vocational education. The American Federation of Labor opposed this amendment.13 The report quotes in full the statement made by the President of the United States when he signed, “with much reluctance," the bill appropriating the increase and comments on it as follows: The President is to be commended for his determined insistence in refusing to be forced into unsound educational expansion. His statement of the situation and the forces at work affords confirmation for the Federation's wisdom in opposing this increase in appropriation. There is no other teaching force or funds available for such expansion. In addition, the administration of vocational education is still in the hands of those responsible for the mistakes of the past-mistakes which bring into question educational leadership and integrity.14 In presenting this report to the 1937 convention the Committee on Education stated that: Your committee further would express the conviction that until such time as the administration of Vocational Education in this country can give clearer evidence of its concern for the general public welfare, that the American Federation of Labor will withhold its full and hearty support.15 In September 1936, President William Green wrote: It is such educational projects where so-called cooperative relationships have been set up between the schools and the industry that unsatisfactory results and even scandalous situations have developed where the educational development of the individual has been forgotten in an effort to help industry reduce its cost of training its work-force. Labor questions the validity of public expenditures for this type of education. It is high and opportune time to think through the fundamentals of vocational training and its relationship to the whole of education.16 In January 1937 Henry Ohl, Jr., President of the Wisconsin State Federation of Labor and labor member of the Federal Board for Vocational Education, stated: The labor movement has another objective, at least quite as important as that of giving supplementary instruction to practical experience on the job; namely, preparing youth for the inevitable hazards and pitfalls when they enter industry. The latter phase in the education of our 13 American Federation of Labor. Report of Proceedings of the Fifty-seventh Annual Convention. . . (Washington: Judd & Detweiler, 1937), p. 190. 14 Ibid., p. 192. 18 Ibid., p. 618. 16 William Green, "Vocational Education," American Federationist, XLIII (1936), p. 18. young people has not been included in the curriculum of the vocational school.. Many of the schools the country over, as I know them, are not yet sufficiently uninfluenced by those with motives other than the welfare of the craftsmen of the future. Until they have become fearless in the face of controversial questions they are not competent to undertake the job of guiding America's youth. the tragic part . . . is the expected [sic] use of the vocational school for a short course to prepare cheap labor in place of men and women left without jobs in the town the company had deserted.... The point is that when educators fail to see an economic hazard in these cases, or, seeing it, ignore its magnitude, or when they are timid in the face of pressure, they must not be permitted unaccompanied supervision over youth. 17 Less objective is the statement of John Edelman, Director of Research for the American Federation of Hosiery Workers. His organization has been harassed and embittered by abuses under the vocational education system. The Philadelphia Record of January 18, 1937, carried this item describing an accusation made by him: Sweatshop employers dominate vocational education activities of the United States Department of Education, it was charged yesterday at the closing session of the Workers' Education Institute in Philadelphia. . . . Its whole concept of vocational education is to provide cheap and contented labor for industry. Reasons for Dissatisfaction This change in attitude was not a sudden development, but had been growing for 20 years. Many leaders of organized labor feel their cause has been betrayed by vocational education. One sadly says: "We thought we could trust the educator." The very evils which labor had foreseen as appendages of the system when left to private exploitation have been foisted upon the publicly supported system. Organized labor has been repeatedly ignored, its counsels disregarded, and its interests subordinated to purely private interests. For the purpose of this investigation questionnaires were sent to State Federations of Labor, central labor unions, 17 Henry Ohl, "Future Craftsmen of America," American Federationist, XLIV (1937), pp. 37-8. building trades councils, and local unions, asking for information on their experience with vocational education. The following points of view were expressed by labor representatives: 18 Ogden, Utah: As vocational training is handled by our local School Board and the Chamber of Commerce it has been a big farce and labor conditions mean nothing to them. Atlanta, Georgia [this indicates a situation existing in other Southern states as well]: The administration of Federal funds in vocational education has been very unsatisfactory in the states during the recent years. ... We have secured a revision on the Federal requirements for use of Federal funds. These restrictions for various reasons have not been put in operation as effectively as we had hoped. Boston, Massachusetts (Building Trades Council): We have not been favorably impressed with the school training, that is academic and shop work, and favor related training, that is school work and job work. Boston, Massachusetts (Electrotypers' Union): I do not believe vocational education has worked out (or can) satisfactorily in this State, for the reason that very few graduates can be placed . . . with the result of loss of real education for the balance of the pupils for whom positions cannot be found. . . . Employers' Associations are very much interested in creating an oversupply of help and having a supply of cheap labor always on hand. I believe history of Vocational Education will show certain employers have advocated vocational training to have City, Town, State, or Government take off their hands schools they were operating . . . and that they have been active on committees advocating Vocational Training under the guise of fitting youth for industry (which in many cases had large lists of unemployed) and to pass onto the Vocational Training the costs of training apprentices . . . which costs, the industry itself should absorb. . . . In fact Vocational training does not give pupils any understanding of problems of industrial organization, social or economic problems. the very set-up prohibits this, as it is the interest of employers' associations, who are interested in getting a cheap source of help, who keep vocational education going. Vocational training is advocated by those either misinformed or to create a surplus of labor or to pass on to someone else the cost of training apprentices, which properly belongs to industry. Valuable educational time of the pupils is wasted. Altoona, Pennsylvania: We have an Educational Committee but an effort is made to keep labor from being represented. Appointments of this kind are made through the Chamber of Commerce and the School Board and the first knowledge we have of any activities is after the meetings. Recently when we had a member of labor on one of these com 18 Data in files of Advisory Committee on Education. mittees the meetings were called at a time when a working man could not attend. Pupils seem to come out with the theory that if you work cheaper you will get the job. [Vocational educational] should be taken out of the hands of industrial and commercial bodies who exploit it and school boards who are controlled by those interests. It would . . . be better to teach the theoretical part of a trade in school . . . and leave the practical experience to training learned as apprentices in actual employment under a craftsman. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Union Labor, as such, has very little, if any, voice in the program. As to the attitude [of those] handling vocational . . . education toward union labor's efforts to maintain union wages and working conditions, I will say that they have in the main shown an indifferent attitude. Our school authorities have no knowledge, as far as we know, what the actual needs of the trade are. . . . None of the pupils are given, as far as I know, any understanding of industrial organization and social and economic problems. . . . I think there is an over-emphasis on the need for vocational education, when that term is used to cover everything. Some employers have discovered that there may be a lack of a waiting list at their gates and they are shouting for trained employes. They have evinced no interest for years in apprenticeship training or cooperating with our skilled craft organizations in carrying on such apprenticeship training. . . . Apparently [these employers] are now calling upon the government or somebody, some place, to train men for their particular needs. . . . Our movement in Minnesota, by and large, is fearful of vocational or apprenticeship training about which it is not consulted, and the rules governing the same have no relationship to the problems of that particular group of workers. Cedar Rapids, Iowa: On the whole, vocational training has had little effect on labor. No credit is given students [by the union] in the printing courses, if they choose printing as a vocation; they are required to go through the regular course of apprentice training prescribed by the Typographical union. The same, according to my information, is required of students in the other courses. However, there have been a number of complaints. In one instance, a student in sign writing did a window sign for 75¢, the real value of which was between $4 and $5, according to the scale of prices in effect for such work here. Labor's attitude here has, so far, been one of tolerance. It insists on training its own apprentices, and is jealous of any attempt which promises interference with that course. Little Rock, Arkansas: The two principal trades taught are printing and automobile mechanics. . . when graduated [the students] have only a meagre knowledge of the trade and can only secure employment in a country shop or some underpaid non-union plant. the meagre attempts that are now being carried on are injurious to both the students and the craftsmen who have served an apprenticeship and are upholding the standards of workmanship. Los Angeles, California: With reference to how much voice labor has in vocational program, I am of the opinion that we have very little, if any, outside of our committees on apprenticeship training. . . With reference to the attitude of those handling vocational education toward maintaining union standards and conditions, I am of the opinion that while they voice sentiments favorable to us along that line, the actual practice of persons taking up vocational education have not been in the best interest of maintaining our wages and standards. . . . The labor movement as a whole in this district, in my opinion, looks with grave suspicion on vocational education because of its lack of regulation and lack of restrictions placed upon persons following these courses who, many times, obtain just one portion of a particular craft or trade and then become a drug on the market so that they are obliged to work for a whole lot less than the standard enjoyed by the competent, skilled union person. . . ... employers in this district as a whole do not cooperate with the schools to see that the pupils training in a trade is carried out except those bona fide apprentices, the majority of whom are controlled by their respective trade unions necessitating the required number of years apprenticeship before graduating to a journeyman, whose conditions and wages are always controlled by the union. I am of the opinion that training has not been effectively related to the actual needs of the trade but is mostly based upon arbitrary figures, arrived at through some agency or other who feels that there will be a shortage of mechanics and are crying to high Heaven about the need for building tradesmen particularly, in this area, a theory to which I am opposed and with which I do not agree as, in my opinion, there will be no shortage in this district for some time to come, due to the natural turn-over of building tradesmen who are intermittently employed from time to time and as their jobs finish they must seek employment on other jobs and take a chance that an opportunity is there for employment. ... Frankly I do not see how pupils could be trained for a particular trade during their school term actual practice, skill and knowledge must be obtained on the job. . . I am further of the opinion that there is an over-emphasis at the present time, caused of course by the recent depression, on the need for vocational education. . . . . . I feel there is a hysterical move on the part of a lot of people who found out that one certain class of employees were able to sustain themselves by hook or crook by reason of the fact that they had a vocational trade during the last depression and whose idea is now to flood |