THE REAGAN EFFECT; VOCATIONAL EDUCATION: CUTS AND NEW REVISION

AS the Reagan Administration moves to revise vocational-education r egulations, officials in that field of schooling argue that Federal b udget cuts have crippled the development and expansion of programs a nd that any new legislation must provide funds in this and other e ducational fields.

The Administration, while hoping to implement further decreases in spending, maintains that the cuts have not been excessive. In addition, it says that its plan would enhance economic development and provide the states with increased flexibility to tend to the special needs of their particular populations.

The total Federal appropriation for vocational and adult education in the 1981 fiscal year was $781.6 million and, in 1982, $742.2 million. The administration had requested an appropriation of $500 million for the 1983 fiscal year.

The regulations are embodied in the Vocational Education Act, which is to expire at the end of the 1984 fiscal year. The act has been in force since 1963, and has been continually reauthorized since then. Federal support for vocational education first began in 1917, to provide for training in the fields of agriculture, industry, trade, home economics and some teacher training. But as the years went by, the Federal Government's role expanded and the emphasis shifted.

The aim was widened to provide vocational-education opportunities to all who sought them. The changes strengthened planning at the state level and set aside funds for underserved groups, including women, poor youth, the handicapped and those with limited skills in English.

The Administration hopes now to put its personal stamp on the act. A Department of Education official said that a proposal would not be ready before mid-December and that it was unclear how closely it would match a plan that the Administration had embraced earlier this year.

The Administration had backed a bill that would have consolidated all of the programs under vocational and adult education into a single block grant to the states. The bill, which mirrored the Administration's legislation, was viewed by its supporters as increasing flexibility at the state level, reducing costs at all levels of government and redirecting Federal support for vocational education into the area of economic development.

The block grants would be administered by the Federal Department of Education. The education departments of the various states would be responsible for plans to use the money according to the guidelines.

Under President Reagan's New Federalism, the financing of vocational-education programs would be turned over to the states by the end of the 1980's.

James C. Pirius, acting director of legislative policy at the Department of Education, said that under the bill 90 percent of all Federal funds for vocational education would go directly to the states as a block grant. The remaining 10 percent would be reserved for national programs.

The states would be required to use 30 percent of their grants for programs related to training that would lead to jobs that would enhance economic development in a state or locality. Another 30 percent would be used to strengthen state and local systems of vocational education, and at least 13 percent would be used to insure that adults would be helped by the program. The states would then be left with 27 percent of the grant for use in ways they deemed best suited to their areas.

Mr. Pirius said the legislation, which did not gain enough support for approval in the last session of Congress, would be reintroduced in some yet-undetermined form. He maintained that chances for reauthorization of the Vocational Education Act in the current fiscal year were ''excellent.'' But a major concern in both the House and the Senate, where vocational education is a popular program, was the bill's removal of specific appropriations for special groups. Many members are concerned that once states received the block grants the needs of these groups might not be fully met.

''It is not the intent of this legislation to disenfranchise these groups,'' Mr. Pirius said, ''but to allow the states to zero in on where they think the money would best be used. A very important point was to redirect Federal support in economic development. We are going through difficult economic times. With 11 million people out of work there is the necessity for vivable vocational programs. We felt this legislation, by allowing states to use their money a lot more flexibly in specific ways, would lead to jobs that would be very appropriate.''

''Right now, for every dollar we put into vocational programs, the states put in $10 or $11,'' he continued, adding that the current system included ''cumbersome'' layers of rules and regulations that dictated to the states how their Federal dollars must be used. ''Therefore, we conclude that this is a good example of a program that has a strong commitment on the part of state governments. We feel that if we can go to block grants now and allow the states a lot more flexibility they will have to work harder too.''

But officials in the vocational-education field are concerned that the nation's 15 million vocational-education students are being poorly served by the current Administration. About 6 million students are in occupational programs to learn a specific skill, and the remaining 9 million are in such areas as cooperative work experience and prevocational programs.

Gene Bottoms, executive director of the American Vocational Association, said that the budget cuts had hurt the development and expansion of programs crucial to preparing people for emerging jobs.

While state and local governments provide more money than the Federal Government, he said, one of every $2 for new vocationaleducation programs developed in 1980 came from the Federal Government. And out of every $1.73 spent to improve programs that year, $1 was a Federal dollar. In addition, he said, one of every $3 spent for individuals with special needs was provided by the Federal Government.

''We have been hurt dramatically by cuts in Federal money,'' Mr. Bottoms said. ''One place is in having money we could use to develop new programs. Secondly, we have no money to expand programs. It is not unusual in electronics, data processing, welding, office work and some health fields to have long waiting lists of people who want to get into those programs, but we have no capacity.''

Mr. Bottoms said that any new legislation should provide a Federal commitment to mount new programs in high-technology fields, upgrade many existing programs and strengthen the mathematics, science and technical literacy base of secondary and postsecondary programs. The legislation, he continued, should also earmark money to link vocational education with economic revitalization and to provide extra services to train poor youngsters to move into private-sector jobs.

Mr. Pirius insisted that those ''options would be very much open to the states'' under the Administration's proposal. ''There have been reductions between 1981 and 1982 and President Reagan stated that these are painful,'' he said. ''But the cuts have not been excessive, and what we hope is that if states have a strong commitment and want to keep everything they have, they will make up the difference.''