GENERAL EXPENSES Mr. RICH. The next item is for general expenses. The 1937 appropriation was $20,000 and you are asking $16,000, a decrease of $4,000. Dr. STUDEBAKER. The following justification is submitted: There is a reduction of $4,000 in this appropriation. The appropriation for 1937, in the amount of $20,000, includes $5,000 for travel expenses for the collection of biennial statistics. These data are collected in alternate years and no provision for this purpose has therefore been made in 1938, other than the usual amount for field service in accounting problems, the demand for which is increas ing. However, two additional specialists, a specialist in State school adminis tration, and a specialist in elementary education, have been added to the staff during the past 2 years, and no additional funds have been made available for travel expenses of these employees who need to be in the field for part of the time each year in connection with their regularly assigned duties. The estimate of $13,300 includes $800 for this purpose. Due to the increased number of requests for publications for foreign countries, the cost of transportation of these documents has greatly increased, and an increase of $130 is included to meet these changes. An increase of $70 is provided to cover the cost of preparation of exhibits and construction of booths for exhibits for various meetings of educational associations. The estimate of $16,000 for 1938 although $4,000 less than the appropriation for the current year, represents an increase of $1,000 over the appropriation for 1936, the need for which is explained. SURVEYS OF LIBRARIES Mr. RICH. The next item is for surveys of libraries. The estimate is for $25,000, which is the 1937 appropriation. Dr. STUDEBAKER. The following justification is submitted: This appropriation is made for the purpose of making surveys, studies, investigations, and reports regarding public, school, college, and university, and other libraries. The first appropriation for this purpose was made for the current year in the amount of $25,000, and there is no increase included in the estimate for 1938. The minimum personnel required for the service to be rendered in this field is seven. Due to the necessity of classifying positions and establishing registers of eligibles, and the limited appropriation, delayed appointments were necessary in order to provide sufficient funds for supplies and materials, travel, printing and equipment. Our estimates for these items for 1938 are necessarily reduced, as all positions will be filled, and no salary savings are contemplated. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. RICH. Go ahead, Doctor, and make your general statement on vocational education. Dr. STUDEBAKER. In our discussion of vocational education, I suggest we keep in mind certain general facts bearing on the development of this program: In 1917 the Federal Government passed the Smith-Hughes Act, which appropriated a little over $7,000,000 for vocational education. In 1929 there became effective an additional act, the George-Reed Act, which authorized $2,500,000. That act was for 5 years only. It expired in 1934. Therefore in 1933 Congress enacted what is called the GeorgeEllzey Act, authorizing under that act an appropriation of $3,084,603. That was a 3-year act and it expires on June 30 of this year. For that reason last year Congress took up again the question of Vocational education. Bear in mind that the Smith-Hughes Act and the George-Ellzey Act provided something over $10,000,000 for vocational education, to be distributed to the States. But over $3,000,000 of that sum would have been taken away from the States beginning July 1, 1937, if Congress had not passed the George-Deen Act approved June 8, 1936. Mr. FITZPATRICK. They only spent $3,000,000 out of the ten millions? Dr. STUDEBAKER. No. The Smith-Hughes Act is a permanent appropriation. The George-Ellzey Act is a 3-year authorization of appropriation, which expires on June 30 of this year. Therefore, last year Congress realized that it had to deal with the problem then in order that the States might know what to expect in lieu of the $3,000,000 which was no longer authorized under the George-Ellzey Act after June 30, 1937, and also in view of the fact that 43 of the State legislatures were to meet early in 1937. Some of those legislatures have adjourned after acting on their appropriations in anticipation of Federal money being appropriated under the conditions of the GeorgeDeen Act. Mr. RICH. And that amount is $3,000,000? Dr. STUDEBAKER. The amount that the George-Deen Act authorizes is over fourteen million, but the amount included in the Budget estimates is three million. The authorization for this three million appropriation in the GeorgeDeen Act provides for the support of agricultural, home economics, and trade and industrial education-the three activities that were supported under the George-Ellzey Act, plus distributive occupations and teacher training. AMOUNT REQUESTED AND ALLOWED FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING UNDER GEORGE-DEEN ACT Mr. FITZPATRICK. What is the amount that you requested for this Vocational training? Dr. STUDEBAKER. We requested the full amount of the authorization. Mr. FITZPATRICK. How much is that? Dr. STUDEBAKER. $14,483,000 for allotment to the States. The act also authorizes $350,000 for administrative purposes-we requested an appropriation of $178,000. Mr. LEAVY. Does the George-Deen Act provide a continuous appropriation year after year on the basis of over 14 million? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; except that it does not appropriate; it is an authorization to appropriate year after year. Mr. LEAVY. To the extent of over fourteen million? CONSTRUCTION OF VOCATIONAL BUILDING ACTIVITIES BY STATES ANTICIPATING APPROPRIATIONS FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Mr. JOHNSON. Doctor, isn't it a fact that many States, assuming that the committee would follow the authorization bill for fourteen million, have gone ahead and made arrangements to establish vocational training schools; and wouldn't you say that every dollar of that amount and more ought to be used in the United States in the coming year? Dr. STUDEBAKER. I understand that what you say is a fact. Mr. RICH. Let me ask you, following that: Are there States that made arrangements on the strength of what the Government would appropriate? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Many States have anticipated this appropriation-I think that is what you had in mind? Mr. RICH. Yes. That is it. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Anticipating the availability of funds, they have been providing vocational building facilities assisted in some instances by P. W. A. and W. P. A., funds. They have anticipated some help in putting teachers into those schools. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Do you know any particular locality that has gone ahead and spent a lot of money in anticipation of getting funds that they are not going to get? Mr. JOHNSON. I may say that in my State many communities did that. Mr. FITZPATRICK. When you say "many communities" Mr. JOHNSON. I mean practically every town in my tate and many rural communities. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Every town has constructed their building? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Many have constructed buildings and are expecting funds and have made their arrangements for those funds. Mr. FITZPATRICK. For vocational training? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. In my State there are many more applications for those schools than even the 14 million would take care of. Mr. RICH. I think this is very important, and I want to get it right in the record. Dr. STUDEBAKER. I get my information in a little different way. There are 15,000 rural high schools in the United States. At the present time there are only 6,151 of those high schools which offer courses in vocational agriculture. That means that there are 9,000 rural high schools in which there are no courses in vocational agriculture in spite of the fact that the boys in those schools largely come from the farms and will live on the farms in the future. Their school curricula are still back in the old "horse-and-buggy", academic days. States have requests for the establishment of 3,000 courses in vocational agriculture, that is, courses in vocational agriculture in 3,000 additional high schools. I have no doubt that there are more than that. Mr. JOHNSON. Where they do not have them now? Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is right. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Let me ask right there: Have those schools that made applications spent any money for that purpose? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Have they built buildings, is that what you mean? Mr. FITZPATRICK. Yes. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Some of them have built buildings hoping that they could establish a course. Mr. RICH. Who builds the building? Dr. STUDEBAKER. The local community. Mr. FITZPATRICK. In all those thousands of schools that you referred to, when were those schools constructed? Dr. STUDEBAKER. They are being constructed now. Mr. FITZPATRICK. That is very important on this question. Dr. STUDEBAKER. I did not say that 3,000 of them have been constructed for agriculture. I said that States had requests for the establishment of that many departments which would give employment to that many teachers. Mr. FITZPATRICK. I know, but you made a statement here that they spent a large amount of money in constructing those schools. Have you any idea how many schools have been constructed? Dr. STUDEBAKER. No. I have no figures that I can cite. Dr. WRIGHT. I might be able to give that information if you care to have it. Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes. Do so, if you have it. Dr. WRIGHT. The State of Arkansas has built 80 or has that many under construction. Alabama has in the neighborhood of between 38 and 40. Mr. FITZPATRICK. All of them for vocational training? Dr. WRIGHT. For vocational agriculture. Mr. FITZPATRICK. To be utilized in the study of vocational agriculture? Dr. WRIGHT. Yes; most rural high schools construct separate buildings for teaching farm shop work and for giving instruction in Vocational agriculture. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Would they have built any of those buildings assuming that this act had never been passed? Dr. WRIGHT. I do not know but I assume that some of them would have been built. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Wouldn't most of those schools have been built anyway? Dr. WRIGHT. I do not think so. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Of all of those what proportion of the pupils going to high school are taking up vocational training? Dr. WRIGHT. You mean in the rural high schools? Mr. FITZPATRICK. In the States that you were just referring to now. You said that there were 80 schools built in Arkansas. Is that what you said? Dr. WRIGHT. We have in the country as a whole 6,151 rural high schools in which there are teachers of vocational agriculture, out of 15.000 rural high schools. Mr. Linke, can you tell us the percentage of the enrollment in the rural high schools that are taking vocational agriculture? Mr. LINKE. We have it here on a chart, if you would like to see it. Mr. JOHNSON. I think the committee would like to see it. Mr. LINKE. The chart shows that 17 percent of all boys enrolled in rural high schools are taking vocational agriculture. Mr. FITZPATRICK. I have always been in sympathy with and voted for vocational training. Mr RICH. As to the schools that were built in Arkansas and Alabama, were they constructed by those States or were they mostly constructed by P. W. A. funds? Dr. WRIGHT. I understand that some were constructed as a part of the P. W. A. program to create work opportunities on the basis of 45 percent P. W. A. funds and 55 percent local funds. Mr. RICH. Can you get that information? Dr. WRIGHT. I can by corresponding with the States. Mr. RICH. Can you get it in time to put it in the record? Dr. WRIGHT. I will try to get it in time to insert it in the record. Mr. RICH. A statement was brought out here that those schools were built primarily for the purpose of vocational education on the presumption that they were expecting to get money out of the Federal Government. Is that correct? Dr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. That is correct. Mr. RICH. In other words, the Federal Government constructed the buildings. Now they expect to get money for vocational education out of the Federal Government. Dr. WRIGHT. It is my understanding that the erection of these buildings was a part of the Federal Government program to increase work opportunities and that it also extended to many other schools and public buildings for which the States and local communities contributed 55 percent or more. I have been informed by the office of the Assistant Administrator of Public Works that public-school buildings under this program have been erected in every one of the 48 States. I can see no reason why these buildings should not be used to house vocational agriculture equally well as for the purpose of housing any other public-school activity. Dr. STUDEBAKER. I have here some charts or studies that I think every man on this committee would be interested in. Here is one for Pennsylvania. We don't have all the information, but what we have will help to make the need more concrete. Here is your district, Mr. Rich. This chart relates to agriculture. The black and half black circles indicate the schools in which courses in agriculture are now being operated. Some of them are day schools. Some of them are part-time schools. The red circles indicate the towns from which requests have been sent in for the establishment of new courses in agriculture in that district. This other map shows the same thing for home economics. Mr. RICH. Would any of the schools that are in this district, which you represented as the Sixteenth Congressional District-would any of them, if they could get the funds, regardless of the needs, establish a course in vocational education at the present time? Dr. STUDEBAKER. No. I don't think they would go about it recklessly, because, having operated most of my life on the receiving end of Federal Government policies, and knowing something about school boards, I know that they are not going to spend 50 cents of their own money in order recklessly to spend a dollar of the Federal Government's money. I have never seen a school board in my life that would do that. What I mean to say is that they will study their own local needs and that when they face the issue of putting up local money to get some Federal money, they are not very likely to go very far out of bounds beyond their needs. Mr. RICH. If we establish a broad expansion of vocational education in these schools, and suppose we put in the amount of 14 million dollars this year; then, if anything happens next year after we start the program, and expand from three to fourteen million, and then the next Congress decides that they want to cut it down to nine million, what would happen then? Dr. STUDEBAKER. I think the schools would have a lot of difficulty. Mr. RICH. It would be a very serious proposition, wouldn't it? |