GED

Tim Noah: GED/High School Diploma Requirement for UI “Still A Bad Idea”

/ The Old Crank

A colleague pointed out to me this morning that Timothy Noah at the New Republic has been writing about the proposal to ban unemployed workers without a high school diploma or GED from collecting unemployment benefits since the House proposed this idea back in December. Here is an excerpt from his original post on the subject, from December 19th:

The GED requirement, on the other hand, is a new way to communicate that if you lack a job you must be deficient. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m as concerned as the next guy about the fact that the high school graduation rate hasn’t increased in decades. If you don’t have a high school diploma, or a GED, you’re going to have a very difficult time getting a job. But if someone is collecting unemployment who lacks either of these things we know that person managed to get a job in spite of this educational deficit–otherwise he or she wouldn’t be on unemployment. To require this person to enroll in a GED program as a condition of collecting benefits is in essence to say that you had no business being in the labor force to begin with. I can imagine that it might pose all sorts of practical problems simultaneously to start a GED program, look for a job, and jump through all the other hoops you need to to shake your unemployment check free from the state bureaucracy. Wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on getting yourself a job, and then enroll, if circumstances allow, in a GED program?

If you’re employed, have no high school diploma or GED, and aren’t enrolled in a GED program, you don’t get to opt out of the unemployment insurance program. You can’t tell your boss, “Hey, give that money to me, not to the state, because I don’t have a GED and I don’t intend to get one even if I lose my job.” You just pay into the insurance pool just like everyone else… I’m not suggesting that high school dropouts… be given such an opt-out; obviously that would undermine the solvency of the state unemployment insurance fund (which is probably pretty shaky to begin with). What I’m saying is that it’s unfair to impose conditions on drawing from an unemployment insurance fund that don’t exist when you’re paying into it. And it opens the gates wide to imposing all sorts of other petty conditions whose real purpose would be to further stigmatize and humiliate people whose sole offense to society is that they once had a job and then lost it. (my emphasis)

I agreee with the point I highlighted in first paragraph—but I think it’s worse than he describes. The other hoop you’d have to jump through is proving that you are in the right kind of class and that you are making “satisfactory progress” since the House proposal doesn’t define either. (See my post here.)

Here is Noah’s latest on this subject, from February 1st.

Great Example of Why House UI Proposal Makes No Sense

/ The Old Crank

Yesterday’s Las Vegas Sun published an excellent article by Tovin Lapan on the increasing demand for adult education classes among the unemployed in Las Vegas. The article includes a photo gallery of the long lines of people waiting to sign up for ESL classes at the Community Multicultural Center (CMC).

“We’ve seen an increase in demand for ESL classes in the last few years,” said Lyn Pizor, Community Multicultural Center director. “We typically run waiting lists in all ESL classes, and in the last two or three years those lists have gotten longer. There just aren’t enough spaces to serve the population.”

The majority of those in line, including Melchor, spoke of the need to learn English so they can find a new job. Many said they would pursue GED classes, a new offering at the center, after their English skills were up to par. (my emphasis)

The problem in Las Vegas, it appears, is not that the unemployed need motivation to enroll in adult education, but that there is not sufficient resources to meet the demand.

According to the article, CMC receives the bulk of its funding through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). WIA Title II is the primary federal source of adult edcuation funds for adult education programs in the United States. Congress, which has not significantly increased fudning for Title II over the last decade, is now debating whether to cut off UI benefits earned by unemployed workers without a high school diploma or GED unless they are enrolled in a class to obtain one—even if they can’t enroll in one because Congress (and states) don’t adequately fund adult education to meet the demand.

Conferees Debate UI Extension Legislation – Lots of Debate Over GED/Diploma Requirement

/ The Old Crank

Senate and House conferees have been meeting this week to resolve their differences on the Social Security payroll tax cut extension, the unemployment insurance (UI) program, Medicare physicians payment fix — and a few other items — in the hopes of coming up with a compromise bill in the next few weeks. House Republicans have been pushing a proposal to deny UI benefits to individuals without a high school diploma unless they are enrolled in classes that will lead to a GED or another “state-recognized equivalent.”

You can watch today’s discussion here, via C-SPAN. A great deal of time was spent today debating the diploma/GED requirement. They are meeting again tomorrow. In the meantime, Sen. Baucus (D-MT) promised House Republicans that the Senate would have an alternative proposal ready in time for tomorrow’s meeting.

Meanwhile, the National Coalition for Literacy, which already issued an action alert on this issue, has now also circulated a letter to conferees (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I helped write) outlining why the House proposal is unfair and unworkable.

Also, see CLASP’s latest statement on the House proposal here.

Concerns About the Redesign of the GED

/ The Old Crank

Catherine Gewertz wrote a lengthy piece in this week’s Education Week about the planned redesign of the GED. The piece does a good job explaining, from the perspective of the GED Testing Service, and others, why extensive changes are being planned. Meanwhile, over at the D.C. LEARNs blog, Ben Merrion does a nice job summarizing the potential positives and the potential concerns over these changes for adult education programs to consider.

Judging by the comments made on Gewertz’s piece, a lot of people have concerns about the redesign, some of which she addressed in a blog entry Tuesday — mainly the concern about the for-profit arrangement created to oversee the redesign. Gewertz wrote in her original article that the redesign effort was a “joint venture of the American Council on Education, or ACE, which created the GED, and the education publishing giant Pearson.” What was not clear from that statement is that ACE and Pearson are transitioning the GED testing service from a nonprofit to a for-profit business.

When I read the original article, a couple of additional comments/questions came to my mind:

First, the article notes that the redesign will require “overhauling professional development for GED teachers, reworking curricula, and adding strong counseling supports to help students pass and plan their next steps.” The article does not, however, discuss the financial challenges that this could pose for GED instructional programs, especially at a time when many programs are experiencing severe cuts in state and private funding. Federal funding for adult education has remained basically flat for a over a decade. There are plenty of programs that would like to add a strong counseling component right now, for example, but don’t have the resources to do it.

Secondly, I was also surprised that the original article did not discuss the concerns that have been raised about the potential additional cost of taking the new GED.

Gewertz writes in her follow-up blog post:

I also asked if the company anticipated a change in the price of the new GED in 2014, either for those who take the tests, or for states, which lease it from the GED Testing Service. [GED Testing Service Executive Vice President, Nicole] Chestang said that it was too early to know whether the price would change, but said the company recognized the importance of keeping “costs lean and the test accessible.”

It looks to me, though, that a lot of folks have been operating over the last several months under the assumption that increased test fees are inevitable, and they attribute it to the merger with Pearson and/or to the shift to computer-based testing:

Prices are expected to increase to as much as $125 by 2014, when a new, more challenging version of the GED test is scheduled to debut.

— Changes to GED testing spur worry (The Virginian Pilot)

According to the Technical College System of Georgia, testing rates are increasing because of an increase in costs from the national test administrator, a public-private combination of the ACE and Pearson.

— Cost of GED testing to rise (The Haralson Gateway-Beacon, Georgia)

As part of a planned overhaul, the testing service could increase the test fee from $65 to as much as $200 when the test eventually moves online.

— GED test price increase worries, angers some (WSMV – News Channel 4, Tennessee)

Last question: In her original piece, Gewertz wrote that “[Nicholas S.] Mader and others who study the GED worry that making it easily available to 16- to-18-year-olds induces dropouts by offering a quicker, easier alternative. The GED Testing Service recognizes that risk, said spokesman CT Turner.”

Does anyone know if there any evidence that this is true? I do think that it’s possible that some kids struggling in school (and their parents) might think that obtaining a GED is a better option than staying in school, but that’s different from saying that they view it as a shortcut. At D.C. LEARNs, we used to get calls from parents asking about this. From what I can remember, it was always because they were looking for a way out of a horrible school situation — violence, bullying, lack of attention to a learning challenge from teachers and administrators, etc. Parents sometimes wanted to get heir kids out of an enviroment that they thought was harmful. In other words, consideration of the option to drop out and study for the GED was in response to a difficult situation at school, not an effort to find an “easier alternative” to graduation. (Our policy was to always urge kids to stay in school, in case you were wondering.)

I also think most kids have some vague awareness that getting a GED may not have the same value as getting a high school diploma. But again, some may view it as a better option than staying in school.

Maybe my experience is unusual, but it sure would be useful to know whether there is data to support Mader’s contention. (I haven’t read all of the papers cited in this article so maybe it’s in one of those, but if so, it’s odd that it’s not cited in the context of this paragraph.)