|
On Jan. 4, 2005, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), chair of the Education and
Workforce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Rep.
Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), chair of that committee’s Subcommittee
on 21st Century Competitiveness, introduced the Job Training Improvement
Act of 2005 (H.R. 27), which if passed would reauthorize the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA). The WIA, which is the major source of federal
funding for workforce development and adult education programs, was
scheduled to be reauthorized by Congress by Sept. 30, 2003; however, the
House and Senate could not reach a compromise on their respective WIA
reauthorization bills before the end of the 108th Congress.
The Job Training Improvement Act of 2005 (JTIA) is
similar to the WIA reauthorization bill (H.R. 1261) that the House
passed in 2003. While the bill includes some measures that would
improve immigrants’ access to English-as-a-second-language (ESL)
instruction, overall the bill does not go far enough in improving
job-training services to better serve immigrants and persons who are
limited-English-proficient (LEP). The bill that passed the Senate in
2003 (S. 1627) included a number of provisions that the House should
adopt, including provisions that would have (1) required states to
describe in their state plans how they would serve hard-to-serve
populations, (2) expanded “intensive” services to include English
acquisition and integrated training programs, and (3) funded a $10
million national demonstration project for “integrated workforce
training programs” designed to analyze and provide data on programs that
integrate language acquisition and job training. (For more information
on S. 1627’s provisions, see
www.nilc.org/immspbs/cdev/congrssdev012.htm.)
In addition to the provisions that would
specifically affect immigrants and persons who are LEP, H.R. 27 also
contains a provision that would create Personal Reemployment Accounts
(PRAs), i.e., vouchers that workers could use to purchase job-training
and other services. And H.R. 27 would block grant existing job-training
programs. Both of these measures would drastically limit the
availability of job-training services. (For a complete description of
these and other provisions in H.R. 27, see The Workforce Alliance’s
“Washington Update” at
www.workforcealliance.org/news/updates/NovDecJanUpdate FINAL.pdf.)
Provisions in H.R. 27 that would assist low-income
immigrants and persons who are LEP include the following:
job training
Improved access to training services. The bill attempts to address the “work first”
nature of the WIA by including a provision that would allow
job-seekers to enroll directly in training programs if they are
“unlikely or unable” to obtain employment through core services.
While this language is a good start, job-seekers should be allowed
to enroll in services that best meet their needs and not have to
demonstrate first that without training they are “unlikely or
unable” to obtain a job. The bill also increases the types of
activities that may be funded as statewide training activities to
include developing strategies for effectively serving
“hard-to-serve” populations. However, the bill fails to define
“hard-to-serve populations.”
Adjusted performance measures that take into
consideration low levels of English proficiency. States are
currently assessed on their effectiveness in delivering WIA services
through a performance accountability system that allows for adjusted
levels of performance. Adjusted levels of performance are currently
negotiated between each governor and the U.S. Dept. of Labor (DOL),
taking into account the state’s economic conditions and the
characteristics of its population. H.R. 27 provides that low levels
of English proficiency be included among the characteristics that
must be taken into account.
Incentives to serve “special populations.”
Under current law, bonus grants are awarded only to states that
exceed their performance measures. H.R. 27 would also award grants
based on the performance of the state in serving “special
populations,” including the level of services provided. Monies
awarded to states could be used for demonstration and innovative
programs serving “special populations. The bill does not define
“special populations”; however, persons who are LEP should be
included within any definition of “special populations.”
adult basic education/english
as a second language
Revision of the purpose of the Adult Basic
Skills and Family Literacy Education Act. Current law does not
include assisting immigrants or helping people learn English as part
of the Adult Basic Skills and Family Literacy Education Act’s
purpose. H.R. 27 provides that among its purposes is “assisting
immigrants who are not proficient in English.”
Technical assistance to English language
acquisition programs. Current law does not address the needs of
programs that serve individuals who are LEP. H.R. 27 includes the
provision of technical assistance to providers of “English language
acquisition programs” as an acceptable state leadership activity.
Incentives to serve “special populations.”
Under current law, bonus grants are awarded only to states that
exceed their performance measures. H.R. 27 states that awards
may be based on the performance of the state in serving
low-income individuals, individuals with disabilities, the
unemployed, the underemployed, and individuals with multiple
barriers to educational enhancement, including individuals who are
LEP.
Improved access to Adult Basic Education
funding for community-based organizations. Current law requires
that all eligible providers have “direct and equitable” access to
funding. H.R. 27 would require states to include a description in
their state plan of how they will ensure direct and equitable
access, including how the capacity of community-based organizations
will be built. The bill also would require the state, in awarding
grants or contracts, to consider the degree to which the provider
will serve those “most in need,” including individuals who are LEP.
Revision of the purpose of the National
Institute for Literacy. Current law states that the purpose of
the National Institute for Literacy (NIL) is to provide national
leadership on literacy, coordinate literacy services, and serve as a
national resource for literacy programs. H.R. 27 defines literacy
to include skills in reading, writing, and English language
acquisition. The bill would also authorize the NIL to identify
rigorous research on the effectiveness of instructional practices
and organizational strategies related to English language
instruction, disseminate materials about English language
acquisition programs, and facilitate coordination and information
sharing among national organizations and interested associations
about English language acquisition programs.
H.R. 27 was scheduled for a February 9 markup by
the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee.
By
Tyler Moran, NILC policy
analyst
|
