[AAACE-NLA] Job Training Improvement Act (long post)

[Debbie Yoho]

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 Improvment Act", really a substitute for the expired WIA.
I apologize that this is so long but I feel it is a 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 at earthlink.net