Dr. STUDEBAKER. I think it would.

Mr. RICH. Therefore we have to go very carefully in our expansion program so that we don't start something that may not be carried on. Dr. STUDEBAKER. I think so. Masses of people all over the country are participating in the payment of taxes to the Federal Government for the support, by way of reimbursement, of activities in their respective communities. I think the real problem would be one of choosing the appropriations which public opinion would support you in providing communities.

On this map is shown the same thing for Kentucky. The red dots indicate the number of requests in our office for new departments of home economics. The black circles indicate the courses in home economics now operating in Kentucky.

OVERLAPPING OF DUTIES IN HOME ECONOMICS AND EDUCATIONAL WORK

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Isn't home economics operated under the Department of Agriculture?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Only in their extension work in the rural areas but even then it is not carried on as organized instruction in the public schools.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. In other words, there is no duplication or overlapping of functions?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. No; I have no evidence of any serious overlapping. The two programs are organized and administrative so that the extension work established in the rural districts meets certain needs that the public schools do not serve. I don't think that there is any serious overlapping.

I thoroughly agree with you that the Government ought to operate by bringing together and keeping together the functions that properly belong together.

I think that education is an important function, and that it has its own peculiar professional purposes, techniques, and types of organization.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Let me give you a specific example. You have a specialist on Negro education, for example. On the other hand, in Indian education I understand that the Indian Bureau has an entirely separate department of education. Is that correct?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. That is what I mean. There is great room for improvement in the way of consolidation of functions.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I was going to say that there are two ways in which this thing called education from the standpoint of the Federal Government could operate. One way would be to have 50 or 84 offices of education, whatever the number would be, distributed all over the lot. If that were the real situation, I should recommend the abandonment of what we now have in the Office of Education. Then we would have statistics about education collected for us by the Bureau. of the Census or someone else.

Now, I don't think that that is going to be the conception of the organization of educational functions that anybody will want, any more than they will want education in the cities and counties managed by several different agencies. Therefore I believe that vocational agricultural education belongs in the Office of Education rather than n the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. How about the Indian Office?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I am not so familiar with that office, although I understand that the education of the natives in Alaska was once located in the Office of Education, and that for some reason it was transferred to the Indian Office. But that was before my time, and I have not had much time to investigate.

I would say that the Department of Justice no doubt has very important functions to perform in connection with crime prevention. But I also think that the Office of Education must get into that field and work in the field of organized education with people who know something about the causes of crime and what education can do to aid its prevention. It is only in that way that I believe we are going to avoid overlapping of functions.

Then we would go to the Department of Justice and try to figure out what the policy should be so that they would work in their field which is most legitimate for them, and we would work in ours.

EMPLOYMENT OF SPECIALIST IN LABOR STANDARDS AND TRADE PRACTICES

Mr. SCRUGHAM. Let me ask you a question in connection with what you testified on this point. On page 17 of the justifications you have one employment specialist at $3,800, and you say—

The functions of the agent requested will be to secure data on existing labor standards, trade practices, and personnel methods to be applied in different fields of employment in the several States.

That sounds to me entirely like a function of the Department of Labor. I fail to understand why you should undertake to do this class of work in the Department of Education.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is in the vocational rehabilitation service, which is a large section of this program. The data which this specialist would be expected to secure on labor standards, trade practices, and so forth, would largely come from the Department of Labor itself. But the data thus secured needs to be analyzed and selected so as to be of use to the several hundred State rehabilitation supervisors who are dealing with disabled men and women directly. He would not duplicate the functions of the Labor Department in making its data more usable.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. I just cite that as an example taken at random. Dr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know whether you are familiar with that program, Governor, that is, what the program attempts. But I don't think there would be any overlapping.

Mr. SCRUGHAM. If there is, wouldn't it be just as consistent for the Department of Labor to have educational specialists? Dr. STUDEBAKER. They have some now.

I think you have raised one of the most interesting problems in all Government, and one to which not enough attention is ordinarily given. That is the question of careful assignment of functions so that those that belong together will stay together.

I contend that education is spread all over the Government lot. It has always been, and we are wasting money and losing efficiency, because many agencies are dabbling in the field of education.

That is why I think we ought frankly to face the issue as to whether or not we are going to have 50 ot 75 or 80 offices of education, or whether we are going to have 1. And, if we are going to have one,

then it ought to deal with the great system of public education out in the States, and ought to be the officially recognized agent to do that. Mr. SCRUGHAM. Dr. Studebaker will continue on with any statement he wishes to make in reference to vocational education.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I hardly know where we stopped talking. I think I had called attention to the pressure that is constantly on our office with respect to the general problem of vocational education, and had mentioned requests that States have had for the establishment of 3,000 additional departments requiring that many additional teachers in vocational agriculture.

HOME ECONOMICS

In the field of home economics a similar pressure has been exerted upon the States for funds with which to establish additional home. economics programs in high schools. There are 21,594 high schools in the country in which we may assume a teacher of vocational home economics is needed, with an average of at least one teacher for each school. Vocational home economics is now taught in but 4,285 of these schools, or in fewer than 20 percent. Reports from the States show that they had on file at the beginning of this school year, requests for more than 1,600 additional teachers of vocational home economics. They were able to meet but 218 of these requests. I mention these two aspects of our work only to point out to you that we are feeling the same pressure from the States that is exerted upon Members of Congress.

ADEQUACY OF ESTIMATE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF GEORGE-DEEN ACT

Going back to the problem of the $3,000,000 appropriation, I think the intention on the part of the Bureau of the Budget was to provide for vocational education as much money as had been provided in the past. That is, the $7,000,000 item under the Smith-Hughes Act, plus $3,000,000 to take the place of the $3,000,000 under the GeorgeEllzey Act. There is a difficulty that I do not know how to get around if $3,000,000 is appropriated, and if it is appropriated under an act that provides for the use of funds in the following five ways:

Agriculture, home economics, trade and industry, distributive occupations, and teacher training; whereas the $3,000,000 that was originally provided under the George-Ellzey Act was for the purpose of supporting only three activities; namely, agriculture, home economics, and trade and industrial education.

Mr. LEAVY. But, Doctor, does it not provide a minimum for each State?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. LEAVY. A minimum of $20,000 for each of the three activities? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEAVY. Making $60,000 to every State, both large and small? Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, and if you will permit me, in just a moment I will come to that, Mr. Leavy. Finishing the other thought, you can see that if we have to distribute $3,000,000 under the GeorgeDeen Act, in five ways for agriculture, home economics, trade and industry, distributive occupations, and teacher training-we would actually have less aid for agriculture, home economics, and trade and

industrial education, than was available under the $3,000,000 appropriated under the George-Ellzey Act which was only split three ways. Mr. FITZPATRICK. What do you mean by teacher training?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. I mean the training of teachers in teacher training institutes to teach in vocational schools. When there is a greater demand for teaching agriculture, for instance, there has always been a greater demand for teachers who are equipped to teach agriculture. Teacher training is one of the purposes included in the Smith-Hughes

Act.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. The teachers that go out under this act, of course, are paid by the States, except for the 50 percent that they receive from the Federal Government? Who makes the appointment of these teachers?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. The local school districts.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. What do you do, just recommend them? You know, each State has its own training school.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. The local school districts under their own State laws employ their own teachers, in accordance with minimum qualifications provided by each State board in its State plan.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Before this appropriation is made by the Federal Government to any State do they not require the State to match those funds?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; they must be prepared to match the funds, but this money is used in the teacher-training institutions for the purpose of paying the salaries of the professors in part who train the teachers, just as other portions of the fund distributed by the Federal Government go into local school districts through the States and are used as reimbursement for the partial payment of the salaries of teachers.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Do you train them in anything else other than just those five subjects?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. We do not train them in anything.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. You just said a certain amount of money goes for training teachers. It is just what you said. What do you train teachers in?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. The teachers are trained to teach agriculture, home economics, trade and industrial education, and distributive occupations.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Do you train them in any other subjects than the five items you have mentioned?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. No.

Mr. LEAVY. Doctor, I want to go back for a moment. If you remain within the $3,000,000 limitation that the Budget set up on this George-Deen Act, you say you feel that you would have to divide it five ways for the five activities?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; if it is authorized under the George-Dee Act, I should think we would have to, would we not?

Mr. LEAVY. Well, the act provides for a minimum for three

ties, or $20,000 each, does it not?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Yes; a minimum of $20,000 each.

Mr. LEAVY. Making $60,000 per State?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. No; it is $80,000 for each State, S

of three activities.

Mr. LEAVY. That makes $60,000 for each State?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. There is also provided $10,000 for distributive occupations and $10,000 for teacher training, making $80,000 for each State.

MINIMUM AMOUNT REQUIRED TO OPERATE UNDER GEORGE-DEEN ACT (See p. 613)

Mr. RICH. What would be the minimum that you could operate on under the George-Deen Act?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. With reference to what conditions?

Mr. LEAVY. To comply with the provisions of the act.

Mr. RICH. Yes; to comply with the provisions of the act and to carry on at least as well as you have in the past.

Dr. STUDEBAKER. There are two or three ways in which to answer that question, one of which would be to say that the way to carry on as we are now carrying on would be to appropriate only $3,084,000, which amount was available under the George-Ellzey Act; to exclude distributive occupations; and to reduce the minimum allotments to $10,000 respectively. I think then we would be left just where we It would have the effect of extending the same appropriation that we have for those three purposes.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. What are those three purposes?

Dr. STUDEBAKER. Agriculture, home economics, and trade and industrial education.

Mr. RICH. How much would you have to have for those two activities that you left out, over and above the $3,084,000? I think that was the question. Give us an idea what you can carry on with. Mr. LEAVY. Could I supplement that with these two new activities? Dr. STUDEBAKER. I think I have answered your question in one way. Another way to answer it would be to say that if the minimums Only were provided, and that is what we were getting at, Mr. Congressman, $50,000 is provided under the act for each State as a minimum. There are 52 States, including the Territories; if you multiply $80,000 by 52, you get $4,160,000. That would provide the minimums. However, that plan will not work very well, because if the minimums are used as the basis, there would be some States that would have to cut their programs tremendously. For example, Texas receives $173.934 under the George-Ellzey Act. Of this total, $74,360 is for teaching agriculture. If Texas got only the $20,000 minimum for Vocational agriculture, it would have to cut its program to about one-fourth of its present enrollment. That is another answer that might be given to your question.

A third answer could be given based upon the total appropriation that would be required to carry forward the present program in agriculture, home economics, and trades and industries, while at the same time providing for distributive occupations and teacher training proportionate amounts as determined by the ratio which $3,000,000 bears to the $12,000,000 authorized under section 1 of the GeorgeDeen Act, plus the minimums provided under the act for the five features of the program. The amount required would be $5,305,000. This sum would not provide for any further development of the present program but would continue it and provide some money for the two new activities. The sum will insure to the States: (a) The 139751-37-pt. 1-———39