ED 047 148

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

BUREAU NOPUB DATEGRANTNOTEAVAILAPLE FFOM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

24 VT 012 566

Ward, Darrell L., Comp.; Kazarian, Edward N., Comp.Third Annual National Leadership Development reminarfor State Pirectors of Vocational Education.Articulation of Vocational 7ducation Planning withComprehensive State Planning.Ohio state Univ., Columbus. Center for Vocationaland Technical Education.Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. Pureauof Research.rp-7-'115PJan 71OEG3-7-00015P-2037

Leadership Training Series No. 32The Center for Vocational and Techn;,cal Fducation,The Ohio State University, 1000 Fenny Road,Columbus, Ohio 42210

ERRS Price MP-$0.65 HC-$3.29Advisory Committees, Articulation (Program),*Educational Coordination, Educational Planning,Tnservice Education, Interagency Coordination,*Leadership Training, *Program Planning, Seminars,*State Programs, *Vocational Education.

ABSTRACTMore than 100 state directors and other leaders from

u5 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico attended a ?-dayinservice leadership development seminar to exchange information andexamine coordinated state planning as it relates to programing invocational-technical education. Seminar activities included groupwork session, a symposium, and these major presentations: (1) "P

Governor's Perspective of Total State Planning and the Pole ofVocational Education" by Robert F. McNair, (2) "The Challenge ofTotal Educational Planning Within a State" by Howard B. Casmey, (3)

"A State Director ')f Vocational Education's Perspective of TotalState Planning and the Role of Vocational Education" by Fobert S.Seckendorf, (u) "Coordinated State Planning in Minnesota: BackgroundPaper for a Symposium" by Joseph F. Malinski, (5) "The Pole of theState Advisory Council in Vocational Education Planning: A Report ofa Panel" by Rruce Reinhart, (6) "Interagency Cooperation forImplementation of State Planning" by Herbert Righthand, (7) "CareerEducation: The Oregon Way" by Leonard Kunzman, and (P) "ImplementingState Planning in Vocational-Technical Education" by Martin Essex.(q13)

Third ArnivalNatiorial Leadership Dewlap-mut Serni-war

For State- Dfrectors of. Vocational Eaucatioil

-1

AR-t1Ctil:N1116N OF

PLANNINCJ

.;-))

,P

CO

vi

CD

w Leadership Training Series No. 32

THIRD ANNUALNATIONAL LEADERSHIP

DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR FORSTATE DIRECTORS OF

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Articulation of Vocational EducationPlanning With Comprehensive State Planning

Compiled and Edited byDARRELL L. WARD

EDWARD N. KAZARIAN

The Center for Vocational and Technical EducationThe Ohio State University

1900 Kenny RoadColumbus, Ohio 43210

JANUARY 1971

AI S DIPARTIAINI Of NIIl1N. EDUCATIONWILMA,

011105 01 IDIJCATIONTN1S DOCUMENT HAS SEEN NIPPON/CEOILIACTLY AS IIICEM110 t ROTA lmt PIVISONCIAOIGANIZATOON OrTGOVATiNG rt POINTS CI;VIEW ON OPINIONS StATTO DO NOT t ,CISSARA! iiit+t-tsorrOfFiVAIL OTr4Cf Cr ONCATION POSITION ON POLiCT

n

INTERIM REPORTPROJECT NO. 7.0158

GRANT NO. OEG-3-7-000158-2037

The material in this publication was prepared pursuant to a grant with the Office ofEducation, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to expressfreely their judgment in professional and technical matters. Points of view oropinions do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office of Education posi-tion or policy.

This publication has been prepared for distribution to selected agencies and in-dividuals on a complimentary basis as permitted by funding under the terms of thefederal grant. Additional copies have been produced from local funds for dis-tribution on a cost recovery basis to assure wider dissemination of the document.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE

Office of EducationBureau of Research

ii

INTRODUCTION

The Center was pleased to respond to the requestfrom the National Association of State Directors ofVocational education to conduct the Third NationalLeadership Development Seminar and to work withtheir planning committee in structuring this annualmeeting.

The theme of this year's seminar, "Articulating Vo-cational Education Planning With Comprehensive StatePlanning" was an urgent and timely topic.

Last year's seminar focused on the problem of masterplanning for state programs of vocational education.Outstanding consultants from industry, governmentand education shared the strategies and proceduresthey used in long-range master planning. The realitiesof planning within the political structure were examinedand an orientation was provided to specific tools andtechniques that would be useful in systematic planning.Systems such as PPBS and PERT were examined andthe application of the Delphi Technique to vocationalplanning and broad goal setting was discussed.

Building on last year's theme and the understandingsand competencies developed there and taking into ac-count our year's experiences, the Association's planningcommittee and The Center were anxious to providecontinuity and momentum to the planning process as acritical aspect of state management.

It was significant that more than 100 state directorsand other leaders from 45 states, the District ofColumbia, and Puerto Rico met for the purpose ofaddressing themselves to the critical problem of articu-lating vocational education planning with comprehen-sive state planning. While the importance of planningis self-evident, it may be helpful to briefly highlight thereasons for the new prominence and cruciality of theplanning process.

I. To meet legislative goals and mandates.2. To contribute to both educational and economic

efficiency (with increased concern for allocationof scarce resources after examining alternativeseducational and social costs and benefits).

3. To provide a basis for evaluationaccountability,if you please.

4. Perhaps most importantto bring to bear the fullrange of resources and special competencies tosignificantly impact on major social and educa-tional problems, such as the unemployed and thedisadvantaged.

Because of the pervasive and expanded role that vo-cational education occupies in the educational andeconomic development of states, it seems clear that ourplanning must become more rational and our decision-making more explicit. Management by objectives is

certainly implied if not required.State vocational education planning must give at-

tention to the broader context in its planning; that is,the work of other state agencies and organizations.Further, in harmony with the trend of participatorydemocracy (or confrontation, if you prefer), it is clearthat planning must be done in full public view underthe intense scrutiny of narrow vested interests and thebroader interests of society. Hence, the rationale anddata base for decisions and resource allocations mustbe clear and they must stand up under such examina-tions. Further, if the meaningful articulation we seekin programs is to take place, it will require a clearmission statement for the ..nanagement units of thevarious agencies, operational objectives and truecommitment to cooperation and coordina'kin for thebetterment of those we serve.

We were extremely fortunate to have the viewpointsof outstanding individuals who by virtue of their posi-tion and professional competence provided a valuableperspective to our purpose: a governor, chief stateschool officers, state directors of vocational education.Throughout the entire program opportunities were pro-vided for the participants to interact with the speakersand consultants. The participants assumed the obliga-tion to raise questions, to challenge points of view, topose alternatives, and to point out implications andapplications.

Active participation of Association members and in-puts from the following U.S. Office of Education staffmembers contributed materially to the success of theseminar: Arthur Lee Hardwick, associate commissioner,Bureau of Adult, Vocational-Technical Education;Howard F. Hjelm, acting associate commissioner Na-tional Center for Educational Research and Develop-

iv

ment: and Leon P. Minear, director, Division ofVocational and Technical Education.

Recognition is due Center staff members DarrellWard, specialist in state leadership; Edward Kazarian,research associate; ane Aaron Miller, coordinator ofproduct utilization ana training, for their efforts indirecting this seminar. The assistance of the officersand planning committee of the National Association ofState Directors of Vocational Education is gratefullyacknowledged.

We trust that this report will be useful in furtheringstateplanning for vocational-technical education.

Robert E. TaylorDirectorThe Center for Vocational

and Technical Education

CONTENTSIntroduction

A Governor's Perspective of Total State Plan/Lingand the Role of Vocational Education

The Honorable Robert E. McNair 1

The Challenge of Total Educational PlanningWithin a State

iloward B. Casmey 4

A State Director of Vocational Education's Perspectiveof Total State Planning and the Role ofVocational Education

Robert S. Seckendorf 8

Coordinated State Planning in Minnesota:Background Pap-,r for a Symposium

Joseph F. MalinskL 16

The Role of the State Advisory Council inVocational Education Planning: A Reportof a Panel

Bruce Reinhart 25

Interagency Cooperation for Implementation ofState Planning

Herbert Righthand 29

Career Education: The Oregon WayLeonard Kunzman 33

Implementing State Planning in Vocational-TechnicalEducation

Martin Essex 35

Appendix A 39

Appendix B 49

F44

A GOVERNOR'S PERSPECTIVE OFTOTAL STATE PLANNING ANDTHE ROLE OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

This year, more than eight million Americans areenrolled in vocational education programs. Our tax-payers are spending $1,400,004,000 on these programs.Obviously, the very magnitude of this undertaking de-mands that it receive a priority of the highest order inthe educational community. Let us understand, how-ever, that enlightenment and good intentions them-selves are not enough. New awareness sometimesbrings new problems. Broader understanding bringsbroader involvement from many sectors of the totalschool program.

We are all familiar with the bandwagon psychology,and we all understand how a vehicle can becomebogged down if too many persons jump aboard. In thefield of adult, vocational, occupational, and technicaleducation today, there is a danger that in their haste toserve, these programs can often get in the way of eachother, and create more problems than they solve.

As governor of a state in which all these programsare quite active and effective, I have come to under-stand and appreciate fully the absolute need forcoordination in education. At the basic levelthe levelwhere money is translated into programs, and pro-grams are translated into studentsnone of us canafford the duplication and waste which comes from thissort of overlap. White each program has its generalpurposes, there are fringe areas where interests mergewith those of another program. This fringe area overlapis often the logical result of 2 program too indefinitelydescribed, or a funding process too hazily outlined. Inthis case, it is the proper responsibility of the state todefine operational areas, cnd to fit the pieces together.

It has been our experience in South Carolina thatonce jurisdictional boundaries are drawn, the operation

The Honorable Robert E. McNairGovernor, South CarolinaColumbia, South Carolina

of each agency and the cooperation among the manyagencies, becomes a much smoother process. Once thishurdle is cleared--and it must be cleared at the statelevelthen enormous results can be obtained fromrelatively limited resources.

If we accept the reality that all students are notacademically oriented, and that technically orientedstudents are entitled to the same level of educationalexcellence as all others, then we begin to understandthe necessity of coordinating our efforts. There is noreason to wait until the eleventh grade student showsup with an "F" on his report card to channel him intovocational education; nor is there any reason to be-lieve that because he fails Latin, he cannot become abig success in computer science.

The problem often lies in the fact that we may waittoo late to diagnose the student's needs, then come upwith too small a choice of career opportunities. Througha tightly coordinated program which projects vocationaland technical training directly into the educationalmainstream, we in South Carolina are attempting tocorrect this deficiency. Through programs of adjunctand prevocational education, we are seeking to identifyand reorient student interests as early as the upperelementary levels. Not only does this approach headoff the possibility of dropouts before the idea ofdropping out gets started, it also contributes greatly tothe effectiveness of occupational training itself.

But, obviously, such programs require alternativeapproaches. Simply because a student is nonacademicdoes not automatically assign him to some catch-allprogram. The nonacademic student ranges from thehandicapped and mentally retarded to the highlyskilled or brilliant technical stent. The opportunities

2

and alternatives must be just as varied- -if not morevariedfor these students as for the college preparatorystudent. Thus, vocational programs must be multi-level and highly sensitive to the individual needs of thestudent. if each person is to achieve his highest levelof potential development, he must be provided withthe tools at an early age to exploit his on individualatilities. Such exploitation, of course, is not possibleif education itself is content to remain isolated fromthe rest of society.

There is no point in developing skills for which thereare no jobs, hopes for which there is no fulfillment,and ambitions for which there are no careers. Educa-tional square pegs who do not fit into the occupationalround holes are the casualties of our own failure tocomprehend the full impact of education on the com-munity. Once again, it becomes necessary at the statelevel to provide the type of leadership which can bringeducator and industrialist, teacher and businessman,into communication with each other. It is no longerpossible to separate the interests of economic growthand educational excellence. They are bound together inan unending cycle of cause and effect, supply anddemand.

The quality of jobs available in a given communitywill be no higher than the educational capability. Atthe same time, the level of education will be directlyrelated to the type of job opportunities and careerpotential available. We have a mobile population and amobile economy. Communities compete for new in-dustry, and states compete for overall economic well-being and advancement.

In South Carolina we use education as a tool ofeconomic growth in the same way that another statemight exploit the potential of its precious raw materials.Our raw material is peoplethat human resource whichcan be cultivated and developed only by education.Without specific job-oriented training from our tech-nical education centers in South Carolina, we couldnot have brought $4 billion of new industry and 120,000new jobs into our Mate during the past decade. It is assimple as that.

In stressing coordination within the educational com-munity, and coordination between education andeconomy, I have suggested that such coordinationshould properly come at the state level. I make such asuggestion because of the complex nature of federalprograms, state funding priorities and local fundingcapabilities. It is the state which must provide the cumu-lati ve goals, and establish the aggregate priorities.

In these days when so many programs--particularlythose dealing with educationare amalgamations ofstate, federal and local participation, it is vital that thestate step in to bring order to a situation which couldeasily lead to chaos. Where the state is willing and

capable to undertake this type of coordinating respon-sibility, a far greater return on the invested dollar canbe realized.

Beginning with the Vocational Education Act of 1963,and continuing through the Amendments of 1968,there has been a steady expansion of the concept ofyour role in the educational process. Vocationalschools now have a mandate to produce studentsprepared to ertu the labor market or pursue furtheroccupation-oriented training. The spirit of the 1968act was a spirit of coordination, and it may well havebeen a turning point in planning the course we followin the immediate years ahead. States now have thecapability and the responsibility to relate vocationaltraining directly to total education and the job marketin the local areas.

In South Carolina, we, like others, have organized aVocational - Technical Education Advisory Council,composed of the leadership of the many occupationalprograms, as well as representatives of our industrialdevelopment agency, and leaders of the community it-self. Through this council, we have been able to providea forum for the articulation of programs and a co-ordinating body for overall planning. By bringingtogether leadership at the decision-making toe!, wehave related education to economic development as wellas to the needs and potential capability of the man-power pool itself.

Coordination, however, is more than a program-matic luxury. It is an economic necessity. There is notenough money in our state or federal treasuries to per-mit the separate proliferation of administration andfacilities for each of the various occupational programs.There is no reason why general, vocational, adult, andtechnical education programs cannot share facilitiesand resources. There is every reason to believe that thisshould be done because today's offerings must beadapted and tailored ,o the individual needs of eachcitizen. Just as we have supermarkets for the con-venience or the food shopper, we should also considerthe comprehensive approach for the educational andtraining needs of the potential student. Jurisdictionalcompetition and administrative overlap only tend toconfuse and mislead the prospective trainee. He maynot be equipped to separate in his own mind theboundaries and definitions of programs which go bythe similar-sounding names of vocational education,technical education or occupational training. He maynot be able to judge exactly where he fits into thissystem. To simplify his problems, and to streamlinethe system itself, we have increasingly encouraged thejoint use of facilities, the joint sponsorship of programs,and the regional approach to local needs. If a corn-prehensive vocational-technical facility can be estab-lished which will serve the requirements of severalprograms within a geographic region, it will be vastly

superior to dotting the countryside with single-purposebuildings and facilities.

Our most ambitious undertaking to date in this re-gard has been the Regional Manpower Center inWilliamsburg County, South Carolina. In this singleunit we have combined federal, state and local funding,and multi-agency administration to provide the mostcomprehensive training center yet designed. Fundingcomes from the Economic Development Administration(EDA), the three-state Coastal Plains Regional Com-mission, and Williamsburg County itself. When com-pleted, the center will offer the full spectrum of courses,including basic adult education, high school-level voca-tional training, post-high school technical education, aswell as Manpower Development Training (MDTA) andth.. Concentrated Employment Program (CEP). Tobring about this total approach, many agencies at thestate level have joined hands, including the Office ofVocationol Education and the Office of Adult Educationof the State Department of Education, the State Com-mittee for Technical Education, the EmploymentSecurity Commission, the Vocational RehabilitationDepartment and the State Development Board.

We consider this center to be a structural modelembodying all the principles of coordinationmulti-agency and multi-government--which we have con-sidered so necessary to the effectiveness of occupation-oriented education. Through this center, it will bepossible for any qualified student to enter at his ownparticular educational level and to receive the type ofspecific training which will not only develop fully hisown particular abilities, but will also qualify him for thejob market in his own local area.

here is one element which many of us may all toooften overlook in our approach to nonacademic educa-tion. 1 alluded earlier to the fact that ours is a society

10

3

which rewards the working man and places him in aposition of considerable esteem. In many ways, wevalue the essential dignity and enterprise of the work-ing man, the laborer, the machinist, the technician.These people are at the heart of the American freeenterprise system; they constitute the muscle, themechanism, the energy which gives :once to the mostproductive economy the world has ever known.

In terms of education, this same type of understand-ing and priority must now extend into the very innerworkings of our school system. What is considered"special" today in terms of occupational training mustincreasingly become the normal and the usual through-out the educational process. We are talking about morethan the specific vocational education program. We aretalking about more than technical education, job train-ing or occupational programs. We are talking about aphilosophy, a point of view which must permeate theentire fa bricof education.

John Gardner wrote 10 years ago: "The societywhich scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbingis a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness inphilosophy because it is an exalted activity, will haveneither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither itspipes nor its philosophy will hold water."

The time has come for American education to under-stand the full meaning of these words, and the implica-tion they hold for our future. It is no longer enough tooffer an educat'on to those who would partake, andreject those who do not fit the mold ws: construct. Thereshould be no such thing as failure; there should be noreason for the term "dropout." It is time that westopped judging students on the basis of what theycannot do; it is time for us to train and educate themon the basis of what they can do. Unless we do, it iseducation itself which will have failed, and which willhave d topped out of society.

THE CHALLENGE OF TOTALEDUCATIONAL PLANNINGWITHIN A STATE

Teachers are prone to teach the way they weretaught when they were students. Similarly, most of usthink of tomorrow as a repetition of yesterday. In thearea of vocational and technical education this can haveunhappy consequences.

`.\ hen we talk of vocational education we tend tothink of certain historic trades and occupations likecarpentry, plumbing, printing, farming and other voca-tions. Although the names tend to remain the same, thecontent and skills are radically different, while thedemand for the skills has undergone far-reaching shifts.These shifts are being measured, counted, charted, andpublicized under the auspices of the Bureau of LaborStatistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The mis-conception about vocational education is that we thinkwe know what carpenters and plumbers do, becausewe thought we knew what they did a generation ago.Even if we did know then, this knowledge is now outof date and no longer applicable. Worse yet, it willchange even more in the years ahead.

Vocational education, now almost 50 years old, wasdesigned to save the American secondary school fromthe domination of college preparation. After all, wehad elementary schools and colleges as far back as thecolonial period; only later did we develop the tax-supported secondary school to bridge the gap and toeducate the clerks and storekeepers and the teachersfor our elementary schools. Thus the American highschool was oriented toward the clerical occupationsand the professions; it became preparatory for collegeand for white-collar jobs; it taught how to deal withpaper rather than with things. The Smith-Hughes Actof 1917 was meant to remedy matters by providingfederal funds fcr manual tasks. Even though the basic

4

Howard B. CasmeyCommissioner of Education

State of MinnesotaSt. Paul, Minnesota

Act of 1917 has been amended several times, it begana division in American secondary education which existsto this day.

The single most important ingredient of a good edu-cation today is to cultivate among students a receptivitytoward further education. Put more strongly, it meansa commitment to the idea that learning is a lifelongprocess. This is particularly true in vocational educationbecause there is a steady attrition and obsolescenceamong acquired skills. Even in the case of the collegegraduate-engineer there is rapid obsolescence of knowl-edge.

Growth and change have been predominant charac-teristics of the American economy in the past and arelikely to remain so in the future. Since the turn of thecentury, both the nation's population and labor forcehave more than doubled in size, and important changeshave occurred in almost all phases of national life.Technological innovations and discoveries havecreated new industries and products, and have pro-foundly altered the economy. Perhaps most symbolic ofthe changes in national economic is the shift froma society predominantly rural in nature to one that isoverwhehningly urban. In 1900 one worker in three wasa famer or farm laborer; in 1969 only one worker inevery 20 was so employed.

Technological changes have resulted in rising pro-ductivity, and this has been translated into a higherstandard of living for most people. Impressiveincreases in output per man have meant that relativelyfewer workers are needed in the goods-producingindustries (agriculture, mining, manufacturing, con-struction). At the same time, longer life expectancy,more leisure time, and other changes in our way of

11

life, have created a strong demand for services. To-day's accelerating and changing technology has placedman, his education, and his work in a aaw relation-ship in which education becomes the bridge betweenman and his work. The difficulty, however, is thatrelations between education and the world of work havenever been close in this country and in many respectsremain in state of t ad repair.

The folces of change are altering long -held Ameri-can attitudes toward the utilizatioa and conservationof the country's human resources. We are beginning tounderstand the direct connection between the educationof every citizen and our strength as individuals and asa society. We have begun to see the need for a plannedrelationship between manpower needs and educationalprograms.

When major national crises have demand-d, as inWorld Wars I and II, the educational community, in-cluding higher education, has responded to the needfor educating and training highly skilled manpower.Many observers contend that today's problems of youthand work present us with a new "major national crisis."Their evidence is compelling and, on the basis of thisevidence, important national policy lecisions will havetobe made in the immediate future.

The failure of educators to understand the relation-ship between their work and the future occupationalrole of their students has inhibited the developmentof vocational guidance, placement, and follow-updespite pleas, recommendations, and studies to thecontrary. The majority of students in secor / andhigher education state their educational goals : termsof occupation. Instead of wringing hands over this non-esthetic bent in American youths, educators shouldcapitalize on the motivation potential it holds to helpstudents select appropriate educational programs andmore realistic goals. The failure to do so has too oftenresulted in misuse of educational facilities and humantalent. The large percentage of students enrolled incollege preparatory or transfer programs in highschools and two-year colleges, compared with thesmall percentage who actually go on to college, is

indication that much less has been done than necessaryin matching individual education and future occupation.

With the increasing emphasis on college and collegepreparatory programs by the lay public, educators andmass communications media, there is a great danger thenoncollege bound student and his needs, particularlyin occupational orientation, may be neglected. Theproblem of such students is further aggravated by thelimitations of academic t hers in terms of occupa-tional knowledge, comple of the tabor market, jobentrance tequirements, and tne difficulty of personallygetting firsthand information essential to making careerdecisions.

'12

5

It is dearly recognized that the characteristics ofschools in Minnesota, as well as other states aredependent upon many variables. These variables in-clude size, geographic location, community resources,local leadership, the needs of students, availability offacilities, and many other factors. A given adminis-trative unit, due to these variables, may find imple-mentation of the total plan impossible. The implementa-tion of any combination of the parts composing the plan,however, could be valuable in moving toward a long-range pla n of occupational exploration.

Teachers should be strongly encouraged to correlateoccupational information and opportunities with eachsubject as it is being taught. They should make a con-certed effort to integrate this information into regularclassroom work by providing appropriate laboratoryexperiences, classroom demonstration, and, perhaps,by inviting community resource persons into the schoolfor illustrated lectures concerning particular occupa-tions. Students at each grade level could be providedopportunities in each subject area to explore and under-stand the value and dignity of all types of work and todevelop an awareness of the skills, knowledge andattitudes that are necessary for success. Some teachersare already doing a good job in this respect, but manyteachers are unsuccessful in their efforts to effectivelyrelate occupational exploration to subject content. Inorder to become more effective, these teachers willneed to become more familiar with job opportunities.They will need guideline materials to be used withtextbooks and existing syllabi, and numerous teachingaids and equipment.

Even under static circumstances there are sharpdivisions of opinion among educators about how to giveconcrete expression to educational aims where the ob-ject in view is to train students for specific practicaljobs. There are also sharp divisions about the ways inwhich to establish a system of student counseling (ororientation) that would help build a reliable bridge be-tween students and their natural talents, and betweenboth the latter and realistic employment prospects. But}he current case has been made more complex becausecf the increasingly dominant role of science and tech-nology in the life of individuals and their societies.Can any job-oriented kind ci training which the schoolsare capable of providing keep pace with a world thatis rapidly and ceaselessly being transformed by theimpact of revolutionary developments in science andtechnology? The question not only haunts educatorsconcerned with vocational and technical education inthe secondary schools, it has forced a reconsiderationof new and enlarged educational aims with respect togeneral education itself.

No matter where they may live, students needingvocational education are not receiving equal educa-tional opportunities if such education is not available

6

to them. Governor Le Vander of Minnesota saidrecently that vocational-technical education has beenneglected in the state while the importance of collegehas been overemphasized. This reflects the widely heldassumption that a college education s a prerequisiteto success and happiness. In an editorial in Fortune,November 1969, Max Ways writes. "In the U.S. thecorrelation between lifetime earnings and educationalattainment is quite close. More significantly, the beliefspreads that people with high educational achievementlead lives that are in other than material ways superior(more useful, more interesting) to those of people withlow educational achievement. This is why academicand other highly educated people, though the" may be-lieve that plumbers earn more money, seldom try topersuade their sons to become plumbersand it is whymany plumbers' sons enter professions." John W.Gardner says we have created a false value framework,and college "... should not be regarded as the solemeans of establishing one's human worth. It should notbe seen as the unique key to happiness, self respect,and inner confidence."

The lack of adequate vocational courses in highschools is often cited as the cause of students droppingout of school before finishing. These "pushouts" or"forceouts" find college-oriented courses irrelevant totheirown lives.

Most high schools in Minnesota offer at least onecourse in home economics (98%), business education(90%), industrial arts (83%), and agriculture (61%). Therange of courses varies widely, however. A typical smallschool of about 200 secondary pupils offers typing, of-fice practio, shorthand, and tsvo years of homeeconomics or industrial arts in the 10th, 11th, and 12thgrades. A typical large school with an enrollment of1750 offers this list over the same three grades: typing,office practice, bookkeeping, note taking and typing, re-cordkeeping, elementary accounting, woodworking,cabinetmaking, machine shop, vocational machine shop,technical drawing, architectural drawing, technicalmath, trades, occupational relations, retailing, dis-tributive education, two years of agriculture, farmmechanics, and two years of home zconomics.

In an attempt to bring better vocational programsand counseling to secondary students, particularly in thesparsely populated areas of the state, the state depart-ment of education is encouraging the establishment ofvocational centers. A center, supported by a group ofschools, would be accessible to the whole community.It could work to improve the quality of vocationalprograr.a, encourage and evaluate innovations,provide information on all vocations, colleges, ar cor-respondence courses. Counselors should includeunbiased, experienced businessmen.

One move toward the provisions of needed voca-tional training has been the development of area

vocational-technical schools. There are now 31 ir Min-nesota, located to give maximum geographical cover-age. Three were recently opened in the metropolitanarea. While most students attending these schools arehigh school graduates, courses are open to non-graduatesif not currently enrolled in high schoolwiththe possibility of earning a high school diploma. Courseofferings among these schools vary greatly. However,students are permitted to attend any school of theirchoosing, not only the one in their own district. Coursesare offered on the basis of market demand, not just thelocal market but the general job market. Agriculturaltraining for instance, would include courses in theagribusiness areas, which could lead to such differentjobs as installing and maintaining farm equipment,farm management, and sales and management posi-tions in food processing plants and agricultural coopera-tives. The trend in these schools has been to offer moreand more technical courses. Since they receive con-siderable support from federal funds, part of which mustnow be spent on training for the handicapped and dis-advantaged, more courses of a less complex nature willhave to be provided.

A broad and admittedly general overview of the edu-cation scene, indicates that inequalities in educationalopportunity do exist in all states. Some are glaring;others are more subtle. It is also clear that many edu-cators, administrators, school directors, legislators, andconcerned citizens recognize the need for remedialaction. Through the gloom, signs of progress are viii-bk. In more ways and in more situations than werealize, perhaps, innovative ideas are being put intopractice. And the all-important question of how tofinance education more equitably and adequately isreceiving serious consideration at both the state andfederal levels.

But res;stance to new programs, new methods, andnew educational objectives is vigorous too. Alarm overthe seemingly unprecedented rebelliousness of today'syouth has engendered demands for more, rather thanless, rigidity in the educational system: more authori-tarianism; higher academic standards for everybodywithout regard for individual differences; less freedomof choice; more emphasis on the three R's and little(or none) on relevant programs designed to encouragesocial interaction, deal with the students' emotions andpersonal concerns, and prepare them more adequatelyfor life in a complex and rapidly changing world.

if equality of education opportunity is our goal, andif its achievement requires the provision of programsthat meet the individual needs and interests of allchildren so that each child may develop fully his ownpotenial, whateve it may be, at the rate and in theenvironment in which he learns best, then flexibilityrather than rigidity must surely be the watchword.individualization of education is rot an impossible

13

dream. It is happening in a number of schools rightnow. Is your state ready to move faster in that direr.tion? Do you want it to? What further steps shouldthe state take to promote equal educational oppor-tunities for all children throughout the United States?Should the state department of education be

strengthened to provide more leadership? If so, how?Should the state play a more active role in the areaof research? What, if any, changes are needed in thetraining of teachers? Or in the area of financing?

14

7

Which changes should be undertaken first? If you wereto set down your own priorities, whit should the listcontain?

Many people, both educators and others, are workingto improve educational opportunities. What can youdo? At the state level? At the local level? At thenational level? Our schools can only be as good ascitizens demand and are willing to finance. Investigate,ask questions, and let your views be known. Dare tobe realistically visionary for the youth of today.

A STATE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONALEDUCATION'S PERSPECTIVE OF TOTALSTATE PLANNING AND THEROLE OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

When Darrell Ward called me some time ago to askif I would be willing to perform the task this after-noon of talking about vocational education planningwithin the context of total education planning, my firstinclination was to say, no. We had just completed thelong and arduous task of moving the 1971 State Planthrough all the procedural stumbling blocks requiredby our federal colleagues, I was involved deeply in theprocess of planning within the department, we had justcompleted budget preparation and hearings on stateexpenditures for the year beginning April 1971, I wasworking with a committee charged with defining themission of the education department, and I was lookingforward to a much needed vacation. Who neededanotherassignmcnt on planning?

I am sure Darrell didn't realize that 1 wasn't payingany great attention to the .etails of what he was say-ing, because while he was talking I was looking at alittle sign 1 have near my desk which shows CharlieBrown's little friend Linus saying, "No problem is sobig or so complicated that it can't be run away from."Figuring that there was no sense running away fromthe problem-1 agreed to discuss total !tanning frommy vantage point.

I do not intend to indulge in euphemism this after-noon. I read recently how the late Senator Dirksendescribed euphemism. He used for his illustration astory of a man who had to fill in an application for aninsurance policy.

One of the questions he had to answer was, "Howold was your father when he died and what did he dieoft" Well, his father had been hanged but he did not1;ke to put that on his application. He puzzled over itfor quite a while and finally wrote: "My father was 65

Robert S. SeckendorfAssistant Commissioner for Occupational Education

New York Stato Education DepartmentAlbany, New York

when he died. He came to his end while participatingin a public function when the platform gave way."

This afternoon's presentation will be quite straightforward.

Although this paper will adequately describe my onposition on planning, let me state at the outset that I antstrongly committed to the process of planning, that I

cannot understand how anyone can perform his respon-sibilities as an educational administrator without clear-cut planning, and that it is, in my view, essential thatvocational education planning be conducted within theframework of a total plan for education in a state.

Planning is not new. I suppose Columbus did someplanning before he crossed the ocean. He had an ob-jective, he developed some strategies, and he probablyeven prepared a budget. The language of planning haschanged. Today we talk about PPBS, PERT, manage-ment by objectives, forecasting, systems analysis, andcost-effectiveness. These are but some of the tools forplanning. They are part of th2 method and process.

This afternoon I will go well beyond the basic assign-ment, which, as 1 interpret it, could have been li/tlemore than that of a commentator on the state director'srole in total planning. Rather than merely talk aboutthe niceties of cooperation with the other half, 1 havechosen to move into a discussion of the process of pan-ning as well as the importance of involvement versusseparatism. In addition, 1 will propose a system andprocess for vocational education planning which can beusefuland effective within a larger planning system.

I shall, as well, shift away from the word "total" anduse th^ word "comprehensive" in discussing planningfor education. Comprehensive gives me the feeling of amore inclusive, over-arching consideration of direction

8 15

and consequence. It will be particularly important indealing with a defense of integrating vocational educa-tion planning within the broader system of educationplanning.

In building a rationale for vocational education as apart of comprehensive planning, 1 will make the as-sumption that we all accept the basic premise that plan-ning is essential. 1 realize that our commitment toplanning is varied, that some view it as a chore, othersas a waste of time. Most are resigned to the fact thatwe will need to plan, some will plat. for compliancesake, and some will plan because they believe that it isour only salvation. Whatever your view, planning is hereto stayso we might just as well do it in the most effec-tive way possible.

In order to begin, there is need to look at typicaleducational planning compared to comprehensive plan-ning. To do this, we might ask ourselves some questions.If the answers are yes to the second alternatives I willlist, you are moving into comprehensive planning.

I. Is the planning haphazardly incomplete witheveryone "planning" or is there a separate staffwith clearly identified responsibilities for Co-

ordinating planning?2. Is the planning solution-oriented or goal -

oriented?3. Is the approach a piecemeal, patchwork arrange-

ment or is each problem viewed within the contextof the whele system?

4. Do you use "seat-of-the-pants" planning or aresystematic processes applied to the planningactivity?

5. Are solutions to the problem the boss's favoriteprogram or are several alternative solutions dis-played and compared in order to make decisions?

6. Is the plan concerned only with the next year or isit long-range (say. five years), containing quanti-fied objectives?

7. Is the planning based on the need for new fundsto add on programs or is there a review of presentactivity to determine if there can be adjustmentsand realignment?

8. Is planning done within a fixed budget frame orare the needs of the state with respect to programrequirements the basis for planning, with financ-ing a secondary concern?

9. Is planning a separate activity for each majorprogram in the state or does planning start withan overall mission and objectives for the state'stotal educational program?

John Gardner said, "Planning is...attending to thegoals we ought to be thinking about and never do,the facts we do not like to face and the questions welark the courage to ask."

16

9

In terms of comprehensive planning, some of thequestions might be (1) What do you see to be thenature of society 20-30 years from ncw? (2) What at-tributes and skills will people need to live in thissociety? (3) What kind of schools should be created togive people the attributes and skills to live in thissociety?

To a great extent, comprehensive planning must startwith such questions related to the long term future ofeducation in a state. Obviously, it is not possible withany expertise or infinite wisdom to answer these ques-tions with specifics. It is, however, possible from suchquestions to establish a framework within which pro-gram structure for comprehensive planning emanates.The program structure must begin with fundamentals,and such fundamentals include a statement of the mis-sion of the state agency with respect to the educationprogram in the state and a set of continuing objectiveswhich relate to the major concern expressed in the mis-sion statement.

The mission statement is the broadest, most com-prehensive statement that can be made about central orcontinuing purpose. It is a description of the chief func-tion or responsibility of an organization. It justifiescontinuing support of the organization by society, and itprovides initial direction for the management oradministration of the organization. It is the purpose ofthe mission statement to provide a focus for the re-sources of the organization. It is clearly a statement of"what," rather than the "who," "how," or "when."

As a part of the fund Amental base for a comprehen-sive plan, the mission statement is usually supportedby a set of continuing objectives. These objectives areamplifications of the mission statement and form thebasis for a set of specific objectives. Continuing objec-tives are the kind which do not have a time frame butare essentially futuristic and remain as long as the mis-sion of the department remains unchanged.

Specific objectives with a time frame are a directoutgrowth of the continuing objectives. It is from thespecific objectives that a program structure for planningis devised. Program structure itself is the first essentialin determining the way in which a comprehensive planis developed. It is here where great caution must b.exercised within an education department. Because pro-gram structure is usually built in a way which treatslong-range objectives and all that follows from the pointof view of groups of people to be served or the levelsof education programs, it is sometimes necessary toignore the traditional organizational structure of a de-partment. While most education department structuresare built against the stratification of levels of program(such as elementary, secondary, post-secondary oradult), it is advantageous, from a comprehensive plan-ning point of view, to arrange the program structure onthe basis of a concern for people.

to

When program ,structure, for example, starts withmajor program areas for the general population, thedisadvantaged and the handicapped, it is quite evidentthat as long-range objectives, strategies, tasks, andwork plans are developed to achieve overall goals foreach group of people, the typical organizational struc-ture of a department may disappear. This, in itself, isa traumatic experience for tight bureaucracies, tradi-tional empires, and vested interests. As New YorkState's Commissioner of Education said in a speech tothis group last year, "Mission-oriented planning...un-settles the familiar, disturbs bureaucratic serenity,induces tensions, creates conflicts, and results in somesocial cost. ...usual fixed lines of authority are brokenand neat areas of responsibility are made ambiguous;some personnel cannot adjust." 1 alert you to this par -ticular problem because it is conceivable that voca-tional education or any other major unit can become buta single strategy (a way of meeting a specific objective)within the program structure rather than being com-pletely identifiable as a separate component.

This does not disturb me, for I believe that vocationaleducation in a state system is in a stronger position togrow and flourish when it can be demonstrated that itis a contributing factor or force in achieving a set ofcomprehensive objectives for the people of a state.

Again last year, Commissioner Nyquist said, "It ismy deepest belief that planning for vocational educationmust be done as an integral part of the total system ofeducation and not as a separable unrelated part. Theremust be clear relationships between all of education andvocational education. In fact, it would seem difficult tome to see how a state could develop a long-range planfor vocational education without having a fundamentallong-range plan for the total program of education inthe state."

I believe that vocational educators would be in astronger position in obtaining financial support as wellas educational commitment when it can be clearlydemonstrated that vocational education is part andparcel of the total system. When planning for voca-tional education fits within the program structure of acomprehensive plan and becomes a clear component inthe system designed to serve all people, we are in astronger position to obtain the kind of support neces-sary for vocational education.

If the comprehensive plan is directed toward peopleand their needs and requirements and is developedwith true honesty and integrity, it becomes obvious thatpreparation for work and employment is a long termbenefit for people. When priorities are developed ina manner which is directed at people, there is a signi-ficant portion of the population which will requirepreparation for work. When alternative solutions areproposed to meet the needs of special groups of people,again vocational education can come to the forefront.

If comprehensive planning works as it should within astate, decision-makers are faced \Oh a review of alter-native solutions to achieving long term objectives. With-in the system of comprehensive planning, thesedecisions cannot be made on a subjective, biased basis,but rather on the facts of the case. When financialresources are limited and hard choice must be madeamong strategies to meet needs of people, the strongcase for vocational education receiving its equitableshare of financial resources becomes more certain.

Comprehensive state planning has many advantages,each of which has a benefit for vocational educationplanning when it is conducted within the context oftotal planning. Some of these include:

I. An identification and analysis of the current statusof the population, its characteristics and otherfactors which are needed as a base for planning.Vocational education can benefit from such a com-plete analysis in that it is possit le to identify thetotal extent of need for vocational educationprograms based on total population charac-teristics, taking into account that portion of thepopulation handled by other program areas. Aclearer identification of gaps in the system ofeducation become apparent when they are viewedfrom this va ntage point.

2. Comprehensive planning identifies common goalsand objectives for all. In basing vocational plan-ning on these kinds of common goals and ob-jectives, vocational education is placed within astronger perspective and becomes clearly iden-tified as a means of meeting objectives directedat specific groups of people.

3. Comprehensive planning tends to eliminate over-lapping and duplication of programs conceivablyoperated in separate empires. It brings to the sur-face unprofitable programs which may not be, ',king significant contributions toward meetinglong-range objectives. From the point of view ofvocational education planning, the review andanalysis process which sorts out specific programplans assures that a centrality for the adminis-tration of vocational education is effected.

4. Because comprehensive planning identifies alter-nate routes to achieve specific outcomes, there isgreater possibility for plugging the program ofvocational education into the set of alternativesfor dealing with groups of people, thereby estab-lishing stronger justifications for the continuationand expansion of preparation for work.

Before someone gets the idea that comprehensiveplanning and long-range planning for vocational edu-cation consist solely of collecting data and este blishingobjectives, permit me to remind you that comprehensiveplanning, whether it be across the board in a depart-

17

ment or specifically within vocational education, has asan important component, the budgeting process.

Program budgeting is where the chips are laid on theline. This is where hard decisions are made in selectingstrategies from a set of alternatives. This is wheredecisions concerning the extent to which objectives canbe met within a particular time frame come home toroost. Although dollars are secondary in terms ofidentifying or assessing need and preparing a plan tomeet the needs of people within a state, they becomeeminently important in that portion of the planningprocess where budget determinations must be made.

When costs are initially applied to program plans,the process is based on meeting objectives in the mostoptimal manner. As frequently happens, however, fundsneeded are far in excess of funds available to imple-ment plans. Effective program budgeting gives deci-sion-makers hard choices to make.

It requires the decision-maker to decide first amongmajor program proposals (establishing priorities) anddecide whether a whole program will go by the boardsin favor of something with a much higher priority. Itpermits the decision-maker to study a display of alter-native lengths of time to achieve a particular objective.For example, if the optimum strategy for achieving aparticular program objective costs $500,000 and thedecision-maker concludes that $300,000 is all that canbe applied to that program area in a particular budgetyear, he must have full knowledge of the consequences,he must be told the extent to which the program objec-tive must be reduced in quantity or in quality in orderto stay within the available dollars identified.

Program costs, incidentally, must be built on all costfactors, including such things as agency .,taff costs aswell as maintenance and operation costs related toimplementing the program.

I should mention at this point one more aspect ofcomprehensive planning which if left out makes theplan just a stack of paper. This aspect concerns monitor-ing, evaluating, and reporting. It is here where ac-countrbility takes on great significance.

Accountability in t:tis framework means taking fullresponsibility for what is in the comprehensive plan, topublicly explain what has happened based on pro-grams proposed, to identify weaknesses as well asstrengths, to propose adjustments to overcome lack ofachievement, and to assure wider implementation ofsuccesses.

To be accountable means that you are willing toanswer publicly two tasic questions: Have the fundsallotted been spent for the purposes delineated in theplan? and What was accomplished because of theexpenditures made?

In my view, monitoring is an internal process which aprogram manager prforms in order to assess con-tinuous progress toward meeting objectives to which he

1 ci

is committed. It means, of course, taking personalresponsibility for direction and decision-making. It isto an extent "self-protection." It ,s the manager's toolused to review where he has been, what he is doing,and what must still be done to meet specified objectives.

To some degree, evaluation is similar to monitoring,except that it is performed at specified intervals (ascompared to continuous monitoring). The intervals aremuch related to the planning and budgeting process.Evaluation serves as a check or assessment of accom-plishment in order to make decisions regarding expan-sion, contraction, or elimination of programs; adjust-ment in pace toward meeting objectives and futureresource allocations for programs in the plan.

One comment needs to be made with respect to theform of evaluation as a part of comprehensive planningas compared to program analysis and review. Evalua-tion of achievements in comprehensive planning doesnot require standard and exact research techniques. Itis more a hard-nosed process of asking "did you ordidn't you and if not, why not?" It is management-oriented review rather than scientific study of theeffects of program activity.

If accountability is taken seriously, then reportingtakes on a new and important role. It is the way inwhich the several constituencies learn about accom-plishments and further needs. It is the public statementof an agency's stewardship of program funds. It shouldcontain such items as the characteristics of the popula-tion served, a follow-up of completors of programs,the extent to which goals have been met and a displayof what must still be accomplished.

However, one caution should be observed. Reportingmust be purposeful in relation to the objectives and pro-gram activities in the comprehensive plan. It cannot bea set of disjointed statistics of questionable value tosome other agency or level of bureaucracy. Reportingmust be consistent with the program structure of theplan itself.

With the hope that I have developed sufficiently arationale and justification for the inclusion of voca-tional education in comprehensive state education plan-ning, 1 would like to shift to a discuss'on of a model forlong-range planning in vocational education. I cannottake credit for the design. It was developed by an ex-tremely creative and competent planning staff (a unitI will describe in more detail later) based on threesignificant factors.

The first deals with state agency planning whereinthe PPBS system is part and parcel of each agency'sannual budget cycle. Responsibility for the vocationaleducation portion of the program structure is vestedin the planning division. The prograi 1 structure co icinsa matrix built on groups of people and levels of pro-gram.

12

The second factor relates to the incompatibility of thefederal format for a state plan with the state's programstructure. In order to deal with preparation of thedepartment's program plan and the state plan forvocational education in a coordinated way (particularlysince the time frame for completion of both overlap),it is essential that they be compatible. A consistentpattern permits preparation of both plans simul-taneously and also allows for a close relationship be-tween them.

The third factor relates to the present incompati-bility between what is known as Part II and Part IIIin the federal guidelines. Under the present format itis entirely possible to write a long-range plan whichlooks at first glance like a carefully developed programwith meaningful objectives and indication of significantprogress through the five-year cycle. At the same time,it is possible to prepare the annual plan to permitexpenditures for the development and maintenance oftraditional programs and to satisfy vested interests. Thefederal design does not permit a clear display of internalconsistency between long-range plans and annual pro-gram plans.

While this was the essential rationale for designing anew format, the most basic reason relates to the factthat the present state plan outline mixes apples andoranges. More specifically, it mixes groups of peopleand levels of programs on the same program structureline. This occurs because the design was based not onprogram planning concepts but on the way the law waswritten with respect to the several purposes in Part B.In addition, the federal design places on the same pro-gram structure tine, along with groups of people andlevels of program, items which are more properlyclassified as activities. Examples are guidance andcounseling, construction, research, homemaking andcooperative education.

I'd better explain what I mean. I said earlier that acomprehensive plan requires a program structure whichuses groups of people or program levels as a base foridentifying major purposes. This would mean that majorpurposes (or program areas) could be population groupssuch as general, disadvantaged, or handicapped, orthey could be program levels such as elementary,secondary, post-secondary, and adult. If groups ofpeople are chosen as major purposes then the levelsof program become a set of sub - purposes under eachmajor purpose.

If we follow the federal pattern the major purposeline would contain four program levels, two populationgroups and eight activities. If I have you totally con-fused, don't worry because 1 will distribute copies ofthe design at the close of this speech.

Visualize, if you will, a matrix or grid with fourvertical columns, each representing a program level,and three horizontal bands, each representing a popu-

19

lation group. The cells thus formed provide the struc-ture for the program plan (both long-range and annualcombined).

For each cell in the matrix a spread is designed onwhich are displayed the area of need (priority, if youwill), quantified objectives for the five-year period, andoutcomes expected for each objective. In each casethe quantification is described for the current year, thebudget year, and the fifth year. Activities (or more ac-curately, the alternate strategies selected) for achievingeach objective are next listed with a cost applied. Thecost figure relates to the funds which will be requiredin order to implement the specific activity. The lastcolumn of the spread sheet describes the benefit to beachieved if the activity is carried out. In this design,the first three sections of the spread sheet (area of need,objectives, and outcomes) constitute the long-rangeplan. The last three columns (activities, costs, andbenefits) constitute the annual program plan and bud-get. Rather than take the time now to present an ex-ample of the way the program plan is displayed, I haveavailable for distribution later several examples of thespread sheets.

I should mention that preceding the long-range planand annual program plan and budget is a major sectionwhich describes an assessment of economic conditions,manpower requirements, and population data, as wellas information with respect to the current status of thevocational program in the state.

As important to understanding the model itself, isthe way in which it is built, the sequence of events re-quired to complete it, and the staffing and involvementof persons concerned with the plan. When monitoring,evaluating, and reporting are added into the planningcycle (and they are essential, for reassessment andadjustment must be based on these matters) planningbecomes a year-round job. Let me try to sequence theplanning cycle:

September and Octoberupdate and revise basedata, conduct economic and manpower studies.November and Decemberassess areas of needand priorities. There must be involvement of alldepartment staff concerned with vocational edu-cation as well as a checkpoint with the AdvisoryCouncil on Vocational Education.January and February--update the long - rangeplan, based on assessment of needs.March--prepare annual program plan and budget.'fhere needs to be a checkpoint here with theprogram development staff and the AdvisoryCouncil.April conduct review of the total plan with con-cerned staff in the department as well as withexternal groups. Conduct a required public heat-ing. The draft plan should be reviewed with theAdvisory Council and the State Board.

May -complete the plan in final farm. Two check-points should be observed. one with the AdvisoryCouncil, the second requires approval by the SlateBoard.

June-- -begin assessment of the previous year.

July -prepare the annual report and data for theAdvisory Council evaluation.

August- assign tasks to specific operating unitsand build work plans for the accomplishment ofactivities.

would hope that the description of the year-roundplanning cycle demonstrates the need for state agenciesto review present staffing arrangeitents and wherenecessary consider a reorganization or additions to thestaff. It is my judgment, aild our experience, that afull-time planning staff is a necessity if vocationaleducation planning is to be done effectively and if weare to achieve a coordination with comprehensive plan-ning for a n entire state agency.

It must be remembered as well that a planning staffcannot plan in isolation. There must be complete in-volvement of all persons who have a concern for im-plementing plans that have been developed. Thismeans that program developers and subject specialistsas well as persons in related areas, such as curriculumdevelopment, facilities planning, higher education,guidance, and res.:arch, must be brought into the reviewand development stages of planning, All of this can becoordinated by a small permanent staff specificallyidentified for planning.

In the model described, the staffing pattern is a sim-ple one. It consists at present of only six professionals,including a lead planner/manager (in this case, a divi-sion director) whose rank is equal to that of the highestranking administrative officers directly responsible tothe state director of vocational education, an educa-tional planner whose concern is program structure andobjectives, a planning assistant who is responsible forcoordinating development of information regardingassessment of need, forecasting economic and man-power conditions, and estimating costs of activities andpreparing reports. The planning assistant is supportedin these activities by three planners whose functionsrelate to the specific categories of planning activityjust described. This small staff also provides planningservices for line divisions and operating units.

I am compelled to express a belief regarding quali-fications of planning staff for vocational education.While the manager and educational planner shouldhave experience in and an understanding of vocationaleducation, it is more important that they have expertisein the planning process and sufficient experience deal-ing with outside constituencies, such as our academicbrethren in the state agency, local school officials, andresource people in other state agencies. Other staff

90

13

need not be vocational educators. In fact, it could beadvantageous if they were not. Supporting staff withexpertise in political science, econ )mics, data handlingand writing are far more useful. They should be young.bright, creative, and flexible.

It should be obvious that a group such as thatdescribed cannot do more than provide central co-ordination of the planning effort. To some extent it isa service organization to operating units, providinginformation as well as analysis and assessment ofprogram activity.

One digression emerges at this point. It relates tostaff organization for vocational education in a stateagency. if any of you are contemplating a reorganiza-tion of staffing along the lines of the Office of Educa-tion's Division of Vocational Education my humble ad-vice is "Think about it."

The functions of a state agency differ significantlyfrom those of the federal office. This is particularlytrue with respect to subject specialists in the severalvocational fields. State agencies have a responsibilityfor program development in local educational agencies.This requires consultant assistance in subject matterand instruction as well as organization and operation.This responsibility still requires the competency ofspecialists with depth of experience in each of the majoroccupational fields. I, for one, would be lost if I didn'thave agriculture, home economics, health, business,distribution, trade and technical education subjectspecialists available on a full-time basis.

Let me return to the specifics of planning for voca-tional education. No discourse of this kind would becomplete without reporting on procedures for imple-menting a plan.

I said earlier that planning cannot be done in isola-tion, that it must involve the operating units and pro-gram developers. It is a well-known axiom that a plandeveloped by one group will not be reasonably imple-mented by another group. Involvement in the process ofplanning by all concerned parties is essential. Theplanning staff is responsible for seeing that a plan isdeveloped and periodically assisting with assessmentofaccomplist ments.

Planning staff, too, should not have responsibilitieswhich overlap those of program developers and operat-ing units. In other words, it should not have operatingfunctions assigned to it. It is, in the strictest sense, aninternal unit with a staff function, as opposed to a lineresponsibility. Clarification of functions eliminates thepossibilityof civil war between major divisions.

The mere completion of the basic plan is not the endof the road. It is in the implementation of acceptedobjectives wherein the payoff lies.

To do this requires as much planning as the basicplan itself. Specific activities identified in the annualprogram plan and budget must be translated into tasks,

14

each of which is assigned to an operating unit. Overallresponsibility for action must be vested in a programmanager. Task managers, under the supervision of theprogram manager, must be assigned. The task ma .agerhas a basic responsibility to work with local agencies aswell as operating unit personnel in assuring completionof activities delineated in the program budget. , taskmanager is essentially a coordinator, particularly whenthe activity for which he is responsible cuts acrossoperating unit linessuch as a special program for thedisadvantaged or handicapped.

Parenthetically, I don't believe in having full-timestaff for such matters as "special needs" or "coopera-tive education" or "exemplary programs." They areexcess baggage in the process of carrying out a pro-gram plan within the system I am describing. Theytend to build separate empires instead of assisting withcomvehensive program development. I prefer to leavesuch specialization to the federal level where, con-ceivably, it might be more appropriate.

Task managers and operating units are responsiblefor preparing work plans for each activity to be carriedout. This process is essential if objectives are to be metand funds are to be expended for the purposes for whichthey were allotted.

Work plans specify the action to be taken, the staffrequired, what each person will do, how long it willtake, and what it will cost in staff time, travel andother maintenance costs. Actual costs can be deter-mined to carry out each activity. Internal administrativebudgets are built and justified on the basis of unitwork plans.

"Seat-of-the-pants" imp: ,mentation of a comprehen-sive plan is eliminated with this process. Eliminated,too, is the usual tendency to over-inflate an operatingunit budget to protect it from arbitrary cats at a higherlevel.

Planning in regions and local areas are part of thetotal process of comprehensive planning, whether it befor all of education or vocational education. Time con-straints prevent a complete and lengthy discussion ofthis aspect. I want at this time to merely indicate thatthere is a reciprocal nature to the process of state,regional, and local planning. Influence is two waywitheach creating an impar, the direction of the other.

There is one last matter to talk about. Up to now, thispaper has dwelled on comprehensive planning within astate agency and some of the specifics with respect tovocational education planning.

I call to your attention that regardless of structurefor vocational education within a state (that is, withina state education agency or separate vocational board)each of us is part of a larger enterprise. It is thisenterprisestate government as a wholewhich hassignificant impact on our destiny.

Ultimate responsibility for budgets and appropriationof funds rests with governors and legislatures. Thecompetition for funds is intense, the rade offs frequent.

It is particularly prudent, therefore, that close co-operation and coordination be effected with those stateagencies that have a bearing on the program plansfor educationand most particularly vocational educa-tion. It is most important that inputs from the depart-ments of Commerce, Social Services, and Labor beutilized in the development of comprehensive plans.

In a state where all agencies participate in compre-hensive planningwhere program budgeting is a way oflifeall the expertise that can be mustered is essentialin order that education plans not be subordinated in theschedule of priorities.

All the necessary techniqueseffectiveness mea-sures, costs-benefit studies, evaluation, assessmentreports--must be used to create a climate of urgencyin the total plans of state government in order for theeducation program to compete in a sometimes un-friendly world.

I have taken liberties with the parameters of my as-signment this afternoon. I find that opportunities topresent a viewpoint with respect to a process for voca-tional education planning are few and far between,that one's concerns must be aired and position must beclarified.

Someone said some time ago, "An imperfect pastdoes not excuse an imperfect present, but a knowledgeof past realities and past mistakes is critical if we areto avoid the same mistakes twice."

It is my hope that there is developed within theperiod ahead a better climate of cooperative effortbetween the states and the federal level, that greaterflexibility and freedom are given to the states (for weare in the hot seat, we are the ones who are directlyaccountable for results with people), that our effortsare supported with enthusiasm, that true assistance isgiven when we need it, that the process of groveling inthe quagmire of minutia and detail is terminated, thatwe are viewed as mature, knowledgeable, and respon-sible people with some expertise of our own, that aglobal review of our state plans is conducted with aview toward praise and encouragement, and that for alltime micrvccopic inspection of the "ants" is eliminated.

Machiavelli, in the 15th century, said, "There is noth-ing more difficult of success, nor more dangerous tohandle, than to initiate a new order of things."

Nothing good comes easily, but with time, encourage-ment, help, and understanding, true and effectiveresults will be evident.

Let me close with a delightful fable which I considermost appropriate to the occasion. It is found in the pre-face to Robert Mager's book, Preparing InstructiorAObjectives.

Once upon a time a Sea Horse gathered up his seven

pieces of eight and cantered out to find his fortune.Before he had traveled very far he met an Eel, whosaid,

"Psst. Hey, bud. Where 'ya goin'?"I'm going out to find my fortune," replied the Sea

Horse, proudly."You're in luck," said the Eel. "For four pieces of

eight you can have this speedy flipper, and then you'll')e able to get there a lot faster."

"Gee, that's swell," said the Sea Horse, and paid themoney and put on the Ripper and slithered off at twicethe speed. Soon he came upon a Sponge, who said,

"Psst. Hey, bud. Where 'ya goin'?""I'm going out to find my fortune," replied the Sea

Horse."You're in luck," said the Sponge. "For a small fee I

15

will let you have this jet-propelled scooter so that youwill be able to travel a lot faster."

So the Sea Horse bought the scooter with his remain-ing money and went zooming through the sea five timesas fast. Soon he came upon a Shark, who said,

"Psst. I: bud. Where 'ya going'?""I'm going out to find my fortune," replied the Sea

Horse."You're in luck. If you'll take this short cut," said the

Shark, pointing to his open mouth, "you'll save yourselfa lot of time."

"Gee, thinks," said the Sea Horse, and zoomed offinto the interior of the Shark, there to bedevoured.

The moral of this fable is that if you're not sure whereyou'-e going, you're liable to end up someplace elseand not even know it.

COORDINATED STATE PLANNINGIN MINNESOTA: BACKGROUND PAPERFOR A SYMPOSIUM

This background paper is intended to provide infor-mation to supplement the discussion and to describethe present and past activities in the development of aplanning capability in Minnesota and should not beconsidered in any way except as a status report of thecurrent state of the art in one state.

The chart below shows the relationships betweenthe three planning units invulved. The solid linesrepresent the administrative line relationships. Thebroken lines between the State Planning Agency, tht.Division of Planning and Development, and the Plan-ning and Development Section in the Division ofVocational-Technical Education show the staff inter-relationships between those units.

State Advisory Councilfor Vocational Education

State Board of Education,State Board for

1

Vocational Education

1

1

Division ofVocational Education

Planning andDevelopment Section

Joseph F. MalinskiProgram Development Section

Vocational-Technical EducationMinnesota Department of Education

St. Paul, Minnesota

Statewide coordinated planning is a noble goal. How-ever, in the present state of development much con-fusion exists as to the role and function of planningunits, as well as the function of planning itself.

However, it (planning) should be accepted as aseparate profession with distinctive professional re-quirements and standards, emerging from all theaspects of the planning process, including its inter-play with other administrative functions. Adminis-strative practitioners on the one hand, and researchworkers on the other, have their traditional roles,involving the use of restricted and simplified thinkingmodels. Planners cannot use submodels which oftenhave a very low degree of autonomy. Their profes-

Governor

Commissionerof Education

State PlanningAdvisory Committee

Commissioner ofAdministration

16 23

Director, StatePlanning Agency

1

Division of Planningand Development

sional skill relates to operations with extensivemodels, with many degrees of freedom, and ofteninconclusive evidence as to the empirical values ofthe coefficients linking various factors together. Forsuch operations, previous experience in research orin executive administration may be more misleadingthan helpful.

The acceptance of planning as a profession is in theprocess of occurring. However, the practices of provid-ing financial support to object categories without con-sidering alternative uses or the assignment of presentprogram activity to new categorical descriptions tend toslow the development of coordinated planning ac-tivities.

The organization and administration of educationin Minnesota traditionally has had a high degree ofautonomy in relation to the executive branch of stategovernment. Local school districts receive powersdirectly from the legislature. The State Board of Educa-tion (the State Board for Vocational Education). themembers of which are appointed for six-year terms bythe governor and confirmed by the state senate, hasthe power to establish rules and regulations which havethe force and effect of law. The State Board also ap-points the Commissioner of Education; until theExecutive Reorganization Act of 1969 this appointmentwas for six years. Currently the appointment of theCommissioner of Education is for four years but doesnot coincide with the term of the governor.

THE FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNINGIN MINNESOTA

Regional Structure

In November 1967, by executive order of the governor,Minnesota created pilot planning areas and economicregions as an experimental step to providing a commonframework for all statewide planning and programactivity. An executive order in April, 1969, establishedthis regional structure as a uniform geographic frame-work for (1) the collection and classification of datafor state, local, and regional planning; (2) the coordina-tion of slate, regional, and local planning activities;(3) the coordination of federally sponsored or operatedprograms; (4) the coordination and unificatirm of localresources for resolving local problems and exploitingopportunities; and (5) the organization of local govern-ment for intergovernmental cooperation and planning.

THE DIVISION OF PLANNING ANDDEVELOPMENT

The evolution of the planning activities within theMinnesota Department of Education into the Division

'tide Kjeil The Harming Prtxccs (Oslo. Norvay. Ministry ofEducation).

24

17

of Planning and Development was accelerated by thepassage of the Elementary-Secondary Education Act.

A summary of Title V ESEA activities as of June 30,1967, contains the following statements:

Perceiving its role partially as that of a "charge-agent," the Title V planning staff has attempted tooperate a planning unit as well as performing neces-sary operative functions...

During the course of fiscal 1967 the planning andadministrative staff has personally conducted studiesrelating to teacher certification, administrationoffice arrangements, file storage-retrieval, profes-sional development programs, roles of state depart-ments of education, and other diverse topics. Inaddition it has been responsible for the organizationof a Department of Education Review (May 2-4,1967), a Department Management Seminar (June6-8. 14-15, 1967) and operation of the ProfessionalDevelopment Program. ..

Attention was also given to information processesthrough several projects including a contract withApplications Research in Electronic Systems "to per-form a comprehensive study of the department'stechniques of information secural, recording, reten-tion, and dissemination"; the establishment of a dataprocessing section during fiscal 1967 to coordinate"the efforts of the ARIES study, as well as extendingupon specific program design within the generalformat proposed by that study"; and the expansionof publication activities by addition of a graphics artconsultant.

Recommendations of committees working with theplanning staff were as follows:

Committee AA planning and development staffdirectly responsible to the commissioner, should beestablished.

Committee 11 It is hoped that the informationsystems section will continue to seek the intenseinvolvement of department, local district, and U.S.Office of Education personnel as its activities be-come increasingly operational.

Committee CIncreasingly, local, state and federaleducational units are placing greater reliance uponefficient data processing techniques. We are at acrucial phase in the development of these servicesin the State Department of Education.

Committee D -The department has provided forwide involvement in the formulation of educationalpolicy for the state. This involvement should continuewith constant efforts to provide increased integrationof the effort and the availability of essential planning,evaluation, and research services for the validationof such policies.

Committee E... it is of utmost importance thatthe state agency exert great effort in directing,planning, and coordinating the educational programsin the elementary and secondary schools of our state.

18

Committee FConsideration should be given tothe development of a program, planning, budgetsystem (PPBS) to provide a more sophisticatedanalysis of educational expenditures.

Committec. GA primary need is the developmentof a state long-range plan encompassing all phasesof elemeRtary and secondary education. This planshould provide for adequate coordination withhigher education in the state.

The three major projects of the Title V Office duringfiscal year 1968 were:

Development of Correlated Recommendations.The resultant document represented a compila-tion of recommendations found in previousexaminations of the Department of Education,such as the Schlep Report, Public Examiner'sReport, and legislative reports. It directly relatedto the Departmental Review recommendationsformulated in early May 1968 at a three-day,Title V-spomoied conference in Saint Paul.

2. Advisory Committee Report. At the suggestionof the State Board of Education the Title Vstaff carried out and completed the study. Thereport was accepted and approved by the StateBoard at the March 1968 meeting of the Board.

3. Criteria Recommendations. At the request of theState Board of Education, a Department of Edu-cation effort to develop criteria relative to edu-cational program, professional personnel, pupilpersonnel services, attendance units, adminis-trative units and school finance was completedby March 24, coordination of the departmentalproduction plan,

Although Title V continued to exist as an independentfunding vehicle, the State Board of Educationauthorized the creation of an Office of Planning andDevelopment on May 8, 1968, to more fully coordinateplanning efforts fcstered by Title V and the somewhatsimilar planning demanded for State Administration ofTitleIlLESEA.

All Minnesota state departments are required torecognize boundaries, to utilize the regions for all plan-ning purposes, and to work toward conformance withthe regions for administrative purposes. In a memo-randum to all state departments dated August 6, 1970,the governor restated his commitment to the regionalplanning structure:

Attached is a copy of Executive Order No. 60.This is the culmination of the process of regionaldelineation begun in 1966, including my earlier Exec-utive Orders 9 and 37.

Although I have provided for flexibility in thatcounties may ask for a change in assignment or thecreation of a new region, it is my intent that theseregions be used for:

I.

95

1. All federal multi-country planning and devel-opment programs;

2. The creation of Regional Development Com-missions as provided for in Ch. 1122, Laws1969;

3. Planning and administration of state programs.On this last point, I am reaffirming the charge

originally given to state departments and agencies inExecutive Order 37, the State Planning Agency willbe convening a meeting of all state departmentsand agencies concerned with regionalization. Pleaseassign the responsibility for this matter to a respon-sible person in your department and ask him to beprepared to represent the department in the forth-coming meeting.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK FORPLANNING IN MINNESOTAThe State Planning Agency

Statutory Authority and ResponsibilitiesThe passage of legislation (Laws 1965, c.685, as

amended by Laws 1967, c.898) creating a State Plan-ning Agency, represents the first irl',3jor effort on thepart of the State of Minnesota to initiate a statewideplanning program. The introductory statement of thestatute states that:

In order that the state benefit from an integratedprogram for the development and effective employ-ment of its resources, and in order to promote thehealth, safety, and general welfare of its citizens, itis in the public interest, that a planning agency becreated in the executive branch of state governmentto engage in a program of comprehensive statewideplanning. The agency will act as a directing, advisory,consulting, and coordinating agency vo harmonizeactivities at all levels of government, to render plan-ning assistance to all governmental units, and tostimulate public interest and participation in the de-velopment of the state.

The State Planning Agency is directed to:Prepare comprehensive, long-range recommenda-

tions for the orderly and coordinated growth of thestate, including detailed recommendations for long-range plans of operating state departments andagencies.

The agency acts as a coordinating agency for planningactivities of all state departments and agencies andlocal levels of government. Local units of governmentand state agencies are encouraged and assisted indeveloping planning programs. The State PlanningAgency is authorized to advise and assist the MinnesotaMunicipal Commission in deliberations relative to an-nexation, incorporation, and detachment proceedings.

The State Planning Agency has limited staff comple-ment and relies heavily upon consultants for basic

research and development of detailed technical studies.The University of Minnesota provides valuable researchassistance to the agency in many areas, includinggeographic projections and detailed studies of the popu-lation, economy and land use of the state.

The statute also authorized the creation of an Officeof Local and Urban Affairs within the State PlanningAgency. This office has the primary responsibility forproviding technical advice and assistance to localgovernment and stimulating intergovernmental co-op tration. A basic responsibility of the agency and its(Wee of Local and Urban Affairs is to inform localgovernment units about federal and state programs ofvalue to them in meeting and resolving social, eco-nomic, and physical problems of the community.

The State Planning Agency receives policy guidancefrom the State Planning Advisory Committee, consist-ing of three members each of the Minnesota Senateand House of Representatives and eleven me gibersappointed by the governor. Upon request of the StatePlanning Officer, the various state agencies and depart-ments are required to cooperate in executing pro-visions of the statute.

The State Planning Agency provides staff assist-ance to the Capitol Area Architectural and PlanningCommission. The primary responsibility of this commis-sion is to prepare, prescribe and amend a comprehen-sive plan for the capitol area.

The State Planning Agency, the Department ofAdministration, and the Governor's Office act as amanagement team to focus on and develop long-rangegoals and objectives for the State of Minnesota. Thiscooperative effort is designed to provide the governorand legislature with background information necessaryto develop policies relative to state programming, inter-governmental relations, and the expenditure of statefunds

The Stale Planning Agency, during the 1967-69biennium, has formulated a set of principles and guide-lines for achieving the purpose and intent of the statute.These principles are set forth in Part II. Major effortwas directed to developing cooperation and supportwithin state agencies, the federal government, localgovernment, and the private sector in planning for thedevelopment of the state. The new work program andorganizational structure developed for the 1959-71biennium is designed to further this cooperative effort,to guide the research, study and analysis of state prob-lems, and develop a continuing planning system fordevelopment of the state.

State Planning Agency PrinciplesAs a general guide to the development of the stateplanning program, the following principles have beena opted by the State Planning Agency:

The ever changing demands of society require the

19

development of a continuing system of long-rangestatewide planning rather than the production ofa static state plan.

2. State planning must relate to current as well asfuture issues and must be closely tied to themanagement, budgetary, and legislative processesof state government. The State Planning Agencymust develop information and policy recommendalions for the governor and the legislature. 4low-ever, this is not a substitute for the policy develop-ment responsibilities of state departments. TheState Planning Agency must work through statedepartments as much as possible, assisting andguiding their planning efforts, intervening oniywhen interdepartmental coordination is neces-

sary.

3. The State Planning Agency will act as the basefor interdepartmental planning when the scopeof individual departmental responsibilities is notbroad enough to accomplish needed functionalplanning.

4. The State Planning Agency must provide the basicframework c f data, projections, and assumptionsregarding the nature and direction of state de-velopment. This framework must be relevant todetermining the future need for services providedby state government, other public agencies, andprivate organizations in the state.

The three major projects of the Office of Planningand Development during Fiscal Year 1969 were:

I. Minnesota Educational Service Areas. Educatorsrecognize that the provision of some educationalservices is beyond the resources of even the mostadequately organized school districts. To amelio-rate the critical needs which exist in all regionsof the state, school districts are increasinglypartir'pating in services provided through educa-tional research and development councils(ERDC), through cooperatve all'ances of severaldistricts, and through aremdde educationalservice units. Examples of such organizationalstructures are the six existing ERDC's, the 19funded Title III projects which are miti-districtin nature, and the many existing state coopera-tives in the area of special education.

While these units have demonstrated the abilityto temporarily satisfy a specific need, seriousshortcomings do exist. Primary among these arethe lack of cooperative effort among the manyorganizations, an inability to find a secure, rec-ognized position within the state's educationalframework, and a failure to obtain an adequateand consistent source of financial support.

The Department of Education is aware of theproliferation of these cooperative units thiough-

20

out the stax. In the Fall of 1968, the Division ofPlanning and Development began a study aimedat a possible establishment of a state system ofservice agencies. Staff members from DPDvisited other :.rates which have working middle-echelon educational units. Literature was re-viewed to glean the current thinking of nationallyknown educators relative to these organizations.A committee of Department of Education person-nel was formed to lend additional in3ight to thestudy.

A series of meetings was conducted with per-sonnel within the several divisions to acquaintthem with the study and to gain input. The StatePlanning Agency was contacted concerning thegovernor's executive orders, recent state legisla-tion, and regional activities.

In March, basic data relative to the intermedi-ate unit rationale, progress in other states, andcooperatives in Minnesota were presented to theState Board of Ed'ication. This was followed inApril by a report which proposed the creation of11 Minnesota Educational Scivire Areas(MESA) in the state. This report made a seriesof 13 recommendations which involved govern-ance, program, and finance for these MESAunits. The report further suggested a series oftechniques which might be employed in theimplementation of this cooperative service unitsystem.

The State Board of Education expressed inter-est in the MESA concept and authorized a seriesof regional meetings for the purpose of disserni-nating information and collecting input from per-sons throughout the state. Further study into themajor areas of concern to formation of MESAunits was also approved.

Staff members of DPD have participated in anumber of activities which relate to MESA units.Several meetings have been conducted with theSpecial Education Section to coordinate regionaldevelopments. Vocational education on a regionalbasis has been discussed. DPD has participated ina study and a workshop rela'ive to computerusage on a broad regional base. Meetings havebeen held with ERDC units and representativegroups of superintendents. The State PlanningAgency has been contacted relative to a coopera-tive approach to regionalism.

Present plans call for a first series of regionalmeetings to be conducted in September andOctober. Educational needs of the separate areaswill be assessed through a comprehensive studyand with the assistance of a contracted agency.Meetings will continue to be held within the de-partment to further the study of a regional ap-

proach to the provision of cooperative educationalservices.

2. Planning Programming and Budgeting Systems.The Division of Planning and Development con-tinued to have involvement with the PlanningProgramming and Budgeting Systems (PPBS)during fiscal year 1969. Increasing complexityof state undertakings, rising demand for services,and a search for new revenues has created a needfor a systematic portrayal of what state govern-ment is doing, why it is being done, and forwhom. The PPBS concept is designed to answerthese pertinent questions and to translate theminto budgetary needs. In part, Title V funds wereutilized to support DPD staff members in a con-tinuing coordinated effort to work toward thePPBS approach.

The DPD was assigned responsibility for com-pleting an inventory docu sent for the Depart-ment of Education. From this inventory wasassembled a chart of programs, sub-programs,activities, and sub-activities which described thedepartment organization and function. Goals,purposes, and quantifiable objectives weredrafted to supplement the chart and to convertit to PPBS terms. Many members of the depart-ment were contacted and consulted in the

completion of this task.In January 1969, a Stare Program and Opera-

tions Manual was published jointly by the Min-nesota State Planning Agency and the MinnesotaDepartment of Administration. This manual re-presents Phase I of an attempt to developprogram structures and to state explicit goalsemphasizing underlying purposes and ends ratherthan means. The basic assumptions in compilingthe manual center on the concept that a system-atic analysis of state efforts, combined with care-ful definition of program ends, could contribute tolegislative and executive decision-making.

The operations manual was designed withthree specific purposes in mind: (a) to develop ex-ri.cit and understandable statements of the endstowarJ which state agency efforts are directed;(b) to provide a uniform framework far compari-son and analysis of state programs; and (c) toestablish a basis for possible future developmentof program budgeting and of management andfiscal information systems. Production of themanual is only a first step. Considerable research,analysis, definition of objectives, relationshipbetween programs, and evaluation must supple-ment the original document.

The Department of Education has been ac-tively involved in this preliminary PPBS activity.Recently, the department was selected by the

State Planning Agency to be one of the 10 stategovernmental units to participate in a pilot pro-gram budgeting project. As a part of this project,a program buk.reet will be prepared by the de-partment for the 1971-73 biennium. The Divisionof Planning and Development will serve as thecoordinator of the project while working closelywith a coordinating committee within the depart-ment and with the State Planning Agency.

3. School District Reorganization. Education 1967represented a comprehensive effort to survey thestatus of education in Minnesota. Included amongthe many facets of education which were re-viewed was an analysis of the status of schooldistrict reorganization in the state. Based uponinformation brougl.t out in the study, consolida-tion of school districts was recommended. Thestudy suggested that the establishment of soundschool districts and the formation of attendancecenters of sufficient size to promote educationalefficiency are of the highest priority. To attainthis goal, the study recommended the criterion of10,000-student enrollment (grades 1-12) beadopted for the establishment of sound schooldistrict organization.

The State Board of Education responded toEducation 1967 by publishing Crieria Recom-mendations. This response concurred with muchof the data and recommendations presented in thelarger study. It did, however, suggest that aschool district enrollment of 3,000 students(grades 1-12) is necessary to consistently assurethat students will have the access which theydeserve to mir.imally sufficient curricular offer-ings, pupil personnel services, and professionalinstructional staff,

These two historic documents did not attemptto delineate the geographic boundaries whichwould be necessary for attainment of either the10,000-or the 3,000-student school districts. With-oat such a purview, no guide was available uponwhich to base future efforts and decisions relativeto school district consolidation. The Division ofPlanning and Development undertook this taskin an effort to elaborate upon the basis for plan-ning.

The staff of DPD produced a series of back-ground materials during the fall of 1968 whichis relevant to the consolidation of school districts.These materials included (a) a review of state-ments and opinions concerning the quality goalsfor education, (b) a survey of studies which havecorrelated student achievement with school size.(c) a summary of the criteria which must prevailin considering suggested school district size, and

()

21

(d) a com,lilation of expert opinion relative tominimum and optimum school district size.

To better understand the 'actors which directlyinfluence school district reorganization in thisstate, selected demographic data were assembled.Included was information in the following areasfor the state and for each of the 11 economicregions: (a) population trends, (b) division be-tween urban and rural populations, (c) averageannual rates of population growth or decline,(d) annual live births, (e) annual school census byage groups, (f) annual school enrollments, (g)labor profiles, and (h) agricultural developmentdata.

School programs currently offered in Minne-sota school districts were examined and com-pared. Course offerings were counted to reflectthe substantial difference in available educationalopportunity.

On the basis of the assembled data, Division ofPlanning and Development staff members con-sulted with other personnel within the Depart-ment of Education. From these series of meetingsevolved a pattern for a structure of more efficientschool districts in the state. As a climax of theseactivities, two series of consolidated school dis-tricts were proposedone based upon a criterionof 3,000 students per district and one upon10,000 students per district.

A Department of Education seminar was con-ducted for 38 Department of Education staffmembers in January to familiarize them withthe proposed consolidation plan. A procedure wasoutlined which could be followed in acquaintingcitizens throughput the state with the proposaland could assist in obtaining further infor-ma tional input,

The entire proposal was presented to the StateBoard of Education at an informal meeting inJanuary 1969. The State Board expressed somereservations concerning the plan and theproposed series of regional meetings. No formalstand was taken by the State Board at thismeeting.

FISCAL YEAR 1970he Office of Planning and Development (OPD) was

created by action of the State Board of Education inMay 1968. The unit was assigned several broad educational responsibilities which involve close workingassociations with components of each of the ma!ordivisions within the department. In July 1969, t'Ais

unit was designated as the Division of Planning andDevelopment (DPD). The major activities of the divi-sion were:

I. Planning (Title V ESEA),

22

2. Innovative Educational Enterprises (Title III Institution Era of Founding PurposesESEA),

3. Planning and Evaluation (Title IV ESEA, Sec.402),

4. Equal Educational Opportunities (Title IV

Civil Rights).

Educational planning activities which occurred withinthe division during 1959 -70 were fairly numerous. In-volvement continued with ne Minnesota EducationalService Area (MESA) activity in that staff expandedupon and refined the original report, conducted a seriesof public meetings, and assembled a 66-person taskforce to present a citizen reaction to the proposal. Sucha response is expected in September of this year.

Another planning activity in which division involve-ment has been intense is that involving installation of aPlanning Programming Budgeting System in the de-partment.

During fiscal year 1970 division personnel partic-pated in inter-divisional consortia for purposes of plan-ning in the areas of educational program evaluation,juvenile delinquency prevention, teacher manpoweranalysis, drug abuse control, special educationalregional network, data processing network, PPBSexperimental test program, analyses for the officing ofthe department in new quarters, and other relatedactivities.

A current activity within the Division of Planningand Development is a study of vocational-technicaleducation and the interrelationships of the areavocational-technical schools operated by local schooldistricts and those programs operated by junior col-leges. The Proposed Organization and Rationale forVocational-Technical Junior College Study follows:

The American educational process, as it is

organized today, is a social activity which has pre-served educational institutions of the past. Theseinstitutions were created at various times in thedevelopment of western civilization to answer exist-ing needs at the time of their creation. In general,the development or educational institutions has beenfrom the "top" down. Some traditions, formulatedin the reasons for the founding of these institutions,remain with us today. A listing of the institutions,their approximate eras of founding, and generalizedcategory of purposes are as follows:

213c*ey, John, 71re Schooland Society.

Professional Schools Medieval Culture19th Century Utility

University Graduate Medieval CultureCollege Schools Discipline

Grammar or Inter- Renaissance Culturemediate School Discipline

Primary 16th Century Utility

Kindergarten 18th Century Moral

Normal 19th Century UtilityCulture

Connecting Class 19th Century

Technical Schools 19th Century Utility

In the development of American education, Min-nesota has conformed with national trends, some-times leading and sometimes following these trends.A most profound, but little-emphasized impact uponAmerican education was made by the movement toend child labor through statutory action. Minnesota'sgeneral response to this movement was to reducechild labor in industrial employment, but to makeexceptions for agricultural employment. Now thatagriculture has become technological and mech.anized, the need for large numbers of laborers isgreatly reduced. Rural children, like their urbanpeers, generally have similar plans for educationand mobility.

Concurrent with the effectiveness of the move-ment to end child labor was the growth of the Ameri-can comprehensive school system. feathers whoworked in the old, but separate existing educationalinstitutions transferred employment and/or trainednew teachers for the growing public systems. This ishow traditions were transferred. In effect, publiceducation became an organizational umbrella overthe old kindergartens, academies, and primary andgrammar schools. That this trend is reaching itsfulfillment is evidenced by the increasing enrollmentin public institutions of higher education which is a

partial cause of the well-known financial difficultiesof the private institutions.

A problem which should be openly decided in theformulation of a K -14 plan of organization is thequestion of whether American society can afford tokeep its young citizens off the labor market. Thisquestion contains the following implications:

1. Is it a good educational practice and economicallyfeasible to continue to maintain societies (the pub-lic elementary, secondary, and post-secondaryorganizations) within a society?

2. Since the technological revolution has largelyreplaced the industrial revolution, and since therecurrently exists a dynamic profusion and increaseof knowledge, is it feasible to continue organiza-tional planning as if public access to knowledgewas limited, manageable, and terminal?

3. Given the first and second implications, is it asound social practice to introduce children tosociety on a general-to-specialized curriculararrangement? Could not the student, soon afteradolescence, have been specialized sufficiently toearn some income and continue a pattern of con-tinuing work and education the remainder of his(her) life?

4. Considering the rapidly changing nature ofAmerican and world societies, is a general educe-tion in preparation for life of sufficient socialutility to justify its costs?

5. Should lice primary custody of education changefrom knowledge to people?

6. Is it politically possible and socially desirable tomodify expectations of Minnesota citizens frompublic education as a community enterprise toexpectations of a social service? The classicaleconomic elements of land, labor, and capital wererecently enlarged to include management. Everyindication now points to the necessity of addingknowledge as a fifth element in the technologicalnations.Since the data being studied in this report will be

utilized for organizational considerations, it is as-sumed that any reorganization should be structuredto implement the aims, goals, and objectives. Hence,the previous questiors were raised. Secondly, it isassumed that the aims of the present major educa-tional organizations in Minnesota are not in unity.Yet, all waste is due to isolation. Finally, it is assumedthat the readers of this study involved persons withlimited reading time. fhe organization of the study,therefore, w111 capsulize, with frequent documenta-tion the organization, financing, enrollment, staffing,attendance experience, curricular activiticq and plan-ning data on the vocational-technical and the juniorcollege systems of Minnesota.

30

23

THE PROGRAM PLANNING ANDDEVELOPMENT SECTION

Vocational-Technical EducationThe duties of the director as they appear in Part I

of the State Plan for Vocational-Technical Educationdescribe the functions and purposes of the section.They a re as follows:

Shall be responsible to the State Director for thedirection and supervision of liaison work with in-dustry and other agencies in the identification ofnew vocational-technical programs in any or alloccupational fields, or combination of fields, and forall groups of people served under the provisions ofthis plan.

Shall be responsible for the determination, col-lection, and interpretation of employment, demo-graphic, and financial data upon whi^,h the prepara-tion cf an annual and a long-range plan forvocational-technical education shall be directed.

Shall be responsible for the coordination ofresearch conducted in the Vocational-TechnicalEducation Division and for the supervision ofdevelopmental research conducted under grantsand contracts. Shall provide for a united researcheffort between the activities of the Research Co-ordinating Unit and the Division.

Shall be responsible for the initiation and conductof studies and surveys to aid in the planning, pro-gramming, and budgeting of vocational-technicaleducation programs as particularly related to the an-nual and long-range plan.

Shall provide the State Director and other agencieswith historical and statistical data upon whichprojected planning may take place.

The development of the planning activities withinthe Division of Vocational-Technical Education fol.lowed a pattern similar to that of the Division of Plan-ning and Development, but with emphasis on theunique needs of vocational-technical education.

The passage of Public Law 88-2W came at a time ofrapid expansion of post-secondary vocational educationin Minnesota. S. K. Wick, then State Director cfVocational-Technical Education, conceived the idea ofa New Program Development Team. This unit wascreated in October 1966, and in July 1968, the presentorganizational structure was instituted.

As the rate of program expansion slowed, theemphasis of activities shifted toward overall planning.The Projected Activities Report was the vehicle. Sincethe passage of Public Law 90-576, the major activitiesof the section have been the preparation of the StateLong-Range and Annual Program Plan.

This required consultation with the State AdvisoryCouncil for Vocational Education staff. These activitiesincluded discussions concerning:

I. Process of State end Local Plan development and

(

24

the development of understandings related to therole and function of policy planning and workplanning,

2. The development of an interpretation of laws,rules, and regulations,

3. The development of a visual presentation of anindividual's progress toward self-fulfillmentthrough occupational competency.

The Advisory Council meets monthly throughout theyear and develops a work plan. The council requestedthat background papers concerning discussion topicsbe prepared. These topics included:

1. What is the basic public policy commitment inMinnesota to make available and/or fund occupa-tional education?

2. Manpower needs based on the Industry Occupa-tion Matrix.

3. Adult vocational education demand and avail-ability.

4. Current programming efforts for disadvantagedand handicapped.

5. A brief analysis of the goals and objectives shownin the 1970 and 1971 State Plan for Vocational-Technical Education.

3 Copies of these No papers are available upon request from Dar-rell Ward, State Let dership Specialist, The Center for Vocationaland Technical Education, 1900 Kenny Road, Columbus, Ohio 0210.

The Section was responsible for the design and instal-lation of the Local Long-Range and Annual ProgramPlan. A paper entitled "A Brief Analysis of the Goalsand Objectives Shown in the 1970 and 1971 State Planfor Vocational Education" (which is attached) sum-marizes the interrelationship of these two activities. Acurrent activity of the section is the development of asystematic procedure for the professional developmentof personnel in vocational-technical education. A paperentitled "Prospectus, Education Professions Develop-ment in Vocational-Technical Education" describes thisactivity.;

SUMMARYThe specific planning activities of each of the units

described in this paper have major utility within thearea of concern; namely, statewide planning for theState Planning Agency, overall educational planningfor the Division of Planning L..d Development, andvocational-technical planning for the Program Planningand Development Section. Close staff relationshipshave developed which are best characterized by thejoint identification, collection, interpretation, and use ofdata by all of the planning units.

31

THE ROLE OF THE STATE ADVISORYCOUNCIL IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONPLANNING: A REPORT OF A PANEL

Panel Chairman: Calvin DellefieldDirector, National Advisory Council on Vocational Education

Members: Joseph ClaryExecutive Secretary, State Advisory Council forVocational-Technical Education, North Carolina

John KoenigAssociate State Director, Division of Vocational Education, New Jersey

Donald TruittVice President, Arthur Rubloff Co., Illinois

Chairman, Illinois State Advisory Council on Vocational Education

Although advisory councils are not new to vocationaleducation, the establishment of a s'atewide council inevery state in the nation is new. Since the establish-ment of these councils there has been little opportunityto discuss their precise role. Therefore, a panel on "TheRole of the State Advisory Council in Vocational Edu-cation Planning" was included in the agenda of theThird Annual Leadership Development Seminar forState Directors of Vocational Education.

It is important to note, however, that more than aclarification of the role of the councils was accom-plished. The presentations of the panel members andthe comments of the participants earnestly attempted toestablish she great importance and value of state coun-cils for vocational education in general and for statedirectors in particular.

The desire to emphasize the importance and valueof Vie state councils by council chairmen and directors,of course, is not surprising. New organizations are al-ways precarious until they have been made securethrough institutionalization. It was only natural, there-fore, that those who were identified with the councils

25

Reviewer: Bruce ReinhartResearch Consultant to the National Advisory

Council on Vocational Education

desired to affirm the importance and value of the statecouncils for vocational education. But it is also impor-tant to note that the state directors were also eagerto affirm the importance and value of the councils.Whether it was the reality of the councils' existence,their current or potential value, the inherent wisdom ofthe legislation which established them, or some otherreasons, it was amply evident that the state directorswere genuinely interested and generously supportive ofthe state councils.

This need for clarification of role and this climate ofsupport provided the panel with a receptive setting fortheir presentations. Both are evident in the followingsummarization.

THE CLARIFICATION OF MISSION AND ROLE

The Sense of MissionThe clarification of the role of the state councils beginswith the establishment of a sense of mission. The sense

26

of mission is not the objective establishment of goalsand objectives. To possess a mission is to possess avalue-laden commitment. To obtain a sense of mission,a state council must recognize and acknowledge thevalues which are inherent in their membership andwhich relate to their charge and must give expressionto them. Donald Truitt expressed this sense of missionwhen he stated, "The single goal of the State AdvisoryCouncil in Illinois is the improvement of vocationaleducation in Illinois." Truitt continued, "We agreewith the National Council, which stated, The primaryreason this nation has not yet established a society inwhich there is equal opportunity to learn and work isthat it has not yet tried.' We want to try in Illinois. Weaccept the challenge of theNational Council..."

A sense of mission was also expressed by JosephR. Clary, who declared, "I come as one who believesh (state council) can play a strong, positive and sup-portive role to help you (state directors) in the job youmust do. If I didn't belif.ve that, I wouldn't want to bea part of one."

There was, therefore, a sense of mission inherent inthe messages of the panel members. In brief, theyexpressed a strong commitment to the improvementof vocational education because they believe in voca-tionaleducation.

The Role of EvaluationEvaluation is one of the major tasks of state advisorycouncils identified by the panelists. P.L. 90-576 (1968VEA Ammendments) specifies that it is the duty of thecouncils to evaluate vocational education programs,services and activities and to publish and distribute theresults thereof. In fact, it is from thi; central respon-sibility that most other duties, activities and respon-sibilities are derived. The organization of the councils,the division of lator, the employment of staff, theexpenditure of funds, the ordering of activities and thevarious reports, position papers, pronouncements andother messages of the council derive from the coun-cil's central responsibility to evaluate.

The councils have broad latitude in this responsibility.No aspect of the evaluation of vocational education iswithheld from them. They may even evaluate the therelationship of vocational education to the activities ofprivate schools, the training programs of business andindustry, vocational rehabilitation, manpower develop-ment, and other programs.

Furthermore, the role which the councils adept forthe purpose of evaluationstaff assessment of avail-able data, independent surveys. contracted research,public hearingsis limited only by the imagination ofthe councils, their resources, and their propriety. Butpropriety, as John H. Koenig pointed out, is an im-portant ingredient. For example, Koenig suggested that

going into individual school districts to collect evalua-tion information is not a proper rote for the state council. Yet, both the subjects )f evaluation and the roleswhich the councils assume in attaining this goal aregiven wide latitude.

In speaking about evaluation Truitt stated that theIllinois council assumed the role of "irreverent" bankexaminers. He elaborated by explaning,

Our state director is aware of the fact that weare looking over his shoulder. Please do not inter-pret this, however, as meaning that we see our taskas being negative. We have a good working relation-ship with the Director of Vocational Education inIllinois. He and his staff have assisted us greatly inour work, but they do know that we are present. Weask questions. We talk to the users of his product.We talk to potential users of his product. We talkto his product, sometimes with a new and differentview. All with the underlying question, "What is bestfor vocational education in Illinois?"Perhaps the rote of evaluation was best summarized

by Calvin Dellefield when he declared, "When all issaid and done, the evaluations of ttie state councilswill be measured by the way they deal with the bigquestions. Are all people receiving job training? Arethey being trained for jobs that really exist? Areenough people being trained? Is vocational educationgoing in the right direction? Is it responsive to com-munity needs?" Dellefield concluded, "Focus on bigissues, shun the pet projects which lake you out of themainstream of major concerns, and you will not bevulnerable to criticism."

The Role of AdvisementThe second major task of the council is to providevocational education with sound advice. P.L. 90-576also specifies that the state advisory councils prepareand submit an evaluation report through the StateBoard to the commissioner and to the National Ad-visory Council, which (I) evaluates the effectiveness ofvocational education programs, services and activitiescarried out to meet the program objectives set forthin their state plan for vocational education and (2)recommends such changes in programs, services, andactivities as may be warranted. This legislation alsoindicates that the councils have the responsibility to ad-vise the state board of education or. the development ofpolicy matters arising in the administration of the stateplan for vocational education. The implications arethat the state councils should advise the state board onthe development of the state plan and to advise thestate board on policy matters arising from the adminis-tration of vocational education in the state.

In addition to these formally prescribed mandates,the state councils have found many opportunities to pro-

23

vide informal guidance. Again, the nature of this in-formal advice varies as widely as the imagination of thecouncil members and the development of communica-tion channels. Stated Clary,

Any substantive recommendation made to orcoming out of our council should not come as asurprise to the Director of Occupational Educationat either secondary or post-secondary levels. The re-sult of this has been that in several instances beforeformal recommendations have been hammered out inthe council, the state agencies have already startedaction or are able to outline some steps to be taken.This has resulted in au excellent relationship be-tween the council and state staffs.

John Koenig testified on the way the council and theDivision of Vocational Education have been workingtogether in New Jersey. He spoke of the involvementof the council in the development of a master planfor vocational education. He also reported that thecouncil provided "political support for increased fund-ing for vocatiolgl education in their state." (NewJersey, which has had an advisory council since 1965,has been able to increase the budget for vocationaleducation from $100,000 to $3,500,000 in five yearswith the help of the council.) He also reported, "Thecouncil has reviewed, advised and supported, before theCommissioner of Education, the initiation of a programplanning and budget system which has put vocationaleducation way out in front of the rest of the Depart-ment of Education in New Jersey." Koenig slated flatly,"With the problems we had in New Jersey, I know wewould not be where we are today without the helpof the council."

Dellefield pointed out that the character of the coun-cils' advice differs significantly from the character ofmost advice received from outsiders. He described thecouncils as being a "sort of right hand, insideout-side evaluator." He explained that,

Since vocational education is now standing in thecenter of the stage it has had to learn how to acceptmore pressures than ever before. The first pressurethat we should be able to accept is that of con-tinuous evaluation. Some of the cirtics want toevaluate vocational education with the goal of nibbl-ing away and assuming its responsibilities. But thisis not the purpose of the state councils. The statecouncils are "insideoutside evaluators" who want toimprove and build vocational education, not tear itdown.

Truitt also spoke of the unique role that state coun-cils have in providing constructive advice for theimprovement of vocational education. He declared,

A council such as ours can do things that thedirector and his staff cannot do. Since we are "out-siders," so to speak, we do not risk job or careers tospeak out. We can take political risks. I don't mean to

qA

27

be critical, but these are facts of life. We want tohelp and we will.

THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP

The Federal Rules and Regulations concerning ad-visory councils states that whether the council is ap-pointed by the governor or by the state board ofeducation, it should be separate and independent fromthe state board. It also states that the staff of thecouncils should be subject only to the supervision anddirection of the state advisory council. These regula-tions have viewed independence as being critical to theability of the councils to evaluate the effectiveness ofvocational education. They undoubtedly reflect theintent of Congress.

Yet, through ignorance, false judgement or intent, anumber of state councils were forced to undergo anearly struggle to establish their independence: It ishard to imagine that the panelists or the participantswere unaware of this as they came together for a con-ference. It is interesting to note, therefore, that thestate directors went out of their way to affirm that anindependent council was their only desire and that thecouncil chairmen and executive directors went out oftheir way to indicate the necessity of interdependence.What resulted was a clearer understanding of the work-ing relationship in which interdependence was acknowl-edged to bejust as necessary as independence.

Truitt affirmed the independence of the IllinoisCouncil when he stated, "In the first half of our task,to evaluate, we assume the role of bank examiners.One pressure group described our council as beingmade up of 'self-centered radicals.' I would accept theconnotation of 'irreverent.' At least we do not step onany toes inadvertantly."

Further insight into the nature of independence ofcouncils and their staffs was related by Clary when hereported these words of his chairman, 'Joe, if youdon't get into a few areas that probably aren't any ofyour business, there's a good chance you won't be doingthe job you ought to do.'

It was evident that the panelists felt that the discus-sion of independence had carried the pendulum too farin that direction to the detriment of interdependence.Perhaps they saw the need for interdependence in thecarrying out of their council duties with many grcups,agencies and organizations dealing with emplovrnerr,economic development, and human resources doe:,,p-merit. Perhaps they observed that vocational educdti, nhas suffered from its separation from other facet ofthe educational system and did not desire a separationbetween the establishment and the councils. Perhapsthe council representatives knew that they could not dotheir job without cooperation or perhaps they saw a rollfor themselves as catalysts in an interdependent and

28

cooperation role with many other agencies. But, what-ever the reason, the underlying concern of thepanelists for interdependence was strongly asserted.

To make the particulars more explicit, Clary raisedthe following question, "How can councils and statestaffs develop supportive relationships which are inter-dependent?" He then make the following suggestionsfor the councils:

1. Give strong support to the state board of educationand its staff wherever possible. Be for somethingsnot always against what is going on.

2. Be just as open, honest and aboveboard as pos-sible in all dealings.

3. Don't demand or expect special treatment foreither council members or staff.

4. Be as objective as possible.

5. Look at major things.

He then followed with thcse suggestions for state direc-tors:

I. Accept the councils as potentially valuable groups.Make special efforts to express your need of thecouncils' advice and services.

2. Insist on top quality staff for the council members.They not only represent the council, they representvocational education. You have a real stake inthe quality of the council and itsstaff.

3. Furnish data to the council. Share with them anydata joucollect.

4. Ask for advice and let the council and its staffwork for you.

5. Let the councils know that their recommenda-tions are being carefully consideredeven thoughyou a re not able to accept or implement them.

Another necessary aspect of a good working relation-ship according to the panelists, is a completely opencouncil. This is necessary to alleviate suspicion and todevelop an ongoing working relationship with the stateagencies and the public a s well.

CONCLUSIONTruitt began his presentation with the following frank

description of the birth of the Illinois Advisory Council:

After its inception, the Illinois Advisory Councilspent a frustratingly long time in the soul-searchingtask of describing our interpretation of the council'srole. We discussed the federal legislation. We airedour respective prejudices. We argued. We persuaded.We even swore at one another a little, where this wasnecessary. Now we feel that the members of thecouncil have an understanding of our task toevaluate and to adviseall for the single goal ofimproving vocational education in Illinois.The emergence of the advisory councils in every state

of the nation is a new development in vocational edu-cation. Never before in the history of this nation hasevery state had a statewide advisory council. It is

expected that every new organization will struggle,often painfully, to identify its mission and clarify itsrole. The experience of the Illinois Advisory Councilwas a common experience of all state advisory councilswhich came into existence with the Amendments ofI he Vocational Education Act of 1963.

In the fumbling and frustrating period that followedthe establishment of state councils, there emerged astrong sense of mission for the improvement ofvocational education. The councils clearly have a value-laden commitment and zeal for the improvement ofvocational education. This mission will be accomplishedthrough the broadly conceived role of evaluation andthrough both formal and informal advisement.

But the question of independence versus interdepen-dence also pervaded the conference. Although thenecessity of independence was affirmed, there was astrong desire to emphasize the necessity of inter-dependence. The obvious desire of all panelists and con-ferees to come to a clear understanding of this questionmade this a timely and productive experience andresulted in assurances of cooperative interdependence.

In brief, this conference helped bring the realizationthat the state councils are here with a -ommon mis-sion, two distinctive roles evaluation and advisementand a sincere desire to be a cooperative part of theplanning team.

35

INTERAGENCY COOPERATION FORIMPLEMENTATION OF STATE PLANNING

The changes that have occurred in vocational educa-tion and the ones that are still occurring necessitate abroader and more diversified approach. The achieve-ments of vocational education can no longer bemeasured solely on the success of placement in certainemployment areas. Societal changes make it necessaryto measure achievement in terms of the populationserved as well as the extent with which it meets theneeds of emerging and growing occupational fields.

The enlarged responsibilities of vocational educationrequire greater involvement on the part of the voca-tional educators with other agencies. Historically,vocational educators have worked closely with business,industry, and agriculture, at the same lime, ho er,building a thick membrane around them tc medegree isolating themselves from other educationalgroups and non educational agencies. To speak ofinteragency cooperation is like speaking for mother-hood or against pollution; it is an acceptable and non-controversial goal. What is needed is a discourse relat-ing to the techniques and factors which have led tosuccesses as well as the identification of some of thefailures.

In order to deal with this topic, it is necessary toindicate the frame of reference, or in the language of thePh.D. candidate, "to delimit" the subject. A previousspeaker (Robert Seckendorf) has effectively differ-entiated "programs" from "activities." In a similarvein this presentation treats interagency cooperationas a technique which can lead to the attainment of agoal. Goals have been established in federal and statelaws and regulations, and in state plans. Various tech-niques are essential to achieve these goals, and one ofthese is interagency cooperation. As indicated pre-viously, this is not a completely new concept. Throughconsulting committees, vocational education has been

29

Re,

Herbert RighthandChief, Bureau of Vocational Services

State Department of EducationHanford, Connecticut

closely interlinked with the "world-of-work." Stateagencies have also worked closely with various agenciessuch as departments of labor, development commis-sions, research agencies, and other groups in order toobtain essential manpower and statistical data. Theinvolvement of vocational state agencies in MDT andin post-secondary programs has led to greater involve-ment with community groups, labor departments,community and technical colleges, and teacher educa-tion institutions. This talk deals with the new involve-ments which better enable the state to meet the goalsset forth in the Amendments of 1968 to the VocationalEducation Act.

The data collected in the State of Connecticutdealing with interagency cooperation proved to beeh: Iging and revealing. Since this was not meantto b,. a "show and tell" presentation, the cooperativeactivities were analyzed in order to seek out techniquesor principles which might be the underlying causes ofsuccess or failure. No magical formula was discoveredand no formal structure seeking cooperation was estab-lished. A key principle identified in achieving inter-agency cooperation is state staff involvement. Involve-ment of the staff member through his individual ef-forts and involvement, through the staff membersparticipation in consulting committees and with theState Advisory Council, led to the establishment ofmany effective relationships. To 'he extent that thestate staff accepts the field theory concept of the re-placement of constraints with a permeable membranewhich is continuously pierced by incoming and outgo-ing vectors of activity, interagency cooperation willdevelop. AnotNer observation indicates that the estab-lishment of relationships with an outside agency willfrequently lead to new relationships with otheragencies. Another factor leading to the establishment

30

of cooperative arrangements is the failure of theoutside agency to obtain funds to continue or to initiatesome educational activity. The discovery of the valueof vocational education by regional groups establishedunder Title III of the ESEA provisions when a cur-tailment of funds was indicated is not to the credit ofvocational agency efforts but nevertheless is one factorwhich did lead to the establishment of successfulcooperative ventures. It is also essential to point outthat the increased involvement of vocational educationin programs for the disadvantaged and the handicappedled to new cooperative relationships. In the examplesof cooperative arrangements to be identified, it is

hoped that the principles or factors stated will be rec-ognized and will indicate theiroperational aspects.

As vocational education became involved in healthoccupations it was found necessary to establish a state-wide consulting committee in health occupations. Thiscommittee, consisting of representatives from varioushealth organizations and key personnel from the voca-tional state agency, provided fertile ground for furtherinteragency cooperation. When the Deputy Commis-sioner of the Department of Health found that theywere funded through the 0E0 to conduct training pro-grams for Home-Health Aides, he requested assistancefrom the Division of Vocational Education. Coopera-tively these programs were established and in thecourse of their operation the vocational education stafffound it necessary to work with the Visiting Nurse As-sociation and the Home Help Association. This, inter-estingly, was not a case of lack of funds on the part ofthe agency seeking involvement in vocational education.

The State Advisory Council plays a key role in voca-tional education through its State Plan review andprogram evaluation, but it also provides a good avenueof communication when state staff participate in itsactivities. A member of this council representing theDepartment of Correction indicated the changingphilosophy and practices of these institutions by shift-ing from the work of car license manufacturing, foodservice, laundry work, and all the other activities whichwere primarily geared to the needs of the institution andthe state. Recognizing the need for rehabilitation, theywere seeking to establish vocational programs geared tothe needs of the inmates. As a result of the personalcontact and discussion, vocational programs weredeveloped and fiscal support provided through inter-agencycooperation,

In order to serve the ha,idicappcd, an intra-agencycommittee ronsisting of representatives from specialeducation, vocational rehabilitation, and voc.tl, naleducation was established. Through this comer., ee,the scope of the Division of Vocational Education ac-tivities was expanded beyond the usual relations withlocal education agencies and resulted in workingarrangements with the Mansfield Slate Training Institu-

tion operated by the Office of Mental Retardation of theDepartment of Health. A special vocational program inlaundry and dry cleaning operations was established,serving residents and nonresidents.

Many handicapped individuals are not found in theschools or the institutions, but are being served throughsheltered workshops and the Goodwill Industries. Thesemay represent the more seriously handicapped yetamong them are individuals capable of being preparedfor some level of work consistent with their abilities.Since these groups are private, nonprofit operations,it is necessary to provide support to them throughcontracts. At present, there are 13 such contracts ineffect As in all the cases cited here, cooperation withagencies is not merely a funding proposition but con-sists of consultative educational services on the part ofthe vocational education agency. One regional educa-tion group established under the ESEA Act requestedand received assistance in the development and opera-tion of a vocational program for the multi-handicapped.

The examples cited so far dealt with cooperationestablished through contacts developed at committeeand council meetings. Though it is hard sometimes todifferentiate between relationships established as a

result of group activities and individuals' action, thefollowing cases are mainly attributable to individualaction. A good example of this approach is found inthe cooperative arrangement established between aregional vocational-technical school and the CheshireReformatory operated by the Department of Correction.The Commissioner of Education received a request forassistance from the Commissioner of the Department ofCorrection and referred it to the Division of VocationalEducation. This program involved more than the usualconsultative and financial support. In this case reforma-tory inmates nearing the point of discharge wereselected through their own counseling services, sent tothe vocational-technical school for skilled trade training,and then were placed by the Department of Labor. TheDivision of Vocational Rehabilitation provided thefunds for transportation and assisted in the counseling.The University of Connecticut became interested in thisproject and is presently conducting a study as to theeffects this prograr will have on the participants andthe nonparticipants.

Generally, activities under the Model Cities programare independent and isolated from the vocational edu-cation agency. However, the Consultant for VocationalAgriculture recieved a call from a representative of aModel City program requesting assistance. A specialprogram for disadvantaged in the field of horticultureand landscaping was in difficulty. Through the servicesof the vocational consultant, support and direction weremade available to this program through a local educa-tional agency.

`Al

It appears that Consultants in Health Occupationsare great joiners of various health organizations.Through affiliation with the Health Career Council, theConnecticut Hospital Association, Connecticut Associa;tion of Extended Help, and the Connecticut Associationof Nonprofit Homes and Hospitals, many proposals orrequests for help are received. A request for a programof upgrading unskilled convalescent home workers to alevel of nursing assistants was received and, through thefacilities of the state-operated vocational-technicalschools, a program was developed. In order to makethis program meaningful, the homes agreed to providepromotions and salary increases to those completingthe course. This program has been extremely effectiveand is presently being replicated in various parts of thestate. Another in-service program was requested by theCommission on Services to the Elderly. Their requestfor the conduct of a workshop for licensed practicalnurses on geriatrics was fulfilled.

Recently, as a result of a meeting with the Connecti-cut Hospital Association, plans have been developedto provide courses in methods of teaching to the train-ing staff of the hospitals and also to provide courses insupervision to the training directors.

The existence of 15 state-operated regional voca-tional-technical schools has proven to be a boon inextending the activities of the vocational agency. Alocal NAACP group approached the director of such avocational - technical school in order to establish a pre-service distributive education program for out-of-schoolyouth and adults. Since distributive education is not oneof the school's programs, this request was referred tothe central office of the Vocatic,ial Division. Workingwith the NAACP, a community action group, the localschool system, tld: Chamber of Commerce, and thevocational-technical school, plans have been developedto start this program. Another example of vocational-technical school involvement appears in the situationwhen a local jail asked the school to provide somecourses in related mathematics and blueprint reading toits short-term inmates. This program has been con-ducted effectively.

Support to quasi-public institutions for the handi-capped is another area of interagency cooperation. TheOak Hill School for the Blind, cooperating with theCommission for the Blind, the Division of VocationalRehabilitation and now the Division of VocationalEducation, is offering vocational programs in four voca-tional areas, home economics and career exploration.Another such institution, the American School for theDcaf, has recieved .tensive assistance in establishingarid operating vocational programs.

A special program for disadvantaged youth whowould appear to have difficulty in a regular vocational-technical program was offered in the summer. In addi-tion to providing remedial instruction and shop

31

exploration, this program also provided meals and somerecreational field trips. The funds for the non-educa-tional aspects of this program were obtained throughthe cooperation of the local community action group.Another example of the broader involvement of theregional vocational schools lies in the special programsoffered to high school graduates and dropouts throughan intensive summer vocational program. This approachwas developed with the cooperation of the NaugatuckValley Manufacturers Association. This program,whim is now several years old has enabled manygraduate or dropout to obtain a degree of skill and finda place for himself in the world of work.

Not all agencies are equally cooperative and not allattempts are successful. The Department of Welfaresought help from the Division of Vocational Educationin writing their plan for occupational preparation forwelfare clients. A few programs were developed co-operatively, however. Subsequently, the welfare agencychose to go its own way and several times set up pro-grams in competition with existing MDTA programs.Another agency organized to provide assistance at alllevels to communities is the Department of CommunityAffairs. This agency, raising its funds through the is-suance of bonds, functions primarily through com-munity action groups. This agency has several timesfunded duplicating programs without any workingrelations with the departments of labor or education.Their freewheeling techniques create good newspapercoverage but frequently result in wasted efforts andmonies. However, there is hope that this problem maysoon be resolved since a coordinating committee con-sisting of the respective commissioners of the depart-ments of community affairs, labor, and education hasbeen formed. Another area in which success is ratherlimited is in fund-sharing with other federal acts. Arecent exception in Connecticut occurred in the supportof an exemplary program in career exploration at theelementary school level. Because this program wasoriginally intended to study the community and becausea large number of students are disadvantaged, it waspossible to obtain sharing funds from Title I of theESEA. Another example of fund-sharing occurred inthe establishment of a regional center serving a metro-politan area and a suburb. The facility and transporta-tion costs have been funded by Title I of ESEA,while part of the costs of the vocational programsv. ere supported through the Vocational Education Act.

In summary, it must be emphasized that interagencycooperation is based on state staff acceptance of thisconcept and of their broad involvement with consultingcommittees, advisory councils, and professional groups.As interagency arrangements are developed, thebreadth of activities is expanded and additionalagencies are often brought into action. Problems do

38

32

exist when some ageacies prefer to "go it alone." Inaddition, there are added technical problems whencontracts are required in dealing with private agencies.Legal and fiscal procedures are complex and much timehas to be spent in this aspect of interagency coopera-tion. Arrangements made with private agencies under

Part B of the Vocational Education Act are notgenerally amenable to the established support formulasdeveloped for LEA. Despite these dif riculties, there canbe no question as to the need for such cooperation andfor the need of developing techniques which enlargethe operational area of vocational education.

39

CAREER EDUCATION:THE OREGON WAY

Statement of Problem

The educational problems in Oregon are probably notunlike most states in that Oregon's pupil survival in-dicates a strong need for reevaluation of the traditionaleducational priorities which provided strong programsfor the "college bound" student.

Acting upon statistical evidence provided through afollow-up of students entering school during the 1946-47 school year, in which only 15 of every WO graduatedfrom a four-year college, the State Advisory Councilfor Vocational Education issued the following state-ment:

In today's changing social and economic pat-terns, work still remains the major factor determiningan individual's role in society. The increasing com-plexity of work, brought about by the application oftechnology to the work process, now makes it impera-tive that ail men be occupationally prepared fortheir work life.

Meanwhile, our schools continue to stress thepreparation of students for a four-year collegeexperience. The majority, who still must rely upon ahigh school education or less, are not adequatelyprepared for entry into and advancement in avail-able employment .... The most critical and urgentneed is to prepare youth and adults for effectivework roles in society.

The Solution

Reacting to this stimulus, the Oregon Board of Education placed career education as their number-onepriority. Shortly thereafter, the complexion of voca-

Leonard KurtzmanDirector, Career EducationOregon Board of Education

Salem, Oregon(This paper sunrnarizes a presentation madejointly by Kunzman and Henry A. Ten Pas

Director, Division of Vocational, Adult, andCommunity College Education

Oregon State UniversityCorvallis, Oregon)

tional education began to change as a result of thefollowing steps:

Establishment of the long-range goal of makingoccupational education available to every highschool student with 50% of the juniors and seniorsenrolled therein by l975.

Development of the occupational cluster conceptand establishment as the "Oregon Way" of careereducation.

Substantiation by employment data of 1I occupa-tional clusters and subsequent development ofinstructional guides in eight.

Selection of developmental schools for modelcareer cluster centers.

Appointment of area occupational educationcoordinators as extensions of the Oregon BoardCareer Education Staff.

Request by the Superintendent of Public Instruc-tion that each district submit a long-range planfor career education.

Employment of an administrative staff person toassist in local district in- service training and long-range planning.

Increased emphasis on occupational orientation inthe elementary grades followed by career explora-tion experiences prior to cluster training.

Increase coordination and articulation on verticaland horizontal organizational planes of operation.

340

34

Implementation

The present Oregon philosophy of career education wasfirst graphically presented through the Guide to Struc-ture and Articulation of Occupational Education Pro-grams (Grades 7 through 12 and Post-High School),as published in 1968. The duster concept was thereinintroduced and explained on the basis of employmentdata relating to key occupations within each. Closecooperation with the Oregon State EmploymentService facilitated the collection and processing ofemployment data in substantiation of future needs.Limited course descriptions and suggested sequenceswere outlined at the various instructional levels.

Shortly thereafter, with the appointment of Dr. DaleParnell as Superintendent of Public Instruction, thedivision of vocational education underwent extensivereorganization to facilitate the emerging cluster con-cept. Specialists were provided within each cluster toprovide expertise and leadership in program develop-ment.

The development and publication of the occupa-tional cluster guides was a major undertaking. Fol-lowing the process of grouping occupations intocommon knowledges and skills, a task analysis of thekey ',ccupations within each cluster was undertaken.The task analysis was conducted through direct con-tact with persons working within these occupationsproducing common teachable skills and knowledges.This information was applied to proposed courses insample curriculum patterns which was further refinedinto suggested learning experiences. Prior to publica-tion, the material underwent extensive review by

individual cluster advisory committees composed ofboth lay people from business and industry andexperienced instructors in the field. The detailed stepby step process of development is described in theArticulation Guide.

A massive public relations program was undertakento familiarize the schools with the cluster concept. The

initial step was taken in contracting with a local dis-trict for the services of their princilal to coordinatethe program statewide. A slide ,ranscription wasdeveloped to explain the duster concept which wasused throughout the state in area meetings of localdistrict superintendents and vocational personnel. Con-current with this, eight schools were selected to imple-ment cluster programs as demonstration centers toother schools. Contractual arrangements with OregonState University were made to provide a task forceof four graduate students to coordinate the efforts ofthe Oregon Board specialists and the university staffin developing these centers. Now in their second yearof development, they are nearing model status and arereceiving heavy visitation traffic as the concept takesroot in school curricula. A slide talk, with a accom-panying implementation booklet, is being developedfor use in each center in conjunction with scheduledopen house presentations.

The program gained momentum with the publicationof the position paper Career Education in Oregon, AStatement on Improving Vocational Education. Thepaper by Leonard Kunzman, Director of Career Edu-cation, clearly details the objectives and proposed ac-complishment of career education in Oregon and theproject activities necessary for accomplishment.

The request for a long-range plan from each schoolhas greatly increased the interest in all phases ofcareer education. A staff person is now available toindividual schools for planning assistance through acontractual arrangement with a large IntermediateEducation District, thus providing the assistance with-out increasing Oregon Board staff numbers.

The incorporation of Area Vocational Coordinatorshas greatly improved the channels of communicationbetween the Oregon Board and the individual districts.It is planned to increase the number of coordinatorsfrom the present eight to 14 to keep pace with programdevelopment. These positions were secured throughcontract with various Intermediate Education Districts.

41

IMPLEMENTING STATE PLANNING INVOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION

At times, as one views the American scene, it ap-pears as if we are in a revolution in American educationas we enter the seventies. At other times, the develop-ments resemble something akin to a reformation. Wecan remember that famous "veto" message of PresidentNixon's. He was talking about reforms. On otheroccasions, however, I'm inclined to believe the Ameri-can people are regrouping, reassessing and reviewingthe position of their schools. They are, perhaps, think-ing in terms of a renewala renewal of spirit, a renewalof outlook; perhaps a raising of their horizons a bit,getting the American Dream out in front again

2 sit with a good many groups who say, "the Ameri-can Dream never was; it never did exist." This bafflesme, because I see myself. I see you and hundreds ofother persons who have benefited through Americaneducation; I see what it has made possible.

Hence, I wonder at tames whether we may be re-grouping to generate a new sense of adventure and toset new goals. I wish we had a national commissionof experienced practitionersrepresentative of allsectors of American education--to look at vhere we aregoing, where we've been the last half-dozen years, andwhere we could or should go. I regret that we don'thave such a commission. It could be a great service toall Americans.

When one analyzes the elements of reformation,renewal, or reversal in the present scene, there areaspects of each in the many movements. If you look atthe opening of private schools in the South at the pre-sent time, you are startled at the number of separateschools that are being established, splintering off. Inaddition, there are a number of denominational schools,small denominational schools, that are springing up inOhio and in other states. We are not unaware of thestorefront schools that are opening in the ghetto. We

Martin EssexSuperintendent of Public Instruction

Ohio Department of EducationColumbus, Ohio

are cognizant of the voucher concept that has receiveda rather sizeable appropriation recently. It, alone, is awhole new concept.

These latter developments seem to say, "are we goingback to the pre-Civil War period?" As I recall beingtold, my grandfather, who was a student at OtterbeinCollege was in Missouri teaching as the Civil Warbroke out. He was teaching the children of a group offamilies while trying to earn funds to come back tocollege. We had what one might call "pluralism" atthat time. He taught in accordance with the wishes ofone small group of parents. As a result, most of Ameri-can education could be characterized as being in thearea of privatism at that time. It was not very success-ful: only one or two percent of the youngsters wereenrolled in a secondary school.

Are we reversing? Are we going back to that eraof pluralism and privatism? I'm inclined to thinkandI suppose this is my eternal great respect for Americaneducationthat we are in a state of revolution. Perhapsa revolution is warranted and, if there were not anyother factors involved in the revolution, one of them isthe important interjection of a sizeable elementa size-able componentof occupational vocational-technicaleducation into the mainstream of American education.

You might say that this is not a revolution; vocationaleducation has been in operation in some manner inthis country for a huncLed years. We are saying, how-ever, the number of youngsters in vocational prepara-tiot in the secondary schools ought to approximate40% of the enrollment; perhaps 90% in some schoolsand only ID% in others.

As you know, when you put components of this sizeinto the life of a secondary school, you have a veritablerevolution. I think that's what we are coming to. Weare coining to that stage. maybe faster than we think,

36

but not as fast as many of us would like. Getting therewith an effective program will require an abundance ofsober judgment.

My hope is based on faith in American practicality.We have been a very practical people down through theyears. The Jacksonian philosophy of the 1820's andthe 1830's blossomed as our ancestors got up into theAppalachian Mountains and started to come across intothis part of the country. Those people began to show ademocratic philosophy in their religion. Most of theProtestant sects as we know them got their start duringthat period. They brought with them an indomitablespirit of democracy. With that democratic concept,public schools were an essential for survival.

Horace Mann came along at the same time, sayingthe grammar school was needed for democracy tosurvive. We in this part of the country embraced thatconcept with enthusiasm. We did almost the same thingwith the high school. We battled it through the SupremeCourt and legalized it some 50 years later. The highschool generated a growing economy and pushed us tothe fore in the world.

The GI Bill did a similar service for higher education.No other nation had the guts, no other nation couldhave afforded it, and no other nation had the faith tosay, "All right, well let any person who has been inthe armed services, no matter who he is, go on tocollege when he comes back. We will set up an examina-tion so he can qualify himself if he wants to studywhile he is in the service." The GI Bill sent thousandsof men and women into the mainstream of the economyand pushed us forward in a very great way, We haveused education for practical purposes.

1 just walked out of a conference a few minutes ago.Senator Mondale, who is holding Select Committeehearings on equal educational opportunity, was talkingto our Title I people, who are assemblzd in anotherhotel, about the prosperity on ore hand, and the utterdespair on the other. Yes, we still have problems, butthe answer to these problems is the right kind of educa-tion. There is no other answer. You can't legislate it,force it, you can't do it by magic. The only answer iseducation. I suspect the American people know that.Maybe we've misled them by not being hardheadedabout the right kind for the current job.

We are in a period of downdraft. The public isn'twith us as well as they ought to be. Maybe we don'tdeserve them to be with us as enthusiastically as we'dlike them to be. Maybe we haven't handled our federalfunding as well as we should.

I have a feeling, however, that the practicality ofthe American mind is going to face this challenge.Despite the 1963 vocational education study and theone that's referred to as the 1967-68 study, I do notseethe kind of blueprint, the clarity of blueprint that weought to have for American education and I challenge

you people to be working on it. In addition, I do notsee the understanding of the general acceptance of edu-cation or the clearly defined oojective that we need.We don't quite have this situation in hand. I think it'sour fault; I'm not talking for the press, as you under-stand, but I think wz ought to bring the heads of ourorganizations together. Let's pound out a plan whichwe can support; let's determine how much vocationaleducation there ought to be. Let's lay out a blueprintand say, "This is something we can support." We havetoo much confusion at the present time. I think weneed to reach an agreement wl'ich we can generally'endorse.

Nixon's famous "Veto" mes.,age, as I indicated toyou earlier, touched on reforMs, but really he wascalling for clarity. He was saying we are confused; thatour objectives aren't well speltill out. I think he wassaying to us that, "I don't think !ou know what you aredoing and, since you don't know what you are doing,we don't propose to give you that much money." I wishthat he or someone else would set up a commissionand get on it. I will leave that little challenge with youjust to initiate our discussion he'c.

The Congress, in adopting he 1968 vocationalamendments, did it with a unanimity that frightened allof us. They wanted one thing: they wanted to quietthe unrest in the streets. They wanted to deal withunemployability. That remains the big challenge tovocational education, as I see it. 'I hat's where we mustspread our wings, sharpen our bill and dive in; that'swhere the paydirt is.

As you know, the 1968 legislation got caught in adowndraft as far as funding was concerned. It hasn'tbeen funded as well as we would Re, although someprogress is being made.

Now, I would like to make some confessions to youand talk about our experiences here in Ohio. I do thiswith no great pride at allno seise of bragging, I

assure you. I do it rather apologetizally, because I'msure you are trying and succeeding in many ways invocational education.

The impetus for the present legislation authorizing astatewide geographical pattern of vocational dis-tricting and the subsequent standards which said Ohiomust have a certain number of courses and a certainnumber of occupational offerings came, in my opinion,from the growing welfare or public r ssistance cost.Let me illustrate. We have some legislation designedto help disadvant aged youngsters throueh compensa-tory education. Allocations are based ci the dollaramount per year per youngster. In Cl.veland, forexample, this amounts to $6 million a year. The districthas 34,000 youngsters whose families recei .e Aid forDependent Children payments.

Go back home and pull out your executive budget.Take the budgets from your states and look at the

amount of public assistance, or look at the federalbudget's expenditure for federal assistance. Onlynational defense exceeds the federal expenditure forpublic assistance. The growth of public assistance fund-ing has exceeded or tends to exceed the growth of edu-cational assistance funding in a number of our states.Thisin a period of unusual prosperityis the thrustthat's taking vocational education forward.

This vast expenditure on welfare is, in my opinion,a major reason for the 1968 vocational enactment. Con-gress wants answers and the answers are not nearly assimple as the problems.

Secondly, we have had a governor in Ohio whohas talked continuously about vocational education andwho took the point of view during the eight years he'sbeen in office that welfare assistance and general edu-cation are not gooe: issues. In other words, these werenot the kinds of issues that gain and maintain publicsupport. He chose to take the offensive with vocationaleducation. His effort gave a big thrust to vocationaleducation. In addition, we have the good fortune inOhio of having an aggressive State Director of Voca-tional Education. He is touring Europe at the presenttime and I'm sure he regrets he can't be here.

When it came time for legislation, it was not part ofa separate billwe have not had them now for someyearsthey are too difficult. Instead, we throw themajor elements together into an omnibus bill so thatevery item isn't debated in committee and on the floor.There was a paragraph or so on vocational education;it aroused little concern and was not debated. I

wouldn't want to mislead you into thinking that thiswas one of those carefully studied legislative actionsthat was put up in a neat package. Rather, it requiredan implementation by the Department of Educationand by the State Board of Education, which, I suspect,is the way these things should be done.

There were, however, certain elements in the provi-sions of the bill which were basic, but most of thepolicy and procedure had to be spelled out by standards,rather than by statute. The passage of the act requireda plan for vocational education for the state. Our voca-tional division, which is very alert and very able,developed a tentative set of standards. These standards,which were rather demanding, were then distributed toall school districts in the state.

The response to this proposal from the field wasvery embittered. It became increasingly apparent that,if the standards were adopted by the state board, thelegislature, in a post-session, would repeal or severelymodify the statute. Due to the lack of debate at thetime of enactment, the legislature was no: aware of thesweeping character of the legislation aril the schookwere not ready to accept the actions which the voca-tional division would have like to have placed in effect.

37

To counter the growing opposition to the proposedstandards, several actions were considered imperative.As an initial effort, a select advisory c(mmittee com-prised of respresentative superintendents from allsizes and types of school districts in all geographic areasof the state, was appointed to review the vocationaldivision's proposal and suggest modifications. A corol-lary action of holding nine regional meetings for alllocal chief administrators followed.

These two actions provided an open forum for schoolpersonnel to make the suggestions and proposedmodifications known.

In addition to the many private conferences with in-dividual administrators and groups of administrators,numerous sessions, late evening meetings and con-ferences were held with a special legislative committee,which had been appointed to survey the future develop-ment of the standards.

Following widespread distribution of a revisedaroposal, we also announced that each vocational planwould be acted upon by a Vocational Review and Ap-peals Board comprised of assistant superintendents inthe department. In other words, each district would begiven its "day in court."

The rival groups, particularly the aggressive heads ofjoint vocational schools who had the encouragement ofthe Ohio Vocational Association and the Division ofVocational Education, tended to rally around the flag-pole for high requirements, which tended to ignorefactors of reasonable distance and geographicalbarriers. The polarization of opposition came ex-tensively from the massive number of cities withpopulations of 25,000 to 100,000 peopleof which wehave a great many in this state of 1014 million people.

The confrontation climaxed with a standards hearingunder our Administrative Procedure Act, which wasconducted by the State Board of Education. The num-ber of witnesses were legionthe joint vocationalleaders assembled approximately 30 persons to beheard. The opposition assembled an equal number ormore. The hearing ground on through most of the hoursfrom 11:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m., with some breaks formeals. Reasonableness prevailed--the strong opinionsappearing to evaporate as they were expressed-- and aset of standards was adopted without future delay.

The plan as adopted provides for a geographicalalignment of the 631 school districts in the state into105 vocational districts. The progress to date has beengratifying. The vocational division has functionedadmirably within the standards to attain cooperativeacceptance rather than coercive compliance. Very littlerancor remains in the districts. The plan is essentiallycomplete. The districts are voting their matching fundsto utilize the 575 million that the legislature appro-priated for construction purpe;es during this biennium,and to utilize any federal funding. The die-hards have

38

come around in surprising fashion to say that they be-lieve that a good result was attained and that they arepleased with the potential. Of the l05 districts, 56 are ofthe joint type; the others are either of adequate size, orare aligned through contractual arrangements.

I am of the opinion that much remains to be donein vocational education in America. We must involvethe sizeable numbers of our young people in workexperience at an earlier age. The assistance of industrywill be required. High school credit for such workexperience will be an imperative. This is the onlysolution to make America whole again and to removethe unrest and defection of the young from the realityof the adult economy and the adult responsibility.

I am firmly of the opinion that we need a Depart-ment of Education and Manpower Development on thefederal levelthat we do not need two systems ofeither Manpower Development or Education in thiscountry. If we pursue the dual course, we will fail.

We do not want to go the European route of attachingvocational education to the industries, but we must in-volve the industries in work experience and we must

take the ghetto youngster out of his welfare check-numbers writer-prostitute atmolphere at an early ageto let him see that people grow up to go to work. Thecooperation of industry is essential in attaining suchobjectives.

I believe that we are more nearly around to a realiza-tion of a revolution in education through the inclusionof vocational components in the educational structure.I do not care whether you call it a revolution, a refor-mation, or a renewal. Do not call it a reversal. Wedo not want to return to the pre-Civil War privatismand pluralism. Such is too prevalent at the momentwith the growth of private schools around our largecities, storefront schools within our cities, separatt.schools in the South, and the voucher system withOEO. Hence, if I leave any plea today, it is for aunity toward a Department of Education and Man-power Development which will bring education into theseventies in accordance with the technological andurban economy. Such can be the greatest boon to theadvancement of man that we have known. Let's applygood management to a truly comprehensive plan ofeducation. The results will be worth the effort.

45

Appendix A

SEMINAR PROGRAM

46

Third AnnualNational Leadership Development Seminar

For State Directors of Vocational Education

ARTICULATION OF

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PLANNING

WITH TOTAL STATE PLANNING

September 16-18, 1970

The Christopher Inn

Columbus, Ohio

47

IMI Cf4TE11.1011 VOCATIONAL

f""1"fie

42

SEMINAR PURPOSE

To provide a mechanism for the in-service leadership development of state directorsof vocational education and members of their staffs.

SEMINAR OBJECTIVES

To provide a forum for the exchange of information concerning exemplaryand innovative programs of the states.

To provide an intensive examination of coordinated state planning as itrelates to programming in vocational-technical education.

To inform the seminar participants of the latest and most relevant re-search, development and training activities conducted by The Center forVocational and Technical Education and other appropriate agencies.

To contribute to the professional development and self-improvement ofstate directors and their staffs.

STATE DIRECTORS PLANNING COMMITTEE

Joseph F. MurphyConnecticutJohn W. BuntenNevadaGeorge L SandvigVirginiaR. D. AndersonNASDVE

CENTER STAFF

Darrell L Ward, Project DirectorEdward N. Kazarian, Research AssociateAaron J. Miller, Center Coordinator

48

43

WEDNESDAY MORNING SEPTEMBER 16, 1970

DAILY TOPIC: THE CONTEXT FOR ARTICULATION OF VOCATIONALEDUCATION PLANNING WITH TOTAL STATE PLANNING

8.00 a.m. REGISTRATION: CHRISTOPHER INN Lobby(Registration will also be held 7:00-9:00 p.m.Tuesday, September 15,1970)

DAILY CHAIRMAN Suite B

Cecil H. Johnson, Jr., State DirectorSouth Carolina

8:30 OPENING REMARKS

INTRODUCTION TO THE SEMINAR

Robert E. Taylor, DirectorThe Center

WELCOME

Joseph F. Murphy, President, National Association of State Directors of Vocational Education

A GOVERNOR'S PERSPECTIVE OF TOTAL STATE PLANNING AND THE ROLE OFVOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Honorable Robert E. McNairGovernor of South Carolina

10:15 BreakCoffee served in Suite A

10:45 A CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICER'S PERSPECTIVE OF TOTAL STATE PLANNINGAND THE ROL E OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Howard B. Costney, Commissioner of EducationMinnesota

Announcements

12:00 Lunch (Individually arranged)

49

44

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SEPTEMBER 16, 1970

1:30 p.m. A STATE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION'S PERSPECTIVE OF TOTAL STATEPLANNING AND THE ROLE OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Robert S. Seckendorf Assistant Commissioner of Occupational EducationNew York

2:30 DISCUSSION TEAMS WORK SESSIONS(See appendix in back of this program for state representatives' assignments to teams)

Team

ChairmanWesley P. Smith, State Director of Vocational EducationCalifornia

Recorder Jim Koeninger, Research AssociateThe Center

Suite A

Team 11: Suite B

ChairmanCharles M. Dunn, Assistant Commissioner of Vocational EducationTennessee

Recorder George Reeser, Research AssociateThe Center

Team III: Suite E

ChairmanElwood A. Padham, State Director of Vocational EducationMaine

Recorder-- Earl Russell, Research AssociateThe Center

Team IV: Suite D

ChairmanE. B. Oleson, State Director of Vocational EducationSouth Dakota

Recorder Randy McCuteheon, Research AssociateThe Center

4:00 Adjournment

REMINDER OF THE DAY: Lunch and Dinner shall be individually arranged. A meeting of the NASDVE ExecutiveBoard will be held beginning at 4:15 in Suite E.

50

45

TIIURSDAY MORNING SEPTEMBER 17, 1970

DAILY TOPIC: THE PROCESS AND TOOLS OF COORDINATED STATE ANDVOCATIONAL EDUCATION PLANNING

DAILY CHAIRMAN Suite B

John W. Struck, State DirectorPennsylvania

8:30a.m. OPENING REMARKSSYMPOSIUM: THE PROCESS OF COORDINATED STATE PLANNING IN MINNESOTA

Chairman Robert P. Van Tries, Assistant Commissioner of Vocational-Technical EducationMinnesota

Edward P. Hunter, Deputy Director, Minnesota State Planning AgencyMinnesota

Gregory J. Waddick, Assistant Commissioner for Planning and DevelopmentMinnesotaJoseph F. Ala linski, Director of Program Planning and DevelopmentMinnesota

10:00 BreakCoffee served in Lobby

10:30 MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES: THE CONCEPT, THE PROCESS AND IMPLICATIONSFOR STATE DIVISIONS OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Leon P. Minear, Director, Division of Vocational-Technical EducationU.S. Office of EducationMichael Russo, Chief, Planning and Evaluation BranchU.S. Office of Education

INTRODUCTION TO INTEREST GROUP WORK SESSIONS: RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-MENT PRODUCTS IMPAICTING ON PROBLEMS IN PROGRAM PLANNING ANDMANAGEMENT

Darrell L. Ward, State LeaCership SpecialistThe Center

12:00 noon LunchToastmaster Suite A

R. D. Anderson, Executive Secretary. NASDVESouth Carolina

THE 1971 AVA LEGISL %T1VE PROGRAM

Lowell A. Burkett, Executive Director, AVAWashington, D.C.

51

46

THURSDAY AFTERNOON SEPTEMBER 17, 1970

2:00 p.m. INTEREST GROUP WORK SESSIONS

(Two sessions will be held, the first beginning at 2:00 p.m. and the second at 2:45 p.m. The secondwill be a repeat of the first session. Participants may choosetwo of the four interest groups to attend.)

Group I: A State System For Evaluation of Vocational Education

Harold Starr, SpecialistThe CenterRichard Dieffenderfer, Project AssociateThe Center

Group II: Determining Occupational Emphasis for High School Program Design

Edward Ferguson, SpecialistThe CenterJoseph Arnold, SpecialistThe Center

Group Information Systems For Decision-Making

Joel Magisos, CoordinatorThe CenterDavid McCracken, SpecialistThe Center

Group IV: Programmatic Research In Vocational Education Managementand Personnel Development

Aaron J. Miller, CoordinatorThe CenterEdward J. Morrison, CoordinatorThe Center

3:30 Adjournment

Suite B

Suite F, South

Suite F, North

Suite E

REMINDER OF THE DAY: The evening program will begin at 5:30 p.m, in Suite A. with a hospitality hour hostedby the Broadhead-Garret Company. Those who would like to Ic ur The Cente for Vocational and TechnicalEducation should meet in the Christopher Inn lobby at 3:30 p.m.

r

47

THURSDAY EVENING SEPTEMBER 17, 1970

3:30 p.m. Tour Of The Center Lobby

(Optional; Those desiring to visit and tour The Center should meet in the Lobby at 3:30 p.m. Trans-portation will be provided, returning to the Christopher Inn at approximately 5:30 p.m.)

5:30 Hospitality Hour Suite A

Hosted by Broadhead-Garret Company

7:00 DinnerToastmaster Suite

John Bunten, State DirectorNevada

A MANDATE TO IMPROVE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Arthur Lee Hardwick, Associate Commissioner for Adult, Vocational and Technical EducationU.S. Office of Education

9:00 Adjournment

FRIDAY MORNING SEPTEMBER 18, 1970

DAILY TOPIC: COORDINATED STATE PLANNING IN ACTION

DAILY CHAIRMAN Suite B

Al. G. Linson, Executive Director, Co:orado Board for Vocational EducationColorado

8:30 a.m. OPENING REMARKS

IMPLEMENTING STATE PLANNING: OREGON'S APPROACH TO REDIRECTION OFSECONDARY VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Leonard E. Kunzman, State Director Vocational EducationOregon

Henry A. Ten Pas, Director, Division of Vocational, Adult and Community College EducationOregon

ReactorsCarl Lamar, State Director Vocational EducationKentt' cky

John E Snyder, Assistant Commissioner for Vocational EducationKanst s

(1,)

48

THE TARGETED RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S, OFFICE. OF EDUCATION

Howard Hjeltn, Acting Associate Commissioner, National Center for Educational Research andDevelopmentU.S. Office of Education

10:15 BreakCoffee served ir. Lobby

10:45 INTER AGENCY COOPERATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE PLANNING

Herbert Righthand, Chief, Bureau of Vocational ServicesConnecticut

ReactorsNeal D. Andrew. Chief, Vocational-Technical EducationNew HampshireGlen H. Strain. Assistant Commissioner, Vocational EducationNebraska

11:30 Lunch

FRIDAY AFTERNOON SEPTEMBER 18, 1970

I:15p.m. IMPLEMENTING STATE PLANNING IN VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCATION Svite B

Afartin Essex. Superintendent of Public InstructionOhio

PANEL: THE ROLE OF THE STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL IN VOCATIONAL EDUCA-TION PLANNING

ChairmanCalvin Dellefield, Executive Director, National Advisory Council on Vocational Edu-cationWashington, D.C.Joseph R. Clary, Executive Secretary, State Advisory Council for Vocational-Tech-nical EducationNorth CarolinaDonald Truitt, Chairman, State Advisory Council for Vocational-Technical EducationIllinois

Robert M. Worthington. Assistant Commissioner of Vocational EducationNew Jersey

IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION: NEXT STEPS IN COORDINATION OF STATE PLANNING

Charles J. Law. Jr., Director, Division of Occupational EducationNorth CarolinaFrancis T. Tuttle, State DirectorOklahoma

Seminar EvaluationWritten

3:45 Adjournment

REMINDER OF THE DAY: Please turn in Seminar Planning/Evaluation Form before leaving. We hope the seminarwas beneficial to you.

Appendix B

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

J. Marion Adams, Associate Commissioner forVocational Technical and Adult Education

State Department of EducationState Education BuildingLittle Rock, Arkansas 72201

Arch B. Alexander, Assistant State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education1515 W. 6th StreetStillwater, Oklahoma 74074

R. D. Anderson, Executive SecretaryNational Association of State Directors of Vocational

Education1599 Broadriver RoadColumbia, South Carolina 29201

Neal D. Andrew, ChiefVocational Technical EducationState Department of EducationSt. House Annex, Stickney AvenueConcord, New Hampshire 02201

Joseph P. Arnold, SpecialistTechnical EducationThe CenterThe Ohio State University

J. D. Athen, Assistant DirectorCareer EducationIowa Department of Public InstructionGrimes State Office BuildingE. 14th and GrandDes Moines, Iowa 50319

Kirby K. Awagain, SupervisorVocational EducationLouisiana State Department of EducationBaton Rouge, Louisiana 70804

William H. Bergman, Assistant DirectorBusiness Research BureauThe University of Youth DakotaSchool of BusinessVermillion, South Dakota 57069

A. V. Bevacqua, DirectorOccupational r-ducationDepartment of Community CollegesEducation BuildingRaleigh, North Carolina 27602

Jack L. Billings, Public Information OfficerU.S. Office of EducationDepartment of Health, Education and WelfareWashington, D.C. 20202

John W. Bunten, State Director Vocational EducationState Department of EducationCarson City, Nevada 89701

andVice President, National Association of State Directors

of Vocational Education

Carrot E. Burchinal, State Director Vocational EducationState Department of EducationState Office BuildingBismarck, North Dakota 58501

Lowell A. Burkett, Executive DirectorAmerican Vocational Association1510 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005

56

4701 51

Charles H. Buzzell, DirectorBureau of Professional ServicesVocational EducationState Department of Education225 West State StreetTrenton, New Jersey 08625

Howard B. Casmey, Commissioner of EducationState of Minnesota401 Centennial Office BuildingSt. Paul, Minnesota 5510 1

Joseph R. Clary, Executive DirectorNorth Carolina State Advisory Council on Vocational

EducationBox 5312Raleigh, North Carolina 27607

J. R. Cullison, Associate Superintendent of PublicInstruction

Department of Vocational Education1333 W. Camelback RoadPhoenix, Arizona 85013

Sherwood Dees, DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education405 Centennial BuildingSpringfield, Illinois 62706

Calvin Dellefield, Executive DirectorNational Advisory Council on Vocational EducationRegional Office Building #3, Room 50227th and D Street, S.W.Washington, D. C. 20202

Richard A. Dieffenderfer, Research AssociateThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Eugene L. Dorr, Assistant State DirectorDepartment of Vocational Education1333 West Camelback RoadPhoenix, Arizona 85013

Frank Drake, Coordinator Vocational EducationState Department of EducationJefferson BuildingJefferson City, Missouri 65101

Charles M. Dunn, Assistant Commissioner for Vocational-Technical Education

P.00m 205 Cordell Hull BuildingNashville, Tennessee 37219

Fred W. Eberle, State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education1717 Quarrier StreetCharleston, West Virginia 25305

Homer Edwards, Senior Program OfficerVocational-Technical EducationRegion VU. S. Office of Education226 W. Jackson BoulevardChicago, Illinois 60606

Arthur W. Ericson, Assistant DirectorDivision of Vocational-Technical EducationState Department of EducationState Office BuildingMontpelier, Vermont 05602

52

Martin Essex, Superintendent of Public InstructionOhio Department of EducationState Office BuildingColumbus, Ohio 43215

T. L. Faulkner, State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of EducationMontgomery, Alabama 36104Edward T. Ferguson, SpecialistDistributive EducationThe CenterThe Ohio State University

John W. Fitzgerald, Operations OfficerDivision of Occupational EducationDepartment of Education182 Tremont StreetBoston, Massachusetts 021 l I

Don K. Gentry, Acting Director Vocational Education401 State HouseIndianapolis, Indiana 46204

Joseph D. Godsey, DirectorPost-Secondary Occupational-Technical EducationTexas Education AgencyCapitol StationAustin, Texas 78711

Bobbie R. Grogan, Deputy Director of Vocational EducationState Department of EducationFrankfort, Kentucky 40601

Arthur Lee Hardwick, Associate Commissioner for Adult,Vocational and Technical Education

U. S. Office of EducationWashington, D. C. 20202

Howard Hjelm, Acting Associate CommissionerNational Center for Educational Research and Development400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Room 3165-AWashington, D.C. 20202

Roy D. Irons, State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education518 Front StreetBoise, Idaho 83704

Cecil H. Johnson, Jr., State DirectorState Department of Vocational Education908 Rutledge BuildingColumbia, South Carolina 29201

Edward N. Kazarian, Research AssociateThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Grady Knight, Administrator Program PlanningVocational EducationDepartment of EducationLittle Rock, Arkansas 72201

Daniel E. Koble, Jr. State Director Vocational Eclocatic;iState Deportment of Public InstructionDover, Delaware 19901

John H. Koenig, Associate State DirectorDivision of Vocational EducationDepartment of Education225 West State StreetTrenton, New Jersey 08625

Jim G. Koeninger, Research AssociateThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Leonard E. Kuniman, State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education942 Lancaster DriveSalem, Oregon 97310

Maria S. Lacot, State DirectorVocational-Technical EducationDepartment of EducationHato Rey, Puerto Rico

Carl F. Lamar, Assistant Superintendent forVocational Education

State Department of EducationState Office BuildingFrankfort, Kentucky 40601

Charles J. Law, Jr., State DirectorDivision of Occupational EducationState Department of EducationRaleigh, North Carolina 27602

Frank B. Lawrence, Acting Assistant SuperintendentVocational Education

D. C. Public Schools415-12th Street, N.W.Washington, D. C. 20004

Eugene Lehrrnann, Assistant DirectorBoard of Vocational-Technical and Adult Education137 E. Wilson StreetMadison, Wisconsin 53702

1. L. Levis, Assistant DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education908 Rutledge Office BuildingColumbia, South Carolina 29201

Wilfred Lewis, Jr., Chief EconomistNational Planning Association1606 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20009

M. G. Linson, DirectorColorado Board for Vocational Education207 Stale Services BuildingDenver, Colorado 80203

Cleve E. Loman, SupervisorManpower TrainingDivision of Vocational EducationState Department of Education523 E. Main StreetRichmond, Virginia 23219

R. M. Madsen, Assistant DirectorVocational EducationState Department of EducationCentennial Office BuildingSt. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Joel H. Magisos, CoordinatorInformation ServicesThe CenterThe Ohio State University

JosephF. Malinski, DirectorProgram Planning and DevelopmentDivision of Vocational-Technical EducationState Department of EducationCentennial Office BuildingSt. Paul, Minnesota 55101

J. David McCracken, Information SpecialistThe CenterThe Ohio State University

J. Randy McCutcheon, Research AssociateThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Robert E. McNair, Governor, South CarolinaState HouseColumbia, South Carolina 29202

Aaron J. Miller, CoordinatorDevelopment and TrainingThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Leon P. Minear, DirectorDivision Vocational-Technical EducationU.S. Office of EducationWashington, D. C. 20202

Tom J. Moore, SupervisorArea Vocational-Technical School

andPost-Secondary Vocational Education120 East 10th StreetTopeka, Kansas 66612

Edward J. Morrison, Research CoordinatorThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Joseph F. Murphy, Associate CommissionerVocational EducationState Department of EducationState Office BuildingHartford, Connecticut 06115

andPresident, National Association of State Directors of

Vocational Education

Charles A. Newman, Director of Business andOffice Education

State Department of EducationJefferson Bui VingJefferson City, Missouri 65101

E. B. Oleson, Stale DirectorVocational EducationState Department of EducationState CapitolPierre, South Dakota 57501

Elwood A. Padham, State DirectorVocational EducationState Departmcnt of EducationEducation BuildingAugusta, Maine 04301

Robert E. Pruitt, Deputy DirectorDivision of Comprehensive and Vocational

Education ResearchU. S. Office of Education --Room 3033Washington, D C. 202J2

D. R. Purkey, Assistant DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education65 S. Front StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215

George Reeser, Research AssociateThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Bruce Reinhart, Assistant Executive DirectorThe National Advisory Council on Vocational EducationRegional Office Building #3, Room 50227th and D Street, S.W.Washington, D. C. 20202

Louis D. Rid le, State DirectorVocational and Adult EducationState Department of EducationAlaska Office BuildingPouch JJuneau, Alaska 99801

Herbert Righthand, ChiefBureau of Vocational ServicesDivision of Vocational EducationState Department of EducationState Office BuildingHartford, Connecticut 06115

B. W. Robinson, Assistant Commissioner of EducationState Department of EducationP.O. Box 480Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Earl B. Russell, Research AssociateThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Thomas H. Sandham, Jr., State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of EducationRoger Williams BuildingHayes StreetProvidence, Rhode Island 02908

George L. Sandsig, State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of EducationState Office Building3322 E. Grace StreetRichmond, Virginia 23216

andSecretary-Treasurer, National Association of State

Directors of Vocational Education

Paul Schalles, Assistant State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of EducationBox 911Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17126

William 0. Schucrmann, Director of Career EducationState Department of EducationGrimes State Office BuildingDes Moines, loss a 50319

Robert S. Seckendorf, AssistantCommissioner for Occupational Education

State Department of EducationAlbany, New York 12224

53

54

Sam Shigetomi, State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education2327 Dole StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96822

Warren G. Smeltzer, Assistant DirectorDivision of Vocational EducationState Department of Education600 Wyndhurst AvenueBaltimore, Maryland 21210

Wesley P. Smith, State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education721 Capitol MallSacramento, California 95814

John E. Snyder, Assistant Commissioner forVocational Education

State Department of EducationState Office Building, Ilth Floor120 E. 10thTopeka, Kansas 66612

Harold Starr. SpecialistSpecial NeedsThe CenterThe Ohio State University

William W. Steven m, Assistant State DirectorVocational EducationResearch, Planning and EvaluationState Department of Education1515 W. 6th AvenueStillwater, Oklahoma 74074

Glen H. Strain. Assistant CommissionerVocational Education

State Department of Education10th Floor, State CapitolLincoln, Nebraska 68509

John W. Struck. State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of EducationBox 911Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17126

Florence Sutler, DirectorOccupational Education Planning

Vocational EducationState Department of EducationAlbany, New York 12224

Leroy H. Swenson, DirectorAVTE, U.S. Office of Education, Region VIII19th and Stout StreetDenser, Colorado 80203

Robert E. Taylor, DirectorThe CenterThe Ohio State University

59

Henry A. Ten Pas, DirectorDivision of Vocational. Adult and Community

College EducationOregon State UniversityCorvallis, Oregon 97331

Les Thompson, Deputy Assistant Commissionerof Vocational Education

State Department of EducationSate Capitol, IGth FloorLincoln, Nebraska 68509

Donald Truitt, Vice PresidentArthur Rubloff Company69 W. Washington StreetChicago, Illinois 60602

andChairman Illinois State Advisory Council for Vocational

and Technical Education

Francis T. Tuttle, State DirectorVocational EducationState Department of Education1515 West 6th AsenueStillwater, Oklahoma 74074

Walter E. Ulrich, Jr., AdministratorVocational-Technical Education

State Department of Education136 East South TempleUniversity Club BuildingSalt Lake City, Utah 84111

Robert P. Van Tries, Assistant CommissionerVocational EducationState Department of EducationCentennial Office Building658 Cedar StreetSt. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Robert J. Volland, DirectorVocational EducationDistrict of Columbia Public Schools415 Twelfth Street. N.W.Washington, D.C. 20004

Gregory J. Waddick, Assistant Commissioner forPlanning and Development

State Department of Education401 Centennial Office BuildingSt. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Darrell L. Ward, SpecialistState LeadershipThe CenterThe Ohio State University

Darrel Way, Administrator Vocational FinanceState Education BuildingLittle Rock, Arkansas 72201

Frank Winer, Director Planning and ResearchVocational Educationstate Department of EducationP.O. Bost 248Olympia, Washington 98501