23

are resistant to federal controls. However, requiring the states to plan their own innovative programs for use of federal matching funds is a mild form of intervention compared to those accepted by the same vocational educators under MDTA. The painful experience of recent commissioners of education who have tried to withhold federal funds to enforce integration decisions illustrates the political vulnerability of the Office of Education on the more emotional issues. On the other hand, just because of comparison with these more emotional issues, a requirement for meaningful state planning might seem less odious.

THE STATUS OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

The fact that the Vocational Education Act of 1963 has yet to bring about substantial changes says nothing pro or con about the quality and accomplishments of vocational education. It only indicates that the objectives of VEA '63 are yet to be fully endorsed or supported by vocational educators. Assessment of the extent to which VEA '63 has wrought changes is relatively simple; evaluation of the status and achievements of vocational education is not. Indications can be provided by summarizing the results of fragmentary studies which provide some insight into the characteristics of enrollees, the relevance of curricula and the results of vocational education. Some indications of future directions may be found in an examination of innovative developments, though present trends do not support sanguine estimates of the speed of their adoption.

Who Needs and Who Gets Vocational Education

One of the profound developments of modern times was the shift from property ownership to individual skill as the primary source of income and wealth. The transition is inherent in industrialization and specialization of labor and has been underway for at least two centuries. However, its educational implications have become apparent only in the last twenty years. Traditionally, American education was more concerned with citizenship than employment. Only a few professions required higher education and high school was preparation for the university.

25

Criticisms of the college preparatory emphasis of the contemporary high school should be tempered by recognition that in the last century four out of five high school graduates did go to college. But few went to high school. The objective has failed to change as increasing affluence has allowed mass education. Three out of four youths now graduate from high school. In fact, the average member of the labor force has some post-secondary education or training. Technology has been structured to use a relatively well educated and trained labor force, and those without are competitively disadvantaged. With talents and skills as the primary source of income, investment in them is certain to continue its in

crease.

Trends in Educational Attainment

College graduates are still few enough that the one out of six who do graduate are almost guaranteed successful employment. As previously stressed, only one-fourth of high school youths enroll in federally supported vocational courses along with four percent of the 18-21 year old population and less than three percent of adults. A 1964 Labor Department survey found that only three of ten of the less than college trained labor force had any formal training for their current jobs.

There are a variety of ways to prepare for employment including formal and informal on-the-job training. However, it is clear that the importance of formal, in-school preparation is increasing if only for competitive reasons. Table 4 illustrates the generally rising educational attainment of workers by occupation. In some cases the rise is attributable to the requirements of the job content. In others it is only the fact that educated people are available, and employers rarely need to rely on others. How many of the 75 percent of youths who currently neither attain a college education nor receive any meaningful vocational education (not including agriculture and home economics) need formal training can only be guessed. One can be certain that the proportion is large and increasing.

"U.S. Department of Labor, Formal Occupational Training for Adult Workers, Manpower and Automation Research Monograph No. 2, December 1964.

27

Socio-economic Background

The official vocational education data provide no information on the socio-economic background, ability and role of enrollees. However, some indications are available in unpublished data from Project TALENT, which analyzed the backgrounds and followed up the experience of a sample of one-half million 1960 high school students, and from other sources." As Table 5 shows, 80 percent of the vocational graduates were drawn from families of below average socio-economic environments, consisting of low incomes and low occupational and educational status.

7

The same data showed 80 percent of vocational students to be of below average ability with 50 percent drawn from the lowest ability quartile (Tables 6 and 7). Tests' included verbal knowledge, visual reasoning, mathematics, games, general knowledge, etc. Unfortunately, data are not available by training occupation and for post-secondary students and adults.

Other unpublished Office of Education data show 22 percent of Negro students participating in vocational courses compared to 17 percent of white students (Table 7). American Indians and Orientals also reported a high proportion of vocational training-36 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The same data indicate a higher proportion of vocational enrollment for Negroes outside of the South than elsewhere and in urban than rural areas. Patterns for white students are similar except 'that more rural than urban white southerners appear to receive vocational education-a phenomenon probably accounted for by agriculture and home economics enrollments.

The meaning of these data would be more apparent if occupational breakdowns and information on quality of training were available. The higher proportions of white students and those with greater ability and more favorable socio-economic

'The material in this section along with the data in Tables 5-9 is from: Howard Vincent and Joseph Froomkin, Preliminary Analysis of the Characteristics of Vocational Students and Programs, U.S. Office of Education, Office of Program Planning and Evaluation, Washington, D.C., 1967 (mimeographed).