QUESTIONS ON TITLE V, PART A (VOCATIONAL EDUCATION)

Questions Nos. 1 and 2. Considering that 80 percent of our young people will need the kind of training which vocational education provides, aren't we providing highly inadequate financing for vocational education when only 8 percent of the funds in S. 580 are to be used for vocational education? If we are to avoid treating vocational education as our educational stepchild, shouldn't a greater percentage of the authorization in S. 580 be allocated to vocational education in title V?

Answer. Your questions are presumably based on the provisions of S. 580 as submitted to the Congress on January 29, 1963, and do not take into account the President's recommendations on June 20. My testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Education on June 25 indicated our strong support for a vastly expanded vocational education program to provide for a changing world of work and, particularly, to help realize the role of equal economic and social opportunity for all Americans, as described in the President's message on civil rights and job opportunities of June 19.

Enactment of the substitute vocational education provisions in part A of title V would authorize the additional sum of $108 million for fiscal year 1964 for vocational education programs plus $15 million for the construction of residential vocational education schools, plus $50 million for work-study programs for vocational education students. Contrasted with the current Federal expenditures of $57 million for vocational education, we believe this represents a rather substantial investment in vocational education. Such support cannot be described as treatment appropriate to an "educational stepchild." Question No. 3. Since only some undetermined part of 25 percent of each State's allotment under title V is required to be used for vocational education of youth entering the labor market, shouldn't we increase this percentage by a considerable amount in view of the 95percent requirement for training adults under the Manpower Development and Training Act?

Answer. In the vocational education draft bill of June 20, 1963, 40 percent (not 25 percent) of each State's allotment during the first 5 years of the vocational education program would be used to provide Vocational education for persons who have completed or left high school and who are available for full-time study in preparation for entering the labor market and to assist in the construction of area Vocational education school facilities. Moreover, in the proposed amendments to the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. submitted to the Congress on June 20 by the Secretary of Labor, it is proposed that the total of training allowances provided by the act which could be allocated to the training of young people be increased from 5 to 15 percent with the age limits lowered from 19 to 16. Together, these proposed amendments seem to the administration to provide substantial and appropriate provision for the assistance of our young people who will soon enter the labor market.

Questions Nos. 4 and 5. Do you think that some provision for construction of vocational education facilities should be made other than the use of funds provided for title V?

Since the $70-odd million provided for title V is only a minimal amount wouldn't be preferable to require that present high school facilities be used rather than to deplete this $70 million with construction requirements?

Answer. A key recommendation of the Panel of Consultants on Vocational Education (see their report, "Education for a Changing World of Work") is that Federal funds be provided promptly for the construction of area vocational school facilities. Testimony of Vocational educators, Department of Labor representatives, and our own observations in the field indicate that shortage of modern area school facilities and equipment constitutes one of the greatest roadblocks to the provision of up-to-date vocational education in regular high school programs as well as Area Redevelopment Act and Manpower Development and Training Act training programs.

Question No. 6. Doesn't the President's committee recommendation of $400 million for vocational education for the first year indicate that the $70 million authorized for title V is completely out of line?

Answer. As indicated above, it is our judgment that the funds proposed for vocational education in fiscal year 1964 represent a substantial and effective investment in this critical segment of American education. We believe that it would be impossible, under new programs and new regulations, to expend appreciably greater funds in the first year of operation of the new program in a judicious and economical fashion. It must be noted that funds authorized in the fourth year of operation would be $243 million which, when added to the existing level of Federal expenditure in this area, and to the proposed new work-study and residential school programs, would approximate the recommendations of the Panel of Consultants on Vocational Education.

Questions Nos. 7-11. Should there be in title V language to assure that the funds authorized will be used only for training for those kinds of jobs for which there will be a known demand?

Are there identifiable skills for which labor is in short supply which might be specified in title V as skills for which training programs must be provided?

Conversely, if there are known skills which will provide little oppor tunity for unemployed youth, should the bill include language to assure that the authorized funds will not be used for such skills?

Assuming the necessity for a certain flexibility, is there any assurance in the language of this bill that the training programs to be con ducted under title V will have proper direction?

Have the job skills which are in demand today and which are projected to be in demand in, say, the next 15 to 20 years been determined? If so, should we not make certain that these funds will be used in those areas?

Answer. The foundation of the administration's proposals in the Vocational Education Act of 1963, which closely follow the recommendations of the Panel of Consultants on Vocational Education is that Federal funds in vocational education should be expended for State and local vocational education programs without categorical limitation under a broadened definition of vocational education which will prepare individuals for gainful employment, regardless of changes

funds for specific categories of training is to insure that this program will soon become obsolete and that our young people will not have the opportunity to secure a quality education for jobs that actually exist. Repeated emphasis in the bill insures that the training to be offered will be "realistic in the light of actual or anticipated opportunities for gainful employment" (declaration of purpose). Moreover, State Vocational education administrating agencies are required to review periodically all of their federally supported vocational education programs in the light of current and projected manpower needs and actual job opportunities; cooperation between States vocational agencies and public employment offices is assured so that training offered may be consistent with local, regional, and national job market conditions; student vocational counseling is strengthened so that realistic advice on employment conditions may be available to our young people. The proposed bill also establishes an advisory committee to the Commissioner of Education on the administration of these vocational education programs. In this way independent, expert judgment may be secured to insure that training programs will match available jobs. Finally, the legislation requires the appointment of a National Advisory Council during 1966 for the purpose of reviewing these federally supported vocational education programs and presenting recommendations to the Congress not later than January 1, 1968. A similar Council would be convened by the Secretary at 5-year intervals.

Certainly, all of these safeguards hold promise of assuring the realization of the objectives implied in your several questions; namely, that Federal dollars will be used only to produce quality vocational education-education which will fit our youth for work of dignity to the individual and of value to our society.

Question No. 12. Would it be preferable for the Congress clearly to give its stamp of approval to the importance of vocational training through authorization of specific sums for the program as is done in H.R. 4955, rather than to provide an inadequate amount for one year and an open end for succeeding years, as is done in S. 580, and which appears to indicate a lack of certainty of the value of vocational training?

Answer. The substitute draft bill in part A of title V provides for specifically authorized sums for the first 4 years of the program: respectively, $108, $153, $198, $243 million. Beyond this, I feel that the Congress, armed with the recommendations of the National Advisory Council described above, would wish to reevaluate the level of financial support which should be accorded to these important

programs.

In short, vocational education proposals in part A of title V of the National Education Improvement Act of 1963 cannot, in my judgment, be characterized as reflecting "a lack of certainty of the value of vocational training."

QUESTIONS ON TITLE V-B (EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED CHILDREN)

Question No. 1. Would you explain for the hearing record why the provisions of this part relating to teaching the deaf will not come into

Answer. This consideration was made in order to preserve the continuity of the program for training teachers of the deaf under Public Law 87-276. Section 523 of S. 580 provides the extension needed for uninterrupted operation of this program (which expired on June 30, 1963) through fiscal year 1964 when it would be included as a part of the total program for all handicapped children.

Questions Nos. 2 and 3. Is there any handicap which a child may suffer, other than the deaf who will be brought under the program in 1965, which will not be assisted under part B of this title?

If there are handicaps of children which are excluded from part B of title V, are there other provisions of Federal law under which assist ance for such handicaps might be given?

Answer. Title V-B was designed to provide benefits for children suffering from all handicapping conditions. The groups and categories included are the "mentally retarded, hard of hearing, deaf. speech impaired, visually handicapped, emotionally disturbed, socially maladjusted, and crippled." In order to assure that all other possible types of handicapping conditions would be included, the statement "or other health impaired children" was added to the list.

QUESTIONS ON TITLE VI-B (ADULT BASIC EDUCATION)

Question No. 1. With respect to part B of title VI, would you tell us, as nearly as available data might show, what percentage of our adult population is unable to read and write the English language?

Answer. Two distinct groups of our adult population are unable to read and write English: (1) The foreign born who have immigrated to the United States. This group has now reached a plateau with the legal immigration restrictions and selective screening of present admittees. The Immigration Service estimates approximately 9,660,967 such adults in the United States; (2) those with such limited education that they do not possess functional use of the fundamental reading and writing skills. Such persons are defined as having completed less than 5 years of school attendance. My formal testimony contains a statistical table showing the numbers of such persons in each State.

Question No. 2. To what proficiency level of reading and writing does this program contemplate bringing enrolled adults? Will there be a limit to the extent or duration of time they may spend in school!

for

Answer. The Federal role would be to stimulate, encourage, and assist State school systems to develop efficient and effective programs of learning experiences for adults who are uneducated and under educated, so that these citizens might become more effectively employed and self-supporting. S. 580 provides for educational programs those who have not completed the eighth grade. The proficiency level in reading and writing cannot and should not be stated as an abso lute. It will be determined by the State and local school systems and will remain flexible to meet the needs of the individuals to be edu cated. The duration of instruction will depend upon the prior educa tional experience and innate ability of the learner, the individual's motivational drives to learn to read and write, the skill of the teachers, the pertinence of the learning materials, and technological develop; ment in the utilization of such media as educational television and

Question No. 3. Is there any language in title VI which would prohibit an adult from continuing under the program until he or she had attained a high school diploma?

Answer. The language of title VI, part B, is such that those adults who have completed the eighth grade cannot qualify for additional federally supported education.

TITLE VI-C (PUBLIC COMMUNITY LIBRARIES)

Question No. 1. Under part C of title VI, Public Community Libraries, the point is made that the "base year for determining maintenance of effort would be changed from fiscal year 1956 to fiscal year 1963. Would you tell us the significance of that provision?

Answer. The base year of the original Library Services Act was the year immediately preceding the first year of the program (1956). This same principle is applied to the expanded program.

One of the primary purposes of the Library Services Act has been to stimulate State and local support for rural public library services. State and local appropriations for public library services have increased considerably since 1956. Since part C of title VI, Public Community Libraries, changes the Library Services Act considerably by eliminating the rural limitation, opening up the program to all areas, and adding funds for public library buildings, it was deemed advisable to take the opportunity presented by new legislation to put a new floor under the gains made by State and local communities in the 1956-63 period and by making the year immediately preceding the first year of the new program the base year (1963).

Question No. 5. Since the bill removes the purely "rural" character of the Library Services Act, does it contemplate that all the services provided under that act be expanded into the nonrural areas?

Answer. It is definitely not contemplated that all the services under the act would be expanded into nonrural areas. The determination of areas to be assisted will remain in the hands of the State library administrative agencies. From our knowledge of these agencies and their tentative plans, we are quite certain that library development programs in rural areas will be continued and greatly expanded with the added funds available.

Senator RANDOLPH. We will recess until 10 a.m., Thursday, June 27. (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 27, 1963.)