|
The Lifetime of Education Opportunities Act of 2005 (S. 9), which if
passed would reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), was
introduced in the Senate on Jan. 24, 2005. 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 of Representatives and the Senate could not
reach a compromise on their respective WIA reauthorization bills before
the end of the 108th Congress.
Introduced by Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY), chair of
the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, S. 9
is almost identical to the WIA reauthorization bill (S. 1627) that the
HELP Committee passed in 2003. The bill includes a number of provisions
that would improve job-training services to better serve immigrants and
persons who are limited English proficient (LEP). Enzi has not yet
indicated when the HELP Committee will act on the bill. (For more
information on the entire bill, see the Workforce Alliance’s “Washington
Update” at
www.workforcealliance.org/news/updates/Jan-FebUpdateFINAL.pdf.)
The House’s WIA reauthorization bill, H.R. 27,
passed the full House on March 2 by a largely partisan vote. A detailed
comparison of the LEP provisions in the House and Senate bills is
available at
www.nilc.org/immspbs/la/WIA_side-by-side_0305.pdf.
The Senate bill contains several provisions that
would assist low-income immigrants and persons who are LEP.
job training
The amendments to Title I of the act would:
-
Expand the purpose of the WIA to
include, among other goals, providing LEP individuals with
skills—including English language skills—that make them employable,
and eliminating disincentives to train hard-to-serve populations and
minority workers.
-
Create a new definition of “integrated
training program.” Under S. 9, such a program would be one that
combines job training and language acquisition.
-
Create a new definition of
“hard-to-serve populations.” Under the new definition, LEP
individuals, those facing substantial cultural barriers, and migrant
and seasonal farmworkers would be considered “hard-to-serve
populations.”
-
Define “youth participant eligibility”
for youth activities to include youths either attending or not
attending school who are deficient in basic skills, including
English proficiency.
-
Require states to describe how they will
serve hard-to-serve populations in their state plans. Current
law requires states to describe how they will serve the employment
and training needs of dislocated workers, low-income individuals,
homeless individuals, ex-offenders, individuals training for
nontraditional employment, and other individuals with multiple
barriers to employment, but not persons who are LEP. Under S. 9,
states also would be required to describe the technical assistance
they will make available to providers and one-stop centers to help
the latter develop strategies for serving LEP populations.
-
Include the development of strategies to
serve hard-to-serve populations as allowable statewide employment
and training activities. S. 9 also would allow states to use
WIA funds to provide technical assistance to providers that have
committed themselves to enhancing services intended to help
hard-to-serve populations enter high-wage, high-skilled, and
nontraditional occupations, but that fail to perform as they have
promised.
-
Require the memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between the local Workforce Investment Board and the local
one-stop center to include information about what methods will be
used to meet the needs of hard-to-serve populations at one-stop
centers. The current MOU requirement does not address
this issue.
-
Expand “intensive” and “training”
services to include English acquisition and integrated training
programs. Current law does not specify that integrated training
programs are allowable “intensive” training activities eligible for
funding under the WIA.
-
Create additional criteria that training
providers must meet in order to receive funding under the WIA,
among which is having the ability to provide services to
hard-to-serve populations.
-
Include low levels of English
proficiency in factors that determine adjusted levels of
performance. States currently have to meet performance measures
that are negotiated between each governor and the U.S. Dept. of
Labor, taking into account economic conditions and the
characteristics of the population. S. 9 defines those
characteristics to include, among other indicators, low levels of
English proficiency.
-
Create incentive grants for states that
demonstrate “exemplary performance” in serving hard-to-serve
populations. Under current law, bonus grants are awarded
only to states that exceed their performance measures. S. 9 also
would award grants based on the state’s performance in serving
hard-to-serve populations.
-
Create a national demonstration project
for “integrated workforce training programs” designed to analyze and
provide data on programs that integrate language acquisition and job
training. The project would award at least ten grants over a
two- to four-year period; $10 million would be allocated for the
project. The bill would require the secretary of Labor to report to
the Senate and House on the program’s effectiveness.
adult basic education/english as a second language (esl)
The amendments to Title II of the act would:
-
Revise the purpose of the Adult Basic
Skills Education Act. Current law does not include providing
services to immigrants or providing for basic English language
instruction in the purpose of Title II (Adult Basic Education/ESL)
of the act. S. 9 includes “assisting immigrants who are not
proficient in English” within the purpose of this part of the
statute.
-
Include in the list of allowable state
leadership activities those activities that would help people who
are LEP. Activities would include:
-
Integration of literacy and English
language instruction with occupational skills training, and
promoting linkages with employers;
-
The development of curriculum
frameworks and rigorous content standards that specify what
adult learners should know in the area of English language
acquisition;
-
The development and piloting of new
assessment tools and strategies that identify the needs and
capture the gains of students at all levels, with particular
emphasis on LEP students; and
-
The development and implementation of
programs and services to meet the needs of adult learners with
learning disabilities or limited English proficiency.
-
Create incentive grants for states that
demonstrate “exemplary performance” in serving hard-to-serve
populations. Under current law, bonus grants are awarded
only to states that exceed their performance measures. S. 9 also
would award grants based on the state’s performance in serving
hard-to-serve populations.
-
Create additional criteria for providers
that wish to receive Adult Basic Education (ABE) funding.
Criteria would include:
-
The commitment of the provider to serve
LEP individuals; and
-
Whether English language acquisition
(and other) programs are based on the best practices and
research available.
-
Authorize the National Institute for
Literacy to identify research on practices related to English
acquisition. The National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board
would be required to include providers of language acquisition
programs.
-
Codify funding for programs that
integrate literacy and civics education. The English language
and civics programs have been funded largely through the
appropriations process and have not been authorized in the ABE
statute. S. 9 would codify this program and distribute funding in
the following manner: 65 percent would be distributed on the basis
of a state’s need for integrated English literacy and civics
education as determined by calculating each state’s share of a
10-year average of the total number of immigrants admitted for
lawful permanent residence over the 10 most recent years, according
to Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) data; and 35 percent would be
distributed on the basis of whether the state’s population of
immigrants admitted for lawful permanent residence has grown, as
measured by the average of the 3 most recent years for which DHS
data are available. Under this provision, however, the minimum
allotment for each state would be $60,000.
—By
Tyler Moran, NILC policy
analyst
|
