Six specific, but not inclusive, areas of experimentation are listed:

(1) programs to familiarize students with the broad range of occupations for which special skills are required and with the requisites for careers in such occupations;

(2) work experience programs for students which combine education, training, and work as well as offer income opportunities and familiarize students with the environment and discipline of a job which is so important in occupational preparation and so difficult to simulate in a classroom;

(3) programs for intensive occupational guidance and counseling during the last years of school and for initial job placement;

(4) programs designed to broaden or improve vocational education curriculums;

(5) programs for exchanges of personnel between schools and other agencies, institutions, or organizations, including manpower agencies, and industry: and (6) programs for releasing young workers from their jobs on a part-time basis for the purpose of increasing their educational attainment.

In the development of a program under Title I there must be satisfactory assurance that in the planning, establishing, and carrying out of the programi there will be-

"participation of agencies which are responsible for manpower planning. training, employment, and related activities such as the Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System, and, as appropriate, persons broadly representative of employers, labor organizations, community action agencies, and other community institutions."

Beyond these experimental programs, S. 3099 provides for a necessary streamlining and strengthening of the vocational education laws. Beginning in 1943. the Nation embarked on a major reshaping of the vocational education system. It is now time to take the next steps that are dictated by the experience since then.

Perhaps the most important step is to encourage the States to plan a longrange strategy in vocational education, thus assuring that programs are shaped according to the best information about what the needs of the future will be. Why is this "Partnership for Learning and Earning" so urgently needed? The President stated in his Education Message that "one and a half million young men and women will leave high school and enter the labor force this year-in a time of high employment, when skills are at a premium.” If their experience is similar to those who left school in 1966, and it is likely to be, the transition to work will be a difficult proposition for a very significant percentage. By October of 1966, those who had graduated from high school in June of that year endured an unemployment rate of 14.2%; those who had dropped out of school that year, 17.4%. The irony of this tragic situation is that it occurred, and is still occurring, in a period of high employment and skill shortages.

One of the most important questions we can ask ourselves is why youth unemployment remains so high after so many efforts to rednes is

It is clear, of course, that teenage unemployment rates have receded in the past five years as total unemployment has dropped. In 1967, the rate for 16 to 19 year olds was 12.9%, compared with the even more shameful level of 17.2% as recently as 1963.

Disturbing, however, is the fact that over the long haul, the position of teenagers is deteriorating relative to the national unemployment experience. When the Census was taken in 1930, before the depression began, the teenage unersployment rate was 8.3%, about one and one-half times the total rate of 52% By 1948, the teenage rate was nearly two and one-half times as high as the national rate. In 1963, for the first time, it was three times as high. And by 1967, it was nearly three and one-half times as high.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the position of the nonwhite teenager is deteriorating even faster. As late as 1954, the unemployment rate for nonwhite teenagers was 16.5%, only about 4 percentage points higher than the white rate of 12.1%. In 1967, the nonwhite teenage rate was 26.5%, almost two and one-half times the white rate of 11.0%.

Moreover, unemployment is not the whole story. In 1967, 343 thousand 16 to 19 year olds (9.4% of the "full-time” labor force) were working only part-time when they wanted full-time jobs. There are also the discouraged who are not looking for work, and those whose jobs have little potential and are personally unrewarding.

While unemployment, at the present, is our best developed measure of the youth situation, it leaves out as much as it tells. Better indicators are needed. While these problems are most severe among low income families, they cannot be isolated as created by poverty alone. The teenage rate is 17.4% in poverty families. It is almost as high-16.6%-in families with incomes from $3,000 to $5,000. In families making $10,000 or more the rate is still double the national average.

The U.S. keeps a larger proportion of its youth in school longer than does any other nation, supposedly to ensure their adequate preparation for lifetime activity. Yet the unemployment rate of its youth is far higher than other industrialized nations. In most other developed countries, young workers are so much in demand that the danger is that they will be taken out of school too early. Yet the Nation with the most extensive educational system in the world and with the strongest economy is putting more than 10% of is youth through a bitter period of frustrating and difficult unemployment.

These are grim, devastating facts. There is one inescapable conclusion. The massive doses of medicine recently administered to the Nation's youth-the remedial youth training programs under MDTA, the Job Corps, the Neighborhood Youth Corps, and the Youth Opportunity Centers-have been essential to prevent a bad disease from becoming a fatality. But, they have not been enough to restore the patient to vital health.

It is difficult to determine exactly what it is that has caused the problem, and impossible to prescribe with certainty what it will take to clear it up.

Nevertheless the problem calls for examination from the bottom up-excusing no one and nothing-including examination of the basic institutional arrangements, public and private, that have developed over the years for moving youth into adulthood and into employment.

That is really what Title I of S. 3099 is all about. It will encourage the examinations of these institutions, and the trying out of new solutions.

In such an examination, no institutions are above question.

If the educational system is failing a significant portion of youth, those youths who do not go on to college, its failures must be openly recognized and fundamental changes must be made.

If the employment service system is not reaching and serving all those youth who need its help the most, its shortcomings must be recognized and acted upon. If private industry and employers are establishing policies against the hiring of youth, a way must be found to change those policies.

If all those institutions are not doing enough to prepare non-college-bound youth for the world in which they will spend most of their lives, the world of work, they must band together in every effort to do so.

A preliminary review of existing arrangements and attitudes in each of these three systems, educational, employment services, and industrial, will reveal enough of the problems to provide a better sense of where we are.

I

One fact about the educational system stands out from all the others. While a young person is in school, it is the college-bound youth who are treated a special responsibility. It is only for these youth that adequate bridges between school and work appear to exist. For them a career is virtually assured and unemployment is at a minimum.

Whatever the broad objectives of college education, it works remarkably well in the down to earth matter of earning a living. Last March, the unemployment rate was a negligible 1.4 percent among young people 20 to 24 years of age who completed four years of college.

Against this background, the situation of the non-college bound youth is thrown in sharp relief. It seems almost as if he is insulated from the world of work while he is in school and then dropped abruptly as soon as the ink is dry on his diploma, or sooner if he drops out of school. For him, the road is considerably more rocky.

These non-college bound youths receive little of the special attention given college bound youth during their school years, in the sense of preparing them for, and finding out where they will best fit into, the world of work. And when a young person leave school even what little personal concern there was largely vanishes. To be sure, there exist some 2000 public employment offices throughout the country. But in a complicated system of thousands of hiring units, the

disadvantaged youth is too often left to find, under his own steam, the job that fits his needs. The question then becomes how he can serve the economie system, not how it can serve him. The concern turns to what qualifications he has for jobs which already exist, not what kinds of job experiences should be structured to fit his needs. If he needs further training, it is up to him to secure that training. If he is younger than the age at which employers hire, it is neces sary for him to "wait on ice" until another birthday rolls around.

The Employment Act of 1946 did not distinguish on the basis of educationa attainment when it established the National employment objectives. Society's obligations to see that there is an employment connection is the same regardless of how far a young person is able to go through the educational system. The contrast between the day before school leaving and the day after is nearly that of day and night. The attitudes and opportunities afforded the young person could not be more different.

Yet, the youth didn't change that leave taking day. It was the institutions that pulled the switch on him.

II

Perhaps it is in order to take a more specific look at the institutional arrangements for acquainting youth with and preparing them for the world of work in both the schools and the employment service system.

It is safe to venture a guess-without statistics to support it-that very little is taught in the formal curricula of elementary and secondary schools about the nature of employment in the local community. By and large, young people leave school without having learned about the nature of the jobs which exist in a community, the different opportunities in different industries, what en ployers expect from employees, and the agencies which can give them help. It is a good question as to whether students should learn as much about “occupătional geography" as they do about ancient history.

The availability of occupational counseling for youth in schools-really ef fective occupational counseling-and this time the judgment is based on preliminary statistical investigation, is extremely slim indeed. During the school years, a student in the United States has very limited access-if any at all— to a person who knows what the employment world is all about. There is seldom any one to advise him about what kind of employment exists, what employment he might like to try, or how to go about getting that which does exist. The result is that young people are left to their own devices in the employment search, as is revealed in a 1963 study which showed that the most used source of informa tion was from "friends and relatives."

There are limited arrangements for occupational counseling by the Employment Service, in cooperation with the schools, but only for high school seniors. This counseling presently serves only about half the Nation's secondary schools. For those not planning on going to college, this counseling probably comes too late for many and then not sufficiently in depth for the individual.

The picture with respect to the capability of the schools themselves to provide Occupational guidance personnel is even bleaker. Only Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands meet the rather modest goal of the Office of Education of one counselor per 300 students. In over 20 States, the number of students serviced averages 500 or more per counselor. It would be remarkable for such a person to know the students, let alone the jobs.

But having counselors does not necessarily mean that they will have time for counseling. A recent study of the Nation's school counselors disclosed that half of them spend less than 40% of their time counseling, as opposed to such duties as teaching, staff conferences, clerical work, and administrative chores, among other things.

More importantly, for the purposes of our discussion, where there is counseling, only a portion of it is going to occupational advice for the non-college bound, the group that needs it the most desperately.

Surprisingly or perhaps not so surprisingly-these limited resources for employment assistance are likely to go to those who have the greatest preparation for employment instead of those who have the least. Among youth not finishing high school, only four percent reported that they got their first jobs through either the schools or the public employment service. Fifteen percent of the high school completers got their jobs that way. One out of every five of those who had completed some college but had not graduated were served by these public agencies, not a remarkably high proportion, but sizeable indeed compared to that of the lesser educated.

A third area with as yet unrealized potential in easing the changeover from school to earning a living is work experience for young persons who are still in school, making whatever adjustments are necessary in the regular school schedule to accommodate such arrangements.

The Neighborhood Youth Corps enables economically deprived youth to work and earn money while attending school. Although the statute originally conceived this program mainly in terms of enabling these youth to earn sufficient money to stay in school, it has had a significant impact in helping these youth make a smooth transition to a job.

Aside from the poverty programs, this is not a new proposition; it has in fact been done in a fair number of schools throughout the Nation. It needs to be expanded, both in numbers of students working and beyond the retail sales and business education areas where it now is primarily concentrated.

Work assignments must be carefully selected from the standpoint of a tie-in with classroom instruction, and from the standpoint of locating jobs that are of sufficient quality to provide meaningful training and experience. The world of work can thus become a clinical lab for education.

III

If there is little opportunity to start the transition to work while still in school, there is little more to continue to learn after school ends and work commences. For example, in the employment world, there is a general absence of arrangements for young persons in their first jobs to be released for classroom training. In fact, there is a general absence of formal training programs for youth in industry-arrangements where they can be prepared for a whole family of jobs that will give them the basis for steady promotion and progress. Young people must compete for employment on the same terms and conditions as older more experienced persons. There are few special arrangements outside of formal apprenticeship systems for their training.

In one Nationwide study, youth were asked whether they had taken any training since they left school. Seven out of 10 high school graduates received no training after leaving school. The same was true for 9 out of 10 of the school dropouts.

IV

So far the discussion has been of needs; the question, of course, is what specifically should be done to meet those needs.

First and foremost, "education" must be defined as far broader than formal schooling or instruction. The traditional division of responsibility between the school and the world of work must be changed. Education and work must be tied together all the way through.

The President's Education Message conveys this in very precise fashion:

"Above all," he said, "we must build stronger links between the schools and their students, and local industries and employment services, so that education will have a direct relationship to the world the graduating student enters."

Most of the shortcomings discussed this morning in one way or another involve a failure of institutions to pull together to serve the interests of youth.

In the past few years, to be sure, Government manpower and employment services, and business, have begun to recognize the importance of their role in education. The Neighborhood Youth Corps, the Job Corps, the Youth Opportunity Center, the stay-in-school drive, the summer youth opportunity campaigns, have demonstrated the absolute need for a partnership of all institutions related to learning and earning.

There is not yet the counseling needed to reach the young people while they are still in school and at an early enough stage.

The Department of Labor and its related manpower agencies at the State and local levels, particularly the 2000 local employment service offices, must be more intimately involved on a day-to-day basis with the youngsters while in school. Employers must be more intimately involved. One recent and notable example of such involvement is the decision of two Detroit companies to “adopt” a school, making their resources and staff available in ways calculated to increase the readiness of youth for employment when they graduate.

Title I of S. 3099 will open doors for us to come to grips with the quality of the basic institutional arrangements that society has created for young people to help them prepare for their life's work.

Until now, the concern has been attempting to pick up the pieces resulting from the failure of these instituions to do their jobs. By and large, it has only been possible to identify the individuals who are already out of school and have not been able to make their way in the employment world. There has been some success in this, in the Neighborhood Youth Corps, in the Job Corps, and in MDTA training. And it is celar that such efforts will continue to be necessary for some time to come.

But there is no satisfaction in merely treating failures of the system. The causes of those failures must be ferreted out and the institutions that are involved must be restructured. This is without doubt a harder proposition: enthat takes longer and requires a resolve that does not crumble in the face of hard-and frequently resisted--decisions.

One of those decisions is before you today.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Secretary, the chairman wants you to know that I just could not agree with a point of view more than I agree with the point of view expressed. I shall do everything I can to perfect the legis lation to every degree evidence may show it needs to carry out that objective. That is why I am such a staunch supporter of the Adminis tration's bill. I think its objectives are unqualifiedly sound.

I want you to know also that I think it has stood up very well to date under the discussions in these hearings. There may be some language changes that the committee may decide is necessary, but I would like you to know that I intend to confer with you and have your views made known to the committee before language changes are finally adopted to do what is necessary to perfect the bill. I want the closest of relationships to continue between you and this committee in regard to this legislation, because so much of the responsibility toward final administration will rest with the Department of Labor and with HEW, in particular. Therefore, I think this partnership arrangement must be continued and be strengthened. I want to thank you very much for your testimony.

Senator Yarborough?

Senator YARBOROUGH. I share the concern of the chairman of this committee, one of the most distinguished Senators in this Senate, and the most able Secretary of Labor, than whom we have never had a more able Secretary. It is a great privilege to be here and hear both of you gentlemen this morning. I pledge you my earnest assistance on this.

Mr. Secretary, on these six points you enumerate in your statement, they raise the question of whether our conventional education system has-whether or not there has survived too much of the medieval monasticism, where during the middle ages, a small number of youths were educated in the few universities and monasteries and they were pulled out as people apart from the regular economy and society. They were trained to be priests and writers and they were the limited few who were to have a separate existence, something over and above the so-called common run of life.

This raises the question of whether that medieval concept of educa tion has survived in a broad base of democratic education for all the people, by having education something apart from the ordinary lives of people. Do you think we have survived some of that? You talk about this dropout period in which a student leaves the conventional education system and then has to go out and have a period of unem ployment to learn how to get over into the society and economy which he has been a part of from the date of birth and will be a part of until