provide the machinery needed for universal training for national preparedness. The military training would be given simultaneously with other education. Children in elementary schools would be taught maintenance of health and other elements of the program. Military emphasis modeled after the ROTC programs would begin in high school and extend through junior college.

4. Each year the undergraduate college ROTC trainees, usually idle in summer, could be used, as noncommissioned officers, to train

the high-school graduates, who would enter training camps on June 15. The camps would be commanded by officers who teach military science and tactics in the colleges during the regular 9-month academic year.

Since 1951 emphasis given to the universality of the UMT proposals adds to their educational significance. An undertaking by the military departments to train practically the entire male population within certain age limits to meet the requirements of modern military service might be a tremendous educational task. Training for all branches of service in the Armed Forces now includes instruction in practically all subject fields at all educational levels.

The proposal of the National Security Training Commission that the trainees retain their civilian status is also important from an educational viewpoint. This would mean, according to some proposals, that under the limited civilian supervision of the National Security Training Commission the military departments would be in the unprecedented position of constantly training a large percentage of the civilian population of the country.

The proposals thus raise the question of the extent to which the Federal Government would have opportunity to exercise influence or control over education in the United States. This is perhaps the most important question involved from the educational viewpoint.

Other considerations from this viewpoint, not already mentioned, are the cost of the proposed training in relation to the cost of other possible educational programs for preparedness for national defense, relative instructor-trainee ratios, the effects upon the current ROTC program, the question of whether the military training could be given as effectively and more economically at the Nation's high schools and junior colleges, etc. These and other educational considerations arose in discussion of UMT in the House of Representatives and elsewhere in 1952 and may be expected to be brought up in any future protracted debate either on the UMT issue as then considered, or on a similar proposal under another name.15

15 A more comprehensive report on Educational Aspects of Universal Military Training and Alternative Proposals, prepared by Charles A. Quattlebaum, was printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor in December 1952. Although this report is now out of date, much of the detailed material contained therein is applicable to the current issue.

CHAPTER VI. MODIFICATION OF THE VOCATIONAL

EDUCATION PROGRAM

A. NATURE OF THE QUESTION

Since passage of the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 the Federal Government has cooperated with the States in financing vocational education below college grade. Four subsequent acts of Congress have authorized additional Federal appropriations for aid to the States for this purpose.

Proposals to modify this cooperative program were advanced in the 83d Congress. These proposals will be briefly reviewed later in this chapter.

At the time of this writing one bill which would in effect extend the program so as to include an additional form of training has already been introduced in the 1st session of the 84th Congress. Other changes which were proposed in the 83d Congress, but were not enacted, may be reintroduced in the form of a new bill.

It appears that the general question of modification of the vocational education program, as apt to be considered in the 84th Congress, has three components, namely:

1. Should the Congress appropriate this year, for the first time, the full amount authorized by the George-Barden Act of 1946?

2. Should provision be made for practical nurse training to be included in the program?

3. Should the Smith-Hughes and George-Barden Acts be repealed and replaced with new legislation such as that incorporated in S. 3271 introduced by the chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare in the 83d Congress?

The following comments may serve to elucidate these questions respectively:

1. The George-Barden Act of 1946 authorized an annual appropriation of $29,300,000 of Federal funds for aid to the States for vocational education below college grade. Congress has never appropriated the full amount authorized. A step in the direction of making the full authorization available was taken during the 2d session of the 83d Congress, when an increase of $5 million was appropriated, making a total of $23,673,261 available for the fiscal year 1955. This was the largest amount ever appropriated by the Congress for a single year under the act. There is a reasonable expectation that appropriation of the full $29,300,000 will become an issue during the 84th Congress. 2. For several years there has been a demand for more practical nurse training throughout the Nation. There have been proposals that such training be made an integral part of the program of federally aided vocational education in public secondary schools.

Part B of title I of H. R. 95, the National Health Insurance and Public Health Act, introduced in the House of Representatives on January 5, 1955, by Representative John D. Dingell, sets forth a

proposed federally aided program of practical nurse training.1 The bill proposes to authorize a Federal appropriation of $15 million annually for this purpose. In order to secure Federal benefits a State must submit and have approved by the United States Commissioner of Education a State plan for practical nurse training.

The bill sets forth in detail 12 requirements of the State plan, some of which are, in brief, the following: (1) The training must be given under public control. (2) It must be of less than college grade and designed to meet the needs of persons over 16 years of age. (3) It must include such courses and supervised experience as are necessary to meet the minimum requirements of State licensing laws for practical nurses. (4) The teachers of the practical nurse courses must have at least the minimum qualifications for teachers of such subjects determined upon for each State by the State board for vocational education. (5) The State board must submit an annual report to the United States Commissioner of Education concerning the work done and the receipts and expenditures of money under the State plan. 3. During the 83d Congress there was considerable discussion among some Federal officials and by the educational press concerning proposed repeal of the Smith-Hughes and George-Barden Acts and establishment of a new Federal program in this field. S. 3271, introduced by Senator H. Alexander Smith, of New Jersey, proposed to do this and to authorize a general Federal appropriation, up to a maximum of $36 million annually, for vocational education.

This bill was prepared in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It was in line with the administration's efforts to standardize grants-in-aid legislation administered by that DepartThis bill or a similar proposal may be reintroduced in the

ment.

84th Congress.

B. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Prior to 1917 few States and communities had developed vocational education programs of less than college grade. After a nationwide study by the Commission on National Aid to Vocational Education, which had been authorized by Congress in 1914, the Smith-Hughes Act was passed in 1917. The primary purpose of this act was to make Federal funds available to the States for the promotion and development of vocational training programs of less than college grade.

The Smith-Hughes Act provided Federal financial aid to the States for vocational education in agriculture, trades and industries, and home_economics, and for the training of teachers of these subjects. The George-Reed Act of 1929 authorized additional appropriations for 4 years; the George-Ellzey Act of 1934 for 3 years.

The George-Deen Act of 1936 authorized additional annual appropriations without limitation to a specified number of years, as in the case of its predecessors. This act provided for the further development of vocational education by inclusion of education in distributive occupations and in public and other service occupations among the kinds of training for which Federal funds could be used.

1 Since this writing several additional bills containing provisions for practical nurse training have been introduced. These include: S. 886, introduced February 1, 1955, by Senator Smith of New Jersey (for himself and 10 other Senators); H. R. 3458 introduced February 2, 1955, by Representative J. Percy Priest; and S. 929, introduced February 4, 1955, by Senator Lister Hill (for himself and 4 other Senators).

The George-Barden Act of 1946 replaced the George-Deen Act. Besides authorizing additional annual appropriations the GeorgeBarden Act extended the scope of the program. It added important new functions such as the maintenance of adequate administration, the development of vocational guidance, and the provision of equipment and supplies for vocational instruction.

Presently effective legislation supporting the program consists of the Smith-Hughes Act supplemented by the George-Barden Act.

The program of Federal, State, and local cooperation for the development of vocational education has been based upon two fundamental ideas: (1) That vocational education is essential to the security and well-being of the Nation; and (2) that Federal funds are necessary to stimulate and assist the States and localities in making adequate provisions for such training.

Since 1917 the program of vocational education in the Nation's public schools has grown tremendously. The following data showing enrollment increases are indicative of this growth.

Besides cooperating with the States and localities for the development of vocational education as already outlined, the Federal Government has promoted vocational education in other ways.

The Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1920, also commonly called the Smith-Bankhead Act, established on a nationwide basis limited services in vocational training, counseling, and placement of persons disabled in industry or otherwise. In 1943 the Congress, spurred by manpower needs, authorized a greatly expanded rehabilitation program (Public Law 113, 78th Cong.), to be carried out in partnership with the States. Public Law 565, 83d Congress, further extended vocational rehabilitation services, including training for rehabilitation. The National Youth Administration was established in 1935 to provide work training for unemployed youth and part-time employment of needy students. In 1942 nearly 600,000 youths were enrolled in courses of vocational instruction under the NYA.

The Civilian Conservation Corps, created by act of Congress in 1937, provided vocational training as well as employment to youth in need of remunerative occupations. In a message to Congress in 1939 President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that the major purpose of the CCC was to "promote the welfare and further the training" of the individuals in the Corps.

During World War II the Federal Government carried out independently and promoted in cooperation with the States various nationwide programs of vocational education designed to prepare the civilian population for more effective support of the war effort. Some of the established programs were adapted to wartime needs, and