Vocational Training Agreement

A beneficiary shall not establish or maintain a system of admission to a centre or programme of secondary vocational education which restricts admission to a certain number of pupils from each sending school included in the service area of the centre where such a system disproportionately excludes pupils from the centre on the basis of race, gender, national origin or disability. (Example: Suppose 25 percent of high school students in a school district are black and most of those black students are enrolled in a high school; white students, 75 percent of the district`s total enrollment, are typically enrolled in the remaining five high schools. This paragraph prohibits a system of admission to the secondary vocational training centre that limits eligibility to a fixed and equal number of students from each of the six secondary schools in the district.) 3. The board of directors of a technical or vocational school, which is used exclusively or primarily for the provision of vocational training to persons who have completed or left secondary school (including persons seeking an associate`s certificate or diploma as part of a vocational training program offered by the school) and who are available to study for entry into the labour market. Answer: VET administrators misbehave in the nature of the requirements of Section VII. According to the Department`s civil rights regulations, recipients are prohibited from engaging in services, activities or programs in a discriminatory manner. Vocational studies, alternance training and work placement are beneficiary programmes or activities and should therefore not be affected by unlawful discrimination. For example, there is evidence that school officials respond to employers` requests for people of a particular race or gender, or for people without disabilities. This is unlawful discrimination on the part of both the beneficiary and the employer.

Moreover, Congress is not foolish; it does not adopt unnecessary legislation. It would allocate no more than half a billion dollars a year under the Vocational Training Act to both non-discriminatory vocational training programmes and discriminatory placement programmes. 8. A State-approved proprietary school that provides vocational training. Beneficiaries shall not judge candidates for admission to vocational training programmes on the basis of criteria which lead to the disproportionate exclusion of persons of a particular race, colour, national origin, sex or disability. However, where a beneficiary can demonstrate that those criteria have been validated as essential for participation in a given programme and that other equivalent criteria that do not have such a disproportionate negative effect are not available, the criteria shall be considered non-discriminatory. Examples of eligibility criteria that must meet this test include past academic performance, disciplinary violations records, advisor approval, teacher recommendations, interest inventories, high school graduation, and standardized tests such as the Adult Basic Education Test (TABE). If the recruitment and hiring of staff for State-run vocational training centres is carried out by a public body for the employment of the civil service, the State educational authority implementing the programme shall ensure that the recruitment and hiring of staff for the vocational training centre comply with the requirements of these guidelines. If a beneficiary`s service area contains a community of minorities of national origin with limited English proficiency, public notice documents must be distributed to that community in their language and indicate that beneficiaries will take steps to ensure that lack of English proficiency is not a barrier to admission to and participation in vocational training programmes. 36. Note: Consortia question whether paragraph IV-F prohibits an equal sharing of an institution`s student capacity among participating school districts if such distribution results in a disproportionate exclusion of minority students.

Commentary No. 35 addresses a problem illustrated by the exclusion of an urban school system from a predominantly suburban consortium. The problem in this commentary is illustrated by a consortium consisting of a predominantly black urban school system and four predominantly white suburban districts, which share equally a vocational training institution with a capacity of 500 students. Inequality results from this agreement when the number of students in the urban system is significantly higher than that of its suburban partners. Thus, if each participant in this consortium of five districts is allocated 100 student places in the vocational training center, each suburban district can only have 1,000 students competing for 100 places, while the urban system can have 2,000 students competing for 100 places. .