Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic]

Mr. MEEDS. Our next witness is Wally Johnson, chairman of the Washington State Advisory Council on Vocational Education.

You have a prepared statement. It is a rather lengthy one. If you like, we can insert it in the record and you may summarize. Is that satisfactory to you?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to hold to it.

Mr. MEEDS. Very well. Please proceed as you wish.

STATMENT OF WALLACE JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY COUNCIL ON VOCATIONAL EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY BOB PUTMAN

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Wallace Johnson, chairman of the Washington State Advisory Council on Vocational Education. On behalf of the council, and its director, R. H. Putman, I would like to express our appreciation for having the opportunity to participate in this hearing. My remarks will be brief and based primarily on the attached report, prepared for the National Advisory Council and based upon our evaluations within our State.

Mr. MEEDS. Without objection, the attached report will be made a part of the record following the testimony of the witness.

Mr. JOHNSON. We welcome you to the great State of Washington, on behalf of the committee, a State that consistently ranks among the top States in vocational enrollment and quality of vocational

programs.

The Washington State Advisory Council believes that Public Law 90-576 has produced excellent results. One of the objectives of the act was to make quality vocational education available to all persons in all communities of each State. Due to an exemplary network of community colleges throughout our State, five excellent vocational-technical institutes concentrated in our population centers, strong secondary emphasis and nationally recognized interdistrict cooperation, vocational education in Washington is within one-half hour's drive of 90 percent of our population.

Vocational enrollment in our State since 1968 has paralleled national growth, while our State's population has increased but 32 percent during the same period. The need and popularity of vocational programs has increased tremendously. Today about 46 percent of the enrollment in our State's community colleges is in vocational programs compared to 24 percent in 1967. A number of our vocational programs have waiting lists of over 2 years.

The National Advisory Council on Vocational Education has reported to your committee that the national ratio of State dollars to Federal investment is 4.7 to 1. In our State the ratio has averaged about 6.5 to 1 in the 5 years following passage of the act.

Mr. QUIE. Stop right there. I am hearing this figure. It sounded to me earlier like it was 9 to 1 because 10 percent of the total was Federal money. I saw the figures somebody else used of 612. The figure to me turns out to be a little less than 6 to 1. How about submitting for the record the figures?

Mr. JOHNSON. We will do that.

44-822-75- -66

Mr. MEEDS. I would like to have you document that and what you consider to be utilization of vocational handicapped funds in other instances for purposes you might consider to be related not only to handicapped but to other people and for which there is not a pro rata cost distribution.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

It seems we have problems that we are not delighted to know exist, but we are happy to get the information on them. [The information referred to follows:]

Hon, CARL D. PERKINS,

WASHINGTON ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS,
Olympia, Wash., November 12, 1974.

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, General Subcommittee on Educa tion, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE PERKINS: This letter is written in response to your August 28, 1974 request for me to document my contentions that Vocational Education funds for the handicapped were being used for "overhead breezeways" in community colleges.

I am not so sure that I can document. I can only attempt to recall after nearly two (2) years. In the fall of 1972, while still a Washington State Department of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, I casually asked Everett Community College staff persons (names forgotten) how the Vocational Education monies for the handicapped were used on their campus. Their replies indicated they knew of no program use of such monies, but, rather, they thought the monies went for physical plant improvements, such as breezeways between buildings. Not too long afterwards, in December 1972, I inquired of Dr. Paul McCurley, President of the Snohomish County Community College district (Edmonds and Everett community colleges) if this was the case. He indicated that it was indeed. but only because no one had made a request for any other use of the funds it was my feeling that Dr. McCurley's intentions were good). I see that Everett Community College subsequently lists its program as "Special Education School Service Aid Program" which I would also have to question as appropriate.

I should also add that before talking to Dr. McCurley, I had talked by phone to a staff person (again, name forgotten) in the Vocational Education se tion of the State Community College system office in Olympia who indicated that office was not happy with the use of the funds at Everett Community College for physical plant improvement.

Although I cannot recall all the exact details of the above, I believe an audit of the Community College System Vocational Education expenditures will substan tiate the essence of my contentions, whether it was "breezeways" or other physical plant improvements benefiting all the campus population.

Something I can document is my greater overall awareness of the misuse (or lack of use) of funds. The attached copies of summaries of data compiled as the result of WARC surveys of community colleges and how they utilize Handicapped Vocational Education funds is self-explanatory. Only about five (5) Vocational programs appear to be offered, and some of them appear to be only token programs. Having close personal knowledge of Skagit Valley College. I would say they were very unkind to themselves in describing their program because I know they have directly provided Vocational Educational services, namely, through New Leaf, Inc. sheltered workshop, to the handicapped.

Sincerely,

CARL JACOBSEN,

Member Washington ARC, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Committee.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOR THE HANDICAPPED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Federal funds available through Public Law 90-576, the 1968 Amendments to the Vocational Education Act of 1963, sect. 122(a)4B, are being allocated and spent in a variety of ways in the state of Washington.

Allocation of "Part B" funds is received initially by the Coordinating Council for Occupational Education (Washington State) which then distributes the money to the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State

Board for Community College Education. The SPI further distributes its funds to vocational-technical institutes and school districts. Apparently, each community college receives yearly allocations based on the number of handicapped persons residing in the entire community pertaining to the college district. School districts must submit grant-type applications for specific programs or projects on a yearly basis. It is not clear whether this is also true for the vocational-technical institutes. It may be that funds are not applied for specifically by vocationaltechnical institutes but allocated on a "priorities" basis. In order to qualify for funds, vocational institutes must show that 10% of their enrollment are persons with handicaps under the definition of P.L. 90-576.

Figures provided by the CCOE for fiscal 1973 indicate that a total of $584,569 was allocated to the state of Washington in that year. $278,136 went to secondary level programs in local school districts (25), $69,647 to vocational-technical institutes (5), and $236,786 to community colleges (22).

Information regarding expenditures of these monies was obtained informally from each of the institutions identified in the CCOE list. A telephone interview was conducted with the person in each institution who seemed most likely to be knowledgeable of the use of federal funds for vocational education of the handicapped in that institution. It is possible that some individuals so contacted may not actually have been thoroughly cognizant of programs or specific use of funds. Thus, there may be some inaccuracies in this survey. However, every institution reported was personally contacted. Therefore, the data can be said to reflect verbal information regarding vocational education for the handicapped that is informally available to anyone desiring such information. This report can be viewed as a point of departure for further studies and one which raises questions pertinent to any future efforts.

Types of expenditures as reported by those interviewed were categorized as follows: (see Table I)

1. Equipment, or facilities modifications.

2. Other non-direct uses (e.g., identification of population, transportation), 3. Guidance and counseling (also "tutoring").

4. "Independent living" programs.

5. Job training or placement preparation.

(a) Pre-vocational and vocational-related skills.

(b) Vocational skills.

EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES MODIFICATIONS

Typically, vocational-technical institutes utilized funds in two ways: equipment facilities expenditures and guidance and counseling services. None of the vocational technical institutes had special programs for the handicapped separate from regular vocational programs. The handicapped population was usually identified as physically disabled, many being DVR referrals: disabled veterans or victims of industrial accidents. The expressed principle behind use of funds involved appropriate adaptation to existing programs through guidance and counseling procedures and special equipment as needed. Examples of such equipment are audio-visual materials (useful to all enrolled, not primarily the handicapped) and instructional equipment or furniture adapted to needs of the specific handicap.

Community colleges and school districts used funds for equipment similarly: one community college expended some funds on wheelchair ramps, another for restroom modification, and elevator access. A math electronics device, tape recorder cassettes, and a large print dictionary were purchased by another community college. One school district bought small engines with which to teach disassembly and reassembly of engine parts. Another district, over two years, bought pottery equipment to establish a fully equipped pottery shop. Handicapped funds in that district have also been used in previous years for other arts and crafts activities purchases: leather sewing machine, candlemaking equipment and silk screening materials. One other district used funds for weaving looms and photography equipment. Video tape equipment utilized with a jobtraining program and tape recorders used to produce reading lessons to enable Vocational education students to upgrade reading skills are examples of more vocationally-related uses of funds by two school districts.

Current use of handicapped funds for equipment in one school district involved the purchase of washing and drying machines, bed linen, tables and a cash register, wood handtools and a sewing machine, to be used in respective occupational areas within a state-built modular home.

« PreviousContinue »