State Policy

Faith-Based Policymaking in West Virginia

/ The Old Crank

From an article published today in the Charleston Gazette on West Virginia Governor Tomblin’s executive order requiring drug testing for anyone participating in training programs funded under the federal Workforce Investment Act:

Labor union leaders and other worker advocates have questioned the push for workforce-related drug screenings. West Virginia AFL-CIO President Kenny Perdue called on the state’s major industries to provide more information amid concerns that the drug issue has become an excuse to hire out-of-state.

“I do believe that the over-abuse of drugs in this state is not as bad as everybody makes it to be,” Perdue said Tuesday. “I’ve talked to too many people and learned of too many cases that show that it’s not as serious as they say.”

Steve Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, said his group has no hard data but that he encounters businesses with this concern in all parts of the state.

“Many employers really do have trouble finding people to hire who are eligible to work, who have the skills the employer requires and who can pass a drug test,” Roberts said Tuesday. “I have to believe that the problem is significant, or I wouldn’t be hearing it every place I go.”

How Would Adult Education Funding Fare under H.R. 4297?

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

(Updated below)

The National Skills Coalition has posted helpful summaries of each title of H.R. 4297, the Republican Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization bill recently introduced in the House, which they call “The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012.”

H.R. 4297 doesn’t tinker much with Title II, (the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, which, under this bill—and this is most innocuous example of the tinkering I’m talking about—would be rechristened Adult Education and Family Literacy Education Act), yet I think an argument could be made that if passed into law, H.R. 4297 would likely lead to a dramatic drop in both federal and state funding for the programs funded under Title II—especially for those serving people at the lowest levels of literacy.

Why? The answer lies primarily in the dramatic and far-reaching changes the House Republicans are proposing in Title I.

First, section 127 of Title I would authorize states to consolidate all the job training funds under Title I, the adult literacy funds under Title II, and a bunch of other federal programs (TANF, Trade Adjustment Assistance, Community Services Block Grants, and others), into one big Workforce Investment Fund. (See section 127, pp. 138‐140.) Under these unified plans, “[s]tates may treat any funds consolidated into the Workforce Investment Fund as if they were original funds allotted to the state for that purpose.” That suggests, for example, that states could use the Title II funds for purposes other than adult education/literacy, and completely ignore the requirements under Title II to serve adults with low basic skills.

We already know that adult basic education funding is vulnerable when it’s not protected from attempted raids by other sectors with a stronger political base. A case in point is California, where school districts are responsible for adult education. Since 2009, after the passage of the California Budget Act (CBA), school districts have been allowed to take money from one funding category and move it into another. This allows California school districts to use funding originally intended for adult education to fill gaps in its K-12 budget. This has been happening all over California for the last few years— the most dramatic example being Los Angeles, where the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board is still considering the possible elimination of the LAUSD’s adult education program, which would leave well over 300,000 adult students without adult education services.

Section 127 of H.R. 4297 doesn’t just leave federal adult education money unprotected—it practically encourages states to grab that money and use it for other purposes. But the whole point of having this funding segregated from job training funding was to ensure that states would address the needs of those with very low literacy skills. Under this bill, they won’t have to. (And it’s not as if there are states out there being forced to use WIA money on adult literacy when there is no need. There is no state in the country that does not have a significant number of individuals in need of adult basic education services. Most have waiting lists.)

Advocates for every program funded under WIA can probably make an argument as to why their program should be firewalled from Section 127 consolidation, but I think adult literacy has an especially good case. It’s a separate title under WIA for a logical reason. Adult literacy has always been at best an awkward fit under the current law, since adult and family literacy programs are not always directly focused on employment-related outcomes, but on academic goals. The original authors of the act hoped that by including the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act under WIA it would encourage more coordination between job training and adult education, but in order to best support the specific purposes of adult education, they wisely put adult education in its own separate title.

But even if the bill was modified so that Title II was eliminated from the list of programs eligible for consolidation under section 127, there is a change in Title II that I believe would result in a significant reduction in state funding for adult education. Specifically, the bill eliminates the current maintenance of effort provisions mandated by section 241. (See section 241, p. 171.)

Under current law, states must contribute a certain minimal level of non-federal state or local funding to adult education programs funded under Title II, (i.e. “match” funding); in addition, under the maintenance of effort requirement under section 241 , a state may only receive an allotment of federal adult education funds if the state/local non-federal funding effort meets certain previous levels. (If you’re a glutton for punishment, you can read about how all this is calculated here.) If a state reduces that contribution by more than 10% any given year, it’s supposed to trigger an automatic pro rata reduction in the federal allocation to the state.

In other words, under current law, states can’t make dramatic cuts to local funding for adult education without the possibility of a reduction in federal adult education funding coming to their state. Now, as a practical matter, I don’t know how often—or whether—that trigger has ever been pulled. It appears to me that the Department of Education works hard with states to work out arrangements so that a reduction in federal funding is not triggered.

However, I do know that a couple of years ago, here in the District of Columbia, local government officials, looking for cost-savings in the city budget during a challenging revenue year, analyzed their federal grants and stripped down the local funding contribution to the minimum required to maintain their federal match and/or maintenance of effort contribution(s). I think it’s reasonable to assume that the cut the administration proposed to local adult education spending that year (which was later rescinded by the D.C. Council) would have been much greater if that maintenance of effort rule had not been there.

Even if the maintenance of effort requirement is actually be relatively easy for states to negotiate, I believe it does exert at least some pressure on states to maintain at least some minimal funding base for adult education. Thus the elimination of this requirement would further erode an already shaky state/local funding landscape for adult literacy.

I haven’t had the time to study the legislation that thoroughly, so I’d love to hear from others in the comments section about what they think of it. Those were the funding issues that jumped out at me—I know there are other issues with the bill that others have and will point out.

Meanwhile, a hearing on H.R. 4297 is scheduled for tomorrow at 10am.

UPDATE 4/19/12: The National Coalition for Literacy has issued an action alert on the consolidation issue.

UPDATE 4/23/12: One clarification regarding my contention above that H.R. 4297 doesn’t tinker that much with Title II itself. Just to be clear, that is not to say there aren’t any other significant changes to Title II in the Republican bill than those I discussed. Most notably, H.R. 4297 eliminates authorization for the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). But I’d still characterize that as relatively minor in terms of impact. That’s because in spite of the fact that NIFL remains an authorized program under current law, it closed down several years ago after Congress (with the support of the President) de-funded it. Also, the point of my article was to highlight the changes that would impact funding for programs, and NIFL is largely irrelevant to that discussion.

UPDATE 5/1/12: I received an e-mail from CLASP today with links to their analyses of both this bill and H.R. 4227, the Democratic alternative:

Adult Charter School Proposed for Nashville County

/ The Old Crank

The Tennessean reports today that Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee is pursuing a  charter for an adult charter school, taking advantage of the opportunity created by recent changes to the state’s charter school law. Here are the details (note the critical caveat in the last sentence):

A Goodwill vice president said Tuesday she pursued a charter after being approached by a former employee in Nashville Mayor Karl Dean’s office to help some of the county’s 60,000 adults without a high school diploma.

Excel Academy, proposed by Goodwill Industries of Middle Tennessee, hopes to serve adult dropouts.

“The barrier to getting a job is that they don’t have a high school diploma,” said Goodwill of Middle Tennessee Vice President Betty Johnson. “There is a huge unmet need.”

Goodwill will give $100,000 in startup money for the program, fashioned after one in Indiana that has a waiting list of more than 2,000 adults. However, school district officials say it’s unclear whether state K-12 funding will cover adults who dropped out years earlier. (my emphasis)

Excellent Article on History of Adult Education in California—and Why It’s All Falling Apart Now

/ The Old Crank

Over the weekend, the San Diego News-Tribune published an outstanding guest opinion piece by Dom Gagliardi, principal of the Escondido Adult School, and a past president of both the California Council for Adult Education and the National Commission on Adult Basic Education.

Gagliardi’s article is a great primer on the proud, 156-year history of school-based adult education in California—a system of “adult schools” that is all but collapsing in the wake of massive state budget deficits over the last several years—and a law that has encouraged many school districts to cut adult education from their budgets.

Gagliardi notes that at its peak in 2005, nearly 1.4 million Californians were enrolled in adult education, mostly through this system. But since 2010, 32 adult schools have closed temporarily and 44 have had their budgets cut by more than 50%, all because of a budget mechanism implemented in 2009 known as “categorical flexibility,” which allows districts to divert funds from programs like adult education to support its K-12 programs. As Gagliardi writes:

The increasing economic pressure on school districts to balance their budgets has put them in the untenable and unfortunate position of pitting one program against another. When forced to prioritize instructional services for youth or adults, the choice is obvious and painful. (my emphasis)

That last point can’t be emphasized enough (see point number one here).

According to Gagliardi, there is at least one school district in California that has remained steadfast in continuing to provide adult education despite these pressures—and not surprisingly, it’s his own. Although the district has cut their budget by about 20%, the Escondido Adult School, which serves approximately 10,000 students per year, has survived, at least in part via increased class fees to offset the decreases in state and local funding.

Gagliardi concludes, “[i]t is increasingly evident that giving local school districts the ability to use funding previously earmarked for adult education to support K-12 programs must end before the entire adult education system is decimated. (my emphasis) Once the infrastructure of the state’s adult education program is gone, it will be difficult if not impossible to resurrect.”

That law is supposed to expire in 2015; it’s encouraging to read a call to end this practice now, before it’s too late.

Be sure to go read the whole article if you are at all interested in what is going on there. Again, it’s a great primer on the history of adult education in the state, a good summary of what is going wrong there now, and a call to act before there is nothing left to save.