Comments on: FAQs http://blog.ncladvocacy.org Advocating for public policies that support adult literacy Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:47:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David Harvey http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/faqs/comment-page-1/#comment-184 David Harvey Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:20:10 +0000 http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/?page_id=459#comment-184 Marsha and Art both raise good points — WIA is not going away, Title II will continue to be refunded (though at what levels?), and states will continue to contribute funding to the program. So the quick answer to Jeff’s question, “what dire consequences would programs see if Congress didn’t take up Title II?” is probably none, right away. But the adult literacy field needs to look at the bigger picture when the issue of WIA reauthorization comes up, and that is, the attention that the reauthorization process puts on the issue that’s being reauthorized. For example: the reauthorization process includes informational hearings for members of Congress, which mobilizes constituency groups to provide policymakers with information about what is happening in the field right now. This was the case this past May, when ProLiteracy and other Coalition members either testified and/or submitted written testimony for several Congressional hearings that were being held in preparation for WIA reauthorization. We also called on our membership to contact their Congressional representatives, provide them with local adult literacy information, and ask them to support WIA reauthorization. Reauthorizing a program every five years also allows Congress to update policies so they remain relevant as demographics and economic conditions change, or as the scope and nature of a particular issue changes. In the case of adult literacy, funding has not kept pace with the scope of the problem; the current economic crisis and the increased demand for instruction in English as a second language by immigrants who are not literate in their native languages have placed a lot of stress on the system—there now is a need for new or different educational services. ProLiteracy also would like to see a reauthorized WIA better address the needs of learners at the lowest literacy levels and increase access to funding for the programs, many of them community-based organizations, that serve those learners. The reauthorization process opens the door for us to initiate those discussions. In general, the reauthorization process raises the visibility of the program on Capitol Hill, which can be beneficial during the annual appropriations process when we are seeking funding increases. Reauthorization will provide the literacy field with an opportunity to address this, and other, needs with Congressional staff and policymakers. Marsha and Art both raise good points — WIA is not going away, Title II will continue to be refunded (though at what levels?), and states will continue to contribute funding to the program. So the quick answer to Jeff’s question, “what dire consequences would programs see if Congress didn’t take up Title II?” is probably none, right away.

But the adult literacy field needs to look at the bigger picture when the issue of WIA reauthorization comes up, and that is, the attention that the reauthorization process puts on the issue that’s being reauthorized. For example: the reauthorization process includes informational hearings for members of Congress, which mobilizes constituency groups to provide policymakers with information about what is happening in the field right now. This was the case this past May, when ProLiteracy and other Coalition members either testified and/or submitted written testimony for several Congressional hearings that were being held in preparation for WIA reauthorization. We also called on our membership to contact their Congressional representatives, provide them with local adult literacy information, and ask them to support WIA reauthorization.

Reauthorizing a program every five years also allows Congress to update policies so they remain relevant as demographics and economic conditions change, or as the scope and nature of a particular issue changes. In the case of adult literacy, funding has not kept pace with the scope of the problem; the current economic crisis and the increased demand for instruction in English as a second language by immigrants who are not literate in their native languages have placed a lot of stress on the system—there now is a need for new or different educational services. ProLiteracy also would like to see a reauthorized WIA better address the needs of learners at the lowest literacy levels and increase access to funding for the programs, many of them community-based organizations, that serve those learners. The reauthorization process opens the door for us to initiate those discussions.

In general, the reauthorization process raises the visibility of the program on Capitol Hill, which can be beneficial during the annual appropriations process when we are seeking funding increases. Reauthorization will provide the literacy field with an opportunity to address this, and other, needs with Congressional staff and policymakers.

]]> By: mltait http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/faqs/comment-page-1/#comment-107 mltait Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:37:31 +0000 http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/?page_id=459#comment-107 Why should local adult education programs expend energy on something so abstract as WIA Reauthorization when there are so many more urgent matters to attend to? I suppose that one school of thought regarding WIA is that it is "too big to fail"; that the program is so deeply rooted at the federal, state, and in communities across the country that it is simply not possible for it to go away. On the other hand, the fact that it expired six years ago does seem to signal that it is not a priority on the part of policy makers. We all tend to find the time to address the things that matter most to us. As Art pointed out in his post, states are allowed to, and have, extended their state plans year to year. Under the law, states have a great deal of discretion over many aspects of the program -- including how they manage and distribute the funding. The Coalition supports state discretion and actively advocates for it. While extending state plans maintains the status quo, it does not address updating the plans regularly to ensure that they are responsive to current trends and needs -- the whole point of state discretion. In many states, local funding has also been extended year over year. This also serves to maintain the status quo, continuing funding for programs that demonstrated effectiveness in competitive grant processes five years ago . But how does maintaining the status quo encourage innovation and program effectiveness at the local level? Does the fact that the law expired in 2003 make yearly appropriations vulnerable? Clearly some experts think not. Congress can, and has, continued to appropriate funds each year. On the other hand, we have not had a meaningful increase in appropriations in more than 10 years -- again, maintaining the status quo. The adult education system in the US, taking public and charitable funding into account, serves less than 3 million adult students each year. But according to the Dept. of Education's own NAAL report, at least 30 million adults need additional instruction. As a matter of public policy, how can we be satisfied with this? The Coalition's current push for reauthorization is intended to focus some attention and energy on adult education, to make it relevant in the context of today's pressing public policy concerns. Dare we hope for increased funding, too? Surely this strategy is worth a try. Why should local adult education programs expend energy on something so abstract as WIA Reauthorization when there are so many more urgent matters to attend to? I suppose that one school of thought regarding WIA is that it is “too big to fail”; that the program is so deeply rooted at the federal, state, and in communities across the country that it is simply not possible for it to go away. On the other hand, the fact that it expired six years ago does seem to signal that it is not a priority on the part of policy makers. We all tend to find the time to address the things that matter most to us.

As Art pointed out in his post, states are allowed to, and have, extended their state plans year to year. Under the law, states have a great deal of discretion over many aspects of the program — including how they manage and distribute the funding. The Coalition supports state discretion and actively advocates for it. While extending state plans maintains the status quo, it does not address updating the plans regularly to ensure that they are responsive to current trends and needs — the whole point of state discretion.

In many states, local funding has also been extended year over year. This also serves to maintain the status quo, continuing funding for programs that demonstrated effectiveness in competitive grant processes five years ago . But how does maintaining the status quo encourage innovation and program effectiveness at the local level?

Does the fact that the law expired in 2003 make yearly appropriations vulnerable? Clearly some experts think not. Congress can, and has, continued to appropriate funds each year. On the other hand, we have not had a meaningful increase in appropriations in more than 10 years — again, maintaining the status quo. The adult education system in the US, taking public and charitable funding into account, serves less than 3 million adult students each year. But according to the Dept. of Education’s own NAAL report, at least 30 million adults need additional instruction. As a matter of public policy, how can we be satisfied with this?

The Coalition’s current push for reauthorization is intended to focus some attention and energy on adult education, to make it relevant in the context of today’s pressing public policy concerns. Dare we hope for increased funding, too? Surely this strategy is worth a try.

]]> By: Art Ellison http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/faqs/comment-page-1/#comment-105 Art Ellison Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:17:23 +0000 http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/?page_id=459#comment-105 Jeff raises some very important questions about the reauthorization of WIA. Hopefully some of my comments below will be helpful to this discussion. WIA is not going away even if it is not reauthorized in the next year. Under the current Act, states are allowed one year extensions to their their current State Plans, a process that has taken place annually for the past five years. It is anticipated that this process will continue until a new Act is in place. The Administration and Congress will continue to appropriate money for the Act without new legislation. Some policy making experts believe that programs operating under the orginal authorizaton period will have an advantage in the appropropiaton's process but that there is plenty of evidence that approrpriators will continue to fund, and in some cases, incrase funding to programs that have been "extended". WIA reauthorization is needed to allow states and the District of Columbia to do long range planning for the provision of adult education services. In the current political climate it could have a positive impact on the funding levels for our work. The reauthorization process that is currently going on in Congress continues to make more and more members of the House and Senate award of the need for adult education services in their districts and states and the need for additional funding for those services Art Ellison, NH State Adult Education Director Policy Committee Chair, National Council of State Directors of Adult Education Jeff raises some very important questions about the reauthorization of WIA. Hopefully some of my comments below will be helpful to this discussion.

WIA is not going away even if it is not reauthorized in the next year. Under the current Act, states are allowed one year extensions to their their current State Plans, a process that has taken place annually for the past five years. It is anticipated that this process will continue until a new Act is in place.

The Administration and Congress will continue to appropriate money for the Act without new legislation. Some policy making experts believe that programs operating under the orginal authorizaton period will have an advantage in the appropropiaton’s process but that there is plenty of evidence that approrpriators will continue to fund, and in some cases, incrase funding to programs that have been “extended”.

WIA reauthorization is needed to allow states and the District of Columbia to do long range planning for the provision of adult education services. In the current political climate it could have a positive impact on the funding levels for our work. The reauthorization process that is currently going on in Congress continues to make more and more members of the House and Senate award of the need for adult education services in their districts and states and the need for additional funding for those services

Art Ellison, NH State Adult Education Director
Policy Committee Chair, National Council of State Directors of Adult Education

]]> By: Jeff Carter http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/faqs/comment-page-1/#comment-101 Jeff Carter Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:01:14 +0000 http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/?page_id=459#comment-101 What are the most likely <em>direct</em> consequences for programs if Congress does not take up Title II, and/or if Title II is simply allowed to die? And when would we feel the effects of these consequences? For example, if federal funding would be at immediate risk of reduction or elimination without WIA reauthorization, I believe that would get programs and advocates here in the District much more motivated to act (to the extent that they can have an influence, since we are denied actual representation in Congress). But while the National Coalition alerts do a good job making the case that getting this legislation revised and reauthorized is in the best interests of the field, I'm not clear on exactly what would happen if it <em>doesn’t</em> happen. My experience is that advocates are much more motivated, and much more confident when speaking with their representatives, when they can see and articulate clearly the direct impact on their programs. Jeff Carter Executive Director D.C. LEARNs 1612 K Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 www.dclearns.org What are the most likely direct consequences for programs if Congress does not take up Title II, and/or if Title II is simply allowed to die? And when would we feel the effects of these consequences? For example, if federal funding would be at immediate risk of reduction or elimination without WIA reauthorization, I believe that would get programs and advocates here in the District much more motivated to act (to the extent that they can have an influence, since we are denied actual representation in Congress). But while the National Coalition alerts do a good job making the case that getting this legislation revised and reauthorized is in the best interests of the field, I’m not clear on exactly what would happen if it doesn’t happen. My experience is that advocates are much more motivated, and much more confident when speaking with their representatives, when they can see and articulate clearly the direct impact on their programs.

Jeff Carter
Executive Director
D.C. LEARNs
1612 K Street, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
http://www.dclearns.org

]]> By: Jackie Taylor http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/faqs/comment-page-1/#comment-95 Jackie Taylor Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:31:01 +0000 http://blog.ncladvocacy.org/?page_id=459#comment-95 Do you have questions about the campaign to Reauthorize WIA Title II now? Please post them here. Thanks! Jackie Taylor Do you have questions about the campaign to Reauthorize WIA Title II now? Please post them here.

Thanks!

Jackie Taylor

]]>