ordinated manpower training effort rather than the fragmented program operation which has existed during recent years. In 1967 I was privileged to serve on a committee appointed by former Secretary of HEW Gardner pursuant to Public Law 89-787 for the purpose of conducting a study of the administration of training programs. This committee in part II of its report stated: National manpower policy, currently expressed only through an incoherent aggregation of laws and practices, needs to be definitively formulated and codified. Goals, commitments, priorities and constraints need to be delineated. Interrelationships between employment, training, education and welfare policies need to be explicit. The report pointed out that prior to 1962 there were only two Federal programs of major significance in the manpower area which were directly concerned with training, grants-in-aids to the States for vocational education administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the promotion of apprenticeship programs administered by the Department of Labor. In 1962 the Manpower Development and Training Act because the first of a series of laws designed to encourage and provide direct Federal support for training and retraining unemployed and underemployed persons on a national scale. A need is therefore recognized for comprehensive manpower legislation of the type presently being proposed to the Congress to coordinate individual and agency efforts, prevent overlapping of services and above all, present a workable plan of service to the individual citizen whom the program is designed to serve. Although we agree with the need for manpower legislation, we in Vocational education do not fully agree with the plans for implementation which are proposed in S. 2838. Bill S. 2838 places the sole administration of manpower training on the Federal level in the Department of Labor. This we believe is unfortunate despite the fact that representatives of HEW have stated that their agency is concerned only in "preventive" programs of vocational education and would willingly abdicate its responsibility for "remedial" programs to another agency. I do not believe that you can separate preventive and remedial programs of vocational education and do a totally successful job. On the national level we believe that a joint responsibility for manpower training between the Departments of HEW and Labor would be successful if the Department of HEW were willing to recognize the fact that the Nation's vocational and technical schools already have facilities and dedicated staff which, with adequate Federal funding, can be utilized to assume a much greater manpower responsibility in the future. The Office of Education is directly related to the educational systems of our country. This agency should play a much stronger role in future manpower training, both preventive and remedial. Although we must place more emphasis on preventive programs of education, the remedial training programs will continue to play a major role in reaching those who did not find their way to preventive programs. The importance of manpower training of both a remedial and preventive type should be recognized in the Department of HEW to the extent that it places such a program on an equal level of status which is given to manpower training by the Department of Labor. If the Department of HEW does not wish to assume responsibility for a total manpower effort, then consideration should be given to the transfer of manpower training responsibilities in the Department of HEW to a new manpower agency which is educationally oriented and not just job oriented. I also question the advisability of placing responsibility for manpower training in the large cities in the hands of the mayors. Education has always been a State responsibility and the State has delegated certain authority to the local communities. In this instance the State would be given a portion of responsibility for manpower training while in the large cities this responsibility would be given to the mayors. Our experience in the Milwaukee program, which will be described by representatives of our Milwaukee Area Technical College, demonstrates the fact that a coordinated State-local effort in manpower training can be successful. I endorse most of the objectives outlined in the proposed legislation but question the methods of implementation. Vocational educators and the people in Wisconsin are interested in continuing the fine relationships which exist in manpower training between various State agencies at the present time. We feel that if the framework of S. 2838 is used as the basis for the new legislation, the bill should provide for establishing on the State level a manpower council which will include in its membership the State director of vocational education. We also believe that the legislation should be written so that sound practices which have been carried on in the past will continue. The legislation should forestall the possibility of establishing dual or competing manpower training programs by either Federal or State agencies. We believe that we have the facilities and staff to adequately meet the expanding manpower needs of the future. Vocational and technical educators in Wisconsin have always assumed a basic responsibility for manpower training and will continue to meet this responsibility in the future. I hope that this same situation exists in other States. Thank you. Senator NELSON. Thank you very much for your very fine statement, Mr. Greiber. Mr. GREIBER. Dr. Ramsey is next, who is the director of the Milwaukee Technical College. STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM L. RAMSEY, DIRECTOR, MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE Dr. RAMSEY. Senator Nelson and distinguished members of the committee, I would like to give an overview of the philosophy of the Milwaukee Area Technical College and then call upon Mr. Paul Hansen for the second part of our presentation from the Milwaukee Area Technical College. Mr. Hansen is the administrator of the manpower programs under my supervision at the institution and will give a more detailed outline of the programs in the past, present, and what it looks like for the future. The newly proposed administration bill proposes a system whereby each individual who needs and desires job training, especially the disadvantaged, have ready access to the combination of training and other manpower services they require to find and hold a job. It further proposes individualized programs to meet the needs of each. The proposal to restructure the many components of manpower development training programs under a massive comprehensive manpower services system indicate a plan to provide job training to meet the mission of full employment. But the answer is not that simple; it is more complex. We realize from past experience that there are not enough jobs of the kind developed through training alone, not enough people qualified to successfully complete job training, or perhaps, not enough of the kinds of jobs people would want to have for long-term employment. Being without a job is not the biggest single factor contributing to poverty in this country The majority of over 25 million poor live in households in which the father and mother both work-and one of them works full time. The problem that we face is the discouraged worker who is expected to work full time at low wages with little or no chance of advancement. On the other hand, at the technician or paraprofessional level in all the professions there are severe manpower shortages in jobs which would lead to a career As important as job training is, if for no other reason than to make a reconnection with those who have been denied an opportunity for employment, a job is simply not enough, particularly a job without hope for advancement. Employment in itself is not enough. The median yearly earnings for entry jobs in the service industries is about $3,000 to $4,000. The notion that most of those on welfare are able-bodied men capable of working and supporting their family, but just too lazy to do so, is inaccurate. We must be concerned with a skill center for career education and continuing education for even those now employed. Thus to round out our proposals for welfare reform and job training we have to turn to a preventive program as well as to utilize the remedial toward career education and advancement rather than deadend employment. Both preventive career education in the occupational field as well as remedial must then be a "whole process." We must establish a vertically integrated curriculum whereby occupational and career information begins in the elementary school and continues through junior and senior high school. Greater occupational and career specialization and proficiencies follow high school in the comprehensive Vocational, technical, and adult education system in the State of Wisconsin and/or continue through the college and university systems. A comprehensive vocational, technical, and adult education school such as the Milwaukee Area Technical College with its more than 2,200 course offerings can and should be a central agent and hub to provide the community with diversified programs of both a preventive and remedial nature. In addition, it has and can do better in helping the individual through each step reach a career opportunity rather than a deadend. We are presently spending in this country $14 for remedial education to every $1 for preventive education. We need to spend more on preventive education as well as remedial or the problem will become greater and more complex. While many of the goals of the new act are commendable and worthwhile, it is not necessary to initiate an entirely new system through which it is to be administered. Manpower training and retraining needs are only part of the occupational educational needs in the educational spectrum and are not to be segmented from it. The new manpower bill does not clarify and identify the role of the educational agencies as a central coordinator with their many cooperative community agency affiliates. It is true that in some instances educational institutions have been lax in fulfilling their responsibilities and have presented some failures. But let's evaluate it and improve it. We do not cast away an automobile because it has a flat tire. We remedy it and take measures to prevent it in the future. We at the Milwaukee Area Technical College propose a concerted State and community approach through the educational institutions and other community agencies of the State of Wisconsin in order that each of the following goals are reached for each individual: 1. That education be motivational; 2. The individual learn about the world of work; and In summary, each individual must be received within the educational institution at his recognized level and that his abilities be fostered in a continuing educational program for career achievement and advancement. We must recognize that education and training is a continuous process. This is the backbone of the philosophy of the Milwaukee Area Technical College, an institution with diverse programs that permits a person to build and move from one program to another program in order that his abilities grow toward a career rather than be curtailed in a dead end. With that, Senator Nelson, I would like to turn the microphone over to Mr. Hansen, who will give some specific information on our programs since the beginning of the Manpower Training Act up to the present and a look into the future. Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Ramsey. STATEMENT OF PAUL B. HANSEN, LOCAL ADMINISTRATOR, MILWAUKEE AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE SKILL CENTER Mr. HANSEN. The Milwaukee Area Technical College has been in the MDTA program since October 8, 1962, when we started with an enrollment of 40 trainees in two training programs-mechanical draftting and welding. Since then our school has been involved in regular MDTA programs involving 4,468 students in 246 sections of 25 occupations and, in addition, we have had over 600 students in 11 sections of prevocational training. In addition, we have done the preapprentice and related training for 295 students in five QJT programs and have "slotted" about 300 individual referrals into our regular vocational and technical certificate, diploma, and degree programs for a total enrollment of 5,669 trainees since October of 1962. Our training programs have varied in length from 6 weeks for cashier-checker and waitress training to 52 weeks for basic industrial electronics. However, most of the programs such as auto servicing, machine operator, welder, general office clerk, short-order cook, alteration woman, and so forth, were from 18-26 weeks in length. The average length of stay for prevocational trainees was 24 weeks. They are then referred either for immediate employment or for vocational training. Approximately 70 percent of the enrollees completed their training and, according to Wisconsin State Employment Service figures, approximately 85 percent of these were placed in training related employment. The average cost per trainee in these MDTĂ programs was $1,350 for instructional costs and $1,000 for training allowances. Vocational education as illustrated by the performance here at Milwaukee Area Technical College Skill Center is flexible and it is also sensitive to the needs for training. For example, the Milwaukee Area Technical College began the MDTA program with 40 trainees in two occupations and added offerings as requested by the employment service, either by using existing facilities or by renting additional space and equipping it, until, in fiscal 1966 we were offering training to 1,300 trainees in 72 sections of 23 occupations. Since then, employment opportunities have changed, instructional costs have increased, funding has remained stable, programs have been fragmented by the addition of other manpower training programs operated by other agencies until our program for fiscal 1970 calls for training 266 students in five occupations and 48 in prevocational training. The attached summary gives a detailed accounting of all of the MDTA programs. I have attached a summary to my report which gives a detailed summarization of all of our MDTA activities. As a further indication of flexibility Milwaukee Area Technical College Skill Center, we have offered programs on a section basis where a given number of students started on a given date, were trained for a given number of hours and then completed, and were referred for employment; changed to an "openentry," "openended" type of instruction involving job families rather than specific occupational objectives, and are now, on the basis of past experience, we are offering both types of programs using the format that best suits the specific program. The MDTA program is a good program but there are limitations in administering which should be corrected in any new legislation. For instance, moneys are allocated for the fiscal year and, because of limited funds, the areas of training are determined for the entire year. This does not allow for flexibility in establishing programs should the labor market change indicating a shift in emphasis or a need for an entirely new area of training is identified. Also involved is the time element. It usually takes from 30-90 days from the time a training program is proposed until it is funded and operative. These factors tend to dictate that MDTA training be restricted to the traditional areas of employment as indicated by the present offerings of the Milwaukee Area Technical College Skill Center which are auto systems servicing, machine operator, welding, and clerical skills. We feel that the Manpower Training Act should involve vocational and technical education with a format that will support its potential and allow it to offer the types of training programs that it has shown the capability of handling either on the larger skill center concept or on an individual project basis. That concludes my testimony. |