new programs were initiated. Millions of persons were trained in practically all occupations, but particularly in trade and industrial fields. The programs were designated by established and newly-coined terms such as "apprentice training, apprentice training," "training within industry," "vocational training for war production workers," "the engineering science and management war training program," and "the food production war training program. C. DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE 83D CONGRESS (1953-54) President Truman's budget for the fiscal year 1954 recommended an appropriation of $25,811,592 for vocational education below college grade. Of this amount, $18,673,261 was annual appropriations, and subject to action of the Committees on Appropriations and of the Congress. Permanent appropriations under the Smith-Hughes Act, not requiring congressional action, amounted to $7,138,331. President Eisenhower did not send Congress a complete budget for that year, but under his direction the Bureau of the Budget and the Departments made some revisions in the original (Truman) budget. Among the revisions was a recommendation for a 25-percent reduction in the George-Barden appropriation. On May 15, 1953, the House Appropriations Committee reported out a bill (H. R. 5246) containing appropriations for the Office of Education and its programs. The report from the committee stated that for promotion and further development of vocational education * * *. The bill includes $16,048,870, a reduction of $2,624,391 from the request and from the appropriation for 1953. Publicity given to the proposed reduction in the appropriation for vocational education elicited widespread protest from certain educational and other organizations. When the appropriation bill reached the floor of the House an amendment was offered to reinstate the proposed cut. The amendment was approved by a vote of 123 to 61. The Senate concurred in this action by the House. Including the continuing annual appropriation under the Smith-Hughes Act, the total for vocational education below college grade thus became $25,811,592, the same as was recommended in the original (Truman) budget. For the fiscal year 1955, President Eisenhower's original budget recommended a cut of 6.3 percent in the appropriation for vocational education under the George-Barden Act. On May 11, 1954, however, the President sent to Congress a revised budget that recommended reinstatement of the proposed cut, bringing the recommendation back to $18,673,261, the same amount that was appropriated for fiscal 1954. The House Appropriations Committee reported the bill to the floor of the House with a cut of $298,750 below the amount appropriated for fiscal 1954. However, an amendment was offered on the floor by Representative Watkins M. Abbitt of Virginia, raising the appropriation to $23,673,261, an increase of $5 million over the amount appropriated the previous year. The amendment was adopted by voice vote. As passed by the House and Senate the full appropriation for voca tional education below college grade (including the Smith-Hughes funds) became $30,811,592. Some Members of Congress expressed themselves as looking upon the increase for vocational education for 1955 as a steppingstone to increasing the amount appropriated under the George-Barden Act to the full $29,300,000 authorized. While the 83d Congress was in session there was considerable discussion among groups interested in educational and health matters concerning the possible inclusion of practical-nurse training in the Federal-State cooperative program of vocational education. This proposal, however, was not introduced in the 83d Congress in the form of a bill. It has already been mentioned in this report that during the 83d Congress a bill prepared in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was introduced proposing to repeal the Smith-Hughes and George-Barden Acts and establish a new program of Federal support for vocational education. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. No hearings were held on the proposal and it was not reported out of committee. D. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS The currently effective Federal vocational education acts place upon the United States Office of Education responsibility for cooperating with the State boards for vocational education in the promotion and further development of vocational education. The States' acceptance acts provide for State boards with full responsibility for the preparation of State plans for vocational education which, when approved by the United States Commissioner of Education, serve as the basis for the administration of the Federal funds allotted to the State for vocational education. The acts require at least dollar-for-dollar matching of Federal funds with State and/or local funds, and public supervision or control of the program. As currently administered, the program provides for vocational education of less than college grade for farmers, homemakers, tradesmen, and workers in distributive occupations in a variety of institutions located in many different places. Although the greater portion of the program is conducted by secondary schools, it is permissible that other schools receive reimbursement from Federal funds for vocational training as long as the work offered is of less than college grade and is for persons 14 years of age and over. Some of the participating institutions train full-time workers in evening classes; others, part-time workers in day classes, high-school students in day schools, and teachers in colleges and universities. An additional program of occupational information and guidance for youth and adults is provided, All of the States and Territories and the Virgin Islands are currently participating in the program. Of the approximately 24,000 public secondary day schools in the United States, about 14,000 offer vocational education courses in 1 or more of the 4 fields receiving Federal aid. Vocational agriculture is being taught in all but about 5,000 high schools serving rural youth; and there are fewer than 7,000 secondary schools which do not offer some kind of program in home economics. On the other hand, investigations by the American Vocational Association have yielded information on serious deficiencies in provisions for vocational education on a nationwide scale. Findings by the association have included the following: (1) Provisions for trade and industrial education are reaching only about one-half the number of those who would require such training to meet completely the Nation's need for skilled workers. (2) Distributive education, the newest field of vocational education, is available in only a small percentage of the centers where it is needed. (3) In May 1954 there was an immediate need for 15,652 additional teachers of vocational subjects. Working people pursuing part-time courses, rather than full-time day students, consitute a majority of the enrollment in the current Federal-State program of vocational education. Such has been the case every year since the inauguration of the program in 1918. The proportionate share of the cost of the program borne by State and local governments has steadily increased. In 1918 the Federal Government contributed at the rate of about $1 for every $1.50 of State and local funds. The States and localities are now contributing nearly $5 for every $1 of Federal funds. Advocates of appropriation of the full George-Barden authorization have cited this fact as evidence that the Federal contribution has stimulated greater State and local efforts in this field. In 1955 representatives of the following organizations testified in hearings by committees of the House and Senate urging Congress to appropriate the full $29,300,000 authorized by the George-Barden Act: American Federation of Labor American Federation of Teachers American Home Economics Association American Vocational Association Arkansas Farmers Union Congress of Industrial Organizations Georgia State Citizens Committee on Education Georgia Future Farmers of America Minneapolis Education Association and Twin Cities Legislative Committee Mount Vernon Homemakers National Association of State Supervisors of Distributive Education National Cotton Council National Council of Local Administrators of Vocational Education and Practical Arts National Education Association National Farmers Union National Grange National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Virginia Home Economics Association Altogether 84 Members of Congress, representatives of organizations, and other citizens testified before House and Senate committees in 1954 in behalf of promotion of vocational education. President Eisenhower's budget for 1956, transmitted to the Congress on January 17, 1955, calls for Federal grants-in-aid appropriation amounting to $23,673,261 for vocational education under the GeorgeBarden Act and special acts relating to the Territories. This fund would be supplemented by the permanent appropriation amounting to $7,273,330.20 under the Smith-Hughes Act and other acts applying to Hawaii and Puerto Rico. In considering the proposed addition of practical nurse training to the federally aided program, some persons have pointed out that in many of the States the vocational-education authorities are well experienced in administering such training. This fact has been partly the basis for advocacy of placement of Federal aid for such training in the hands of the Federal, State, and local agencies for vocational education. The general nature of the proposal to establish a new system of Federal aid to vocational education has been set forth in this report. Proponents and opponents of this measure as proposed in S. 3271, 83d Congress, have advanced such arguments as the following: FAVORABLE ARGUMENTS 1. The proposed new program would reduce Federal influence over vocational education and place more control in the hands of State and local authorities because it would provide for State-local administration. 2. All standards for vocational education courses would be eliminated, giving more flexibility to the program at the State and local levels. 3. The new program would eliminate the undesirable earmarking of funds for particular kinds of vocational education. 4. It would eliminate the requirement for "matching" of Federal with State and local funds, which is unfair to some States and localities. 5. It would make the annual allotment to States depend upon the need at the time, which is the proper basis for the allotment. UNFAVORABLE ARGUMENTS 1. The proposed new program would give more power and control to Federal authorities, because the Commissioner of Education would have the sole authority to apportion a part of the funds to States and could establish rules and regulations governing the administration of the entire program of Federal assistance. 2. Omission of such standards as are in present laws would result in lowering the quality of instruction and would lead eventually to deterioration of the program. 3. Under the vagueness of the definition of vocational education. contained in the bill, funds could be used for almost any kind of instruction, including useless and frivolous courses. Many organized groups favor earmarking funds for the four forms of vocational education defined in existing laws. 4. The removal of the requirement for matching Federal funds would weaken the program because this requirement is a strong stimulation to States and localities to increase their expenditures for this purpose. 5. The uncertainty of the annual allotment to States and the power of the Commissioner of Education to apportion part of the funds would make it difficult for States to develop plans and make commitments to their school districts. |