« PreviousContinue »
Dr. JOHNSON. Absolutely. I think you have two good examples of that right here.
Mr. QUIE. You talk a great deal about decisions that have to be made by the student himself. What you are really trying to teach is an understanding of concepts. In other words what a person feels and thinks. Is that what you are doing in both areas? Is there any way to do that until the person is ripe to start absorbing it?
Dr. JOHNSON. I don't know.
I might digress a bit. There was a study done, I can't think of the man's name because it's been about 30 years ago, but it delved into the background education of our national leaders, many of whom were Congressmen. You gentlemen are not old enough to have been included in that study.
The amazing thing he discovered that, in direct contradiction to the type of thing we are trying to do, that is, to squeeze our education down to the third grader, the 3-year-old, the 2-year-old, the preschooler, and so forth, the people who became leaders of the Nation normally started their education at a later date, 7 or 8 years of age. A recent psychological study indicates that.
This has a bearing on your question, that I think when people are ready for these educational programs they will succeed and they cannot be spoon fed. Take these young gentleman here. Although he was forced through circumstances to delay his education because of the Army, because of jobs, marriage, and other things, maybe that was a blessing in disguise, because when he did enter into an education program, he was ready. Perhaps he would not be ready if he was able to enter the University of Washington at 18 years of age.
Mr. QUIE. There are many studies that indicate that many individuals have to be 8 years of age before they are ready to move into it. My question is, do you wait until that happens within the person or is there something that education can do to stimulate the growth so it develops earlier?
I am not talking about whether it occurs at 7 or 8 or 6 or 5. I an talking about the low averages in high school.
Did something happen in the education system that set up some barriers that prevented you from graduating earlier?
Mr. CURL. Well, let me answer by saying that I could have done better; I just didn't care; I was not interested at that point in my life in going to school every day.
Mr. QUIE. I recognize that is the truth. A doctor I talked to says that 80 to 85 percent of all illnesses are psychosomatic, but whether they are psychosomatic or not, they are just as ill. So you didn't do well because you weren't interested in it.
Can you look back in your education and analyze yourself to be able to point and say, here is something that stood in the way of my having that interest? Have you found out what it was that developed your interest in the military so you were able to grapple with the concept when you reached that point as a traffic control officer or before you took that course in the military? It seemed to be that ripening age. Mr. CURL. I think, as was common with a good many of us, when I was high school age, 16 through 18, I thought I knew a great deal more than I really did.
After I did graduate from high school and was in the job market, I realized that I wasn't quite so smart as I thought I was, and I think hat this was a maturing factor with me more than anything else, so, rather than just looking for a good time, I established some goals for nyself.
Dr. JOHNSON. Educators have not reached a point where we can speed up the maturing of individuals as we might with growing plants by more sunlight, less water, fine fertilizer, or chemicals. I don't think we have that ability. Sometimes we probably help unknowingly by some of the things that we do.
Mr. QUIE. An educator or researcher said to me that at least twothirds of the educationally disadvantaged are caused by the school system, rather than the cultural and social background of the students.
Dr. JOHNSON. I would say, barring psychological or physical disabilities or mental disabilities, he is probably right. It is a poor commentary on the system.
Mr. QUIE. The other question I would like to ask you is whether you think evaluation could tell the quality. I have a feeling that some individuals went through the liberal arts concept they call rationalisms, which really deals in feelings rather than rationalism and, therefore, they ended up never being able to rationalize?
Is that same thing true in the teaching in air traffic control or the training in human relations? It could be, as you mentioned, the body and fender, and intellect actually is enough that they can remember all of the instructions that go into it. When I was a chemistry student, they called it a cookbook chemist. Are we producing a cookbook chemist as a graduate or are we graduating people who have concepts that they carry with them? The ability to handle the whole diversity and flexibility necessary to handle their job?
Dr. JOHNSON. You could write a dissertation on that. I think we are still turning out cookbook chemists. Hopefully, we are moving away from that concept. The young man in the air traffic control program pointed out the relationship between the actual air traffic control operation, the visits to the field, the airfields, so they had an understanding of what goes on, so when they go back to the classroom they can see the relationship between these.
In the academic area, if we ever move into that field, I think we may go a long way toward accomplishing the objectives you stated.
There is a national move to develop course objectives. This is something new in the field of academia. Course objectives started in 1917 in vocational education. This has caught up with academia.
I think you can develop course objectives in chemistry. What should a chemistry student know when he finishes that course and how should he be able to apply it? This should be done in psychology, history, et cetera. We haven't done it very well.
Mr. QUIE. Thank you. That is one of the most intriguing points in education.
What I would like to see is the National Institute of Education be financed adequately so they could do some work on that. I think we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what the potential of education is.
These people have expressed in their statements what is available to individuals. There was a time when they would have been cut off at the end of a formal high school education which was not fulfilling their needs. But now we are beginning to move into education throughout the entire life. Whenever the time comes that you can handle it, you can move into these concepts.
Mr. MEEDS. The gentleman from California.
Mr. HAWKINS. I have no questions.
Mr. MEEDS. We are going to break for a little while for lunch. I understand there is a cafeteria where we can eat. We would like to have any of you join us with the caveat that we are unable to pay for your lunch.
We will recess for one-half hour.
[Whereupon, the subcommittee recessed at 12:45 p.m., to reconvene at 1:15 p.m.]
Mr. MEEDS. The General Subcommittee on Education of the Education and Labor Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives will be in order for the taking of further testimony on the Vocational Education Act Amendments of 1968.
Off the record just a moment. [Discussion off the record.] Mr. MEEDS. On the record.
Our first witness this afternoon is Arthur Binnie, who is the State director of the Coordinating Council for Occupational Education. Art, please come forward.
You have a prepared statement which we can enter into the record which you can summarize or read into the record if you choose. Mr. BINNIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Should I restate for the record my name and position?
Mr. MEEDS. Please do.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR A. BINNIE, STATE DIRECTOR, VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION
Mr. BINNIE. My name is Arthur A. Binnie. I am the State director of vocational education and executive officer of the Coordinating Council for Occupational Education.
In this State, our agency compares to what most other States call the State board for vocational education.
In complying with your letter to be somewhat brief in my remarks, I will just pick out a few key points from the testimony that I submitted to you.
Mr. MEEDS. Very well. Without objection, your prepared statement and exhibits and attached letters will be made a part of the record at this point.
Mr. BINNIE. That's fine.
[The complete statement of Mr. Binnie follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARTHUR A. BINNIE, STATE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR OCCUPATIONAL EDUCATION, STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: My name is Arthur A. Binnie. I am the State Director of Vocational Education and the Executive Officer of the Coordinating Council for Occupational Education. Our state agency compares to what most states have traditionally called the State Board for Vocational Education. It is unique both in name and in many aspects of its functional relationships within state government. Those uniquenesses are a part of what I want to report to you today since they have contributed since 1967 to the successes Washington State has experienced in implementing the Federal Vocational Education Acts.
My purpose today is to quickly review the state of the art. We have achieved growth both in quantity and quality of programs that is very significantly-a balanced growth across the state's common schools and community college systems. Then, I propose to review and describe the implementing steps, including a glimpse of the organizational structures that our state is employing to create and support this state of the art. Lastly, I propose to share some of our thinking about certain plusses and minusses, as we perceive them, in the development and direction of vocational education at the Federal level.
In presenting these perceptions, bear in mind that I wear two hats. This provides me the opportunity for viewing vocational education from both the policy development level-wearing my hat as Executive Officer of the policysetting Council, and viewing the operational aspects-the implementing stepswhile wearing the State Director's hat.
About a year ago, Chairman Perkins asked our office a series of questions about the state of the art in Washington State. He was asking, in some very perceptive questions, for an accounting of our stewardship. As we gathered and organized data in response to those questions, I believe we produced a comprehensive view of this state's progress under P.L. 90-576 in the years from 1963 to 1972. Those data also include, in thoroughly identified categories, projections for 1977.
I have carefully reviewed those data and the questions upon which they were constructed. We have moved two years further into the 1972-77 projection period since that report was completed. But our biennial data, including FY-1974 is not yet finalized. Therefore, I have attached our response to Chairman Perkins to this report as a detailed view of the state of the art. From more recent data that has become available, we are getting some closer fixes on the projections it contains. I see no occurrences or trends that might suggest those projections are significantly inaccurate.
In other testimony here today you have heard some of the key portions of this data. My colleagues have told you of the over-all growth of vocational offerings, the increases in enrollments, and the high priority which our citizens place on improving the state of the art as evidenced by the dollars of local and state support that overmatch Federal dollars almost 7 to 1. You have also heard about some of the unmet needs still existing. By most comparisons it appears that we in Washington State are moving ahead in positive directions. Perhaps just dollars being invested is not the most reliable indicator of progress.
But if we accept the data of Project Baseline as a reliable standard, their latest tabulations approached a completely different indicator; the numbers of persons being served. Project Baseline shows that our state is serving 66.3 persons per thousand in vocational programs. The range, across the states, was reported from a high of 89.7 per thousand in Utah to a low of 14.6 in the District of Columbia. By rank order, Washington State is third in the nation. Within that figure, the secondary school vocational clientele was being served on the basis of 33.9 per thousand population, which ranks 7th nationally, and the postsecondary clientele were being served at 19.7 per thousand which ranks first in the country.
Let me cite one or two extreme examples from the Baseline data in order to approach my next point. The State of Delaware, for instance, ranks 7th in overall vocational enrollments per thousand population . . . 56.9 compared to our
66.3. In the secondary systems, Delaware ranks 2nd . . . 55.5 compared to our 7th ranked 33.9. But in the post-secondary systems, Delaware serves 1.6 per thousand . . . ranking 45th compared to our first ranked 19.7. Georgia serves 35.7 per thousand in secondary schools, 1.8 more than Washington State. But in post-secondary, Georgia serves 3.6 compared to our 19.7... and is ranked 33rd compared to our first.
I submit that further exploring these data, and many other similar studies, evidences an equity in Washington State that is not matched elsewhere. The intent of the Congress to make vocational education opportunities available for everyone, has been interpreted here to mean just that... everyone. And I submit further that a very important reason exists to explain that equity in our state. That reason is the unique structure for vocational education management that evolved under our state laws. In place of the traditional structure in which the vocational education agency has been grafted onto or carved out of another portion of the states' educational heirarchy, our state created a new and free-standing agency. Serving both the common schools and community colleges, it is the creature or captive of neither.
Community College Director John Mundt alluded to our state's unique struc tural arrangements in his appearance before your committee a few weeks ago in Washington, D.C. Testifying on behalf of the American Association of Junior Colleges, he suggested that we may well have a model structure working that has some potential for application in other states.
This may not be the forum in which to explore such a suggestion in depth. But it surely relates to your overviewing national vocational education for me to emphasize the relationship that any states' internal structure bears to the success of the expectations of Congress. Much has been said about maintaining intended directions through the device of categoric funding. Much has been said about securing desired results through carefully drawn Federal regulations. But the fact remains that those, or any combination of Federal controlling devices, appear to succeed only when they are matched with equally enlightened state-level management.
I do not mean to imply that the kinds of skewing in secondary vs. post-secondary funding priorities that I illustrated a moment ago are brought about by persons with bad intentions, seeking to thwart Congressonal intent. I am certain ther intentions are fully honorable. Nor, do I advocate that in ordering our priorities we should ignore state and local needs to the extent of instituting an inflexible set of national priorities. But I must confess that as I explore priority-setting within many states, there does appear to be an almost axiomatic result stemming from self-interest. The theorem appears to be that the highest priorities for vocational education always exist in the particular segment of the educational system to which the vocational agency reports. With remarkable frequency, enlightened self-interest prevails in practice.
I agree with Director Mundt's suggestion that the equity maintained between the two delivery agencies in our State is atypical and that it merits some carefu! consideration by other planners. The role in that which has been and is being played by our wholly independent state vocational agency is inescapably linked to the outcomes we have been experiencing here.
Make no mistake. Maintaining an effective equity in the face of equally persuasive and sometimes opposing urgings from our partners is not an easy matter. I sometimes must remind my colleagues that we are not necessarily seeking equalness while we search for equity. But he fact is, making objective judgments is cer tainly enhanced when the vocational agency is divorced from vested interests in the delivery systems. We apply management-oriented decision making, evaluating where the needs are and applying dollars based on WHAT is being proposed for kids in classrooms, not WHOSE classrooms the kids are in. Watchdogging against the subversion of developmental dollars to maintenance and operation purposes becomes more effective also when it's not the watchdog's M & O problems that need solving.
Because of Mr. Meeds' real interest in some of our state agency operations, I will take just another moment to report on some recent state-level developments related to implementing the Federal vocational education acts.
We Northwesterners may have a reputation for unorthodoxy and what occurred July 1 of this year will undoubtedly add to that reputation. In the interests of seeking improvements in our vocational programs, our agency suggested that perhaps the delivery agencies could get some tasks done better than we could by