NCSDAE Comments

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR): REQUIRED ELEMENTS
FOR SUBMISSION OF THE UNIFIED OR COMBINED STATE PLAN AND
PLAN MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND
OPPORTUNITY ACT (OMB CONTROL NUMBER 1205-0522)
Federal Register Notice for State Plan: Sections 102 & 103 of WIOA
29 United States Code (USC) Chapter 32: Sections 3112 Unified State Plan and 3113
Combined State Plan
The National Council of State Directors of Adult Education (NCSDAE) appreciates the
opportunity to respond to the Information Collection Request (ICR) on the Required Elements
for Submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications Under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (OMB Control Number 1205-0522), with
particular reference to 29 USC Chapter 32, Sections 3112 (Unified State Plan) and 3113
(Combined State Plan).
The State Directors of Adult Education supported the enactment of WIOA and worked closely
with Congress and the Administration to ensure that the legislation strengthened the American
workforce by making systemic improvements in the workforce system, promoted college and
career readiness, and improved the ability of all adults to earn a family sustaining wage and
contribute to their communities.
Our members represent large and small states. Some states include large urban areas and
others that are significantly rural, and some are incredibly diverse while others are more
homogeneous. We appreciate that WIOA strives to create a workforce “system” but we
believe that the “system” needs to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the varied
situations in the states.
We are pleased that Adult Education retains its own Title in WIOA. This sends an important
signal to our core partners as well as administrators, practitioners of adult education, students
in adult education programs, and employers that Adult Education is a critical component of
our job creation efforts.
We appreciate that by including Adult Education as a core program in the unified state plan,
and requiring that those who administer Adult Education programs be represented on State
and Local Workforce Boards, this legislation recognizes the crucial role Adult Education
plays in preparing those aged 16 and above for college and career readiness and employment
in the economy of the 21st century.

Page 1 of 3

We support the unified and combined planning processes but are concerned that there may be
some states in which the process that leads to the development of the plan is not as
collaborative as the law plainly suggests. We urge both the Department of Education and the
Department of Labor to remind all the core programs that they must truly collaborate if
WIOA is to succeed.
While funding for WIOA is not a regulatory issue, we would be remiss if we did reiterate our
concerns that WIOA imposes new requirements and responsibilities on the new workforce
system, in general, and on Adult Education programs, in particular.
Funding for Adult Education programs has declined by 25 percent in real terms since 2002.
We are serving only 60 percent of the number of students served in 2001 and only five
percent of the eligible students nationwide. We recognize that WIOA provides higher
authorization levels each year from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2020, but even if fully
funded, we would still be below the level at which Adult Education was funded a decade ago.
Regarding the state planning process, as you will see in our comments below, there remain
many instances in which we believe greater clarification is needed. We urge the Departments
to provide such clarification as expeditiously as possible so that the planning processes in the
states can continue efficiently.
We look forward to working with the Departments of Education and Labor to successfully
implement WIOA in the months ahead.
Comments:
1. Section 3111 (b)(1)(C)(iii)(aa) states that The State Board “shall include the lead state
officials with primary responsibility for the core programs” and (b)(3) states that “no
person shall serve as a member for more than 1 of the category described in paragraph
(1)(C)(i). Our members request clarification as to whether a single board member can
represent both the Community and Technical College system and Title II or must each
have its own representative on the Board.
2. Section 3112 (b)(2)(E)(ix) (Assurances) states “that the State will pay an appropriate
share) as defined by the State board) of the costs of carrying out section 31412 of this title,
from funds made available through each of the core programs. Our members request
clarification as to whether there are cost limitations for such contributions, whether such
contributions are to be factored into infrastructure costs of one-stops.
3. Section 3122 (b)(2)(C)(i-iii) states that “each local board shall include representatives of
entities administering education and training activities in the local area …” Our members
request clarification as to whether a local board member can represent more than one area
(for example, could the same person represent adult education and literacy activities and
an institution of higher education).
4. Section 3122(b)(6) the Special Rule states “If there are multiple eligible providers serving
the local area by administering adult education and literacy activities under subchapter II,
Page 2 of 3

ore multiple institutions of higher education serving the local area by providing workforce
investment activities, each representative on the local board described in clause (i) or (ii)
of paragraph (2)(C), respectively, shall be appointed from among the individuals
nominated by the local providers representing such providers or institutions, respectively.
We understand this to allow local providers to nominate representatives to the local board
and that the local board must appoint an individual from those nominations. Is this a
correct interpretation?
5. Section 3164(a)(1)(B) defines Out of School Youth. Our members believe the definition
should be clarified, with particular attention to the question of whether a state could define
students pursuing a GED in a high school re-engagement program connected to K-12 as
Out of School Youth. Our assumption is that the answer to that question is no, because
that would enable states to divert OSY funds away from basic education OSY to fund
students still attached to the K-12 system, which has access to much more funding and
resources.
Another question: Is it allowable for K-12 re-engagement students to first be enrolled in
WIOA and then be enrolled in K-12 re-engagement programs during the same year, so
funds from both could be used? We do not believe that this was the intention behind
increasing funds to address the needs of OSY.
Finally, this practice requires that K-12 re-engagement students would only be eligible for
OSY if pursuing a GED. However, there are multiple options for students to acquire a
high school equivalency in addition to the GED, including seeking a high school diploma.
6. Section 3272(12) defines Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education, but there
remains a lack of clarity on the use of these funds. It is not clear whether these funds must
be used only for educational services that are delivered in combination with integrated
education and training services that lead to a certificate, degree, or job. Would this mean
that these students would be required to participate in workforce training leading to
certification/degree or job while participating in education? Could this funding be used for
individuals in non-certificate/degree, such as an “on-ramp” program to workforce
training?

Jeff Carter
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 422
Washington DC 20001
[email protected]
(202) 624-5250

Page 3 of 3