[Senate Hearing 109-152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-152
LIFELONG EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING LIFELONG EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES, FOCUSING ON S. 694, TO
AMEND THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998 TO PROVIDE FOR A JOB
TRAINING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM
__________
APRIL 14, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
20-732 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming, Chairman
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
WILLIAM H. FRIST, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM HARKIN, Iowa
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
Katherine Brunett McGuire, Staff Director
J. Michael Myers, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005
Page
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 1
Chao, Hon. Elaine L., Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of
Labor.......................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Spellings, Hon. Margaret, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department
of
Education...................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee 19
Sebelius, Hon. Kathleen, Governor, State of Kansas; Chair, NGA
Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee, on behalf
of the National
Governors Association.......................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Fletcher, Hon. Ernie, Governor, State of Kentucky, on behalf of
the National Governors Association............................. 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Gunderson, Steve, Director, Washington Office, the Greystone
Group.......................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Fitzgerald, Brian K., Executive Director, The Business-Higher
Education Forum................................................ 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Boisvert, Ms. Pamela, Vice President, Worcester Consortium....... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Additional Material
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
Response to questions of Senator DeWine by Margaret Spellings 75
LIFELONG EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005
United States Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Mike Enzi,
(Chairman of the Committee), presiding.
Present: Senators Enzi, Alexander, Burr, and Isakson.
Opening Statement of Chairman Enzi
The Chairman. Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing
on ``Lifelong Education Opportunities.''
I am honored to have the Secretary of Education, Margaret
Spellings, and the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, here today
to talk on an issue that is critical to our Nation's future. I
am also pleased to have a second panel of five individuals who
will extend our understanding of the impact of these issues in
the States and in business and education.
I am also pleased that in the audience we have 15
legislators from Wyoming. I would guess that this is one of the
few times that Wyoming will have a larger percentage of people
than any State in the Nation.
[Laughter.]
We are very pleased to have them here. They are extremely
interested in education and have an outstanding system.
I would also like to thank the Governors and witnesses on
the second panel for rearranging their schedules to be here. I
had previously decided not to have a second panel so that we
could fully utilize the time of the Secretaries. We decided to
go longer at the insistence of Senator Roberts who wanted to be
sure that his Governor could present some information on behalf
of the National Governors Association that is absolutely
critical to our work.
Lifelong education opportunities are vital to ensuring that
America retains its competitive edge in the global economy, and
that every American can participate in our Nation's success. In
our technology-driven economy, school can never be out. It is
estimated that 60 percent of tomorrow's jobs will require
skills that only 20 percent of today's workers possess. It is
also estimated that the average person leaving college will
change careers 14 times, and 10 of those have not even been
invented yet. Without a lifetime of education, training and
retraining opportunities for everyone, we will not be able to
meet 21st century challenges. As new technology emerges and
workers change careers, they will need to learn new skills or
apply their old skills in new ways.
Earlier this year, I introduced S. 9, the Lifelong
Education Opportunities Act of 2005. It has four stated
purposes: to set high expectations and raise achievement levels
for all students regardless of their backgrounds; to improve
accountability for results; to provide flexibility to the
States to manage Federal program dollars effectively; and to
support a lifetime of learning opportunities for students and
adults at all stages of life.
If our students and workers are to have the best chance to
succeed in life, we need to focus on all our Federal education
and training programs from pre-kindergarten through
postsecondary education to on-the-job and continuing education,
everything from birth to retirement. We must ensure that
everyone has an opportunity to achieve academically and obtain
skills that they need to succeed regardless of their
background.
On March 21st, I visited a classroom in Hudson, Wyoming.
The town has 207 residents, and boasts of two world-famous
restaurants. But its children are taught in a single classroom
in an elementary school. There are 2 teachers and 17 children.
There are 5 kindergartners, 5 first graders, 5 second graders
and 2 third graders in one classroom. They have almost as many
classroom pets as they have kids. But it is a learning
environment that is critical to Wyoming.
Most recently the Governors held an education summit that
provided an action agenda for improving America's high schools.
For years institutions of higher education and employers have
expressed their dissatisfaction about the need our high school
graduates have for remediation in order to do college work or
to participate in the workforce. Each year, taxpayers pay an
estimated $1 to $2 billion to provide remedial education to
students at our public universities and community colleges.
Businesses report spending even more to address the lack of
literacy and basic skills of their entry-level workers.
Let me share a few facts that speak to the seriousness of
this issue.
American 15-year-olds performed below international average
in mathematics, literacy and problem-solving, according to the
2003 Program for International Student Assessment.
Reading proficiency among 12th graders has declined to the
point where just over one-third of them are even considered
proficient readers.
Only 68 of every 100 ninth grade students graduate on time;
in other words, within 4 years. America's high school
graduation rate is among the lowest in the industrialized
world, and the impact on our minority students has been
especially severe.
Nearly one-third of entering college freshmen need at least
one remedial course.
The United States has one of the highest college enrollment
rates, but a college completion rate average to below average
among developed countries in the world.
In this decade 40 percent of job growth will be in jobs
requiring postsecondary education, those jobs requiring
associate degrees growing the fastest.
Four out of every 5 jobs will require postsecondary
education or the equivalent, yet only 52 percent of Americans
over the age of 25 have achieved that level of education.
Seventy-five percent of today's workforce will need to be
retrained just to keep their current jobs.
Median earnings of a high school graduate are 43 percent
higher than those of a non-graduate, and those of a college
graduate are 62 percent higher than those of a high school
graduate.
Two-thirds of the 7 million worker gap in 2010 will be a
skilled worker shortage.
What does this mean? What do we know? To begin with, we
know that we must improve high school completion rates.
Education beyond high school and lifelong learning
opportunities are essential for everyone to assure individual
success, as well as our Nation's future prosperity. We need to
provide better preparation at every level of education and
strengthen the connections between secondary and postsecondary
education. In this global economy learning is never over and
school is never out. Technology is demanding that everyone
continue to learn and gain skills to remain competitive in the
workplace. The labor force participation rate for individuals
over the age of 16 who are willing and able to work was 68.8
percent in January 2005, the lowest in over 15 years, as more
Americans conclude that they cannot meet the skill demands of
today's workplace and they choose to no longer participate in
the workforce.
For these reasons and many others, I am looking forward to
the testimony of our witnesses today. We are facing a
significant challenge, one that I prefer to think of as an
opportunity.
With most of our Federal policies that deal with training
and the workforce needing reauthorization, we have an
opportunity to provide the clear message that we can no longer
accept the status quo or business as usual. We need to take a
fresh look now at how we can restructure our education and
training programs to better meet the needs of our economy, and
at the same time ensure every person has the opportunity they
need to obtain the academic and technical skills they need to
succeed today, tomorrow and for years to come.
Again, I welcome everyone. When Senator Kennedy gets here,
we will give him an opportunity for a statement.
I will introduce the first panel of witnesses, and we
appreciate your being here, two representatives from the
Administration to talk about lifelong education opportunities.
None better than these two distinguished witnesses we have
today, the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, and the Secretary
of Education, Margaret Spellings.
Secretary Chao has been the Secretary of Labor since 2001.
Previously she was the Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department
of Transportation, and was Chair of the Federal Maritime
Commission. She has worked in the private sector, a fellow with
the Heritage Foundation, and as a White House Fellow. She has
been a strong advocate for fulfilling our Nation's technical
and skilled training needs.
Secretary Spellings was confirmed by the Senate on January
20th this year, which was my first order of business as
Chairman of this committee. She previously served as the
Assistant to the President of Domestic Policy, where she helped
craft the No Child Left Behind Act. She worked for 6 years as
Governor Bush's Senior Adviser, developing and implementing the
Governor's education policies. Like Secretary Chao, she has
been a strong advocate for her areas of responsibility as
evidenced by her involvement on the No Child Left Behind and
other education issues.
We welcome you both.
Secretary Chao.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Secretary Chao. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to testify
before you today with my distinguished colleague, Secretary of
Education, Margaret Spellings.
Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right, America has always
been a Nation of innovators, entrepreneurs and opportunity, and
the engine of our growth in our country remains strong. The
United States has one of the highest growth rates of any
industrialized Nation, growing at an annualized rate of about 4
percent in 2004 and creating about 3.1 million new jobs since
June of 2003.
But progress also means challenges, and therefore, we have
just got to ensure that gains in our economy are indeed shared
by all, and that is why it is really critical that workers have
the opportunity to gain the skills that they need to succeed in
the 21st century workforce.
This Administration is addressing the core issues of
skills, competency through the most significant education
reform in 50 years, and I will leave that to my colleagues to
address.
Today, as you mentioned, a high school education is only
the beginning. The average American worker will hold an average
of 9 jobs before the age of 32. That means that learning has
got to be a lifelong pursuit, and reforming our Nation's job
training system is absolutely critical to providing workers
with opportunities to continuously upgrade their skill levels.
In many respects our current kind of stovepipe approach,
our silo approach to workforce investment still reflects an
economy of over 50 years ago. Today we have just got to do more
than just simply fill job orders or slots in predetermined
training classes. We have to improve the outcomes for workers
by updating the design of the current system. We know that a
workforce investment system with over a dozen different funding
streams, each with its own separate rules and reports and
definition is not very effective in meeting the individual
needs of workers today.
I am also sorry to say that the current system is
structured so that it is too focused on bureaucracy and
processes. It should really be much more worker-oriented,
client-oriented, and be much more focused on better outcomes
for the people that it serves.
This Administration believes that the solution is a
flexible integrated system, and the keys to success are: (1)
strong State leadership; (2) effective execution at the local
level; and (3) the ability to customize solutions to meet the
needs of local communities, workers and also employers.
That is why the President has put his job training reform
proposal on the table. The principles underlying these reforms
reflect a new vision and a new approach to the workforce
investment system that is going to bring the system into the
21st century and better serve our workers and our country.
So the first principle is to give State and local
communities maximum flexibility to custom design a workforce
system that best meets their needs.
And second, in exchange for this greater flexibility, the
Administration will require greater accountability, and that
means that we are going to ask States to set increasingly
rigorous annual performance milestones, and the long-term goal
to be achieved over a period of 10 years will be to place every
person who receives federally-funded training in a job.
Third, the multiple layers of bureaucracy that we are
seeing in the system eats up just too much of its valuable and
available resources, and people within the system acknowledge
this as well, so this Administration proposes to spend more on
actual worker training in the workforce investment system.
Fourth, this Administration proposes to create a more
effective governance structure by enhancing governance
structure by enhancing the role of the State and local
officials. The Workforce Investment System is currently
administered with much, much, too much micro-management by the
Federal level.
Fifth, this Administration proposes to strengthen the One-
Stop Career Center System. You know, we have 3,800 One-Stop
Career Centers throughout the whole country. They are a
wonderful resource, and these centers are the foundations of
the workforce investment system. But the funding for the
operation of these One-Stop Centers is uncertain in many local
areas, and we have to address that.
Finally, this Administration proposes to enhance individual
choice through what is called Innovation Training Accounts.
These accounts will allow individual workers to custom make and
create their own individual training program that fits and
meets their needs, using again a broad array of public and
private training resources.
Mr. Chairman, this Administration believes that these
reforms will really help transform the public workforce
investment system into a worker-centered powerhouse that will
help people succeed, workers succeed in the 21st century
workforce. It is going to create a workforce investment system
that is responsive to individual communities' workers. It will
adapt quickly to local economic conditions, and most of all, it
will do an even better job of serving workers.
With that, thank you so much for having me here. I have a
longer testimony which I will submit for the record, and I will
be more than glad to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Chao follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elaine L. Chao
Chairman Enzi and members of the committee, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to testify before you today with my distinguished
colleague, Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, and discuss the
President's proposals to enhance the Nation's workforce investment
system.
Today, our country finds itself in a situation unlike any we have
experienced in our history. Advances in the fields of communication,
technology and travel have effectively removed national borders as
barriers to global commerce. Competition now comes from the company
across the ocean as well as the company across the street.
The United States has been known as the leader in technological
innovation. We invented computer operating systems, the Internet and
the Global Positioning System. However, there are signs that we are
facing more serious competitive challenges from new centers of
innovation. For example:
Foreign-owned companies and foreign-born individuals
account for nearly half of all U.S. patents.
In 2003, China overtook the United States as the world's
leading destination for direct foreign investment.
And today, Asian countries now spend as much on
nanotechnology as the United States.
To ensure that we remain the world leaders in the 21st century
innovation economy, we must face these challenges. We must look at the
systems and structures that support and feed our economy and ask if
they are equipped to handle the demands of the global economy.
Throughout history, the driving force of the American economy has
been the ability to nurture new ideas that result in job creation and
prosperity. In this generation, as in the past, American entrepreneurs
and innovators have drawn on our well-educated workforce, our large and
diverse economy, our technological capability and our financial
sophistication to create the new industries and jobs that make America
grow and prosper.
The economy is healthy and growing, as evidenced by the 3.1 million
new jobs that have been created since May 2003. As the economy grows,
jobs emerge that demand higher skills than ever before. How can we get
ready to meet the workforce needs of the future to ensure that we
maintain our competitive advantage in the global economy?
We maintain our competitive advantage by increasing the skill
levels of Americans. The needs of the 21st century economy are very
different than those we have encountered in the past. Today's changing
workforce needs reflect the economy's significant transformation.
Industries such as manufacturing and retail now need workers who
understand computers and robotics and supply chain management. Fields
such as health care and construction need more technical and skilled
labor than ever before. Newer industries--for example, biotechnology
and geospatial technology--have emerged, and others that are today just
the gleam in the eye of some entrepreneur will soon emerge. The fastest
growing jobs of the future will need to be filled by ``knowledge
workers,'' who have specialized skills and training. In fact, the
demand for knowledge workers is already growing at an astonishing pace.
As the demand for workers with specialized skills and training
grows, some economists fear that we are facing a ``skills gap,'' a
situation in which the demand by employers for skilled workers would
outpace the supply. We already have heard from companies that are
having difficulty filling jobs with workers who have the skills they
require. Fields like health care, information technology, and advanced
manufacturing have jobs and solid career paths left untaken due to a
lack of people qualified to fill them.
The growing need for knowledge workers comes at a time when the
labor pool as a whole is growing much more slowly as a result of the
aging and retirement of the baby boom generation in combination with
other demographic changes. In fact, given current retirement trends,
combined with lower birth rates in recent years, the aging and
retirement of the baby boom generation will likely result in labor
shortages in some industries and geographic areas. Furthermore,
employers are losing their most experienced workers just as labor force
growth is slowing, with the result that shortages of workers with the
right skills needed by employers could become common.
In a knowledge-based economy like ours, a top priority for all of
us must be to ensure that we have the skilled workforce we need to spur
economic growth and productivity. The success of workers today depends
on opportunities for a continuum of education and training. It starts
with a solid foundation in math, science, and communication skills
learned in school. Our children must have a solid foundation in the
basics if they are to succeed in the 21st century workforce. The No
Child Left Behind Act should help enormously, but more needs to be
done, particularly at the high school level. President Bush has
proposed an initiative to raise student achievement and narrow
achievement gaps in our Nation's high schools, expanding on the success
of the No Child Left Behind Act. We know that when schools and teachers
are held accountable for results, the performance of their students
improves. It is now time to extend this principle beyond grade schools
to our Nation's high schools.
Gaining a strong educational foundation in school is critical, but
we also know that it takes more than a high school education to succeed
in the new economy. In fact, the fastest growing jobs, on average,
require a postsecondary credential, that is a vocational certificate or
other credential or an associate or higher degree. These are the jobs
that will drive innovation in the world economy and determine which
countries will lead that economy. Competency in a single skill will no
longer last a lifetime. Workers today must commit themselves to
lifelong learning and to continually upgrading their skills. Our
postsecondary education and training systems must provide them with
opportunities to do so.
Our postsecondary education and training institutions need to
ensure they are providing students with relevant, marketable skills. We
need a wide variety of choices to provide these skills--not only 2-year
and 4-year degree programs, but apprenticeship programs in the skilled
trades and other professions, and job training leading to an industry-
recognized credential or certification. Additional support for lifelong
learning will be available through the President's proposals to
strengthen the Pell grant program and a new Loans for Short-Term
Training program, which the Departments of Education and Labor would
jointly administer and which would help dislocated, unemployed,
transitioning, and older workers, among others, obtain the skills
needed to succeed in our knowledge-based economy.
The private sector makes an enormous investment both in training
new workers as well as keeping current the skills of those already on
the job. The investment of the private sector in employee education and
training reflects its understanding that the investments made in
improving the skills of the workforce translate into a competitive
advantage for the Nation.
The workforce investment system also plays an important role in
preparing a skilled workforce. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(WIA) was groundbreaking legislation that promoted important
improvements in the delivery of employment and training services
nationwide through its One-Stop delivery system. Now our challenge is
to take those reforms a significant step further to promote further
innovation, to strengthen the One-Stop Career Center system to better
serve workers and businesses, and to make the system even more
responsive to the needs of local labor markets.
In many respects, our current ``stovepipe'' approach to workforce
investment is still reflective of its social program roots of 50 years
ago, but today's economy requires more than simply filling job orders.
Like the education system, the workforce investment system must
continuously adapt to the changing economy.
Many of the problems in the current system lie with the design of
the system itself. We know that a workforce investment system with over
a dozen different funding streams, each with separate rules, reports,
and definitions cannot be effective in meeting the demands of the
worldwide economy. Such a system will always be focused on the barriers
to workforce solutions rather than the solutions themselves. And, such
a system will always be more concerned about how much each program
funding stream is contributing and who is serving what group of the
population, than about solving the Nation's workforce challenges.
Employers will never participate fully, or enthusiastically, in such a
system.
So what is the solution? It is a flexible, integrated system with
strong State leadership and effective local execution and
customization. It is a system where States can move resources to
address regional needs and local officials can work with employers to
preserve jobs. Finally, it is a system with the leadership and vision
to act as a catalyst for economic development.
Although we often speak of the American economy as a whole, the
Nation is made up of local labor markets that are unique. The local
economy in New York City looks quite different than that of a rural
area in Tennessee. We must design a flexible workforce investment
system that empowers State and local officials to create workforce
solutions customized to that area's workers and employers. We must make
certain that outstanding plans for innovative strategies are not
thwarted by the maze of conflicting funding streams, program
eligibility requirements, reporting systems and performance measures.
This approach to workforce investment is at the heart of the
President's High Growth Job Training Initiative, launched by the
Department of Labor in 2002. The High Growth Job Training Initiative
identifies high-growth businesses and industries, evaluates their skill
needs, and ensures that workers are being trained with the skills these
rapidly expanding businesses require. Under this initiative, the
Department has awarded $164.8 million in 88 grants for innovative
training programs in high growth industries such as health care,
biotechnology, energy, information technology, and advanced
manufacturing. Grants are given to partnerships that include the
workforce investment system, business and industry, community colleges
and other education and training providers, and economic development
entities working collaboratively to develop industry-specific workforce
solutions. The results, products, and knowledge gained from these
demonstration projects are disseminated widely to the workforce system
and our strategic partners in business, industry, and education. By
training workers with skills that are in demand, more workers will be
able to obtain quality jobs with higher wages and enhanced career
opportunities. At the same time, employers will be able to fill
critical workforce needs.
The President's Community College Initiative, which provides for
Community-Based Job Training Grants, builds on the High Growth Job
Training initiative. Through these competitive grants, the workforce
investment system will partner with community colleges to provide an
innovative approach to workforce investment that responds to the
changing 21st century economy. For fiscal year 2005, the Congress
approved and financed this new initiative, and the first grants will be
awarded beginning in the summer of 2005. This Community College
Initiative will help fully utilize the expertise of America's community
colleges to better train workers for jobs in high growth sectors in
local communities.
The flexibility, partnerships, and demand-driven focus of these
initiatives are also at the heart of President Bush's proposal for
comprehensive reform of our Nation's job training system. The
principles underlying these reforms reflect a new vision and new
approach to workforce investment that will bring the system into the
21st century.
First, we must give States and local communities maximum
flexibility and authority to design a workforce system that meets their
needs. The centerpiece of the President's proposal for job training
reform is the consolidation of the WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and
Youth and the Employment Service funding streams into a single grant to
States. Governors would have the option of including the State's
resources from an additional five programs into that single grant.
These programs are the Veterans' Employment and the Trade Adjustment
Assistance training programs, administered by the Department of Labor;
the Vocational Rehabilitation and the Adult Education programs,
administered by the Department of Education; and the Food Stamp
Employment and Training program, administered by the Department of
Agriculture. Together, they represent over $7.5 billion in Federal
resources. The consolidated grant would have a single State Integration
Plan and a single performance and reporting system, thereby simplifying
planning and reporting requirements. While program-specific
requirements will be minimized, States will not be permitted to reduce
participant levels for targeted populations such as veterans and
individuals with disabilities.
One practical indicator of the need for reform and greater
flexibility of which I have been aware is in the overwhelming number of
requests for WIA waiver authority. Forty-one States have requested 162
waivers to create a workforce investment system that is responsive to
the needs of their economies. Under current law, in order for States to
implement a workforce training program that better meets the needs of
their citizens, they have to ask the Federal Government for permission,
through the waiver process. That is not an effective strategy for
remaining relevant in the new economy. The consolidation of Federal job
training programs will remedy this. It will also empower States to
train more workers, reduce administrative overhead, achieve better
results, and design workforce investment systems that train workers for
jobs in the 21st century economy.
Accountability is a second principle of the President's job
training reform proposal. In exchange for greater flexibility for
States and local officials, we will demand greater accountability. The
performance measures that were begun under WIA will be simplified and
improved and the incentives and sanctions will be strengthened. States
will be held accountable for performance on three primary outcome
measures--entered employment, retention in employment, and earnings
gains. States will set increasingly rigorous annual performance
milestones towards the goal of, within 10 years, placing every person
who receives federally-funded training in a job. This is an ambitious
goal, but it also reflects what the workforce investment system should
aspire to--that all workers receive the job training and other services
that they need to find and retain a job.
Third, the overhead costs of the system must be reduced. Layers of
bureaucracy and regulatory loopholes have resulted in a system that
focuses too much money on infrastructure overhead, and trains too few
workers. We need to more accurately define what are acceptable
administrative costs, and put a greater emphasis on training. By
eliminating unnecessary overhead and simplifying administration through
the consolidation of job training programs, we can achieve $300 million
in savings that can be used to train an additional 100,000 workers.
Fourth, we must create a more effective governance structure by
enhancing the role of State and local officials. The workforce
investment system is currently administered with too much micro-
management at the Federal level. What looks good on paper in
Washington, DC, does not always play out well in the communities across
the country.
One key reform in this area is streamlining the membership
requirements of State and Local Workforce Investment Boards. One-Stop
partner programs would assume a stronger role on the State Board to
ensure their investment in and commitment to an integrated system.
Local Board membership would be streamlined to provide an increased
voice for business representatives, community groups and worker
advocates. These changes will create State and Local Boards that are
able to more effectively make the policy and planning decisions that
shape the Nation's workforce investment system.
Fifth, we must take steps to strengthen the One-Stop Career Center
System. The One-Stop Career Centers are the foundation of the workforce
investment system, but the funding for the operation of those centers
is uncertain in many local areas. Dedicated One-Stop infrastructure
funding from the One-Stop partners determined at the State level would
alleviate a great deal of the current local negotiation issues around
operations and allow local areas to focus on what is most important--
meeting the service needs of workers and employers.
Also, the One-Stop system must be able to provide all the services
that individuals need to find jobs and upgrade their skills, and to
serve all populations, including those with the greatest barriers to
employment. One-Stop Career Centers should be authorized to offer a
wider range of services for low-wage workers and directed to remove
barriers to serving targeted populations, including older workers and
individuals with disabilities. In addition, we must remove the
obstacles to serving incumbent workers, as the 21st century economy
requires American workers to continually upgrade their skills.
Finally, individual choice should be enhanced in the workforce
investment system through the use of Innovation Training Accounts.
These accounts will allow individuals to combine a broad range of
public and private training resources through a single, self-managed
account. Individuals will be able to choose the training that best
meets their needs, including longer-term training that is necessary for
today's high skilled jobs. Innovation Training Accounts provide workers
with ownership over the education and training they pursue, so that
they can take advantage of the opportunities that the 21st century
economy has to offer.
Another important vehicle for providing individual choice for
American workers is Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs). PRAs are a
flexible approach to provide unemployed job seekers with more control
over their access to training and services and help them return to work
quickly. The Department of Labor is currently administering PRAs on a
small scale through a demonstration project in seven States and
proposes that this be a service option in WIA when it is reauthorized.
PRAs provide unemployed individuals with up to $3,000 to purchase
intensive career, job training and supportive services from One-Stop
Career Centers, the marketplace, or a combination of the two. Workers
who find new jobs quickly and retain those jobs for 6 months will
receive a reemployment bonus.
These key reforms will produce a workforce investment system that
is responsive and agile enough to anticipate and respond to the
opportunities presented by the 21st century economy, thereby promoting
the success of both American workers and businesses. Thank you for this
opportunity to discuss with you the President's proposal for
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. I would be
happy to respond to any questions that members of the committee may
have.
The Chairman. Any statements that members of the committee
have and the full statements of all people who testify will be
a part of the record.
I appreciate your condensing that so that we have more time
for the questions and the other panel, and appreciate your
testimony.
Secretary Spellings.
I do not think your microphone is on.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SPELLINGS, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Secretary Spellings. I am new.
[Laughter.]
Thank you very much for your interest in this very
important topic. I am delighted to be here with my colleague,
Secretary Chao, whom I have worked with on this issue for more
than 4 years, and to great effect, and I am really happy to be
in this role and partnering with her from a new vantage point
as well.
As Secretary Chao pointed out, we live in a very different
world today than the one our parents and grandparents knew. In
that world a single occupation could last a lifetime from
graduation day to retirement, a single skill could ensure a
worker a comfortable living for his or her family. Today,
guarantees of stability and security are fewer, but
opportunities are far more numerous if we are prepared to seize
them.
The question is: are we prepared? Are our children
receiving a quality education? Do young adults have the skills
they need to succeed in this world?
To answer these questions we must first look in the mirror.
In Texas we say: ``If all you ever do is all you've ever done,
then all you'll ever get is all you've ever got.''
[Laughter.]
And we have to change that system, along with that old
adage. The old Government model of top-down structures, process
over results, multiple funding streams with limited
flexibility, is simply not adequate for this time. We need to
have the courage to change the way we do business. This change
starts with public education and preparedness. No Government
program available at age 20 can make up for a poor education
from ages 5 to 18.
A little over 3 years ago, Congress joined President Bush
to tackle the educational status quo, and the result was the No
Child Left Behind Act. Its focus on accountability, high
standards, local control and research-based instruction is
showing real results. Nearly every State now reports improved
academic performance, and students at greatest risk of being
left behind, such as those in large urban school districts, are
leading the way.
The President's 2006 budget provides a $603 million
increase for core Title I grants to local educational agencies
to keep this progress going strong, and now we must take the
next step.
Earlier this year, Bill Gates told the Nation's Governors
that training the workforce of tomorrow with the high schools
of today is like trying to teach kids about today's computers
on a 50-year-old mainframe. That may have been an exaggeration,
but not by much. The old high school model is not serving us as
well as it can or should. Forty percent of schools offer no
advanced placement courses. Fewer than half of the students
require at least 3 years of math or science to graduate, fewer
than half the States. And we still measure performance by the
amount of time students sit in classrooms, not by what they
know and are able to do.
So it comes as no shock that nearly one-third of incoming
9th graders do not make it to graduation day within 4 years, as
you pointed out, Senator Enzi, or that those who do, less than
one-third are fully prepared for college, according to the
Manhattan Institute, or that our college dropout rate is 6
times higher than Japan's.
I believe Governor Mark Warner, with whom I traveled a few
weeks ago, the Democratic Chair of the National Governors
Association, speaks for all of us when he says, ``It is
imperative that we make reform of the American high school a
national priority.'' I believe it is time to apply the
bipartisan principles of No Child Left Behind to grades 9
through 12.
President Bush's 2006 budget would provide $1.5 billion for
a high school initiative to improve the academic achievement of
at-risk students and measure performance annually to ensure all
students get the help they need.
The budget also contains unprecedented financial support
for students taking advanced placement classes, new enhanced
Pell grants to encourage more challenging course work, and
community college access grants to let students earn college
level credit in high school for both academic and technical
courses.
The key to success, of course, is a highly qualified
teacher in every classroom, and the President's budget would
make permanent the increase on loan forgiveness from $5,000 to
$17,500 for highly qualified math, science and special
education teachers serving low-income communities, as you have
done in your legislation, Senator. And the President's Adjunct
Teaching Program will bring outside professionals with the kind
of expertise we need into the classroom, answering the
question, why not have a NASA scientist teach physics in our
public schools?
This attitude of change extends to higher education. The
President, as you know, is seeking the reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act, but we want to improve it as well. For
the first time, Pell grants would be made available year round
to allow students to learn on their own timetable, and the
maximum award would be increased by $100 each of the next 5
years. An estimated 5\1/2\ million students would benefit.
Our Jobs for the 21st Century Initiative will help
community colleges identify and meet the needs of local job
providers. It is a bold partnership between the Department of
Education and the Department of Labor. As a former Austin
Community College employee myself, I know how hard these
institutions work to be responsive to their diverse students
and to the community they serve. Portland Community College's
Gateway to College Program, for instance, helps former dropouts
earn a high school diploma, then continue on to a certificate
or a degree program in their academic or technical field. They
understand that you do not have to have a 4-year bachelor's or
master's degree to enjoy a successful career and life.
Finally, our reform of the Perkins Vocational Program will
ensure that the people it was designed to help have the
rigorous background in math and science, as well as the
technical skills to succeed in the modern workplace.
The data that we know and the fact that you have just heard
tell us that the status quo is not working. As President Bush
has said, if we do not adjust quickly and if we do not do smart
things with the taxpayers' money we are going to have a
shortage of skilled workers, and we are no longer going to be
on the leading edge of change. In other words, we cannot pour
new funds into old Federal models. We need to anticipate needs
and take steps to meet them.
One of the best ways is through technology. As part of our
Adult Education National Plan, we are establishing a web-based
system to inform adults of programs and activities that help
them learn English and math, and will offer access to software
so that they can learn these skills from any computer at any
time.
Technology is changing the world faster than our
imagination can predict. Our high schools may be different
places a decade or two from now. The old regimented factory-
type model based on time spent in classrooms may give way to a
new competency-based model that measures progress according to
what kids have learned, not the date on the calendar. Such a
model would take full advantage of community resources, private
sector initiatives and the advanced interactive technologies
kids and teachers use at home and at school.
We already see it in the movement to create digital high
schools and the explosive growth of distance learning. It is a
smarter, faster and more student-centric model of learning. I
compare it to tax season, which we are all thinking about right
now. In the past you would see lines of cars stretching to the
post office at midnight on April 15th. That was the old model.
Now sophisticated computer programs and electronic filing allow
us to get the job done faster and better.
I have traveled to elementary and secondary schools across
the country from Ohio to California, and closer to home in
Annapolis and Richmond. I have spoken with parents, teachers,
principals and administrators, and I have not heard many
questions about specific Federal programs. I have heard
questions about how well we are preparing young adults to
succeed in higher education and the workforce. They understand,
as you said, that we live in a world in which 80 percent of the
fastest-growing jobs will require a postsecondary education.
Reform cannot wait.
According to the President's Council of Advisers on Science
and Technology, our students lose interest in math and science
the further they advance through the educational system.
Meanwhile, Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel, reports that China and
India are expanding their university level math, science and
engineering programs at a pace comparable to the United States
after World War II. He adds, ``If the world's best engineers
are produced in India or Singapore, that is where our companies
will go.''
In 2001, India graduated nearly 1 million more students
from college than the United States. China has 6 times as many
graduates majoring in engineering. Both are now members of the
World Trade Organization. If only 10 percent of their
population is well educated, that means 230 million new
competitors. Clearly, we are no longer the only economic kid on
the block.
This is a time of change and opportunity, but we can take
advantage only if we change as well. We must stop being
captives of the past and start thinking like competitors and
consumers. President Bush's proposals will help create a
seamless educational continuum from K-12 through college and
beyond, to serve young students and adults seeking to adapt to
the ever-changing economy.
All Americans need a strong foundation of academic skills
in order to fulfill their roles as workers, parents and
citizens. We look forward to working with you and the committee
and the rest of the Congress to help make that happen.
I would be glad to answer any questions you might have, and
I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Spellings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Margaret Spellings
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the importance of lifelong learning, an
approach to education that I believe has become increasingly critical
for both individual and national success in our ever-changing,
technology-based, globally competitive economy.
Little more than a generation ago, a single skill or occupation
could last a lifetime, comfortably supporting a worker through young
adulthood, the family years, a college education for the children, and
on into retirement. Things are different today, and more than any
particular skill or body of knowledge, education must be about learning
to learn, about gaining the skills to learn and adapt throughout a
lifetime of change. Our schools and colleges, and the kinds of programs
and services they provide, must reflect changes not only in the skills
and knowledge that students need to obtain, but in the new ways in
which today's and tomorrow's students are going to learn. This is what
we are trying to encourage at the Department of Education, leveraging a
relatively small Federal investment into creating a new kind of
education system, one based on accountability, choice, and a continuum
of opportunity stretching from early childhood to middle age and
beyond.
READING: THE PREREQUISITE FOR LIFELONG LEARNING
No Child Left Behind has been President Bush's signature education
reform initiative. It incorporates what I believe should be the core
elements of any system of lifelong learning: expanded student and
parental options and choice, a focus on what works rather than on what
is the latest fad, clear accountability for results, and freedom for
educators to use Federal funds for the programs and activities they
believe are needed in their local schools, rather than on how people in
Washington decide they should spend the money.
Better instruction in reading is at the heart of No Child Left
Behind. The President recognized long before he came to Washington--
with a little help from his wife, Laura--that reading was the place to
start if we truly want to ensure that no American--child, teenager, or
adult--is left behind by our education system.
Thanks to programs like Reading First, which draws on scientific
research to help ensure that all children can read well by the end of
the 3rd grade, we are making progress in improving reading skills. But
we have a long way to go. According to the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, more than one-third of all 4th graders continued
to read below the basic level in 2003, while more than half of African-
American and Hispanic students fell below that level.
By 8th grade, reading scores on the NAEP are better, with three-
quarters of all students at or above the basic level, but nearly half
of African-American and Hispanic students continue to read below the
basic level. These numbers really hurt, because by the end of 8th
grade, students tend to find themselves at a crossroads, with one path
leading to high school graduation and postsecondary education, and the
other path--far too often--leading to growing frustration with school
and ultimately to dropping out altogether. I don't think I have to
remind the members of this committee what this latter path means for
both lifelong learning and lifelong earnings.
In light of the NAEP data, it also should come as no surprise that
a great many of those students who do graduate from high school need
remedial classes in reading at the postsecondary level. For example, a
recent RAND study noted that almost half of the students in the
California State University system--which typically enrolls students
graduating in the top third of their high school class--require
remediation in English. And, of course, students who are unprepared for
college-level work tend to graduate at lower rates than those who are
prepared.
The message here is that it's very hard to overestimate the impact
of reading skills--or the lack of those skills--on lifelong learning
opportunities. That's why improving reading skills has been such a
critical part of all of our major education initiatives, and why I hope
the strong connection between reading and lifelong learning will be a
key principle that members take away from this hearing.
THE STRONG FOUNDATION OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
No Child Left Behind remains the linchpin of our educational
improvement strategy, and the key foundation for ensuring that all
Americans are prepared to take full advantage of lifelong learning
opportunities. The law emphasizes the early grades; demands that all
students, regardless of background, are on grade level in core academic
subjects like reading, mathematics, and science; insists on annual
testing to help parents, principals, and teachers identify weaknesses
in time to do something about them; and ultimately will ensure that all
students are proficient in reading and math and thus prepared for
further education and training throughout their lives.
And we believe the law is beginning to work as intended. States and
school districts are reporting high scores, achievement gaps are
narrowing, more schools are making adequate yearly progress, and
districts are focusing as never before on improvement strategies
involving groups of students previously ignored and left behind. And
when schools do not improve, students and their parents have new
options, including transferring to a better-performing school or
obtaining high-quality supplemental educational services.
I think we are justifiably proud of the work we are doing and the
results we are getting as we continue to implement No Child Left Behind
in concert with our State and local partners. And we plan to stay the
course, as reflected in the President's request of a $603 million
increase for the core Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies
program for fiscal year 2006.
A NEW FOCUS ON HIGH SCHOOL
At the same time, we recognize that change takes time, and while we
are seeing progress in the early grades, our high schools are
continuing to leave far too many students behind. This is clear from
the high school graduation rate. According to one source, only 68 out
of every 100 ninth-graders in public schools graduate on time with a
regular high school diploma. American companies and universities
currently spend an estimated $16 billion on remedial education
annually.
To a great extent, these data reflect the fact that high schools
are too often doing the same thing that they have done for the last
century. They are not, for instance, harnessing new technologies
effectively to deliver instruction. Nor are they taking advantage of
new ways to bring the highest-quality teachers, such as professionals
who have up-to-date knowledge and experience, into our classrooms.
In response, President Bush has proposed a $1.5 billion High School
Initiative aimed at giving States, districts, and principals more
flexible, effective tools for improving high schools than they have
under the existing array of uncoordinated, narrow-purpose programs that
the initiative would replace.
The Initiative includes two major components. The first is a High
School Intervention program, which would give States, school districts,
and schools the flexibility to support a wide range of locally
determined reforms aimed at increasing student achievement, eliminating
achievement gaps, and ensuring that every student graduates with a
meaningful high school diploma. Schools would implement targeted
interventions designed to meet the specific needs of at-risk students,
which would be determined by individual performance plans based on 8th-
grade assessment data and student interests. Interventions could
include dropout prevention, integration of rigorous academic courses
with vocational and technical training, and efforts to increase college
awareness and preparation. They would focus, in particular, on the
students who are most at risk of dropping out or leaving school without
the skills and knowledge necessary for further education or employment.
The President also is asking for $250 million for new High School
Assessments to increase accountability for high school achievement and
give principals and teachers new tools and data to guide instruction
and improve student performance.
In addition to the High School Initiative, our 2006 budget request
contains a set of complementary proposals targeting secondary
education. These include a $175 million expansion of the new Striving
Readers program to improve the skills of teenage students who are
reading below grade level, a $120 million Secondary Education
Mathematics Initiative to train teachers to raise mathematics
achievement for at-risk high school students, and funding to expand
support for the Advanced Placement and State Scholars programs, which
help strengthen high school curricula.
EASING THE TRANSITION TO COLLEGE
Both the State Scholars and Advanced Placement (AP) proposals
reinforce the idea of education as a continuum: our Enhanced Pell
Grants for the State Scholars program would reward students for taking
a rigorous high school curriculum by helping them pay for college,
while increasing the availability of AP courses would make it possible
for high school students not only to study and master college-level
material, but also to get college credit for their efforts.
Similarly, our new Community College Access Grants program would
provide $125 million to support dual-enrollment programs under which
high school students would earn both high school and postsecondary
credit for taking college-level courses. The program also would
encourage States to facilitate the transfer of community college
credits to 4-year institutions.
Each of these programs helps to ease the transition from high
school to postsecondary education and training, both academically and
financially. Our colleges, just like our elementary and secondary
schools, need to meet the changing needs of their customers, the
students. These days, many students do not fit the traditional mold of
those who enter a 2- or 4-year college immediately out of high school
and then work full-time toward a degree. They are, instead, folks who
are already in the workforce. Many of them cannot take time off from
work, and they need new ways of obtaining a higher education that fit
in with all the demands on their time. Higher education programs that
make effective use of technology are one way of doing that. We need to
be taking a much closer look at these innovations as we move into the
future.
PAYING FOR COLLEGE AND JOB TRAINING
The high cost of college and other postsecondary education and
training continues to be an obstacle to lifelong learning for many
students, particularly for those from low-income families. Indeed, for
too many secondary school students, doubts about their ability to pay
for postsecondary education can be a strong disincentive to even bother
staying in school and obtaining a high school diploma.
This is why President Bush has placed such a high priority on
strengthening the Pell grant program, which helps students from low-
income families pay for postsecondary education and training. The
President's 2006 budget proposal would raise the maximum Pell grant
award by $500 over the next 5 years, from $4,050 to $4,550, while
restoring the financial stability of the program by eliminating the
cumulative Pell grant funding shortfall. For new students who have
completed a rigorous high school program of study, our enhanced Pell
grants proposal would result in eligible students receiving an
additional $1,000. Thus, a low-income student could qualify for a total
of $5,050 next year and $5,150 for his or her second year in college.
The President's proposal also would allow students attending 2- and
4-year degree-granting institutions to receive more than one Pell grant
in the same year, giving them more convenient and flexible options for
completing their course requirements and obtaining their degrees.
In order to fund the extraordinary new investment the President has
proposed for the Pell grant program, over $19 billion over the next 10
years, we had to take a hard look at the current student loan programs
and identify savings. Our student loan reauthorization proposals
include strategic reductions in subsidies to financial participants in
the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program that fully pay for our
Pell grant enhancements and for improvements in the loan programs,
including higher loan limits for first- and second-year students,
better repayment terms for all students, and expanded opportunities for
distance education.
In addition, we are proposing a new program of Short-Term Training
Loans, which, in fiscal year 2006, would support up to $284 million in
loans to an estimated 377,000 students, including dislocated,
unemployed, transitioning, or older workers. This program, which would
be administered jointly with the Department of Labor, would help
workers and students acquire or upgrade job-related skills through
short-term training programs that currently are ineligible for Federal
student assistance.
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT PROGRAMS
A major piece of business currently before this committee is the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Department
of Education administers programs covered by WIA in two important
areas, Adult Education and Vocational Rehabilitation. The
Administration fully supports the enactment of a WIA reauthorization
bill that improves the quality, accessibility, and accountability of
federally-funded Adult Education programs and that continues our
Vocational Rehabilitation programs.
The Department's Adult Education program and our reauthorization
blueprint for that program are critical to any lifelong learning
strategy because, while we believe the No Child Left Behind Act and our
high school initiative will result in a much better education for
current and future generations of school children, many current adults
are out of school and lack the academic skills they need to succeed in
the workforce. Some are immigrants who seek English language
instruction in order to advance in their jobs and adapt successfully to
life in America. States have reported improved results in Adult
Education in recent years, but outcomes overall remain unacceptably
low. For this reason, the Administration's blueprint for the
reauthorization sets higher expectations for State performance and
insists on greater State and local accountability for results,
including consequences for States that do not meet their agreed-on
adult education performance levels. Our proposal also promotes the
development of State standards and curriculum frameworks to help
instructors become more effective in the classroom. And, in order to
give adult learners a broader array of choices, we would expand the
number of workplace literacy programs, improve the capacity of
community- and faith-based organizations to provide adult education,
and promote greater use of technology to deliver services.
In the case of the Vocational Rehabilitation programs authorized
under the Rehabilitation Act, our focus is on improving employment
outcomes for individuals with disabilities, particularly those with the
most significant disabilities. While many individuals with disabilities
are obtaining jobs and remaining employed, the unemployment rate for
people with disabilities is still unacceptably high. Not only are
people with disabilities much less likely to be employed than people
without disabilities, but the more severe the disability, the less
likely a person is to be employed. Moreover, there is wide variation
among the States on performance, measured against the evaluation
standards and indicators used by the Department in monitoring the
States. Better tools are needed by the Department to strengthen
accountability for improved results. Finally, an important component of
the President's proposal for WIA reauthorization is the WIA Plus
Consolidated State Grant (WIA Plus) program. In addition to the base
consolidation of four Department of Labor programs, this proposal
provides Governors with the option to consolidate up to five additional
Federal employment and training funding streams, including Adult
Education and Vocational Rehabilitation. Through increased flexibility
and accountability, this proposal would: improve the employment
outcomes of individuals served through the consolidated program; serve
more individuals; improve access to a full array of educational and job
training, employment, and supportive services available from all
funding streams; and ensure a connection to a workforce investment
system that is directly linked to and accessed by employers.
CONCLUSION
Lifelong learning is no longer an option, but a necessity, both for
individual success and for our continued national economic prosperity.
President Bush, with the help of the Congress, has laid the foundation
for a comprehensive Federal approach to both preparing our citizens for
a lifetime of learning and encouraging our education system to
continuously make available opportunities for education and training,
from early childhood through middle age and even the retirement years.
We look forward to working with the members of this committee to help
build on that foundation.
Thank you, and I will be happy to take any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you for your testimony.
I appreciate all of your help, especially both of you with
the longer testimony which helps to build the record from which
we do the work that we do.
I would mention that Senator Kennedy is not here because he
is helping with the Armed Services hearing and providing a
quorum for the Judiciary Executive Meeting, which means we are
moving some people through as judges, and we are glad he is
providing a quorum for that. The same applies to Senator
Sessions. And Senator Roberts is involved with an Intelligence
Committee situation, not a crisis, I am always supposed to
emphasize that.
[Laughter.]
Of course, one of the signs of how many people show up is
how contentious the hearing is, and this is one that we are
working on in a very bipartisan way and making great progress
in all of the bills that are before us. I do appreciate the
bipartisan way that everybody is working. It shows that it is a
concern for what happens with the kids and adults out there
that will be affected by these programs, and it is important
that we get them reauthorized in a timely manner so that we can
move on to some of the other things that we have to
reauthorize. I think we have about $68 billion worth of
reauthorizations that are supposed to be done by the end of
September. I think we only got two or three done during the
last 2 years, so the other 38 will be quite a challenge for us.
I would ask both of you if you would discuss the
initiatives within your department that we might learn from as
we work on the reauthorizations of the Workforce Investment
Act, the Higher Education Act, Head Start, Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act. How can we coordinate the provisions
in these various acts to make sure that we provide
opportunities for all Americans to have skills for the 21st
century? How can the Department of Labor and the Department of
Education work together to better prepare the workforce for the
new economy?
Secretary Chao.
Secretary Chao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Secretary
Spellings mentioned, she and I have personally worked on a
number of issues and initiatives within the workforce while she
was at the White House, and we continue that collaborative
effort going forward. Our two departments also work closely
with one another.
Most recently the Department of Labor has implemented the
President's High Growth Job Training Initiative. This
initiative is very important because it is providing national
leadership for a demand-driven workforce system that ensures
that no worker is left behind, and it prepares workers for the
higher skill, higher wage jobs in the 21st century economy.
Also across the country we are supporting efforts,
partnerships with community colleges, employers and the public
workforce system to train workers with the skills that they
need that we have all heard about just in the recent testimony.
And the community-based job training initiatives also
continue the work of the President's High Growth Job Training
initiative, by again, incorporating through these two
initiatives a focus on high growth, high demand industries, and
also the emphasis on partnerships with the Workforce Investment
System.
Secretary Spellings. Let me talk for a second about some
specific examples of just that. In fact, just last week we co-
chaired and partnered together on a virtual summit that went
out to about 10 community college sites all over the country
with our staffs both leading it, and I think that shows the
kind of cooperation that is going on here in Washington.
One of the things we have also worked together on--and you
can help us on this as you reauthorize these statutes as well--
is common definitions, and common performance standards, and
common expectations. We tend to send mixed signals about what
we want from this particular funding source versus that, and so
to the extent that you can help reconcile some of that, that is
very useful. We have a memorandum of understanding between
these two departments that has been ongoing since 2001 I
believe.
And on the early childhood end, I would tell you that
Secretary Levitt and I have revived an interagency process on
those issues which we have asked Reid Lyon to help guide us, or
translating our best research and best science into practice at
the policy level, and we have both provided staff to that
effort as well.
So a number of specific examples building on Secretary
Chao's answer.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I appreciate and I am aware of
the cooperative spirit and the interaction between the two
departments, and really appreciate it. I think that does
provide some tremendous opportunities for implementation as
well as improvement.
In Wyoming and many other States, we are looking at a
severe shortage of workers within the next decade. For example,
in Wyoming it is estimated that we are going to lose one-third
of the State Government workforce through retirement within the
next 5 years. What can we do to address the deficit of skills,
abilities and knowledge in both the short and long term to
ensure that the Nation's competitiveness is upheld?
Secretary Chao. I think, Mr. Chairman, first of all, in the
short term we need to understand much better what are the
skills that are required to be competitive in today's
environment. That starts with connecting with employers so that
workers in declining industries can be trained for better
paying jobs with high growth potentials in high growth
industries. I think in the long term we need to encourage more
high school graduates to continue their education through
community colleges, apprenticeships and other training
opportunities, and that is again why the President's vision for
the comprehensive job training reform is so important because
there is a long term and there is a short term component to all
of this, and we look forward to working with you on all these
issues.
Secretary Spellings. I would agree with that completely.
Again, the primary, prime directive, as I call it, at the
Department of Education is that preparedness pays, to make sure
that we have workers in the pipeline or kids in the pipelines
that have the skills that can step into those jobs that the
retiring workforce--although some might say that having State
employees retire would be a good thing, but we need to make
sure that we have kids in the pipeline that can meet those
needs, and the only way we are going to do that, obviously, is
ramping up the levels of rigor and the number of kids who are
meeting those levels and those standards more rapidly and more
effectively.
The Chairman. Thank you.
For Secretary Spellings, given the fact that 68 out of 100
ninth graders will not graduate from high school on time, which
is the lowest of any industrialized nation, what do you suggest
we do to raise that completion rate and ensure that colleges
and universities, as well as employers and students do not
spend significant amounts of time and resources in remediation?
Secretary Spellings. I think there are a couple of things
that I want to amplify on that particular piece of data. When
we start to look at that information in a disaggregated sort of
way as we talk about, in other words, by student group, you
know, minority kids are being hurt the most. That is the
underpinning of that statistic. They are dropping out at higher
levels than more advantaged students. So I just want to make
sure that that point is made.
But I think again it is putting standards in place, both in
technical training programs that many of these students find
attractive so that they do embed the necessary reading and math
rigor that they are going to need to apply in the workplace and
they are going to need in order to avoid remediation. I think
it is the ability to use measurement, to use assessment to find
out where kids are, what the deficiencies are and what the
educational cure might be, if you will, so that we can get
those kids out of high school.
Additionally, I think--and this is embedded in the
President's budget in a striving readers and a math
intervention program, that requires us really to take a look at
every 9th grader and say, ``How are we going to get you out of
high school? What are your needs? What are your deficiencies?
What are the necessary things for you to have in place to meet
those standards?'' In many cases, it is a deficiency in
reading, and we need to take what we have learned from our
brain research and at the early grades and move those
strategies up in middle and high schools to make sure kids have
necessary literacy levels.
The Chairman. Thank you. My time has expired.
Next we will have Senator Lamar Alexander, who is the
Subcommittee Chair for Education and Early Education.
Statement of Senator Alexander
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mike. I want to say how much
I appreciate the Chairman's broad focus on this. This helps a
lot, and I appreciate the way the two Secretaries are working
together. I learned pretty early in my public career that
better schools means better jobs, and it is just about that
simple.
You have also well stated, all of you, the point that while
September 11 was a big surprise to our security, our next big
surprise is likely to be to our pocketbook, and the major way
to avoid that big surprise is to focus on brain power, and you
have given some of the statistics there. We have 5 or 6 percent
of the world's population and we produce about a third of the
money, and the rest of the world is looking at that and saying,
``How do they do that?'' And the way we have primarily done it
is through science, technology and a good education system.
That is what has produced most of our high standard of living.
And so this is not a series of slogans we are spouting here, we
have over the next 10 years a real challenge.
I want to ask you to help me with a specific example. The
old model was we were focusing on making sure that students who
graduated from high school had a certain level of
accomplishment, and we still should focus on that. But as the
Chairman said, the real person we are focusing on, I think even
more today, is the person that if I am making a commencement
address and someone gets a diploma, the cry that goes up from
the audience is likely to be, ``Way to go, Mom,'' because it is
a mom who has gone back to school, either to change jobs or to
take a new job or because she has lost a job. The question is,
what is the appropriate and most effective thing to do from
here to help? My experience in different levels of Government
is to be skeptical of what can be done from here in terms of
managing and customizing and writing big books about what
should happen in 3,800 places or tens of thousands of places,
so I welcome your comments about bureaucracy, management,
consolidation and all of that.
To get right to the bottom line then, I am going to ask you
a question. My bias has come to be that we should focus first
on the person changing jobs. We should focus second on giving
that person as many individual choices as possible of options
for education and training, and that we should focus third on
letting the employer be as involved in the training as much as
possible. In other words, I think the model we have got for
higher education, where we providentially give money to the
student and do not give it to the institution, I mean if we did
not have it, I guarantee you we would not be competitive 10
years from now because we would be all balled up in trying to
figure out--we would be training people for the wrong jobs and
putting money into bureaucracy, et cetera.
Now, as I am listening to you and I am thinking if I am the
single mom or dad changing jobs, you mentioned training
accounts. There is unemployment compensation. There are Pell
grants. There are student loans. Secretary Chao, your testimony
mentions personal reemployment accounts. What can each of you
say to me about the idea of focusing most of our--as much of
our existing money as possible to individuals and most of our
new money to individuals, rather than the idea of giving it to
institutions and ordering them to do this, that or the other,
or perhaps you disagree with what I have said about a bias and
a strategy for how to spend our Federal dollars.
Secretary Chao. Senator Alexander, you make some excellent
points, and I agree with your assessment of the current system.
The current Workforce Investment System has 17 mandated
programs. If you are a person out of work and you are
discouraged, you are kind of down, you just want assistance.
You do not want to have to find out and go through different
bureaucracies as to what programs you can apply for. So that is
what the President's Workforce Investment Act reauthorization
reform is all about. It is to make simple the access to all
these different programs to individuals who are going through a
lot of stress in their lifetime. And so we also want to make
sure that they are given the options because they know what
they want to do best, they know what interest areas they hold
and what kind of jobs they would be interested in.
We also need to get employers much more involved in the
system because employers after all know where the jobs are,
what skill sets are required, and all of these principles that
you have outlined are indeed embodied in the President's new
Workforce Investment reform proposal.
I would just add two other things. We have been
experimenting with the Personal Reemployment Accounts on a
voluntary basis in seven States in which a worker would be able
to have a--would be empowered with a personal reemployment
account, which would be about $3,000. With that $3,000 the
worker can access or buy any kind of training program that they
want that would advance their career in a high growth industry,
because after all, we want people to go into high growth
industries with good earning potential as they progress in
their career path. Based on our preliminary results the
personal reemployment accounts have been, number one, popular;
and number two, seemingly quite effective.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Secretary Spellings. I think from our end, Senator, we can
do things that recognize that people are going to need to be
educated, that single mom, in their own time and in their own
way. So we need to find ways, particularly within Pell and our
financial aid resources, to break down barriers, so that if
people are taking courses through technology, they should be
allowed to do that. If people are attending school year round
or taking heavier course loads or some of these impediments
that we have put up in our system. We need to remove those.
We at the Department of Education collect through our
postsecondary education database everything you want to know
about a full-time, first time, non-transfer degree-seeking
student, but that is not your mom or the mom you talked about,
and I think we can figure out this new changing student body a
lot better. Many of our students now are what we call non-
traditional, and I think we need to have systems that meet
those non-traditional models as well.
I would also highlight the High Growth Job Training
Partnership Initiative that Secretary Chao spoke briefly about,
which literally has the employer, you know, guarantee a job, if
you will, for the person who is going through the training. So
it is a partnership between the community college, between the
employer and between the individual, and those are the sorts of
things that we want to make sure that we are connecting
together.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to both Secretaries. I think it is not a mistake
that in addition to the Chairman you have three members of the
Senate from the Southeastern part of the United States. Not
only have we had a job dislocation problem, it continues today.
I think what we see and what we feel when we go home is that we
see what was a 50-year cycle of an economic sector, textile
manufacturing, furniture manufacturing, or a vibrant
agricultural community, where all of a sudden that economic
sector has been tossed upside down. It is not totally gone, but
we certainly know that it has changed drastically.
One of the things that I think you have to deal with and we
have to deal with is do we ever see that kind of economic
sector again? And I think the answer is no. The technology has
affected that greatly, and whether it is a 10-year cycle or a
15-year cycle, we all understand that the ability for workers
to find employment in large part means that they have to
continue to have the ability to learn throughout their
lifetime.
Secretary Spellings, I think it starts with teaching
teachers to teach children to learn, and I think we do a good
job of teaching teachers to teach. There is a difference
between that and having teachers to teach them to learn. But my
fear is that--and I think Lamar put it very well--that we have
got this effort that we cannot lose focus of, we have to do
things in parallel. I would only tell you that there is a next
generation effort and there is a current generation effort, and
we have got to make sure that both of them are serviced in the
most effective way, though they may be very different.
Secretary Chao, you have responded extremely well from the
Department of Labor to North Carolina's needs, and specifically
the emergence of biotechnology as a new economic sector. And
that was most recently felt with a grant to Forsyth Technical
Community College, which was very effective. How through the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act can we create
more examples like Forsyth Tech and the biotechnology industry
to assure that workforce training is coordinated with job paths
and job skills of tomorrow?
Secretary Chao. Senator, as you well know, we have worked
very hard on addressing some of the dislocation issues in your
State. In particular, I have Emily DeRocco, the Assistant
Secretary of Employment Training Administration, and I want to
give her a lot of credit for assembling all of the Government's
resources to help the workers of Kannapolis, for example.
The President's reform package would offer flexibility
because what is happening, for example, in the high tech will
be very, very different from what is happening in North
Carolina. Forsyth Community College is doing a great job in
training workers for well-paying jobs in high growth industries
like the life sciences, and we want to encourage that path. But
each community is different, and so therefore the Workforce
Investment System needs to have flexibility, and right now
there are stovepipe funding mechanisms, silos, and there are
good people in the system, but it is very hard for them to
overcome the silo effect.
So, for example, currently under the Workforce Investment
Act, local areas are prohibited from serving incumbent workers.
So if, for example, a textile worker came into a One-Stop
Center seeking help in retraining for a career in
biotechnology, financial services or health care services, let
us say, which are growth industries, before they were laid off
they would have been denied services. That does not make sense.
If there was a long-term unemployed person and you would think
that the whole Workforce Investment System is geared toward
them, and yet many of the long-term unemployed cannot access
Workforce Investment programs because of the very narrow
definitions and the lack of flexibility.
So this makes a little sense from a economic or a social
point of view, and indeed it really restricts the ability of
the local community to come together and help one another. So
again, the Administration's reform proposal would free the
States and the local communities to serve incumbent workers,
long term unemployed workers on a more proactive basis, and
also provide these individuals again with much better
opportunities in accessing new opportunities.
So we are also proposing within the President's reform
packet, the New Innovation Training Accounts. That again will
also help workers access a whole range of new resources as
well. But you are absolutely right, the inflexibility within
the system and the inability to focus on the high growth
industries is not an optimum use of our resources, and we are
not doing the best job that we can for these workers.
Senator Burr. I will be very quick, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Spellings, it seems like I have a tendency to
come to you and always talk about community colleges, and maybe
it is because we do have such an infrastructure in North
Carolina. How can we use North Carolina's or any State's
community colleges to better utilize and bolster the transition
from high school into postsecondary education and training?
Secretary Spellings. We can do that first by the
President's call for this $125 million Community College Access
Grants, which does just that, which partners high schools and
community colleges, allows for more dual enrollment, more
articulation--to use our education word--between those two
enterprises, around standards and certification programs and we
are seeing more and more of that around the country, which I am
really proud of.
Having worked in a community college and worked in schools,
I understand that we do not always speak the same language. The
standards are not the same. We frequently see more rigorous
academic content at the community college level and we have to
get that down into the high school level or say we are not
going to do that any more, we are going to let our community
colleges do that.
Senator in your comments, what I heard you saying is, how
are we going to remain a world leader? And we have to ramp up
the level of skills, and we need to focus in particular on math
and science because that is where the jobs are. We do not have
to have everybody get a baccalaureate degree, no doubt about
that, but they must have higher levels of skills embedded in
these standards of these technical training programs, and my
experience is that community colleges do that really well.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Isakson, who is the Subcommittee Chair for the
labor issues, which covers the Workforce Investment Act, part
of it. I mentioned that Senator Burr is the Subcommittee
Chairman for the Bioterrorism and Public Health area. Our
Subcommittee Chair for pensions is also in the Armed Services
Committee and on the floor with a supplemental budget today.
So Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following up on Senator Burr's comment about students and
community colleges, I want to ask you what I think is a very
friendly question.
Secretary Spellings. I hope so.
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. Secretary Spellings, the President's
initiative at the high school to expand accountability and
close the achievement gap as we have done in K-8 with No Child
Left Behind is going to expand more opportunity for more
students to in fact get a postsecondary education whether it be
university, community college or adult and technical; would you
not agree?
Secretary Spellings. I would absolutely agree, and I would
say that that is the genius of No Child Left Behind. Our high
school investments I think could be used more wisely if we had
more information to manage the enterprise.
Senator Isakson. The reason I made that statement, Mr.
Chairman, is I had a--I did not realize I would recite this
event that happened yesterday today until Richard's question,
your being here--but yesterday I had a phone call from Dr.
Alvin Wilbanks, who is one of the top superintendents in the
country and the superintendent at large in his public school
system in Georgia, the Gwinnett County system, which also has
some of the highest test scores, not only in Georgia but in the
United States. His call was specifically to volunteer to see
what he could to assist the Administration and help to spread
the word on the need for this accountability and close the
achievement gap at the high school level. I am going to do a
little pandering here, wanted to see you, Ms. Spellings, to do
just that.
Secretary Spellings. Cannot wait to meet him.
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. My point on this is here you have a system
which embraced from the beginning--in fact had a program called
Gateway--this whole idea of achievement, assessment,
accountability and intervention early rather than late, that is
looking to take--and it is a high achieving system but wants to
do more--is looking to see to it that we are not leaving
anybody behind. I believe, just as the No Child Left Behind is
proving it over time, is going to prove conclusively that we
fundamentally changed the lives of many, many children, I think
raising the element of No Child Left Behind at the high school
will in fact have the same positive effect.
I will call you on that, but I thought that was a great
testimony that you ought to hear, not from me, but from Dr.
Wilbanks.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Secretary Chao, 30 years ago when I
started in the Georgia legislature and we started a program
called Quick Start in our adult and technical education
schools, we would tell a company, ``if you will bring your
company to Georgia, we will train the workers to do what you
want them to do.'' A lot of that training sometimes bordered on
advancing their reading and math skills before we could advance
them on any other skills, meaning that the level of training
was more remedial then than it should have been, and
unfortunately today remains that way, which I think is why No
Child Left Behind is such a great foundation to build on the
skills of the 21st century workers in terms of their ability to
learn skills.
But to that end, I want to reflect on last year's debate in
the House, and our work in the Education Labor Committee on the
Administration's proposals with regard to WIA, and I wanted to
comment that consolidation and flexibility and student focused
training is going to be the key in the 21st century to us,
allowing people to reach their dreams, and in fact, find the
jobs of the 21st century.
And I hope, Mr. Chairman, as we get to that markup that we
will find ways, either through demonstrations or through actual
programs, that we allow consolidation, we allow One-Stop,
encourage One-Stop, we allow flexibility, and the Personal Re-
employment Accounts are a dynamic idea because they are an
individual motivator and incentive for the very person we are
trying to benefit with the One-Stop.
So that is a statement and not a question and I apologize.
[Laughter.]
But I will give you my remaining 1 minute if you want to
elaborate.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Chao. Senator Isakson, you are absolutely
correct. We are trying to help workers, again, who are going
through a very difficult period in their lifetime. So when they
believe in us, the Workforce Investment System, and put their
futures in our hands by coming to us for help, hoping that we
will be able to indeed give them the new entre into a new life,
we have a very big responsibility to carry through. So it is
absolutely essential that these workers that are coming to us
for help receive, number one, relevant training, that they are
coming to an environment that is caring, that is client-based.
As I mentioned, there are 17 different mandated funding
streams, and it is very confusing for a worker to access all
the different Government programs or to even know where to
access and how to access the many different Government programs
for which they are eligible, and that is the beauty of the One-
Stop Centers.
It is supposed to be a One-Stop Center, an entryway into
the many Government programs which are potentially accessible
to them, and again, it has to be flexible and it has to be
client-based, student-focused, as you mentioned, because I
think the workers who are asking for this help deserve no less
and we have a responsibility of ensuring that they are
reconnected with the workforce.
Thank you.
Senator Isakson. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And I want to thank Secretary Chao and Secretary Spellings
for being here today, and I would mention that the record will
stay open for another 10 days, and that is so that you can
expand on any remarks that you want to. It is also so that
members of the committee can submit questions. We try to keep
the ones here of a more general nature. We have several that
are more specific, but we found that has a tendency to put the
people behind you to sleep.
[Laughter.]
It takes more time to really get the meat out of it, but
there are some very specific things on the legislation that we
will need your help on.
I really appreciate your participation and all of the help
that you have given us so far. Thank you for being here today.
Secretary Chao. Thank you.
Secretary Spellings. Thank you.
The Chairman. At this point we will welcome the second
panel. I will ask them to come forward. They are putting some
name tags up at the front counter, switching out the water.
While the switch is being made I will go ahead with the
introductions.
The first member of the panel is the Governor of Kansas,
Kathleen Sebelius. Senator Roberts wanted to be here today to
introduce the Governor of Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
Unfortunately, his duties as Chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee are keeping him very busy today. He
sends his regrets. He wanted me to share with the members of
the committee that Governor Sebelius and Senator Roberts'
families share a long history. In fact, Senator Roberts used to
work for Governor Sebelius' father-in-law, the former Kansas
Republican Congressman Keith Sebelius. He was Congressman
Sebelius' administrative assistant for 12 years before
Congressman Sebelius retired and Senator Roberts followed in
his footsteps by representing that first district in Kansas for
16 years.
Governor Sebelius has steered the Kansas Economic Growth
Act to passage and restructured the existing Comprehensive
Highway Package, ensuring the timely completion of all
projects. She has also proposed sweeping educational reforms
and has put forward several common-sense health care proposals
to reduce costs and increase insurance coverage.
The second member of our panel is the Kentucky Governor,
Ernie Fletcher, who just flew in.
[Laughter.]
One of Governor Fletcher's top priorities is economic
development, and since coming into office more than 49,700 jobs
have been created, ranking Kentucky as the fourth best among
States. Pleased to have you here.
The third member of our panel is former Congressman from
Wisconsin, Steve Gunderson. He is the Director of the
Washington Office of the Greystone Group, a strategic planning
and research consulting firm. I have come to respect Steve's
work even more after reading his book, and I recommend this
book to everyone, The Jobs Revolution: Changing How America
Works. Some great statistics. I quote from it frequently. I do
not always credit it.
[Laughter.]
Our fourth panel member is Brian Fitzgerald, who is the
Executive Director of the Business Higher Education Forum, a
Washington-based organization that encourages dialog among
leaders of the business and higher education sector on issues
central to the role of higher education in the global economy.
Brian previously served as the Staff Director of the Advisory
Committee on Student Financial Assistance, which was
established to advise Congress and the Secretary of Education.
The final member of this panel is Ms. Pamela Boisvert. The
first part of your name in Wyoming we would call ``Boyce''
because we have DuBoise, but Boisvert, I am sorry. The Vice
President of the Colleges of Worcester Consortium, Inc., a not-
for-profit association of public and private accredited
colleges and universities in Central Massachusetts.
I welcome all of you. I assure you that your full statement
will be a part of the record. I would ask you to condense your
remarks to 5 minutes so that we will have time for questions
before we have a vote that will be coming up.
Governor Sebelius.
STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, GOVERNOR OF KANSAS, CHAIR
OF THE NGA EDUCATION, EARLY
CHILDHOOD AND WORKFORCE COMMITTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION
Governor Sebelius. Thank you, Senator Enzi and committee
members. It is a great pleasure to have the chance to be with
you today. I am Kathleen Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas, and
this year I have the pleasure of being the Chair of the
National Governors Association Committee on Education, Early
Childhood and Workforce Training.
You mentioned legislators from Wyoming, and I just noticed
that there are some legislators from Kansas here also. The NCSL
is meeting today, so I am glad to have some folks from our home
State who are on the front lines really figuring out education
and workforce training at the State level.
A lot of what Secretaries Spellings and Chao said today we
certainly agreed with, that our high schools particularly are
in jeopardy. We have too many students dropping out, too many
high school graduates unprepared for the demands of
postsecondary education and work.
Governor Fletcher, my colleague from Kentucky who is here
is going to focus specifically on some of the initiatives on
high school reform, and I am going to talk a little bit about
the P-16 alignment which is going on in a lot of States across
the country, as well as the Workforce Investment Act.
To make this a little more specific, about 75 years ago I
think, a Kansas child could have assumed that he or she would
spend their lives on the family farm, producing wheat, soybeans
and other crops, feeding Americans and the world, and today
only 3 percent of our workers in Kansas are directly associated
with farm jobs. That is a testimony to efficiency, but it means
we also need to cultivate fertile minds as well as fertile soil
in this day and age, and diversify that economic workforce.
As we have already said, the world is changing dramatically
and we need to be prepared for those changes. The cost of not
doing what we are supposed to be doing is extremely high.
Sixteen billion dollars is spent every year on fixing the lack
of adequate preparation for kids going to college. It is paid
for by businesses, by colleges and by the under-prepared high
school students themselves.
We think very strongly as Governors that aligning preschool
through university education and workforce development need to
work together. They are the best way to prepare an educated
workforce and the best way to prepare for jobs for the future.
There is a unique opportunity here in Congress, the pending
reauthorizations of several major programs this year. The
Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, Head Start,
and the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
represent an unprecedented opportunity to align Federal
education laws and promote lifelong learning, the kind of P-16
and beyond system.
Governors really agree on a number of major requests. We
hope that you here in the Senate and your colleagues in the
House will embrace the state-coordinated P-16 efforts and
support our lifelong learning initiatives, that you will
provide--and both the Secretaries echoed this--greater
flexibility to States, give Governors more authority to
coordinate Federal funds. We are happy to be accountable for
those funds and responsive to data requirements, but right now
those data requirements are often duplicative and do not ask
for the same sets of data, so a lot of time and energy and
money, frankly, is spent on the bureaucratic requirements.
Complementing our educational efforts are specific programs
to improve the skills of our States' workforce. It is a
daunting task. Workforce development challenges us all, and yet
there are few opportunities that yield such promise. We have a
different workforce today, ethnic and cultural challenges to
deal with, the needs of working families and individuals with
disabilities. We have to address literacy gaps of low-skill
workers and language needs of some of our newly arrived
workers, all within a diverse and dynamic economy.
What we are concerned with is a one-size-fits-all program
with rigid regulation and service delivery structures, does not
really work well for States across the country. We are
different. We in the heartland are different from Kentucky and
California and need some flexibility to recognize those
differences. Again, we support accountability but feel that
coordination at the State and local level can give us the
opportunity really to use the funds in the most appropriate
measure.
So the four or five things I would just like to highlight
in the Workforce Investment Act would be:
Provide flexibility to Governors to coordinate our funds at
the State level, and the option to coordinate funding streams;
Relieve some of the mandates that are currently in place
like the amount of funding that must be spent on a specific
category or group. We think State needs are different and State
workforces are different;
More flexibility in success and participation, that
individuals should be able to easily enter and reenter the
system at different times, as opposed to going through a
mandated sequence of events;
Serving the business community and fostering economic
development. We in Kansas have just totally overhauled our
workforce system to make it more market-driven, more nimble--
broaden community college training, but very much involve the
community. That works in Kansas. A different format may work
better in Kentucky. We are trying to make sure that we deal
with accurate forecasting so that our business leaders have the
job security for the future.
Encourage innovation in States. Let us be the laboratories
of what works and design programs in a way that we can give you
the reports that are important, but also get rid of the limits
on transferring the funds.
Align more clearly the workforce and education programs,
and coordinate management and performance information.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity. We have submitted some
detailed written testimony. We would be happy to answer some
questions. We are eager to work with the Senate as you overhaul
and review these programs so that we make sure that not only
are all children prepared for success in the future, but that
we have the best educated, best trained workforce for the
future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Governor Sebelius follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kathleen Sebelius
Chairman Enzi, Senator Kennedy and members of the committee, I am
Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of the State of Kansas, and Chair of the
National Governors Association Education, Early Childhood and Workforce
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on
behalf of the Nation's Governors on lifelong learning.
NEW NGA EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE POLICIES
In February, the Nation's Governors approved three new policies
that offer bipartisan recommendations to align Federal education laws,
accelerate State high school redesign, and promote lifelong learning
through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The full text of the new
policies is attached. I'm very proud of our work on the NGA to reach a
bipartisan agreement on these issues.
Today, I'll limit my comments to Governors' new vision to align
Federal education laws and to streamline workforce programs. Governor
Fletcher will discuss how Congress can help accelerate State high
school redesign action plans.
EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY
Our economy is changing, and we must change with it. Technology and
trade have revolutionized the way companies do business. Manufacturers
in Kansas must compete with manufacturers in Europe, Asia, and South
America. What took 20 workers a full day to produce just a generation
ago can now be handled by a single worker with the right machinery and
a computer. A small shop owner in Frankfort can fill an order from
Tokyo just as easily as a college student in Topeka can order from a
store in Paris.
What all of these scenarios require however is skilled and educated
labor. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that by 2020, there will
be a 22 percent increase in the number of jobs requiring some
postsecondary education. Yet during the next 20 years, we will lose 46
million skilled workers as baby boomers retire. Even with more people
getting some form of secondary education, as many as 12 million jobs
are likely to go unfilled; a loss that will disproportionately affect
industries that are critical to our economic growth, including
education, health care, technology, and manufacturing. This shortage
constrains the productive capacity of key industries and jeopardizes
the quality of services in others.
But developing an educated and skilled workforce is not just good
for business, it is good for people. Census data shows the median
earnings of a high school graduate ($30,800) are 43 percent higher than
those of a non-graduate ($21,600). Those of a college graduate are 62
percent higher than those of a high school graduate. States stand to
benefit too. Economist Anthony Carnevale estimates that if States
expand college access among African Americans, Hispanics, and non-
Hispanic whites, (the resultant earnings improvements would certainly
narrow income differences and could add as much as $230 billion in
national wealth and $80 billion in new tax revenues every year.)
NGA PRINCIPLES OF PRESCHOOL-COLLEGE (P-16) ALIGNMENT
In the 21st century, the economic strength of the United States
will depend on the ability of each State and our Nation to develop a
coordinated and aligned education and workforce system that supports,
trains, and prepares a skilled set of workers. Now is the time to take
action to create a seamless American education system, by aligning
Federal education laws to promote lifelong learning. The pending
reauthorizations of the Workforce Investment Act, Higher Education Act,
Head Start, and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Act present an unprecedented opportunity to align Federal education
laws and promote lifelong learning.
The pathway to progress is clear. Federal education laws from pre-
school through college, commonly referred to as P-16, must be aligned
to foster State innovation, eliminate costly duplication, and
ultimately improve education outcomes for all students.
NGA recently commissioned a study by Holland and Knight that
examined the relationship between key provisions of these major laws:
Head Start, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
Technical Education Act, the Higher Education Act (HEA), and the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The initial analysis will inform
congressional debates and will help the larger education and workforce
community to begin a dialog on education alignment and coordination.
The NGA's study of relevant laws revealed several important initial
points. Some laws, such as NCLB and IDEA provisions related to
improving student performance, ``read together'' and can be implemented
in an integrated fashion. However in too many cases, Federal education
laws:
Do not reinforce each other's substantive requirements;
Establish duplicative requirements that may result in
unnecessary burden on States (most notably the duplication in reporting
requirements and data collection);
Create no clear, coherent system to effective and
efficient reporting of information to the (1) public, (2) Federal
agencies, or (3) Congress; and
Provide funding in ways that discourage the integration
and strategic use of all available Federal dollars for a common
purpose.
Too often, Federal education laws are isolated, one from another.
But education begins in the early years and continues for a lifetime.
The federal-state-local education system must be coordinated to serve
the needs of all students, young and old. Limits and restrictions on
State innovation generate costs that our Nation cannot afford.
Governors believe that the Federal education laws should be aligned
to:
Embrace State coordinated P-16 efforts;
Provide greater flexibility to States;
Streamline Federal data reporting requirements;
Expand gubernatorial authority to coordinate Federal
funds;
Recognize and reinforce constitutional gubernatorial
authority over education in their States; and
Support lifelong learning.
From California to Georgia to Delaware, Governors are leading P-16
reform efforts to oversee the integration of early, elementary,
secondary and postsecondary education. Governors urge this committee to
carefully consider how Federal education laws relate to each other. We
need to break down the isolation, eliminate the duplication, and
provide new flexibility, so that Governors can build more seamless
education systems.
TRANSITION TO AND PREPARING FOR THE WORKFORCE
Education is the ultimate form of economic development. Education
can not end at the classroom door. Rather its continuation is the
cornerstone of developing and maintaining a competitive workforce. As
Governors, we are continually working to ensure that our institutions
of higher education and our workforce systems are ready to develop and
sustain a skilled workforce for today's modern, global economy.
Our workforce's increasing diversity and growing needs for skills
offer new challenges in how we educate and train workers. We must
accommodate ethnic and cultural differences; we must provide for the
needs of working and individuals with disabilities; and we must address
the literacy gaps of low-skilled workers and the language needs of
immigrant workers.
Exacerbating these challenges is the global economy that
continually creates and eliminates jobs. Every year, up to a third of
all jobs are either added or eliminated from the economy. This churning
has contributed to the breakdown of the social contract between workers
and employers and reduced the incentives for employers to invest in
their workers. For many employees, the traditional concepts of job
security, career ladders, and job progression simply do not exist.
Increasingly, workers experience periods of dislocation and must have
the tools to manage their own careers through first-rate labor exchange
services. Lifelong education is a key part of moving through a career
that consists of multiple jobs.
To address these issues, our public workforce programs must have
enough flexibility to meet the demands of an unpredictable economy and
a changing worker population. These programs cannot be a one-size fits
all systems with rigid regulations and service delivery structures.
Rather, the programs must recognize the differences among States and
communities, and thus provide Governors, working with local government,
business, and labor to design flexible ways to meet distinct needs. At
the same time, programs must remain accountable, given their reliance
on public investments.
REAUTHORIZING THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
WIA authorized Governors to initiate broad structural reforms in
their workforce development systems. With this authority, the Nation's
Governors have made significant progress in restructuring these systems
and strengthening the essential partnerships between Federal, State,
and local governments and the private sector. Yet State-by-State
experiences reveal that many challenges remain, such as providing a
comprehensive, highly integrated education, training, and employment
services for workers. In addition, States need help in meeting
reporting requirements, coping with resource constraints and fully
engaging the business community as partners.
On March 24th, the Nation's Governors sent a letter to the members
of this committee enumerating our bipartisan recommendations for the
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The full text of our
policy is attached.
Governors believe that WIA reauthorization presents a great
opportunity to enhance the Federal-State workforce system, support
State innovation, and provide greater authority to Governors in
overseeing the implementation and coordination of workforce programs.
Combining a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible workforce system
with nimble State economic development strategies, the Nation will have
the tools for speedy, effective responses to the changing needs of
workers and businesses alike, as they compete in the global economy.
To address those challenges and strengthen the Nation's workforce
development system, Governors offer the following recommendations for
any legislation to reauthorize WIA:
Provide flexibility to coordinate funds: As noted by
Secretary Chao, the Administration's proposal would consolidate four
WIA programs: Adult Training, Dislocated Worker Training, Youth
Training, and Employment Services. It also creates various options for
consolidation with five other programs. Instead of consolidating
Federal WIA programs, however, the Senate WIA bill should offer
Governors the option and authority to coordinate WIA program funding to
meet the unique needs of their States; and it should also include a
hold harmless provision to protect against any diminished Federal
investment in workforce and related programs. Congress should provide
Governors with the option, at their discretion, to pool WIA, higher
education, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other
sources of Federal training money to respond to the state-level needs
of workers, businesses and other interests.
Eliminate youth spending mandate: WIA should not mandate
the amount of youth funding that must be spent on out-of-school or in-
school youth. Governors should be able to direct youth funds according
to the needs of their respective States.
Improve access and participation: Congress should ensure
that individuals can easily enter and reenter the system at any point
and access services as needed, not in a prescribed sequence. Congress
should also work to fully engage businesses in the workforce system and
eliminate barriers that prevent workers and businesses from receiving
assistance in a timely and efficient manner.
Serve the business community and foster economic
development: WIA needs to better serve the business community and to
connect with the economic development needs of the State. WIA
reauthorization should also recognize the important partnerships among
Federal, State, public, and private workforce programs and the
Governors' authority to press for innovations. For these reasons,
Congress should support strong State public-private partnerships to
ensure an adequate supply of workers for high-growth occupations as
determined by individual States. To facilitate the relationships
between Governors and their business community, Congress should also
encourage coordination by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Encourage innovation: Congress should remove barriers to
State innovation; these include, but not limited to, overly burdensome
reporting requirements, inconsistent terms and definitions, and
limitations on transferring funds.
Align related workforce and education programs:
Partnerships within One-Stop centers have proven difficult to foster;
given myriad agencies, organizations, financing, and responsibilities
involved in delivering the array of services in one location. Governors
recommend that the Federal partner agencies develop a joint initiative
to align Federal regulations and encourage support for and
participation in One-Stop centers. Alignment efforts should encompass
WIA, higher education, TANF, vocational rehabilitation, vocational and
technical education, trade adjustment, veterans' employment, and other
distinct programs. In particular, Governors strongly support efforts to
coordinate WIA and TANF to give welfare recipients and other low-income
workers easier, more effective access to education and training.
Coordinate management and performance information: The
initiative should address common management and performance
information, including cost sharing, resource allocation, and joint
case management, it should also facilitate the sharing, processing, and
providing of services to participants. Establishing cross-system
measures could support consistent information systems that span State
and Federal workforce programs.
Streamline the Workforce Boards: The Senate WIA bill
should give Governors the authority to design and re-designate the
local workforce areas without Federal interference.
Eliminate Section 191: Section 191(A) of WIA has led to
problems within some States by requiring that all WIA funds are subject
to appropriation by the State legislature. This unnecessary provision
should be eliminated to ensure that gubernatorial authority to allocate
Federal funds.
CONCLUSION
We must never stop learning. Congress should view today's workforce
and education programs as part of a continuum of lifelong learning.
Current and future workers should have the opportunity to equip and
reequip themselves for productive work through training, education, and
professional development. Governors stand ready to work with Congress
and the Administration to ensure that our workers and economy continue
to lead the world in the 21st century.
National Governors Association,
Washington, D.C. 20001,
March 24, 2005.
Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
Hon. Edward ``Ted'' M. Kennedy,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C. 20510.
Dear Chairman Enzi and Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Nation's
governors, we are pleased to offer the following bipartisan
recommendations for your consideration as you work to improve the
Workforce Investment Act (W1A).
WIA reauthorization presents an opportunity to enhance the Federal-
State workforce system, support State innovation, coordinate the
delivery of services, and provide greater authority to governors to
oversee the implementation and coordination of workforce programs.
Through a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible workforce system and
State economic development strategies, the Nation will be better
equipped to quickly respond to the changing needs of its workers and
businesses as they compete successfully in the global economy.
Governors urge the Senate to strengthen the Nation's workforce
development system by incorporating the following recommendations into
any legislation to reauthorize WlA:
Improve access and participation: Congress should ensure
that individuals can easily enter and reenter the system at any point
and access services as needed, not in a prescribed sequence. It should
also work to fully engage businesses in the workforce system and
eliminate barriers that prevent workers and businesses from receiving
assistance in a timely and efficient manner.
Provide flexibility to coordinate funds: Instead of a
Federal consolidation of WIA programs. Congress should provide
governors with the option and authority to coordinate WIA funding to
meet the unique needs of States and include a hold harmless provision
to ensure that the Federal investment in workforce and related programs
is not diminished. Congress should provide governors with the option,
at their discretion, to pool WIA and related sources of Federal
training money at the State level.
Encourage innovation: Congress should remove barriers to
State innovation, including, but not limited to, overly burdensome
reporting requirements, inconsistent terms and definitions, and
limitations to transfer funds.
Additional information and specifics regarding the governor
position on WIA can be found in the attached NGA policy which was
revised and reaffirmed last month at the NGA Winter Meeting.
Governors look forward to working with you to improve and
reauthorize WIA in the coming months. Thank you for considering our
views.
Sincerely,
Governor Kathleen Sebelius,
Chair, Education, Early Childhood
and Workforce Committee.
Governor Tim Pawlenty,
Vice Chair, Education, Early Childhood
and Workforce Committee.
______
National Governors Association
policy position
ECW-1. Governors' Principles to Ensure Workforce Excellence Policy
1.1 Preamble
In the 21st century, the economic strength of the United States
will depend on the ability of each state to compete successfully in the
global economy. Today's jobs require workers to have more advanced
training and higher levels of education. In order to compete most
effectively, state economic development strategies must build a skilled
workforce through lifelong learning and worker training.
Governors recognize that a strong workforce development system must
encompass education, human service, and economic development programs
and ensure the attention and investment of all levels of government and
the private sector. In this era of global competitiveness, an effective
workforce development system should address the needs of all workers,
regardless of the worker's skill level. Through a comprehensive,
integrated, and flexible workforce system, the Nation will be equipped
to quickly respond to the changing needs of its workers and businesses
to compete successfully in the global economy.
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) authorized Governors to initiate
broad structural reforms in their workforce development systems. With
this authority, the Nation's Governors have made significant progress
in restructuring their workforce development systems and strengthening
partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments and the
private sector. These reforms are producing highly skilled workforces
that strengthen businesses and the economy. Yet experiences from States
reveal that many challenges remain, such as providing a comprehensive,
seamless system of education and training and employment services for
workers; meeting reporting requirements; coping with resource
constraints; and fully engaging the business community as partners. To
address those challenges, Governors support additional efforts to
strengthen the system and provide the following core principles and
recommendations to guide actions by the Administration and Congress.
1.2 Principles for Workforce Excellence
The Governors recommend the following principles to help ensure
workforce excellence.
1.2.1 A Comprehensive, Flexible, State-Based Workforce System. The
workforce system should be a comprehensive and flexible state-based
system that is centered on the needs of local regions and communities
and accountable for results. The workforce system should be readily
understood, accessible, and responsive to local and regional workers,
job seekers, students, and businesses. These customers should receive
information about the full array of services available from public and
private sources and should be able to easily enter and reenter the
system at any point and access services as needed, not in a prescribed
sequence. Governors should have the flexibility to build on the current
strengths in the system, including the authority to design and re-
designate the local workforce areas without Federal interference.
1.2.2 Lifelong Learning Opportunities. Job training and education
programs should be available to the entire workforce and the business
community as part of a continuum of lifelong learning. Current and
future workers should have the opportunity to equip and re-equip
themselves for productive work through training, education, and
professional development. Education and workforce partners should
pursue new educational methodologies such as modularization of
curriculum, portable credentials for students and workers, e-learning,
and other distance learning opportunities. In addition, student
financial aid guidelines should be revised to better serve working
adults. Due to the vital role that job training and education programs
play during an individual's lifetime, it is critical that Federal
education and workforce programs be aligned to function most
effectively to support the lifelong learning opportunities for
individuals in state-determined high demand occupations.
1.2.3 Education and Career Linkages for Students. In a knowledge-
and skill-based economy, education is increasingly linked to economic
success, with postsecondary education and training often leading to
higher earnings and employment stability. WIA should reinforce with
students the importance of acquiring basic skills, such as reading or
math, that lead to a high school degree or equivalent, thus ensuring
students have the foundation of skills and knowledge to enter any
career and to support continued lifelong learning. For these reasons,
the workforce development system should effectively support career
exploration opportunities and should link education and work through
work-based learning, internships, career guidance, youth
apprenticeship, and other options that enable students to obtain the
academic, occupational, and work-readiness skills needed for
employment. Businesses, unions, schools, colleges and universities,
community-based organizations, teachers, students, and all levels of
government must share the responsibility to ensure that alignment of
these programs produces economic success for students.
1.2.4 Barriers to Innovation. Governors continue to develop
innovative workforce systems that respond to customer needs, reduce
fragmentation, promote accountability, deliver services efficiently,
and engage the business community. To ensure a higher quality Federal-
State workforce system for America's workers. Congress should remove
barriers to innovation including, but not limited to, overly burdensome
reporting requirements, inconsistent terms and definition, and
limitations to transfer funds.
1.2.5 Governors' Leadership in Workforce Programs Innovation. WIA
reauthorization should recognize the important partnerships among
Federal, State, public, and private workforce programs and Governors'
authority to develop an innovative workforce development system.
Congress should encourage the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to
coordinate with the Governor when working with a State's business
community.
1.2.6 Integral Role of the Private Sector. Workforce development
has two major groups of customers--workers (both current and future)
and businesses. Although WIA made strides in recognizing the needs of
businesses, work remains to ensure that businesses are fully engaged in
the law. Federal policy should not undermine the vast investment that
private sector businesses have made to train workers. Also, Federal
initiatives should be designed to support state-based programs,
particularly State efforts to build partnerships with business. Federal
WIA policy should support strong public/private partnerships and
provide Governors the authority to build these partnerships to ensure
an adequate supply of high-growth industries and occupations. Federal
efforts should be designed to support state-based programs, including
State efforts to partner with businesses.
1.2.7 Efficient Assistance for Business Firms and Dislocated
Workers. Federal dislocated worker initiatives and funding should be
responsive and flexible to address the impact of economic changes on
workers in States across the Nation. In addition, workers and
businesses negatively affected by Federal policy decisions should
receive adjustment assistance in a timely and efficient manner. Federal
assistance should be provided through state-based networks and
initiatives, and final authority to implement the provision of
assistance should be determined by the Governor.
1.3 Recommendations for Strengthening the Workforce Development System
The Nation's Governors strongly support the following
recommendations to strengthen the workforce development system.
1.3.1 Funding. Governors support an increase in the Federal
Investment in WIA programs to support lifelong learning and economic
development. WIA funding helps support critical workforce services to
ensure that America's workers will remain competitive in the 21st
century global economy. To adequately respond to the global economy.
WIA funding should be flexible and responsive to worker shortages, high
demand occupations as determined by each State, major shifts in the
national economy, and State economic development goals.
1.3.2 Flexibility to Coordinate or Transfer Funds. Congress should
provide Governors with the option to coordinate WIA funding to meet the
unique needs of their States and should include a hold harmless
provision to ensure that the Federal investment in workforce and
related programs is not diminished. At their discretion, Governors
should be given the option to pool WIA, higher education, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other sources of Federal
training money at the State level to respond to the needs of workers
and businesses.
1.3.3 Performance Measures. Governors urge the development of a new
streamlined--yet strong--performance measurement based on State and
local input. The framework should include a core set of measures that
are meaningful across workforce development programs. These measures
should readily illustrate the value the workforce development system
adds to meeting economic development goals. Governors should be closely
consulted if any Federal measures are adopted. Performance measures
should be flexible and easy to collect to allow the evaluation of
short-term results on and long-term efforts by workers and businesses.
The current multiplicity of measures and data collection impedes
service delivery in States. Congress and DOL should also support the
voluntarily development of State integrated performance measures and
information systems that include common definitions and measures.
1.3.4 Reporting Requirements. The current workforce system is
fragmented and consists of inconsistent terms and definitions, as well
as overly burdensome reporting requirements. This system impedes
efficient service delivery in States and localities; deters
participation of eligible job training providers, including educational
institutions such as community colleges and apprenticeship programs;
and discourages partnerships within one-stop centers. Governors urge
Congress to streamline and improve Federal reporting requirements.
Until Federal law is revised to provide such flexibility, Governors
expect DOL to approve appropriate waivers of Federal regulations to
reduce the financial burden of unnecessary paperwork and remove
barriers to innovation.
1.3.5 Regulations. Governors urge DOL to develop regulations in
close consultation with States. Moreover, DOL should only develop
regulations when the law is unclear and needs clarification, and these
regulations must be consistent with the intent of Congress.
1.3.6 Federal Partner Programs. Partnerships within one-stop
centers have been difficult to foster given the myriad of agencies,
organizations, financing, and responsibilities involved in delivering
the array of services in one location. Governors recommend that the
Federal partner agencies develop a joint initiative to align Federal
regulations to consistently encourage support for and participation in
one-stop centers. Alignment efforts should encompass WIA, higher
education. TANF, vocational rehabilitation, vocational and technical
education, trade adjustment, veterans' employment, and other distinct
programs. In particular, Governors support efforts to coordinate WIA
and TANF systems to help welfare recipients and other low-income
workers better access education and training.
The initiative should address common management and performance
information, including cost sharing, resource allocation, and joint
case management, as well as the sharing, processing, and providing of
services to participants. Flexibility to establish cross-system
measures could support consistent information systems across State and
Federal workforce programs.
1.3.7 Greater Access to WIA Training. Training is important in
providing a continuum of skill development, ranging from initial
preparation to ongoing career advancement. A basic tenet of WIA is to
facilitate an efficient transition for qualified individuals through
core, intensive, and training services. Govenors recommend that DOL
work with States to issue clarifying guidance to ensure that enrollment
in training is not blocked or delayed by a rigid application of WIA
eligibility criteria for intensive services and training, particularly
when a one-stop partner has already properly determined the need for
training.
1.3.8 Readjustment and Training for Dislocated Workers. Under
current law, to be eligible for job training services, dislocated
workers must first participate in the required sequence of services.
Governors recommend that States and localities be given flexibility to
apply eligibility criteria to permit rapid passage through the initial
services when there is a ready presumption that other work is not
available. To ensure training opportunities for unemployed workers,
participation in WIA intensive and training services should be allowed
to satisfy unemployment insurance work search requirements.
Additionally, Governors recommend that the wage-replacement performance
standard be eliminated because it inadvertently discourages enrollment
of high-wage workers when replacement jobs are not available at similar
pay levels.
1.3.9 Flexibility for Youth Programs. Under current law, local WIA
program administrators are required to contract-out training and
development services for youth, regardless of a lack of qualified
service providers. At the same time, Governors may grant waivers to
local boards allowing them to consolidate service delivery for adults
and dislocated workers in rural areas. Similar rules should apply to
the WIA youth funding stream so that local boards may streamline
program services in areas with insufficient numbers of qualified
service providers.
WIA should not mandate the amount of youth funding that must be
spent on out-of-school or in-school youth. Governors should have the
discretion to direct youth funds according to the needs of each State.
1.3.10 Incentives for Comprehensive System Building. Incentives,
including access to waiver authority and additional Federal funds,
should be provided to all States to establish comprehensive workforce
development systems in partnership with local governments and private
sector leaders.
1.3.11 Section 191. Section 191(A) has led to problems within some
States by requiring that all WIA funds are subject to appropriation by
the State legislature. This unnecessary provision should be eliminated
to ensure that Governors retrain unfettered authority to allocate
Federal funds.
Related Policies
ECW-11, Employment Security System Policy
ECW-15, Principles of Federal Preschool-College (P-16) Alignment
HH S-21, Welfare Reform
Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2005 Winter Meeting 2007).
Adopted Winter Meeting 1993; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1995;
revised and reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1997; revised Winter Meeting
1998, Winter Meeting 2000, Winter Meeting 2002, Annual Meeting 2005,
and Winter Meeting 2005 (formerly Policy HR-I).
______
ECW-13. High School Reform: Aligning Secondary and Postsecondary
Education Policy
13:1 Preamble
Governors are leaders in high school reform and Federal policy
should support their authority, initiatives, and innovation. States are
implementing and developing strategies to increase student
participation in college preparatory courses, better align expectations
between high school and postsecondary education, and ensure students
graduate from high school ready for college or the workplace.
Governors recognize that education is a fundamental State
responsibility. To ensure the proper federal-state-local partnership,
Federal education laws and regulations must be accompanied by broad
flexibility. While States invest significant resources in education
programs, Governors also recognize and appreciate the Federal
Government's contribution to provide additional resources or assistance
for those most in need.
High school reform requires systemic change in Federal education
policies to break down barriers, align and raise standards and
expectations, and allow for greater flexibility at State and local
levels. Also critical to reform will be an increased focus on rigor and
relevance of secondary school for all students. Federal programs for
middle school, high school, career and technical education, and
postsecondary education must be aligned to support State high school
reform efforts and to ensure that every child graduates from high
school ready to succeed in the global economy. Federal funding must be
appropriated to meet new school improvement goals and current mandates.
13.2 Principles for High School Reform
Governors recommend the following principles for Federal high
school reform.
Support State efforts to reform high school.
Recognize Governors' responsibilities in early education,
kindergarten-12th grade (K-12), and postsecondary education, and
strengthen their authority to coordinate statewide education policies
across grades and education settings.
Better align early education through college educational
standards.
Increase academic rigor for all students.
Support State high school accountability through a range
of testing and assessments.
Support expanded and diverse learning options.
Address literacy needs of adolescents.
Expand guidance and counseling services to students.
Better prepare high school students for college or work
expectations.
Support new models for teacher and school leader
compensation.
Expand professional development for secondary teachers and
school leaders.
13.3 Recommendations for High School Reform
Governors support the following recommendations to reform high
school, align secondary school with postsecondary or college
expectations, and promote lifelong learning.
13.3.1 Preschool-College (P-l6) Alignment of Educational Standards,
Systems, and Expectations. Governors have taken the lead in recognizing
the fundamental State responsibility for a seamless progression from
early childhood through lifelong learning opportunities. Recognition of
this seamless educational continuum is important in fashioning
education policies at the Fede14ral level. Congress should support
State efforts to closely align high school standards with expectations
and requirements for postsecondary education and work. Congress should
encourage K-12 and postsecondary institutions, or provide incentives to
States, to streamline high school assessments with college admission or
readiness for work testing.
13.3.2 K-12 Accountability. Governors support State efforts for
rigorous testing and assessment of high school students. States have
made considerable progress to institute standards-based testing and
demand greater accountability in K-12 education. Governors urge
Congress to closely consult with States on any Federal expansion of
testing and to continue to respect Governors' authority over education.
Any costs associated with federally mandated testing or Federal
reporting on State exams must be completely covered by the Federal
Government. Maximum flexibility in designing State accountability
systems, including testing and other assessments, is critical to
preserve the unique balance involving Federal funding, local control of
education, and State responsibility for systemwide reform. Maximum
flexibility in State testing will help improve how students are
assessed for academic proficiency and postsecondary readiness.
13.3.3 Professional Development for Teachers and School Leaders.
High school reform will require new investments in the capacity of
teachers and school leaders. Governors support expanded flexibility to
increase professional development opportunities for secondary school
teachers and school leaders, in particular those individuals working in
hard-to-serve schools or critical shortage areas, such as math,
science, reading, and special education.
13.3.4 Models for Teacher and School Leader Compensation. Governors
understand that systemic improvement in high school achievement, as
well as college and workplace readiness, may require additional support
for teachers and school leadership. High schools must compete with
other more highly compensated professions for teachers and school
leaders, especially in the areas of math and science. Congress should
support state-administered pilot projects on performance pay,
especially in critical shortage areas or hard-to-staff schools.
13.3.5 Dual Enrollment and Early College. Governors recognize the
importance of promoting innovation and integration among secondary,
postsecondary, and industry-recognized institutions. Federal policies
should encourage--not discourage--promising State efforts in dual
enrollment programs that permit students to obtain college-level
credits or provide the opportunity to earn an industry-recognized
credential while still in secondary school. Specifically, Congress
should encourage State dual enrollment or early college programs, and
allow high school students participating in these programs to be
eligible for Federal financial aid.
13.3.6 High School Rigor. Across the Nation, high percentages of
high school graduates are entering college, but increasingly they are
not adequately prepared for the rigor of postsecondary courses. As a
result, States, parents, and students are expending a great amount of
resources on developmental courses instead of on college-level
education, and students are taking longer to graduate or, are not
attaining a degree. Congress should support State and local efforts to
improve high school rigor, while working with colleges and universities
to phase-out developmental courses. Congress should also support State
collaborative efforts with high schools and postsecondary institutions
to acquire information about attrition and academic progress.
13.3.7 State Scholars. The State Scholars Initiative supports State
efforts to voluntarily develop and promote more rigorous coursework for
high school students and offers incentives to those students accepting
the challenge. Governors believe that funding should be adequate so
that any interested State could voluntarily participate in the program.
13.3.8 Industry Certification, Advanced Placement, and
International Baccalaureate Programs. Congress should provide financial
incentives to States to support industry-recognized certification exams
among high school and postsecondary school students. Congress also
should support State efforts that encourage more students to enroll in
Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) coursework
and pay for student AP testing.
13.3.9 Diverse Learning Opportunities for Students of All Ages. A
one-size-fit-all approach to high school learning is outdated and does
not support the diverse needs of students. Governors encourage Congress
to support State and local policies and programs that expand the
availability of learning opportunities for students of all ages,
including but not limited to, distance learning, service learning,
internships, and the availability of financial aid.
Diverse learning options can increase access to postsecondary
education and lower costs. Governors urge Congress to afford students
participating in state-accredited distance and online education
programs full access to Federal student financial assistance. The
Higher Education Act (HEA) should provide the U.S. Secretary of
Education with the authority to exercise discretion to allow States and
institutions to appropriately experiment with new ideas and approaches
to meet the financial aid needs of students enrolled in such programs.
13.3.10 Guidance and Counseling Services. Congress should expand
Federal support for counseling services to secondary school students.
Governors support Federal programs, such as Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP), the Leveraging
Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP), and the Elementary and
Secondary School Counseling Program (ESSCP). In all three programs,
Congress should provide States and local school districts with greater
flexibility. Congress should also reauthorize GEAR-UP, and other
Federal programs that encourage college attendance, in an equitable way
that allows students to benefit from these opportunities in all States
that apply for grants. Additionally, State innovation in this area
should be further supported by Congress to broaden opportunities and
encourage systemic improvements. Under the ESSCP program, local school
districts should be given flexibility to allocate resources between the
elementary or secondary school level for key Federal programs.
Governors understand the importance of early college planning and
preparation. Congress should support State strategies that promote
early college awareness, including middle school programs that focus on
the importance of high school to prepare for college and college
admissions tests.
13.4 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
The reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act (Perkins) is an important component of high school
reform. Career and technical education can bridge the transition
between high school and postsecondary activities by providing students
with real-world skills to better prepare for the 21st century
workplace. In particular, the Perkins reauthorization should improve
the academic rigor of career and technical education for students. To
this end, Governors support increased Federal funding for Perkins'
programs.
13.4.1 State Leadership. Governors support the strong role for
State leadership in Perkins. This role can only be maintained with
adequate resources for administration, leadership, and innovation.
Governors oppose any reduction in the Federal commitment to fund and
support this important State role.
13.4.2 Federal and State Alignment. The goals and objectives of
career and technical education should align with other Federal
education and workforce development programs to promote lifelong
learning opportunities, work readiness, and school readiness.
Furthermore, Governors believe that career and technical education
programs must complement the academic mission of the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act. In recognizing the importance of coordination and
alignment among different Federal programs, Governors support aligning
Perkins with NCLB and eliminating duplicative reporting requirements
fulfilled by NCLB.
13.4.3 State Flexibility. Congress should maintain and enhance the
flexibility to fashion career and technical education programs to meet
each unique State situation. Governors support continuing and enhancing
the flexibility currently allowed under Perkins, such as allowing
States to determine the allocation of funds between secondary and
postsecondary institutions. Congress also should give States the
authority to combine Tech Prep with Basic State Grants.
13.4.4 State Accountability. Federal policy should continue to
recognize the critical State role of determining and setting
performance standards and other measures to ensure student success in
career and technical education programs. Governors support the use of
State determined accountability measures.
13.4.5 Paperwork Reduction: State Plans. Governors recognize the
important objectives sought by the different provisions within Perkins.
However, Governors believe that States should be able to file a single
unified plan to substantially reduce the paperwork burden on State
agencies and to increase collaboration between Perkins' programs.
13.4.6 Data Collection and Maintenance. Governors recognize the
importance of having reliable and useful data to measure student
performance in career and technical education programs. Congress should
allot additional Federal resources to develop, maintain, or support
State data systems to comply with Perkins. To this end, Congress must
cover any increase in the cost of administering or implementing new
federally mandated data requirements.
13.5 Higher Education Act of 1965
It is essential that postsecondary institutions keep pace with the
ever-changing global economy and reforms implemented in elementary and
secondary education. While the Higher Education Act of 1965 expanded
opportunities for students, reform to the larger postsecondary system
has been slow and graduation rates remain relatively stagnant. In this
new economy and era of education reform, now is the time to reform
postsecondary education by increasing relevance and rigor,
accountability, linkages with K-12 education and the workplace, and by
expanding financial aid to students of all ages. Governors urge the
109th Congress to reauthorize HEA and to strengthen the State-Federal
partnership in postsecondary education to serve the Nation well into
the 21st century.
13.5.1 Higher Education Act Principles. HEA provides the statutory
framework for a wide range of student financial assistance that enables
expanded access by all students to higher education institutions;
ensures affordability for low- and moderate-income families; and
provides for Federal programs to strengthen graduate education,
minority-serving institutions, and international education. Governors
recommend the following principles for HEA reauthorization.
Support State strategies to improve enrollment and
completion of postsecondary education.
Make college more affordable for students.
Simplify forms for the complex program of student
financial assistance.
Align HEA with other Federal education programs, including
increased accountability in the system.
Recognize the growing need for services and supports for
nontraditional students to be successful.
13.5.2 College Affordability for All Students. The Nation's
Governors recognize the vital importance of financial aid programs to
make college education more affordable for students, including part-
time and nontraditional students. In addition, Governors support a
strong Federal commitment to ensure affordability through both Federal
grant aid and loan programs. Congress should work to ensure that
Federal higher education assistance substantially defrays education
costs. Governors also appreciate that student loan consolidation
provides students with another mechanism to address college
affordability.
13.5.3 Student Loan Financing Loophole. Congress should permanently
close the student loan financing loophole and reinvest those savings
into other Federal education programs. The closure of the loophole will
save taxpayers money while expanding opportunity and support for
students.
13.5.4 Pell Grants for Students. Governors recognize the value of
need-based financial aid programs, such as Pell grants. Governors are
concerned with the historical inadequate funding of Pell grants to
provide the maximum allowable awards to eligible students and believe
that Congress should consider raising the Pell grant maximum. Governors
believe that the Federal Government should review the Pell grant
program to ensure that the purchasing value of this grant has not
diminished over time. Congress should also fund an enhanced Pell grant
for those students graduating in the top 10 percent of their high
school class for the first 2 years of college, as long as there is no
reduction in the total number or size of grants awarded to other Pell
Grant recipients.
The Pell grant program should be modernized to reflect the varied
needs of today's high school and postsecondary school students,
including independent students and those attending less than half-time.
Governors also support extension of Pell grants for students whose
educational pursuits extend beyond the typical calendar year. Pell
grant eligibility should extend to summer classes and mid-term classes
to allow these students to pursue their studies throughout the year, if
possible.
13.5.5 Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships. Congress
should expand the Federal investment in the LEAP program to continue to
spur State investments into need-based grant aid, merit scholarships
for needy students, and need-based scholarship programs in specialized
areas. The LEAP program represents an excellent Federal-State
partnership to support and encourage eligible students to attend and
stay in college. To better enable States to compete for these funds,
Congress should add more flexibility to allow local and private fund
matches to be counted towards the State maintenance-of-effort.
13.5.6 Form and Program Simplification. Governors believe that the
current Federal, State, and private student financial assistance
programs have provided unprecedented opportunities for students in
America. However, the array of Federal, State, and private
scholarships, grants, loans, tax breaks, and work-study programs
presents a complex and often confusing set of choices for students. The
reauthorization of HEA should require coordination and collaboration
between Federal Agencies to simplify the application process and forms,
to utilize information technologies to facilitate navigation among the
many choices and opportunities, and to strengthen the role of state-
based guarantee agencies in the financial aid process. Additional
transparency and education about the Pell grant award process, as well
as other programs of financial aid, should be encouraged.
Moreover, Governors believe that the administrative burdens and
excessive regulations associated with the Federal student financial aid
process must be substantially improved for students, institutions of
higher education, and States.
13.5.7 Postsecondary Accountability. Accountability of higher
education institutions is an important issue for Governors, and the
Federal Government should defer to the States' leadership in this area.
For this reason, Congress should require greater accountability from
postsecondary institutions as defined by the State. Postsecondary
institutions should strive to improve the retention and completion of
all enrolled students and to increase postsecondary attainment. For
this reason, Governors support the State development of clear,
significant, and measurable goals for postsecondary institutions.
13.5.8 Accountability for Teacher and School Leader Preparation
Programs. HEA reauthorization should strengthen the Federal-State
partnership for the preparation, training, and professional development
of the next generation of the Nation's teachers and school leaders.
Governors have taken the lead in their States advocating stricter
standards for teacher preparation and performance. Governors urge the
Federal Government to defer setting national standards, and instead
allow States to give their own teacher preparation programs an
opportunity to demonstrate their effectiveness. However, Congress
should support and build on State reforms to expand accountability for
teacher preparation programs and to align NCLB standards with HEA Title
II programs.
13.5.9 Coordination with Workforce Programs. An educated workforce
is an essential element of a State's success in the new economy, and
effective postsecondary education is a key factor for a successful
economic development program today. Congress should strengthen the ties
between postsecondary institutions and workforce programs by
coordinating programs at the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S.
Department of Education that address workforce training and
preparation.
13.5.10 Access for Nontraditional Students. Governors recognize the
diversity of today's postsecondary students. Governors support the
removal of barriers within the financial aid systems that make it
difficult for part-time, financially independent, or nontraditional
students to qualify for financial aid.
13.5.11 Loan Forgiveness for Teachers. Governors support
congressional efforts to expand student loan forgiveness for teachers,
specifically those teachers working in hard-to-staff schools, including
schools identified as in need of improvement, or those teachers working
in critical shortage areas, such as special education, math, reading,
and science.
13.5.12 Encouraging Families to Save for Their Children's Higher
Education. Governors have taken the initiative in establishing college
savings plans in their States that increase affordability of a
postsecondary education for middle-income families. These programs
should be supported and encouraged in the reauthorization of HEA
according to the following principles of a Federal-State partnership.
College savings incentives at the Federal level should be
designed to simulate and complement, rather than preempt, similar
policy initiatives by States and public and private higher education
institutions.
Congress should strive to simplify the tax code as it
relates to college savings and tax credits wherever possible. An overly
complex system can dissuade those most in need of financial aid from
pursuing it.
Reduced revenue resulting from tax incentives for savings
for higher education should not lead to reductions in other vital
Federal higher education programs.
Related Policies
ECW-5, Great Expectations: The Importance of Rigorous Education
Standards and K-12/Postsecondary Alignment
ECW-12, Building Successful Literacy Initiatives
ECW-15, Principles of Federal Preschool-College (P-16) Alignment
Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2005-Winter Meeting 2007).
Adopted Winter Meeting 1998; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 2000;
revised Winter Meeting 2001, Winter Meeting 2003, and Winter Meeting
2005 (formerly Policy HR-44).
______
ECW-15. Principles of Federal Preschool-College (P-16) Alignment
15.1 Preamble
In the 109th Congress, three of the five major education laws--Head
Start, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
(Perkins), and the Higher Education Act (HEA)--are scheduled for
reauthorization. Congress recently reauthorized the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and is expected to review the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in the next several years. Given the
confluence of these significant education reauthorizations, Congress
should take this unprecedented opportunity and make every effort to
align the Federal education laws, as well as support State efforts to
create an educational continuum from preschool through college,
commonly referred to as P-16 alignment.
The Nation's Governors have taken the lead in recognizing each
States fundamental responsibility for a seamless progression in
education for citizens from preschool through college and into lifelong
learning. Governors are leading efforts to oversee the integration of
early childhood, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education,
including creating and strengthening statewide P-16 councils or other
collaborative efforts. Governors are also leading efforts to better
monitor and assess student success throughout their education
experience. Recognition of the need for a seamless educational system
is important in fashioning education policies at the Federal, State,
and local level.
Congress should align Federal education laws so that legislation
relates, supports, and builds upon each other. Federal education laws
should no longer be silos of assistance providing support or
opportunities to limited populations. Federal and State education
reform must be systemic, coordinated, and aligned for student needs.
Federal P-16 alignment is not a one-size-fits-all mandate--it is
the alignment of existing and future Federal laws. If the Federal
Government has issued a law, such as IDEA, then other Federal education
laws should coordinate, support, and relate to IDEA. If the Federal
Government has not preempted State or local rule on an issue, Congress
should refrain from establishing any Federal mandates to ensure maximum
State and local flexibility to create P-16 systems. To achieve this
goal, Congress must provide States with greater flexibility and
authority to align education systems and standards.
Alignment of Federal P-16 laws will ultimately improve education
for students of all ages by eliminating unnecessary government
bureaucracy, reducing costly duplication, aligning academic rigor and
preparation, expanding systemwide accountability, and promoting
flexibility for innovation. For these reasons, Governors believe that
the following principles of Federal P-l6 alignment should be
incorporated in the reauthorizations of Head Start, NCLB, Perkins, HEA,
IDEA, and related regulations and laws.
15.2 Principles of Federal P-16 Alignment
Align Federal data reporting requirements. The U.S.
Department of Education and related agencies should coordinate and
simplify efforts to collect data from States and localities. Aligned
Federal data reporting requirements can support State data systems,
simplify data collection, and reduce duplication. Existing Federal data
sets should be comparable from age-to-age and state-to-state.
Duplication should be eliminated by Congress. The cost of any federally
mandated data reporting requirements, including systems and personnel,
should be fully covered by the Federal Government.
Support state efforts to build the data capacity to track
student progress from early childhood through postsecondary school or
the workforce. Exemplary state data systems provide student-level
information for accountability purposes, improve teaching and learning.
and inform resource allocation decisions.
Increase and align academic rigor for all students.
Academic rigor should be increased across grades to ensure that
students complete high school and prepare for college or work. All
students benefit from the completion of more rigorous coursework.
Align educational systems. Federal laws should support
State alignment of standards across grades and education settings.
Federal early education programs should be aligned with school
readiness requirements for kindergarten, and high school standards
should be aligned with requirements for postsecondary education and
work activities. As a result, preschool children will be better
prepared for kindergarten and high school students will be better
prepared to be successful in college or work.
Expand educational options and delivery methods for all
students. Students learn in a variety of formats, methods, and
settings. Federal education policy should support students' diverse
learning needs as determined by States.
Support state-level P-16 accountability systems. Exemplary
state-level P-16 accountability systems hold all levels of the
education system accountable for student progress and achievement.
While NCLB placed new accountability requirements on K-12 education,
factors influencing success in other grades remain largely unchanged in
Federal education law. Teacher training, early education, and academic
rigor in vocational education programs are factors that impact the
success of students, teachers, and school leaders in elementary and
secondary education. Public reporting of information will also help to
empower parents, students, the public, and decisionmakers to evaluate
education in their communities.
Expand gubernatorial authority to coordinate Federal
education funds. Governors should be given greater authority to
coordinate Federal funds within education programs and across grade
levels to create aligned P-16 systems to better serve students' unique
and diverse needs.
Support State efforts to create P-16 educational systems;
oppose a one-size-fits-all Federal education system. P-16 alignment is
complex and unique to each State. The Federal Government should
recognize differences among States and support State innovation to
create P-16 education systems, as well as refrain from setting any
broad sweeping Federal mandates on States. Congress should support the
State creation of strong P-16 councils and other collaborative efforts,
as well as the development of State databases to collect longitudinal
data on students' academic progress throughout the P-16 system.
Centralize educational governance with Governors.
Governors are the chief executive officers of States and are
responsible for the education of their citizens. Unfortunately, Federal
laws and regulations sometimes undermine, dilute, or create barriers to
State efforts to align education programming. Congress should recognize
and reinforce Governors' authority over education in their States.
Related Policies
ECW-2, Education Reform
ECW-3 An Active, Knowledgeable Citizenry
ECW-4, Head Start: Strengthening Collaboration
ECW-5, Great Expectations: The Importance of Rigorous Education
Standards and K-12/Postsecondary Alignment
ECW-7, Child Care and Early Education
ECW-8, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
ECW-12, Building Successful Literacy Initiatives
ECW-13, High School Reform: Aligning Secondary and Postsecondary
Education
ECW-14, Public Charter Schools
Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2005-Winter Meeting 2007).
Adopted Winter Meeting 2005.
Joan Wodiska, Director, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce
Committee, 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 267, Washington, D.C.
20001, (202) 624-5361 (202) 624-5313 [email protected].
______
The Chairman. You mentioned that some of the legislators
are here. Is your Chairman of Senate or House Education here?
Raise your hand if you are.
[Laughter.]
Governor Sebelius. I did not see them as I looked around.
The Chairman. The only reason I mention that is because the
Wyoming Chairman of Education is here.
Governor Sebelius. I know they are here in Washington, but
I do not know that they are here in the room.
The Chairman. He has been standing patiently in the back,
and since we are short on seats, I would invite him to come up
and have a seat up here in the front. And if any of the other
Chairmen of Education from any of the States are here, you are
welcome to come up and join us too.
Governor Fletcher.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNIE FLETCHER, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION
Governor Fletcher. Chairman Enzi, Senator Alexander,
Senator Isakson, it is good to be with you. Thank you for this
kind invitation and the honor. Certainly it is good to see
Senator Isakson here. We spent some time together on the
Education Committee on the House side, and I want to
congratulate you for being here.
I also want to recognize Secretary Spellings and Secretary
Chao. Secretary Spellings will be visiting us in May in
Kentucky, and Secretary Chao, I want to thank her for the work
on WIA Plus. That will give States the flexibility to use
workforce money to support economic development and create more
jobs, and also thanks for her leadership as a great Kentuckian
as well as a great Secretary.
It is good to join Governor Sebelius here, and as she
discussed, Governors are eager to align preschool through
college education systems to ensure that America remains
competitive. To promote this concept in Kentucky I have
reorganized our education cabinet, bringing together all
education and workforce development entities to make lifelong
learning seamless and more effective. With me today I have
Secretary Virginia Fox, who is Secretary of Education in
Kentucky.
We all recognize that high schools are our Nation's front
line in the battle to strengthen America's global
competitiveness, and acknowledge that education is economic
development. Without question, high school completion is
essential not only for postsecondary education, but also for
work readiness and lifelong learning.
Too many of our Nation's youth are dropping out of high
school and too many high school graduates are unprepared for
the demands of postsecondary education, and they are unprepared
for the 21st century workplace.
The Achieve Board and Achieve, Inc. and the NGA have
developed data profiles indicating that nationally only 68 out
of 100 students will graduate from high school on time.
Furthermore, those numbers drop significantly when we look at
the college success rates. Nationwide only 18 of those 68 high
school graduates will complete college within 6 years. As such,
Governors are working to improve the high school experience to
ensure that our students are ready to earn and learn well
beyond graduation day.
NGA, with Chairman Governor Mark Warner, launched an
initiative entitled Redesigning the American High School. This
was done in partnership with the Wallace Foundation and four
other national organizations. The NGA developed several
publications including ``Getting it Done,'' and ``Ten Steps to
a State Action Agenda'' to provide Governors with concrete
strategies to redesign their high schools. In addition the NGA
is convening six town hall meetings to listen to student
suggestions to improve high schools.
The 2005 Summit on High Schools drew nearly 50 Governors,
Secretary Spellings, Senator Bingaman, and 2 members of the
House. And Governors returned to their States with high school
action plans in hand, and the NGA and its five-partner
foundation announced a $42 million initiative to help States
with this implementation.
Governors would like to partner with Congress and the
Administration to accelerate our high school redesign action
plans. Let me point out some specific actions, how we might
work with Congress to accomplish that.
First, States are connecting classroom work to real life
problems and are improving connections to postsecondary
education. Congress can support State reform by lifting
burdensome reporting requirements and allowing Governors
greater flexibility to coordinate funds to serve unique student
needs better. The Perkins Act will assist in this endeavor.
Career and technical education can bridge the transition
between high school and postsecondary education by providing
students with real world skills to better prepare them for the
modern workplace.
Next, States are expanding opportunities that increase
rigor and relevance for high school students. Congressional
support to expand opportunities for students to participate in
advanced placement, international baccalaureate, industry
certification programs, distant learning, and the State
scholars program will help us implement dual enrollment
programs. One vehicle for this support is through tuition
assistance program modification and flexibility.
In addition, States are developing new targeted recruitment
incentives to attract and retain teachers and principals.
Additional Federal flexibility and incentives would further
this critical work by expanding professional development and
piloting alternative teacher compensation models. We
additionally believe that permanently expanding loan
forgiveness from 5,000 to 17,500 will facilitate the
recruitment of teachers in the critical shortage areas and
hard-to-staff schools.
Also States are investing more resources into need-based
aid to make college an option. We ask that you consider raising
the maximum Pell grant award and provide new flexibility to
respond to students' needs including extending eligibility
beyond the typical calendar year. In addition, student
financial aid guidelines should be better revised to better
serve working adults.
Finally, States are improving college and work-readiness
assessments in high school, and we encourage consultation with
States on any Federal expansion of testing, and to continue to
respect States' responsibility and authority regarding
education. Maximum flexibility in designing State
accountability systems including testing and other assessments
is critical to preserve the unique balance involving Federal
funding, local control of education, and State responsibility
for statewide reform.
In closing, Governors hope to forge a new Federal/State
partnership that strengthens State ingenuity and innovation.
Every child, every teacher, every school and every State is
unique. Our Nation must not fail to provide students with a
foundation for lifelong learning. The cost to our children and
our Nation is too high.
The Nation's Governors stand ready to work with you to
create a common vision to support lifelong learning and to
redesign our Nation's high schools.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Governor Fletcher follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernie Fletcher
Good morning Chairman Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and members of the
committee. I am Ernie Fletcher, Governor of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, and I'd like to thank you for the invitation to testify on
behalf of the Nation's governors regarding lifelong education. As
Governor Sebelius has discussed, governors are eager to align
preschool-college education systems to promote lifelong learning and to
ensure American business and workers can remain competitive.
High schools are our Nation's front line in the battle to restore
America's global competitiveness. High school completion is the first
step in the earnings and skill ladder and the bridge to postsecondary
education, work readiness, and lifelong learning.
A CALL TO ACTION
For more than a century, our Nation's high schools fulfilled this
task and prepared students for good jobs at decent wages. As you
already heard from Secretary Spellings, the legacy of our Nation's high
schools is in jeopardy--too many of our Nation's youth are dropping out
of high school and too many high school graduates are unprepared for
the demands of postsecondary education or work.
Three out of ten students who enter high school do not graduate.
Four out of ten who graduate lack the skills and knowledge required to
go to college or succeed in the workforce. Five out of ten who go to
college do not finish.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Policy
Alert: The Educational Pipeline: Big Investments, Big Returns (San
Jose, Calif.: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
2004), at http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pipeline/pipeline.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our high school students' lack of preparation has serious
implications for our economy and prosperity. Every year taxpayers pay
$1 billion to $2 billion to fund remedial education to students at
public universities and colleges.\2\ Shortfalls in basic skills cost
businesses, colleges and under-prepared high school graduates, as much
as $16 billion annually in lost productivity and remedial costs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ David Breneman and William Haarlow, Remediation in Higher
Education (Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, July 1998);
and Ronald Phipps, College Remediation: What It Is, What It Costs,
What's at Stake (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education
Policy, December 1998.) An Action Agenda for Improving America's High
Schools: 2005 National Education Summit on High School (Washington,
D.C., February 2005).
\3\ Jay P.Greene, The Cost of Remedial Education: How Much Michigan
Pays When Students Fail to Learn Basic Skills (Midland, Mich: Mackinac
Center for Public Policy, 2000). An Action Agenda for Improving
America's High Schools: 2005 National Education Summit on High School
(Washington, D.C., February 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Nation has a powerful incentive to plug the leaks in the
education pipeline. In the next decade, two-thirds of new jobs will
require some postsecondary education beyond a high school degree. To be
competitive and create the conditions for strong economic growth,
States need to help all their residents increase their skills and be
prepared for lifelong learning. Much is at stake.
NGA ``REDESIGNING THE AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL''
Governors are working to improve the high school experience to
ensure that our students are ready to earn and learn well beyond
graduation day. Under the leadership of NGA's Chairman, Virginia
Governor Mark Warner, NGA launched an initiative--``Redesigning the
American High School''--to spur State action and systemically change
high schools. As part of the Chairman's initiative, NGA:
Convened governors advisors from over 30 States to develop
an understanding of the diverse problems in high schools and increased
awareness of promising State best practices;
Developed several publications such as Getting it Done:
Ten Steps to a State Action Agenda to provide governors with concrete
strategies to begin redesigning their high schools; and
Convened town hall meetings in Cleveland, Ohio, Conway,
Arkansas and Norfolk, Virginia to listen to students' suggestions on
what governors can do to improve their State's high schools. Three
additional town hall meetings are scheduled to take place in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana; Portland, Maine; and Des Moines, Iowa.
As a result of these efforts 26 governors made high school reform a
priority in this year's State of the State addresses.
2005 NATIONAL EDUCATION SUMMIT ON HIGH SCHOOL
Most recently, NGA and Achieve convened the 2005 National Education
Summit on High Schools. The summit addressed such core high school
reform issues as strengthening high school graduation requirements,
expanding options and supports for students to achieve higher
standards, improving teaching and principal leadership, and
strengthening high school and college data and accountability systems.
An Action Agenda for Improving America's High Schools was released
at the summit. The publication provides States with a framework to
build their high school agendas. The framework calls for:
Restoring Value to the High School Diploma by anchoring
high school academic standards in the real world; upgrading high school
coursework, and creating college and work ready tests.
Redesigning High Schools by reorganizing low-performing
high schools first; expanding school options in all communities; and
providing support to low-performing schools.
Giving High School Students the Excellent Teachers and
Principals They Need by improving teacher knowledge and skills;
providing incentives to recruit and keep teachers where they are needed
most, and developing and supporting strong principal leadership.
Setting Goals, Measuring Progress, and Holding High
Schools and College Accountable by strengthening high school
accountability, intervening in low-performing high schools, and
strengthening postsecondary accountability.
Streamlining and Improving Education Governance by
building a stronger working relationship between elementary, secondary
and postsecondary education.
Nearly 50 governors took part in the Summit, which marked the fifth
time since 1989 that governors, CEOs and education leaders gathered to
address the urgent needs of America's educational system.
HIGH SCHOOL REFORM ``GETTING IT DONE''
At the close of the NGA Winter Meeting and High School Summit,
governors returned to their States with high school action plans in
hand. Some governors will take immediate action to expand college-level
learning opportunities in high schools, or fund supports to help
students pass their high school exit exam. Other governors will develop
long-term plans for aligning high school standards with the
expectations of employers or universities to ensure that high quality
teachers and principals teach in the neediest high schools.
To ensure that ``Redesigning the American High School'' became a
reality, NGA and five partner foundations--the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, The Wallace
Foundation, The Prudential Foundation and the State Farm Foundation--
joined forces and announced a $42 million initiative to translate
Summit discussions into State action to help States create and
implement policy strategies to improve graduation and college-readiness
rates. In addition, NGA's Center is also exploring partnerships with
the GE Fund, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, The Lumina Foundation,
and the Bell South Foundation. This month, NGA released a Request for
Proposals to all States interested in creating a high school redesign
agenda.
NGA HIGH SCHOOL REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS
Governors would like to partner with Congress and the
Administration to accelerate our high school redesign action plans.
Governors are leading innovative high school redesign across the
Nation. Let me point to several specific ways that States are reforming
high schools and how Federal policy can help spur State innovation and
best practices:
States are creating different high school models that
strengthen student relationships with adults; connect classroom work to
real-life problems; and improve connections to postsecondary education.
Congress can support State reform by lifting
burdensome reporting requirements and allowing Governors
greater flexibility to coordinate funds. Congress should
provide greater gubernatorial authority to coordinate Federal
funds within education programs and across grade levels to
better serve students' unique and diverse needs.
The Senate's recent action to reauthorize and improve
the Vocational Education Act will assist in this endeavor.
Perkins is an important component of high school reform. Career
and technical education can bridge the transition between high
school and postsecondary education by providing students with
real-world skills to better prepare for the 21st century
workplace. Perkins should improve the academic rigor and
preparation of career and technical education for all students.
States are expanding high school opportunities that
increase rigor and relevance of high school for all students.
During the reauthorization of HEA and WIA, Congress
should support expanded opportunities for students to
participate in advanced placement, international baccalaureate,
early college, industry certification programs, distance-
learning, and the State Scholars Program. State innovation can
be further supported by providing greater flexibility in
student financial aid eligibility requirements. Congress should
also encourage and provide incentives to States to create dual
enrollment programs that permit students to obtain college-
level credits or provide the opportunity to earn an industry-
recognized credential while still in secondary school.
States are developing new targeted recruitment incentives
to attract teachers where they are needed most, and provide support to
retain them. States are also working to improve principal recruitment,
preparation, and professional development.
Congress should provide additional flexibility and
incentives to support this critical work by expanding
professional development and piloting alternative teacher
compensation models. Loan forgiveness should be permanently
expanded from $5,000 to $17,500 to recruit teachers into
critical shortage areas and hard-to-staff schools.
States are developing more rigorous standards for teacher
preparation and performance. Governors are committed to improving high
school students' academic proficiency with stronger teaching.
Congress can encourage State innovation and continuous
improvement by deferring national one-size-fits-all benchmarks
and allowing States time to refine their teacher preparation
programs. In addition, Congress should work with Governors
during HEA reauthorization to expand State accountability for
teacher preparation programs to align with the rigorous
requirements of NCLB.
States are investing more resources into need based aid to
make college an option.
Federal policies to increase preparation and learning
opportunities should be matched with additional flexibility and
affordability in higher education. To help make college more
affordable, Congress should consider raising the maximum Pell
grant award and provide new flexibility to respond to students'
needs, including extending eligibility beyond the typical
calendar year. In addition, student financial aid guidelines
should be revised to better serve non-traditional students and
working adults. These reforms should be enacted in HEA.
States are improving college and work-readiness
assessments in high schools.
Across the country, Governors have made considerable
progress to institute State-based accountability in K-12
education. Governors are also working hard to implement NCLB,
which expanded high school accountability by requiring States
to test students at least once in grades 10-12.
Governors urge Congress to closely consult with States
on any Federal expansion of testing and to continue to respect
Governors' authority over education. Any costs associated with
federally-mandated testing or Federal reporting on State exams
must be completely covered by the Federal Government. Maximum
flexibility in designing State accountability systems,
including testing and other assessments, is critical to
preserve the unique balance involving Federal funding, local
control of education, and State responsibility for systemwide
reform. Maximum flexibility in State testing will also help
improve how students are assessed for academic proficiency and
postsecondary readiness.
CONCLUSION
Working with businesses, education leaders, parents and students,
governors understand the unique challenges our Nation faces in
redesigning high schools. Governors also understand how much State
flexibility is required to develop and implement meaningful solutions.
There are no easy answers. Every child, every teacher, every school,
and every State is different. Governors hope to forge a new Federal-
State partnership that strengthens State ingenuity and innovation.
Our Nation must not fail to provide students with the foundation
for lifelong learning--the cost to our children and our Nation is too
high. The Nation's governors stand ready to work with you to create a
common vision to support lifelong learning and redesign our Nation's
high schools.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I really appreciate the two Governors completely
rearranging their schedule so that they could be here today.
You realize that by being here you become our State experts on
education, and we will be directing a lot of questions--besides
the ones that we do when we get to the question part--to you,
because as Governor Sebelius said, you are the laboratories for
education. None of it happens at the Federal level. I thank
both of you for going to that special effort.
Before we start questions we will get the rest of the
testimony here though.
Mr. Gunderson.
STATEMENT OF STEVE GUNDERSON, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, THE
GREYSTONE GROUP
Mr. Gunderson. Mr. Chairman, Senator Alexander, Senator
Isakson, I feel like I am coming home to friends both in terms
of colleagues on the panel and the staff that is supporting you
because I have had the privilege of working with so many of you
for so long on the education and training issues of our
country.
The jobs revolution is to date a silent revolution. The
media do not cover it. Our citizens do not recognize it. The
business community only sporadically is concerned about it.
Thus, policymakers have not made it a national priority. It is
my hope that with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, we might
engage in a national conversation leading to a national
understanding and commitment of preparing workers for the
future workforce and workplace.
As the Nation considers proposals to reform and save Social
Security, I would like to recall two key elements that are not
being discussed. We talk of the Social Security Fund spending
more money than it takes in starting in 2017 or 2018, but a
full 10 years before that, in 2008, the baby boom generation
begins retiring.
Second, consider the impact education attainment, workforce
skills, good jobs and good wages would have on extending the
solvency of this fund. If we can double or triple salaries, we
double or triple the contributions into Social Security
solvency.
Three factors, demographics, workplace skill demands, and
the global economy are combining to create a jobs revolution.
Any of these factors is a dramatic transition. Combined, they
are nothing less than a revolution.
Baby boomers are leaving, but there is no one to replace
them. By 2030 some 76 million baby boomers will have retired,
while only 46 million of Generation X and Y will have entered
the workplace. Meanwhile, we are changing the face of the
American workforce. By 2010 blacks will increase by 21 percent
and hispanics by 43 percent. Until we provide them with equal
education attainment this is just another false hope.
Second, the workplace itself is changing. The average
worker today entering the workplace will have 10 to 14 careers
in their lifetime, as you have mentioned.
Third, the global economy. We see India graduating twice as
many students from college as America, while China is expected
to graduate three times as many, and that is only half the
story. Forty-two percent of the students in China earn
undergraduate degrees in science and engineering compared to 5
percent in the United States. What else can you call it but a
revolution?
We need also today to recognize that the workplace is
requiring higher and higher skills, and thus an increasing
number of individuals are unwilling to even seek employment
knowing they will face rejection. For the past 3 consecutive
months the civilian labor force participation rate in America
has been 65.8 percent, the lowest since 1988.
In our book The Jobs Revolution, my colleagues, Bob Jones,
Kathryn Scanland and I make three points challenging both
political parties. We agree with the Republicans that one
cannot stop the emerging global economy and we should not try.
But we agree with the Democrats that one cannot transition to a
knowledge-based global economy on the cheap. Third, while post-
high school education used to be an opportunity, it is today a
necessity. We must change our public educational commitment
from K-12 to P-14 or beyond, as our Governors have suggested.
As you consider various suggestions, let me just quickly
highlight two or three.
Prepare America's workforce for the 21st century. It begins
with basic academic skills, but it must connect academics and
career skills.
Second, connect the programs. Today we are faced with
disjointed programs and turf battles over money and
responsibility.
Third, recognize the importance of a mobile workforce to
have employer-recognized, industry-based certificates that will
be moving with them across the Nation.
Fourth, promote a regional response. We have seen in recent
days, in recent weeks, in recent years quite a battle between
the President's proposal to send most of the training dollars
to the Governors and the Workforce Investment Board's advocacy
for maximum local control. One compromise might be for regional
strategies. I am impressed by how economic development and
workforce investment strategies are more and more done not on a
statewide and not on a local, but rather on a regional basis.
In closing, let me close from the last words of our book.
``We are growing desperate for leaders who will go beyond
speeches to action. America has 5, maybe 7 years in which to
radically revamp its fundamental assumptions about workforce
development and then to act. Whatever is going to be done to
prepare us for shortages of workers and skills, increased
global competition, disparities in achievement between ethnic
American communities and technology that changes while we
sleep--whatever we are going to do, must be done now.''
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gunderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Gunderson
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Steve Gunderson, a
senior consultant with The Greystone Group, a strategic planning and
research consulting firm based in Chicago, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and
here in Washington, D.C. (Arlington, Virginia). I joined Greystone in
1996 after the 16-year privilege of representing Western Wisconsin in
the U.S. Congress. During my congressional years I became, and have
remained, passionately involved with national issues of education and
job training. Many of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and
many of the staff for this committee, are long-time friends and
associates. So it is not only a high honor but also a real joy to be
with you again.
The jobs revolution now occurring in America is almost certain to
have more impact on the economic, social, and cultural future of this
Nation than any other single factor. Even so, it is to date a silent
revolution. The media do not cover it, our citizens do not recognize
it, the business community is only sporadically concerned about it,
thus policymakers have not made it a national priority. It is my hope
that, with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, we might begin a national
conversation leading to a national commitment to prepare our workforce
and our workplace for the future.
As the President, the Congress and the Nation consider proposals to
reform and save Social Security, I'd like to recall two key facts that
have been missing in this discussion.
First, we talk of the Social Security Fund spending more money than
it takes in starting in 2017 or 2018. But a full 10 years before that,
in 2008, the baby boom generation begins retiring. This is a far more
immediate crisis because 2008 is--in terms of budgets, proposals and
action--upon us.
Second, while we seek consensus on keeping Social Security solvent,
consider the impact educational attainment, workforce skills, good jobs
and good wages will have on extending the solvency of this fund. We
could keep the system solvent much longer by lifting the incoming
generation of workers' skills and incomes. Americans without a high
school diploma generally earn about $30,000 per year. If we can extend
their educational attainment and skills, we can reward them with
incomes in the range of $55,000 with 2 years of postsecondary
education, and $75,000 or more on average with a college degree. They
will then be contributing two to three times as much into Social
Security, offsetting losses that will begin very soon.
THE JOBS REVOLUTION
Three factors--demographics, workplace skill demands, and the
global economy--are combining to create a jobs revolution. Any one of
these factors represents a dramatic transition in our economy.
Combined, they create nothing less than a revolution.
Look briefly at demographics. The primary reason we fear Social
Security insolvency is the changing demographics of our population. In
2008 the baby boomers begin retiring. In 2011 they begin qualifying for
Medicare. But as baby boomers leave, no one is ready to replace them.
By 2030, some 76 million baby boomers will have retired while only 46
million people in Generation X and Y enter the workplace. Our labor
force will decline in real numbers. Meanwhile, we're changing the face
of America's workers. Tomorrow's workers are much more likely to be
people of color--Hispanic, Black, and Asian. By 2010, Blacks in the
workforce will increase by 21 percent and Hispanics will increase by 43
percent. The good news is that due to changing populations, minorities
will be given a greater chance at success in the American economy than
ever before. But the bad news is that, until we provide them with equal
educational attainments, this is just another false promise.
Second, the workplace itself is changing. Former Secretary of
Education Richard Riley has said the top 10 occupations in 2010 have
not even been created yet. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us the
average worker entering the workplace today is expected to have 10-14
careers in their lifetime. Flexibility rooted in the ability to learn
and relearn, with in-demand skills--these are the keys to success in
such a workplace.
Third, the global economy is often misunderstood. ``Outsourcing''
is just one element of today's global economy. Deloitte Research
projects that, over the next 15 years, 80 percent of workforce growth
in North America, Europe, and Asia will occur among people over 50
years of age. On the other side of the globe we see India graduating
twice as many students from college as America, while China is expected
to graduate three times as many. And that's only part of the story.
Forty-two percent of students in China earn undergraduate degrees in
science and engineering compared to 5 percent in the United States.
Combine these dynamics with the emerging global, knowledge-based
economy and one soon realizes the magnitude of change before us. What
else could this be called but a ``revolution.''
THE NEED FOR LIFE-LONG LEARNING IS ALREADY PRESENT
During 2004, we all rejoiced in the growth of 1.7 million jobs.
Leading the way was professional and business services with 546,000 new
jobs followed by 342,000 new health care jobs. We ended the year with a
5.4 percent unemployment rate.
But the reality is that, in today's workplace, unemployment rates
are no longer a reliable guide for the Nation's economic health. It's a
legacy of the Great Depression and offers little insight into either
current or coming trends. We need, today, to reckon with a workplace
requiring higher and higher skills and an increasing number of
individuals unwilling to even seek employment knowing they will face
rejection. For the past 3 consecutive months the civilian labor force
participation rate in America has been 65.8 percent--the lowest since
1988. These numbers suggest that 34 percent of the American citizens
have chosen not to seek private sector employment, many--perhaps most--
because they're convinced they lack skills needed to be hired.
The Washington Post recently published a series on the vanishing
middle class. The articles described the experiences of workers who
thought they had done everything right: high school graduation,
marriage, suburban life and a steady job at a local manufacturing
plant. But when this plant was closed, they lost their future. Since
1967 we have lost 25 million factory workers in America. No wonder the
category of ``temporary workers'' has increased five-fold over the past
2 decades, leaving millions of families without insurance, without
pensions and without hope of a permanent job.
PUTTING THIS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
To understand the magnitude of change, we must recognize that in
1990 there was one Web site; today there are 50 million. We now expect
as much change in the next 25 years as we've experienced in the last
100.
A ``revolution'' is a complete change, a re-organization, a
transformation, an upheaval. During America's history we've had four
experiences when economics and politics combined to change the way we
live and work. They were:
The American Revolution--when patriots originally sought
less economic interference from Britain rather than a political
revolution.
The Agricultural Revolution--when America decided to move
west and feed a global constituency.
The Industrial Revolution--when America's children left
the farms and moved into the cities to work, and
The Information Revolution, based upon the creation of the
microchip shortly after World War II.
We are now living through a ``Jobs Revolution'' yielding seismic
shifts in who works, when they work, where they work, how they work--
even whether they work. History will record the first years of the 21st
century as a jobs revolution. It will also recall what we did in
response to these changes.
THE WORKFORCE OF THE FUTURE
Mr. Chairman, as you and your colleagues consider appropriate
policies for tomorrow's workforce, I encourage you to keep some data at
your fingertips.
Of the 30 industrialized nations, the U.S. ranks first on
the percentage of 45-64 year olds with high school diplomas. But we
fell to 5th place for those in the 35-44 age group with high school
diplomas, and are down to 10th place for those between 25 to 34 age
bracket with high school diplomas. We could wish the opposite were
true.
Seventy-five percent of all ``new jobs'' will require some
level of postsecondary education. The trend is against us.
The average job will last 3 to 5 years. After that,
workers are dependent on flexibility and skills to find their next new
job.
The Urban Institute reported that only 68 percent of those
entering high school 4 years ago have graduated; for communities of
color the graduation rate is 50 percent.
Last fall, ACT released data showing that of those
graduating from high school and planning for Technical College studies:
only 10.8 percent have achieved Science Readiness,
only 10.8 percent have achieved Math Readiness, and
only 36.4 percent have achieved English readiness.
Anthony Carnevale has suggested we are facing a skill
shortage of 5.7 million by 2010 and 14 million 10 years later.
Looking at the decade of employment change from 1992 to 2002, we
see an actual decrease of 400,000 jobs requiring less than a high
school education. Those with a high school diploma maintained their
level of jobs (a 1 percent increase). But the demand for skills
reflected in at least 2 years of postsecondary education became very
evident. We witnessed a 2.4 million increase in jobs for workers with
some college education, a 2.2 million increase for those with 2 years
of academic preparation beyond high school, and a 2.6 million increase
in technical degree jobs. Combined, those with some level of post-high
school education and training exceeded the 6.4 million increase in jobs
for those with a 4-year college degree. The message is clear. Not
everyone needs a college degree to succeed in the future. But everyone
does require some level of post-high school education. We are moving to
a P-14 concept in educational preparation for our citizens; this is
reality.
And here is one point at which unemployment statistics are
instructive: Take any recent month. Those with less than a high school
education had an unemployment rate almost 1\1/2\ times the national
average. On the other side of the equation, those with a college degree
experienced an unemployment rate half the national average.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
I realize, Mr. Chairman and members, that there are many important
issues on your Congressional agenda and your personal schedules. But it
is my fervent hope that you will help our Nation avoid the deadly
collision of workforce demographics and workplace skills already
putting our economic future at risk--both within our own economy and in
the knowledge-based global economy of the 21st century.
In our book, The Jobs Revolution, my colleagues Bob Jones, Kathryn
Scanland and I make three key points challenging both political
parties.
1. We agree with the Republicans that one can't stop the emerging
global economy. And we shouldn't try.
2. We agree with the Democrats that one cannot transition to a
knowledge-based global economy on the cheap. It will take a major
commitment of public and private dollars, at all levels, to support
this transition in the workforce and the workplace.
3. Thus, while post-high school education used to be an
opportunity, it is increasingly becoming a necessity. We must change
our public educational commitment from K-12 to P-14. As the purpose of
this hearing suggests, we must move toward a full understanding of and
support for life-long learning.
We don't suggest this is exclusively a Federal responsibility. But
we do ask for your leadership in communicating the crisis, in
developing the strategies for a holistic response, and in designing
Federal programs that encourage value-added participation from all
sectors.
As you move through the many important legislative re-
authorizations and the difficult decisions over budget and
appropriations I hope you will consider the following suggestions:
1. Prepare America's workforce for the 21st century. This begins
with the basic skills. It moves towards a direct relationship between
academics and career skills. It continues with programs promoting
flexibility and mobility in the workforce. It creates a Nation of life-
long learners.
2. Connect the programs! I encourage one of you to consider
introducing legislation that reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA), the Higher Education Act, and the Perkins Vocational Education
Act in one unified piece of legislation. Today, we are faced with
disjointed programs and turf battles over money and responsibility. Yet
the mission of these programs is totally connected within a strategy
appropriate to the 21st century workforce.
As you reauthorize these programs, find ways to bridge the gaps.
Today, the Higher Education Act is the single most important tool in
workforce training because of the student financial aid. Our problems
in building cooperation between WIA and our Community Colleges is the
disconnect that exists between the programs. WIA delivery must meet
performance standards set by the Department of Labor while Community
Colleges are financed by credit hours. No one's to blame, but in this
situation it's very difficult to achieve the cooperation we--and the
local providers--seek.
3. We need to design our training protocols in ways that support
the increased mobility of our workers. We must move towards employer-
recognized, industry-based certificates that will be recognized
throughout the Nation. It is the best investment we can make in the
future employability of a worker.
4. Promote a regional response. We've seen in recent years quite a
battle between the President's proposal to send most training dollars
to the Governors and the Workforce Investment Board's advocacy for
maximum local control. One compromise might be incentives for regional
strategies. I'm impressed by how many of our economic development and
workforce investment strategies are now built upon regions. This is
appropriate. In today's world, economic development does not occur on
either a statewide or a local community basis. It is done through
regional economies. You should promote and encourage such thinking and
cooperation.
5. You must redesign unemployment insurance into some system of
employment insurance. American workers, often through no fault of their
own, will increasingly face job dislocation and transitions. We need to
support the research and design of a system that can provide the skill
training and the income insurance necessary to move from one job and
profession to another. If we can insure cars, boats, stereo equipment
and even pets, we should be able to design some limited program of 3-6
months providing income insurance and retraining funds during a
transition.
6. We need to redesign our programs to make them appropriate for
the 21st century workforce. I remind everyone that in 2003 we spent $42
billion on unemployment insurance and only $6 billion on job training
at the Federal level. Sometimes it's not just how much we spend--but
how we spend it.
7. Design your response appropriately for the global economy of
today. I strongly encourage this committee to recognize the global
realities of a 21st century workforce. Many of our new workers are
immigrants. The only growth in the workforce in the northeastern part
of the U.S. today comes from immigration.
Europe, through their Bologna Accords, is designing a European-wide
higher education system consisting of 3 years of college and 2 years of
higher education related to specific careers. We need to be aware of
such programs, and their impact on global competitiveness.
8. Recognize the increased role of graduate education in workforce
investment. We used to think of graduate education only in the context
of research and Doctoral degrees. That is no longer the case. We now
witness a growing interest in professional masters' degrees. And all of
us with B.A. degrees who upgrade our skills are actually participating
in some form of graduate education.
9. Recognize the appropriate partnership between WIA and Community
Colleges. As I travel the Nation and speak on the jobs revolution, I'm
struck by the turf and money battles between our Workforce Investment
Systems and our Community Colleges. The truth is that we need them
both, and we need them to partner in the preparation of our future
workforce. Local Workforce Investment Boards must provide the
leadership in bringing together all sectors of the local business and
education communities around current labor market information guiding
their workforce investment strategies. Community Colleges must design
and deliver flexible training, academics, and professional skills
reflecting such vision and strategies for their region. We need both of
them. We need them to work together and we need the funding streams to
make clear the appropriate roles of each provider. Do everything you
can to encourage coordination in the design and delivery of such
programs.
VOICES FROM THE COUNTRY
I want to share with you some thoughts regarding the delivery of
our education and workforce programs from experts across the Nation.
Here is a sampling of what they said:
A. Recognize the role of P-12 education to our workforce. We need
to constantly revisit the need for academic achievement, and its
relationship to careers. Harold McGraw III (of McGraw Hill Companies)
recently observed that across the Nation and ``twenty years after the
urgent warnings of A Nation At Risk . . . the level of complacency at
lackluster student performance is shocking.'' While School-to-Work
programs no longer exist at the Federal level we must recognize that
all students--not just the college-bound--need academic achievement.
And for those most at risk, we can best accomplish this goal by making
the appropriate connections to the workforce. The cost of complacency
is staggering.
B. An IBM Vice-President chairing New York State's WIB Board:
``There is no process for Community Colleges to engage with business to
fill existing needs in the workforce. The unstructured process and the
lack of consistent funding hinders the ability of these colleges and
business to work together to design and deliver an appropriate
curriculum as needed.''
C. Ohio: Our local WIB recently worked with Community Colleges to
design two 1-week training programs. Each resulted in 100 percent
employment for the graduates. We explained the needs as defined by our
labor market research. Thus;
The WIB determines the training needed.
The WIB and the Community College work together to
design the curriculum.
The WIB pays for the training.
The Community College provides the training.
This needs to become the rule--not the exception of
cooperation and program delivery.''
D. Washington State: ``Sometimes it seems that Community Colleges
see WIBs as nothing more than a checkbook for ideas and training.
Rather we need to build partnerships at the local level using:
The local labor market information to define emerging
skill sets and jobs;
The local One-Stop for assessments; and
The local Community College for delivery of training.''
E. Michigan: ``The agendas and focus of Community Colleges and
Workforce Investment Programs seem to be growing apart--not closer
together. Our mutual goals should be:
serving our community, and
serving our employer/employee needs.
We must find ways to design and deliver a comprehensive,
integrated system (K-12; CC's and WIB's).''
F. Texas: ``We need to focus on the development and delivery of
workforce issues--not our specific acts or programs. Today, policy and
implementation are confused. There is a lack of integration. WIA looks
at programs. Community Colleges look at courses. We both need to look
at the big picture of training needs.
WIA can not see training as a ``2nd chance system,'' and Community
Colleges cannot see training as ``academic hours.''
G. New York: ``Companies often use private trainers, due to the
perceived ability of private trainers to tailor delivery and curriculum
to a specific company's needs and timetables. We, together, need to
figure out how to serve this need.''
H. Florida: ``There are four keys to our mutual success!''
1. Understand--what is important to each other. Community Colleges
need to understand WIA performance measures; and WIA needs to
understand Community Colleges' academic outcomes and funding streams.
2. Flexible--Think about outcomes, not process.
3. Speed--Develop a sense of urgency to get things done. Business
thinks in terms of hours and minutes, not semesters.
4. Personal Relationships--Business believes it is all about
personal relationships!
I. Massachusetts: ``The key to effective training is knowing your
labor market. We must constantly review and upgrade our training based
upon changes in our labor market--both in terms of worker needs and
business demands.''
J. California: ``If you want cooperation between Community Colleges
and WIBs, you must start at the senior most levels--sending the message
to everyone to work together, and quit fighting for turf. Clarify roles
and responsibilities. WIBs are best at bringing people to the table.
Community Colleges are best at doing the training.''
CONCLUSION
This Congress will reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, the
Higher Education Act, and the Vocational Education Act. As you consider
these issues it is important for the Congress and the Nation to
recognize that we live in a very different workplace today than before.
Today education is workforce investment and workforce investment is
economic development. While we should think globally (recognizing the
global knowledge-based economy), we must also act regionally. Today,
economic development and workforce recruitment is done on a regional
basis. And as we each chart our national, State, regional and local
strategies, let us recognize this will require public-private
partnership between government, education, and--most importantly--the
private business community.
In closing, I want to plead for your bipartisan leadership on
behalf of the jobs revolution, and especially those Americans who will
be most affected by it if we do nothing. And in making this request, I
want to close my testimony with the same words we use in closing our
book, The Jobs Revolution:
``We are growing desperate for leaders who will go beyond speeches
to action. America has 5, maybe 7, years in which to
radically revamp its fundamental assumptions about
workforce development and then to act. Whatever is going to
be done to prepare us for shortages of workers and skills,
increased global competition, disparities in achievement
between ethnic American communities and technology that
changes while we sleep--whatever we are going to do, must
be done now.
All that is at stake is our children. And our communities. And our
future.''
Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN K. FITZGERALD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BUSINESS-
HIGHER EDUCATION FORUM
Mr. Fitzgerald. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
HELP Committee. I am pleased to testify before you today on
behalf of the Business-Higher Education Forum.
I might offer a special greeting to Senator Alexander who
is an alumnus of the Business-Higher Education Forum from the
time of his tenure as president of the University of Tennessee.
Our mission, Mr. Chairman, is to encourage dialog among
corporate and university leaders on issues central to the role
of higher education in a global economy, and to provide the
leadership in shaping sound policy. Our recent work has ranged
from university and industry research collaborations to the
changing nature of student skills needed in the workforce and
improving access to higher education for an increasingly
diverse population.
In February 2005, the Forum released its most recent
report, ``A Commitment to America's Future: Responding to the
Crisis in Math and Science Education,'' which may represent our
most challenging problem.
Many of our members are CEOs of major U.S. based
corporations and research universities and are keenly aware of
the challenge the Nation faces in creating a workforce equipped
with 21st century skills and the need to continue to advance
learning long after our students have graduated from our high
schools, colleges and graduate schools. Our members are also
sensitive to the implications of a well-educated workforce for
research, innovation and ultimately economic development and
global competitiveness.
Concerned by these challenges, our co-chairs, Bill Swanson,
CEO of Raytheon and Warren Baker, President Cal-Poly Tech State
University in California, led an initiative to explore the
state of math and science education in this country, workforce
trends, and effective policies for responding to what they see
as a crisis.
While it is common for groups to come before you and
proclaim national crises, the data and trends our initiative
collected are truly shocking. The demands for graduates who are
literate in science, technology, engineering and math, the so-
called STEM disciplines, will surge over the decade while the
production of Americans educated in these fields declines.
Our research identified four disturbing trends: increasing
demands for U.S. workers with higher levels of math and science
skills, as you Mr. Chairman, have noted; disappointing
performance trends of U.S. students on comparative
international math and science assessment; decreasing numbers
of science and engineering degrees awarded to U.S. citizens;
and a critical shortage of qualified math and science teachers,
which your bill, Mr. Chairman, seeks to address.
Let me share just two estimates with you that I think
capture these trends. NASA estimates that by 2008, 2 million
science and engineering workers are expected to retire,
resulting in a shortfall of more than 2 million workers; and
second, the Department of Education estimates that we will need
between 260,000 and 290,000 new math and science teachers in
the 2008-2009 school year, and they are not in the pipeline
today.
These facts suggest a systemic problem in math and science
that will limit our ability to create and maintain a 21st
century workforce.
Our report proposed several recommendations, but let me
just focus on one--the Governors have talked about this--
establishing P-16 or P-20 councils in each State with balanced
representations from corporations, education and policy leaders
to define, benchmark and initiate P-16 plans for ensuring all
students successfully complete high-quality math and science
education.
While these recommendations address only a small portion of
the much broader systemic crisis in the STEM disciplines, the
Forum is launching a second phase to develop Federal policy
recommendations as part of a comprehensive strategy to address
these problems.
We will examine policies to attract more students into the
STEM disciplines in community colleges as well as our
universities. For example, more than half of students will
first study math and science in community college.
Provide incentives for students to choose careers in
teaching these subject; encourage more collaboration among
universities, corporations and Government to tackle the sources
of the crisis, including lifelong learning; ensure that
programs that support students in STEM disciplines and
institutions conducting basic research are strengthened,
especially programs in the National Science Foundation; and
ensure that American postsecondary institutions and
corporations can recruit the most talented foreign students,
scholars and researchers.
Unless we develop a systemic response to the crisis in STEM
education beginning in middle school through lifelong learning,
we risk ceding leadership in science, technology, research and
innovation to other nations, which will have a profoundly
negative consequence for the Nation's economic well-being.
Unlike many crises there is consensus about the seriousness and
implications of the problems and the tools at our disposal.
The challenge we face is to generate consensus on how to
act at the Federal, State, institutional and corporate levels.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that members of the Forum feel
the urgency of these crises, they enthusiastically support the
efforts of the National Governors Association for action at the
State level, and they stand ready to help the committee in
addressing these critical issues at the Federal level.
I would be happy to address any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzgerald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian K. Fitzgerald, Ed. D.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy and members of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I am pleased to
testify today for the Business-Higher Education Forum (The Forum). The
Forum is a national non-profit membership organization of chief
executives drawn from American corporations and higher education. I
might offer a special greeting to Senator Alexander, an alumnus of the
Forum, from the time of his tenure as President of the University of
Tennessee.
The Forum's mission is to encourage dialogue among leaders of the
two sectors on issues central to the role of higher education in the
global economy and to provide leadership in shaping sound policy around
those issues. We achieve this through collaboration of corporate and
academic members, the highest quality research, effective
communication, and advocacy with Federal, State, institutional and
corporate policy makers.
Our recent work has centered, among other issues, on university-
industry research collaborations, the role of information technology in
transforming teaching and learning, the changing nature of student
skills needed in the workforce, and on the challenges of improving
access to higher education to an increasingly diverse population. In
February 2005, The Forum released its most recent report, A Commitment
to America's Future: Responding to the Crisis in Mathematics & Science
Education, an action plan for systemic reform.
Many of our members are CEOs of major U.S.-based corporations and
research universities. Indeed, our corporate members represent some of
the largest research-based pharmaceutical and high-tech corporations in
the Nation--among them are Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, Raytheon and
Boeing, IBM and Sun Microsystems to name a few. Our academic members
represent a critical mass of the Nation's research universities that
both educate and employ substantial numbers of mathematicians,
scientists, and engineers. As such, our membership is keenly aware of
the challenges the Nation faces in creating a workforce equipped with
the adequate 21st century skills and the need to continue to advance
learning long after our students graduate from our high schools,
colleges and graduate schools. These challenges are particularly acute
in light of rapidly changing demographics, which will bring
unprecedented numbers of minority youth to the doors of U.S.
postsecondary education institutions and into our economy. Our members
are also sensitive to the implications of a well-educated workforce for
research, innovation and, intimately, for economic development and
global competitiveness.
Concerned by these challenges, in 2002, Forum members launched an
initiative on the state of U.S. mathematics and science education. Led
by co-chairs William H. Swanson (Chairman & CEO, Raytheon Company),
Warren J. Baker (President, California Polytechnic State University),
and L. Dennis Smith (President Emeritus, University of Nebraska) and
supported by a working group of members, this effort explored indepth
the state of mathematics and science education in this country,
workforce trends, and effective policies for responding to what they
defined as a crisis.
While it is common for groups to come before the Senate and
proclaim national crises, the data and trends that our initiative
collected are truly shocking. Frankly, it has our corporate and
university CEOs extremely worried, not just for U.S. corporations'
ability to compete globally, but for the health and effectiveness of
the Nation's schools and colleges as well. The trend lines for demand
for graduates who are literate in science, technology, engineering and
math will surge while the production of Americans educated in these
fields declines.
Our research identified four disturbing trends:
Increasing demands for U.S. workers with higher levels of
mathematics and science skills;
Disappointing performance trends of U.S. students on
comparative international mathematics and science assessments;
Decreasing numbers of science and engineering degrees
awarded to U.S. citizens; and
A critical shortage of qualified mathematics and science
teachers.
Let me briefly share with you the data that demonstrate these
trends:
RISING DEMAND
Jobs requiring science, engineering, and technical
training will increase by 51 percent between 1998 and 2008, four times
faster than overall job growth (U.S. Department of Labor).
By 2008, 6 million job openings for scientists, engineers,
and technicians will exist. Of the 20 fastest-growing occupations
projected through 2010, 15 of them require substantial mathematics or
science preparation. (Bureau of Labor Statistics).
More than 60 percent of new jobs will demand a solid high
school education and some postsecondary education, while only 12
percent of new jobs will be available to workers without a high school
diploma (Council on Competitiveness).
DISAPPOINTING TRENDS IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE
U.S. student performance on international assessments show
that: achievement in mathematics and science deteriorates from being
significantly above average at grade 4 to near the bottom in high
school; and, problem solving performance by grade 10 students is
significantly lower than their peers in 25 countries. Shockingly, 58
percent of U.S. students did not exceed the lowest level of problem
solving achievement.
In addition, recent NAEP (National Assessment of
Educational Progress) results indicate that 30 percent or less of the
students who take the test in the United States attain the proficiency
level. In mathematics and science achievement, when results are broken
down by race/ethnicity, we see African-American students lagging far
behind other groups. Specifically, in 2003, student achievement in 4th-
and 8th-grade mathematics showed percentages of African-American
students at or above proficiency to be respectively 10 and 7 percent.
In 2000, results in science achievement were no more encouraging, with
percentages falling from 7 percent in grade 4 to 3 percent in grade 12
(National Assessment of Educational Progress).
Twenty-two percent of all American college freshmen do not
meet the performance levels that are required for entry-level math and
need remedial courses. Less than 40 percent of the students who plan to
enter science and engineering majors graduate in 6 years from those
fields.
DECREASING DEGREE PRODUCTIVITY
In 2001, U.S. citizens and permanent residents comprised
approximately 60 percent of full-time graduate students in science and
engineering, down from 70 percent in 1994. In engineering, this
percentage dropped from nearly 60 percent to a little more than 40
percent; in computer science, from a little over 50 percent to 35
percent (National Science Foundation).
By 2008, 2 million science and engineering workers are
expected to retire, resulting in a shortfall of more than 2 million
workers (NASA).
The European Union out-produces engineers two-to-one
compared to the United States. The college population is increasing 10
times faster in China than in the United States, where less than a
third of students enter science and engineering programs, and nearly 75
percent of the students in China are pursuing degree programs in
science and engineering in universities that are increasingly high
quality institutions (National Science Foundation).
In 1999, America granted only approximately 61,000
bachelor-level engineering degrees, compared to more than 134,000 in
the European Union, 103,000 in Japan, and more than 195,000 in China.
Only 7 percent of the 868,000 bachelor-level engineering degrees
granted worldwide were earned in the United States (National Science
Foundation).
SHORTAGE EXTENDS TO TEACHERS
Between 260,000 and 290,000 new math and science secondary
school teachers will be needed in the 2008-2009 school year (U.S.
Department of Education).
In 1999-2000, approximately 50,000 more teachers left the
profession than entered it (The Christian Science Monitor).
During 2002-2003, nationwide, districts hired more than
10,000 foreign-born teachers with H1B visas in public and private
schools. Decreases in numbers of available visas coupled with an
international shortage of teachers are threatening offshore supply.
These facts suggest a systemic problem with mathematics and science
education in the United States that will limit our ability to create
and maintain a 21st century workforce. They will affect: our ability to
place qualified science and math teachers in our schools; qualified
professors in our college classrooms and labs; conduct basic research
in our university labs; limit our corporations' ability to compete
globally; and, ultimately the ability to grow our economy in a globally
competitive environment.
The Forum recommends taking immediate action to address this crisis
by working simultaneously on all the P-12 components of systems of
education. In A Commitment to America's Future, we recommend several
immediate actions for State policymakers and corporate leaders:
Action 1: Establish a new element of State education
infrastructure, a P-16 education council with balanced representation
from corporations, education, and policy leaders. The council should be
charged by the State to define, benchmark, and initiate a statewide P-
16 plan for ensuring that all P-12 students successfully complete a
high-quality mathematics and science education.
Action 2: Simultaneously address and align five key components of a
P-12 education system. Effective mathematics and science education
requires the close alignment of a P-12 system's student standards,
curricula, student assessment, teacher quality, and accountability.
Proposed change in any one of the five components demands attention to
resultant effects in the other four. In particular, it demands
attention to necessary changes in the policies and practices of higher
education, corporations, and government.
Action 3: Engage corporations and higher education in more
effective P-12 reform roles. Corporations must accept responsibility
for leading a State's P-16 council work; it also must align all
corporate education outreach initiatives with the State's vision of
standards-based improvement of P-12 mathematics and science education.
Higher education must implement policies and programs that place the
education of teachers--in particular, teachers of mathematics and
science--at the center of its mission.
Action 4: Implement coordinated national and State-specific public
information programs. These two professionally designed programs must
be based on a common set of core messages. The corporate-led national
campaign should be designed to convince the public that a high-quality
mathematics and science education is necessary to ensuring the adult
educational, economic, and civic life of the students now in the
schools. Each State-level campaign, developed in cooperation with the
State's P-16 council, should localize and support the core messages of
the national campaign.
While these recommendations address only a small portion of a much
broader systemic crisis in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics education (the so-called STEM disciplines), the Forum is
launching the second phase of its work in this area by examining the
problems that exist in lifelong learning programs, community colleges,
colleges and universities, and graduate schools. Members of the Forum
also will explore problems encountered in student visa and immigration
policies and their impact on the flow of students, scholars, and
researchers to U.S. institutions of higher education, laboratories and
corporations.
Our June meeting will bring together scholars and policymakers to
begin a process for developing policy recommendations as part of a
comprehensive strategy to address these problems. The Forum will
examine policies to:
Attract more students into the STEM disciplines.
Provide incentives for these students to choose careers in
teaching these subjects.
Encourage more collaboration among universities,
corporations and government to tackle the sources of the crisis.
Ensure that the programs that support students in STEM
disciplines and institutions conducting basic research are
strengthened, especially programs in the National Science Foundation.
Ensure that American postsecondary education institutions
and corporations can recruit the most talented foreign students,
scholars and researchers.
Unless we develop a systemic response to the crisis in STEM
education in the United States (beginning at middle school level), we
risk ceding leadership in science, technology, research and innovation
to other nations, which will have profoundly negative consequences for
the Nation's economic well-being. Unlike many crises, there is
consensus about the seriousness and implications of the problems, and
the tools at our disposal to address these.
The challenge we face is to generate consensus on how to act at the
Federal, State, institutional and corporate levels. I can assure you,
Mr. Chairman, that the members of the Forum feel the urgency of this
crisis. They enthusiastically support the efforts by the National
Governors Association for action in the States, and they stand ready to
help the committee in addressing these critical issues at the Federal
level.
I will be happy to address any questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Boisvert.
STATEMENT OF PAMELA BOISVERT, VICE PRESIDENT, WORCESTER
CONSORTIUM
Ms. Boisvert. Chairman Enzi and distinguished members of
the committee, I am very honored to testify before you today on
the important topic of lifelong educational opportunities for
all Americans.
I serve as Vice President of the Colleges of Worcester
Consortium in Worcester, Massachusetts. Among its other
offerings, the Consortium provides educational counseling and
placement services to low-income adults throughout
Massachusetts through a Federal TRIO Educational Opportunity
Center Grant.
In this instance Massachusetts and Wyoming share another
similarity, for in Wyoming as well, a Federal Educational
Opportunity Center, hosted by the University of Wyoming,
provided educational counseling services to adults throughout
that State.
I certainly join with the other witnesses in emphasizing
the increasing need for lifelong learning programs with
particular attention paid to low-income adults because this
population is the least likely to participate in such
activities, as seen in data from the National Center for
Education Statistics. We see that adults with incomes of
$20,000 or less participate in continuing education at only a
28 percent rate, compared to a 59 percent rate for those with
incomes of $75,000 or more. It is also true that adults from
low-income households are the least likely to receive employer
support for their educational activities.
Certainly, the Federal TRIO community brings a long history
to this issue. For example, the TRIO EOCs for Massachusetts
program, which I direct and I have been involved with actually
for the last 25 years, was first funded in 1974, currently
serves over 7,000 clients per year, the majority of them low-
income and first generation potential college students at an
annual cost of less than $150 per client.
Services are offered at a network of six sites across the
State and all six sites also provides services at satellite
centers, including Career Centers, the One-Stop Centers that we
have heard about today, welfare offices, vocational
rehabilitation centers, public libraries, churches and schools.
Where the clients go, we will go. In Wyoming I understand TRIO
EOCs often operate from agricultural extension centers as well.
Services offered by TRIO EOC programs are wide-ranging and
consequently can be tailored to meet the needs of each
individual client. They are both client-based as well as
flexible, and we have certainly heard this morning about the
importance of both of those characteristics. All services are
offered to ensure that the clients are made aware of the
importance of additional education, particularly postsecondary
education, if appropriate, and the possibilities that such
education provides.
Individualized assistance is provided to ensure that the
education program selected is appropriate to the client's
abilities and career interests and life situation. Of course a
key component of participation in continuing education for low-
income adult students is securing adequate financial aid.
Accordingly, much emphasis is placed on assisting students and
learning about financial aid availability and applying for that
aid, and considering the advantages and disadvantages of
various types of aid, particularly loans.
All EOCs work closely with loan guarantee agencies to
assist individuals who may have defaulted on previous loans to
enter into an appropriate repayment plan so that their loan
status does not jeopardize their ability to reenter a
postsecondary program. This is really a critical part of what
we do in order to ensure that these students can move forward.
Low-income adult students generally must contend with great
complexity in their lives, as I am sure you are all aware, and
a limited network of support to manage that complexity. We
often say that life happens. For example, 57 percent of low-
income adult students in postsecondary education work full
time, compared to 33 percent of traditional students.
Additionally, 64 percent of low-income adult students support
dependent children, compared to only 8 percent of traditional
students. So in addition to assisting students in identifying
an appropriate academic program and securing the financial
resources to enroll, it is often necessary to assist clients in
securing support from other academic and social services.
Whether it is tutoring, day care services, transportation, and
so on, all of those services need to be in place if these
clients are going to succeed.
One of the major strengths of TRIO's Educational
Opportunity Centers is that they are education brokers, not
charged with filling seats in a particular program, but rather
looking at the needs of each individual and providing them with
the best academic fit possible. EOCs for Massachusetts program
has an annual program enrollment rate of 45 percent.
And as is true elsewhere and as we have heard, jobs of the
future are going to require postsecondary programs. Education
has historically been the pathway to viability, to self-
sustainability, to an individual taking care of their family
and ensuring that they all have a brighter future.
I would like to just take a minute to share with you one
story to try to put a human face on all that we have heard this
morning. Arianne arrived at the EOC office through the
encouragement of her counselor at the local housing authority.
This 35-year-old African-American single mother has struggled
within the walls of poverty her whole life. Her undiagnosed
learning disability prevented her from ever succeeding in
school. She dropped out at an early age, gave birth to a son 16
years ago and has struggled to provide for him ever since.
She worked hard to obtain her GED and was able to finally
have her disability diagnosed. Still she struggled to make ends
meet. She lost her minimum wage job, found herself homeless and
lost custody of her son, but again she struggled to find her
way.
Now receiving public assistance and through the
encouragement and efforts of her EOC adviser and her self-
sufficiency counselor at the Housing Authority, she has been
able to work with the State Rehab Center to obtain services
related to the disability. Career assessment testing through
EOC has set her on the right path. She will be taking summer
courses this year to get the prerequisites necessary to enter
an occupational therapy program at the local community college
in the fall.
This is just one of thousands and thousands of examples of
people who have succeeded through education.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Boisvert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Pamela Boisvert
Chairman Enzi, Senator Kennedy and distinguished members of
the committee, I am very honored to testify before you today on
the important topic of Lifelong Educational Opportunities for
Americans. My name is Pamela Boisvert and I serve as Vice
President of the Colleges of Worcester Consortium in Worcester,
Massachusetts. Among its other offerings, the Consortium
provides educational counseling and placement to low-income
adults throughout Massachusetts through a Federal TRIO
Educational Opportunity Center grant. In this instance,
Massachusetts and Wyoming share another similarity, for in
Wyoming as well, a Federal Educational Opportunity Center
hosted by the University of Wyoming provides educational
counseling and placement services to adults throughout the
State.
I certainly join with the other witnesses in emphasizing
the increasing need for life-long learning programs with
particular attention paid to low-income adults because low-
income adults are the least likely to participate in such
activities, as seen in the following data from the National
Center for Education Statistics.
Percentage of Adults Engaged in Continuing Education by Income
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$20,000 or less......................................... 28%
$20,001 to $35,000...................................... 39%
$35,001 to $50,000...................................... 48%
$50,001 to $75,000...................................... 56%
$75,001 and above....................................... 59%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also true that adults from low-income households are
the least likely to receive employer support for educational
activities.
Percentage of Adults Receiving Employer Support for Continuing Education
by Income
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$20,000 or less......................................... 48%
$20,001 to $35,000...................................... 58%
$35,001 to $50,000...................................... 66%
$50,001 to $75,000...................................... 76%
$75,001 and above....................................... 75%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly the Federal TRIO community brings a long history
to this issue. For example, the TRIO EOCs for Massachusetts
program, which I direct, was first funded in 1974 and currently
serves over 7,000 clients per year at an annual cost of less
than $150 per client. Services are offered at a network of
sites throughout the State in Boston, New Bedford, Lynn,
Worcester, Springfield and Pittsfield. All six sites also
provide services at satellite centers including job services
offices, welfare offices, vocational rehabilitation services
offices, public libraries, churches and schools. In Wyoming,
TRIO EOCs often operate from agricultural extension offices as
well.
Services offered by TRIO EOCs are wide-ranging and can be
tailored to meet the needs of individual clients. All services
are offered to ensure that the clients are made aware of the
importance of additional education, particularly postsecondary
education if appropriate, and the possibilities that such
education provides. Individualized assistance is provided to
ensure that the educational program selected is appropriate to
the client's abilities and career interests.
Of course, a key component of participation in continuing
education for low-income adult students is securing adequate
financial aid. Accordingly, a great deal of time is spent in
assisting students in learning about financial aid available,
and considering the advantages and disadvantages of various
types of aid, particularly loans. The EOC works closely with
loan guarantee agencies to assist individuals who may have
defaulted on previous loans to enter into an appropriate
repayment plan so that their loan status does not jeopardize
their ability to re-enter a postsecondary program.
Low-income adult students generally must contend with
complexity in their lives and a limited network of support to
manage that complexity. For example, 57 percent of low-income
adult students in postsecondary education work full-time,
compared to 33 percent of traditional students. Additionally,
64 percent of low-income adult students support dependent
children compared to 8 percent of traditional students. So in
addition to assisting students in identifying an appropriate
academic program and secure the resources to enroll, it is
often necessary to assist clients in securing support from
other academic and social services agencies.
One of the major strengths of TRIO's Educational
Opportunity Centers is that they are education brokers, not
charged with filling seats in a particular program, but rather
looking at the needs of each individual and providing them with
the best academic ``fit'' possible. The EOCs for Massachusetts
program has an annual program enrollment rate of 45 percent.
Massachusetts is home to rapidly-growing immigrant
populations, an expanding knowledge-based economy, and a
shrinking ``native-born'' population. Education has
historically been a cornerstone of our economy, both in terms
of education-related jobs, as well as jobs requiring a higher
education. Service related industries, including health fields
and technology, are also showing significant growth. Self-
sufficiency in Massachusetts now demands some form of
postsecondary education, and TRIO is well positioned to provide
access services leading to the American dream.
I would like to share two stories of current EOC clients
with you.
Story I. Arianne arrived at the EOC office through the
encouragement of her counselor at the local housing authority.
This 35-year-old African-American single mother has struggled
within the walls of poverty her whole life. Her undiagnosed
learning disability prevented her from ever succeeding in
school. She dropped out at an early age, gave birth to a son 16
years ago and has struggled to provide for him since. She
worked hard to obtain her GED and was able to have her
disability diagnosed.
Still she struggled to make ends meet. She lost her minimum
wage job, found herself homeless and lost custody of her child.
Again she struggled to find her way. Now receiving public
assistance, and through the encouragement and efforts of her
Education Advisor at the EOC and her Self-Sufficiency counselor
at the local housing authority, Arianne has been able to work
with the State Rehabilitation Center to obtain services related
to her disability. Career assessment testing through the EOC
has confirmed that she has the strong interest and abilities
necessary to achieve her dream of becoming an Occupational
Therapist. Her desire is to help children with disabilities.
She is now registered for summer semester classes at the local
community college taking those prerequisites necessary to enter
the occupational therapy assistant's program that she has been
accepted to in the fall. Arianne and clients like her need so
desperately to be able to rely on those services provided by
EOC and its collaborations with local social service
organizations. These collaborative efforts have been
instrumental in assisting so many in achieving self-sufficiency
and success.
Story II. Edlira Gostivari came to America from Albania in
May 1999. She has been using the Worcester EOC services since
August 1999. At first, she got help in applying for the ESL
program at Clark University and Quinsigamond Community College
(QCC) to improve her limited English skills. We assisted her in
both the admissions application process and the financial aid
application process at those schools. In Spring 2002, Edlira
completed the ESL program at QCC. In Fall 2002, she enrolled in
the Business Office Support Specialist Associate in Science
program at QCC. She will complete that program in May 2005. She
plans to transfer to Becker College, Anna Maria College, or
Worcester State College in Fall 2005 to earn a Bachelor's
Degree in Political Science, History, or Legal Studies. She
would like to attend Law School after she completes her
Bachelor's Degree. The Worcester EOC has assisted Edlira
effectively in achieving her educational goal successfully.
Using our services, as an immigrant with limited English
skills, she has become proficient in English and studied
successfully in American colleges. I believe she will achieve
her dream of becoming a lawyer with her strong will, high
motivation, and the continuous efficient assistance from the
Worcester EOC.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I appreciate all of the testimony that we have heard. I
will begin with some questions.
Governor Sebelius, in your testimony you mentioned the
alignment of Federal education laws to promote lifelong
learning. Do you have any suggestions or examples that might
assist us as we consider the reauthorization of the Workforce
Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, the Head Start Act,
the Carl Perkins Vocational Technical Act, or any of the other
38 that we are going to do to ensure that we provide
opportunities for students and workers of all ages?
Governor Sebelius. Well, thank you, Senator. Yes, I think
that as our last panel has talked about, putting a sort of
human face might make it a little easier. And let me just give
you a hypothetical: Danny from Salina, Kansas, who is a low-
income, special needs child, and walk you through what happens
when he hits school.
First, hopefully we will get him into Head Start in Kansas,
and that has its own set of requirements, Head Start or one of
the other 69 programs that is available for preschool kids,
which has its own funding streams and its own data
requirements.
Once he hits kindergarten, IDEA kicks into gear as well as
No Child Left Behind, each with different reporting
requirements for him and very little flexibility or ability to
pool the funds and make sure that he gets specifically the
training he needs.
His teacher training comes under the Higher Education Act
and loan forgiveness and other entities, so we have now got
three Federal laws that impact him, as well as title I
requirements in the school where he is.
As he gets into high school, those requirements stay in
place, but Perkins vocational training comes into being, again,
with a different data set, different reporting requirements,
different yearly titles. And hopefully we can either help move
him successfully into a job or into higher education.
I am just giving you a little example of a child in Kansas,
and I think what we are saying at the State level is if we had
some ability to pool a stream of funds, if we had some ability
to give you one plan with a data set that was then able to be
replicated for the various acts in charge, and if we had more
ability really to look at two key transitions--what happens
from early education into school, how we make those funds flow
and make sure children are ready to learn, and what happens as
children exit high school into either higher education or
vocational training or hopefully both--again, pooling and
streaming funds, alignment at those levels would make, I think,
not only us able to be more successful, more nimble, more
responsive to parents and teachers, but also make sure that we
are getting the best bang for our buck.
The Chairman. Thank you. Very succinct and comprehensive.
Governor Sebelius. And there are probably those other 38
acts that are going to kick in at some point.
The Chairman. Yes, and the 69 preschool programs, yes, we
will be working on those.
Governor Fletcher, what best practices in local communities
are creating better coordination of all available resources for
youth to achieve positive outcomes after leaving formal
secondary education programs, including the workforce,
obtaining a college degree, or starting their own business?
That is one of my favorites.
Governor Fletcher. Well, in Kentucky--and not only in
Kentucky, but I think the greater push for P-16 counsel is
extremely helpful, especially in the Workforce Investment Act,
flexibility would certainly help us there. The best practices
that we have so far are strengthening P-16, and what we do is
integrate economic development with education to make sure that
not only are economic development individuals and interests
interested in education, but education sees economic
development as part of their responsibility.
One of the things we are doing in postsecondary education
is what we call stewards of place. Our universities and
institutions have responsibility not only for recruitment,
enrolling, and graduating, but see a greater responsibility for
the economic development of their communities that they live
in.
That means that when we are looking at attracting
businesses or trying to grow a particular industry, they can
get involved in that from the outset, including curriculum,
making sure that their students are ready for that type of
workplace.
I think the Workforce Investment Act would help us
tremendously in the sense that we would not have silos. This
year, we had $29 million that we could not access, but we could
have used that money tremendously in other areas of
postsecondary education to help educate workers in particular
areas.
The Chairman. Thank you. I am out of time, but I am going
to take the Chairman's prerogative and do one more question
before I go to written ones.
Mr. Fitzgerald, how difficult is it for your member
companies to find employees with skills to continue to compete?
What are your concerns about the skill level of the workforce
and the American businesses to compete internationally and our
Nation's economic success?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Chairman, our corporate members are
extremely concerned about the ability to access the kind of
skilled workforce. Many of our corporations are global
corporations, and, frankly, they find it easier to find highly
skilled talent in their laboratories and their plants in other
parts of the world.
I know many people talk to you about homeland security
issues and the implications in the post-9/11 world, but let me
give you one example of the implications of this real crisis in
a qualified workforce.
Two of our corporate members--in particular, Bill Swanson
at Raytheon--they need to find American or at least U.S.
citizens who can do work, classified work at the highest levels
of research and development. Bill hoped actually to be here
with you today but could not change his schedule. He is scared
to death about the ability of, broadly speaking, our
educational system to produce the kind of workforce we need.
Companies like Pfizer find it much easier to find highly
skilled, highly trained professionals, technicians,
researchers, in places like India than here.
We need to address this in our high schools, in our middle
schools, but we also need to address this in our colleges and
universities and support the stem disciplines and research,
basic research at universities so that we have the workforce
domestically that our corporations need to compete globally.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all
of the witnesses for very helpful testimony. I mentioned to
Governor Sebelius that we have scheduled for the 20th of this
month the first of a series of hearings and roundtables to try
to take a look at the 69 early childhood education programs
that help children under 6 and spend about 20 billion Federal
dollars just to see what we might do to coordinate them better.
So I know you will be interested in that, given your NGA
position.
I want to start with Mr. Gunderson because I know he has
been around on these issues for a long time. I was Governor
when CIDA was abolished and the Joint Training Partnership Act
came in, and like a good soldier, I remember flying all around
the State and forming all these councils and whooping it up and
saying this is going to be a great thing, because on paper it
is. You know, the idea is connect the employers and the
community colleges and meet the new needs and get everybody
working on the same thing together. And so we did that. I
thought we did a really good job on it.
The longer I have been around, the more I have been
unimpressed with our ability to form councils and direct things
from here, to review reports and papers, and the more impressed
I have been with the higher education model, which I mentioned
to the first panel, which is basically to give the money to the
student or the out-of-work person or the person changing jobs
and let them go look for the service they need.
That is why I was interested in the personal retirement
account that is being--I mean, that makes a lot of sense to me,
that if I am sitting there having changed jobs and I get
$3,000, then I can make a choice about whether to spend it
here, here, here or here, then the whole system has to really
respond to me. I think that is the real reason why we have the
greatest system of colleges and universities in the world, is
because we have emphasized autonomy for those institutions, a
lot of Federal dollars, but it follows students to institutions
they choose.
I think as we articulate high schools and community
colleges that high school money ought to be following students
more to the community college in courses that they choose to
take at the community college, that would require State and
local decisionmaking. But I want to go to a recommendation you
made and just ask you to elaborate on it a little bit, and if
anyone else wants to comment and there is time, terrific.
You suggest we reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and
the Higher Education Act and the Perkins Act all at once and
take a look at it, simplify it. If I have got my numbers right,
as an example, we spend about $4 billion in adult education
through the Workforce Investment Act, some of it here, some of
it at the State level, some of it here, some of it there. We
spend $12 billion on Pell grants. I guess an alternative would
be looking at that, take the whole $4 billion, and just spend
it on Pell grants or just spend it on personal reinsurance
accounts or to spend half of it on Pell grants and personal
reinsurance accounts.
Have you thought that through or do you have any
recommendations for us about--or do you even agree that we
would be better off with fewer councils, less bureaucracy, and
more Federal dollars to go directly to the worker we are hoping
to train, and then let that worker then seek out his training?
I would expect it would often be with an employer or with a
community college or a technical institute, or who knows, but
as long as they are certified in some way.
What would be your elaboration on those points?
Mr. Gunderson. Let me try to be brief because we could
speak for hours on this.
I agree, first of all, and I think we need to recognize our
problem. In the last reauthorization of WIA, we said the WIBs
do not deliver the training, they just design. The problem is
we have a WIA system that is guided by performance standards,
and we have a community college system that is funded by credit
hours. And there is a huge disconnect, and we have got to
figure out how you connect these two so you get those outcomes.
While we would like to have credit hours, let's recognize that
we are more into employer-recognized, industry-based
certificates that are going to be portable skills, that are not
going to be built on credit hours. So that is why I think you
have got to try to figure out how do you redesign and connect
these in a way that gets them to talk to each other and works
in ways that it does not today.
The second thing I want to suggest to you, Senator, is you
and I, because we are both Republican, believe in an ownership
society. We are not going to have enough Federal or enough
Federal and State dollars to meet the need that is going to be
necessary in this area. One of the things I have suggested is
that we create lifelong learning accounts. If we would take
simply for a 20-year period, from age 25 to 45, if we would
take 25 cents per hour--I don't care if it is employee or
employer funded--and put that into that person's individual
lifelong learning account, they would have well over $10,000 to
spend on continued education or training. Cut it down to a
dime, you have still got over $5,000 in that person's account.
If every individual had that and it was said you could use
this for your upgrading of skills or at the age of 65 you could
convert it into a retirement account, we would change the
culture in this country, number one. Number two, we would get
the resources, unlike anything we anticipated, to meet the
demand in this area. And, third, all of a sudden we would have
the delivery mechanism that would look at ways where they could
access and meet and serve those needs. We would not have the
debates about whether incumbent workers were or were not
eligible for a Federal program because every incumbent worker
would have the resources to use to upgrade their skills.
So, yes, I think you are moving in the right direction. I
do think we have got to find a way to merge these Federal
programs because what you do here impacts what happens down at
the local level.
A caution. With all due respect to our Governors, I was at
a meeting recently with a bunch of State directors for WIB who
said we are going to ask for some waivers so that we have
discretionary money, but we are not going to do it until our
State legislatures are out of session, because if our State
legislators see that we have that discretionary money, they are
going to automatically use that money and program that money to
meet their State needs. So it is going to supplant that State
funding.
What we have got to do is make sure that we have the State
dollars, we have the Federal dollars, we have the private
sector dollars. There is not going to be enough. We cannot let
one dollar replace another.
Senator Alexander. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. If I had had more time, I would have asked the
Governors whether they support the President's proposal to
extend No Child Left Behind to high school, but maybe someone
else will do that.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I took some latitude. I will let you ask that
question.
Senator Alexander. Seriously, do you support or what is
your comment on the President's proposal of extending No Child
Left Behind to high school?
Governor Sebelius. Well, Senator, I think my comment would
be I would certainly support rigorous training and testing and
think that we need to do measuring in high school. And it is
part of what our high school reform effort at the National
Governors level is about.
There is clearly concern about underfunding, and I would
say that at least in Kansas, we have experienced that the new
layer of testing requirements, in addition to the testing
requirements we already had in place in Kansas, has put us even
further behind in trying to make our school system work for
every child. So I would be very cautious about endorsement
without the funding to go with it.
One other area I would just point out, as long as we are
here--and I will let my colleague, Governor Fletcher, answer
also. But there are some inconsistencies--back to Senator
Enzi's earlier question--in alignment. We have talked a lot
about moving kids from high school into either workforce
training or community college, doing that fairly seamlessly.
One of the things we find with No Child Left Behind,
teacher requirements, as we looked at it in Kansas, is that
dual enrollment is problematic because a number of our teachers
in our community colleges do not meet the qualified standards
for No Child Left Behind. They cannot teach the high school
kids because they do not have the adequate hours of training in
the specific subject.
So that is another issue that we might want to address. I
think advancing and accelerating students' learning into higher
education is great. But we are finding that it is complicated
by the current structure of No Child Left Behind as it relates
to teacher training.
Senator Alexander. Thank you.
Governor Fletcher. Senator Alexander, I first want to thank
Congress. I was here at the time when the No Child Left Behind
bill was passed, and it was a great bipartisan effort. I think
it brought some local flexibility as well as accountability
which had not been there previously. And certainly those
principles I endorse and I believe most Governors endorse
certainly the flexibility and that there does need to be
accountability along with that.
One of the things that I think is extremely important as
you are looking at expansion is the fact of the flexibility of
the State setting those standards. But, additionally, I think
there should be along with that some incentives. As we know now
and recognize--in high school graduation there is--the need of
the knowledge based, through, for example, the American Diploma
Project, is similar whether that child decides to go to a
postsecondary educational institution or whether they decide to
go into the workplace.
And so once we realize that, then I think if there is an
expansion of No Child Left Behind, it really needs to provide
incentives for us to move toward redesign of the high school,
toward that purpose and accountability.
The other thing I would like to see, because of WIA's
prescriptive measures in the different silos that exist there
and the fact that we have dual courses, we have this seamless
education that we are working toward. Some of the artificial
barriers that are produced there prohibit us from having the
flexibility of really preparing the workforce in a way that we
can.
So with those principles in mind, we certainly would look
forward to working with you on the expansion of that, and
always as we look toward education with these requirements, we
certainly would encourage you looking at the funding as well.
May I make a comment, too, if I might, Mr. Chairman, on the
answer--there was one question that Senator Alexander had
previous to this, and, you know, in looking at the money
following the student, because I think as you look at improving
education--we passed some tuition tax credits in Kentucky that
we modeled after those tuition tax credits on the Federal
level. But we gave a lot more flexibility in what institutions
those would apply to and what diplomas or credentialing would
require.
That is a method that we use of allowing it to follow the
student and allow them to have more choice. But we also give
them the choice of going to some other institutions, and it
provides up to $500 in our situation. We just passed that this
year.
Additionally, some flexibility as you are looking toward
Pell grants and other tuition assistance programs would be
helpful as you see that the tracks that a student takes may not
be quite as traditional, but more focused on a specific
vocation or profession. And if that can be blended with some
flexibility of WIA grants, I think you could see that we would
have a lot more tools as Governors to make sure that we get
success toward developing individuals that are prepared for
college that will be successful as well in the workplace.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Burr.
Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank this entire group of witnesses, and I will
tell you up front that I will show some discretion and focus on
those two guys in the middle. Steve, welcome back. And, Ernie,
it is great to see you. You came this time with a little less
fanfare than one of your last trips here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Burr. We thank you for that. Seldom do Johnny and I
have the opportunity to have two of our former colleagues on
the hot seat where we can get them, and I want to take
advantage of it.
Steve, you said something that was unbelievably important,
and I think it reflects sort of the last 10 years, and it is
evidence that we are learning. Ten years ago, we would do
anything to block grant everything to the States. Ten years
later, we look at our Governors that are here and we look at
the other ones around the country, and I think the important
question that we ask is: Do you really want us to do that? Can
flexibility be designed in a way that does not create this
competitive spirit, personal urge to find an easy way out of a
State budget problem or to create new revenues for the General
Assembly to look at and say, But it is written in a way that
you could do this, only to be audited 10 years down the road
and find out that you have a problem? Unfortunately, you may
not be there, we may not be here, but the loss is a generation
of kids that went through the system.
The thing that has probably gone unsaid is that I think we
need to be focused as we go through reauthorization, as we go
through any new legislation, less on process and all on
outcome. No future employer is going to look and say, How did
you get to this point? They are just evaluating whether they
got to the point they need them. And so we need to be less
concerned with how we get there and more focused on getting
there.
Steve, I think in your testimony--it was incredible
testimony--but I want to go right to something you said in the
conclusion because I think it deserves saying publicly. Today,
education is workforce investment, and workforce investment is
economic development. The connection is already there. What we
cannot do is break this up and then hope that it comes back
together. It has to be designed as seamless.
I would turn to the two Governors and just say, Can States
make wise decisions if, in fact, we give you that flexibility?
Or would you urge us not just to guess when the legislature is
in or out?
[Laughter.]
Senator Burr. And be a little more prescriptive on how you
access that money?
Governor Sebelius. Well, Senator, I think not only can
States do it, but we are doing it. And, frankly, if we do not
do it, it does not get done.
I think that there is an incredible innovation going on
rethinking the whole seamless transition from school into
workforce. And what, as Governor Fletcher has already
articulated, we find over and over again are silos and data
requirements and an inability to really deliver the end
product, if you will, the educated worker to the business of
tomorrow. It stumbles along the way.
So I think you can have a maintenance of effort provision
that makes sure that we do not transfer funds with the next
crisis that happens. I would urge Congress to do the same thing
as you reauthorize these acts. Maintain the effort. Do not
under the guise of flexibility deliver less money with higher
accountability standards and more demands, but that is a fair,
I think, transfer, that is to say these efforts have to be
directed. Ask for a State plan. Ask for a data set. Ask for
accountability. And then let States be able to develop the
workforce that is really needed in different parts of the
country with different segments, with some flexibility.
Governor Fletcher. Senator Burr, it is good to see you
again, and we enjoyed working with you on Energy and Commerce
in the House. Congratulations to you as well for your success
in being here.
One of the things I think we are seeing is the transition
from what I call prescriptive accountability, which means that
you prescribe on the Federal level the methods, and that is the
accountability, and the reporting is back, that you follow that
prescription.
No Child Left Behind moved more to results accountability,
which said we give you some flexibility--and we would ask for
more--and measure the results.
One of the things that I think is different now than what
we had in previous generations is this global competitiveness.
That means that we are moving from an agrarian, manufacturing
society to advanced agriculture and advanced manufacturing,
biotech, knowledge-based economy, which means that we have to
have a much more educated workforce to compete. And for States
to be successful--and we are competitive entities, one with
another as well as globally--we have to succeed in providing
that knowledge-based workforce in order to maintain the
workforce in our States and to maintain our revenue basically.
So I think the accountability is there from the fact that
in order to continue to grow in the competitive economy, we
have to attain results. We are all focusing and realize that
education, unlike previous generations, is absolutely essential
for economic development.
There were decades ago where you had high labor-intensive
industries that did not require the technical education. But as
we see now, high school graduation, whether or not you go into
the workforce or university, it requires the same skills. That
has come about because we have to have those skills in our
workforce to be competitive and increase productivity.
Otherwise, we lose those jobs.
So the answer to that is, yes, I think so. I think it is
good to move from a prescriptive accountability to a results-
oriented accountability. And also you can roll into that there
are some research-based methods that I think are important in
education that can be utilized as well.
Senator Burr. I will take the Chairman's silence as I get
an opportunity to go one more time.
Steve, you talked throughout your testimony about the
global change, the global economy. I believe that one of the
most significant things that has been overlooked is the fact
that 20 years ago, innovation was something that we just--we
hold here in the United States, in part because of the
education, in part because we had a model that protected
intellectual property and a lot of things.
Innovation is global today. There is as much innovation
that happens outside the United States as there does inside the
United States.
How does that change the way we look at job creation from a
standpoint of the fact that we just cannot rely on innovation
that takes place here at home to employ that group that we know
are coming in the next generation?
Mr. Gunderson. Well, it is serious, Senator, because it has
been our competitive advantage. We did not have a problem
outsourcing low-skilled manufacturing jobs. We did not even
have too big a problem when we started outsourcing those
medium-level jobs. All of a sudden when we see that we are now
outsourcing research and innovation, America's leadership
competitive advantage is at risk. All of the companies that
Brian represents are seriously considering moving their R&D to
the Southeast Pacific, not just because of low labor, but
because of the brain power that is available there that is not
available here. That talks about America's quality of life in
the future.
Second, you know, we love to beat up on Europe in this
country, but we need to be real careful because if you look at
the Bologna Accord, Europe has redesigned their entire higher
education system. They have gone from 4 years to 3 years of
basic academic skills, combined that with a 2-year career and
academic training focus. So it is a 5-year program for creating
a high-skilled, portable degree throughout the entire European
Union.
Now, if Europe gets their act together, which I think they
are going to do in that, all of a sudden, again, we not only
face that competitive disadvantage with the Southeast Pacific,
but we are now facing it with Europe. And they have the same
population that we do. America is going to lose what has become
its major ability.
The other sides of this, of course, is we are the one
country that is going to teach the world how do we educate and
train a diverse population of race and ethnicity and succeed at
it or fail at it. And that is the question that is before all
of us today.
Senator Burr. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, and I appreciate the patience of
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson.
Senator Isakson. I just love Senator Burr. I would give him
all the time in the world--as long as it does not take away
from mine.
[Laughter.]
Senator Isakson. [continuing.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Steve, on that great segue, at the end of your remarks, if
I wrote it down right, you said one of the things to deal with
is the fact that we cannot stop global competition, that you
cannot educate on the cheap, and it is an absolute necessity to
develop the workforce. You said we must connect academics and
career skills, right?
Mr. Gunderson. Yes.
Senator Isakson. Then you just went into the EU model.
Connecting academics and career skills in that comment
manifests itself in the European concept in your mind of 3
years of basic and then 2 years of career. Is that what you
meant?
Mr. Gunderson. I think that is one option. I do not think
it is the only option. But, you know, what I have said in my
testimony that I did not repeat in my brief summary is that we
have to change this mind-set of workforce investment to be only
those people who, quote, do not go to college. I mean, I am
excited by the Council of Graduate Schools in this country that
has become major players in workforce investment because every
one of us in this room who has a B.A. degree who goes back to
school--guess what?--we are in graduate education. We never
thought of that as workforce investment. And if we are going to
compete, we have got to begin looking at this holistic system,
which is not even just P-16, it is P-16-plus, in a way that we
have not redesigned that.
We have had this concept in this country that graduate
education is Ph.D. period. Somebody in the House of
Representatives affectionately called graduate education as a
prep school for college professors. You know, it is not that
anymore. The reality is that we are now looking at graduate
education in professional master's degrees as connecting
workforce investment, those skills that you were talking about
with Raytheon and others that are going to become necessary. It
is not just a Ph.D. degree in order to be competitive and to
keep this Nation competitive. That is why we have to look at
that holistic set.
Senator Isakson. OK. The reason I wanted to follow up on
that is, following that line a little bit further, we are not
doing a good enough job of exposing our young people to the
potential of careers that we need. We glorify the absolute
least productive things in our society, some of them almost
destructive, and it is done more often than not through
television. But we do not institutionalize in any way, it seems
like to me, the images of those things that we need. And this
is kind of a statement following up on what you said. But I
agree.
And the P-16, Governor Sebelius and Governor Fletcher, I
was so glad to hear both of you mention it, and then Steve
added that add-on, you know, past P-16 to actually the career.
But we are beginning to move, to filter down, I think, at the
lower level some of the benefits of good academics all the way
through. And I commend you all on what you are doing.
I want to thank you for something, too. Unfortunately, some
of the people that needed to hear it are not here today, but
both of you talked about--two words--flexibility and
consolidation. And I want to commend you for doing that because
you are where the rubber meets the road. We are not. And
consolidating programs, which we strive so desperately to do in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act but failed in a lot
of them, to give these programs allowable use titles and
combine all the funds so you can choose within those uses which
you best need I think is the way to go to expand that academic
funding.
And to that end, my question to you, Governor Sebelius, is:
You mentioned Perkins money. Would you like Perkins to be a
part of that type of concept of flexibility and consolidating
programs? Or would you want it to remain isolated?
Governor Sebelius. Well, Senator, I would say I think I
would prefer maybe coordination to consolidation, and
particularly consolidation that is chosen, you know, at some
other level. What we need a lot more flexibility to do is
coordinate streams of funding, and I think Perkins should very
much be a part of that. And we are doing a lot of that right
now in Kansas.
We have done a major overhaul of our workforce initiatives
with a program called Kansas First, where we have a market-
driven strategy with business leaders at the table coordinating
with community college programs and workforce training efforts
and kind of the one-stop shopping. And so our ability to pool
those funds and design them so that they track the workers'
needs and provide the program opportunities for those workers
would be very beneficial.
Senator Isakson. Well, the reason I ask the question is I
am a big Perkins supporter, and there has been a fear that the
consolidation of Perkins money was an end to that program. And
Perkins deals with some of the things Steve is talking about
and Ernie has talked about, everybody on the panel, because it
is career-oriented training for the jobs of the 21st century.
And I appreciate your changing the response--not changing the
response but using coordination rather than consolidation when
you got into that answer. And I think maybe that is where we
may be missing it, Mr. Chairman. There may be some need to
coordinate toward the outcomes we seek so as we consolidate we
are not losing sight of the goals that we have. And unlike my
North Carolina friend, I will not use any more time in case he
has another question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Thank you, and I want to thank all of the
witnesses today. And as I mentioned, we will be leaving the
record open for 10 days so that members who were not able to be
here today can submit questions and so that you can expand on
any remarks that you wish to expand on.
As we talked about lifelong learning today, I think it came
through very clearly that we need to concentrate our
legislation on flexibility and coordination, counseling, and
probably some emphasis on science and math.
A couple of weeks ago, I held an inventors conference in
Wyoming, and I had a fellow named Dean Kamen come out and be
the keynote speaker. He invented the Segway. But that is kind
of his hobby. He has 200 medical patents. One of them is heart
stents. Another one is a diabetic pump. And he was lamenting
the lack of science and math majors in the United States.
Well, actually, we have a lot of science and math majors in
college, but most of them are not from the United States. And
that is going to result in some definite problems for us.
He did point out, though, that you get what you celebrate,
and we are celebrating entertainment and athletics. And he has
an attempt to celebrate science and math. So something to keep
in mind.
Again, I appreciate everybody being here and the great
testimony that we have had today.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Editor's Note--Due to the high cost of printing, previously
published materials submitted by witnesses may be found in the
files of the commitee.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Response to Questions of Senator DeWine by Margaret Spellings
Question 1. In Ohio, we are far behind many other States in terms
of the number of high school graduates who go on to higher education,
with just 39 percent doing so. I believe this is an issue created by
problems with students being or feeling ill-prepared for college and
lacking the access to it. I have been a big supporter of Pell grants
and other important loan programs to increase access to higher
education. But with rising college costs, what more can we do to
actually increase that access, not just maintain current enrollment
numbers? And secondly, what more do we need to do to make sure students
are more prepared for college?
Answer 1. I agree that providing adequate financial support to
students enrolled in postsecondary education is critical to ensuring
access. That is why the President proposes to invest $19 billion in new
funding over the next 10 years to increase the maximum Pell grant by
$100 over each of the next 5 years and retire the program's
longstanding funding shortfall. The 2006 Budget also includes a range
of other proposals, such as increased student loan limits and new
programs such as Loans for Short-Term Training, Presidential Math and
Science Scholars, and an enhanced Pell grant for students who have
completed the State Scholars curriculum, that would reduce financial
barriers to higher education. The budget request also includes a $125
million Community College Access grants initiative, which would support
expansion of ``dual-enrollment'' programs under which high school
students take postsecondary courses and receive both secondary and
postsecondary credit. It would also help ensure that students
completing such courses can continue and succeed in 4-year colleges and
universities.
With that said, simply increasing financial aid is not enough. As
you suggest, we must ensure that students are prepared to enroll and
succeed in college. That is why I believe the President's proposed $1.2
billion High School Intervention Initiative is essential. Under that
initiative, each State would develop a plan for improving high school
education and increasing student achievement, especially the
achievement of students at greatest risk of failing to meet challenging
State standards and of dropping out of school. School districts
receiving sub-grants from the States would be held accountable for
increasing achievement, narrowing achievement gaps, and lowering the
dropout rate, but they would have flexibility to provide the full range
of services students need to ensure they are academically prepared for
the transition to postsecondary education and the workforce. The
initiative also would deepen the national knowledge base on what works
in improving high schools and high school student achievement by
supporting scientifically based research on specific interventions that
have promise for improving outcomes.
Question 2. In Ohio, we have had a rough time in terms of job
losses the last few years. Since 2000, Ohio has lost more jobs than any
other State in America--37 percent of all jobs lost nationwide. We know
that manufacturing is never going to be the employment engine that it
once was. We also know that we need to change the way we are teaching
our children and youth so that they are prepared for the new high
skills jobs which ARE being created. In 2003, U.S. employers submitted
almost 285,000 applications to obtain work visas for skilled foreign
born workers to fill available jobs in this country. How do you,
Secretary Spellings and Secretary Chao, plan to work together to bridge
this skills gap which we are currently facing and which could worsen if
unchecked?
Answer 2. Our two departments have established a strong,
collaborative partnership to improve the preparation of today's and
tomorrow's workers. By working closely together and ensuring that our
programs and investments support and complement each other, we believe
that we can make a powerful difference in bridging the Nation's skill
gap. For that reason, the Department of Education's (ED) Assistant
Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education and the Department of
Labor's (DOL) Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training meet on a
regular basis to coordinate our work and collaborate on projects of
mutual interest. We include DOL officials in many of our public events.
Most recently, ED sponsored a ``virtual summit'' on community college
issues, and one of our featured speakers was the Assistant Secretary
for Employment and Training. DOL has been equally inclusive. Education
officials, for example, have participated in DOL's outreach meetings
with representatives of high-growth industries and addressed their
annual ``Workforce Innovations'' conferences and regional outreach
events.
Both agencies recognize that improving the academic preparation of
our children and youth is an essential part of addressing the skills
gap. Employers are demanding stronger reading, writing, and math skills
of all of their workers--and reporting that too many recent high school
graduates are not making the grade. Seventy-three percent of employers
rate the writing skills of recent high school graduates as fair or
poor, while 63 percent express dissatisfaction with graduates' math
skills. Most of our students are leaving high school without the high-
level academic skills they need to land the fastest-growing, higher-
paying jobs in our economy. As noted above, the President's proposal
for a new High School initiative will focus on improving student
achievement at the high school level and, in particular, on the
students who are most at risk of dropping out or leaving school without
the skills and knowledge necessary for further education or employment.
The Department of Labor has launched a complementary initiative to
improve the outcomes of our most disadvantaged youth. Last fall, DOL
organized regional forums to promote greater collaboration among State
education, workforce, and juvenile justice officials to address the
needs of disadvantaged youth. The Department of Education participated
in the planning of these meetings, and encouraged State education
officials to attend. We are now working with the DOL to develop a plan
for providing joint technical assistance to State leaders as they seek
to use resources from multiple Federal programs to support a common
strategy for improving the outcomes of at-risk youth. This
recommendation came out of proposals developed at the White House Task
Force on Disadvantaged Youth, which I chaired at the Domestic Policy
Council.
No Child Left Behind and the President's High School Initiative
will ensure that, over time, students graduate from high school with
the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in postsecondary
education and the workforce. Yet many adults who already have been left
behind are looking for a second chance. Some departed school before
graduating, some graduated lacking basic skills, and some are recent
immigrants with limited English literacy skills. The Departments of
Education and Labor are working together to ensure that these adults
have access to the quality education and training they need to succeed
in our economy.
The President's reauthorization proposal for the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act demands accountability for results from States
and local programs to ensure that both the hours adults invest in adult
education and the Federal dollars we invest in the program are used
most effectively. We would offer incentives for success to States and
local programs, but we would also create more explicit consequences for
those that fail to perform, including technical assistance and
sanctions. We also want to create more choices for adults who want to
improve their literacy skills. Our proposal would expand the number of
workplace literacy programs, improve the capacity of community- and
faith-based organizations to provide adult education, and promote
greater use of technology to deliver instruction. This year, we are
launching a 3-year national technology initiative that will expand the
capability of adult education programs to use distance learning and
other technologies and make distance education resources more
accessible to adults with limited basic skills.
Finally, a major vehicle for enabling American students to attain
the skills and knowledge they need to prosper in the 21st Century
economy is to provide student assistance that ensures access to
postsecondary education. The President's proposal for raising the
maximum Pell grant, providing enhanced Pell grants for students who
have completed the State Scholars curriculum, and providing loans for
short-term training, among other things, meets that need.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]