Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Burkett. There is really not much that one can add to your very thorough statement on the status of the educational system except to merely endorse what you have said.

As you know, I have said time and again that the educators of this country must realize that vocational education is no longer something that is for the ding-a-ling and the dum-dum, that it is a basic part of our educational system. To those who argue that vocational education is not for those who intend to go to college I think that we can show a whole series of statistics which indicate the incidence of college unrest is substantially lower in those professional schools where a great deal of youngsters come to those schools from vocational schools around the country.

Mr. BURKETT. Pardon me, Congressman, I would like to put in something at this point. I have been searching during the past 2 years to find if there were any riots or disruptions in a vocational school. I have not been able to locate one single instance throughout the Nation.

Mr. PUCINSKI. At the high school level?

Mr. BURKETT. At the high school or post-high school.

Mr. PUCINSKI. That is a rather startling statement when we consider the rising tide of unrest at the high school level. We had completed a survey here earlier this year. In that survey it was interesting to see that there was a substantial amount of unrest at the high school level. If my memory serves me correctly, and I believe it does, 62 percent of the young people who were questioned in those schools that did have unrest at the high school level gave disenchantment with the curriculum as the principal cause of the unrest. Then they went down the line to dress codes, discipline, and various other factors. It is rather significant that you should say your study shows that we have had no unrest at the vocational school level.

I agree with you. I am very pleased that Mr. Erlenborn has included this aspect in this bill. When you consider that our Nation is going to reach a trillion dollar GNP before this year is over, I estimate about the first of December, and then in the next 9 years we are going to double that to $2 trillion and you look at the enormous manpower needs of America, then you couple that with a statement made at the White House the other day by Mr. Straley, the vice president of A.T. & T., who is head of the President's Council on Reading, where he pointed out that by 1975 less than 5 percent of the jobs in this country will be available to unskilled help, the percentage now is about 30 percent, in the next 60 months the labor profile of America is going to change so radically as to make available only 5 percent of the total labor force to unskilled help, you then begin to realize the serious contribution Mr. Erlenborn is trying to make in this call for a White House conference to place a new emphasis on vocational education.

So, I am grateful to you for your testimony because it fortifies what he has already said earlier today. Do you agree with that 5-percent figure?

Mr. BURKETT. The 5 percent?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Of the job market for unskilled labor.

Mr. BURKETT. The percentage of unskilled workers is going down all the time. We see this in labor market surveys put out by the Department of Labor. If those are valid the trend is definitely going down. How far down is difficult to tell. It depends on the nature of the jobs at a given point in time. Technology is definitely taking over. When technology takes over, then the unskilled worker will have no place in the labor force.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Dellenback.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I join in welcoming you, Mr. Burkett. It is good to see you again. I have a couple of questions to ask. I note in your testimony you referred to the change in attitudes that has occurred since passage of the 1968 vocational educational amendments. As one who is deeply concerned about those amendments and who joined with the chairman and others working hard on those I am pleased to hear this.

I would welcome anything else you might tell us about them. What changes have you noted that followed since the passage of that measure?

Mr. BURKETT. As a national organization to whom many groups turn for guidance and assistance, the increased number of requests for assistance and guidance has been phenomenal in the last 2 or 3 years. I am particularly referring to our working relationships with industry, labor, and educators. Many in these groups have not really played the role they should previously in promoting and conducting vocational education.

As a result of this increased concern we have been working feverishly to help them understand the increasing role and importance of vocational education.

I get a similar report from the States that the involvement that vocational educators have with all segments of our society has been tremendous in the last 2 or 3 years.

I see, of course, a marked increase in the number of vocational education programs carrying out the mandates of the 1968 amendments. Change is slow in education. I have been in education for over 35 years and I think that I have seen the greatest amount of change in the vocational education in the last 3 or 5 years that I have seen in any phase of the total education program.

Mr. DELLENBACK. You do feel that the passage of those 1968 amendments has been helpful?

Mr. BURKETT. Very helpful.

Mr. DELLENBACK. I am pleased to hear that as I am sure you are. In Mr. Erlenborn's bill in section 2(a) (3), where reference is made to occupational education and vocational and technical education, there is included a reference to including education in proprietary schools. Do you think this is a desirable inclusion?

Would you have anything to say to the subcommittee not only about the bill but perhaps in broader sweep as to the role of proprietary schools in vocational education? Is this an important part of the program?

Mr. BURKETT. Yes; I think proprietary schools have a role to play. There are some occupations that is almost impractical for a public institution to provide a program for the reason that the public institu

51-538-70- -3

tion does not draw from a large enough population base to get sufficient enrollments. For that reason alone the proprietary schools have quite a role to play.

The job in vocational technical education has to be done. Where the public schools and its leadership does not respond to that need and a vacuum is left I think something has to fill that vacuum.

I think the private school is doing that. I think the good proprietary schools have helped to push the public institutions to do a better job in vocational education. Of course one thing that I always insist on, and see a need for, is to have some type of control of the quality of private school education. I think there is definitely a need for the State to set some standards or utilize the accreditation process that we have in our private accrediting agencies to protect the public interest.

It is very necessary in the private school sector-having gone through some of the things that happened in the veterans training following World War II--to have some standards for protection of the public interest. The good private schools are doing an outstanding job.

Mr. DELLENBACK. One of the other subcommittees of this committee as you realize has the concern with student assistance, of one sort or another, guaranteed student loans, opportunity grants, and so on. As we look back over the history of what has been done in broadening that type of aid to students from utilization in purely public institutions to utilization in proprietary institutions, we see this has been a steadily expanding type of broadening of this type of aid.

In general, would you approve of this type of move where we make these funds available to the young people for utilization either as grants or loans in public institutions as well as in duly accredited and high quality proprietary institutions?

Mr. BURKETT. Yes; as long as they are accredited and of high quality and the public is protected.

Mr. DELLENBACK. One other question is the reference you made to violence or student unrest and your own searching which has indicated that there has been no such student unrest you have noticed in any of these vocational schools, around their campuses.

Mr. BURKETT. That is right.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Is there anything else you can give us in the way of general comment on how you define the institutions to which you are here alluding? Now the chairman made reference to Lane Tech, one of the technical high schools in Chicago. I am sure there are many such technical high schools. We have one, Benson, near the city of Portland, Oreg. Are you being broader than that in what you are saying? Mr. BURKETT. I am saying those schools that offer a broad program to-enough of a program whereby the students can enroll in something that is relevant to their interests and needs. Many community colleges are doing an outstanding job. Those that have a broad program of vocational education have no unrest. There are some community colleges that have a very limited program with one or two courses. I do not include them.

1

I am talking about those that have 50 percent or more of their curriculum in the field of vocational and technical education. Among those institutions I have been unable to locate a single one where there has been student unrest, violence, or rioting.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you very much.
Counsel, do you have any questions?
Mr. JENNINGS. I have no questions.
Mr. DELLENBACK. Mr. Radcliffe?

Mr. RADCLIFFE. No questions.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. Burkett. I join the chairman in his earlier remarks about your past contributions and the past contributions of the AVA to the deliberations of this subcommittee. We are grateful again for your contribution.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BURKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DELLEBACK. We have no further witnesses scheduled to testify this morning.

The hearings will continue on H.R. 17772 on the morning of the 17th at 10 o'clock. The meeting is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, September 17, 1970.)