[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23246]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 20, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of Vocational and Adult Education



_______________________________________________________________________




Reauthorization of Vocational and Adult Education Programs; Notice
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Vocational and Adult Education

 
Reauthorization of Vocational and Adult Education Programs

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Request for public comment on the reauthorization of vocational 
and adult education programs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education invites written comments from the 
public regarding the reauthorization of programs under the Carl D. 
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act; the Adult 
Education Act; and the National Literacy Act of 1991.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 4, 
1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Dr. Augusta Souza 
Kappner, Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. 
Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 4090-MES, 
Washington, D.C. 20202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Jones, Office of Vocational and 
Adult Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 4050-MES, 
Washington, D.C. 20202. Telephone: (202) 205-9241. Individuals who use 
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary is requesting public comments 
on the reauthorization of the Department's Vocational and Adult 
Education programs, including 18 programs funded at approximately $1.5 
billion in fiscal year 1994. The funded programs include: Vocational 
Education Basic State Grants; Tech-Prep Education; Vocational Education 
Research; Vocational Education Demonstrations; Vocational Education 
Data Systems; Adult Education State Programs; State Literacy Resource 
Centers; Literacy Programs for Prisoners; Workplace Literacy 
Partnerships; and Adult Education National Programs, including the 
National Institute for Literacy.

Need for Reauthorization

    The statutory authorization for these programs expires on September 
30, 1995. In order to contribute in a timely manner to congressional 
reauthorization discussions, the Secretary is beginning a review of 
these programs. The Secretary intends to submit to Congress the 
Department's proposals to reauthorize these programs in early 1995. To 
ensure an opportunity for public participation, the Secretary invites 
public comments on the reauthorization.

How the Information Will Be Used

    The Department has identified six general issues, listed as 
follows, around which to initiate reauthorization discussions and is 
particularly interested in receiving comments on those issues. The 
Department seeks to develop program initiatives that link vocational 
and adult education programs to the National Education Goals and to the 
national effort to enable all students to achieve to challenging 
academic standards. As such, the reauthorization will build on the 
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, 
and the pending Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, 
each of which focuses on--providing students with greater opportunities 
to meet high standards; giving States and localities flexibility in the 
delivery of services in exchange for accountability for results; and 
directing Federal resources to communities where they are most needed, 
in amounts sufficient to make a real difference. The Department will 
also examine how Federal Vocational and Adult Education programs can be 
coordinated with other Federal programs, such as the Job Training 
Partnership Act (JTPA), Higher Education Act student aid programs, and 
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) that address similar 
purposes and serve similar populations.
    The reauthorization process also provides an opportunity for 
resolution of issues affecting current programs that have arisen 
through evaluations, audits, program operations, budget deliberations, 
and previous legislative actions. Thus, the Department, while it will 
examine new program strategies, also seeks comment on the program-
specific issues listed below.

Issues for Public Comment

    The Secretary seeks comments and suggestions regarding 
reauthorization of these programs. Comments are especially invited on 
the following issues.

General Principles and Issues

1. Restructuring Vocational and Adult Education Programs To Achieve the 
National Education Goals

    Results of recent studies of vocational and adult education reveal 
that considerable progress must be made in these areas if the 
Department hopes to achieve the National Education Goals. For example, 
the National Adult Literacy Survey found that as many as 90 million 
adults in the United States have serious problems with literacy, and, 
of those, approximately 40 to 44 million function at the lowest 
proficiency levels defined by the survey. With the American economy in 
transition, increasing global challenges to our economic 
competitiveness, and more jobs requiring a high level of technical 
expertise, our employment and training systems must produce greater 
numbers of skilled and adaptable workers than in the past.
    How can the Federal Vocational and Adult Education programs best be 
structured to help the Nation achieve the National Education Goals, 
particularly the goal of ensuring that every American is literate and 
possesses the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global 
economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship?

2. Promoting World-Class Standards for All Students

    A major theme of the Administration's earlier legislative proposals 
has been creating an expectation for all students to meet challenging 
academic or occupational skill standards. The Department is now 
exploring options for making this theme a core principle for the 
Perkins Act and Adult Education reauthorizations as well. Along these 
lines, how can these Federal Acts best incorporate systems of standards 
and implement these standards for all vocational and adult education 
students, including in-school and out-of-school youth, postsecondary 
students, adults, and special populations? How can these standards best 
be coordinated with standards developed under Goals 2000 and the 
reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act?

3. Connecting Vocational and Adult Education to Broader Objectives for 
Achieving Education Reform

    How can some of the other key themes of the Administration's 
earlier proposals--such as offering greater State, local, and school 
flexibility in exchange for accountability for student outcomes 
(including authorizing waivers of certain statutory and regulatory 
requirements), encouraging integration of services across categorical 
programs, and targeting resources more effectively--be incorporated in 
the Vocational and Adult Education reauthorization?

4. Linking the Perkins Act and the Adult Education Act

    Should some aspects of the Perkins Act and the Adult Education Act 
be meshed? For example, could the reauthorization coordinate resources 
to create a more coherent system for preparing youth and young adults 
for further education and employment?

5. Coordinating With Other Federal Programs and Initiatives

    In recent reports, the General Accounting Office identified, by its 
count, over 150 programs with employment training aspects, including 
several vocational and adult education programs. The GAO reports 
contend that the programs overlap one another and are poorly 
coordinated, and that their proliferation makes it difficult for States 
and localities to forge comprehensive employment training strategies. 
In light of these findings, how should Federal Vocational and Adult 
education statutes relate to other Federal programs, such as JTPA, 
Higher Education Act student aid programs, and the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, and to pending initiatives such as 
elementary and secondary education reform, welfare reform, and the 
Reemployment Act? How can Perkins Act and Adult Education Act resources 
be better deployed to meet national needs for workforce development?

6. Building Bridges Between Vocational Education, Adult Education, and 
the School-to-Work Opportunities Act

    Should the Perkins Act or the Adult Education Act, or both, be 
revised to complement the School-to-Work Opportunities Act? If so, how 
should this be accomplished? What principles and goals would be 
achieved by this linkage? Should some or all of Perkins Act resources 
be structured specifically to support the School-to-Work act?

Issues That Cut Across Both Vocational and Adult Education Programs

Program Standards and Assessment

    Under existing legislation, States have developed systems of 
standards for the evaluation of both vocational and adult education. 
Research suggests that these standards are not widely used for program 
improvement. How can the reauthorization encourage the use of program 
standards and assessment to improve the quality of vocational and adult 
education? How can valid program standards, meaningful assessments, and 
the use of both in program improvement, be instituted in vocational and 
adult education at the national, State, and project levels? Is it 
feasible to develop national standards for either program or core 
standards that apply to both programs?

Distribution of Funds

    Both the Adult Education Act and the Perkins Act include funding 
formulas that specify how the Department of Education allocates 
vocational and adult education funds to the States. The adult education 
formula is based on the number of adults, 16 years of age and above, 
who are not required to be in school and have not received a high 
school diploma or its equivalent. The vocational education formula, 
under the 1990 amendments to the Perkins Act, remains essentially the 
same as under the original Vocational Education Act of 1963; the two 
main elements of the formula, a set of population factors and an income 
factor, have remained unaltered for over 30 years. Neither formula 
includes incentives for States to develop successful, innovative 
programs or to increase their financial support for vocational or adult 
education.
    The Department intends to review the current allocation formulas 
for vocational and adult education programs and seeks comment on how 
those allocation formulas might be changed or how the distribution of 
funds might otherwise be improved. For example, what methods of 
distribution, other than formulas, could be designed? If formulas are 
retained, what bases, other than population, years of schooling, and 
income, might be used to allocate Federal funds? What other specific 
changes are desirable? For example, should the adult education formula 
be modified to reflect the fact that many clients, particularly those 
enrolled in English-as-a-Second Language courses, already have earned a 
high school diploma or its equivalent? To consider the impact on State 
allocations of the in-school population count? Should the vocational 
education formula include need-related factors such as the State 
unemployment rate or dropout rate? In general, should funding 
allocations to States, under either program, be more targeted?

Corrections Education

    The Adult Education Act, the National Literacy Act, and the Perkins 
Act contain three separate provisions for providing educational 
services to incarcerated individuals. Section 326 of the Adult 
Education Act requires a State to reserve at least 10 percent of its 
adult education allocation to fund education programs for criminal 
offenders in corrections institutions and other institutionalized 
individuals. Literacy Programs for Prisoners, section 601 of the 
National Literacy Act, authorizes discretionary grants to establish and 
operate programs that reduce recidivism through the improvement of life 
skills and functional literacy. Under section 102(a)(5) of the Perkins 
Act, States are required to set aside at least one percent of their 
allocations for vocational education programs for juvenile and adult 
criminal offenders.
    Are these three separate authorities effective at meeting the 
vocational and adult education needs of incarcerated individuals? Would 
this population be served better if these authorities were combined 
into a comprehensive education program for criminal offenders? If so, 
should there continue to be a set-aside in the Adult Education Act for 
institutionalized individuals? If so, should it also address the needs 
of non-incarcerated criminal offenders, such as parolees and 
probationers?

State Plans and Responsibilities

    Are any aspects of the State organizational and planning 
responsibilities under the Adult Education Act or the Perkins Act 
overly burdensome? If so, which provisions of the Acts should be 
revised or deleted to ease any administrative burden they cause? To 
encourage comprehensive State plans, should any of the State 
organizational or planning responsibilities under the Acts be modified 
to require linkages to other Federal education planning requirements, 
such as those in Goals 2000, the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act?

Professional Development

    Both the Adult Education Act and the Perkins Act include provisions 
for encouraging educators' professional development, but a more 
comprehensive system of Federal support for professional development 
may be required. Section 353 of the Adult Education Act requires that 
at least 15 percent of a State's allocation be reserved for 
demonstration projects and teacher training activities; at least two-
thirds of this reservation must be used to train adult educators. Under 
the Perkins Act, States and local service recipients are authorized to 
use Basic grants and Tech-Prep funds for professional development, and 
the Act also authorizes support for professional development through 
other, currently unfunded authorities. Despite these provisions, adult 
education research has found that few instructors are certified adult 
educators--only 18 percent of full-time staff and 8 percent of part-
time staff. According to the recent National Assessment of Vocational 
Education (NAVE), both secondary and postsecondary vocational teachers 
have less formal education than academic teachers, while virtually all 
academic teachers and faculty members have at a least a bachelor's 
degree, 12 percent of secondary vocational teachers and 15 percent of 
postsecondary occupational faculty do not.
    What steps can the Federal Government take through the 
reauthorization to ensure that vocational and adult educators possess 
the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective and teach to high 
standards? How can resources under the Perkins Act and the Adult 
Education Act be used to (1) Support professional development 
strategies that States will develop under the reauthorized Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act; and (2) ensure that educators learn and 
apply the principles of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, so that 
schools accomplish real integration of academic and vocational skills?

Data Collection

    In the course of collecting data for the National Evaluation of 
Adult Education Programs, the Department's contractor found weaknesses 
in the information management systems of many local programs. Many 
programs that participated in the study did not know how many different 
clients they serve during a year nor the number of students they serve 
on a given day. In vocational education, NAVE researchers found data 
inconsistencies across local tech-prep programs, and national data 
collection efforts in vocational education have long been problem-
plagued. Yet, data collections can be extremely important because they 
can, if properly conducted, yield valuable information on program 
outcomes and can help drive funding and policy decisions at both the 
State and Federal levels.
    What role can the Federal Government play to ensure that data 
collection activities in vocational and adult education programs yield 
meaningful information that can be used to improve programs and, 
ultimately, benefit the learner?

Issues Related to Individual Programs

Vocational Education

1. Basic State Grants
     Program Focus.
    The last two reauthorizations of the vocational education basic 
grant have emphasized program improvement and achieving equitable 
access for special populations. Have these emphases produced the 
desired results of better preparation for, and success in, 
postsecondary education and the labor market for the target 
populations? Should the reauthorization address a revised or expanded 
set of objectives?
     Secondary and Postsecondary Education.
    Should the Perkins Act be restructured to focus on assisting in the 
comprehensive reform and improvement of secondary education, for 
example by providing resources primarily to encourage the integration 
of academic and vocational education at the high school level? 
Alternatively, should the Act focus mainly on the improvement of 
postsecondary education, especially community college programs? As a 
related issue, should the Perkins Act continue to support vocational 
education only below the baccalaureate level? What attention should the 
Act give to the needs of out-of-school adults and youth, including 
dropouts?
     Discretionary Grant Competitions.
    The final NAVE report recommends that Congress consider using some 
portion of Basic State Grant funds for competitive grants to States 
that propose, and show promise of effecting, comprehensive reforms 
consistent with the goals of the Act. Should the Department adopt this 
recommendation? More broadly, should the Act be revised to provide 
incentives for States to undertake comprehensive reform of their 
vocational education programs? How would these incentives account for 
the differences in progress States have already made in undertaking 
reforms?
     Role of the States.
    Most observers agree that the 1990 amendments to the Perkins Act 
deemphasized the role of the States, yet the NAVE Independent Advisory 
Panel has contended that States hold the key to achieving vocational 
education reform at ``a pace and scale sufficient to affect national 
workforce quality.'' Should the next reauthorization establish a 
stronger State role? For what purpose? Should the current State 
governance structure in the Act be modified to reinforce the State 
partnerships developing under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act? How 
would this be achieved?
     Targeting Funds for Special Populations.
    The NAVE reports that individuals with special needs are 
overenrolled, relative to their presence in the population, in 
vocational education. Should the Perkins Act continue to target funds 
to areas with high concentrations of special populations? Should there 
be more emphasis on serving all students?
     Criteria for Services to Special Populations.
    The 1990 Perkins Act amendments greatly increased the amount and 
specificity of procedural requirements related to provision of services 
to special populations. Are these provisions ensuring that members of 
special populations receive equal access to program services? Are the 
services provided of benefit to special populations? Could the level of 
prescription be reduced, in exchange for greater attention to higher 
outcomes for all students, including students with special needs? Are 
the current provisions and protections for special populations 
effective at ensuring that they have an equal opportunity to enter and 
succeed in the full range of high-quality vocational programs? Should 
the law continue to focus on providing the supplementary and other 
services that special populations need to succeed in vocational 
education, or, as the final NAVE report suggested, should it instead 
focus more on improvement of the vocational programs in which those 
students participate? If that strategy were carried forward, would 
other programs such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act be 
able to provide the supplementary services special populations require?
     State Plans.
    The current Perkins Act State planning requirements are some of the 
most prescriptive found in any Federal education legislation. Can the 
goals of these planning requirements be met without these controls on 
State process? Are the existing procedures for development of the plan 
and the items required to be included in the plan having their desired 
effect? If not, what changes should the Department consider?
     State Council on Vocational Education.
    For over two decades, the Federal Government has funded the 
activities of State councils to advise on and assist in the development 
of vocational education programs in the States. While the 1992 JTPA 
amendments allow the States to consolidate their vocational education 
councils into broader State Human Resource Investment Councils, most 
States have continued to operate separate councils for vocational 
education.
    Have the State vocational education councils fulfilled their 
objective of monitoring quality and ensuring business involvement in 
the operation of programs in the States? Should they continue to be 
separately funded, or should their operation be at State discretion? Is 
maintaining the independence of councils chartered under the Perkins 
Act important? Does the existence of separate councils for vocational 
education contribute to a fragmentation of State policymaking within 
the broader areas of human resource development and employment? Should 
consolidation with the State Human Resource Councils be required in 
order to ensure coordination between JTPA and vocational education?
     Program Accountability.
    According to the NAVE, most States have gone beyond the 
accountability requirements established in the 1990 amendments to the 
Perkins Act, developing fuller arrays of performance measures than 
required and applying them to all vocational programs, not just those 
receiving Perkins funds. However, while as of 1991-1992 State agencies 
had given a high priority to developing performance standards and 
measures, local implementation had not yet occurred. Have States and 
localities found the standards and measures useful for improving 
programs? How have States' experiences implementing these requirements 
compared to experiences with the accountability requirements under the 
JTPA? Should the reauthorization encourage States and localities to 
give more attention to development and implementation of performance 
standards and measures? If so, how can program performance best be 
evaluated and measured so as to benefit the grantees, allow for 
replication of successful projects, and provide meaningful information 
to the Department and to Congress? Additionally, should federally 
supported vocational programs, which currently must meet the 
accountability requirements set forth in the Perkins Act, be aligned 
with the standards-based reform activities States and localities will 
undertake under Goals 2000 and the reauthorized Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act?
    Even beyond the standards and measures requirements, the 1990 
Perkins amendments greatly increased the Act's focus on accountability, 
including adding language on ``program improvement'' to ensure that 
local grantees, and then States, take action to improve ineffective 
programs. Is this working? Should it be continued? Should the statute 
incorporate more incentives for success? How are the incentives and 
adjustments for special populations working? Should the statute allow 
States to take ``corrective action'' or cut funding to programs that 
repeatedly fail to reach the standards? More broadly, how can the 
reauthorization better emphasize accountability for results?
     Skill Standards.
    Development of occupational and industry skill standards has become 
an important component of Federal policy. The Goals 2000: Educate 
America Act establishes a National Skill Standards Board to encourage 
the creation of a comprehensive system of voluntary skill standards and 
certification. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act includes, as a 
basic element of the school-based learning component, high academic and 
occupational skill standards to be developed under Goals 2000. 
Previously, the Departments of Education and Labor funded 22 grants to 
promote the development of skill standards and certification in a 
variety of industries. How could the reauthorization support the 
development of voluntary industry skill standards and portable skill 
certification? How would skill standards and certification of work-
related skills affect educators developing curricula and employers 
seeking skilled workers?
     Coherent Sequence of Courses.
    The NAVE found that, in general, secondary vocational programs are 
not as coherent or rigorous as they should be. They usually lack 
prerequisites, which maximizes access but reduces chances of aligning 
vocational courses with each other or with academic courses. In 
addition, the NAVE reported that most districts, including Title II 
grant recipients, do not meet the Perkins requirement for a coherent 
sequence of academic and vocational courses. Should the next 
reauthorization do more to ensure that more students have the 
opportunity to take a coherent sequence of academic and vocational 
courses? If so, how?
     All Aspects of the Industry.
    The Perkins Act encourages local recipients to use basic State 
grant funds to provide vocational education programs that educate 
students in all aspects of an industry. The NAVE found that, as of the 
second year of implementation of the 1990 Perkins amendments, the ``all 
aspects'' language had only a minor impact on vocational programs. 
Should the reauthorization continue this area of statutory emphasis? If 
so, how can it be made more effective?
     Employer Interest and Involvement.
    A 1993 survey conducted for the NAVE asked employers about their 
familiarity and satisfaction with vocational programs. About 60 percent 
of employers responding to the survey (which had a high non-response 
rate) said they were familiar with vocational education programs in 
their local areas. Forty-one percent were familiar with secondary 
vocational programs, and 47 percent with postsecondary programs. How 
should the reauthorization encourage business interest and involvement 
in occupational education? Along these lines, should the 
reauthorization seek to strengthen cooperative education, and, if so, 
how? Should employer involvement, through activities such as provision 
of work-based learning experiences, be given more prominence in the 
Act? If so, how can the Act increase business involvement, including 
increased workplace education in vocational and basic skills? What 
about other federally supported programs, including adult education 
programs?
     Sex Equity and Single Parents Programs.
    The Perkins Act requires States to set aside 10.5 percent of Basic 
State Grant funds for programs to eliminate sex bias in vocational 
education and programs for single parents, single pregnant women, and 
displaced homemakers. Have these provisions worked effectively to 
eliminate sex bias and provide appropriate opportunities for single 
parents and displaced homemakers in vocational education? If not, what 
changes should be made? Do the two set-asides mesh with State 
priorities or are they overly restrictive? Are the two set-asides still 
needed?
    Current law also requires that each State employ a full-time sex 
equity coordinator who administers the sex equity and single parents 
set-aside programs, collects and disseminates data on programs, 
provides technical assistance to local programs, and carries out other 
responsibilities. Is this requirement an effective means of ensuring 
gender-equitable practices in vocational programs? Is it still needed? 
Is it overly prescriptive?
     Native American and Hawaiian Natives Programs.
    Currently, under Basic State Grants, the Department sets aside 
funds for Native Americans and Native Hawaiians. What role should 
Perkins play in providing vocational education for these populations? 
Are the current set-aside programs working effectively, or should they 
be revised? Would the population served through the program be better 
served if the program was administered by the Department of the 
Interior? Should the education needs of Native American youth be 
addressed through current means, or should greater efforts be made to 
provide resources for these students as part of more comprehensive 
systems? If so, how would this work?
2. Tech-Prep Education
    Tech-Prep programs have expanded tremendously since their 
introduction in the mid-1980s. The tech-prep approach is one of the few 
models for local school-to-work opportunity programs and can be built 
on by States as they implement statewide school-to-work opportunity 
systems. However, the NAVE found considerable inconsistency in the 
quality of these programs and in the extent to which they have 
incorporated all the program components described in the literature and 
the legislation. Should the reauthorized Act continue to provide 
categorical support for Tech-Prep education, or should broader support 
for School-to-Work Opportunities programs, including other models, be 
offered? If the Tech-Prep program is continued, how can the Act be 
amended to improve the quality of local projects? Should the Tech-Prep 
Education program include a mandatory work-based learning component?
3. Research and Dissemination
    What should the role of the Department be in conducting vocational 
education research, and how should it be conducted? Through a national 
center or centers, as is currently the case for most of the Federal 
effort? Through field-initiated research? Through discretionary 
research projects determined through annual priorities? What should be 
the role of the Department in disseminating research results, 
descriptions of effective practices, and other information on 
vocational education? How can vocational education research and 
dissemination activities, along with similar activities in other 
programs and Departments, be structured in order to ensure maximum 
benefits and the efficient use of resources?
4. Demonstration Programs
    The Vocational Education Demonstrations Program authority provides 
the Department and educational institutions an opportunity to try new 
approaches to vocational education and to learn about the effectiveness 
of these approaches. The Department has funded a large number of 
demonstration projects in a variety of areas. Has the field found these 
demonstrations useful in obtaining information on effective educational 
approaches? Should a Federal vocational education demonstrations 
program authority be continued? If so, what areas of inquiry might be 
emphasized? How should the demonstration projects conducted under this 
authority mesh with the newly authorized School-to-Work demonstration 
projects and other, related Federal demonstration activities?
5. Vocational Education and Occupational Information Data Systems
    Currently, under the Perkins Act, the Departments of Education and 
Labor provide funding for the National Occupational Information 
Coordinating Committee (NOICC) and its affiliated State Occupational 
Information Coordinating Committees (SOICCs). The NOICC and the SOICCs 
assess current and future labor market conditions by assembling and 
disseminating occupational information. Is the current system useful to 
educators planning programs and to students selecting careers? If not, 
what changes should be made? How can the NOICC and SOICCs be linked to 
key elements of the Reemployment Act, such as One-Stop Career Centers?
6. Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions
    Through this program, the Department provides grants for the 
operation and improvement of tribally controlled postsecondary 
vocational institutions. Is the program fulfilling its purposes? Should 
the program be continued? Would the population served through the 
program be better served if the program was administered by the 
Department of the Interior?
7. Unfunded Authorities
    Currently, the Perkins Act includes separate funding authorities 
for career guidance and counseling programs, business-labor-education 
partnerships, vocational education lighthouse schools, model community 
education employment centers, supplementary State grants for facilities 
and equipment, and other program improvement activities. None of these 
activities is currently funded. Should any of them be continued in the 
reauthorization? If so, why, and with what revisions? More 
specifically, how should the reauthorization address the area of career 
development and counseling?

Adult Education

1. State Programs
     Program Focus.
    According to an analysis of 1990 census data, more than 44 million 
adults, nearly 27 percent of the adult population of the United States, 
have not received a high school diploma or its equivalent. The adult 
education formula targets this population. Of that population, 39 
percent have completed eight or fewer years of education, but 61 
percent have finished between nine and twelve years of schooling. 
Forty-one percent of the target population is 60 years of age or older, 
while 11 percent fall between 16 and 24 years of age. The variation in 
these individuals' educational needs and goals can make it difficult 
and time-consuming for adult educators to design effective 
instructional strategies for them. An additional complication is the 
broad statement of purpose contained in section 311 of the Adult 
Education Act, which focuses, in part, on providing assistance to 
States ``* * * to improve educational opportunities for adults who lack 
the level of literacy skills requisite to effective citizenship and 
productive employment. * * *''
    Should Adult Education remain as a separate program serving a 
diverse population of adult learners with diverse needs? As one 
alternative, should the programs be refocused, for example on work 
preparation and literacy skills upgrading for adults? How can Federal 
Adult Education programs best be structured to achieve the current 
objectives in areas such as workforce preparation, family literacy, and 
English proficiency? Should program services be organized around target 
populations (such as dislocated workers or immigrants)? By program 
objective (such as basic skills or workplace literacy)?
     General Educational Development (GED) Preparation.
    Many of the approximately one million adults who enrolled in Adult 
Secondary Education programs in 1993 had as their goal the attainment 
of a GED certificate. The value of the GED examination as a measure of 
academic competence and achievement has attracted increasing attention 
over the past several years as the percentage of high school 
certificates awarded through equivalency examinations has increased. In 
the United States, 475,602 of the 756,645 adults who took the GED in 
1993 passed the test. Studies focusing on the skill levels, economic 
outcomes, and postsecondary education experience of GED holders have 
yielded inconclusive and sometimes contradictory results. For example, 
most research on the economic value of the GED shows that it is 
significantly less valuable than a high school diploma; on the other 
hand, some evidence indicates that GED recipients have higher incomes 
than high school dropouts.
    Should attainment of a GED diploma continue to be a primary focus 
of Adult Secondary Education? If not, what credential alternatives are 
available for adults seeking to complete their secondary education? 
Should local programs be encouraged to offer courses that allow adults 
to earn a high school diploma?
     Set-Asides.
    By establishing set-asides and targeting the needs of special 
populations, the Adult Education Act requires States to use their 
Federal adult education funds to address the educational needs of a 
diverse population, for example: those in need of basic education 
services, the limited-English-proficient, incarcerated and otherwise 
institutionalized individuals, and public housing residents. While each 
of these groups may have a well-established need for adult education 
services, the mix of their needs may make it difficult for adult 
education providers to target limited resources on, and create 
solutions to, the most pressing problems in adult education.
    Do the set-asides (e.g., 10 percent for criminal offenders in 
corrections education and other institutionalized individuals) required 
by the Adult Education Act further the purposes of the Act? Are they 
overly prescriptive? Should the reauthorized program continue to draw a 
distinction between adult basic education and adult secondary education 
and specify the maximum amount of funds that may be used for high 
school equivalency programs? Should the Gateway Grants program be 
continued?
     Special Experimental Demonstration Projects and Teacher 
Training.
    For many years States have reserved formula grant funds to 
undertake special projects and to train adult educators. Has this set-
aside been an effective means of spurring innovation and ensuring a 
trained adult education workforce, or should other means of achieving 
those objectives be considered? If this set-aside is retained, should 
States be required to establish mechanisms for the dissemination of 
effective practices?
     English-as-a-Second Language.
    The National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs found that 
enrollments in English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) courses are outpacing 
enrollments in Adult Basic Education (ABE) and Adult Secondary 
Education (ASE); during 1992, approximately 46 percent of all clients 
served in the Basic State Grants program were enrolled in ESL courses. 
The study also found that the characteristics of ESL clients vary 
considerably from those served in ABE and ASE. For example, about 50 
percent of new ESL clients had a secondary school diploma or its 
equivalent, while 89 percent of new ABE/ASE students lacked such a 
credential.
    Given the above findings, is the Adult Education program structured 
properly to address the English language instruction needs of limited 
English proficient individuals? If so, should the funding formula be 
changed, or should a new formula be added, to reflect the 
characteristics of this population?
     Achievement.
    Should the Adult Education Act be amended to provide a greater 
focus on learner outcomes? What would be appropriate types and measures 
of learner outcomes? Should the Act prescribe creation of national 
program performance indicators? Should the Department, or States, use 
those outcomes in making resource allocation decisions?
     Client Persistence.
    Although the amount and type of instruction adult learners need to 
meet their education goals varies because of their diverse 
characteristics and abilities, findings from the National Evaluation of 
Adult Education Programs reveal that about 15 percent of clients who 
register for adult education programs do not receive any instruction. 
How can the Federal Government promote the development of adult 
education programs that both attract and retain clients?
    According to the National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs, 
the employment of at least some full-time staff and the provision of 
support services are two ways programs can increase client persistence 
and improve outcomes. However, over 80 percent of adult education 
instructors work part-time, and, although the vast majority of program 
directors reported meeting their clients' needs for counseling or job 
assistance, far fewer were able to meet other important support service 
needs. For example, 42 percent of female clients and 32 percent of male 
clients have children under the age of six, but only 43 percent of 
programs reported meeting their clients' child care needs ``somewhat'' 
or ``fully.'' Does the Adult Education Act provide programs with 
sufficient flexibility or incentive to offer these services?
     Technology.
    As demands on adults' time continue to escalate--with more people 
working longer hours, commuting greater distances, and coping with day 
care and elder care issues--the traditional, tutorial/classroom-based 
approach to adult education may not be the best mechanism, in many 
cases, for attracting and retaining adult education students. 
Incorporating new technologies into adult literacy programs may be one 
way to address the time constraints of the adult education student. The 
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found in a 1993 study that 
technology could help transform the field of adult literacy by, for 
example, allowing students to proceed at their own pace, customize 
their studies, and establish a schedule that is compatible with their 
daily lives. However, OTA also suggested that technology does not play 
a central role in most adult literacy programs.
    Should the Federal Government encourage the use of more technology 
in adult literacy programs? If so, how can technology of proven 
effectiveness in enhancing learning be incorporated in cost-effective 
ways that learners will find beneficial?
     Linking Adult Education to Other Domestic Initiatives.
    In recent years, policymakers have begun to turn to adult education 
services as a means of addressing other societal problems, for example, 
requiring participation in literacy programs for prison parole, 
continuation of welfare benefits, or, through Even Start, making adult 
literacy instruction a component of elementary and secondary education 
improvement. Should the Adult Education Act continue to address very 
general purposes, or should it be tied explicitly to national efforts 
to redevelop poor neighborhoods, end welfare dependency, fight crime, 
or ensure a smooth integration of new immigrants into American society? 
If the Adult Education Act is linked to other domestic initiatives, 
should the Act be revised to reflect the impact that mandatory 
participation requirements of certain programs, such as JOBS, have on 
adult education programs?
2. State Literacy Resource Centers
    The National Literacy Act created the State Literacy Resource 
Centers program to stimulate the coordination of literacy services, 
enhance the capacity of State and local organizations to provide 
literacy services, and serve as a link between the National Institute 
for Literacy and service providers to share information and expertise.
    Are State Literacy Resource Centers effective at meeting the goals 
of the Act? What steps, if any, should be taken at the Federal level to 
improve the effectiveness of the Centers? Should the funds allotted 
under this program continue to be channeled through State Governors?
3. Discretionary Programs
    Current law authorizes several discretionary grant programs. Most 
of these programs are small and fund a limited number of recipients. 
Although the purpose of the programs is generally the demonstration of 
effective strategies for addressing particular issues or problems, 
funds often support local projects that, while beneficial to the 
recipients, are not designed in a way to yield lessons for broader use.
    What role should Adult Education discretionary programs play in 
helping the Nation achieve its education goals? Would these resources 
be more effectively utilized under broader authorities, such as the 
Adult Education State formula grant program? Do the current programs 
encourage a piecemeal, rather than comprehensive, approach to adult 
education reform (with service providers devoting too much attention to 
applying for and administering separate competitive grants), or do they 
focus attention where it is needed? If there is a need for Federal 
demonstration programs, what changes are needed to ensure that they are 
designed as true demonstrations and serve their purposes effectively? 
What types of evaluation and reporting ought to be required?
4. Workplace Literacy Partnerships
    At current funding levels, the National Workplace Literacy program 
makes discretionary grants for demonstrations that provide literacy 
training to meet workplace needs. Since its inception in 1988, this 
demonstration program has generated important information about 
effective workplace literacy practices. The program has produced 
curricula transferable for use by specific types of industries, and a 
national evaluation, currently underway, will generate additional 
information about program effectiveness. However, after eight years and 
261 grants the continuation of the National Workplace Literacy program, 
in its current form, may not appreciably add to our base of knowledge 
in this area.
    Should the Federal Government continue to support workplace 
literacy programs and, if so, in what form? For example, should 
workplace literacy become a key focus of the Adult Education State 
Grants program? Or should a separate, reconfigured workplace literacy 
program be designed?
5. Technical Assistance and Evaluation
    Section 383 of the Adult Education Act provides assistance to 
States in evaluating the status and effectiveness of adult education 
programs and measuring the extent of adult illiteracy in the Nation. 
Funds support applied research, development, dissemination, evaluation, 
and technical assistance activities that show promise of contributing 
to the improvement and expansion of adult education. How should this 
authorization be structured to provide Federal leadership activities of 
maximum benefit to practitioners and policy-makers?
6. National Institute for Literacy
    The National Literacy Act created the National Institute for 
Literacy to provide leadership and coordination on adult literacy 
issues; improve and expand the adult literacy service delivery system; 
and enhance the Nation's ability to achieve the National Goal of adult 
literacy and lifelong learning. The Institute has worked toward 
accomplishing this mission by, for instance--(1) Establishing a 
National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center; (2) 
supporting State capacity-building initiatives in the areas of 
interagency accountability and staff development; and (3) working with 
providers to design and implement a national literacy information and 
communications system.
    Does the current statutory language provide for Institute 
activities that meet the needs of the literacy field? Are the currently 
authorized activities still appropriate? How should they relate to the 
national leadership priorities of the Department (as currently 
authorized under section 383)? How can the Institute work with the 
Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, which 
form the interagency group that oversees the Institute, to ensure more 
effective coordination of literacy-related policy and programs at the 
Federal level?
    Format for Comments. This request for comments is designed to 
elicit the views of interested parties on how the Department's 
vocational and adult education programs can be structured to meet the 
objectives of the reauthorization effort as stated in this notice.
    The Secretary requests that each respondent identify his or her 
role in education and the perspective from which he or she views the 
educational system--either as a representative of an association, 
agency, or school (public or private), or as an individual teacher, 
student, parent, or private citizen.
    The Secretary urges each commenter to be specific regarding his or 
her proposals and to include, if possible, the data requirements, 
timing, procedures, and actual legislative language that the commenter 
proposes for the improved or redesigned program.
    Programs Under Consideration.
    The following is a complete list of programs under the scope of the 
reauthorization:

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act

     Title I
    Assistance to the States, Allotment and Allocation, State 
Organizational and Planning Responsibilities
     Title II
    Basic State Grants, Other State-Administered programs, Secondary, 
Postsecondary, and Adult Vocational Education
     Title III
    Community-Based Organizations, Consumer and Homemaking Education, 
Comprehensive Career Guidance and Counseling Programs, Business-Labor-
Education Partnership Training, Tech-Prep Education, Supplementary 
State Grants, Community Education Employment Centers, Vocational 
Education Lighthouse Schools, Tribally Controlled Postsecondary 
Vocational Institutions.
     Title IV
    Research and Development, Demonstration Programs, Vocational 
Education and Occupational Information Data Systems, Bilingual 
Vocational Training.

Adult Education Act

     Basic State Grants
     State Literacy Resource Centers
     National Adult Education Discretionary Program
     Workplace Literacy Partnerships (National and State-
Administered Programs)
     National Workforce Literacy Strategies
     Education Programs for Commercial Drivers
     National Programs

Adult Migrant Farmworker and Immigrant Education
Adult Literacy Volunteer Training
State Program Analysis Assistance and Policy Studies
National Institute for Literacy

National Literacy Act of 1991

     Title III
    Family Literacy Public Broadcasting Program
     Title VI
    Functional Literacy and Life Skills Programs for State and Local 
Prisoners

    Dated: September 13, 1994.
Augusta Souza Kappner,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 94-23246 Filed 9-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P