2.’ ‘L, E A %A"*“‘%'%‘e‘§‘r>~% iyniwrsitfi? ‘ ’ _ ‘ ,1 ,‘*_~ _5x:¥\_ 3 " '.' '3 ’- '9! ' ' "" ‘.'_ ‘.‘\-‘:37 ‘ml “Q ‘ . _; _”_V__:" ‘ .: ,2. Z! 9 . \, , , 4, ,, O K", . “V V: ,7 ‘,.-‘l .__ '‘W s .. 'Vf 1 V ‘ . ‘H’; S I I A“ u 3*" ‘-H..-v’~‘ My ' ~ ~ 1;: ' I 4. ,v"‘," ~.Q_‘®. \ % > \\\\\Miii§@QB§m}@\®@@Im@i;’Kinma ; THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT: REAUTHORIZATION BY THE S7TH CONGRESS ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB81007 AUTHOR: Irwin, Paul M. Education and Public Welfare Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED O1/26/81 DATE UPDATED O2/O9/83 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0214 cRs— 1 IB8l007 UPDATE-O2/09/83 {TQSUE DEFINITIO Federal participation in vocational education programs is authorized by the Vocational Education Act of 1963 (VEA). Participation currently consists of providing approximately 10% of the public funds for such programs (State and local resources supply the remainder) and exercising leadership intended to ensure equity, equal opportunity, and accountability in the delivery of services at the local level. Because the last major VEA amendments enacted in l976 were due to expire in FY82, general legislative revision was originally anticipated during the 97th Congress. Several amendments to the VEA were considered, but VEA authorization was extended without amendment through FY84. In addition, the 97th Congress reduced VEA appropriations so that the FY83 funding level is 7% below the FY80 level. consolidate with funding 45% below The Administration submitted its consolidation proposal The Reagan Administration's FY83 budget request proposed to and simplify vocational and adult education programs, .FY80 appropriations. to the Congress on Apr. 1, l982; although similar legislation was introduced (S. 2325), no action was taken. The FY84 budget, proposes -a vocational and Oadult education program consolidation, funded at $500 million ($824 million is available in FY83). BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS ADMINISTRATION'S FY84 BUDGET REQUEST The Administration's FY84 budget request was released Jan. 31, 1983. It indicates the intention‘ of consolidating existing ivocational and adult education programs that would be funded in FY84 at a level of $500 the individual programs are funded at an aggregate level of $824 million in FY83, under the provisions of P.L. 97-377. The reduction_ in funds is justified by the Administration on several grounds: the high "overmatch" of State and local funds to Federal funds; the intended turnback of these programs to the States under the proposed "new federalism" initiative; and the expectation of reduced paperwork and administrative burdens on recipients. The outline of the proposed consolidation is similar to the formal proposal made to the Congress by the Administration on Apr. l, l982. The Administration found no sponsors in either the House or the Senate for the l982 proposal. A modification of the consolidation proposal was introduced by Senator Hatch; hearings at the subcommittee level were held on the proposal, but the 97th Congress took no further action. CURRENT PROGRAMS The following analysis will cover aspects of the authorized by the Vocational Education Act of_l963, as amended (VEA), and then will treat various reauthorization issues. The discussion of VEA ( agrams includes the activities of the 97th Congress, the Administration's E183 budget request, expenditures and enrollment, program structure and funding levels, and evaluation activities, including the October l98l final eport of the study of VEA programs by the National Institute of Education. programs currently million;. CRS- 2 IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 ACTIVITIES OF THE 97TH CONGRESS VEA programs were originally expected to undergo thorough examination and modification hduring the 97th Congress, prior to an extension of authorization, but P.L. 97-35 provided a simple extension sufficient for continued funding through FY84. Overall, the 97th Congress completed several pieces of legislation impacting on VEA funding, although none of these actions revised the basic structure of VEA programs. In addition, legislative consideration of various aspects of the VEA programs continued during the 97th Congress. The Reagan Administration formally submitted its vocational and adult education block grant proposal to the Congress on Apr. 1, 1982; although this proposal was not introduced in either the House or the Senate, a similar proposal was introduced by Senator Hatch on Mar. 31, 1982 (s. 2325). The 97th Congress considered the following public laws and legislative proposals related to VEA programs: P.L. 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, provided a straightforward extension of authorization of appropriations for the VEA through FY84, but limited the authorization to not more than $735_million for each of fiscal years 1982, 1983, and 1984. P.L. 97-12, the Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Act, 1981, appropriated $686 million for VEA programs in FY81, a 12.5% decrease from $784 million in FY80. This reduction in funding was the first major acti regarding VEA programs by the 97th Congress. P.L. 97-161, provided $657 million for VEA programs in FY82; it was the fourth continuing appropriations resolution for FY82. P.L. 97-51 and P.L. 97-85 provided FY82 funds through Dec. 15, 1981 (at level of‘ $685 million); and P.L. 97-92 provided FY82 funds through Mar. 31, 1982 (at a level of $657 million). The initial FY82 budget request of former President Carter was for $785 million for VEA programs; President Reagan revised the request in March 1981, to $627 million, and revised it again in September 1981, to $553 million.- ~ P.L. 97-252, the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1983, conference report (H.Rept. 97-749, p. 183) directs the Departments of Defense and Labor to conduct a study on the numbers- of skilled workers needed for defense programs during the years 1983 through 1987. P.L. 97-257, FY82 supplemental appropriations, vetoed by the President but overridden by the Congress, provided $2.5 million for VEA, in addition to funds already available under P.L. 97-161. P.L 97-276, an .FY83 continuing appropriations resolution, provides funding for VEA programs at the FY82 funding level for the period Oct. 1 through Dec. 17, 1982. P L. 97-377, a further continuing resolution but containing the provisir of the regular Department of Education -Appropriations legislation (H.n. 7205), provides $73: million for VEA programs for FY83. H.R. 4560, the FY82_ appropriations act for_ Department of Education CRS- 3 . IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 programs, was passed by the House Oct. 6, 1981 (with $707 million for VEA), and was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee Nov. 9, 1981 (with $700 million for VEA). ' 1 H.R. 7205, the FY83 appropriations act for Department of Education programs, was passed by the House Dec. 1, 1982 (with $745 million for VEA), and was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee Dec. 13, 1982 (with $719 million for VEA). H.R. 66, as introduced, would extend VEA authorization indefinitely. Hearings on VEA requthorization were begun in September 1980, and have continued throughout 1981 and 1982, by the Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education Subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor. The subcommittee has also held hearings on H.R. 4974 that would provide assistance for vocational guidance services and programs to States and localities, H.R. 5820 that would establish a program of incentive grants -to States for electronic and computer technician training, and H.R. 6985 that would provide grants for vocational programs for older persons. S. 2325, which would consolidate and simplify the VEA and the Adult Education Act (similar to the Administration's proposal to the Congress on Apr. 1, 1982), and S. 2599, Vocational Guidance Act of 1982 (similar to H.R. 4974), have both been introduced and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources; hearings were held on S. 2325 in July, 1982. Joint Senate subcommittee hearings were held in October and November 1981, on the issue of cooperation and coordination between VEA programs and programs funded by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). I H.R. 5540, as introduced, would provide grants to State boards of W cational education for training workers in skill-shortage occupations in defense-related industries. An amended bill was considered by the House on Aug. 18 and Sept. 23, 1982, but no further action was taken. ADMINISTRATION’S FY83 BUDGET REQUEST The FY83 budget request of the Reagan Administration stated the intention to consolidate and simplify programs in vocational and adult education into a block grant;.a formal legislative proposal was sent to the Congress on (Apr. 1, 1982. Although the proposal was not introduced in either the House or the Senate, a similar proposal was introduced by Senator Hatch on Mar. 31, S1982 (S. 2325). The Administration's objective was to reduce Federal administrative and paperwork requirements and increase State and‘ local flexibility for use of Federal funds. The proposal would provide a single block grant to the States, with not more than 10% of appropriated funds to be reserved by the Secretary for Federal discretionary projects in areas of special national significance. Current requirements regarding State administration, planning, evaluation, fiscal accountability, public participation in planning and oversight, and reporting Cf data WOU.ld be. simplified or eliminated. Additional emphasis would be placed on vocational skills needed for improving work force productivity and economic growth. The Administration also indicated the preliminary intention of including. these programs in its proposed "New Federalism" initiative, whereby program y Lhority would be transferred to the States beginning in FY84, and Federal responsibility and financial support would be terminated altogether by FY91. The Administration's FY83 budget request was for $500 million for the cRs— 4 IB8l007 UPDATE-02/09/83 proposed vocational and adult education block grant, a 33% reduction in funding from the FY82 level, and 40% below the level actually provided for these programs in FY83 under P.L. 97-377. Because VEA is an advance-funded program, FY82 appropriations are available to vocational schools generally for use during the 1982-83 school program year; FY83 appropriations will be available for the 1983-84 school program year. EXPENDITURES AND ENROLLMENT In FY80, total expenditures from all sources for State and local vocational education programs amounted to $6,809 million, of which $640 million came from Federal VEA program sources, while State and local governments provided $6,169 million. ' In FY80, there were 16.5 million students enrolled in programs assisted by VEA funds, according to the Secretary of Education, with an estimated 378,000 teachers at 28,000 secondary and postsecondary vocational institutions assisted by VEA funds. Of the 16.5 million students in FY80, 10.1 million were secondary school students, and 6.4 million postsecondary students. There were 10.3 million students enrolled in occupationally-specific programs assisted by VEA funds in FY80. Of the total FY80 enrollment, 2.0 million were disadvantaged, 401,000 were handicapped, 73,000 were limited-English ability, and 42,000 were displaced homemakers. PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND FUNDING LEVELS The 1976 VEA amendments restructured, simplified, and consolidated previous VEA programs into eight major components. Table 1 shows these program components, as well as the permanent appropriations under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917; the FY80, FY81, and FY82 (as provided by P.L. 97-161 and P.L. 97-257) funding levels are also shown. Because VEA is an advance-funded program, these funds are primarily used during the 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83 school program years, respectively. Table 2 shows the FY83 funding level under P.L. 97-377, and the FY83 level as proposed in H.R. 7205, as passed by the House, and as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. TABLE 1. VEA Program Program Basic grants Pgm. improvement & supportive services Consumer & home- making education Special pgms. for the disadvantaged State advisory councils State planning & evaluation Pgms. of national significance Bilingual vocational training Permanent appropriation (Smith-Hughes Act) Total funding" under VEA The funds according to a age groups and index weighted are lower than Of the CRS- 5 IB8l007 Components and Funding Levels, FY80 FY81 Appropriations Appropriations’ $562,266,000 124,817,000 43,497,000 20,000,000 6,500,000 5,000,000 10,000,000f 34,800,000 7,161,000 $784,04l,000 first $518,139,000 93,323,000 30,347,000. 14,954,000 6,500,000 3,738,000 ~7,477,000 3,960,000 $685,599,000 FY80, UPDATE-O2/O9/83 FY81, and FY82 FY82 Appropriations 89,590,000 29,133,000 14,356,000- 6,500,000 3,588,000 8,178,000 3,686,000 7,l6l,000 $659,472,000 six programs are distributed to States formula based on the number of people in various on an index based on per capita income with the in favor of States with per capita incomes that the national average per capita income. iPrograms of national significance and bilingual vocational training programs are discretionary, non-formula grants. Permanent Smith-Hughes funds are allocated in amounts proportional to the formula-based programs. FY82 funds under (1) P.L. funds through Sept. passed by the House, is lower, account, (2) and» P.L. WhiCh among other provisions VEA programs. 30, (for the l982-83 program year) 97-161, were made available a continuing appropriations act that provided 1982, 4% supplemental at the level allowed in H.R. or as reported by senate committee, less an additional 4560, as whichever reduction for each appropriation appropriations act, provided $2.5 million for selected CRS- 5 IB8l007 UPDATE-02/09/83 TABLE 2. FY83 VEA funding levels, proposed and enacted House Senate Enacted Proposed Proposed FY83 Program Appropriations Appropriations Appropriations Basic grants $558,155,000 $558,155,000 $558,155,000 Pgm. improvement & . supportive services 109,590,000 89,590,000 99,590,000 Consumer & home- making education 34,133,000 29,133,000 31,633,000 Special pgms. for the disadvantaged 14,356,000 14,356,000 14,356,000 State advisory councils 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500.000 State planning & _ revaluation 3,588,000 3,588,000 3,588,000 Pgms. of national . significance 8,178,000 7,178,000 7,678,000 Bilingual vocational _ 0 training 3,686,000 3,686,000 3,686,000 ,Permanent appropriation ' A (Smith-Hughes Act) 7,161,000 7,161,000 7,161,000 Total funding r under VEA $745,347,000 $719,347,000 $732,347,000 FY83 appropriations (for the l983-84 program year) were enacted by P.L. 97-377, on Dec. 21, 1982. ' Proposed FY83 funds (for the 1983-84 program year) are those provided by H.R. 7205, as passed by the House on Dec. 1, 1982, and as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on Dec. 13, 1982. The Administration's FY83 budget request was for a proposed vocational and adult education block grant at a combined funding level of $500 million. (Adult education was funded at $86,400,000 in FY82 and $95,000,000 in FY83.) CRS- 7 IB8l007 UPDATE-O2/09/83 Various setasides are required from the VEA program funds allotted to the States. There is a 20% setaside from Program Improvement and Supportive trarvices for guidance and counseling. From Basic Grants ‘and Program nprovement and Supportive Services, 10% is the required setaside for -nandicapped programs, 20% for disadvantaged programs, 15% for postsecondary institutions, and an amount not to exceed 1% for vocational programs for Indians. From the disadvantaged setaside above, a percentage of funds equal to the percentage of people of limited English speaking ability is required to be set aside for programs for such people. From Consumer and Homemaking Education, at least one-third of the funds are required to be used in economically depressed areas or areas with high rates of unemployment. From Programs of National Significance, not less than $3 million but not more than $5 million is to be transferred to fund the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee. EVALUATION ACTIVITIES Several sources of background information exist for assessing the performance of vocational education programs since the l976 amendments. The 1976 VEA amendments mandated the National Institute of Education (NIE) to conduct a thorough evaluation and study of vocational education programs. Funding for the study was at a level of $1 million per year for FY78 through FY81. The study was conducted partly by NIE staff, partly by contract. An interim report on the study was published in September 1980. The NIE final, report, "The Vocational Education Study: The Final Report (Vocational Education Study Publication No. 8)," was published in September l98l. The ( tent of the NIE mandate was to; provide substantial assistance to the Congress in anticipation of reauthorizing the VEA. on Oct. 21, 1981, the National Institute of Education presented to the congress the final results of its 4-year study of VEA programs. In general, it concluded that the VEA attempts to accomplish too much with too few resources; there are sometimes mismatches between the ends of Federal policy and the means relied upon to realize them; and realizing the ends of Federal policy depends heavily upon State and local policies, practices, and resources. More specifically, the NIE study found: - The ways by which Federal funds are distributed to areas and are earmarked to benefit certain groups of individuals are crucial to realizing Federal policy objectives; considerable improvement in the VEA is necessary if these objectives are to be obtained. - One of the key objectives of the VEA is to assist the States to improve their capacity to provide vocational education programs and services to students who are handicapped, or disadvantaged; or whose English-speaking proficiency is limited; as a result of VEA provisions, States have been making greater efforts to serve students with special needs but localities may be inhibited by the provisions to provide extra services.- — Overcoming sex bias and stereotyping in vocational education is a new objective of Federal policy introduced by the 1976 VEA amendments; sex stereotyping is still pervasive but less severe than in the early l970s, and few States and localities spend a significant portion of funds on sex-equity related activities. CRS- 8 IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 - The planning provisions of the l976 legislation require States to install a process designed to result in comprehensive and coordinated planning attuned to changing labor market conditions and resulting in streamlined planning documents; State planning has improved under these conditions, but this planning apparently does not significantly influence local program decisions. - Encouraging change and improvement in the Nation's vocational education enterprise is.a key purpose of Federal policy, but the VEA lacks effective provisions for achieving this objective; only a small portion of all vocational funds are spent for program improvement, while most funds are spent on vocational education programs or administration. - The 1976 amendments introduced requirements for strengthening State evaluations of vocational education programs in order to contribute to improving programs and their correspondence to labor market demands; these requirements significantly stimulated evaluation activities on the part of States and localities. In addition to the NIE study, the evaluation unit of the former Education Division (predecessor to the Department of Education) has spent an average of $l.l million per year since 1976 in the evaluation of various aspects of the VEA program operation. The Vocational Education Data System (VEDS), mandated by the 1976 amendments, is operated at a cost of $1.3 million per year by the National Center for Education Statistics to gather vocational program data on enrollment, courses, staffing, institutions, and effects on participant" The National Center for Research in Vocational Education in Columbus, Ohik,‘ is being funded under Federal contract at a level of approximately $5.5 million per year, primarily from Programs of National Significance of the VEA. The National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee is provided up to $5 million per year from VEA funds,_ plus an additional $5 million per year from the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program, to assist States in designing information systems that incorporate program data with employment and training data, using standardized definitions and occupational classifications. other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, the Department of Labor, and the General Accounting Office, have produced reports. relatedw to the operation of VEA programs. Consideration of President Carter's proposed Youth Act of l98O by the 96th Congress produced additional information concerning the connection between education, training, and employment. (As discussed in "Effects on Participants" below, the findings of these evaluations and studies are generally inconclusive regarding the accomplishments and successes of vocational education programs.) In April L982, the Department of Education announced the award of a $200,000 contract with the National Academy of Sciences to study "collaboration among vocational educators and business, industry, and non-profit community-based organizations" in an effort to improve vocational education's contribution to economic development~ as well pas reduce unemployment in depressed areas, particularly among minority groups. The Academy is to produce recommendations by summer 1983. RBAUTHORIZATION ISSUES CRS- 9 IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/O9/83" The simple extension of authorization provided by P.L. 97-35, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, was sufficient for the continued funding of VEA programs through FY84. However, legislative consideration of various (aspects of the VEA programs ~continued during the 97th Congress. The e-ucation Amendments of 1976, P.L. 94-482, consolidated and restructured many of the previously existing EVEA programs. Major objectives of the 1976 legislation include: ’ -- expanded opportunities for populations with special needs, -- stronger requirements for State planning, -- stronger requirements for State evaluation, and -- State funding priorities for the distribution of VEA funds. The implementation of these objectives has been four of the main issues being considered during the reauthorization of the VEA. Two other issues have also been considered during the reauthorization process: —- effects of VEA programs on participants, and -- Federal funding level for the VEA. Each of these issues will be discussed in the following analysis. PQPULATIONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS Federal vocational programs have always been directly ort indirectly concerned with students having special needs, but the concept Vof need has changed considerably through the years. Federal involvement in vocational education programs dates back to the Smith-Hughes Act of l9l7, which emphasized training in agriculture, trade, home- economics, and, industrial subjects especiallyy designed to "prepare workers for the more common occupations in which the great mass of our people find useful employment." Proponents of the 1917 legislation viewed the content of ,secondary school curriculum at the time as being too narrowly focused on traditional academic subjects. Although the occupational fields were expanded to meet changing training needs, it was not until the passage of the VEA in 1963 that program emphasis was refocused in part on youth with special educational handicaps, including social, economic, and academic handicaps. The 1963 law also consolidated '%nding for specific occupational fields into a new basic grants program, though a se 63 legislation, oneethird of basic grants was to be used for postsecondary H C’ aining and construction of vocational _centers in areas otherwise adequately served. Amendments to the VEA in 1968 strengthened iprovisions * targeting funds for the disadvantaged, the handicapped, persons of f‘+»d+4w :j N‘ to H 1-mited.English speaking ability, and postsecondary educational institutions. The 1976 amendments again strengthened the targeting of funds for special parate appropriation was retained for home economics. Under the CRS-l0 IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/09/83 populations; separate matching with State and local funds was required for both the handicapped and disadvantaged setasides, and State formulas for the sub-State distribution of funds had to take into account social, economic.~ and demographic variables. (State funding priorities are discussed in p later section.) The amendments also included mandatory programs for displaced homemakers, single heads Of households W110 lack adequate jOD skills, women who are in jobs traditionally considered as jobs for females and who wish to seek employment in jobs that have been traditionally considered for males, and likewise men in corresponding positions. Each State participating in the program was required to employ full-time personnel to assist in ending sex discrimination in vocational education programs. An examination of the implementation of the VEA requirements at the State and local level indicates that in general the provisions have been followed. That is, the correct amounts of grants have been set aside, and the programs- are operating for the most part as required. Although full sex equity has not been achieved in programs that traditionally enrolled only one sex, disproportional enrollments have decreased in most cases. Several areas seem to remain at issue regarding the special populations requirements of the VEA program. The speed of implementing these requirements at the State and local level may be considerably slower than some would like. However, others may suggest that the Federal requirements are too rigid to allow the efficient operation of programs ‘to meet local vocational needs. Questions are also being raised about the limited coordination between the special population requirements of VEA programs and other Federal programs for the disadvantaged, the handicapped, persons with limited English speaking ability, and for the achievement of sexual equity. STATE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS States were required to submit plans for vocational education programs in order to receive Federal funds under the Smith-Hughes Act. with the passage of the 1963 VEA legislation and the 1968 VEA amendments, the requirement for State plans was increasingly viewed as a vehicle for implementing and monitoring progress toward achieving Federal program priorities. Since 1963, the plans have had to show how the use of State and local funds as well as Federal funds was related to the purposes set forth in the VEA legislation. The plans also have had to show how State'and local allocations of funds took into account evaluations and projected employment needs and how research, development, and dissemination of information were being implemented. In response to reports that the planning requirements were not working as well as intended, the 1976 VEA amendments stipulated 20 categories of groups or individuals who were to be actively involved in the Estate planning process; in particular, these 20 categories were all to be represented on each State advisory council for vocational education, and there was also to be appropriate representation of both sexes, racial and ethnic .minorities, and the various geographic regions of the State. Since it was felt -that planning must be based on timely and relevant data, the l975 amendments also established the Vocational Education Data System (VEDS), the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, and individual ta 3 Occupational Information Coordinating Committees. An attempt was made LO increase comprehensive and long-range planning and at the same time to reduce the amount of paperwork; this resulted in a mandatory 5-year State plan and an annual update of the plan, as well as comprehensive requirements for each. CRS-ll IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 The provisions of the 1976 VEA planning requirements have been implemented, for the most part, but the available evidence "does not yet show that the hopes for substantive changes have been realized to any significant \ gree." That is the conclusion of the September 1980 NIE interim report of the vocational education study. The NIE report also indicates that there ‘is little evidence of coordinated planning between secondary and postsecondary vocational education programs, or between these programs and programs operated through the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). The NIE found little proof that program decisions have become more closely related to labor market‘conditions or that planning documents were used for the purpose of program operation. At issue appears to be the question of. whether Federal _legislation can successfully specify comprehensive planning. and coordination requirements that ensure the desired results but still allow State and local educational agencies flexibility to operate vocational programs to meet their own needs as well. Questions may also exist about the extent to which the legislation can require meaningful participation in the planning process by 20 types of public representatives and yet leave local school officials enough authority to carry out their legitimate responsibi1ities., A STATE EVALUATION REQHIREMENTS The NIE interim study report indicates that, prior to the l976 amendments, program evaluation was done on an informal and unsystematic basis in most States. The 1968 amendments included a requirement ithat States should stribute funds with due consideration given to the "results of periodic evaluations of State and local vocational education programs, services, and. activities in light of information regarding current and projected manpower needs and job opportunities...." However, little evidence of the success of this requirement was found during consideration of the 1976 amendments. The 1976 amendments required States to evaluate all federally funded vocational programs on a 5-year basis, to assess programs designed to provide entry level job skills in terms of the successful placement of graduates in occupations related to their training, and to determine the satisfaction of employers with program graduates. In the States assessed by the NIE study, there, was found "a genuine commitment to and. serious investment in evaluation, although they vary greatly in the scope and intensity tof their efforts." The review of programs and the followup of student job placement appeared to be the most consistently implemented types of evaluation. undertaken, but ‘the collection of information on the, satisfaction of employers was reported by the NIE to be less consistently and less willingly undertaken by the States., Overall, the NIE concludes that the evaluation capabilities of States have been strengthened in response to the V1976 requirements, especially with regard to evaluation of program quality, as opposed to employment outcomes. At issue in the VEA evaluation requirements appears to be the desirability of using actual employment of program graduates as a standard for success. Although providing students with vocational skills that are not needed in the gvtal job market is considered undesirable, local school officials can seldom 1aV€ a major influence over local labor market conditions. However, the rate of employment of vocational education graduates appears to be the simplest measure of program success; the lack of such data ‘may increase the burden CRS-l2 IB8lOD7 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 placed on educational measures unrelated to employment success in evaluate the quality of the program. (The effects of vocational programs is discussed“in a later section.) The the overall evaluation requirements is also a concern of State and loo’? officials, according to the NIE report. Nevertheless, the‘ willingness J implement the majority of the requirements may argue in favor of maintaining a comprehensive evaluation system similar t0 the current requirement. order to participating in cost of meeting STATE FUNDING PRIORITIES Under the VEA, most Federal vocational funds are according to a formula specified in the legislation; States allocate funds to eligible school districts and postsecondary institutions according to State formulas that have met legislative criteria and have been approved at the Federal level. The NIE interim report asserts that "no aspect of the 1976 amendments has generated more problems, confusion, and controversy than the required procedures for distributing Federal funds." Every State has had distributed to States a funding distribution formula for the sub-State allocation of funds disapproved at some time during the past 3 years, according to the NIE report. a Parallel to the requirements for planning and evaluation, State funding provisions were more permissive prior to the 1976 amendments. The l963 VEA irequired States to give "due consideration" in the sub-State distribution of funds to manpower needs, job opportunities, and the relative vocational education needs of all groups in all communities. in the State. The 1968 amendments continued the l963 requirements and also required consideration to be given to new and emerging needs and opportunities; persons with 'academ; social, economic, mental, and physical handicaps; relative ability of local educational agencies within the State_ to provide resources, particularly those agencies in economically depressed areas and those with high rates of unemployment; and costs of vocational programs, services, and activities in excess of the costs of regular educational services. The 1976 VEA amendments included new and more prescriptive for the distribution of funds- within States. This action was taken, according to the NIE report, because of reports to the Congress indicating that in many States VEA funds were being distributed on a flat formula basis to all local educational agencies without regard to (a) resources, requirements, or needs; (b) new program development; (c) employment data; ‘or (d) changing manpower needs. These problems were addressed by both Houses of Congress in l976, but the final legislation apparently did not reconcile similar but differing provisions, according to the NIE report. requirements The NIE found several problems with the l976 statute regarding the required priorities for the sub-State distribution of vocational funds. One set of criteria is used for determining the priority of applicants; another set of criteria, similar but different, is used for the distribution of funds. However, the law does not specify whether the two sets of criteria must be combined or applied through separate procedures. The legislation specifies the "two most important factors" in determining.the distribution of funds, but gives little guidance on weighing these factors in relation to the other factors that must be taken into account. Many of the factors do a" t lave precise definitions -—’such as "economically depressed areas," areas with "high rates of unemployment," areas with “concentrations” of low-income families," and areas with low "relative financial ability" -- and, ‘depending these_ rcns-13 IB8lOO7F UPDATE-O2/O9/83 -3011 definition, a wide °range Of distributional results can OCCUI‘. The issue of funding priorities appears to need especial attention ‘during reauthorization. The various priorities appear to need reconsideration, as ll as the criteria both for the Fselection of eligibles and for the determination of the amount of funds. If arithmetic weights were intended for the various factors, then perhaps these should be specified in the legislation. However, if the distribution of funds within each State is to be completely determined by a formula consisting solely of economic, social, and demographic variables, then perhaps there should be a reconsideration of the amount of flexibility States should have in the operation of VEA programs and the value of the recommendations of the various VEA advisory bodies. EFFECTS ON PARTICIPANTS Neither theh NIE study nor the other studies yet offer conclusive information on the effects of student participation in vocational and VEA; programs, either with respect to employment or to other outcomes. There are some indications that vocational high school graduates are slightly more likely to find employment because of their training, but this advantage apparently does not continue for more than a few years past graduation +- the combined evidence from the various studies does not seem to support a stronger conclusion; Critics of vocational education might suggest that the high rates of youth unemployments demonstrate the overall failure of the program; vocational advocates might suggest that youth unemployment shows the need for increasing the funding and otherwise strengthening vocational programs. (- One problem in measuring vocational and VEA program success is that not all vocational education participants consider employment to be the primary objective of a vocational course. As noted earlier, local school officials urge that "employability" rather than employment be used. as a measure of program success. Awareness of Loccupational or career choices, or the acquisition of a personal skill (such as typing), may also represent program success unrelated to employment statistics. An argument in favor of vocational programs is sometimes heard that such programs maintain the interest of some types of students who would otherwise drop out of school; however, there does not appear to be any study that tests this assertion. In conclusion, few reports and studies make unqualified recommendations in favor of vocational programs; few reports suggest immediate termination of the programs. ’ FEDERAL FUNDING LEVEL Under the impetus of VFA, as passed in 1963, the Federal share of Federal State, and local funding for vocational education programs approached 30% c total vocational expenditures in the mid-19605; the Federal share has been declining since FY72 (l7.5%) to a level of 9.4% in FY80. The amount of Federal funding has increased significantly during this period; appropriations have increased more than tenfold, from $50 million in FY64 to 732_million in FY83. However, State and local funding for vocational Evication programs has increased at an even faster rate, from approximately $275 million in FY64 to $6.2 billion in FY80 (the latest available year for tame and local data). Although it seems clear that Federal funding provided CRS-14 IB81007 UPDATE-02/O9/83 an incentive for State and local expenditures following the 1963 passage of the VEA, it is not apparent whether Federal funding continues to provide this impetus. The history of Federal involvement in vocational education indicates th_Q the Federal funds are first used to initiate Aparticular State and local programs to meet national priorities. These programs are to be conducted in accordance with certain regulations, and some level of funding is provided to maintain the programs even after they have become an sintegral part of the educational program at the State and local levels. Some question exists as to whether the current level of Federal funds is sufficient to provide for program maintenance and at the same time to encourage innovation and the development of programs for rspecial populations. However, programs -for special populations have increased under the federally required setasides. The reauthorization issues include whether (1) to use the Federal funds solely for program maintenance with a continued level of Federal direction for the programs through regulation and oversight of State administration of the program, (2) to focus the Federal funding on development and introduction of innovative programs and the provision of programs for special popu1ations,1 or (3) to-continue the present dual program focus to provide some level of support for program maintenance, as well as to fund new programs and encourage innovation in vocational education. LEGISLATION P.L. 97-12, H.R. 3512 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission Act, 1981. Among oth 5 provisions, rescinded FY81 appropriations for VEA programs to a level of $686 million, a 12.5% decrease from the FY80 level of funding. Introduced May, 8, 1981; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported (H.Rept. 97-29), and passed the House, amended, May 13, 1981. Reported by Senate Committee on" Appropriations (S.Rept. 97-67), and passed the Senate, amended, May 21, 1981. House and Senate agreed,to conference report (H.Rept. 97-124) June 4, 1981. Signed into law by the President June 5, 1981. P.L. 97-35, H.R. 3982 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation‘ Act of 1981. Among other provisions, extends the authorization of VEA programs through FY84, and limits the authorization of appropriations for such programs to $735 million for each of FY82, FY83, and FY84, a level 7% higher than actual FY81 appropriations. H.R. 3982 introduced June 19, 1981; referred to Committee on the Budget. Reported (H.Rept. 97-158), and passed the House, amended (inserted text of H.R. 3964), June 26, 1982. S. 1377 introduced June 17, 1981; referred- to Committee on the Budget. Reported (S.Rept. 97-139), and passed the Senate, amended June 25, 1981. H.R. 3982 passed the Senate, amended (inserted text of S. 1377), July 13, 1981. Conference report (H.Rept. 97-208) agreed to by the House and Senate July 31, 1981. Signed into law by the Presidenti Aug. 13, 1981. P.L. 97-161, H.J.Res. 409 _ Among other provisions, provides FY82 continuing appropriations of $657_ million for VEA programs through Sept. 30, 1982, or the enactment of an applicable appropriations act, whichever occurs sooner. VEA programs were CRS-15 IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/Q9/83 funded during earlier periods of FY82 by previous continuing resolutions (P.L. 97-51, P.L. 97-85, and P.L. 97-92). H.J.Res. 409 introduced Feb. 24, 1982; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported (H.Rept. 97-465) and passed House Mar. 24, 1982. Measure considered and passed Senate Mar. 31, (82. ‘Signed into law by the President Mar. 31, 1982a P.L. 97-252, S. 2248 Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1983. The conference report (p. 183) directs the Departments of Defense and Labor to conduct a study on the numbers of skilled workers needed each year for defense programs during the years 1983 through 1987.6 Introduced Mar. 22, 1982; referred to Committee on Armed Services. yReported (S.Rept. 97-330), and passed Senate, amended, May 13, 1982.1 Measure passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 6030. Conference’ report (H.Rept. 97-749) agreed to by Senate, Aug. 17, ‘l982, (and by‘ House, Aug. 18, 1982. Signed into law by the President Sept. 8, 1982. P.L. 97-257,&H.R. 6863 I‘Supplementa1fAppropriations, 1982.’ Among other ’provisions,( provides and (additional $2.5"imi1lion for VEA programs. Reported by Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 97-673) July 27, 1982. Passed House, amended,. July 29, 1982. Reported by Senate Committee on Appropriations» (S.Rept. 97-516), amended, Aug. 3, 1982. Conference report (H.Rept. 97-747) ‘filed’ in House Aug. 13, 1982. Passed by House, amended, Aug. 18, 1982. Passed. by .Senate, amended, Aug. 20, 1982. Vetoed by the (President .Aug} 28,) 1982. Veto overridden by the House (Sept. 9) and the Senate (Sept. 10, 1982). I P.L. 97-276, H.J.Res. 599 Cicontinuing Appropriations, 1983. "Among other provisions, provides funding for VEA programs at the current operating level for the period Oct. 1 through Dec. 17, 1982. Reported (H.Rept. 97-834) as an original measure «by House Committee on Appropriations, and passed the House, amended, Sept. 22,. 1982. Reported (S.Rept. 97-581) by Senate Committee on Appropriations, ,and .passed_ the Senate, amended, Sept. 29, 1982. Conference report (H.Rept. 97-914) agreed to by the House and the Senate Oct. 1, 1982. Signed into law (by the President Oct. 2, 1982. ' " (p.L.r97-377,-H.J-Res. 531 Department of Education Appropriations Act, 1983. As part (of a further continuing resolution, provides $732 million for VEA programs )for FY83. Reported (H.Rept. 97-959) by Committee on Appropriations and passed House, amended, jDec. A14, 1982., (Reported ”(without (written ]report) by Senate Committee on Appropriations, and‘ passed Senate, amended,t Dec.) 19, 1982- Conference report (H.Rept. 97-980) agreed to by House .and Senate (Dec. .20, 1982. ‘Signed into law by the President Dec. 21, l982.,)% A A H.R. 66 (Perkins) Extends indefinitely the authorization for the Vocational Education Act of 1963. ulntroduced Jan. 5, 1981; referred to Committee on Education and Labor.‘ Subcommittee hearings were held Feb. 24-26; Mar. 3-5 and 13-14; Oct 14 and 1;: Nov. 12-13 and 19-20; Dec. 9-10 and 16, 1981; Jan- 16 and 18-19; Apr. 29; A y 5; June 8, 16, and 23; July 22; and Aug. 3 and 18, 1982. ‘ H.R. 4560 (Natcher) CRS-16 IB81007 UPDATE-02/09/83 Among other provisions,*provides FY82 appropriations) for VEA programs. Introduced Sept. 23, 1981; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported (H.Rept. 97-251) and passed the House, amended, Oct. 6, 1981. Referred , * Senate Committee on Appropriations, Oct. 7, 1981; reported (S.Rept. 97-268,, amended, Nov. 9, 1981. ‘ H.R. 4974 (Kildee et a1.) Vocational Guidance Act of 1981. Amends the VEA, to provide vocational guidance services and programs to States and local educational agencies by means of a 6% set-aside of all VEA funds allocated to the States. Introduced Nov. 13, 1981; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee hearings held Nov. 19, 1981. H.R. 5540 (Blanchard et al.) Defense Industrial Base Revitalization Act. Provides grants to State boards of vocational .education for training workers in defense-related industries. Introduced Feb. 10, 1982; referred to Committees on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, and Education and Labor. Reported by Committee on Education and Labor, amended (H.Rept. 97-530, Part I), and Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, amended (H.Rept. 97-530, Part II), May 17, 1982. Supplemental joint report by Committees on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, and Judiciary .(H.Rept. 97-530, Part III); June 9, 1982. Measure considered by the House Aug. 18 and Sept. 23, 1982. H.R. 5820 (Miller, G. et al.) Electronic and Computer Technician Education Incentive Grants Act. .AmeL 4 VEA to establish a program of incentive grants to States for electronic and computer technician training. Introduced Mar. 11, 1982; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee hearings held Apr. 16, 1982. H.R. 6985 (Ratchford et a1.) Older Americans Vocational Education Act. Amends the VEA to provide grants for vocational programs for older persons and for model vocational centers. Introduced Aug. 12, 1982; referred to Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee hearings held Sept. 23, 1982. H.R. 7205 (Natcher) -Department of Education Appropriation Act, 1983. Among other provisions, provides FY83 appropriations for VEA programs. Introduced, referred to the House Committee on Appropriations, and reported (H.Rept. 97-894), Sept. 29," 1982. Passed the House, amended, Dec. 1, 1982. Reported (S.Rept. 97-680) by senate Committee on Appropriations, amended, Dec. 13, 1982. S. 2325 (Hatch) Vocational and Adult Education Consolidation Act of 1982. Consolidates and simplifies existing Federal programs in vocational and adult education. Introduced Mar. 31, 1982; referred to Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Subcommittee hearings held July 1, 1982. . 3 _, S. 2599 (Stafford) CRS-l7 IB8lO87 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 Vocational Guidance Act of 1982. Amends the VEA to provide vocational guidance services and programs to States and local educational agencies by means of a 6% set-aside of all VEA funds allocated to the States (similar to H.R. 4974). Introduced May 27, 1982; referred to Committee on Labor and (Anan Resources. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education. Current issues in vocational education. Hearings, 96th Congress, 2d session. Sept. 17, 24, 25, and 30, 1981._ Washington, U.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 1178 p. —-—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 1: Vocational education in different institutional settings. Hearings, 97th Congress, lst sessionrv Feb. 24 and 25, 1981. Washington, U.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 316 p. —-—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 2:' Urban and rural vocational education. Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st session. Feb. 26 and Mar. 3, 1981. Washington, u.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 470 p. ----- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 3: -Vocational Education and Child Nutrition Programs. - Hearings, 97th Congress, lst session. Mar. 13 and 14, 1981. ( Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 562 p. \ —-—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 4: Bilingual vocational training. Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st session. Oct. 14, 1981. Washington,- U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 53 p. —-—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 5: National Institute of Education study. Hearings, 97th Congress, lst session. Oct. 21, 1981. Washington, U.s. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 425 p. ----- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 6: Consumer and homemaking education. Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st session. Nov. 12 and 13, 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print- Off., 1982. 264 p. ‘ i -—v-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 7: Vocational guidance and counseling and H.R. 4974, vocational guidance act of 1981. .Hearings, 97th Congress, lst session Nov. 19, 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 213 p. —-—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 8: Vocational education programs serving Indians. Hearings, 97th Congress, lst session. Nov. 19 (E. and 20, 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 330 p. —-—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 9: Personnel development. Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st CRS-18 IB81007 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 session. Dec. 95 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 180 p. ' 7 -—--- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 196° Part 10: Vocational education data system. Hearings, 97th Congres lst session. Dec. 10, 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 59 p. ‘ --—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 11: sex equity in vocational education. Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st session. Dec. 16 and 17, 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 430 p. -—--- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 12: Reindustrialization. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session. Apr. 29, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 46 p. . --—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, Part 13: Disadvantaged and handicapped. Joint Hearing, 97th Congress, 2d session. May 5, 1982. washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982.9 407 p. --—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 14: ‘Student organizations. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session. June 8, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 68 p. -—--- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 15: State advisory councils. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session. June 16, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 134 p. -—--- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 16: Research and program improvement. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session. June 23, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 120 p. -—--- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 17: Postsecondary vocational issues. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session. July 22, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 96 p. --—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, Part 18: Occupational information. Hearing, 97th Congress, 2d session. Aug. 3, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 70 p. --—-- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, Part 19: Local vocational programs. Hearing, 97th Congress, 2d session. Aug. 18, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 32 p. -—--- Hearings on reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963. Part 20: Older Americans Vocational Education Act, H.R. 6985. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session. Sept. 23, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 50 p. May 6, CRS-l9 IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 Oversight on the Administration's budget proposals for vocational education. Hearing, 97th Congress, 2d session. 18, and 19, l982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 1982. 285 p. /2 Off., 1981. Congress.‘ Oversight hearings on proposed budget cuts for vocational education. Mar. 116 p. Hearings, 97th Congress, lst session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 4 and 5, Senate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity and Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities. Vocational education and job training programs, 1981. Joint hearings, 97th Congress, lst session. Oct. 21 and Nov. 24, 1981. washington,gU.S. Govt. 144 p.i " Print. Off., 1982. CHRONOLOGY or E€FNTs ~§' 1 01/31/83 12/21/82 10/02/82 09/10/82 07/01/82 04/01/82 03/31/82 02/08/82 Reagan Administration budget request for FY84 presented to the Congress, repeating the FY83 for the consolidation of vocational and adult programs. 0 ‘ 1 was proposal education P.L. 97-377, providing FY83 appropriations of $732 ~million, was signed into law.“ 1 P.L. 97-276, providing FY83 continuing appropriations for VEA programs through Dec. 17, 1982, was signed into law. P.L. 97-257 was enacted over Presidential veto; it provided $2.5 million supplemental FY82 appropriations for selected VEA programs. * Hearings on S. 2325 were held by the Education, Arts, and iHumanities Subcommittee Of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Reagan Administration formally submitted-to the Congress its legislative proposal for the consolidation and simplification of existing vocational and adult education programs. ‘ ‘ S. 2325 was introduced by Senator Hatch, which would consolidate and simplify existing vocational and adult education programs. P.L. 97-161, providing FY82 continuing appropriations of $657 million for VEA programs through Sept. 30, 1982, was signed into law. ' 1 The Reagan Administration announced its FY83 budget request, including VEA rescissions of $104 million for FY82 and a proposed block grant for VEA and adult education programs, jointly funded at a level of $500 l0/21/81 08/13/81 06/04/81 02/24/81 09/17/80 08/06/79 O6/O3/773 10/12/76. 10/18/68 l2/18/63 CRS-20 IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/Q9/83 million for FY83. Final Report of the Vocational Education Study was presented to the Congress by the National Institute of Education, before the House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education. Senate hearings were jointly held by the Subcommittee, on Education, Arts, and Humanities and the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity, on the issue of CETA/VEA cooperation and coordination. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981,. P.L. 97-35, was signed into law, extending the VEA authorization through FY84, and limiting the VEA authorization of appropriations to $735 million for each of FY82, FY83, and FY84. .The Supplemental Appropriations and Rescission“Act, 1981, P.L. 97-12, was signed into law, reducing VEA appropriations to $686 million for FY81. Oversight and reauthorization hearings were continued by the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education. Hearings on oversight and reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, amended, were begun by the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education. P.L. 96-46, containing vocational education technical amendments, was signed into law. P.L. 95-40, containing vocational education technical amendments, was signed into law. P.L. 94-482, the Education Amendments of 1976, revising and reauthorizing the Vocational Education Act of 1963, was signed into law. P.L. 90-576, the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, revising and reauthorizing the Vocational Education Act of 1963, was signed into law. P.L. 88-210, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, was signed into law. I A 1 ADDITIONAL ggrsssncs souncss The Institute for Educational Leadership. University. vocational education. policymakers. National Center for Research in Vocational Education. .participating in vocational education: The George Washington Identifying the basic policy questions in ,Issues and perspectives for Federal .1 Washington, September 1979. 12 p. *p) The effects of summary of studies reported Series No. 202. CRS-21, IB8l0O7 UPDATE-O2/09/83 since 1968 [by] Donna M. Mertens et a1. icolumbus, Ohio, May 1980. Research and Development 248 p. Department of Education; Nationa1 Center for Education Statistics. The condition of vocational education. Washington, July 1981. 257 p. Department of Education. National Institute of Education. The vocational education study: the interim report. Vocational Education Study Publication No..3. Washington, September 1980. Basic skills proficiencies of secondary vocational education students, Vocational Education Study Publication No. 4. Washington, November 1980. Coordinating Federal programs: vocational education and CETA. Vocational Education Study Publication No. 7. Washington, August Evaluating Vocational education:' The federal stimulus. Vocational Education Study Publication No. 5. Washington, March 1981. A portrait of rural America: Conditions affecting vocational education policy. Vocational Education Study Publication No. 6. Washington, April 1981. The vocational education study: the final report. Vocational Z1111 Education Study Publication No. 8. Washington, September 1981. Department of Education. Office of the Secretary. Vocational Education Report by the Secretary of Education to the Congress 1981. Washington, June 1982. Library of Congress. congressional Research Service. the Vocational Guidance Act of 1981 [by] Paul M. Irwin. ‘May 10, 1982. Washington, 1982. 9 p. Analysis of S. 2325, Vocational and Adult Education Consolidation Act of 1982 [by] Paul M. Irwin, K. Porbis Jordan, and Mark L. Wolfe. June 2, 1982. Washington, 1982. 33 p. Comparison of State Grant Formulas, Vocational Education Act and Adult Education Act, with S. 2325, the Proposed _ Vocational and Adult Education Consolidation Act of 1982 [by] Paul M. Irwin. May 19, 1982. Washington, 1982. 12 p. Coordination between Comprehensive Employment and Training Act and vocational education programs [by] K. Forbis Jordan and Paul M. Irwin. Sept. 30, 1981. Washington, 1981. 39 p. A history of Federal vocational legislation in the twentieth century [by] Angela M. Giordano-Evans. Revised by Mark Wolfe. Aug. 3, 1977 Washington, 1977. 82 p. Multilith 77-177 ED CRS-22 IB8lOO7 UPDATE-O2/O9/83 —————"sé1e¢£ea vocational education evaluation and research studies: a descriptive guide [by] Paul M. Irwin.‘ Sept. 3, 1980. Washington, 1980. 9 p.