nity for the State board to contract with other agencies—I'm not certain I can lay my hand on the precise language-but it does make provision for that State board, the sole agency itself, to farm out, so to speak, the actual operational responsibility for an actual program. Mr. HAWKINS. Would you recommend the draft language be incorporated in the Federal law?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. We were judged to be, this State, on the subject of the State administrative structure, as a result of a study of the U.S. Office of Education, unique among the 50 States.

Mr. HAWKINS. Uniquely good or uniquely bad?

Mr. BRENNAN. That would be a personal comment.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Brennan, does the coordinating council decide how much of the Federal funding goes to your State department for the high schools and how much goes to the community colleges?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is a three-way negotiation process between the three agencies, but the ultimate decision rests with that coordinating council.

Mr. HAWKINS. Does it make that decision every year?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.

Mr. HAWKINS. Is there any basis on which that decision is made? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. We do make within various categories annual adjustments and readjustments. This last year, as an example, when we received some additional money as a result of impoundment release funding, we didn't make the traditional exact alinement of percentage cuts of that money because there were certain kinds of activities within the college system where they identified some priorities that were more critical. The common school system was really hurting, for example, for work-study money, and the community college system was hurting for some home and family life funding. We were able to strike within that negotiation process some alteration within that 50-50 division. That is total, now, not by category.

Mr. HAWKINS. Is it consistently kept at approximately the 50-50 percent distribution?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that has been relatively consistent at that level. Your State does it on a pure State 50-50 percent.

Mr. QUIE. You are talking about Federal money?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.

Mr. QUIE. Not State money?

Mr. BRENNAN. Right.

Mr. QUIE. As I read the law, I don't know how you do that. Mr. BRENNAN. Whatever we are doing, we are making it work within the structure we have at the present time. Many people, of course, have some differing kinds of reservations about the structure.

Mr. HAWKINS. You repeated today what all of us in Congress have been pressured with, that is, that separate legislative authority should be maintained for vocational education. Just what is your justification for that? We don't always get the justification, we don't always get the rationale as to why this is necessary.

Mr. BRENNAN. I am nearly convinced that had it not been for the foresight of Congress in 1917 in the establishment of Federal legislation setting aside money for the specific purpose of vocational education, I am not convinced at this point in time that we would have any

meaningful vocational education yet within the educational structure and system in our country.

I am convinced in my own mind that the foresight of the Congress at that time had really looked at the entire system of education and viewed what had transpired over its history up until that time and simply said that unless we do something specific of this kind, the business of vocational education is simply not going to occur to the extent and to the quality and the variety that must occur within the educational process. That is, in part, a personal reaction; the traditional approach of the educational system has not always been strongly in the direction of vocational education.

Mr. HAWKINS. So, briefly, we get the other argument that Federal mandates should not be made and that local education people know best and will make the correct decision. Your suggestion is somewhat different from that particular position and that is the reason I asked the question.

Mr. BRENNAN. I think it is incumbent upon our Federal Congress to call out some specific priorities from time to time. We feel very appropriately that vocational education is one of those callouts that is

necessary.

Mr. HAWKINS. Also in your statement you made reference to the actions of Congress and MDTA and CETA as creating certain problems of coordination. Would you clarify that and amplify on that particular statement, as to what problems you are experiencing now in CETA, for example, as to the lack of coordination."

Mr. BRENNAN. There exists now within the CETA arrangement through local prime sponsors the opportunity for those local prime sponsors to potentially duplicate programs that are essentially directed to the same objectives that vocational education systems in communities are directed.

Mr. HAWKINS. In other words, some duplication could result as a result of the Comprehensive Employment Training Act?

Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; it could duplicate the programs already in existence.

Mr. HAWKINS. Do you see any way those differences can be resolved by administrative regulation or by negotiation?

Mr. BRENNAN. We are presently meeting now in this State with a task force designated for the purpose of exploring where we can go with coordination and coordinative entities of these various kinds of programs. That task force is representative of the college system and the common school system and a number of other agencies, including the coordinating council and the Governor's manpower element.

Our State, incidentally, was the subject of special Federal funding for this task force because of the need for a better mechanism for coordination that is so widely recognized and at the Federal level many people thought that Washington might have a better chance to come up with a solution of that problem than would some other places. although we have not reached it yet.

Mr. HAWKINS. One other question. You made reference to interdistrict cooperative skill centers. Do I understand that these skill centers are operated by several districts at the secondary level and that they provide certain training skills? Would you simply amplify on

hose somewhat? It seems to be a very desirable trend and I think here should be more in the record to support what you are doing in hose particular skill centers.

Mr. BRENNAN. The development of secondary skill centers is a response on the part of our agency and, hopefully, will be a response eventually on the part of local school districts and groupings of local school districts to the need to provide specialized, relatively expensive ocational education programs in the setting where no single small school district has either the resource or student population or demand or industrial need to be able to mount those kinds of programs.

For the most part, we are going to find those programs will be in the trade and industrial areas. They will be programs that will be closely related to those kinds of employment needs that will be identified. There has been concern on our part for many, many years that we really haven't done the kind of job in vocational education nor made opportunities available in relatively small school districts. This has been a really difficult problem to address. Our State board has continued to request of us a more responsive kind of activity in vocational education for small school districts, relatively small school districts.

Mr. HAWKINS. These skill centers, I understand, are designed for the small districts who need to cooperate in the development of these programs and not for the special kind of student in the largest districts?

Mr. BRENNAN. Exactly.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you.

Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, Bruce, for an excellent presentation and an obvious good overall knowledge of what is happening in vocational education in the State of Washington.

Mr. MEEDS. We have taken longer than usual with the first witness. This lays the groundwork for the following witnesses.

Our next witness is Ms. Kathleen Barnett of the Washington Association for Retarded Children.

Ms. Barnett, we are delighted to have you before the committee. If you have a prepared statement, we would be delighted to make it a part of the record. You may summarize or you may read it into the record, if you wish.

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN BARNETT, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN; ACCOMPANIED BY LUCILLE N. MAY, CARL O. JACOBSEN, AND PERRY L. LILJESTRAND Ms. BARNETT. I am Kathleen Barnett, governmental affairs chairman for the Washington Association for Retarded Citizens.

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that the Washington Association for Retarded Citizens has recently been looking into the 10-percent handicapped set-aside vocational education funding for handicapped students. Because I am a volunteer for the association, keeping up with many areas of governmental affairs, if the committee has any further questions about what I am going to say, I would refer you to Lucille May, the staff assistant for our voc-rehab committee, or Perry Liljestrand, the executive director of our association, or Carl

Jacobsen, a member of the committee, who are here with me today. Mr. MEEDS. Would those people like to come forward.

Ms. BARNETT. If you are interested in any substantiating material to my remarks, those people would be happy to meet with your staff. Often employers expect the handicapped to be twice as productive, twice as a conscientious and twice as problem free as their "normal" workers. If the handicapped are to have a chance on the competitive job market, they must be properly trained. The Vocational Education Act provides a way for the handicapped to receive the vocational training that they need for successful employment.

In order to be classified as handicapped, an individual should (1) meet the criteria for classification as handicapped by the State educational agency; (2) be diagnosed and classified by qualified professional persons; and (3) be unable, because of his handicapping condition, to succeed in vocational programs designed for persons without such handicaps.

Using the above criteria for determining if a person is handicapped necessarily means that a school would have to identify individuals. not groups. The school would need to have some evidence that this individual could not succeed in a regular program.

To the maximum extent possible, persons identified as handicapped should be integrated into the regular vocational education program Services needed to help a person succeed in these normal programs may be provided by Federal vocational education funds or by other cooperative agencies or organizations.

This evaluation of a student's ability to be placed into a regular vocational program, either with or without special assistance, should mean that extensive information is available on the numbers and types of handicaps served by Federal vocational education funds. This information is not avaialble, which only leads one to assume that the students are not being served as individuals, their abilities are not properly evaluated, and that efforts are not being made to work these handicapped persons into the regular vocational education programs. Why must recognition of a handicap by a school carry with it the implicit necessity for special programs when, in fact, perhaps all that is needed is special assistance.

Providing special programs for the handicapped should be a last resort, but it is recognized that sometimes this is necessary. Not every handicapped person, no matter how much special assistance is received, will be able to succeed in the regular vocational education program. But caution must be used in determining that a program is special. Only services over and above those provided in regular programs can be considered special services and may be paid for out of setaside funds. The mere fact that a handicapped person is being served is not enough to warrant use of these funds; the service must be something which is in excess of the services provided nonhandicapped students.

In the establishing of needed special programs for the handicapped, there is much confusion on our part. It would seem that when a proposal is submitted for funding that the names and handicapping conditions should be detailed in the proposal. Especially since the special program is for those who could not fit into a regular program, these people surely must have been identified. But since data on the types or

numbers of handicapped is not available, we must assume that the proposals are written in some vague manner. Are all Federal vocational education funds awarded only after receiving a firm outline of the program and the individuals to be served?

Apparently Federal vocational education funds are not primarily for the purpose of continuous funding programs, but instead for funding the special vocational needs of individuals. However, several community colleges in the State are contracting with sheltered workshops to provide continuous programs. It is possible for these sheltered workshops to contract directly with the State. Why has this not been encouraged?

According to a recent written response from the executive of the Washington Coordinating Council of Occupational Education, the interlocal cooperative agreement is not currently operative. If that is so, how were the priorities established without the risk of working in opposition to those established by others engaged in vocational training, such as vocational rehabilitation? This is especially noticeable when both agencies are contracting with one vendor, sheltered workshops.

The 10-percent set-aside Federal vocational educations funds were, in fiscal year 1974 in Washington, used by approximately 52 schools involving from $584,000 to $721,000, different answers received on different occasions from the same person in response to the same question. According to an informal survey, these funds are used for a variety of programs, some extremely good and definitely vocationally oriented, some not.

An informal telephone survey indicates that 45 percent of the total 10-percent set-aside for Federal vocational education funds are used for nonvocational training, per se. Thus, it appears as if, at most, only 55 percent of fiscal 1973 funds were used for direct prevocational or vocational training for handicapped persons.

The implicit attitude of some schools, in fact, the majority, seems to be that if a handicapped person is involved then the Federal vocational education funds can be used with apparent disregard to the last resort intent of the law. These vocational programs for the handicapped include such items as wheelchair ramps, music appreciation class, aquatics motivation, sex education, et cetera.

The major question that arises from this survey would have to be: Are Federal funds allocated for the purpose of vocational education for the handicapped actually being used for that purpose only?

Federal vocational education funds should not be used for any program which cannot be demonstrated to prepare students for employment, be necessary to prepare individuals for successful completion of such a program, or be of significant assistance to individuals enrolled in making an informed and meaningful occupational choice. Moneys should be spent for specific vocational preparation. One would hope that local regular education moneys or excess cost funding would provide basic educational training for those handicapped individuals.

When a handicapped person needs vocational training to enable him to live a productive life, why should he be satisfied with less than precisely that?

44-822-75- -65