« PreviousContinue »
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. ŠTUDEBAKER. Yes; if it is authorized under the George-Des 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.
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. 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, $80,000 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 rut 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.
Å 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 ihe two new activities. The sum will insure to the States: (a) The
same amount for vocational agriculture, trades and industries, and home economics, that they now receive under the George-Ellzey Act, except that the minimum allotment to each State and Territory would be increased to $20,000 for each of the three purposes; (b) the same proportionate amount of the sum authorized in section 2 of the George-Deen Act for distributive occupations, with a minimum of $10,000 to each of the States and Territories; (c) the same proportionate amount of the sum authorized in section 3 of the George-Deen Act for the training of teachers, with a minimum requirement of not less than $10,000 to each of the States and Territories.
Apparently the Budget estimate submitted to Congress involving a total $3,000,000 under the George-Deen Act would, if divided equally among the three phases of the program supported by funds under the George-Elley Act, distribute to each of these phases $1,600,600). The wording of the appropriation act recognizes the necessity of distributing any appropriation that is made under it amon the various phases of the work provided for in the act. Thus the appropriation in terms of the act itself will of necessity be di-inbuted amon: the three phases of vocational education previous supported, plus di-sibutive occupations and teacher training, as specified in sections 1, 2, and 3 of the George-Deen det.
If under the act ons $3,000,000 is appropriated for agriculture, trades and industries, and home economics, it is apparent that this amount would be 25 percent of the $12,000,000 authorized to ku* approprinted under the George-Deen Act for these three phu-es of Vocational education. Therefore, the analysis is based on the map tion that distributive occupations and teacher-training will be given appropriation to the extent of 25 percent of the authorizations prin vided in the act. tilizing this basis, the following facts are revealevi ( Of the $1,200,000 authorized for distributive ocipation., nisi $500,000, or 25 percent would be appropriated; (2) of the $1.00,(!!) authorized for teacher training under seccion 3, only $250,001), or 13 percent would be appropriated.
On the basis of these assumptions and the amounts necessary to allot the States their required minimums, we find that the sum er? $5,305,000 would be needed for distribution to the States. This total is composed of the following items: 1. Amount required to continue allotments to State and Territories
with the same amounts province of under the Coeurg-Llicy Act
for agriculture, trade and industry, and home economie $3,000,00) 2. Adel.tal amount required to giuranter min of $20,000 to
each State and Territory for each of the 3 purpms specified in
1, 170, ON 3. Twetty-five percent of the amount authorized in ser 2 of the
George-Dern Art for distributive occupations to be allotted to
300.000 4. Additional amount required to guarantee mamum of $10,000
to each State and Territory for distributive occupations as
270) 3. 'Twents the perrent of amount asitlurized in se 3 of the George
Deen Art for teacher training to be allotted to the States and
250,000 6. Additional amount manned to guarantee minimum of $10,000 to
each state and Territary for teacher training as specified in
5, 303, ON
If appropriations are to be provided to the States to enable them to initiate new programs of training for the distributive occupations and to develop new phases of teacher-training, additional appropriations should be made to the Office of Education to provide the necessary administrative service, which cannot be provided with the funds in the Budget estimates. To serve the States adequately, to safeguard expenditures under an expanded program, and to make possible the kind of research which, in my opinion, is essential to a sound development of vocational education, there will be needed of the amount authorized under section 4 of the George-Deen Act ($350,000) the amount of $178,000; $5,305,000 plus $178,000 equals $5,483,000.
Now a third answer is this: If an appropriation were made of $3,000,000 for the three purposes-agriculture, home economics, and trade and industrial education--and if the same proportional sum for distributive occupations and teacher-training were then to be appropriated as the $3,000,000 bears to the $12,000,000, authorized in section 1 of the George-Deen Act for those three activities that is, 25 percent, an additional sum would have to be provided, and obviously it would be 25 percent of the authorizations for the two new services.
Then if you take $3,084,000 for the three major activities, plus 25 percent of the provisions for the distributive occupations, and teacher-training, as provided for under the full authorization of the George-Deen Act, and them made up whatever is needed to take care of those minimums, guaranteeing those minimums, the total of all of that comes to $5,300, 00 Then, there could be added $178,000 for the administration of the program and for some very much needed research in this field. I know that the employees in the Division of Vocational Education have been overwhelmed with work during recent years. They have been devoting their time largely to the problem of administering the act, and this duty was especially heavy during the depression, and in the wake of the depression, during which tire our problems in this field have become so conplex. We need additional help in the Vocational Division to find fats, make studies and investigations, and to do research work in vocational education, similar to the need that I was describing in the general field this morning
Mr. LEAVY. As a practical matter, it seems to me we are confronted with the danger of being met by a point of order, that we are stepping out of the field of appropriations, and going into the activity of a legislative committee when we follow the suggestion that you make.
Dr. STUDEBAKER. I am not presenting the answer. I am just trying to answer Mr. Rich's question on a mathematical basis.
Mr. Johnson of Oklahoma. I am anxious to have the gentleman finish his statement.
Dr. STUDEBAKER. I was trying to answer the question, which I understood was this: What would be required to take care of the programs that we have been operating, and to treat the other activities provided for under the George-Deen Act in relatively the same fashion?
Mr. Rich. You are right; that is the question.
Mr. LEAVY. I want to get this clear for the benefit of the committee and myself: You are restricted by the George-Deen Act as to the manner in which this money can be spent?
Dr. STUDEBAKER. That is right.
Mr. LEAVY. This act under which you would spend the $3,000,000 was under an entirely different method than the George-Deen Act. Your agricultural apportionment was made upon the basis of the number of people engaged in agriculture in a particular State, and your apportionment for vocational education was based upon the number of persons engaged in industry in a particular State, and then there was a matching of funds in part by the States. But, here under the very provisions of the act you are directed, or the Appropriations Committee is directed, that all States and Territories, irrespective of size or population, or of needs, shall have $80,000 each for three activities; that is, agriculture, trade and industrial, and home economics, and then also $10,000 each for distributive activities, and teachers' training, making $80,000 to each of them, and then the sum over and above that is distributed upon a different basis. Now, will not that result, of necessity, in certain States where the population is small, or States that are not industrial at all, having allotted to them sums far in excess of their needs, and others that now have schools set up and activities in operation losing their activities?
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN OFFICE OF EDUCATION IN 1933 AND AT
Mr. FitzPATRICK. What is the difference in the number of employees in your department now from the number you had in 1933?
Dr. STUDEBAKER. On referring to my records I find that in 1933 we had 83 employees in vocational education, and there are 85 employees in 1937. There were 81 employees in 1936. In the general division, we had 100 in 1933 and 96 in 1937.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Mr. Rich. We will place in the record at this point the items on vocational education. The first item is for salaries and expenses. The estimate is $264,060, and the 1937 appropriation was $192,000.
Dr. STUDEBAKER. The following justification is submitted for the record:
Section 7 of the act of February 23, 1917, providing for the promotion of vocational education in the several States and Territories, authorizes an appropriation of $200,000 annually for the administration of the act.
Section 4 of the act of June 8, 1936, providing for the further development of vocational education, authorizes an appropriation of $350,000 annually for the administration of this act. This act supersedes the act of May 21, 1934, which expires June 30, 1937, enlarges the scope of the work, and authorizes increased appropriations.
Heretofore, appropriations have been made separately for the administration of these two acts. The Smith-Hughes Act prior to 1936 provided a permanent annual appropriation of $200,000, whereas the act of May 21, 1934, authorized an annual appropriation for the years 1935 to 1937. By virtue of the Permanent Appropriation Repeal Act, which repealed the permanent feature of the administrative appropriation for vocational education in the act of February 23, 1917, and the passage of the Act of June 8, 1936, authorizing an annual appropriation for administration “to be expended for the same purposes and in the same manner as provided in section 7 of the act approved February 23, 1917", these two funds are now authorized on the same basis. For this reason they have been consolidated under the title “Salaries and Expenses, Vocational Education, Office of Education.” The text of the appropriating language has been modified to include both acts.