Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. FOGARTY. I thought that was a pretty good committee.
Mr. LUDINGTON. It was a 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

[blocks in formation]

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.
Breathitt County Extension Center, Jackson.
Clay County Extension Center, Manchester.
Corbin Extension Center, Corbin.

Garrard County Extension Center, Lancaster.
Harlan County State Vocational School, Harlan.
Knox County Extension Center, Barbourville.
Lee County Extension Center, Beathyville.
Letcher County Extension Center, Whitesburg.
Martin County Extension Center, Inez.
Mayo State Vocational School, Paintsville.
Bell County Extension Center, Pineville.

Montgomery-Bath County Extension Center, Mt. Sterling.
Pike County-Belfry Extension Center, Belfry.
Russell County Extension Center, Jamestown.
Somerset State Vocational School, Somerset.

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 op

eration.

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?

I am taking in rural areas around 10, 12, or 15 miles that will go to my school. What do I want with a residential school. They do not want to live any place but at home.

Mr. LUDINGTON. I think in many of the instances you describe you are exactly right, they do live at home, but there are many young people living in slum conditions in many of our cities that need to have an opportunity to live under more favorable housing conditions.

Mr. FLOOD. What does that have to do with vocational training? You are no sociologist in that sense.

Mr. LUDINGTON. It is an inducement to provide vocational education in an environment that is more satisfactory to them than the environment they live in in the slum, or urban community.

Mr. FLOOD. Why do you not do that for all students in the slums? Why should you pick out vocational training?

The big problem for kids that live in the slums, as I am advised by the people who work in the programs, is to provide a place for the kids to do homework.

Mr. LUDINGTON. That is right.

Mr. FLOOD. If you are going to provide vocational training residential establishments, why do you not do it for all education? I do not get this point.

Mr. HowE. Mr. Chairman

Mr. FLOOD. Understand, I am enthusiastic about your subject; but I do not get this point.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL NEED FOR RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS

Mr. Howe. I believe these schools are designed, not to pull from an immediate close area around them, but rather to serve the kids with the worst problems in their families in a rather wide region.

Mr. FLOOD. That is not your job. This is vocational education. This is vocational training. Vocational is the key word.

Mr. Howe. Right.

Mr. FLOOD. What in the world does your answer have to do with that?

Do you think you should set up residences, campuses, take over a big hotel downtown in the Job Corps style and move in 500 poor kids because they are disadvantaged at home, and downstairs in the lower three floors and in the basement teach them vocational training? You are going to wear two hats?

Mr. Howe. I think there is sense to do this for the kids who have the worst problem at home and give them an environment where they can achieve some vocational training. This kind of residential institution is not designed to be on a across-the-board basis in vocational training.

Mr. FLOOD. You are going to segregate these people and you are going to place an imprimatur on them, and you are going to brand their head with a "P" instead of an "A," "poverty," and everyone will know these are slum kids who do not have a chance and you are going to dump them in one building.

I am advised that sociologists abhor this. Even under the poverty program we have changed our rules in the middle of the game, and instead of taking a class of 100-percent poverty-stricken kids, we are

« PreviousContinue »