ALEPublicPolicy
From LiteracyTentWiki
ALE Public Policy Discussion on the 2005 Re-authorization of the Workforce Investment Act (Job Training Improvement Act)
The Job Training Improvement Act will be posted {soon} at the Library of Congress' Thomas web site, http://thomas.loc.gov/ The bill number is H.R. 27
From: RBickerton@doe.mass.edu
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Date: 1/5/2005 1:30 PM
Dear Colleagues:
Different bills to reauthorize WIA passed in both the House and the Senate. My understanding is that the "blockage" arose in the Senate when the minority party (Democrats) would not appoint members for the Conference Committee. My understanding of their reluctance/refusal to do so follows:
- the House bill passed on an almost entirely partisan vote -- Republicans for, Democrats opposed; [NOTE: I believe this is the first time this has happened; traditionally, adult basic education (incl literacy & ESOL) bills and (I believe) job training bills as well have passed with broad bipartisan support];
- the Senate bill differed substantially from the House bill on a limited number of items, but these were items that had been hard fought in the Senate and the compromises reached eventually became part of the bill they passed with bipartisan support;
- the Dem's had recently experienced some high stakes conference committees in which they believed that the Senate's majority party conferees (Republicans) deferred on too many important items to the House version; in other words, they felt that the compromises forged in the Senate to get a bill passed were undone in conference committee;
- hence, they didn't appoint conferees out of a concern that this conference committee could also result in deferring to too many of the provisions from the House bill that had been rejected in the Senate (e.g., allowing funds to go to "for profits" and the heavy emphasis on funding religious organizations).
I believe the thinking was that they'd let the electorate decide the composition of the next Congress when the reauthorization would be taken up once again with the filing of "new" bills. We're now at the starting gate of that process. Our field will need to be VERY attentive and organized to exert the level of influence under-educated and limited English proficient adults need and deserve from us.
take care,
bob bickerton,
MA state ABE director and chair of the National Council of State Directors of Adult Ed.
From: dwyoho@earthlink.net
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Date: 1/6/2005 2:41 PM
Dear Friends:
I have found my epistle from the Spring of 2004, updated it, and offer it now as a Cry of Alarm now that the House Education and Workforce Committee has launched their public relations campaign to pass the "Job Training Improvement Act", really a substitute for the expired WIA. I apologize that this is so long but I feel it is as succinct as possible. This version omits the formatting which makes it much easier to read. If anyone would like this as an attached Word document, with formatting, email me off list.
Many thanks,
Debbie
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 Compared to the Workforce Reinvestment Act of 2003 (note: as of Jan. 05 now the "Job Training Improvement Act.")
I have spent some time studying the Workforce Reinvestment Act, which was passed by the House in the Spring of 2004. I compared it to the 1998 WIA. A Jan. 2005 press release from the House Education and Workforce Committee states that the current "Job Training Improvement Act" (JTIA) is "similar" to the WRA.
In studying Title II, the adult ed part of the bill, there are a number of things that seem radically different to me. I offer this report no doubt slanted to my own concerns, but invite you to study further to draw your own conclusions. This is a long report (five pages single-spaced) and I recommend you print it out.
Taking the language of the WRA (Title II only) as a whole, I personally conclude:
1. That the law treats adult education as a field indistinct from children's education except that older students are involved 2. Moves the definition of literacy away from contextual, applied skill-building to a vague description of reading proficiency only 3. Rejects the view, and the research, that teaching adults is different from teaching children 4. Implies that existing programs are not "based on scientific research" and must be held accountable to assure they become so 5. Creates a greater role for the Secretary of Education at the expense of the interagency panel of Education, HHS and Labor 6. Strengthens the role and oversight of the federal government at the expense of decision-making at the state and local levels 7. Injects both for-profit and faith-based entities as eligible providers 8. Expects states to "increase the capacity" of non-profit and faith-based organizations to provide services 9. Assumes current assessment instruments are adequate for accountability purposes as no provision is made for the development of better instruments appropriate to adults 10. Assumes learners can, and should, progress at an unspecified regular rate 11. Requires employment data collection on all adult learners 12. Specifically includes the directive to withdraw funding from providers who do not meet accountability goals 13. Drastically changes the structure and mission of the National Institute for Literacy, seriously weakening it, especially in relation to activities supporting adult education 14. Makes no mention of Literacy Resource Centers
Here are some reasons why I have drawn these conclusions:
1. The title of Title II has been changed from "The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act" to "The Adult Basic Skills Education Act".
2. Section 202: Purpose has been considerably changed. In 1998 the Purpose was to "create a partnership among the Federal government, state, and localities to provide…adult education and literacy services in order to assist adults to become literate…" It now reads: " The Purpose is to provide instructional opportunities for adults seeking to improve their basic reading, writing, speaking and math skills, and support States and local communities in providing…." Question: Evidently the idea of a "partnership" to provide services is no longer relevant?
3. In Section 203, Definitions, the definition of the term "adult education" as "services or instruction for the following persons" has been omitted. Instead there is a definition of "adult basic skills and family literacy education programs as a sequence of academic instruction and educational services…that increase an individual's ability to read, write, and speak in English and perform mathematical computations leading to a level of proficiency equivalent to secondary school completion…" Questions: Where does this leave individuals who come to us for assistance who already have a "secondary school completion"? Also, doesn't the term "a sequence…of services" show a preconceived notion of one way to instruct?
4. Also under "Definitions", "eligible agency" (who can get the federal grant) has been changed from whatever agency is "consistent with the law of the state" to add "and may be the state educational agency, the State agency responsible for administering workforce investment activities, or the State agency responsible for administering community or technical colleges". Question: Is this a change or not? Apparently it leaves the decision of who is to administer the funds to the state (as before), but does the language specify that the agency must be one of the three listed? If that is not what it means (after all, the word is "may", then why the addition?
5. Under Definitions, the list of "eligible providers" includes "faith-based organizations" where the 1998 law did not. The list also omits "a public or private non-profit agency" and instead adds "a public or private educational agency".
Questions: This definitely means for-profit organizations are eligible. Why? Also, does it mean the agency can be only an "educational agency"? Suppose it has other missions?
6. Under Definitions, the term "English literacy program" has been replaced with "English language acquisition program". 7. In 1998, the definition of literacy included the now-familiar terms "…compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job, in the family, and in society." The definition of literacy now reads: "The ability to read, write and speak the English language with competence, knowledge, and comprehension." Question: Does this mean the idea and definition of literacy no longer includes the ability to apply knowledge? Also, is not the term "competence" rather subjective?
8. For some reason, the new bill includes a definition of "reading", while the 1998 Act did not. The definition is "the meaning given to the term in section 1208 of the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965." Questions: (!) Does this not reinforce the language of the Purpose as essentially to instill knowledge equivalent to what children learn in school? In other words, does this legislation not pose adult education as a remedial program and a second chance to acquire a child's schooling, as opposed to lifelong learning? Also, the definition in the Ele. and Secondary School Act is forty years old. If we must define reading, can't we do better than that?
9. A new term, "scientifically based reading research", is also defined as "the meaning given to that term in Section 1208 of the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965." 10. A definition of "Workplace literacy program" has been added. Questions: Exactly why are these additions necessary?
11. Section 212, Performance Accountability System, has been drastically changed. Performance measures consist of the same core indicators AND (my emphasis) "employment performance indicators…" Question: Does this not mean that the required indicators must also include employment information, whereas now employment indicators are optional? If so, why are educational agencies (the definition of service provider) being held accountable for employment?
12. Section 224: State Plan a. The required plan is now for 6 years, not 5 as in 1998. b. New language added as required contents of the plan includes: "How the agency will evaluate and measure annually…on a grant-by-grant basis" "How the agency will hold eligible providers accountable…" "How the agency will use technical assistance, sanctions and rewards including…termination of grant funds…" Questions: None. This is soberly clear.
c. The description of the process to be used for public participation and comment on the State plan now REQUIRES "consultations" with a long list of agencies, including the workforce investment board, the board responsible for community and technical colleges, the agency that administers Social Security temporary assistance money, the state council on disabilities, voc rehab, and "the direct providers of such programs" d. The "consultations" MAY include the higher ed board, representatives of business and industry, and faith-based organizations. Questions: Will not just getting all these agencies in the same room be difficult? Why is this necessary?
13. In considering applications for funding from local providers, three new considerations are listed as necessary for funding: a. "the capacity of the eligible provider to produce valid information on performance results, including enrollments and measurable participant outcomes" b. "whether adult basic skills and family literacy education programs offer rigorous reading, writing, speaking and math content that are based on scientific research" c. "whether applications of technology, and services to be provided by the eligible providers, is of sufficient intensity and duration to increase the amount and quality of learning and lead to measurable learning gains within specified time periods." Question: Does item c above imply that learners must be expected to achieve a certain level of proficiency within a certain time frame? How will this be quantified?
14. An entirely new section, 242, charges the Secretary of Education with "carrying out a program of national leadership activities". The 1998 law charges the National Institute for Literacy with "national leadership regarding literacy". Specifically, the secretary is now charged with "providing for the conduct of research" and "technical assistance". In 1998, NIFL "coordinates literacy services and policy"; now the secretary is charged with "improving the coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of adult education and workforce development services at the national, State and local level." NIFL's purpose is (among other things) "to provide national leadership in promoting reading research, reading instruction, and professional development in reading based on scientifically-based research by …disseminating …information about schools…that have effectively developed and implemented classroom reading programs that meet the requirements of …the Elementary and Secondary School Act …including…schools that are identified as effective through the External Evaluation of Reading First…" In 1998, NIFL "shall be administered by an interagency agreement entered into by the Secretary of Education with the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human Services." In the new law, NIFL is administered under "direction of a director in consultation with the Board" and the interagency panel is eliminated. The composition of the Board, appointed by the President in 1998 and still is in the new law, shall be persons "knowledgeable about scientifically based reading instruction." The list of who may be included on the Board is radically different. The 1998 law lists literacy organizations, state and local governments, state directors of adult education, and literacy students. None of these entities are in the 2003 language. Instead, the list includes "representatives from teacher training institutions…teachers who have been successful in teaching children to read…volunteer tutors…reading researchers who have conducted scientifically based reading instruction…and other qualified individuals knowledgeable about scientifically based instruction…" Not a question, but a statement: The impact on NIFL is abundantly clear.
For the Cause!
Debbie
Deborah W. Yoho
Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Past President, SC Adult Literacy Educators
2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205
803-765-2555
Fax 803-799-8417
dwyoho@earthlink.net
From: AWilder106@aol.com mailto:AWilder106@aol.com
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 8:52 AM
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] Job Training Improvement Act (long post)
Debby,
In your opinion what are the highest priority items we should challenge?
Anyone--what happens now in the legislative process? Do we have anyone to act as a key informant? Who knows the ropes and the players?
Thanks.
Andrea
From: AEllison@ed.state.nh.us
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Date: 1/7/2005 4:02 PM
Hopefully the information below will be helpful in answering some of Andrea's questions.
The National Council of State Directors of Adult Education has been active over the years in working with both legislative and funding issues at the national level. Much of this work is done in Washington by the staff of the organization which operates at the direction of the Policy and Executive Committees.
The Current Policy Committee is chaired by Patricia Bennett MD and Art Ellison, NH with other members: Reecie Stagnolia KY, Bob Bickerton MA, Becky Bird MT, Jim Bowling and Denise Pottmeyer OH, Randy Whitfield NC, Bob Purga NY, Israel Mendoza WA and Mary Ann Jackson WI.
Over the past two years the Council worked closely with House and Senate staff on various elements of different versions of a new WIA bill. The Council worked with its membership to develop 8 major bottom line positions that the organization felt strongly should be reflected in any final version of the bill. These positions became the basis for the discussions with member of Congress and their staffs.
The National Council of Adult Education is an active participant in the National Coalition for Literacy which helps develop policy positions that can be supported by the field as a whole and works to insure that those positions will be a part of any future legislation and funding packages.
Since WIA was not reauthorized in the last Congress the process must start all over again. The recent introduction of the new bill in the House is the first step in that direction. We expect that the Senate will introduce their version of the bill sometime in Feb/March of this year. If the two versions of the bills are close to those approved in the last session of Congress and the Senate agrees to name conferees to a Conference Committee there is a chance that action on a new bill come be completed before July 1, 2005.
The National Council has developed a network of key contacts for policy action in each state. In some cases the key contact for a state is the State Director, in others it is the Chair of the Legislative Committee of the state's Adult Education Professional Organization and in others it may be the head of the state Literacy Coalition. These people are in a position to activate networks in the states that will provide quality information to policy makers in Washington.
It is clear that we will be using this system during the next 6 months on both WIA reauthorization and the development of the federal budget for FY06. The National Council's network of Single Points of Contacts will coordinate with individuals and organizations identified by the National Coalition for Literacy and its members.
In answer to Andrea's question we think that we know most of the key issues, the ropes and the key players. With all of us working together we can be a powerful force on behalf of the students that we serve.
Patricia Bennett pbennett@msde.state.md.us and Art Ellison aellison@ed.state.nh.us can be contacted with any questions regarding the policy work of the National Council of State Directors.
Art Ellison
From: AEllison@ed.state.nh.us
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Date: 1/21/2005 8:12 AM
To the list,
The State Director's eight bottom line issues related to WIA
reauthorization, which have now grown to ten can be accessed by going to the
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education website at
http://www.ncsdae.org
[To go directly there, select http://www.ncsdae.org/About_NCSDAE/bottomlines.html ]
We are currently discussing several others that might be added to this list in the near future.
Art Ellison
NH Department of Education
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] FW: REFERENCE POINTS: EDUCATION BILLS INTRODUCED IN SENATE
Date: January 31, 2005 12:20:00 PM EST
The following message was contributed by Donna Martinez. [The section on adult education was highlighted by David Rosen]
David Collings
AAACE-NLA Moderator
david@collings.com
--- Original Message ---
From: tatra@pacer.org mailto:tatra@pacer.org
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 3:05 PM
To: tatra@pacer.org
Subject: REFERENCE POINTS: EDUCATION BILLS INTRODUCED IN SENATE
Senate Democrats and Republicans Offer Education Agendas
This week, both the Republicans and the Democrats in the Senate offered their respective policy agendas for the 109th Congress. Among the bills introduced are several pieces of legislation aimed at reforming education.
The Republican bill: S. 9: The Lifelong Education Opportunities Act of 2005;
Below is a reprint of a description of the bill from the Republican Party.
"Purposes: Setting high expectations and raising achievement for all students, regardless of their background Improving accountability for results providing flexibility for States to manage Federal program dollars most effectively supporting a lifetime of learning opportunities for students at all stages in life.
Title I - Head Start The bill seeks to improve academic performance of Head Start children require stronger fiscal accountability for federal program dollars encourage greater collaboration between Head Start programs and other federal and State programs.
Title II - Elementary and Secondary Education
Part A - Elementary Education Encourages improvements in elementary education by improving access to supplemental services
Part B - Secondary Education Encourages stronger career and technical education programs that - Link courses with needs of businesses Integrate rigorous and challenging academic courses Emphasize academic content Create stronger partnerships between high schools and colleges
Emphasizes stronger math and science education programs that - Help students graduate with strong math and science skills Offer Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses in low income schools
Title III - Teacher Preparation
Part A - Teacher Loan Forgiveness Emphasizes the recruitment and retention of teachers by encouraging the use of expanded loan forgiveness provisions enacted last year
Part B - Preparing Teachers Emphasizes the important role that teachers play in improving student achievement Improves teacher training programs at postsecondary institutions Provides states with greater flexibility for using teacher preparation program dollars Emphasizes high standards for postsecondary teacher preparation programs Will help improve teacher recruitment and retention in high-need areas, including rural areas
Title IV - Higher Education and Lifelong Learning Opportunities
Part A - Higher Education Encourages Congress to consider policies to - address the rising costs of higher education promote student academic preparation for postsecondary education encourage efforts to increase the availability of financial aid information for those who need the financial aid most simplify the student aid application process and improve the administration of the student aid improve efforts to help parents and students find and utilize information about attending and paying for college improve the level of accountability in the Federal student aid programs; take steps to ensure the long-term availability of Federal Pell Grant funds by addressing the current Federal Pell Grant program shortfall, exploring initiatives to reduce the time to graduation, and making efforts to ensure the fair distribution of Federal Pell Grant funds to eligible recipients promote quality educational opportunities for all students, including nontraditional students that will equip graduates with the skills the graduates need to continue lifelong learning and succeed in the 21st century workforce support stronger partnerships between businesses and institutions of higher education strengthen collaboration between higher education programs, and other Federal, State, and local education and training programs promote the access to and affordability of higher education through the use of technology and distance learning.
Part B - Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2005
Amendments to the Workforce Investment Act:
The major themes of the WIA reauthorization provisions are: Providing workers with the training they need to find new or better jobs; Providing employers with an appropriately trained workforce they need to compete in the global marketplace; Improving upon the existing One-Stop Career Center delivery system to ensure that it can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of employers and workers in the new economy and can address the needs of special populations, including individuals with disabilities; Better connecting the job training system with the private sector and with post-secondary education and training, social services, and economic development systems to prepare the 21st century workforce for career opportunities and skills in high-growth sectors; Removing barriers from the law that have discouraged business involvement in workforce training, while finding new ways to increase business and industry influence in job training decisions in communities; Encouraging job training and employment services to be demand-driven and responsive to the needs of employers, both large and small; and Improving access to services in all areas, including rural areas.
Amendments to the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act:
The major themes of Adult Education Reauthorization are:
Holding States and eligible providers of adult education more accountable for student performance by measuring outcomes such as skill acquisition, entrance into postsecondary education, and employment; Improving adult literacy services, including workplace literacy services, services for adults with limited English proficiency, and services for those with learning disabilities; Encouraging the use of technology as a mode of delivering adult education; Providing quality professional development for adult education instructors;Strengthening the efforts of the National Institute for Literacy with respect to literacy for children, youth, adults and families; Encouraging linkages between adult education programs and postsecondary education; and Promoting the development and application of more rigorous research on adult education.
Rehabilitation Act Amendments The major themes of the Rehabilitation Act reauthorization are:
Strengthening individual choice and transition planning for individuals with disabilities; Creating a stronger link between the Rehabilitation Act, the President's New Freedom Initiative and the Olmstead Executive Order (13217: Community-Based Alternatives for Individuals with Disabilities); Increasing the opportunity to expand Vocational Rehabilitation partnerships with business/employers; and Improving coordination with other employment programs such as the Workforce Investment Act and the Ticket to Work Act."
For more information on Republican bills recently introduced in the Senate, go to http://frist.senate.gov/_files/toptensummary.pdf .
The bill introduced by the Democrats in the Senate: S. 15: Quality Education for All
S. 15 is a comprehensive education bill. Here is a reprint of a description of S. 15 from the Democratic Party.
"Democrats are committed to providing a quality education to all Americans because we recognize that education has always been the cornerstone of equal opportunity. Democrats will keep our promise to our children by increasing support for pre-school education, fully funding No Child Left Behind and improving its implementation. We are committed to providing safe and reliable transportation for our rural school children and meeting the Federal commitment to children with disabilities. Democrats will also address the shortfall of math, science and special education teachers by creating tuition incentives for college students to major in those fields. We will help expand educational opportunities for college by providing relief from skyrocketing college tuition, increasing the size and access to Pell Grants and supporting proven programs that encourage more young people to attend and succeed in college."
For more information on the recent legislation introduced in the Senate by the Democratic Party, go to http://democrats.senate.gov/issues.html .
Source: CEC Policy Update, January 27, 2005 http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/legislative_update/modules/news/article.php?story id=95
- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REFERENCE POINTS, transition updates from the TATRA Project, features resources and information to help parent organizations, advocates and professionals better serve adolescents and young adults with disabilities, and their families. It is managed by PACER Center www.pacer.org as a joint technical assistance activity of the TATRA Project and the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition www.ncset.org
Visit our web sites for access to a wealth of additional resources and information!
To SUBSCRIBE to REFERENCE POINTS go to http://www.pacer.org/tatra/list/signup.asp
February 2, 2005 7:20:38 AM EST
[AAACE-NLA] House WIA Reauthorization Bill Now Avaialble
NLA Colleagues,
If you want to read the House version of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization, called the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005, it's available at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/ Chose "Enter bill number" and type in H.R. 27
David J. Rosen
djrosen@comcast.net
DJRosen@theworld.com
February 15, 2005 5:20:26 PM EST
AAACE-NLA Colleagues,
I understand that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce plans to mark up its WIA Reauthorization bill, H.R. 27, The Job Training Improvement Act of 2005, tomorrow, February 16th. I understand that the most recent version of the legislation offered by Rep. McKeon at the Subcommittee mark-up last week can be found at:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/markups/109th/21st/hr27/29main.htm
David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
djrosen@comcast.net
From: Dmartin336@aol.com mailto:Dmartin336@aol.com
Subject: Committee is scheduled to mark up H.R. 27,
February 15, 2005 6:42:30 PM EST
MAJOR EVENTS AHEAD
· The House Education and Workforce Committee is scheduled to mark up H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005, on Wednesday, February 16th. We expect an amendment will be offered during the mark up to give states the authority to implement the President’s proposal for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Plus Consolidated Grant Program. The WIA Plus program would give states the flexibility to consolidate 9 employment related federal programs, including the vocational rehabilitation program. The proposal requires the consolidation of 4 Department of Labor programs and gives states the option of consolidating the Veterans Employment, Trade Adjustment Assistance, Vocational Rehabilitation, Adult Education and Food Stamps Employment and Training. VR, which was funded at $2.6 billion in 2005, is by far the largest of the programs slated for possible consolidation. While the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005 may offer some positive changes to the WIA and VR programs, particularly in the area of transition services, this threat to VR outweighs any positive gains.
Donna Martinez
From: AWilder106@aol.com mailto:AWilder106@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 02:57 PM
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Subject: [AAACE-NLA}URL/Reauthorization/side-by-side
Friends,
I had the address for the side-by-side that was put out by the state directors of adult education, but I lost it! Does anyone have it?
Thanks.
Andrea
From: Mneedle@dadeschools.net
Subject: RE: [AAACE-NLA] [AAACE-NLA}URL/Reauthorization/side-by-side
Date: February 23, 2005 3:35:40 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Key WIA issues impacting adult education and training have been identified by
The Workforce Alliance http://www.workforcealliance.org/policy/House_WIA_Letter_2.14.05_final.pdf
and the State Directors of Adult Education. http://www.lacnyc.org/support/budget06/key_issues_HR27.pdf ;
A side-by-side comparison of current law and HR 27 (The Job Training Improvement Act of 2005) was done by the National Governors' Assn Center for Best Practices http://www.nga.org/center/divisions/1,1188,C_ISSUE_BRIEF%5ED_6284,00.html .
The current version of HR 27 can be viewed by typing "HR 27" in the bill search at http://thomas.loc.gov/.
Mark Needle, Educational Specialist
Division of Workforce Development Education
Miami-Dade County Public Schools
750 NW 20th Street, Room D-157
Miami, Florida 33127
Tel: (305) 548-4044
Fax: (305) 545-3052
mneedle@dadeschools.net
