National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
Israel Mendoza, Chair Telephone: 202-624-5250
WIA Conference Committee
Discussion Items
August 4, 2006
The Adult Education State Directors have reviewed the House and Senate WIA amendments and offer recommendations that will make the legislation stronger and enable providers to better address adult learning needs in the nation.
Resolution of four issues is essential to the success of adult learners.
1. State Management of Critical Services: This Title I proposal allowing Governors to take thirty percent (30%) of state administrative funds will cripple state management of adult education services, especially in small states. (Page 7)
2. State Leadership: Restoration of the State Leadership capacity in Title II will enable states to meet performance standards, assessment standards, instructional quality, and accountability goals. (Page 19)
3. Increased Earnings Performance Measure: Twenty (20) states have policy not to collect Social Security Numbers and thus cannot use UI data for this proposed measure. These 20 states must collect pay stubs at enrollment and follow up with mail or telephone surveys and compare their performance data with the 30 states that do data match yield non-comparable data. (Page 20)
4. Incentive Grants: Uncoupling incentive grants will reward state adult education services that work hard and meet their performance standards. (Pages 13 & 21)
N C S D A E National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
Israel Mendoza, Chair Telephone: 202-624-5250
WIA Conference Committee
Major Discussion Items
August 4, 2006
Table of Contents
Overview of Discussion Points…….……………………………………………………………4
Title I
Title I Issues Table……………………………………………………………………..….7
Infrastructure Impact Brief……………………………………………………….………17
Title II
Title II Issues Table………………………………………………………………………19
Adult Education State Directors’ Leadership…………………………………………………..30
Separate EXCEL Table Package: (email dc2@ncsdae.org if not attached)
Appendix A: State Administration Impact Chart
Appendix B: State Leadership Impact Chart
Overview of Discussion Points
Adult Education State Directors
Conference Concern List
August 4, 2006
The State Directors welcome the opportunity to share our key reauthorization issues.
We regret there was no time for consideration of these issues on the Senate floor, and we appreciate your consideration during Conference.
We have reviewed the final House and Senate WIA bills. The following is a brief delineation of our issues and solutions presented in priority order.
Details of each are attached.
We stand ready to provide you with any additional information you may require.
CRITICAL ISSUES:
i. Reduce the discretionary percentage to .25%
2. State Leadership Funds (Funding Impact in Appendix B)—PAGE 19
a. Issue: Quality programming, performance standards, assessment standards, accommodating learning disabilities, and data systems require extensive professional development and resource development for a teaching faculty that is 83% part-time.
b. Solution: Return the state leadership funding level to 15% as the Senate proposes. (See state by state impact in Appendix B)
3. Performance Measure—Increased Earnings—PAGE 20
a. Issue: By state policy, twenty (20) states do not collect Social Security Numbers. As a result, they cannot access the UI records to determine wage increases. To collect this information, local programs will have to require wage stubs at enrollment. In order to determine inpact, local programs will collect follow up data via mail or telephone survey. Survey responses are low. Thirty states will have matched data and 20 will have follow up survey data.
b. Solution: Delete the proposed increased income measure.
4. Incentive Grants: PAGES 13 and 21
c. Issue: In 2004-2005, of the 37 adult education programs that qualified for incentive funds, fourteen (14) were not able to benefit because one or more of their partners did not.
d. Solution: Uncouple the incentive grants in order to reward partners that work hard and meet or exceed their performance standards. We support the House provisions.
OTHER MAJOR ISSUES:
5. Eligible Provider—for profit—PAGE 22
a. Issue: Historically, vulnerable groups such as those served by Title II have been susceptible to abuse by irresponsible fro-profit entities. States have had no recourse to recoup adult student’s fees and records from those for profit providers.
b. Solution: Follow the Senate’s lead and omit for-profit providers from the list of eligible applicants.
6. Reporting on 16-18 year olds—PAGE 24
a. Issue: Push-outs from public schools are a growing burden for adult education programs. Even so, burdening adult education with a labor intensive data collection process is not the answer.
b. Solution: Support the House version, and delete the 16-18 dropout data requirement in the Senate bill.
7. State Plan/WIB areas—PAGE 25
a. Issue: The Senate bill seems to require states to align adult education service areas with the LWIB regions. Such realignment is contrary to the state flexibility tenet of WIA and would cause massive upheavals in the existing service systems.
b. Solution: Strengthen the “collaboration” of services language and assure in the report that States need not realign adult education service regions.
8. National Institute for Literacy—PAGE 27
a. Issue: The House bill severely limits NIFL’s functions and services that the field has grown to depend upon. Adult education has no other resource for its broad-based needs.
b. Solution: Adopt the Senates language returning the much needed functions to NIFL.
9. English as a Second Language in Title I--PAGE 10
a. Issue: The Senate bill proposes to fund English language instruction in Title I. Title I supports training and job services—not education services
b. Solution: All education services under WIA should meet the instructional, reporting and staff standards specified in Title II, ESL services should be planned at the national, state, and local level in partnership with the Title II adult education providers.
10. One Stop Special Rule—PAGE 15
a. Issue: In some states the chief executive officer responsible for adult education is constitutionally separate from the Governor. Therefore, WIA provisions that grant the Governor certain authority need a special rule to accommodate those cases.
b. Solution: Support the Senate’s Special Rule that accommodates those constitutional cases where in the chief executive officer will consult with the Governor on matters related to the WIA delivery system.
WIA Title I
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
Major Conference Issues and Concerns
August 4, 2006
The State Directors welcome the opportunity to share with you our key WIA Title I reauthorization issues. They are presented in priority order.
|
WIA Title I National Council of State Directors of Adult Education (NCSDAE) Major Conference Issues and Concerns August 4, 2006 |
|||
|
Current Law Section/Issue |
H.R. 27 |
S. 1021 |
NCSDAE Position |
|
Current law: Section 121
Funding of One-stop Centers
Infrastructure
Current law: Section 121
Funding of One-Stop Centers – Additional Funds
|
Title I provides that the Governor and state board are to determine the portion to be contributed by each one-stop partner for the operation of the one-stop. Only dollars available for administration are to be used for this purpose and programs may not be required to provide an amount in excess of the amount determined to be equivalent to their proportionate use of the one-stop centers and costs of administration for purposes not related to the one-stop center for each partner.
|
Title I provides two options for funding of One-Stop Infrastructure. The first option allows the local board, chief elected officials and one-stop partners in a local area to choose to fund the costs of infrastructure through methods described in a memorandum of understanding. The Governor decides the amount of funds to be used if an agreement is not reached as part of the local memorandum of understanding. Adult education contribution would be capped at 1.5 percent if the Governor makes the decision. If Governor decides, he is to consult with chief local elected officials, local boards and the state board. In addition, the Governor is directed to calculate the proportionate use of one-stop centers by each partner and costs of administration for purposes not related to the one-stop center for each partner.
|
CONCERN: This provision severely limits the ability of states to carry out their responsibilities under Title II. Many states barely have adequate funds now to effectively administer the program. In effect, 1.5% of the grant equates to 30% of the limited state administration funding. If sparse state administration funds are reduced by 30%, effective program management is jeopardized.
In addition, on average only a small percentage of adult education participants nationwide are referred for services through one stop centers.
POSITION: We propose the conferees:
Reduce the discretionary percentage in the Senate bill to .25% to better reflect the actual use/benefit of one stops by adult education programs.
|
|
Allows the Governor to use other program dollars to pay for additional costs related to the operation of one-stops. |
Contains a comparable provision to allow the use of other program dollars to pay for additional costs relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery system.
|
CONCERN: This provision would permit the indiscriminate taking of program dollars for core services.
Title II CANNOT fulfill its WIA partnership obligations if the few funds available are diverted to pay for Title I core and other services
With current Title II funding levels, only three percent (3%) of undereducated adults are being served. Any further reductions in available funds will severely limit access to services and contributions to the WIA partnership.
POSITION: We urge you to delete this provision as it pertains to adult education.
|
|
|
Current Law Section 117
Local Workforce Investment Boards
|
The House bill requires that administrators of entities providing adult education and literacy activities be on the board but that such administrator not be from one-stop partner designated under section 121(b)(1)(B), |
The Senate bill includes a provision requiring that “an administrator of entities providing adult education and literacy activities in the local area” be included on the board. |
CONCERN: Although both the House and Senate bills require the administrator of entities providing adult education and literacy activities be included on the board, this entity is not necessarily the one-stop partner or a provider funded under Title II. This is a major change from current law.
POSITION: We oppose the House restriction and support a compromise that would include language ensuring that representative of the adult education provider on the board is the administrator or administrators of adult education and literacy programs funded under Title II that is designated by the eligible agency or its designee for membership on the board. We also agree such individual should be from the local area.
|
|
New Section of Law
Integrated Workforce Training Programs for Adults with Limited English Proficiency
|
No comparable provision |
The Senate bill contains a new demonstration program. It combines workforce training programs with English language instruction for limited English proficient (LEP) adults. |
CONCERN: We are concerned that quality services are provided for LEP adults.
This provision contains limited involvement on the part of the U.S. Department of Education or Title II adult educators with experience and expertise in providing instruction to this population
Adult education providers under Title II have an extensive track record for serving limited English proficient (LEP) adults.
15% of the adult education target population is LEP; 42% of the current students are LEP.
Any provision of English language instruction should draw on the expertise of the Title II providers and should meet the instruction, reporting and staff standards of the Title II adult education and literacy requirements. POSITION: We support the Senate language with several changes to ensure the use of quality adult education programs for the provision of English language instruction.
Page186, line 4, revise the “Eligible Entities” section to read as follows (A) In General – To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an eligible entity shall work in conjunction with a local board and shall include as a principal participant any one of the following that can satisfy the expertise criteria in (4)(B) or a consortium of two or more of these entities that can satisfy these expertise criteria.
Page 186, line 12, revise (4)(A)(ii) to read, “a public or private nonprofit provider of English language instruction which has the experience or capacity to participate in the accountability and reporting systems mandated in Section 212 of Title II.”
Page 186, line 22, revise (4)(A) by striking (vii) on line 24. There is already required cooperation with local boards.
Amend this section to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education will review applications and provide technical assistance with respect to the provision of ESL services to ensure programs have the ability to provide high quality ESL/bilingual services.
Page 187, lines 8-14 – Applications amend by adding at the end:
“The Secretary of Labor shall forward copies of
applications to the Secretary of Education for review and
recommendations with
Page 194, lines 15-18 - Technical Assistance – amend by adding at the end. “The Secretary of Labor shall work with the Secretary of Education to provide technical assistance to grantees with respect to language acquisition.”
|
|
Current Law: Section 503
Incentive Grants
|
The House bill includes a separate Incentive Grants program for Title II. |
The Senate bill continues to include incentive grants for adult education as part of the overall incentive grant program
|
CONCERN: Adult Education programs are not reaping the benefits of the incentive grant program.
In 2004-2005, of the 37 adult education programs that qualified for incentive funds, fourteen (14) were not able to benefit because one or more of their partners did not. As a result, fourteen (14) state adult education programs are performing but are not being rewarded. Adult education programs cannot intercede in Title I programs to help them meet their standards. WIA provisions should reward state programs that do well. Even in states where both Title I and Title II programs meet their performance standards, adult education does not always receive its fair share of any incentive grant award. Considering adult education is currently serving only 3 million (with federal, state and local funds combined) of the 93 million individuals eligible to receive services, funds should not be taken from adult education unless there is a good opportunity for those services to be returned to the program.
POSITION: We support the House position.
|
|
Current Law: Section 121
Use of Infrastructure Funds – NEW PROPOSAL
|
No provision |
No provision |
CONCERN: If one-stop partners are required to contribute funds for the operation of one stop centers, they should be provided with information outlining how infrastructure and other partner funds were used.
PROPOSAL: Add a new provision to
amend Section 121(a) to add at the end:
|
|
SENATE SEC. 117. Establishment of One-Stop Delivery Systems – Special Rule |
No comparable provision |
The Senate bill includes the following provision setting forth a special rule for states where the policymaking authority for specific programs is independent of the Governor. In such instances, it requires the chief officer of the entity with such authority to consult with the Governor with respect to decisions regarding one-stop delivery systems.
(II) SPECIAL RULE- In a State in which the State constitution places policymaking authority that is independent of the authority of the Governor in an entity or official with respect to the funds provided for adult education and literacy activities authorized under title II and for postsecondary vocational and technical education activities authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), or vocational rehabilitation services offered under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), the determination described in subclause (I) with respect to the programs authorized under that title and those Acts shall be made by the chief officer of the entity with such authority in consultation with the Governor.
|
POSITION: We support the Senate position.
|
Infrastructure Brief
WIA Partners Support for the One-Stops
State Directors of Adult Education
Recommendations
August 4, 2006
The Adult Education State Directors propose the following recommendations regarding the support of the One-Stops. We oppose the Governor’s discretion to divert a) 1.5% of adult education administration funds for the One-Stop infrastructure, and b) other amounts to pay for Core Services and other costs.
Adult education is funded at a level to provide services to only 3% of those in need at a time when most new good jobs are requiring postsecondary level training and programs are responding to expanded, high stakes expectations and requirements (e.g., content standards, seamless connections with postsecondary, workplace literacy, distance learning, and learning disabilities). To contribute 1/3 of state administration to One-Stop infrastructure hampers our ability to expand services and improve quality.
Further, WIA Title II is an education program – it is not a labor exchange program as are many of the other “required partners.” Hence, it is not appropriate to assess adult basic education programs at the same percentage level of support for the One Stops as these other programs are assessed. Only a very small percentage of ABE funding is used for the purposes of “intake,” “initial assessment,” and “referral” – the functions for which there is a potential (albeit, rarely actual) overlap between ABE and One-Stop services.
Option #1. A separate line item in DOL’s budget should provide funding for both infrastructure and other costs.
Option #2. If taxing the partners is to be maintained, other provisions would be less disruptive to services:
(See state by state fiscal impact chart in Appendix A)
To avoid negatively impacting states’ ability to manage their programs, an option is for adult education state agencies to be allowed to a) negotiate with the Governor prior to the funding cycle to determine the One-Stop infrastructure funds needed, and b) set-aside those funds prior to determining the 5% for state administration, 15% for state leadership, and 80% for local service provision. Therein, the states would have a firm program budget amount with which to provide management and leadership and commit and honor allocations for the three budget categories.
SUMMARY:
The State Directors of Adult Education recommend the following strategies to support Title II’s ability to contribute to the Workforce Investment partnership:
WIA Title II
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
Major Conference Issues and Concerns
August 4, 2006
The State Directors welcome the opportunity to share with you our key WIA Title II reauthorization issues. They are presented in priority order.
|
WIA Title II National Council of State Directors of Adult Education Major Conference Issues and Concerns August 4, 2006
|
||||
|
Section of Law |
Issue |
House |
Senate |
NCSDAE Position |
|
Section 222 State Distribution of Funds: State Leadership |
This provision increases to 15 percent funding available for State leadership activities. There are an increasing number of activities for which states require funding including ongoing leadership and professional development activities, accountability and quality initiatives requiring all teachers and tutors be trained on new and revised assessment and data systems which stress leadership budgets.
Funding for these activities was reduced as part of the Workforce Investment Act, at the same time responsibilities increased.
|
Retains the current 12.5 percent allotment for state leadership activities |
Increases the amount available for this purpose to 15 percent. |
Support the Senate provision which is more consistent with current funding requirements.
(See Appendix B for state by state impact) |
|
Section 212 Performance Accountability System
Increased Earnings Performance Measure
|
Increased earning performance measure: Both the House and Senate bills include a new reporting category for employment performance indicators.
The adult education community has been collecting data with respect to placement in unsubsidized employment or career advancement.
Both bills includes a requirement for reporting "earning gains". Twenty states have policy against collecting Social Security Numbers. As a result, they do not have access to Unemployment Insurance records and must rely on questionnaires and post-program surveys. They would have to elicit pay stubs from enrollees to establish baseline data and then send out post-program surveys as much as nine months after enrollees exited the program, asking for photocopies of recent pay stubs.
The low response rate for such endeavor would undermine the validity of the results. State by state comparisons, as required by current law, could unfairly characterize states as "low performing," when in actuality the disparity could be the result to the poor rate of return of the questionnaires and surveys.
|
The House bill requires the eligible agency, consistent with applicable Federal and State privacy laws, to report on individual participant performance indicators, including entry into employment, retention in employment and an increase in earnings.
|
The Senate bill requires the eligible agency to identify individual participant employment performance indicators, including entry into and retention in unsubsidized employment and career advancement. It requires the State workforce investment board to assist the eligible agency in obtaining and using quarterly wage records to collect data for such indictors, consistent with applicable Federal and State privacy laws.
|
We recommend deleting this measure because the collection of the data in twenty states that cannot collect social security numbers is counterproductive and would produce non-comparable data to the other thirty states’ data.
|
|
New Section 213
|
Incentive Grants: In 2004-2005, of the 37 adult education programs that qualified for incentive funds, fourteen (14) were not able to benefit because one or more of their partners did not. As a result, fourteen (14) state adult education programs are performing but are not being rewarded. Adult education programs cannot intercede in Title I programs to help them meet their standards. WIA provisions should reward state programs that do well. Even in states where both Title I and Title II programs meet their performance standards, adult education does not always receive its fair share of any incentive grant award. Considering adult education is currently serving only 3 million (with federal, state and local funds combined) of the 93 million individuals eligible to receive services, funds should not be taken from adult education unless there is a good opportunity for those services to be returned to the program.
|
The House bill includes a separate Incentive Grants program for Title II. |
The Senate bill continues to include incentive grants for adult education as part of the overall incentive grant program. |
. Support the House position. |
|
Section 203 Definitions |
Eligible Provider: Allows for the participation of faith-based and for-profit agencies. The definition of eligible providers is modified to allow for the participation of faith-based and for-profit agencies. States are already funding faith-based organizations.
Our primary concern is that for-profit educational agencies usually charge tuition. Nonprofit agencies normally do not. When a provider agency does not perform up to expectations or closes down, Federal and State support can be terminated. In the case of a non-profit, students may lose valuable time, but they do not lose money. In the case of a poor performing or closed for-profit that charges tuition, students may lose both time and money.
There is no evidence that fro-profit entities provide higher quality services.
Vulnerable groups such as those served by Title II have historically been susceptible to abuse by irresponsible for-profit entities. |
Includes provision allowing for participation of for-profit providers |
No comparable provision |
Support the Senate position with respect to for-profit provider’s eligibility. |
|
Section 206 Performance Accountability System
16-18 Year Olds |
Reporting the number of 16 to 18 year old enrollees out of school less than a year is an excessive burden on states.
Hand Matching: State directors remind us that public schools do not use social security numbers so matching the students electronically will not be possible.
Matching them by hand is a waste of scarce adult education funding and an excessive burden on the adult education and literacy program.
Data for performance: The current accountability system is taking an extraordinary amount of time, money, and patience for states to produce the data needed on the performance indicators. Tracking down records on 16 to 18 year olds detracts from and uses resources for that important mission. The limited funds should be used for improving services, professional development, and other efforts closely tied to programs meeting performance standards.
Adding a superfluous data set to an increasingly effective, useful, yet under funded adult education continuous improvement system is not the thing to do.
|
No provision |
Includes provision |
Recommend the Senate recede to the House and delete this extraneous data requirement. |
|
Section 224 State Plan
WIB Areas |
This amendment adds to the state plan contents requirement a description how the state will address the needs of “each workforce development area of the State….”
Will states be required to realign their adult education service areas to match the workforce regions?
1. Agency planning regions: The states develop geographical regions to deliver adult education and literacy services. It is not possible to draw those regions to match the various regional designations drawn by all of our partners: the LWIBs, the state library regions, the social services regions, the public health regions, and other partner agencies. Seldom are all of those regional designations the same. The regional designations reflect the needs of the target population and the staffing budgets of the service provider. Thus, the regions often overlap each other. One interpretation of this amendment is to require local plans to be organized to coincide with the LWIB regions. Rearranging every adult education service delivery area to coincide would be chaotic and unfundable with the 5% local administration caps.
One way to strengthen collaboration is to ensure that adult education providers are members of the LWIB. |
No provision |
Includes the new provision |
Support a revision of the Senate provision as follows:
(2) a description of how the eligible agency will enable provider and cooperating agencies to address the adult education and literacy needs identified under paragraph (1) carried out in collaboration with any funds received under this subtitle.”
Also ensure that a Title II adult education provider identified by the eligible agency or its designee is a member of the LWIB. |
|
Section 242 National Institute for Literacy |
Both House and Senate bills expand the role of the National Institute for Literacy to include literacy for all ages.
A major concern is the loss of a valuable resource for adult education. The Institute was created to fill a void within the Department of Education, where the focus was on K-12 education or postsecondary education. Through the years, the Institute has become a valuable resource to the adult education community, providing resources not otherwise available to the field. It has afforded an opportunity for adult literacy and professional development practitioners, researchers, and policymakers to share information and ideas to improve the overall quality of adult education instruction.
While accepting the expanded role for the Institute, there is a deep concern throughout the field that adult education will lose this valuable resource. |
Includes cradle to grave expansion. |
Includes cradle to grave expansion but retains key activities related to adult education. |
Support the Senate provision. |
|
Section 243 National Leadership Activities |
There is a continuing need for technical assistance to help states meet the performance standards in Section 212. |
No provision |
Includes a new item allowing the use of technical assistance to help states meet performance standards. |
Support the Senate provision. |
|
Title of Law |
Adult education is many things to many people. It is a GED or high school diploma for some; the opportunity to learn the English language for others. It is the ability to take a class and receive a promotion at work or to obtain a new job after taking a few classes. For others, it is learning to read in order to function in society or to help their children with their school work.
Adult education enables states and localities to make progress on a broad range of public policy priorities—economic development, No Child Left Behind, public health, social services, incumbent workers, citizenship and English language acquisition, and adult high school/GED transition to post secondary education.
38% of adult learners are in adult basic education 20% are in adult secondary 42% are in English for speakers of other languages
Adult education is not just basic skills. |
Changes the name of the Act to the Adult Basic Skills and Family Literacy Education Act. |
Retains the current title |
Support the Senate provision as it more accurately reflects the mission of adult education. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Adult Education and Literacy Contacts
National Adult Education Professional Development Consortium, Inc.
Professional development and policy catalyst for the adult education state directors and their staff members. Email at lmclendon@naepdc.org web site www.naepdc.org
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
Professional association and advocacy for adult education state directors. Email at dc2@ncsdae.org web site, www.ncsdae.org
444 N. Capitol St., Suite 422 (Hall of States)
Washington, DC 20001
202.624.5250
202.624.1497 FAX
|
Key Officers |
||
|
Mr. Israel David Mendoza, Chair Elect |
Ms. Patricia Bennett,
Policy Co-Chair |
Mr. Art Ellison, Policy Co-Chair |
|
Council and Consortium Washington Staff and Consultants |
||
|
Dr. Lennox L. McLendon Executive Director 202.624.5250 804-314-6747 Cell
|
Ms. Lynn Selmser Policy Analyst 703.560.5541
|
Ms. Vonda Burns Executive Assistant 202.624.5250
|
Appendix A: State Administration Impact Chart (see separate appendix document. If not attached, email dc2@ncsdae.org )
Appendix B: State Leadership Impact Chart (see separate appendix document. If not attached, email dc2@ncsdae.org )