STATEMENT OF MISS ETHEL SMITH, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL WOMEN'S TRADE UNION LEAGUE

Miss SMITH. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it has been my privilege twice before to state to this committee the position of the National Women's Trade Union League on measures before you. To-day I wish merely to supplement with regard to the necessity, as we see it, for the existence of the Federal Board for Vocational Education and the very great disadvantage in any measure that might reduce its scope or possibilities of efficiency.

The CHAIRMAN. Miss Smith, what I would like to hear is your idea as to whether or not this vocational board should be placed in the department of education in case we had a department of education? Miss SMITH. I should think so; yes, Mr. Chairman. Our own organization is very much in favor of the establishment of a department of education.

The CHAIRMAN. This would be a bureau in that department.

Miss SMITH. Yes; and the point I would like to make would be the distinction between having it a bureau in a department and having it, what I suppose it would be if there were only a bureau of education, a division; because that would to my mind be subordinating it and reducing its opportunities. I should think it would be a bureau in the department of education.

The CHAIRMAN. If it were a bureau, it would be under one chief. As I understand it, the vocational board is a representative organization, representing commerce, and labor, and agriculture, etc. That is the crucial question we are now considering.

Miss SMITH. I was not making that distinction in my mind when I said "bureau." I do not think I am prepared to discuss the point as to whether we should have one chief or whether it should be carried on as a board, because I was not authorized, as a matter of fact, to go into those phases of it.

But as to its being retained in a department rather than subordinating it in a bureau

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). What have you got to say to us as to the question of leaving it alone, just as it is, as an independent organization of the Government, no matter what the committee may do in regard to a department of education, or a department of education and welfare, or strengthening the present Bureau of Education? Do you think, no matter what the committee does on any of those three bills, or all of them, or a combination, that the present Board for Vocational Education should remain intact as an independent organization?

Miss SMITH. Pending the creation of a department, it would seem to me it should be intact.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us assume we have a department. Of course, you know every executive department is made up in the same general way. There is no such thing as an executive department that has a representative board of this kind in charge of one of its bureaus. Each one of the 10 executive departments is made up exactly in the same way. There is a cabinet officer, an assistant secretary-perhaps more than one-and then the chiefs of the bureaus.

This vocational board is known as an independent office and comes under the independent offices appropriation bill. It is not connected with the appropriation bill of any of the existing executive departments.

The question is whether or not, in the opinion of your organization or of yourself personally, the Board for Vocational Education should continue as a separate and distinct representative organization, like the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Veterans' Bureau, etc., or whether it should be put under one of the executive depart

ments.

Miss SMITH. I am quite sure it would be the opinion of my organization, although we have not had a convention recently enough for me to give this authoritatively from them, that it should be a representative body. Whether that would be an impossible thing under a department, I am not prepared to say.

Of course, I should suppose it would be possible to work out some scheme whereby you could still have representation and different points of view and different interests in this kind of an educational bureau.

Certainly I think that from the standpoint of labor it would be exceedingly important to have the labor viewpoint represented in any planning of the work that was done.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you will see, Miss Smith, what confusion would result. Now you have the Secretary of Labor as a member of the board representing labor, the Secretary of Commerce representing commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture representing agriculture-all members of this board. You do not think if we had a department of education, with a secretary in the Cabinet, that you could mix up his bureau by having other Cabinet officers represented or having charge of a part of his department, do you?

Miss SMITH. I am afraid I was thinking not of the Cabinet membership representation, but of the other representative membership of the board. That would, of course, as you say, make a different proposition altogether, but would it not be possible, Mr. Chairman, to have in a department a bureau which would be representative? The CHAIRMAN. The question is whether you would get efficiency there.

Mr. REED. I think you are right; I think they could.

Miss SMITH. I should certainly feel that the representative character ought to be maintained wherever the board was. If that is not possible in a department, I should think it would be the opinion of our people, at least, that it be independent. The different points of view are very essential in any educational effort.

I am sorry I have no recent mandate, so to speak, from my organization on this particular point. We are quite definitely in favor of a department of education. We are quite definitely in favor of the Federal Board for Vocational Education and very strongly supported both the Acts which it has administered, and we do not want to see their efficiency diminished or their opportunities diminished. But the details of working out the organization plan, I am not prepared to discuss right now

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WRIGHT. The next witness will be Mr. G. S. Sanders, State supervisor of trade and industry, Baltimore.

STATEMENT OF MR. G. S. SANDERS, STATE SUPERVISOR OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. SANDERS. Gentlemen: I have been rather closely connected, or rather associated, with the members of the Federal board organization, and I can conclusively and very truthfully say that without their help we would never have been able to put over the program which we have begun and are at present continuing in the State of Maryland.

I have also been out in Utah occupying a similar position, and without the help of this organization we never could have begun the program and put it over like it has been started out there.

I have been rather closely connected also with industrial concerns. We are at present working with people in industry, minor executives in the State of Maryland, with a number of different concerns like the Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., United States Industrial Chemical Co., and a number of others.

The initial push or the beginning of this work has come from the Federal board and I do not think it would have been thought of by the people who are now conducting the general school system.

Mr. TUCKER. When was the Federal board established? I have forgotten.

Mr. SANDERS. In 1917 the law went into effect.

Mr. TUCKER. You had it from Mr. Linn here that his railroad has been working on this thing for 16 or 18 years.

Mr. SANDERS. You will find some organizations that have been doing that and one of our big jobs is to interest the people who have not been doing work of that sort and showing them the benefit of the work of that character, by putting on demonstration programs in these companies, to show them the material benefits which can result from programs of that sort and then help them set up organizations for the continuing of that work.

I am finishing a demonstrating program of that sort in one of the largest meat-packing companies in Baltimore.

Last night I was up until a quarter of 12 with the president of that concern, talking over the work we have been doing. He told me as long as I was in that State he wanted me to meet with them ever so often and help them with their industrial program.

If this work is abolished, or rather if it is put under the organization which you are contemplating, I do not think it will go forward as successfully and continue to improve. It has only been started a short time and there is so much more to do, and I think it should be given the opportunity to continue intil the end of the period for which the funds are appropriated, before even thinking of changing its present organization.

Mr. HOLADAY. Will you tell us some specific case, some one company-tell us exactly what you have done and what the Federal department has done?

Mr. TUCKER. The one you are with now.

Mr. HOLADAY. Take what you consider your best example and tell us exactly what you have done.

Mr. SANDERS. The Federal department has conducted conferences for the training of conference leaders who can then go back into industries and conduct work of an educational character in the

industries. I attended one of those meetings in Minneapolis and got part of may training there which has enabled me to continue on with that work with these organizations in the States.

The Federal Board has also helped us and assisted us along this line by holding meetings in our State when we arranged meetings for various industries concerning this training program. As yet there are not enough men in the States who know about this, and Mr. Cushman is probably the best man in the country in this line of work. He has helped us in our work and has enabled us to start 25 or 30 men into the work. Of course that is just one phase—and a national phase. In many other ways they have helped us.

Mr. HOLADAY. Are you employed by the State of Maryland? Mr. SANDERS. I am employed by the State of Maryland; yes, sir. Mr. HOLADAY. I do not quite comprehend what you have been doing. You are training other men to go into the factories are you? Mr. SANDERS. That is part of our responsibility, or one of our services to train men from industrial concerns to conduct their own programs of education and training. There are a lot of industrial concerns who can not conduct their own programs on account of their size, and yet they have thousands and thousands of young folks in those concerns and we can help them.

Mr. HOLADAY. What is your official position ?

Mr. SANDERS. State supervisor of industrial education.
Mr. HOLADAY. Of the State of Maryland?

Mr. SANDERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLADAY. How many assistants have you ?

Mr. SANDERS. I have not any. We have room for a half dozen men but we have not the funds to get them.

Mr. HOLADAY. Can you get down a little closer home and take one industrial institution and explain just what you have done?

Mr. SANDERS. At the United States Industrial Chemical Co. the program resulting from the conference which Mr. Cushman held with representatives of some 15 industrial concerns in South Baltimore. The men were trained to such extent that when they went back into the plant they were qualified for training new minor executives, and also for whatever practical work which would be put forward by the company. That man has needed help. He has called upon us to help him out. There is no other agency in the State that can help him in this particular way.

Mr. HOLADAY. Who is Mr. Cushman ?

Mr. SANDERS. He is chief of the trade and industrial education service of the Federal Board for Vocational Education.

The

Mr. HASTINGS. How much does Maryland contribute to this fund? Mr. SANDERS. Maryland contributes a considerable amount. Federal funds are not enough to pay a very large proportion of the expense. It is the service which helps us out considerably, and it is the advice we can get for instance, in a personal way. Of course, if we had more funds it would help us very materially.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know what amount is contributed by the Federal Government to Maryland?

Mr. SANDERS. No, sir.

Mr. WRIGHT. The funds allotted to the State of Maryland for vocational education in 1925 are $82,338.79.

The next speaker will be Mr. Frank Cushman, chief industrial trade service, Federal Board for Vocational Education.

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK CUSHMAN, CHIEF TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION SERVICE, FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you explain to the committee just exactly how the Federal board does the work for which Congress appropriates $5,000,000 a year, what you have done and what you accomplish? Mr. CUSHMAN. Mr. Chairman, our duties, as they have developed since the beginning of our organization, may be classified into two general kinds of duties. In the first place, the Federal board has a responsibility for setting up and maintaining standards of organization and work and for checking up on the use that is made by the States of the Federal allotments for vocational education. That is, we have administrative duties, one of which is to have the accounts audited each year and a definite check-up made to insure that every dollar of Federal money was actually used for the purpose for which it was appropriated by Congress.

Now, as the work has developed, we have exercised more than these mere administrative duties. We are trying to assist the States in doing a bigger and more important job in the field of vocational education than they might perhaps otherwise do.

To be specific, members of the staff of the Federal board go out into a State, for example, the State of Maryland (it might equally be California, as it has been), and carry on certain experimental or demonstration work by going out into an industry, making a study of the possibilities for industrial training and assisting the industry in the organization of its program. Now, every State in the Union has certain problems of training its skilled workers. It does not make any difference whether they recognize it or not, but the fact remains that somehow or other, people go into industry and learn to do the jobs that have to be done. That type of education, whatever we may call it, is always going on, and the cost of it which is indirectly borne by industry and ultimately by the consuming pubic runs anywhere from $50 to $1,000, or more per man. Take a plant like the United States Industrial Chemical Co. that Mr. Sanders mentioned, the cost in that concern runs somewhere about $50 a man. That means that the investment made to train this man to do the work that goes with the job for which he is hired is approximately $50. In a factory where they make brass band instruments in Indiana, with which we have had some contact, they figure it costs $1,000 to train a man for that sort of work. One phase of our service consists in going out and, with the cooperation of the State, studying the problems of employment, the training for the job to be done, and the responsibilities which the foremen and others have with reference to this training.

A very considerable demand has developed within the last few years for training foremen for their work, in the plant and on the job, and the Federal board has developed methods for doing this work which have been quite successful and have been made available to all of the States and to many important industrial organizations in all sections of the country.

We recognize that large companies, like the Westinghouse, the Santa Fe Railroad, and the Western Electric Co. are big enough to support their own training programs and they are doing it because