[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23246]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 20, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Reauthorization of Vocational and Adult Education Programs; Notice
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Reauthorization of Vocational and Adult Education Programs
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Request for public comment on the reauthorization of vocational
and adult education programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education invites written comments from the
public regarding the reauthorization of programs under the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act; the Adult
Education Act; and the National Literacy Act of 1991.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 4,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Dr. Augusta Souza
Kappner, Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education, U.S.
Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 4090-MES,
Washington, D.C. 20202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Jones, Office of Vocational and
Adult Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 4050-MES,
Washington, D.C. 20202. Telephone: (202) 205-9241. Individuals who use
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary is requesting public comments
on the reauthorization of the Department's Vocational and Adult
Education programs, including 18 programs funded at approximately $1.5
billion in fiscal year 1994. The funded programs include: Vocational
Education Basic State Grants; Tech-Prep Education; Vocational Education
Research; Vocational Education Demonstrations; Vocational Education
Data Systems; Adult Education State Programs; State Literacy Resource
Centers; Literacy Programs for Prisoners; Workplace Literacy
Partnerships; and Adult Education National Programs, including the
National Institute for Literacy.
Need for Reauthorization
The statutory authorization for these programs expires on September
30, 1995. In order to contribute in a timely manner to congressional
reauthorization discussions, the Secretary is beginning a review of
these programs. The Secretary intends to submit to Congress the
Department's proposals to reauthorize these programs in early 1995. To
ensure an opportunity for public participation, the Secretary invites
public comments on the reauthorization.
How the Information Will Be Used
The Department has identified six general issues, listed as
follows, around which to initiate reauthorization discussions and is
particularly interested in receiving comments on those issues. The
Department seeks to develop program initiatives that link vocational
and adult education programs to the National Education Goals and to the
national effort to enable all students to achieve to challenging
academic standards. As such, the reauthorization will build on the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act,
and the pending Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization,
each of which focuses on--providing students with greater opportunities
to meet high standards; giving States and localities flexibility in the
delivery of services in exchange for accountability for results; and
directing Federal resources to communities where they are most needed,
in amounts sufficient to make a real difference. The Department will
also examine how Federal Vocational and Adult Education programs can be
coordinated with other Federal programs, such as the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA), Higher Education Act student aid programs, and
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) that address similar
purposes and serve similar populations.
The reauthorization process also provides an opportunity for
resolution of issues affecting current programs that have arisen
through evaluations, audits, program operations, budget deliberations,
and previous legislative actions. Thus, the Department, while it will
examine new program strategies, also seeks comment on the program-
specific issues listed below.
Issues for Public Comment
The Secretary seeks comments and suggestions regarding
reauthorization of these programs. Comments are especially invited on
the following issues.
General Principles and Issues
1. Restructuring Vocational and Adult Education Programs To Achieve the
National Education Goals
Results of recent studies of vocational and adult education reveal
that considerable progress must be made in these areas if the
Department hopes to achieve the National Education Goals. For example,
the National Adult Literacy Survey found that as many as 90 million
adults in the United States have serious problems with literacy, and,
of those, approximately 40 to 44 million function at the lowest
proficiency levels defined by the survey. With the American economy in
transition, increasing global challenges to our economic
competitiveness, and more jobs requiring a high level of technical
expertise, our employment and training systems must produce greater
numbers of skilled and adaptable workers than in the past.
How can the Federal Vocational and Adult Education programs best be
structured to help the Nation achieve the National Education Goals,
particularly the goal of ensuring that every American is literate and
possesses the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global
economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship?
2. Promoting World-Class Standards for All Students
A major theme of the Administration's earlier legislative proposals
has been creating an expectation for all students to meet challenging
academic or occupational skill standards. The Department is now
exploring options for making this theme a core principle for the
Perkins Act and Adult Education reauthorizations as well. Along these
lines, how can these Federal Acts best incorporate systems of standards
and implement these standards for all vocational and adult education
students, including in-school and out-of-school youth, postsecondary
students, adults, and special populations? How can these standards best
be coordinated with standards developed under Goals 2000 and the
reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act?
3. Connecting Vocational and Adult Education to Broader Objectives for
Achieving Education Reform
How can some of the other key themes of the Administration's
earlier proposals--such as offering greater State, local, and school
flexibility in exchange for accountability for student outcomes
(including authorizing waivers of certain statutory and regulatory
requirements), encouraging integration of services across categorical
programs, and targeting resources more effectively--be incorporated in
the Vocational and Adult Education reauthorization?
4. Linking the Perkins Act and the Adult Education Act
Should some aspects of the Perkins Act and the Adult Education Act
be meshed? For example, could the reauthorization coordinate resources
to create a more coherent system for preparing youth and young adults
for further education and employment?
5. Coordinating With Other Federal Programs and Initiatives
In recent reports, the General Accounting Office identified, by its
count, over 150 programs with employment training aspects, including
several vocational and adult education programs. The GAO reports
contend that the programs overlap one another and are poorly
coordinated, and that their proliferation makes it difficult for States
and localities to forge comprehensive employment training strategies.
In light of these findings, how should Federal Vocational and Adult
education statutes relate to other Federal programs, such as JTPA,
Higher Education Act student aid programs, and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, and to pending initiatives such as
elementary and secondary education reform, welfare reform, and the
Reemployment Act? How can Perkins Act and Adult Education Act resources
be better deployed to meet national needs for workforce development?
6. Building Bridges Between Vocational Education, Adult Education, and
the School-to-Work Opportunities Act
Should the Perkins Act or the Adult Education Act, or both, be
revised to complement the School-to-Work Opportunities Act? If so, how
should this be accomplished? What principles and goals would be
achieved by this linkage? Should some or all of Perkins Act resources
be structured specifically to support the School-to-Work act?
Issues That Cut Across Both Vocational and Adult Education Programs
Program Standards and Assessment
Under existing legislation, States have developed systems of
standards for the evaluation of both vocational and adult education.
Research suggests that these standards are not widely used for program
improvement. How can the reauthorization encourage the use of program
standards and assessment to improve the quality of vocational and adult
education? How can valid program standards, meaningful assessments, and
the use of both in program improvement, be instituted in vocational and
adult education at the national, State, and project levels? Is it
feasible to develop national standards for either program or core
standards that apply to both programs?
Distribution of Funds
Both the Adult Education Act and the Perkins Act include funding
formulas that specify how the Department of Education allocates
vocational and adult education funds to the States. The adult education
formula is based on the number of adults, 16 years of age and above,
who are not required to be in school and have not received a high
school diploma or its equivalent. The vocational education formula,
under the 1990 amendments to the Perkins Act, remains essentially the
same as under the original Vocational Education Act of 1963; the two
main elements of the formula, a set of population factors and an income
factor, have remained unaltered for over 30 years. Neither formula
includes incentives for States to develop successful, innovative
programs or to increase their financial support for vocational or adult
education.
The Department intends to review the current allocation formulas
for vocational and adult education programs and seeks comment on how
those allocation formulas might be changed or how the distribution of
funds might otherwise be improved. For example, what methods of
distribution, other than formulas, could be designed? If formulas are
retained, what bases, other than population, years of schooling, and
income, might be used to allocate Federal funds? What other specific
changes are desirable? For example, should the adult education formula
be modified to reflect the fact that many clients, particularly those
enrolled in English-as-a-Second Language courses, already have earned a
high school diploma or its equivalent? To consider the impact on State
allocations of the in-school population count? Should the vocational
education formula include need-related factors such as the State
unemployment rate or dropout rate? In general, should funding
allocations to States, under either program, be more targeted?
Corrections Education
The Adult Education Act, the National Literacy Act, and the Perkins
Act contain three separate provisions for providing educational
services to incarcerated individuals. Section 326 of the Adult
Education Act requires a State to reserve at least 10 percent of its
adult education allocation to fund education programs for criminal
offenders in corrections institutions and other institutionalized
individuals. Literacy Programs for Prisoners, section 601 of the
National Literacy Act, authorizes discretionary grants to establish and
operate programs that reduce recidivism through the improvement of life
skills and functional literacy. Under section 102(a)(5) of the Perkins
Act, States are required to set aside at least one percent of their
allocations for vocational education programs for juvenile and adult
criminal offenders.
Are these three separate authorities effective at meeting the
vocational and adult education needs of incarcerated individuals? Would
this population be served better if these authorities were combined
into a comprehensive education program for criminal offenders? If so,
should there continue to be a set-aside in the Adult Education Act for
institutionalized individuals? If so, should it also address the needs
of non-incarcerated criminal offenders, such as parolees and
probationers?
State Plans and Responsibilities
Are any aspects of the State organizational and planning
responsibilities under the Adult Education Act or the Perkins Act
overly burdensome? If so, which provisions of the Acts should be
revised or deleted to ease any administrative burden they cause? To
encourage comprehensive State plans, should any of the State
organizational or planning responsibilities under the Acts be modified
to require linkages to other Federal education planning requirements,
such as those in Goals 2000, the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act?
Professional Development
Both the Adult Education Act and the Perkins Act include provisions
for encouraging educators' professional development, but a more
comprehensive system of Federal support for professional development
may be required. Section 353 of the Adult Education Act requires that
at least 15 percent of a State's allocation be reserved for
demonstration projects and teacher training activities; at least two-
thirds of this reservation must be used to train adult educators. Under
the Perkins Act, States and local service recipients are authorized to
use Basic grants and Tech-Prep funds for professional development, and
the Act also authorizes support for professional development through
other, currently unfunded authorities. Despite these provisions, adult
education research has found that few instructors are certified adult
educators--only 18 percent of full-time staff and 8 percent of part-
time staff. According to the recent National Assessment of Vocational
Education (NAVE), both secondary and postsecondary vocational teachers
have less formal education than academic teachers, while virtually all
academic teachers and faculty members have at a least a bachelor's
degree, 12 percent of secondary vocational teachers and 15 percent of
postsecondary occupational faculty do not.
What steps can the Federal Government take through the
reauthorization to ensure that vocational and adult educators possess
the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective and teach to high
standards? How can resources under the Perkins Act and the Adult
Education Act be used to (1) Support professional development
strategies that States will develop under the reauthorized Elementary
and Secondary Education Act; and (2) ensure that educators learn and
apply the principles of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, so that
schools accomplish real integration of academic and vocational skills?
Data Collection
In the course of collecting data for the National Evaluation of
Adult Education Programs, the Department's contractor found weaknesses
in the information management systems of many local programs. Many
programs that participated in the study did not know how many different
clients they serve during a year nor the number of students they serve
on a given day. In vocational education, NAVE researchers found data
inconsistencies across local tech-prep programs, and national data
collection efforts in vocational education have long been problem-
plagued. Yet, data collections can be extremely important because they
can, if properly conducted, yield valuable information on program
outcomes and can help drive funding and policy decisions at both the
State and Federal levels.
What role can the Federal Government play to ensure that data
collection activities in vocational and adult education programs yield
meaningful information that can be used to improve programs and,
ultimately, benefit the learner?
Issues Related to Individual Programs
Vocational Education
1. Basic State Grants
Program Focus.
The last two reauthorizations of the vocational education basic
grant have emphasized program improvement and achieving equitable
access for special populations. Have these emphases produced the
desired results of better preparation for, and success in,
postsecondary education and the labor market for the target
populations? Should the reauthorization address a revised or expanded
set of objectives?
Secondary and Postsecondary Education.
Should the Perkins Act be restructured to focus on assisting in the
comprehensive reform and improvement of secondary education, for
example by providing resources primarily to encourage the integration
of academic and vocational education at the high school level?
Alternatively, should the Act focus mainly on the improvement of
postsecondary education, especially community college programs? As a
related issue, should the Perkins Act continue to support vocational
education only below the baccalaureate level? What attention should the
Act give to the needs of out-of-school adults and youth, including
dropouts?
Discretionary Grant Competitions.
The final NAVE report recommends that Congress consider using some
portion of Basic State Grant funds for competitive grants to States
that propose, and show promise of effecting, comprehensive reforms
consistent with the goals of the Act. Should the Department adopt this
recommendation? More broadly, should the Act be revised to provide
incentives for States to undertake comprehensive reform of their
vocational education programs? How would these incentives account for
the differences in progress States have already made in undertaking
reforms?
Role of the States.
Most observers agree that the 1990 amendments to the Perkins Act
deemphasized the role of the States, yet the NAVE Independent Advisory
Panel has contended that States hold the key to achieving vocational
education reform at ``a pace and scale sufficient to affect national
workforce quality.'' Should the next reauthorization establish a
stronger State role? For what purpose? Should the current State
governance structure in the Act be modified to reinforce the State
partnerships developing under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act? How
would this be achieved?
Targeting Funds for Special Populations.
The NAVE reports that individuals with special needs are
overenrolled, relative to their presence in the population, in
vocational education. Should the Perkins Act continue to target funds
to areas with high concentrations of special populations? Should there
be more emphasis on serving all students?
Criteria for Services to Special Populations.
The 1990 Perkins Act amendments greatly increased the amount and
specificity of procedural requirements related to provision of services
to special populations. Are these provisions ensuring that members of
special populations receive equal access to program services? Are the
services provided of benefit to special populations? Could the level of
prescription be reduced, in exchange for greater attention to higher
outcomes for all students, including students with special needs? Are
the current provisions and protections for special populations
effective at ensuring that they have an equal opportunity to enter and
succeed in the full range of high-quality vocational programs? Should
the law continue to focus on providing the supplementary and other
services that special populations need to succeed in vocational
education, or, as the final NAVE report suggested, should it instead
focus more on improvement of the vocational programs in which those
students participate? If that strategy were carried forward, would
other programs such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act be
able to provide the supplementary services special populations require?
State Plans.
The current Perkins Act State planning requirements are some of the
most prescriptive found in any Federal education legislation. Can the
goals of these planning requirements be met without these controls on
State process? Are the existing procedures for development of the plan
and the items required to be included in the plan having their desired
effect? If not, what changes should the Department consider?
State Council on Vocational Education.
For over two decades, the Federal Government has funded the
activities of State councils to advise on and assist in the development
of vocational education programs in the States. While the 1992 JTPA
amendments allow the States to consolidate their vocational education
councils into broader State Human Resource Investment Councils, most
States have continued to operate separate councils for vocational
education.
Have the State vocational education councils fulfilled their
objective of monitoring quality and ensuring business involvement in
the operation of programs in the States? Should they continue to be
separately funded, or should their operation be at State discretion? Is
maintaining the independence of councils chartered under the Perkins
Act important? Does the existence of separate councils for vocational
education contribute to a fragmentation of State policymaking within
the broader areas of human resource development and employment? Should
consolidation with the State Human Resource Councils be required in
order to ensure coordination between JTPA and vocational education?
Program Accountability.
According to the NAVE, most States have gone beyond the
accountability requirements established in the 1990 amendments to the
Perkins Act, developing fuller arrays of performance measures than
required and applying them to all vocational programs, not just those
receiving Perkins funds. However, while as of 1991-1992 State agencies
had given a high priority to developing performance standards and
measures, local implementation had not yet occurred. Have States and
localities found the standards and measures useful for improving
programs? How have States' experiences implementing these requirements
compared to experiences with the accountability requirements under the
JTPA? Should the reauthorization encourage States and localities to
give more attention to development and implementation of performance
standards and measures? If so, how can program performance best be
evaluated and measured so as to benefit the grantees, allow for
replication of successful projects, and provide meaningful information
to the Department and to Congress? Additionally, should federally
supported vocational programs, which currently must meet the
accountability requirements set forth in the Perkins Act, be aligned
with the standards-based reform activities States and localities will
undertake under Goals 2000 and the reauthorized Elementary and
Secondary Education Act?
Even beyond the standards and measures requirements, the 1990
Perkins amendments greatly increased the Act's focus on accountability,
including adding language on ``program improvement'' to ensure that
local grantees, and then States, take action to improve ineffective
programs. Is this working? Should it be continued? Should the statute
incorporate more incentives for success? How are the incentives and
adjustments for special populations working? Should the statute allow
States to take ``corrective action'' or cut funding to programs that
repeatedly fail to reach the standards? More broadly, how can the
reauthorization better emphasize accountability for results?
Skill Standards.
Development of occupational and industry skill standards has become
an important component of Federal policy. The Goals 2000: Educate
America Act establishes a National Skill Standards Board to encourage
the creation of a comprehensive system of voluntary skill standards and
certification. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act includes, as a
basic element of the school-based learning component, high academic and
occupational skill standards to be developed under Goals 2000.
Previously, the Departments of Education and Labor funded 22 grants to
promote the development of skill standards and certification in a
variety of industries. How could the reauthorization support the
development of voluntary industry skill standards and portable skill
certification? How would skill standards and certification of work-
related skills affect educators developing curricula and employers
seeking skilled workers?
Coherent Sequence of Courses.
The NAVE found that, in general, secondary vocational programs are
not as coherent or rigorous as they should be. They usually lack
prerequisites, which maximizes access but reduces chances of aligning
vocational courses with each other or with academic courses. In
addition, the NAVE reported that most districts, including Title II
grant recipients, do not meet the Perkins requirement for a coherent
sequence of academic and vocational courses. Should the next
reauthorization do more to ensure that more students have the
opportunity to take a coherent sequence of academic and vocational
courses? If so, how?
All Aspects of the Industry.
The Perkins Act encourages local recipients to use basic State
grant funds to provide vocational education programs that educate
students in all aspects of an industry. The NAVE found that, as of the
second year of implementation of the 1990 Perkins amendments, the ``all
aspects'' language had only a minor impact on vocational programs.
Should the reauthorization continue this area of statutory emphasis? If
so, how can it be made more effective?
Employer Interest and Involvement.
A 1993 survey conducted for the NAVE asked employers about their
familiarity and satisfaction with vocational programs. About 60 percent
of employers responding to the survey (which had a high non-response
rate) said they were familiar with vocational education programs in
their local areas. Forty-one percent were familiar with secondary
vocational programs, and 47 percent with postsecondary programs. How
should the reauthorization encourage business interest and involvement
in occupational education? Along these lines, should the
reauthorization seek to strengthen cooperative education, and, if so,
how? Should employer involvement, through activities such as provision
of work-based learning experiences, be given more prominence in the
Act? If so, how can the Act increase business involvement, including
increased workplace education in vocational and basic skills? What
about other federally supported programs, including adult education
programs?
Sex Equity and Single Parents Programs.
The Perkins Act requires States to set aside 10.5 percent of Basic
State Grant funds for programs to eliminate sex bias in vocational
education and programs for single parents, single pregnant women, and
displaced homemakers. Have these provisions worked effectively to
eliminate sex bias and provide appropriate opportunities for single
parents and displaced homemakers in vocational education? If not, what
changes should be made? Do the two set-asides mesh with State
priorities or are they overly restrictive? Are the two set-asides still
needed?
Current law also requires that each State employ a full-time sex
equity coordinator who administers the sex equity and single parents
set-aside programs, collects and disseminates data on programs,
provides technical assistance to local programs, and carries out other
responsibilities. Is this requirement an effective means of ensuring
gender-equitable practices in vocational programs? Is it still needed?
Is it overly prescriptive?
Native American and Hawaiian Natives Programs.
Currently, under Basic State Grants, the Department sets aside
funds for Native Americans and Native Hawaiians. What role should
Perkins play in providing vocational education for these populations?
Are the current set-aside programs working effectively, or should they
be revised? Would the population served through the program be better
served if the program was administered by the Department of the
Interior? Should the education needs of Native American youth be
addressed through current means, or should greater efforts be made to
provide resources for these students as part of more comprehensive
systems? If so, how would this work?
2. Tech-Prep Education
Tech-Prep programs have expanded tremendously since their
introduction in the mid-1980s. The tech-prep approach is one of the few
models for local school-to-work opportunity programs and can be built
on by States as they implement statewide school-to-work opportunity
systems. However, the NAVE found considerable inconsistency in the
quality of these programs and in the extent to which they have
incorporated all the program components described in the literature and
the legislation. Should the reauthorized Act continue to provide
categorical support for Tech-Prep education, or should broader support
for School-to-Work Opportunities programs, including other models, be
offered? If the Tech-Prep program is continued, how can the Act be
amended to improve the quality of local projects? Should the Tech-Prep
Education program include a mandatory work-based learning component?
3. Research and Dissemination
What should the role of the Department be in conducting vocational
education research, and how should it be conducted? Through a national
center or centers, as is currently the case for most of the Federal
effort? Through field-initiated research? Through discretionary
research projects determined through annual priorities? What should be
the role of the Department in disseminating research results,
descriptions of effective practices, and other information on
vocational education? How can vocational education research and
dissemination activities, along with similar activities in other
programs and Departments, be structured in order to ensure maximum
benefits and the efficient use of resources?
4. Demonstration Programs
The Vocational Education Demonstrations Program authority provides
the Department and educational institutions an opportunity to try new
approaches to vocational education and to learn about the effectiveness
of these approaches. The Department has funded a large number of
demonstration projects in a variety of areas. Has the field found these
demonstrations useful in obtaining information on effective educational
approaches? Should a Federal vocational education demonstrations
program authority be continued? If so, what areas of inquiry might be
emphasized? How should the demonstration projects conducted under this
authority mesh with the newly authorized School-to-Work demonstration
projects and other, related Federal demonstration activities?
5. Vocational Education and Occupational Information Data Systems
Currently, under the Perkins Act, the Departments of Education and
Labor provide funding for the National Occupational Information
Coordinating Committee (NOICC) and its affiliated State Occupational
Information Coordinating Committees (SOICCs). The NOICC and the SOICCs
assess current and future labor market conditions by assembling and
disseminating occupational information. Is the current system useful to
educators planning programs and to students selecting careers? If not,
what changes should be made? How can the NOICC and SOICCs be linked to
key elements of the Reemployment Act, such as One-Stop Career Centers?
6. Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions
Through this program, the Department provides grants for the
operation and improvement of tribally controlled postsecondary
vocational institutions. Is the program fulfilling its purposes? Should
the program be continued? Would the population served through the
program be better served if the program was administered by the
Department of the Interior?
7. Unfunded Authorities
Currently, the Perkins Act includes separate funding authorities
for career guidance and counseling programs, business-labor-education
partnerships, vocational education lighthouse schools, model community
education employment centers, supplementary State grants for facilities
and equipment, and other program improvement activities. None of these
activities is currently funded. Should any of them be continued in the
reauthorization? If so, why, and with what revisions? More
specifically, how should the reauthorization address the area of career
development and counseling?
Adult Education
1. State Programs
Program Focus.
According to an analysis of 1990 census data, more than 44 million
adults, nearly 27 percent of the adult population of the United States,
have not received a high school diploma or its equivalent. The adult
education formula targets this population. Of that population, 39
percent have completed eight or fewer years of education, but 61
percent have finished between nine and twelve years of schooling.
Forty-one percent of the target population is 60 years of age or older,
while 11 percent fall between 16 and 24 years of age. The variation in
these individuals' educational needs and goals can make it difficult
and time-consuming for adult educators to design effective
instructional strategies for them. An additional complication is the
broad statement of purpose contained in section 311 of the Adult
Education Act, which focuses, in part, on providing assistance to
States ``* * * to improve educational opportunities for adults who lack
the level of literacy skills requisite to effective citizenship and
productive employment. * * *''
Should Adult Education remain as a separate program serving a
diverse population of adult learners with diverse needs? As one
alternative, should the programs be refocused, for example on work
preparation and literacy skills upgrading for adults? How can Federal
Adult Education programs best be structured to achieve the current
objectives in areas such as workforce preparation, family literacy, and
English proficiency? Should program services be organized around target
populations (such as dislocated workers or immigrants)? By program
objective (such as basic skills or workplace literacy)?
General Educational Development (GED) Preparation.
Many of the approximately one million adults who enrolled in Adult
Secondary Education programs in 1993 had as their goal the attainment
of a GED certificate. The value of the GED examination as a measure of
academic competence and achievement has attracted increasing attention
over the past several years as the percentage of high school
certificates awarded through equivalency examinations has increased. In
the United States, 475,602 of the 756,645 adults who took the GED in
1993 passed the test. Studies focusing on the skill levels, economic
outcomes, and postsecondary education experience of GED holders have
yielded inconclusive and sometimes contradictory results. For example,
most research on the economic value of the GED shows that it is
significantly less valuable than a high school diploma; on the other
hand, some evidence indicates that GED recipients have higher incomes
than high school dropouts.
Should attainment of a GED diploma continue to be a primary focus
of Adult Secondary Education? If not, what credential alternatives are
available for adults seeking to complete their secondary education?
Should local programs be encouraged to offer courses that allow adults
to earn a high school diploma?
Set-Asides.
By establishing set-asides and targeting the needs of special
populations, the Adult Education Act requires States to use their
Federal adult education funds to address the educational needs of a
diverse population, for example: those in need of basic education
services, the limited-English-proficient, incarcerated and otherwise
institutionalized individuals, and public housing residents. While each
of these groups may have a well-established need for adult education
services, the mix of their needs may make it difficult for adult
education providers to target limited resources on, and create
solutions to, the most pressing problems in adult education.
Do the set-asides (e.g., 10 percent for criminal offenders in
corrections education and other institutionalized individuals) required
by the Adult Education Act further the purposes of the Act? Are they
overly prescriptive? Should the reauthorized program continue to draw a
distinction between adult basic education and adult secondary education
and specify the maximum amount of funds that may be used for high
school equivalency programs? Should the Gateway Grants program be
continued?
Special Experimental Demonstration Projects and Teacher
Training.
For many years States have reserved formula grant funds to
undertake special projects and to train adult educators. Has this set-
aside been an effective means of spurring innovation and ensuring a
trained adult education workforce, or should other means of achieving
those objectives be considered? If this set-aside is retained, should
States be required to establish mechanisms for the dissemination of
effective practices?
English-as-a-Second Language.
The National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs found that
enrollments in English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) courses are outpacing
enrollments in Adult Basic Education (ABE) and Adult Secondary
Education (ASE); during 1992, approximately 46 percent of all clients
served in the Basic State Grants program were enrolled in ESL courses.
The study also found that the characteristics of ESL clients vary
considerably from those served in ABE and ASE. For example, about 50
percent of new ESL clients had a secondary school diploma or its
equivalent, while 89 percent of new ABE/ASE students lacked such a
credential.
Given the above findings, is the Adult Education program structured
properly to address the English language instruction needs of limited
English proficient individuals? If so, should the funding formula be
changed, or should a new formula be added, to reflect the
characteristics of this population?
Achievement.
Should the Adult Education Act be amended to provide a greater
focus on learner outcomes? What would be appropriate types and measures
of learner outcomes? Should the Act prescribe creation of national
program performance indicators? Should the Department, or States, use
those outcomes in making resource allocation decisions?
Client Persistence.
Although the amount and type of instruction adult learners need to
meet their education goals varies because of their diverse
characteristics and abilities, findings from the National Evaluation of
Adult Education Programs reveal that about 15 percent of clients who
register for adult education programs do not receive any instruction.
How can the Federal Government promote the development of adult
education programs that both attract and retain clients?
According to the National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs,
the employment of at least some full-time staff and the provision of
support services are two ways programs can increase client persistence
and improve outcomes. However, over 80 percent of adult education
instructors work part-time, and, although the vast majority of program
directors reported meeting their clients' needs for counseling or job
assistance, far fewer were able to meet other important support service
needs. For example, 42 percent of female clients and 32 percent of male
clients have children under the age of six, but only 43 percent of
programs reported meeting their clients' child care needs ``somewhat''
or ``fully.'' Does the Adult Education Act provide programs with
sufficient flexibility or incentive to offer these services?
Technology.
As demands on adults' time continue to escalate--with more people
working longer hours, commuting greater distances, and coping with day
care and elder care issues--the traditional, tutorial/classroom-based
approach to adult education may not be the best mechanism, in many
cases, for attracting and retaining adult education students.
Incorporating new technologies into adult literacy programs may be one
way to address the time constraints of the adult education student. The
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found in a 1993 study that
technology could help transform the field of adult literacy by, for
example, allowing students to proceed at their own pace, customize
their studies, and establish a schedule that is compatible with their
daily lives. However, OTA also suggested that technology does not play
a central role in most adult literacy programs.
Should the Federal Government encourage the use of more technology
in adult literacy programs? If so, how can technology of proven
effectiveness in enhancing learning be incorporated in cost-effective
ways that learners will find beneficial?
Linking Adult Education to Other Domestic Initiatives.
In recent years, policymakers have begun to turn to adult education
services as a means of addressing other societal problems, for example,
requiring participation in literacy programs for prison parole,
continuation of welfare benefits, or, through Even Start, making adult
literacy instruction a component of elementary and secondary education
improvement. Should the Adult Education Act continue to address very
general purposes, or should it be tied explicitly to national efforts
to redevelop poor neighborhoods, end welfare dependency, fight crime,
or ensure a smooth integration of new immigrants into American society?
If the Adult Education Act is linked to other domestic initiatives,
should the Act be revised to reflect the impact that mandatory
participation requirements of certain programs, such as JOBS, have on
adult education programs?
2. State Literacy Resource Centers
The National Literacy Act created the State Literacy Resource
Centers program to stimulate the coordination of literacy services,
enhance the capacity of State and local organizations to provide
literacy services, and serve as a link between the National Institute
for Literacy and service providers to share information and expertise.
Are State Literacy Resource Centers effective at meeting the goals
of the Act? What steps, if any, should be taken at the Federal level to
improve the effectiveness of the Centers? Should the funds allotted
under this program continue to be channeled through State Governors?
3. Discretionary Programs
Current law authorizes several discretionary grant programs. Most
of these programs are small and fund a limited number of recipients.
Although the purpose of the programs is generally the demonstration of
effective strategies for addressing particular issues or problems,
funds often support local projects that, while beneficial to the
recipients, are not designed in a way to yield lessons for broader use.
What role should Adult Education discretionary programs play in
helping the Nation achieve its education goals? Would these resources
be more effectively utilized under broader authorities, such as the
Adult Education State formula grant program? Do the current programs
encourage a piecemeal, rather than comprehensive, approach to adult
education reform (with service providers devoting too much attention to
applying for and administering separate competitive grants), or do they
focus attention where it is needed? If there is a need for Federal
demonstration programs, what changes are needed to ensure that they are
designed as true demonstrations and serve their purposes effectively?
What types of evaluation and reporting ought to be required?
4. Workplace Literacy Partnerships
At current funding levels, the National Workplace Literacy program
makes discretionary grants for demonstrations that provide literacy
training to meet workplace needs. Since its inception in 1988, this
demonstration program has generated important information about
effective workplace literacy practices. The program has produced
curricula transferable for use by specific types of industries, and a
national evaluation, currently underway, will generate additional
information about program effectiveness. However, after eight years and
261 grants the continuation of the National Workplace Literacy program,
in its current form, may not appreciably add to our base of knowledge
in this area.
Should the Federal Government continue to support workplace
literacy programs and, if so, in what form? For example, should
workplace literacy become a key focus of the Adult Education State
Grants program? Or should a separate, reconfigured workplace literacy
program be designed?
5. Technical Assistance and Evaluation
Section 383 of the Adult Education Act provides assistance to
States in evaluating the status and effectiveness of adult education
programs and measuring the extent of adult illiteracy in the Nation.
Funds support applied research, development, dissemination, evaluation,
and technical assistance activities that show promise of contributing
to the improvement and expansion of adult education. How should this
authorization be structured to provide Federal leadership activities of
maximum benefit to practitioners and policy-makers?
6. National Institute for Literacy
The National Literacy Act created the National Institute for
Literacy to provide leadership and coordination on adult literacy
issues; improve and expand the adult literacy service delivery system;
and enhance the Nation's ability to achieve the National Goal of adult
literacy and lifelong learning. The Institute has worked toward
accomplishing this mission by, for instance--(1) Establishing a
National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center; (2)
supporting State capacity-building initiatives in the areas of
interagency accountability and staff development; and (3) working with
providers to design and implement a national literacy information and
communications system.
Does the current statutory language provide for Institute
activities that meet the needs of the literacy field? Are the currently
authorized activities still appropriate? How should they relate to the
national leadership priorities of the Department (as currently
authorized under section 383)? How can the Institute work with the
Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, which
form the interagency group that oversees the Institute, to ensure more
effective coordination of literacy-related policy and programs at the
Federal level?
Format for Comments. This request for comments is designed to
elicit the views of interested parties on how the Department's
vocational and adult education programs can be structured to meet the
objectives of the reauthorization effort as stated in this notice.
The Secretary requests that each respondent identify his or her
role in education and the perspective from which he or she views the
educational system--either as a representative of an association,
agency, or school (public or private), or as an individual teacher,
student, parent, or private citizen.
The Secretary urges each commenter to be specific regarding his or
her proposals and to include, if possible, the data requirements,
timing, procedures, and actual legislative language that the commenter
proposes for the improved or redesigned program.
Programs Under Consideration.
The following is a complete list of programs under the scope of the
reauthorization:
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act
Title I
Assistance to the States, Allotment and Allocation, State
Organizational and Planning Responsibilities
Title II
Basic State Grants, Other State-Administered programs, Secondary,
Postsecondary, and Adult Vocational Education
Title III
Community-Based Organizations, Consumer and Homemaking Education,
Comprehensive Career Guidance and Counseling Programs, Business-Labor-
Education Partnership Training, Tech-Prep Education, Supplementary
State Grants, Community Education Employment Centers, Vocational
Education Lighthouse Schools, Tribally Controlled Postsecondary
Vocational Institutions.
Title IV
Research and Development, Demonstration Programs, Vocational
Education and Occupational Information Data Systems, Bilingual
Vocational Training.
Adult Education Act
Basic State Grants
State Literacy Resource Centers
National Adult Education Discretionary Program
Workplace Literacy Partnerships (National and State-
Administered Programs)
National Workforce Literacy Strategies
Education Programs for Commercial Drivers
National Programs
Adult Migrant Farmworker and Immigrant Education
Adult Literacy Volunteer Training
State Program Analysis Assistance and Policy Studies
National Institute for Literacy
National Literacy Act of 1991
Title III
Family Literacy Public Broadcasting Program
Title VI
Functional Literacy and Life Skills Programs for State and Local
Prisoners
Dated: September 13, 1994.
Augusta Souza Kappner,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 94-23246 Filed 9-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
