Mr. FOGARTY. Who cut it back? Mr. LUDINGTON. In the normal budgeting process, these and other amounts were considered by the Commissioner's Office, the Office of the Secretary, and the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. FOGARTY. Who made the first cut? Mr. CARDWELL. The Office of Education requested $317,991,000 of the Secretary. He requested a similar amount of the Bureau of the Budget. The final budget was $250,791,000. So in answer to your question, the first reduction occurred in developing the President's budget. The Secretary requested the authorization in full. Mr. FOGARTY. The Bureau of the Budget made the cut? RECOMMENDATION OF WILLIS COMMITTEE ON VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Mr. FOGARTY. That is the answer to my original question. How does this compare with the recommendations made by the committee on vocational education headed by Dr. Willis a few years ago? The panel of experts. When did they report? Mr. LUDINGTON. 1962. Mr. FOGARTY. How does this budget compare to their suggestions? Mr. LUDINGTON. It is considerably under the estimates they projected. Mr. ARNOLD. Their recommendation was $400 million for the first year with a view toward extending or increasing it. Mr. FOGARTY. Will you put in the record at this point the recommendations of that committee and what is being asked for by you people? Mr. LUDINGTON. Right. (The information requested follows:) SUMMARY REPORT OF THE PANEL OF CONSULTANTS ON VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FINANCING VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION Support from all sources must expand as enrollments grow, as potential dropouts remain in school, and as adult training and retraining become more general. Local and State governments should increase the half billion dollars they now provide annually for operation, administration, and construction. The Federal Government should provide at least $400 million in 1963-64 as its investment in the millions of youth and adults who can benefit immediately from vocational and technical education. (This amount would include the $55$75 million to be expended in the current year.) Future Federal expenditures should be increased as justified by the need for trained manpower. The proposed 1963-64 Federal appropriation should include: I. For youth in high school who are preparing to enter the labor market or to become homemakers--- II. For high school youth with academic, socio-economic or other handicaps that prevent them from succeeding in the regular Vocational education program----. III. For youth and adults who have completed or left high school and are full-time students, preparing to enter the labor market... IV. For youth and adults unemployed or at work who need training Total recommended by Panel of Consultants for school Amount requested, fiscal year 1967. 1963-64 school year $200, 000, 000 10, 000, 000 50, 000, 000 100, 000, 000 40, 000, 000 400, 000, 000 250, 791, 000 Mr. FOGARTY. I thought that was a pretty good committee. Mr. FOGARTY. They worked hard and long and came out with a unanimous report. Mr. LUDINGTON. Right. COMPARISON OF WORK-STUDY AND NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CORPS PROGRAMS Mr. FOGARTY. The big cut is for the work-study program which is cut from $25 million to $10 million under the plan to phase out the program as the Neighborhood Youth Corps takes the responsibility. What is the difference between these two programs with regard to eligibility requirements, matching and so forth? Mr. LUDINGTON. In our work-study program, there has been no matching through this year. There would be matching required next year on a statewide basis. As I understand it on the Youth Corps, there is no dollar matching required on that program. Under our program, a student must be enrolled on a full-time basis in a vocational education program, the individual must be one who is in need, and the payments from this source will be used by him to remain in school and to complete a vocational program of study. Mr. FOGARTY. How do you determine need? Mr. LUDINGTON. The financial needs of students are determined in most part by State policies and regulations, and it is our knowledge in most instances the local school sets up a committee to deal with each case. Mr. FOGARTY. That is decided at the local level? Mr. LUDINGTON. State and local level. BUDGET FOR NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CORPS Mr. FOGARTY. How much is the Neighborhood Youth Corps budgeted to increase in 1967? Mr. ARNOLD. $132 million in 1966. I do not know what the 1967 budget is. Mr. CARDWELL. We will develop that for the record. I think it is about at the same level. (The information requested follows:) Comparison of Neighborhood Youth Corps and work-study programs [In thousands of dollars] Neighborhood Youth Corps.. 1965 1966 estimate 1967 estimate $275,000 10, 000 NET PROGRAM EFFECT OF NYC AND WORK-STUDY BUDGETS Mr. FOGARTY. They are going to ask for $275 million in 1967. That is a $30 million increase. Half of that is being shifted over from here. That will not even allow them sufficient funds for a full year operation at the level they will reach in 1966. Is that right? Mr. CARDWELL. I am not certain. Mr. FOGARTY. They will be going backward. Mr. CARDWELL. I think the intent of the program was to hold it at the 1966 level in 1967. I think that was the intent of the Bureau of the Budget in the decision that was reached on that budget. Mr. FLOOD. To hold what at what level? Mr. FOGARTY. On the figures that I developed, what do you think about them? Mr. CARDWELL. It would seem to me, in terms of total dollars, I would have to agree with you. Mr. FOGARTY. How much short are they going to be? You are the budget officer. Mr. CARDWELL. This I am not certain. I am not familiar with the details of that program as yet. Mr. FLOOD. What are you talking about? Mr. CARDWELL. We are talking about the work study program of the Office of Education in contrast to the program of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Mr. FOGARTY. If this shift is a good idea, why is it being done piecemeal? Mr. LUDINGTON. I cannot answer. You mean, Why do they not go all the way at this point in time instead of part way? Mr. FOGARTY. Yes. Mr. LUDINGTON. I assume we have some students enrolled in vocational educational courses whose needs are insufficient so that these requests ought to be honored. APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT Mr. FOGARTY. You are asking for $8 million for the Appalachian regional development program which is the balance of the $16 million authorized? Mr. LUDINGTON. Right. Mr. FOGARTY. How much of the $8 million appropriated in the 1965 supplemental has been obligated? Mr. LUDINGTON. We have approved projects of over $1.7 million, but we expect to obligate $8 million by June 30. Mr. FOGARTY. The full amount, $8 million? Mr. LUDINGTON. Yes. Mr. FOGARTY. Tell us how these funds are being used-to build new schools, renovate old schools, or what? Mr. LUDINGTON. They are developed and approved in accordance with State plan procedures under the 1963 Vocational Education Act, and all that have come to our attention so far for new construction, not for remodeling of existing facilities. Mr. FOGARTY. What sites have been selected? Mr. LUDINGTON. You are talking about the area vocational schools under Appalachia? Mr. FOGARTY. Yes. Mr. LUDINGTON. The sites in those cases are provided either by the local educational agency, or by the State. Funds are not used for purchase of land in that connection. Mr. FOGARTY. Supply the information for the record. (The information requested follows:) AREA VOCATIONAL EDUCATION SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS APPROVED UNDER THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT Act of 1965 The following projects have been approved by the Office of Education and forwarded to the Appalachian Regional Commission for approval: GEORGIA Pickens County Area Vocational-Technical School, Pickens County. KENTUCKY Ashland Area Vocational-Technical School, Ashland. Garrard County Extension Center, Lancaster. Montgomery-Bath County Extension Center, Mt. Sterling. RESIDENTIAL VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS Mr. FOGARTY. You are again requesting funds for residential vocational schools. How many times have you made this request? Mr. LUDINGTON. I think this is the fourth time we have presented this request to the Congress. At this point it is a different request than our initial one. We are now requesting funds for the planning and development of such facilities, whereas our initial request was for planning and operation. Mr. FLOOD. Are these co-ed? Mr. LUDINGTON. Yes, sir. Mr. FOGARTY. Do you have any new arguments? Mr. LUDINGTON. Except that the initial applicants that submitted proposals are still interested in the type of facility, and in general, we feel this type of supplement to vocational education ought to be financed on a larger scale than has been the case up to now. RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS COMPARED WITH JOB CORPS Mr. FOGARTY. Some of our people think it would make much more sense for the Anti-Poverty Program to take over this. Mr. LUDINGTON. The residential vocational facilities? Mr. FOGARTY. Wouldn't it make as much or more sense for the AntiPoverty Program to take this over as to take over the work study program? Mr. LUDINGTON. I would think not. I think the program here is a responsibility of state and local educational agencies and the develop ment of programs of instruction should be an integral part of the sequence of vocational education up and down the line. Mr. FOGARTY. The argument has been made this was very similar to the Job Corps program. Mr. LUDINGTON. Yes. Mr. FOGARTY. And it is? Mr. LUDINGTON. In some respects. Mr. FOGARTY. It is very similar in some respects? Mr. LUDINGTON. I think the length of training varies. Our programs tend to provide a longer sequence for more technical specialized occupations than theirs. Also, the two in some instances could be interrelated. Their short-term training through the motivation and interest developed could encourage youngsters to come into either of these programs, or to regular vocational education. Mr. FOGARTY. You better give us a good argument on this. The same question will be asked when the antipoverty people come before this committee. Mr. LUDINGTON. In terms of the discussion we entered into yesterday, one of our problems is providing vocational education facilities that are broad enough and flexible enough to provide for a range of vocational and technical education, and if we are going to do this for these people in many of our communities, we are going to have to provide a residential component in connection with it. VOCATIONAL TRAINING IN COMBINED SCHOOL DISTRICTS Mr. FLOOD. The tradition has been in this country insofar as vocational training generally is concerned that first, it has been identified with the local school-good, bad or indifferent, depending on the school. Then, we began to develop combined school district interests into a centrally located school. That is what we are doing in my district. We are going to build a $3 million one with 15 school districts in it. Three or four of them are victims of the troubles of the coal fields and are bankrupt, but the rest can pay their way. The State is moving in on this, and they are very excited about it, and I am very excited about it. Then the Federal Government gets in. The results will be, by the time we get the package put together, only 10 percent will be paid by the local combined school districts. This is a big deal in a distressed economic area like mine for retraining as well as training. I have a lot of coal miners that need retraining, and older people beyond 45. EFFECT ON NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS The idea of suggesting anything like a residential school under these circumstances is ridiculous. You, or someone, will provide a modicum of transportation costs from the area because it will embrace several miles, and they do not have motor cars, so you will have to provide the students with transportation. This is all worked out? Mr. LUDINGTON. Right. Mr. FLOOD. That being the case, where is there a need for residential Vocational schools? Those people want to live at home. What do you mean "residential vocational training"? Where would it be? |