ALLOTMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO STATES AND OUTLYING PARTS UNDER THE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT OF 1963 (PUBLIC LAW 88-210) FISCAL YEAR 1968

Distribution made on the basis of State products of (1) fiscal year 1968 allotment ratios, with limits of .60 and .40 and (2) July 1, 1966 population age-groups 15-19, 20-24, and 25-65, with a minimum amount of $10,000. * Distribution made on the basis of the 15-20 age-group population as of July 1, 1965.

93-989-68-pt. 6-13

DEAR SIR: The Vocational educators in North Carolina, at both the State and local levels, are very much concerned that agressive and strong vocational educa tion leadership is not in evidence at the present time from the U.S. Office of Education within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Educational and political leaders in our State have responded to the challenge set forth in P.L. 88-210 to expand and improve vocational education for all people in all communities. A good start had been made through our comprehensive high schools and our post-secondary technical institutes and community colleges. However, at this crucial period when we are attempting to provide for our youth and adults the kind and quality of vocational training necessary for each person to make his maximum contribution to the economic and social development of our State and nation, we find the services normally expected from the U.S. Office of Education at a very low level, especially in the area of program development.

We believe strongly in the concept of State and local control of education. We are neither interested in nor willing to accept Federal administration of educational programs. However, we welcome the services of a competent U.S. Office of Education staff to assist us in this challenging task. In other words, we need a much stronger division of vocational education in the U.S. Office of Education. We have accepted the reorganization of the U.S. Office of Education with an open mind and tried to evaluate it objectively. It appears, however, that the management philosophy of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is over-emphasizing management, while neglecting program development. Important decisions vitally affecting vocational education are being made by individuals with no training or experience in this important field of education. Despite the clearly stated challenge in P.L. 88-210, HEW, including its Office of Education, has not developed a strong national position on vocational education. It appears to us that HEW has abrogated its responsibility for vocational education, resulting in much duplication of services in other agencies of government.

There is no criticism of the abilities or dedication of the present personnel in the Bureau of Adult and Vocational Education of the Office of Education; however, in our opinion, their leadership is hampered because of the low level of the unit in government in keeping with its mission, because of the organization of the unit, and because of the small staff available to do an effective job.

Under the present organizational structure of the Office of Education and its Bureau of Adult and Vocational Education, we are receiving less national leadership and assistance in providing those services essential in the expansion of programs to prepare for employment in the broad occupational fields of agriculture, business, distribution, homemaking, trades and industries, and health. The low level of services to the states is a direct result of the organizational structure, the lack of personnel, and the low status of the Bureau. In our opinion, the Bureau is far understaffed and very poorly organized to carry out its responsibilities in a rapidly expanding and changing field of education.

North Carolina vocational educators also are very much concerned over the proliferation of agencies of the Federal government actively involved in vocational education and training and the proliferation of funding. This situation is causing much confusion and frustration in the administration of programs, as well as duplication of efforts. The result is much less efficiency in the nation's effort to provide trained manpower for our expanding economy.

The 2400 members of the North Carolina Vocational Association are not alone in their concern regarding the situation of vocational education in the Office of Education. The attached resolution passed by the delegate assembly of the American Vocational Association expresses a nationwide concern. This Association's membership includes more than 40,000 dedicated educators throughout the nation.

The Executive Committee of the North Carolina Vocational Association join me in urging you: (1) to discuss with your colleagues in the Congress our concern for more effective national leadership in all education; (2) to investigate the deplorable situation in the U.S. Office of Education; and (3) to initiate appropriate congressional action which will result in rebuilding a strong national office of education with provisions for leadership in vocational and technical education, even if this requires the establishment of a new cabinet-level office of education. We believe that such action is urgent and vital to the development of vocational and technical education, which is rapidly being accepted as a major part of the total plan of development of our human resources and as essential to the economic development of our nation.

Thank you for your support of vocational education at both the State and national levels. We feel that your concern for an adequate and efficient program of vocational education for our youth and adults has already been demon