adult education

Witnesses Announced for This Thursday’s HELP Committee Hearing on WIA Reauthorization

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) will be holding a hearing on on WIA Reauthorization this Thursday, June 20 2013, at 2:30 PM.

It’s been widely reported that Senator Murray (D-WA) and Senator Isakson (R-GA) have been working on a bi-partisan WIA reauthorization bill, and that they are getting close to the finish line on a draft.

Here is the witness list:

UPDATE 6/18/13: The final witness was announced late yesterday; I’ve amended the post above accordingly. Also, the WIA bill itself may be released as early as June 25th. The hope is that they might get it passed out of committee shortly after the July 4th recess.

Nuance on Skills

/ The Old Crank

When the New York Times publishes a scathing editorial against the whole notion of a skills gap, it alarms me, because so much of adult education and training advocacy has coalesced around this idea. It also alarms me because whatever the economic data tells us about the root causes of unemployment, it doesn’t take away from the fact that we still have a substantial number of people who are trying to improve their basic skills, enroll in job training programs, and/or acquire industry credentials. We wouldn’t have waiting lists for services if this wasn’t the case.

Many economists have been arguing for some time that the skills gap has not been a major cause of unemployment. But a case for investing in skills doesn’t need to be dependent on this argument. I’ve often cited an old blog post from Jared Bernstein as an example of a way to argue for skills that isn’t dependent on proof of a skills gap.

The Times piece suggests that skills gap arguments will be increasingly met with skepticism. It’s going to be important not to let that turn into an argument against investing in skills altogether.

Senate Immigration Bill – Amendments Submitted Related to English Proficiency

/ The Old Crank / 2 Comments

(Updated Below)

I’ve scanned the amendments submitted thus far to the Senate immigration bill (S.744) and found at least four five that pertain to English proficiency:

S.A. 1204, introduced by Sen. Inhofe (R-OK)
AKA the “English Language Unity Act of 2013’’. Would declare English the official language of the United States government.

S.A. 1205, introduced by Sen. Inhofe (R-OK)
Would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that it would be legal for an employer to “require employees to speak English while engaged in work.”

S.A. 1206, introduced by Sen. Inhofe (R-OK)
Would require each government agency, within 180 days of enactment, to provide a “Multilingual Services Expenses Report” that provides a summary and analysis of all multilingual services provided.

S.A. 1225, introduced by Sen. Rubio (R-FL)
Would remove the opportunity for immigrants applying for legal residency status to demonstrate that they are “satisfactorily pursuing a course of study, pursuant to standards established by the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary, to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding of the history and Government of the United States” at the level of proficiency now required for citizenship. Instead it would require that all immigrant achieve that level of proficiency prior to applying for a green card.

S.A. 1348, introduced by Sen. Fischer (R-NE)
Would insert an English language requirement as a prerequisite to registered provisional immigrant status. Essnetially, an undocumented immigrant who could not demonstrate English proficiency would not be allowed to attain legal status of any kind at all. h/t CLASP

Let me know if I missed anything!

 

UDPATE 6/20/13: I’m updating as I go. Just added the Fischer amendment (see above).

Rubio Amendment Dramatically Alters English Requirement for Undocumented Immigrants

/ The Old Crank / 5 Comments

(Updated below)

According to a press release issued by his office today, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the original Gang of Eight who drafted the original Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill that is about to be debated on the Senate floor (S. 744), plans to introduce an amendment today that would dramatically change a key provision in the bill that provides a legalization pathway for the nation’s 11,000 undocumented immigrants. (See this post for background on the bill.)

Under the current version of S. 744, a registered provisional immigrant (RPI) cannot earn legal permanent residency (LPR) unless they establish that he or she understands English at the level of proficiency needed for citizenship; or “is satisfactorily pursuing a course of study, pursuant to standards established by the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Secretary, to achieve an understanding of English and knowledge and understanding of the history and Government of the United States…”

Sen. Rubio’s amendment eliminates the “course of study” option. That is, he now proposes (after presumably agreeing to the original language) to strike the provision that stipulates that the English proficiency requirement can be met by pursuing a course of study, calling it a “loophole.”

But the “course of study” option really makes a lot of sense. We know that a considerable number of undocumented immigrants living here now probably cannot meet the level of English proficiency needed for citizenship. (One expert estimates it at about 55%. See update below.) The current bill doesn’t let them off the hook—it requires them to learn English, but it recognizes that not everyone is going to be able to meet the required level of proficiency right away, and that learning English takes time. Requiring citizenship-level English to qualify for LPR status, with no option to give those with limited English skills a chance to learn, will likely discourage many undocumented immigrants with limited English skills from seeking legal registration. This would defeat one of the major purposes of the bill, which was to encourage working, law-abiding undocumented immigrants to come forward.

UPDATE: 6/11/13, 7:50PM: According to this article, Max Sevillia, director of policy and legislative affairs for the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), agrees that the amendment would discourage unauthorized immigrants from becoming permanent legal residents:

Max Sevillia, the director of policy and legislative affairs for the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), said the amendment would create a “chilling effect” that would discourage unauthorized immigrants from becoming permanent legal residents. Sevillia said the group’s polling shows that more than 80 percent of unauthorized immigrants say they want to be proficient in English, but that the best way to help them do that is to provide high quality English classes. “They understand that English is really the gateway to improving their lives and the lives of their family,” Sevillia said. (my emphasis)

UPDATE 6/11/13, 8:00PM: Margie McHugh of the Migration Policy Institute has estimated that about 55% of undocumented immigrants wouldn’t be able to pass the English portion of the U.S. citizenship test.