Vocational and Technical Training 
Traditionally, the vocational training system in 
this country has been decentralized and the Federal 
role limited. Some vocational training is done through 
high schools, private vocational schools, community 
colleges, and a few programs run by colleges and 
universities. Much is done outside the regular public 
and private schools, through on-the-job training, 
apprenticeship programs, and industry and !abor 
schools. The armed services also have large train- 
ing programs; many skilled laborers now in the civil- 
ian workforce were trained in the military. Alto- 
gether, the programs available both in and out of 
the military are incredibly diverse, ranging from in- 
formal advice from extension agencies and special 
training and retraining courses lasting a few days 
to 2-year college certificate programs for certain 
highly trained technicians. These points apply to ma- 
rine and maritime as well as land-oriented occupa- 
tions. 
The Federal role in vocational education goes 
back to the early part of this century, but generally 
has been limited to providing financial and other 
assistance to the States and industry, rather than 
operating Federal schools. Exceptions have been the 
military training programs and some programs in the 
civilian agencies. Along with this financial assistance, 
the Federal agencies also encourage planning. Both 
the money and the planning are seen as necessary to 
ensure the Nation has the proper balance between 
employment supply and demand. 
Present Federal Policy 
Two levels of Federal policy affect marine and 
maritime vocational education. And the Federal role 
in both has been shaped by the twin objectives of 
helping to assure sufficient supplies of manpower 
while also limiting the Federal role in the operation 
or administration of schools. 
On one level, some programs deal specifically with 
marine and maritime training. The Sea Grant pro- 
gram is one; among other functions, it trains techni- 
cians and provides advice to people in marine busi- 
nesses. The previously mentioned MarAd training 
schools are another example. These federal programs 
help support and supplement the Nation’s large 
State and private training efforts, such as the net- 
work of union schools which train merchant seamen 
and various other schools specializing in divers, tech- 
nicians, and other marine workers. 
Second, there are Federal programs which deal 
with vocational education in general. While only a 
small number of the people they train ever work in 
the marine or maritime fields, they nonetheless must 
be considered because the vocational schools they 
support supply many of the skilled workers of the 
ocean industries. In addition to the two general ob- 
jectives of assuring manpower but limiting the Fed- 
eral role, some of these programs also have a third 
objective: reducing unemployment and underem- 
ployment. 
Basic Federal vocational policy has resulted from 
a long line of vocational education acts passed by 
Congress, starting with the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. 
The main law today is the Vocational Education Act 
of 1963, recently revised by the Education Amend- 
ments of 1976. The Act is administered by the Office 
of Education in the Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare. Its goal is to help provide “ready access 
to vocational training and retraining which is of high 
quality.” It provides Federal grants to the States to 
help them develop new programs and maintain ex- 
isting ones. 
The third objective—reducing unemployment and 
underemployment—is reflected primarily in two acts. 
One is the Comprehensive Employment and Training 
Act of 1973 (CETA), as amended. Its purpose is to 
create jobs through both public employment jobs and 
training programs. As elsewhere, the Federal program 
is intended to assist State and local efforts. In this 
case, CETA provides job and training money to over 
400 “prime sponsors”—state and local agencies—to 
design and manage operations. Several other activi- 
ties under CETA are run directly by the Labor De- 
partment, which administers the Act. The Job Corps 
is one of them. 
While CETA programs are premised on the notion 
that the Federal Government should be the employer 
and trainer of last resort, the programs of the De- 
partment of Commerce’s Economic Development 
Administration (EDA) award funds to private com- 
panies, often construction companies, in order to 
increase employment in high unemployment areas. 
In the process, EDA stimulates some on-the-job 
training and also creates additional demand for peo- 
ple with formal vocational training. 
The general result of this increasing number of 
Federal programs is two-fold: to fragment Federal 
manpower efforts further and to reinforce the Na- 
tion’s present decentralized system of vocational 
education. 
VIII-23 
