To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
ESSA: The ProblemTop‐down, one‐size‐fits‐all policy, with authority placed mainly at U.S. Department of Education (ED)◦ Nationally determined goals (100% proficiency) With State‐determined measures of interim progress (AYP)
◦ Supported Common Core and linked assessment consortia
◦ ESEA waivers required several major policy shifts in exchange for specific policy changes
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
ESSA: The Solution
ESSA moves authority from federal government to State, and from State to district◦ “What I believe is that when we take the handcuffs off, we’ll unleash a whole flood of innovation and ingenuity classroom by classroom, state by state, that will benefit children” (Sen. Alexander, December 2015)
◦ “Don’t assume you can’t do anything,” and if ED rejects State plan, “you can take the department to court, and I hope that you do.” (Sen. Alexander, September 2016)
But preserves accountability with “strong federal guardrails”◦ i.e. some federal requirements to temper flexibility
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
ESSA: Caveats
oShifting authority down from the federal level to the State level is a double‐edged sword as State now responsible for enforcing additional requirementsE.g. 95% assessment requirement must now be part of State accountability procedures
State must encourage 1% cap on alternate assessments
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
ESSA: Caveats
Example: Supplement, not supplant Legislative intent: additional flexibility• Statutory language eliminated use of 3 presumptions of supplanting for Title I, Part A
• LEA can’t be asked about specific costs
Proposed regulations: concerns about preserving equity, not having burden of cost‐by‐cost analysis• “The Department proposes these regulations to provide clarity about how LEAs can demonstrate that the distribution of State and local funds satisfies the funds‐based compliance test introduced in the law”
• Result: four allowable methodologies for compliance, with some flexibilities
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Secondary IndicatorsAcademic achievement ‐ Student attainment of challenging academic content standards and student academic achievement standards, aligned to ESEA.
Student attainment of career and technical skill proficiencies, including student achievement on technical assessments that are aligned with industry–recognized standards, if available and appropriate.
Student rates of attainment of each of the following :
◦ A secondary school diploma
◦ A GED credential, or other state recognized standards for individuals with disabilities
◦ A proficiency credential, certificate or degree, in conjunction with a secondary school diploma (if offered by the state)
◦ Student graduation rates as defined by ESEA
◦ Student placement in post‐secondary education or advanced training, in military service or in employment
Student participation in and completion of CTE programs that lead to nontraditional fields.
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Post‐secondary indicators
oStudent attainment of challenging career and technical skill proficiencies, including student achievement on technical assessments, that are aligned with industry recognized standards if available and appropriate
oStudent attainment of an industry recognized credential, a certificate or a degree
oStudent retention in post‐secondary education or transfer to a baccalaureate degree program
oStudent placement in military service or apprenticeship programs or placement or retention in employment including placement in high‐ skill, high wage or high demand occupations or professions
oStudent participation in, and completion of CTE programs that lead to employment in non‐traditional fields.
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Student Definitions
Secondary Level◦ CTE Participant: A secondary student who has earned one (1) or more credits in any career and technical education (CTE) program area.
◦ CTE Concentrator: A secondary student who has earned three (3) or more credits in a single CTE program area (e.g., health care or business services), or two (2) credits in a single CTE program area, but only in those program areas where 2 credit sequences at the secondary level are recognized by the State and/or its local eligible recipients.
◦ Its important to note that, a State could choose to propose other student definitions and measurement approaches for the core indicators of performance in its State plan. [See Perkins IV State Plan Guide, Part IV—Accountability and Evaluation—Section A—Statutory Requirements, Item 3.]
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Continued…
Postsecondary/Adult level:◦ CTE Participant: A postsecondary/adult student who has earned one (1) or more credits in any CTE program area.
◦ CTE Concentrator: A postsecondary/adult student who: (1) completes at least 12 academic or CTE credits within a single program area sequence that is comprised of 12 or more academic and technical credits and terminates in the award of an industry‐recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree; or (2) completes a short‐term CTE program sequence of less than 12 credit units that terminates in an industry‐recognized credential, a certificate, or a degree.
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Changes Continued… oH.R. 5587 introduces formal definitions for CTE Concentrators and Participants.
oCTE Concentrator At the secondary level, a concentrator is defined as a student who completes three (note: not required to be in the same program area) or more CTE courses or two or more courses in a single program area.
At the post‐secondary level, a concentrator is a student who earns 12 cumulative credits in a single program area or completes a program that encompasses fewer than 12 credits.
oCTE Participant An individual who completes at least one CTE course or earns at least one credit in a CTE program or program of study.
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Concerns from the Field
oThese definitions have not appeared in statute in the past, and it was assumed that the omissions were deliberate.
oStates have used their own definition of the secondary CTE concentrator definition. For example: A student who earned three or more credits/completed 3 courses in a single CTE program area (with minor variations) – 18 states;
A student who earned two or more credits/completed 2 courses in a single CTE program area (with minor variations) – 14 states;
A student who completed 50% or more of a defined secondary program sequence – 12 states; and
Other definitions, ranging from 1 to 4 credits or a mix of requirements – 7 states.
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Concerns continued…
o The proposed definition incorporates two very distinct student populations—those exploring various career opportunities (“explorers” in the research literature) and others who are invested in a single career pathway (“concentrators”)— and thus undermining the law’s ability to measure a common student population.
oMerging two separate student subpopulations into a single definition creates inconsistencies with prior research, limits the ability of the field to conduct longitudinal analyses of CTE student performance, reduces the ability of the field to speak a common language, and undermines the comparability of Perkins data and outcomes. Overall, very confusing to educators on the ground.
oSource: Association for Career and Technical Education and National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity.
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Secondary Core Indicators of Performance oGraduation ‐ % of CTE Concentrators Four‐year cohort graduation rate (aligned to ESEA) AND
At the state’s discretion, the extended‐year adjusted cohort graduation rate
oAcademic achievement ‐ % of CTE Concentrators Attainment of state academic standards and measures by academic assessments (aligned to ESSA)
oStudent Placement two quarters after exiting secondary education in either further postsecondary education or training, military service, or unsubsidized employment
oTechnical skill attainment removed
oNew ‐measure of CTE program quality
oThe percentage of CTE concentrators in CTE programs that lead to nontraditional fields
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
oDespite removal of the federal‐to‐state performance negotiation process, the U.S. Secretary of Education would still have the authority to disapprove a state’s Perkins plan based on a state’s performance target.
oStates would also be required to publicly report and share widely their actual performance on the core indicators of performance. Similar, to ESSA’s report cards, which are required at the state and local level.
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Rep. John Kline (R‐MN)
“We can’t expect a modern workforce to succeed with an outdated job training system. The current workforce development system is broken with too much bureaucracy, too many inefficiencies, and too little accountability.”
Chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
CLASP: New Directions for Workforce Education and Training Policy Require a New Approach to Performance Accountability
“The performance measures and the process for setting performance expectations in Title I [of WIA] have created disincentives for the workforce investment system to serve less educated and disadvantaged individuals because these individuals are less likely than higher educated or higher skilled individuals to achieve strong labor market outcomes.”
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
January 2011 GAO Report
oAlmost all Federal employment and training programs overlap with at least one other program in that they provide similar services to similar populations… HOWEVER overlap raises questions about the efficient and effective use of resources.
oSimplifying and consolidating programs’ administrative structures could:
Increase efficiencies and reduce costs.
Allow job seekers to apply for assistance they had not considered in the past.
Allows employment counselors to cluster services that made sense for the client.
Provide seamless service delivery to clients.
MULTIPLE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS‐
Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Structures Could Promote Efficiencies
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
DOL Response to Jan. 2011 GAO Report:
oThe GAO “report is a timely reminder that more work can be done to encourage better alignment of Federal investments in job training [and] develop improved models that deliver quality services across programs at lower costs.”
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Attempt at Streamlining: SKILLS Act
oSupporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills (SKILLS) Act (H.R. 503)
oLittle bipartisan support‐ legislation passed in House by vote of 215‐202 in March 2013.
oSought to eliminate programs, including many group‐specific ones, and consolidate those programs into a more centralized Workforce Investment Fund.
oCommon core indicators of performance for all workforce development services “to help eliminate waste and ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively.”
oNot supported by White House: "The bill would eliminate, or allow the consolidation of, many targeted programs, without providing the critical assistance needed by vulnerable populations such as veterans, low‐income adults, youth, adults with literacy and English language needs, people with disabilities, ex‐offenders, and others with significant barriers to employment.”
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Attempt at Streamlining: Reauthorization of WIA
oWorkforce Investment Act of 2013 (S. 1356)
oReauthorization bill cleared by Senate HELP Committee by vote of 18‐3 in July, 2013.
oThe reauthorization “responds to a 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on WIA programs by consolidating administrative burdens through use of a unified plan in each state, common performance measures, and a move to regional service delivery.”‐ HELP Committee (July 2013).
oOne set of common performance metrics to be applied to each workforce program supported by WIA.
“[WIOA] truly represents the spirit of bipartisan compromise and cooperation.” – Sen. Tom Harkin (D‐IA), Chairman of Senate HELP Committee
“This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will bring federal worker programs into the 21st Century . . . . It’s a prime example of what’s possible when Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate work together to write laws that help our economy grow.”
– Sen. Patty Murray (D‐WA), Senate HELP Committee
“This is a good example of what Congress can achieve when we all come to the table and work towards a compromise that respects the opinions of legislators on both sides of the aisle….[WIOA will] improve our ability to gauge how well the system is working as a whole.” – Rep. Virginia Foxx (R‐NC), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training
Senate HELP Committee WIOA Press Release
May 21, 2014
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Senator Jack Reed (D‐RI)
“…an estimated 52 percent of adults age 16 to 65 in the United States lack the literacy skills necessary to identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information. . . The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act will help address this critical need for adult education and literacy by ensuring that adult education programs are aligned with job training and postsecondary education, supporting the professional development of adult educators, offering technical assistance for adult education providers, and strengthening the research and evaluation of best practices in adult education.”
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Rep. George Miller (D‐CA)
“[WIOA] . . . makes job training programs more efficient and effective by requiring that states developed unified plans to streamline and better coordinate these services. By strengthening the workforce development system, we will increase accountability, promote innovation, and make it easier to track results, while helping put more Americans back to work.”
“I’m proud to have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop this proposal and hope to see it signed into law this year.”
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
ED SecretaryJohn B. King Jr.
"These new rules are an important step forward to improve and streamline the current workforce system and a real opportunity to meet the growing needs of workers and job seekers… these rules strengthen education and workforce partnerships to reinforce the importance of postsecondary education and training in promoting better jobs for students, as well as removing barriers to employment.”
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Purpose
“The purpose of this section is to establish performance accountability measures that apply across the core programs to assess the effectiveness of States and local areas . . . in achieving positive outcomes for individuals served by those programs.”
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Accountability Changes: WIA to WIOA
WIA WIOA
Separate performance indicators under Title I (youth, adult & dislocated workers) and Title II (AEFLA)
Performance indicators cover all core programs
3 core indicators of performance + additional indicators created by eligible adult ed agency (if any) + eligible agency adjusted level of performance for each indicator
6 primary indicators of performance + additional indicators identified by the State (if any)+ State adjusted level of performance for each indicator
Incentives for States exceeding targets Sanctions for States failing to meet targets
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Impact of WIOA Primary Indicators
oEncourages State and local partners to engage in shared continuous efforts to improve participant results.
oEnhanced response to labor market needs.
oRenewed emphasis on education and training.
oSignals importance of postsecondary credentials for accessing employment.
oSupports notion that acquisition of basic English literacy skills and numeracy skill are critical steps to obtaining employment and success in training and postsecondary education.
oStrengthen alignment between workforce system, education and economic development.
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Sanctions •Therefore, failing to meet adult education performance indicators can impact the amount of workforce training funds Governor can reserve.
oNoncompliance with Title II/Adult Ed can negatively impact Title I programs
•“WIOA…clearly requires that any performance sanction must apply to the Governor’s Reserve allotment under Title I for any core program or indicator failure. Therefore, the Departments do not have the authority to sanction the specific program not meeting its adjusted levels of performance.”
oComments to Final Rule, 20 CFR 677.195, 81 Fed. Reg. 55864
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Sanctions“Statutorily, the Governor’s Reserve is set at 15% of the WIOA adult, dislocated worker, and youth formula allocations to the States. For several years, the Governor’s Reserve levels were restricted below 15% through the congressional appropriation, but were restored in the FY 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act. . . The Departments note that if the Governor’s Reserve amount is not fully funded, the amount of funds subject to sanctions will be proportionately less because the sanction is either 5 or 10 percent of the Reserve amount no matter how much the Reserve amount is.”
‐ Comments to Final Rule, 20 CFR 677.195, 81 Fed. Reg. 55864
To A c c o u n t a b i l i t y … a nd B e y o n d ! !B r u s t e i n & Ma n a s e v i t F a l l F o r um 2 0 1 6
N o v emb e r 3 0 – D e c emb e r 2 , 2 0 1 6
Legal Disclaimer
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service. This presentation does not create a client‐lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow‐up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney‐client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.
