adult education

Two Basic Principles for Immigration Reform and Learning English

/ The Old Crank

All indications are that the immigration reform legislation currently being drafted in the Senate is going to provide undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S. with the opportunity to apply for lawful permanent residency—but with a much more arduous set of requirements than are required by normal green card applicants. Adult education groups are particularly interested in the English language requirement (which I discussed here).

Having now had a chance to think about this for a few weeks, my thoughts on this requirement come down to two basic principles:

  1. A requirement to learn English in order to qualify for lawful permanent resident status shouldn’t penalize or place an unrealistic burden on those with significant learning challenges.
  2. Any requirement to learn English in order to qualify for lawful permanent resident status should address the increased demand for English instruction that would emerge as a result, in a way that leverages the success of adult education programs that already provide these services.

The first has to do with basic fairness and ensuring equal opportunity. A requirement to learn English in order to qualify for lawful permanent resident status shouldn’t penalize or place an unrealistic burden on those who have special learning challenges, such as:

  • Those with limited education or literacy skills in their native language.
  • Those who are caregivers of children and therefore may have more limited opportunities to attend English classes. Lack of childcare services is already a significant barrier that prevents many people from attending adult education classes—particularly women.
  • Those who are elderly or disabled. For citizenship, those who are over a certain age and/or who have a disability may be granted an exemption from completing the English and civics tests. Similar kinds of considerations should be made for undocumented immigrants applying for the permanent resident status who are elderly/disabled.

It seems to me that consideration should be given to scrapping English proficiency altogether as a requirement and using satisfactory completion of some form of legitimate English language instruction over a certain period of time as sufficient to qualify. This would eliminate the problem of having to figure out what level of proficiency is going to count as sufficient, and it would largely (although not entirely) address the problem that the elderly/disabled may struggle to gain proficiency easily or quickly. One would still have to know English at certain level of proficiency to become a citizen (other than those who would be granted exceptions anyway).

The second basic principle is that any requirement to learn English in order to qualify for lawful permanent resident status should address the increased demand for low-cost English instruction that’s going to explode as a result, and in a way that leverages the success of adult education programs that already provide these services for free or at a limited cost. (I’m thinking here primarily of the adult English language and literacy programs funded at least in part by federal/state dollars—but also the privately funded nonprofits that are also key adult education providers in many communities.)

  • While the current capacity of these programs may not be sufficient to meet new demand, it will be cheaper to leverage the existing capacity than to create new entities to provide this instruction.
  • Moreover, this existing adult education system already has a track record of success in providing individuals with the English skills needed to successfully enter employment, improve their employment prospects, enroll in job training or in postsecondary education. The adult education system also has a track record in many states of providing adults with the opportunity to co-enroll in English language instruction while obtaining technical skills.
  • Similarly, it doesn’t make sense for the English language requirement to establish its own measure(s) for English proficiency that does not align with those measures already in use by the adult education system in local communities.

Finally, while it’s probably not realistic to expect a big increase in federal expenditures for these programs to be included in this bill, we ought to at least strengthen what we have. Let’s encourage professional and private sector investment in expanded adult English language instruction. One way to do this would be to provide tax credits for businesses that partner with adult education programs to provide English instruction for their employees (or residents of the community)—a variation of an idea was included in the Menendez/Leahy immigration reform bill in 2010.

In addition, I can’t think of a good reason why this legislation shouldn’t include the authorization of the EL/Civics grant program under Title II of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). (WIA is the primary vehicle for federal investment in adult education in the U.S.) EL/Civics isn’t actually authorized by WIA but is a set-aside that has to be approved by Congressional appropriators every year. The lack of authorization leaves the program more vulnerable to elimination than other programs under WIA, at a time when we can least afford for that to happen.

Odds and Ends

/ The Old Crank

I’ve been under the weather for several days and haven’t had the energy to post anything. A couple of quick things:

  • Also on Friday, Democrats on the House Education and the Workforce Committee reintroduced their WIA reauthorization bill from last year. It’s now called the Workforce Investment Act of 2013 (H.R. 798). Press release here.

A lot of old legislation gets reintroduced at the beginning of a new session, so I have no idea how excited to get over this. It’s worth remembering that it has zero chance of passing the Republican-controlled committee.

My recollection is that Republicans on the committee were planing to reintroduce their WIA reauthorization bill early this year as well, and while that presumably would pass the committee (like their bill did last year), whether it would get to the floor anytime soon, and whether it would get through the Senate or form the basis for a compromise bill is another question.

Educating and Training for Adults Largely Ignored in 2013 State of the Union Address

/ The Old Crank

Last night I was reviewing the President’s 2013 State of the Union address alongside my my notes on last year’s address. The thing I remember most strongly about last year’s speech was the President’s reference to a “maze of confusing training programs” which, at the time, (tweeting on behalf of D.C. LEARNs), I thought might be interpreted as a vague endorsement of the proposal then being floated by House Republicans to consolidate Workforce Investment Act (WIA) job training programs:

2012 SOTU Tweet

Sure enough, when House Republicans released their WIA reauthorization bill last spring, (H.R. 4297, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012), they used this quote in their fact sheet. In retrospect, I think the quote was taken entirely out of context (it seems clear when you read the President’s entire speech that he was talking about consolidating information about federal job training programs, not the programs themselves) but the House Committee on Education and the Workforce used the President’s words time and time again throughout the spring to support their arguments.

But hey, at least the President talked about job training and adult skills last year. Jobs were, in fact, explicitly linked to a proposal to support more job training. The President said that he had been hearing from business leaders “who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills.”  He then issued this call to action:

Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My administration has already lined up more companies that want to help.  Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, and Orlando, and Louisville are up and running.  Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers -– places that teach people skills that businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing. (my emphasis)

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help that they need.  It is time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

But on Tuesday night the President barely mentioned adult skills. And when he did, it was to introduce other education proposals:

These initiatives in manufacturing, energy, infrastructure, and housing will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create new jobs. But none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs. And that has to start at the earliest possible age.

Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. But today, fewer than 3 in 10 four year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program. Most middle-class parents can’t afford a few hundred bucks a week for private preschool. And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives.

Tonight, I propose working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America. Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than seven dollars later on – by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime. In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children, like Georgia or Oklahoma, studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, and form more stable families of their own. So let’s do what works, and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. Let’s give our kids that chance.

Let’s also make sure that a high school diploma puts our kids on a path to a good job. Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so that they’re ready for a job. At schools like P-Tech in Brooklyn, a collaboration between New York Public Schools, the City University of New York, and IBM, students will graduate with a high school diploma and an associate degree in computers or engineering.

In 2012, preparing Americans for unfilled jobs required job training and community colleges and partnerships with businesses to retrain workers for new jobs. Last night, by contrast, when the President said that we must “equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill [new] jobs,” he immediately pivoted to his preschool proposal, and retraining adults is never mentioned. He then goes on to discuss the need to ensure that high school diplomas “puts our kids on a path to a good job.”

In other words, in 2012, preparing citizens for new jobs was linked to job training for adults; this year, it was linked to preschool and high school education. Adult training or re-training was never actually discussed at all. (It was only mentioned again as a segue into his discussion of immigration reform.)

No one I know in the field of adult education or job training is opposed to the idea of improving high school education or improving access to high-quality pre-school, (although, if we are serious about preparing kids for success in school, our strategy should include efforts to improve the skills of parents/caregivers), but I’ve never understood how improving preschool education is going to help us fill the jobs that are available now.

And it can’t help but make one wonder about the adminstrations’s engagement/commitment to WIA reauthorization. Perhaps after House Republicans appropriated his remarks on job training last year, he decided it was best not to get into the subject again last night. Or maybe it’s just a case of not having the time to hit on every priority, and/or wanting to keep the speech fresh. Hopefully it’s not a sign that adult education and training has slipped a further down the administration’s list of priorities.

Adult Education Provisions in 2010 Immigration Reform Bill

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

Earlier this week I suggested a few broad adult education issues that might potentially be addressed in the bipartisan immigration reform bill the Senate hopes to release sometime in March.

But I hadn’t had a chance (until today) to look at what specific adult education provisions might have been proposed in prior immigration reform legislation. Most notably, I had not reviewed the not-so-old Democratic bill introduced by Senators Menendez (D-NJ) and Leahy (D-VT) late in 2010, which included a number of specific provisions designed to strengthen adult education in the context of immigrant integration. “The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010” (SB 3932) not only included an expansion of federal investments in English literacy and civics education, but included other programs and policies designed to encourage English literacy instructional opportunities—such as tax credits for English literacy teachers and for businesses that provided English language instruction for their employees.

Sen. Menendez is one of the eight lead Senators hammering out the bipartisan bill we expect to see in a few weeks. I haven’t spoken to anyone about any conversations with Sen. Menendez on what might be in this new bill, and I don’t know if any of the adult education pieces in SB 3932 have come up during his discussions with his Republican colleagues. I don’t even have a solid sense of what my colleagues in the adult education field in general think about these provisions, although they look pretty good to me.

But since we know that Sen. Menendez is part of the team developing the new legislation, and that Sen. Leahy will have an influential role in the process as the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it seems to me that it’s instructive to review what they were thinking back in 2010.