tain informal and unofficial efforts have been made to bring about coordination between these programs and the service in vocational education,' the official steps taken to bring about necessary coordination of these services and to prevent undesirable and unnecessary duplication are inadequate.

It would seem desirable from the point of view of an efficient Federal program, as well as from the point of view of economy of operation, that every effort be made to coordinate and consolidate similar services. Probably no fixed pattern or principles can be set up at this time as a guide to working relationships in any and all areas in which they may become necessary in the future. The nature of the problem that arises, and the organization of the agency through which it develops, are important in determining the form of the cooperative working relationship with the program of vocational education. For each case as it arises there will have to be worked out an appropriate plan of cooperation.

Assignment of administrative responsibility.-The working relationships that have been discussed here at some length should not be confused with the location of responsibility for the administration of the vocational education program. The setting up of working relationships does not involve the abandonment of authority and responsibility by the agency to which the function has been committed. It is desirable, therefore, in concluding this discussion, to consider the general question of the agency to which the responsibility should be assigned for administering such phases of the program of vocational education as seem appropriate to the Federal Government.

Education is a unified function, and for that reason a major educational service should not be divided among different agencies in the Federal administrative organization. The administration of the program of vocational education should therefore be continued in the Office of Education. It is recognized that the present administration of the program has been the cause of complaint from many sources.

1 A number of the States, apparently on their own volition, have made special provisions for the maintenance of opportunities for vocational education for young men enrolled in CCC camps.

Assignment of the control over the program to some other governmental agency, however, would not be a desirable method of correction. The features of administration against which justifiable complaints have been lodged can be taken care of by executive reorganization within the Office and by improved personnel. Some of the improvement in personnel may be accomplished by the reassignment of individuals.

At the same time arrangements should be worked out to encourage and require close cooperation between the Office of Education and other governmental agencies interested in and affected by the program. In another area of public interest, the approach to the solution of a somewhat similar problem has been made by the creation of the Interdepartmental Committee to Coordinate Health and Welfare Activities. The creation of an interdepartmental committee on educational problems would undoubtedly prove advantageous in providing improved coordination among Federal agencies concerned with educational affairs.

Federal-State Relationships

Vocational education under the Federal grants was originally conceived as a cooperative undertaking of the Federal Government and the States. Evidence obtained in the testimony at conferences held in connection with this investigation indicates that the Federal-State relationships have not been entirely satisfactory. The issue, broadly stated, concerns the division of authority between the two levels of government. A sharing of control is required in any cooperative relationship of this type, and it is particularly important that the division of authority be clearly defined, in order that there may be no opportunity for either the Federal agency or the State to assume powers that do not rightfully belong to it.

Inasmuch as the American tradition has long assigned the control over the operating phases of educational programs to the States, it would seem desirable in vocational education likewise to lodge in the States the largest possible measure of control over the actual conduct of the program. The only functions of control that seem appropriate to the Federal

Government are those having to do with broad general policies and with some form of check-up to see that the grants are expended for the purposes specified. These functions may be discussed briefly under the headings of audits, reports, State plans, and labor standards.

Audits.-Elementary principles of financial management indicate that the Federal Government should have the right to make a complete financial audit of the funds granted by it to the States. This audit should cover such matters as the following:

1. Reconciliation of receipts reported by the State with payments reported by the United States Treasury; 2. Verification of expenditures to see that the amounts reported as expended are attested by the usual and proper evidences of payment;

3. Examination of expenditures to see that they were made for the purpose of the grants, e. g., that the funds were actually used for the payment of teachers' salaries when so specified;

4. Assurance that the personnel to whom the payments were made were actually engaged in service incident to the federally supported program.

Reports. A second feature of the Federal control that seems entirely defensible is the requirement of full and complete reports concerning the vocational program operated with the benefit of Federal funds. The system of reports should provide pertinent data that will permit some general judgment concerning the success of the program.

The preparation of the required reports is frequently objected to as an undue burden on State and local officials. The reports, however, provide a form of control that is of vital importance to the Federal Government, and the submission of the complete information requested should be made an absolute condition for further participation of any State in the program.

After the reports from the cooperating States are received, there should be made and published a Federal report providing a comprehensive analysis of the achievements under the federally aided program. The Federal report should

be transmitted to Congress, and should present in a clear and unprejudiced manner the facts regarding the program as it operates.

The question of the details that should be provided in these Federal reports is a matter for recommendation by professional experts in this field. With adequate leadership in the Federal Office, and through consultation with educational officials in the States, it should be possible to provide a system of reports that would furnish an intelligible appraisal of the accomplishments of the program. The Federal agency in charge of the program should have authority to withhold the grants of funds to any State that refuses or fails to make its report at the required time.

State plans.-A third element in the Federal control of vocational education might well be the requirement that each State shall submit a plan showing the manner in which it intends to operate the educational service. The plan should be formulated originally by the State and should be agreed upon jointly by the State and Federal agencies. In the process of planning, the functions of the Federal agency should be those of suggesting desirable developments and of providing information with respect to the outcomes of experiments. The plan as finally drafted should be equally acceptable to the State and Federal agencies.

The field agents of the Federal Office, who participate most actively in assisting the State agencies to develop their plans, should not have authority to require any provisions other than those necessary to conform to the specifications of the law. In other respects the functions of these agents in assisting the development of State plans should be limited to suggestions that are not of a mandatory type.

As previously pointed out,2 the important feature of the statute with respect to State plans lies not in the Federal check on the plan, but rather in the stimulation afforded the States to do sound educational planning related to real needs. The ultimate authority for the approval of the plan with respect to its conformity to the statutes, however, must inevitably rest with the Federal agency.

* See p. 42.

It would be entirely appropriate for the Federal agency to make analyses of the plans of the States from time to time, and to point out the features that are considered desirable and those that are considered undesirable.

Labor standards.-In many phases of industrial activity in recent years the desirability of Federal control over labor standards has become evident. As previously noted, the maintenance of suitable labor standards is one of the problems connected with the operation of a program of vocational education. If the control over labor standards is a suitable function for the Federal Government in general industrial activities, such control should also be assigned to the Federal Government in the program of vocational education. This is not a matter that affects the content of the instruction or the methods of teaching, and there is consequently no reason for maintaining that control over labor standards is a function that should be delegated completely to States or local communities.

Other elements of Federal control.-It is believed that elements of control other than audits, reports, the requirement of State plans, and the supervision of labor standards are unnecessary to achieve the purpose of the Federal Government. The States should be left free to work out their own programs within the general limits of the definitions of vocational education as set up in the Federal legislation. Some of the additional types of control that have been considered in this investigation and rejected are:

1. Prescription of minimum qualifications for instructors whose salaries are paid, in whole or in part, from the Federal grants;

2. Prescription of the actual courses of study to be followed in the program of vocational education;

3. Designation of texts to be used or any other control of the content of courses;

4. Supervision or inspection of the instruction as actually given in the schools;

See pp. 57-9.