translate the new technologies into productive applications, while all need enough familiarity with them to employ them comfortably

and effectively.

Competent instructors and up-to-date training

equipment are essential components of this process.

Much has been said recently about public-private cooperation

but little has actually been done to meet the problems I have

described. In fact, an overwhelming proportion

over 90 percent

of private contributions have gone to colleges and universities. This has not been accidental since tax incentives have encouraged these donations while not rewarding contributions to other

institutions.

S 1195 offers a structure for promoting the joint efforts of both the public and private sectors toward upgrading and

strengthening vocational programs to the extent necessary to build a competent, highly-skilled workforce. While we do not expect

that S 1195 can solve all the problems, we do think it offers one concrete way that local private sector employers and schools can work together to help some vocational programs make needed improvements. In the remainder of my statement, I will identify the provisions in S 1195 we want to see kept in final legislation and why we feel they are critical.

TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT NEEDS IN VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS

As we interpret S 1195, Section 174(b)(1) and 174(c)(2)(B), charitable tax deduction credits would be provided to enhance the quantity and quality of equipment and services being used for teaching purposes in secondary schools offering specified vocational programs, in area vocational schools as defined in P.L. 94-482, and in technical institutes and community colleges. The particular programs eligible for these credits would include those preparing students for computer occupations, engineering technologies, electronics-related jobs, trade and technical positions involving the adaption, installation, operation or maintenance of automated industrial equipment, medical and health-related occupations, and agricultural equipment and instrumentation positions. We believe these provisions will promote several important results:

1.

2.

Improving the quality of selected secondary and postsecondary vocational-technical programs,

Expanding the capacity of institutions to prepare new entrants as well as displaced workers for the workplace in areas where shortages exist today,

3. Enhancing the capacity of institutions and employers to work more closely together in preparing advanced-level, technically skilled workers,

4.

Providing recognition to a network of institutions that are crucial to this nation's economic and defense goals.

Widespread Inadequacy of Equipment in Vocational Programs

Numerous sources emphasize the fact that equipment serving existing vocational education programs is not current and at the level of industry specifications. The state of Maine's finding that the equipment in its vocational programs is at least 8 to 20 years old is not unusual. Consequently, it is not surprising that programs such as one in Oklahoma have difficulty finding the $3.1 million necessary to develop a machine tool lab which is critically needed.

Dr. Orville Nelson conducted a survey for AVA in the Spring of 1981 to identify the status of equipment in vocational education programs throughout the United States. The survey was particularly designed to identify needs related to keeping equipment current with technology. The questionaire was distributed to subscribers to AVA's communications program for institutions and the selective nature of the sample probably reflected somewhat better than average programs.

The results indicated that recent trends in business and industry toward the rapid adoption and application of robotics and computers in the design, manufacture, and distribution of products was not reflected in the technology used in vocational

programs. Fewer than one-half of the respondents were making some use of computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing. Only nine percent responded they were making extensive use or had developed new programs related to computer-assisted

design.

Laser technology and fiber optics, which are being used in a wide variety of applications in business and industry, were not widely used in vocational and technical programs. More than twothirds responding reported that they were not including these technologies in their programs.

Upgrading Equipment

An Expensive Proposition

Additional findings from Dr. Nelson's study indicate that the lag between the technology used in vocational programs and that used in business and industry is primarily caused by a lack of adequate funds for the procurement of new equipment. Respondents to the survey estimated that it would cost approximately $375,000 to bring the equipment for their technical and Trade and Industrial programs up to date. They reported a large proportion of their tools and equipment over ten years old; the trade and industry area indicated that 52.5 percent of its tools and equipment was over ten years in age.

Dr. Nelson concluded his study with these words:

Vocational education has been criticized for its failure to keep pace with emerging skills and technology. The data from these surveys on equipment needs indicate that vocational education programs have been suffering from a lack of adequate funds to keep its tools and equipment up-to-date with those used in business and industry. With a critical lack of funding in this area, it is almost impossible for vocational education to plan and provide programs related to new and emerging technologies. A similar study in Pennsylvania found that almost one-fourth of the tools and equipment in its secondary and postsecondary voca

tional technical programs was no longer current with the technology used in industry. This study disclosed that over $77 million was needed for updating, 35 million to keep advanced technology tools and equipment already purchased current with the state-of-the-art, $21 million for updating worn-out or obsolete equipment, and $21 million for new, advanced technology planned

for 1983-84.

This study concluded with these reflections and cautions:

Vocational education in the past was able to train millions of students and incumbent workers for both entry- and advancedlevel jobs using tools and equipment that were comparable with those used in business and industry. However, with rapid technological advances, increased overhead and current economic conditions, there is some doubt about the continued effectiveness of vocational education. This report can help serve as a basis for the revitalization of vocational education in Pennsylvania with respect to training based on updatged equipment.

These conclusions were verified in information gathered on the other side of the nation. Oregon found that it would take $5 million to merely maintain its community college electronics/electricity standards; $70 thousand to maintain its technical agriculture programs and $383 thousand to make them current in new agricultural technology; $1.3 million to maintain industrial maintenance and mechanics programs and $882 thousand to upgrade them. These figures are conservative when it is recognized that a computer-assisted design (CAD) system which allows vocational educators to develop the types of competencies and skills used on CAD systems in industry costs at least $300,000 - $400,000. The cost of procuring a robot and developing a laboratory for the study of

22-894 0-83--15