U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–732 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–152

LIFELONG EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES

HEARING

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, 

LABOR, AND PENSIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

EXAMINING LIFELONG EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES, FOCUSING ON S. 

694, TO AMEND THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998 TO PROVIDE FOR A JOB TRAINING GRANT PILOT PROGRAM

APRIL 14, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming, Chairman

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

WILLIAM H. FRIST, Tennessee 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

KATHERINE BRUNETT MCGUIRE, Staff Director 

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005

Page

Enzi, Hon. Michael B., Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions, opening statement ....................................................................... 1

Chao, Hon. Elaine L., Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor ................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Spellings, Hon. Margaret, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of

Education .............................................................................................................. 9

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................ 19

Sebelius, Hon. Kathleen, Governor, State of Kansas; Chair, NGA Education, 

Early Childhood and Workforce Committee, on behalf of the National

Governors Association .......................................................................................... 26

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28

Fletcher, Hon. Ernie, Governor, State of Kentucky, on behalf of the National 

Governors Association .......................................................................................... 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Gunderson, Steve, Director, Washington Office, the Greystone Group .............. 48

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Fitzgerald, Brian K., Executive Director, The Business-Higher Education 

Forum .................................................................................................................... 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Boisvert, Ms. Pamela, Vice President, Worcester Consortium ............................ 59

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: 

Response to questions of Senator DeWine by Margaret Spellings ............... 75

(1)

LIFELONG EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2005

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Mike Enzi, 

(Chairman of the Committee), presiding. 

Present: Senators Enzi, Alexander, Burr, and Isakson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ENZI

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing 

on ‘‘Lifelong Education Opportunities.’’

I am honored to have the Secretary of Education, Margaret 

Spellings, and the Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, here today to 

talk on an issue that is critical to our Nation’s future. I am also 

pleased to have a second panel of five individuals who will extend 

our understanding of the impact of these issues in the States and 

in business and education. 

I am also pleased that in the audience we have 15 legislators 

from Wyoming. I would guess that this is one of the few times that 

Wyoming will have a larger percentage of people than any State in 

the Nation. 

[Laughter.] 

We are very pleased to have them here. They are extremely interested in education and have an outstanding system. 

I would also like to thank the Governors and witnesses on the 

second panel for rearranging their schedules to be here. I had previously decided not to have a second panel so that we could fully 

utilize the time of the Secretaries. We decided to go longer at the 

insistence of Senator Roberts who wanted to be sure that his Governor could present some information on behalf of the National 

Governors Association that is absolutely critical to our work. 

Lifelong education opportunities are vital to ensuring that America retains its competitive edge in the global economy, and that 

every American can participate in our Nation’s success. In our 

technology-driven economy, school can never be out. It is estimated 

that 60 percent of tomorrow’s jobs will require skills that only 20 

percent of today’s workers possess. It is also estimated that the average person leaving college will change careers 14 times, and 10 

of those have not even been invented yet. Without a lifetime of education, training and retraining opportunities for everyone, we will 

not be able to meet 21st century challenges. As new technology 

2

emerges and workers change careers, they will need to learn new 

skills or apply their old skills in new ways. 

Earlier this year, I introduced S. 9, the Lifelong Education Opportunities Act of 2005. It has four stated purposes: to set high expectations and raise achievement levels for all students regardless 

of their backgrounds; to improve accountability for results; to provide flexibility to the States to manage Federal program dollars effectively; and to support a lifetime of learning opportunities for students and adults at all stages of life. 

If our students and workers are to have the best chance to succeed in life, we need to focus on all our Federal education and 

training programs from pre-kindergarten through postsecondary 

education to on-the-job and continuing education, everything from 

birth to retirement. We must ensure that everyone has an opportunity to achieve academically and obtain skills that they need to 

succeed regardless of their background. 

On March 21st, I visited a classroom in Hudson, Wyoming. The 

town has 207 residents, and boasts of two world-famous restaurants. But its children are taught in a single classroom in an 

elementary school. There are 2 teachers and 17 children. There are 

5 kindergartners, 5 first graders, 5 second graders and 2 third 

graders in one classroom. They have almost as many classroom 

pets as they have kids. But it is a learning environment that is 

critical to Wyoming. 

Most recently the Governors held an education summit that provided an action agenda for improving America’s high schools. For 

years institutions of higher education and employers have expressed their dissatisfaction about the need our high school graduates have for remediation in order to do college work or to participate in the workforce. Each year, taxpayers pay an estimated $1 

to $2 billion to provide remedial education to students at our public 

universities and community colleges. Businesses report spending 

even more to address the lack of literacy and basic skills of their 

entry-level workers. 

Let me share a few facts that speak to the seriousness of this 

issue. 

American 15-year-olds performed below international average in 

mathematics, literacy and problem-solving, according to the 2003 

Program for International Student Assessment. 

Reading proficiency among 12th graders has declined to the point 

where just over one-third of them are even considered proficient 

readers. 

Only 68 of every 100 ninth grade students graduate on time; in 

other words, within 4 years. America’s high school graduation rate 

is among the lowest in the industrialized world, and the impact on 

our minority students has been especially severe. 

Nearly one-third of entering college freshmen need at least one 

remedial course. 

The United States has one of the highest college enrollment 

rates, but a college completion rate average to below average 

among developed countries in the world. 

In this decade 40 percent of job growth will be in jobs requiring 

postsecondary education, those jobs requiring associate degrees 

growing the fastest. 

3

Four out of every 5 jobs will require postsecondary education or 

the equivalent, yet only 52 percent of Americans over the age of 25 

have achieved that level of education. 

Seventy-five percent of today’s workforce will need to be retrained just to keep their current jobs. 

Median earnings of a high school graduate are 43 percent higher 

than those of a non-graduate, and those of a college graduate are 

62 percent higher than those of a high school graduate. 

Two-thirds of the 7 million worker gap in 2010 will be a skilled 

worker shortage. 

What does this mean? What do we know? To begin with, we 

know that we must improve high school completion rates. Education beyond high school and lifelong learning opportunities are 

essential for everyone to assure individual success, as well as our 

Nation’s future prosperity. We need to provide better preparation 

at every level of education and strengthen the connections between 

secondary and postsecondary education. In this global economy 

learning is never over and school is never out. Technology is demanding that everyone continue to learn and gain skills to remain 

competitive in the workplace. The labor force participation rate for 

individuals over the age of 16 who are willing and able to work was 

68.8 percent in January 2005, the lowest in over 15 years, as more 

Americans conclude that they cannot meet the skill demands of today’s workplace and they choose to no longer participate in the 

workforce. 

For these reasons and many others, I am looking forward to the 

testimony of our witnesses today. We are facing a significant challenge, one that I prefer to think of as an opportunity. 

With most of our Federal policies that deal with training and the 

workforce needing reauthorization, we have an opportunity to provide the clear message that we can no longer accept the status quo 

or business as usual. We need to take a fresh look now at how we 

can restructure our education and training programs to better meet 

the needs of our economy, and at the same time ensure every person has the opportunity they need to obtain the academic and technical skills they need to succeed today, tomorrow and for years to 

come. 

Again, I welcome everyone. When Senator Kennedy gets here, we 

will give him an opportunity for a statement. 

I will introduce the first panel of witnesses, and we appreciate 

your being here, two representatives from the Administration to 

talk about lifelong education opportunities. None better than these 

two distinguished witnesses we have today, the Secretary of Labor, 

Elaine Chao, and the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings. 

Secretary Chao has been the Secretary of Labor since 2001. Previously she was the Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, and was Chair of the Federal Maritime Commission. She has worked in the private sector, a fellow with the Heritage Foundation, and as a White House Fellow. She has been a 

strong advocate for fulfilling our Nation’s technical and skilled 

training needs. 

Secretary Spellings was confirmed by the Senate on January 

20th this year, which was my first order of business as Chairman 

of this committee. She previously served as the Assistant to the 

4

President of Domestic Policy, where she helped craft the No Child 

Left Behind Act. She worked for 6 years as Governor Bush’s Senior 

Adviser, developing and implementing the Governor’s education 

policies. Like Secretary Chao, she has been a strong advocate for 

her areas of responsibility as evidenced by her involvement on the 

No Child Left Behind and other education issues. 

We welcome you both. 

Secretary Chao. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF 

LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today with my distinguished colleague, Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings. 

Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely right, America has always 

been a Nation of innovators, entrepreneurs and opportunity, and 

the engine of our growth in our country remains strong. The 

United States has one of the highest growth rates of any industrialized Nation, growing at an annualized rate of about 4 percent in 

2004 and creating about 3.1 million new jobs since June of 2003. 

But progress also means challenges, and therefore, we have just 

got to ensure that gains in our economy are indeed shared by all, 

and that is why it is really critical that workers have the opportunity to gain the skills that they need to succeed in the 21st century workforce. 

This Administration is addressing the core issues of skills, competency through the most significant education reform in 50 years, 

and I will leave that to my colleagues to address. 

Today, as you mentioned, a high school education is only the beginning. The average American worker will hold an average of 9 

jobs before the age of 32. That means that learning has got to be 

a lifelong pursuit, and reforming our Nation’s job training system 

is absolutely critical to providing workers with opportunities to continuously upgrade their skill levels. 

In many respects our current kind of stovepipe approach, our silo 

approach to workforce investment still reflects an economy of over 

50 years ago. Today we have just got to do more than just simply 

fill job orders or slots in predetermined training classes. We have 

to improve the outcomes for workers by updating the design of the 

current system. We know that a workforce investment system with 

over a dozen different funding streams, each with its own separate 

rules and reports and definition is not very effective in meeting the 

individual needs of workers today. 

I am also sorry to say that the current system is structured so 

that it is too focused on bureaucracy and processes. It should really 

be much more worker-oriented, client-oriented, and be much more 

focused on better outcomes for the people that it serves. 

This Administration believes that the solution is a flexible integrated system, and the keys to success are: (1) strong State leadership; (2) effective execution at the local level; and (3) the ability to 

customize solutions to meet the needs of local communities, workers and also employers. 

5

That is why the President has put his job training reform proposal on the table. The principles underlying these reforms reflect 

a new vision and a new approach to the workforce investment system that is going to bring the system into the 21st century and better serve our workers and our country. 

So the first principle is to give State and local communities maximum flexibility to custom design a workforce system that best 

meets their needs. 

And second, in exchange for this greater flexibility, the Administration will require greater accountability, and that means that we 

are going to ask States to set increasingly rigorous annual performance milestones, and the long-term goal to be achieved over a period of 10 years will be to place every person who receives federally-funded training in a job. 

Third, the multiple layers of bureaucracy that we are seeing in 

the system eats up just too much of its valuable and available resources, and people within the system acknowledge this as well, so 

this Administration proposes to spend more on actual worker training in the workforce investment system. 

Fourth, this Administration proposes to create a more effective 

governance structure by enhancing governance structure by enhancing the role of the State and local officials. The Workforce Investment System is currently administered with much, much, too 

much micro-management by the Federal level. 

Fifth, this Administration proposes to strengthen the One-Stop 

Career Center System. You know, we have 3,800 One-Stop Career 

Centers throughout the whole country. They are a wonderful resource, and these centers are the foundations of the workforce investment system. But the funding for the operation of these OneStop Centers is uncertain in many local areas, and we have to address that. 

Finally, this Administration proposes to enhance individual 

choice through what is called Innovation Training Accounts. These 

accounts will allow individual workers to custom make and create 

their own individual training program that fits and meets their 

needs, using again a broad array of public and private training resources. 

Mr. Chairman, this Administration believes that these reforms 

will really help transform the public workforce investment system 

into a worker-centered powerhouse that will help people succeed, 

workers succeed in the 21st century workforce. It is going to create 

a workforce investment system that is responsive to individual 

communities’ workers. It will adapt quickly to local economic conditions, and most of all, it will do an even better job of serving workers. 

With that, thank you so much for having me here. I have a 

longer testimony which I will submit for the record, and I will be 

more than glad to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Chao follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELAINE L. CHAO

Chairman Enzi and members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today with my distinguished colleague, Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, and discuss the President’s proposals to enhance the Nation’s workforce investment system. 

6

Today, our country finds itself in a situation unlike any we have experienced in 

our history. Advances in the fields of communication, technology and travel have effectively removed national borders as barriers to global commerce. Competition now 

comes from the company across the ocean as well as the company across the street. 

The United States has been known as the leader in technological innovation. We 

invented computer operating systems, the Internet and the Global Positioning System. However, there are signs that we are facing more serious competitive challenges from new centers of innovation. For example:

• Foreign-owned companies and foreign-born individuals account for nearly half 

of all U.S. patents. 

• In 2003, China overtook the United States as the world’s leading destination 

for direct foreign investment. 

• And today, Asian countries now spend as much on nanotechnology as the 

United States.

To ensure that we remain the world leaders in the 21st century innovation economy, we must face these challenges. We must look at the systems and structures 

that support and feed our economy and ask if they are equipped to handle the demands of the global economy. 

Throughout history, the driving force of the American economy has been the ability to nurture new ideas that result in job creation and prosperity. In this generation, as in the past, American entrepreneurs and innovators have drawn on our 

well-educated workforce, our large and diverse economy, our technological capability 

and our financial sophistication to create the new industries and jobs that make 

America grow and prosper. 

The economy is healthy and growing, as evidenced by the 3.1 million new jobs 

that have been created since May 2003. As the economy grows, jobs emerge that 

demand higher skills than ever before. How can we get ready to meet the workforce 

needs of the future to ensure that we maintain our competitive advantage in the 

global economy? 

We maintain our competitive advantage by increasing the skill levels of Americans. The needs of the 21st century economy are very different than those we have 

encountered in the past. Today’s changing workforce needs reflect the economy’s significant transformation. Industries such as manufacturing and retail now need 

workers who understand computers and robotics and supply chain management. 

Fields such as health care and construction need more technical and skilled labor 

than ever before. Newer industries—for example, biotechnology and geospatial technology—have emerged, and others that are today just the gleam in the eye of some 

entrepreneur will soon emerge. The fastest growing jobs of the future will need to 

be filled by ‘‘knowledge workers,’’ who have specialized skills and training. In fact, 

the demand for knowledge workers is already growing at an astonishing pace. 

As the demand for workers with specialized skills and training grows, some economists fear that we are facing a ‘‘skills gap,’’ a situation in which the demand by 

employers for skilled workers would outpace the supply. We already have heard 

from companies that are having difficulty filling jobs with workers who have the 

skills they require. Fields like health care, information technology, and advanced 

manufacturing have jobs and solid career paths left untaken due to a lack of people 

qualified to fill them. 

The growing need for knowledge workers comes at a time when the labor pool as 

a whole is growing much more slowly as a result of the aging and retirement of the 

baby boom generation in combination with other demographic changes. In fact, 

given current retirement trends, combined with lower birth rates in recent years, 

the aging and retirement of the baby boom generation will likely result in labor 

shortages in some industries and geographic areas. Furthermore, employers are losing their most experienced workers just as labor force growth is slowing, with the 

result that shortages of workers with the right skills needed by employers could become common. 

In a knowledge-based economy like ours, a top priority for all of us must be to 

ensure that we have the skilled workforce we need to spur economic growth and 

productivity. The success of workers today depends on opportunities for a continuum 

of education and training. It starts with a solid foundation in math, science, and 

communication skills learned in school. Our children must have a solid foundation 

in the basics if they are to succeed in the 21st century workforce. The No Child Left 

Behind Act should help enormously, but more needs to be done, particularly at the 

high school level. President Bush has proposed an initiative to raise student 

achievement and narrow achievement gaps in our Nation’s high schools, expanding 

on the success of the No Child Left Behind Act. We know that when schools and 

teachers are held accountable for results, the performance of their students imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
7

proves. It is now time to extend this principle beyond grade schools to our Nation’s 

high schools. 

Gaining a strong educational foundation in school is critical, but we also know 

that it takes more than a high school education to succeed in the new economy. In 

fact, the fastest growing jobs, on average, require a postsecondary credential, that 

is a vocational certificate or other credential or an associate or higher degree. These 

are the jobs that will drive innovation in the world economy and determine which 

countries will lead that economy. Competency in a single skill will no longer last 

a lifetime. Workers today must commit themselves to lifelong learning and to continually upgrading their skills. Our postsecondary education and training systems 

must provide them with opportunities to do so. 

Our postsecondary education and training institutions need to ensure they are 

providing students with relevant, marketable skills. We need a wide variety of 

choices to provide these skills—not only 2-year and 4-year degree programs, but apprenticeship programs in the skilled trades and other professions, and job training 

leading to an industry-recognized credential or certification. Additional support for 

lifelong learning will be available through the President’s proposals to strengthen 

the Pell grant program and a new Loans for Short-Term Training program, which 

the Departments of Education and Labor would jointly administer and which would 

help dislocated, unemployed, transitioning, and older workers, among others, obtain 

the skills needed to succeed in our knowledge-based economy. 

The private sector makes an enormous investment both in training new workers 

as well as keeping current the skills of those already on the job. The investment 

of the private sector in employee education and training reflects its understanding 

that the investments made in improving the skills of the workforce translate into 

a competitive advantage for the Nation. 

The workforce investment system also plays an important role in preparing a 

skilled workforce. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) was groundbreaking 

legislation that promoted important improvements in the delivery of employment 

and training services nationwide through its One-Stop delivery system. Now our 

challenge is to take those reforms a significant step further to promote further innovation, to strengthen the One-Stop Career Center system to better serve workers 

and businesses, and to make the system even more responsive to the needs of local 

labor markets. 

In many respects, our current ‘‘stovepipe’’ approach to workforce investment is 

still reflective of its social program roots of 50 years ago, but today’s economy requires more than simply filling job orders. Like the education system, the workforce 

investment system must continuously adapt to the changing economy. 

Many of the problems in the current system lie with the design of the system 

itself. We know that a workforce investment system with over a dozen different 

funding streams, each with separate rules, reports, and definitions cannot be effective in meeting the demands of the worldwide economy. Such a system will always 

be focused on the barriers to workforce solutions rather than the solutions themselves. And, such a system will always be more concerned about how much each program funding stream is contributing and who is serving what group of the population, than about solving the Nation’s workforce challenges. Employers will never 

participate fully, or enthusiastically, in such a system. 

So what is the solution? It is a flexible, integrated system with strong State leadership and effective local execution and customization. It is a system where States 

can move resources to address regional needs and local officials can work with employers to preserve jobs. Finally, it is a system with the leadership and vision to 

act as a catalyst for economic development. 

Although we often speak of the American economy as a whole, the Nation is made 

up of local labor markets that are unique. The local economy in New York City looks 

quite different than that of a rural area in Tennessee. We must design a flexible 

workforce investment system that empowers State and local officials to create workforce solutions customized to that area’s workers and employers. We must make certain that outstanding plans for innovative strategies are not thwarted by the maze 

of conflicting funding streams, program eligibility requirements, reporting systems 

and performance measures. 

This approach to workforce investment is at the heart of the President’s High 

Growth Job Training Initiative, launched by the Department of Labor in 2002. The 

High Growth Job Training Initiative identifies high-growth businesses and industries, evaluates their skill needs, and ensures that workers are being trained with 

the skills these rapidly expanding businesses require. Under this initiative, the Department has awarded $164.8 million in 88 grants for innovative training programs 

in high growth industries such as health care, biotechnology, energy, information 

technology, and advanced manufacturing. Grants are given to partnerships that inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
8

clude the workforce investment system, business and industry, community colleges 

and other education and training providers, and economic development entities 

working collaboratively to develop industry-specific workforce solutions. The results, 

products, and knowledge gained from these demonstration projects are disseminated 

widely to the workforce system and our strategic partners in business, industry, and 

education. By training workers with skills that are in demand, more workers will 

be able to obtain quality jobs with higher wages and enhanced career opportunities. 

At the same time, employers will be able to fill critical workforce needs. 

The President’s Community College Initiative, which provides for CommunityBased Job Training Grants, builds on the High Growth Job Training initiative. 

Through these competitive grants, the workforce investment system will partner 

with community colleges to provide an innovative approach to workforce investment 

that responds to the changing 21st century economy. For fiscal year 2005, the Congress approved and financed this new initiative, and the first grants will be awarded beginning in the summer of 2005. This Community College Initiative will help 

fully utilize the expertise of America’s community colleges to better train workers 

for jobs in high growth sectors in local communities. 

The flexibility, partnerships, and demand-driven focus of these initiatives are also 

at the heart of President Bush’s proposal for comprehensive reform of our Nation’s 

job training system. The principles underlying these reforms reflect a new vision 

and new approach to workforce investment that will bring the system into the 21st 

century. 

First, we must give States and local communities maximum flexibility and authority to design a workforce system that meets their needs. The centerpiece of the 

President’s proposal for job training reform is the consolidation of the WIA Adult, 

Dislocated Worker, and Youth and the Employment Service funding streams into a 

single grant to States. Governors would have the option of including the State’s resources from an additional five programs into that single grant. These programs are 

the Veterans’ Employment and the Trade Adjustment Assistance training programs, 

administered by the Department of Labor; the Vocational Rehabilitation and the 

Adult Education programs, administered by the Department of Education; and the 

Food Stamp Employment and Training program, administered by the Department 

of Agriculture. Together, they represent over $7.5 billion in Federal resources. The 

consolidated grant would have a single State Integration Plan and a single performance and reporting system, thereby simplifying planning and reporting requirements. While program-specific requirements will be minimized, States will not be 

permitted to reduce participant levels for targeted populations such as veterans and 

individuals with disabilities. 

One practical indicator of the need for reform and greater flexibility of which I 

have been aware is in the overwhelming number of requests for WIA waiver authority. Forty-one States have requested 162 waivers to create a workforce investment 

system that is responsive to the needs of their economies. Under current law, in 

order for States to implement a workforce training program that better meets the 

needs of their citizens, they have to ask the Federal Government for permission, 

through the waiver process. That is not an effective strategy for remaining relevant 

in the new economy. The consolidation of Federal job training programs will remedy 

this. It will also empower States to train more workers, reduce administrative overhead, achieve better results, and design workforce investment systems that train 

workers for jobs in the 21st century economy. 

Accountability is a second principle of the President’s job training reform proposal. 

In exchange for greater flexibility for States and local officials, we will demand 

greater accountability. The performance measures that were begun under WIA will 

be simplified and improved and the incentives and sanctions will be strengthened. 

States will be held accountable for performance on three primary outcome measures—entered employment, retention in employment, and earnings gains. States 

will set increasingly rigorous annual performance milestones towards the goal of, 

within 10 years, placing every person who receives federally-funded training in a 

job. This is an ambitious goal, but it also reflects what the workforce investment 

system should aspire to—that all workers receive the job training and other services 

that they need to find and retain a job. 

Third, the overhead costs of the system must be reduced. Layers of bureaucracy 

and regulatory loopholes have resulted in a system that focuses too much money on 

infrastructure overhead, and trains too few workers. We need to more accurately define what are acceptable administrative costs, and put a greater emphasis on training. By eliminating unnecessary overhead and simplifying administration through 

the consolidation of job training programs, we can achieve $300 million in savings 

that can be used to train an additional 100,000 workers. 

9

Fourth, we must create a more effective governance structure by enhancing the 

role of State and local officials. The workforce investment system is currently administered with too much micro-management at the Federal level. What looks good 

on paper in Washington, DC, does not always play out well in the communities 

across the country. 

One key reform in this area is streamlining the membership requirements of 

State and Local Workforce Investment Boards. One-Stop partner programs would 

assume a stronger role on the State Board to ensure their investment in and commitment to an integrated system. Local Board membership would be streamlined to 

provide an increased voice for business representatives, community groups and 

worker advocates. These changes will create State and Local Boards that are able 

to more effectively make the policy and planning decisions that shape the Nation’s 

workforce investment system. 

Fifth, we must take steps to strengthen the One-Stop Career Center System. The 

One-Stop Career Centers are the foundation of the workforce investment system, 

but the funding for the operation of those centers is uncertain in many local areas. 

Dedicated One-Stop infrastructure funding from the One-Stop partners determined 

at the State level would alleviate a great deal of the current local negotiation issues 

around operations and allow local areas to focus on what is most important—meeting the service needs of workers and employers. 

Also, the One-Stop system must be able to provide all the services that individuals need to find jobs and upgrade their skills, and to serve all populations, including those with the greatest barriers to employment. One-Stop Career Centers should 

be authorized to offer a wider range of services for low-wage workers and directed 

to remove barriers to serving targeted populations, including older workers and individuals with disabilities. In addition, we must remove the obstacles to serving incumbent workers, as the 21st century economy requires American workers to continually upgrade their skills. 

Finally, individual choice should be enhanced in the workforce investment system 

through the use of Innovation Training Accounts. These accounts will allow individuals to combine a broad range of public and private training resources through a 

single, self-managed account. Individuals will be able to choose the training that 

best meets their needs, including longer-term training that is necessary for today’s 

high skilled jobs. Innovation Training Accounts provide workers with ownership 

over the education and training they pursue, so that they can take advantage of the 

opportunities that the 21st century economy has to offer. 

Another important vehicle for providing individual choice for American workers 

is Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs). PRAs are a flexible approach to provide 

unemployed job seekers with more control over their access to training and services 

and help them return to work quickly. The Department of Labor is currently administering PRAs on a small scale through a demonstration project in seven States and 

proposes that this be a service option in WIA when it is reauthorized. PRAs provide 

unemployed individuals with up to $3,000 to purchase intensive career, job training 

and supportive services from One-Stop Career Centers, the marketplace, or a combination of the two. Workers who find new jobs quickly and retain those jobs for 

6 months will receive a reemployment bonus. 

These key reforms will produce a workforce investment system that is responsive 

and agile enough to anticipate and respond to the opportunities presented by the 

21st century economy, thereby promoting the success of both American workers and 

businesses. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you the President’s proposal for reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions that members of the committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Any statements that members of the committee 

have and the full statements of all people who testify will be a part 

of the record. 

I appreciate your condensing that so that we have more time for 

the questions and the other panel, and appreciate your testimony. 

Secretary Spellings. 

I do not think your microphone is on. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SPELLINGS, SECRETARY OF 

EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Secretary SPELLINGS. I am new. 

[Laughter.] 

10

Thank you very much for your interest in this very important 

topic. I am delighted to be here with my colleague, Secretary Chao, 

whom I have worked with on this issue for more than 4 years, and 

to great effect, and I am really happy to be in this role and 

partnering with her from a new vantage point as well. 

As Secretary Chao pointed out, we live in a very different world 

today than the one our parents and grandparents knew. In that 

world a single occupation could last a lifetime from graduation day 

to retirement, a single skill could ensure a worker a comfortable 

living for his or her family. Today, guarantees of stability and security are fewer, but opportunities are far more numerous if we are 

prepared to seize them. 

The question is: are we prepared? Are our children receiving a 

quality education? Do young adults have the skills they need to 

succeed in this world? 

To answer these questions we must first look in the mirror. In 

Texas we say: ‘‘If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all 

you’ll ever get is all you’ve ever got.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

And we have to change that system, along with that old adage. 

The old Government model of top-down structures, process over results, multiple funding streams with limited flexibility, is simply 

not adequate for this time. We need to have the courage to change 

the way we do business. This change starts with public education 

and preparedness. No Government program available at age 20 can 

make up for a poor education from ages 5 to 18. 

A little over 3 years ago, Congress joined President Bush to tackle the educational status quo, and the result was the No Child Left 

Behind Act. Its focus on accountability, high standards, local control and research-based instruction is showing real results. Nearly 

every State now reports improved academic performance, and students at greatest risk of being left behind, such as those in large 

urban school districts, are leading the way. The President’s 2006 budget provides a $603 million increase for 

core Title I grants to local educational agencies to keep this 

progress going strong, and now we must take the next step. 

Earlier this year, Bill Gates told the Nation’s Governors that 

training the workforce of tomorrow with the high schools of today 

is like trying to teach kids about today’s computers on a 50-yearold mainframe. That may have been an exaggeration, but not by 

much. The old high school model is not serving us as well as it can 

or should. Forty percent of schools offer no advanced placement 

courses. Fewer than half of the students require at least 3 years 

of math or science to graduate, fewer than half the States. And we 

still measure performance by the amount of time students sit in 

classrooms, not by what they know and are able to do. 

So it comes as no shock that nearly one-third of incoming 9th 

graders do not make it to graduation day within 4 years, as you 

pointed out, Senator Enzi, or that those who do, less than one-third 

are fully prepared for college, according to the Manhattan Institute, 

or that our college dropout rate is 6 times higher than Japan’s. 

I believe Governor Mark Warner, with whom I traveled a few 

weeks ago, the Democratic Chair of the National Governors Association, speaks for all of us when he says, ‘‘It is imperative that we 

11

make reform of the American high school a national priority.’’ I believe it is time to apply the bipartisan principles of No Child Left 

Behind to grades 9 through 12. President Bush’s 2006 budget would provide $1.5 billion for a 

high school initiative to improve the academic achievement of atrisk students and measure performance annually to ensure all students get the help they need. 

The budget also contains unprecedented financial support for 

students taking advanced placement classes, new enhanced Pell 

grants to encourage more challenging course work, and community 

college access grants to let students earn college level credit in high 

school for both academic and technical courses. 

The key to success, of course, is a highly qualified teacher in 

every classroom, and the President’s budget would make permanent the increase on loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 for 

highly qualified math, science and special education teachers serving low-income communities, as you have done in your legislation, 

Senator. And the President’s Adjunct Teaching Program will bring 

outside professionals with the kind of expertise we need into the 

classroom, answering the question, why not have a NASA scientist 

teach physics in our public schools? 

This attitude of change extends to higher education. The President, as you know, is seeking the reauthorization of the Higher 

Education Act, but we want to improve it as well. For the first 

time, Pell grants would be made available year round to allow students to learn on their own timetable, and the maximum award 

would be increased by $100 each of the next 5 years. An estimated 

51⁄2 million students would benefit. 

Our Jobs for the 21st Century Initiative will help community colleges identify and meet the needs of local job providers. It is a bold 

partnership between the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. As a former Austin Community College employee 

myself, I know how hard these institutions work to be responsive 

to their diverse students and to the community they serve. Portland Community College’s Gateway to College Program, for instance, helps former dropouts earn a high school diploma, then continue on to a certificate or a degree program in their academic or 

technical field. They understand that you do not have to have a 4-

year bachelor’s or master’s degree to enjoy a successful career and 

life. 

Finally, our reform of the Perkins Vocational Program will ensure that the people it was designed to help have the rigorous 

background in math and science, as well as the technical skills to 

succeed in the modern workplace. 

The data that we know and the fact that you have just heard tell 

us that the status quo is not working. As President Bush has said, 

if we do not adjust quickly and if we do not do smart things with 

the taxpayers’ money we are going to have a shortage of skilled 

workers, and we are no longer going to be on the leading edge of 

change. In other words, we cannot pour new funds into old Federal 

models. We need to anticipate needs and take steps to meet them. 

One of the best ways is through technology. As part of our Adult 

Education National Plan, we are establishing a web-based system 

to inform adults of programs and activities that help them learn 

12

English and math, and will offer access to software so that they 

can learn these skills from any computer at any time. 

Technology is changing the world faster than our imagination 

can predict. Our high schools may be different places a decade or 

two from now. The old regimented factory-type model based on 

time spent in classrooms may give way to a new competency-based 

model that measures progress according to what kids have learned, 

not the date on the calendar. Such a model would take full advantage of community resources, private sector initiatives and the advanced interactive technologies kids and teachers use at home and 

at school. 

We already see it in the movement to create digital high schools 

and the explosive growth of distance learning. It is a smarter, faster and more student-centric model of learning. I compare it to tax 

season, which we are all thinking about right now. In the past you 

would see lines of cars stretching to the post office at midnight on 

April 15th. That was the old model. Now sophisticated computer 

programs and electronic filing allow us to get the job done faster 

and better. 

I have traveled to elementary and secondary schools across the 

country from Ohio to California, and closer to home in Annapolis 

and Richmond. I have spoken with parents, teachers, principals 

and administrators, and I have not heard many questions about 

specific Federal programs. I have heard questions about how well 

we are preparing young adults to succeed in higher education and 

the workforce. They understand, as you said, that we live in a 

world in which 80 percent of the fastest-growing jobs will require 

a postsecondary education. Reform cannot wait. 

According to the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and 

Technology, our students lose interest in math and science the further they advance through the educational system. Meanwhile, 

Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel, reports that China and India are expanding their university level math, science and engineering programs at a pace comparable to the United States after World War 

II. He adds, ‘‘If the world’s best engineers are produced in India or 

Singapore, that is where our companies will go.’’

In 2001, India graduated nearly 1 million more students from 

college than the United States. China has 6 times as many graduates majoring in engineering. Both are now members of the World 

Trade Organization. If only 10 percent of their population is well 

educated, that means 230 million new competitors. Clearly, we are 

no longer the only economic kid on the block. 

This is a time of change and opportunity, but we can take advantage only if we change as well. We must stop being captives of the 

past and start thinking like competitors and consumers. President 

Bush’s proposals will help create a seamless educational continuum 

from K–12 through college and beyond, to serve young students 

and adults seeking to adapt to the ever-changing economy. 

All Americans need a strong foundation of academic skills in 

order to fulfill their roles as workers, parents and citizens. We look 

forward to working with you and the committee and the rest of the 

Congress to help make that happen. 

I would be glad to answer any questions you might have, and I 

thank you very much. 

13

[The prepared statement of Secretary Spellings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SPELLINGS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify on the importance of lifelong learning, an approach to education that I believe has become increasingly critical for both individual and national success in our 

ever-changing, technology-based, globally competitive economy. 

Little more than a generation ago, a single skill or occupation could last a lifetime, comfortably supporting a worker through young adulthood, the family years, 

a college education for the children, and on into retirement. Things are different 

today, and more than any particular skill or body of knowledge, education must be 

about learning to learn, about gaining the skills to learn and adapt throughout a 

lifetime of change. Our schools and colleges, and the kinds of programs and services 

they provide, must reflect changes not only in the skills and knowledge that students need to obtain, but in the new ways in which today’s and tomorrow’s students 

are going to learn. This is what we are trying to encourage at the Department of 

Education, leveraging a relatively small Federal investment into creating a new 

kind of education system, one based on accountability, choice, and a continuum of 

opportunity stretching from early childhood to middle age and beyond. 

READING: THE PREREQUISITE FOR LIFELONG LEARNING

No Child Left Behind has been President Bush’s signature education reform initiative. It incorporates what I believe should be the core elements of any system of 

lifelong learning: expanded student and parental options and choice, a focus on what 

works rather than on what is the latest fad, clear accountability for results, and 

freedom for educators to use Federal funds for the programs and activities they believe are needed in their local schools, rather than on how people in Washington 

decide they should spend the money. 

Better instruction in reading is at the heart of No Child Left Behind. The President recognized long before he came to Washington—with a little help from his wife, 

Laura—that reading was the place to start if we truly want to ensure that no American—child, teenager, or adult—is left behind by our education system. 

Thanks to programs like Reading First, which draws on scientific research to help 

ensure that all children can read well by the end of the 3rd grade, we are making 

progress in improving reading skills. But we have a long way to go. According to 

the National Assessment of Educational Progress, more than one-third of all 4th 

graders continued to read below the basic level in 2003, while more than half of African-American and Hispanic students fell below that level. 

By 8th grade, reading scores on the NAEP are better, with three-quarters of all 

students at or above the basic level, but nearly half of African-American and Hispanic students continue to read below the basic level. These numbers really hurt, 

because by the end of 8th grade, students tend to find themselves at a crossroads, 

with one path leading to high school graduation and postsecondary education, and 

the other path—far too often—leading to growing frustration with school and ultimately to dropping out altogether. I don’t think I have to remind the members of 

this committee what this latter path means for both lifelong learning and lifelong 

earnings. 

In light of the NAEP data, it also should come as no surprise that a great many 

of those students who do graduate from high school need remedial classes in reading 

at the postsecondary level. For example, a recent RAND study noted that almost 

half of the students in the California State University system—which typically enrolls students graduating in the top third of their high school class—require remediation in English. And, of course, students who are unprepared for college-level work 

tend to graduate at lower rates than those who are prepared. 

The message here is that it’s very hard to overestimate the impact of reading 

skills—or the lack of those skills—on lifelong learning opportunities. That’s why improving reading skills has been such a critical part of all of our major education initiatives, and why I hope the strong connection between reading and lifelong learning 

will be a key principle that members take away from this hearing. 

THE STRONG FOUNDATION OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

No Child Left Behind remains the linchpin of our educational improvement strategy, and the key foundation for ensuring that all Americans are prepared to take 

full advantage of lifelong learning opportunities. The law emphasizes the early 

grades; demands that all students, regardless of background, are on grade level in 

core academic subjects like reading, mathematics, and science; insists on annual 

14

testing to help parents, principals, and teachers identify weaknesses in time to do 

something about them; and ultimately will ensure that all students are proficient 

in reading and math and thus prepared for further education and training throughout their lives. 

And we believe the law is beginning to work as intended. States and school districts are reporting high scores, achievement gaps are narrowing, more schools are 

making adequate yearly progress, and districts are focusing as never before on improvement strategies involving groups of students previously ignored and left behind. And when schools do not improve, students and their parents have new options, including transferring to a better-performing school or obtaining high-quality 

supplemental educational services. 

I think we are justifiably proud of the work we are doing and the results we are 

getting as we continue to implement No Child Left Behind in concert with our State 

and local partners. And we plan to stay the course, as reflected in the President’s 

request of a $603 million increase for the core Title I Grants to Local Educational 

Agencies program for fiscal year 2006. 

A NEW FOCUS ON HIGH SCHOOL

At the same time, we recognize that change takes time, and while we are seeing 

progress in the early grades, our high schools are continuing to leave far too many 

students behind. This is clear from the high school graduation rate. According to 

one source, only 68 out of every 100 ninth-graders in public schools graduate on 

time with a regular high school diploma. American companies and universities currently spend an estimated $16 billion on remedial education annually. 

To a great extent, these data reflect the fact that high schools are too often doing 

the same thing that they have done for the last century. They are not, for instance, 

harnessing new technologies effectively to deliver instruction. Nor are they taking 

advantage of new ways to bring the highest-quality teachers, such as professionals 

who have up-to-date knowledge and experience, into our classrooms. 

In response, President Bush has proposed a $1.5 billion High School Initiative 

aimed at giving States, districts, and principals more flexible, effective tools for improving high schools than they have under the existing array of uncoordinated, narrow-purpose programs that the initiative would replace. 

The Initiative includes two major components. The first is a High School Intervention program, which would give States, school districts, and schools the flexibility 

to support a wide range of locally determined reforms aimed at increasing student 

achievement, eliminating achievement gaps, and ensuring that every student graduates with a meaningful high school diploma. Schools would implement targeted 

interventions designed to meet the specific needs of at-risk students, which would 

be determined by individual performance plans based on 8th-grade assessment data 

and student interests. Interventions could include dropout prevention, integration of 

rigorous academic courses with vocational and technical training, and efforts to increase college awareness and preparation. They would focus, in particular, on the 

students who are most at risk of dropping out or leaving school without the skills 

and knowledge necessary for further education or employment. 

The President also is asking for $250 million for new High School Assessments 

to increase accountability for high school achievement and give principals and teachers new tools and data to guide instruction and improve student performance. 

In addition to the High School Initiative, our 2006 budget request contains a set 

of complementary proposals targeting secondary education. These include a $175 

million expansion of the new Striving Readers program to improve the skills of teenage students who are reading below grade level, a $120 million Secondary Education 

Mathematics Initiative to train teachers to raise mathematics achievement for atrisk high school students, and funding to expand support for the Advanced Placement and State Scholars programs, which help strengthen high school curricula. 

EASING THE TRANSITION TO COLLEGE

Both the State Scholars and Advanced Placement (AP) proposals reinforce the 

idea of education as a continuum: our Enhanced Pell Grants for the State Scholars 

program would reward students for taking a rigorous high school curriculum by 

helping them pay for college, while increasing the availability of AP courses would 

make it possible for high school students not only to study and master college-level 

material, but also to get college credit for their efforts. 

Similarly, our new Community College Access Grants program would provide 

$125 million to support dual-enrollment programs under which high school students 

would earn both high school and postsecondary credit for taking college-level 

15

courses. The program also would encourage States to facilitate the transfer of community college credits to 4-year institutions. 

Each of these programs helps to ease the transition from high school to postsecondary education and training, both academically and financially. Our colleges, just 

like our elementary and secondary schools, need to meet the changing needs of their 

customers, the students. These days, many students do not fit the traditional mold 

of those who enter a 2- or 4-year college immediately out of high school and then 

work full-time toward a degree. They are, instead, folks who are already in the 

workforce. Many of them cannot take time off from work, and they need new ways 

of obtaining a higher education that fit in with all the demands on their time. Higher education programs that make effective use of technology are one way of doing 

that. We need to be taking a much closer look at these innovations as we move into 

the future. 

PAYING FOR COLLEGE AND JOB TRAINING

The high cost of college and other postsecondary education and training continues 

to be an obstacle to lifelong learning for many students, particularly for those from 

low-income families. Indeed, for too many secondary school students, doubts about 

their ability to pay for postsecondary education can be a strong disincentive to even 

bother staying in school and obtaining a high school diploma. 

This is why President Bush has placed such a high priority on strengthening the 

Pell grant program, which helps students from low-income families pay for postsecondary education and training. The President’s 2006 budget proposal would raise 

the maximum Pell grant award by $500 over the next 5 years, from $4,050 to 

$4,550, while restoring the financial stability of the program by eliminating the cumulative Pell grant funding shortfall. For new students who have completed a rigorous high school program of study, our enhanced Pell grants proposal would result 

in eligible students receiving an additional $1,000. Thus, a low-income student could 

qualify for a total of $5,050 next year and $5,150 for his or her second year in college. 

The President’s proposal also would allow students attending 2- and 4-year degree-granting institutions to receive more than one Pell grant in the same year, giving them more convenient and flexible options for completing their course requirements and obtaining their degrees. 

In order to fund the extraordinary new investment the President has proposed for 

the Pell grant program, over $19 billion over the next 10 years, we had to take a 

hard look at the current student loan programs and identify savings. Our student 

loan reauthorization proposals include strategic reductions in subsidies to financial 

participants in the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program that fully pay 

for our Pell grant enhancements and for improvements in the loan programs, including higher loan limits for first- and second-year students, better repayment terms 

for all students, and expanded opportunities for distance education. 

In addition, we are proposing a new program of Short-Term Training Loans, 

which, in fiscal year 2006, would support up to $284 million in loans to an estimated 377,000 students, including dislocated, unemployed, transitioning, or older 

workers. This program, which would be administered jointly with the Department 

of Labor, would help workers and students acquire or upgrade job-related skills 

through short-term training programs that currently are ineligible for Federal student assistance. 

WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT PROGRAMS

A major piece of business currently before this committee is the reauthorization 

of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Department of Education administers 

programs covered by WIA in two important areas, Adult Education and Vocational 

Rehabilitation. The Administration fully supports the enactment of a WIA reauthorization bill that improves the quality, accessibility, and accountability of federallyfunded Adult Education programs and that continues our Vocational Rehabilitation 

programs. 

The Department’s Adult Education program and our reauthorization blueprint for 

that program are critical to any lifelong learning strategy because, while we believe 

the No Child Left Behind Act and our high school initiative will result in a much 

better education for current and future generations of school children, many current 

adults are out of school and lack the academic skills they need to succeed in the 

workforce. Some are immigrants who seek English language instruction in order to 

advance in their jobs and adapt successfully to life in America. States have reported 

improved results in Adult Education in recent years, but outcomes overall remain 

unacceptably low. For this reason, the Administration’s blueprint for the reauthorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
16

ization sets higher expectations for State performance and insists on greater State 

and local accountability for results, including consequences for States that do not 

meet their agreed-on adult education performance levels. Our proposal also promotes the development of State standards and curriculum frameworks to help instructors become more effective in the classroom. And, in order to give adult learners a broader array of choices, we would expand the number of workplace literacy 

programs, improve the capacity of community- and faith-based organizations to provide adult education, and promote greater use of technology to deliver services. 

In the case of the Vocational Rehabilitation programs authorized under the Rehabilitation Act, our focus is on improving employment outcomes for individuals with 

disabilities, particularly those with the most significant disabilities. While many individuals with disabilities are obtaining jobs and remaining employed, the unemployment rate for people with disabilities is still unacceptably high. Not only are 

people with disabilities much less likely to be employed than people without disabilities, but the more severe the disability, the less likely a person is to be employed. 

Moreover, there is wide variation among the States on performance, measured 

against the evaluation standards and indicators used by the Department in monitoring the States. Better tools are needed by the Department to strengthen accountability for improved results. Finally, an important component of the President’s proposal for WIA reauthorization is the WIA Plus Consolidated State Grant (WIA Plus) 

program. In addition to the base consolidation of four Department of Labor programs, this proposal provides Governors with the option to consolidate up to five 

additional Federal employment and training funding streams, including Adult Education and Vocational Rehabilitation. Through increased flexibility and accountability, this proposal would: improve the employment outcomes of individuals served 

through the consolidated program; serve more individuals; improve access to a full 

array of educational and job training, employment, and supportive services available 

from all funding streams; and ensure a connection to a workforce investment system 

that is directly linked to and accessed by employers. 

CONCLUSION

Lifelong learning is no longer an option, but a necessity, both for individual success and for our continued national economic prosperity. President Bush, with the 

help of the Congress, has laid the foundation for a comprehensive Federal approach 

to both preparing our citizens for a lifetime of learning and encouraging our education system to continuously make available opportunities for education and training, from early childhood through middle age and even the retirement years. We 

look forward to working with the members of this committee to help build on that 

foundation. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to take any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

I appreciate all of your help, especially both of you with the 

longer testimony which helps to build the record from which we do 

the work that we do. 

I would mention that Senator Kennedy is not here because he is 

helping with the Armed Services hearing and providing a quorum 

for the Judiciary Executive Meeting, which means we are moving 

some people through as judges, and we are glad he is providing a 

quorum for that. The same applies to Senator Sessions. And Senator Roberts is involved with an Intelligence Committee situation, 

not a crisis, I am always supposed to emphasize that. 

[Laughter.] 

Of course, one of the signs of how many people show up is how 

contentious the hearing is, and this is one that we are working on 

in a very bipartisan way and making great progress in all of the 

bills that are before us. I do appreciate the bipartisan way that everybody is working. It shows that it is a concern for what happens 

with the kids and adults out there that will be affected by these 

programs, and it is important that we get them reauthorized in a 

timely manner so that we can move on to some of the other things 

that we have to reauthorize. I think we have about $68 billion 

worth of reauthorizations that are supposed to be done by the end 

17

of September. I think we only got two or three done during the last 

2 years, so the other 38 will be quite a challenge for us. 

I would ask both of you if you would discuss the initiatives within your department that we might learn from as we work on the 

reauthorizations of the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, Head Start, Perkins Career and Technical Education 

Act. How can we coordinate the provisions in these various acts to 

make sure that we provide opportunities for all Americans to have 

skills for the 21st century? How can the Department of Labor and 

the Department of Education work together to better prepare the 

workforce for the new economy? 

Secretary Chao. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Secretary 

Spellings mentioned, she and I have personally worked on a number of issues and initiatives within the workforce while she was at 

the White House, and we continue that collaborative effort going 

forward. Our two departments also work closely with one another. 

Most recently the Department of Labor has implemented the 

President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative. This initiative is 

very important because it is providing national leadership for a demand-driven workforce system that ensures that no worker is left 

behind, and it prepares workers for the higher skill, higher wage 

jobs in the 21st century economy. 

Also across the country we are supporting efforts, partnerships 

with community colleges, employers and the public workforce system to train workers with the skills that they need that we have 

all heard about just in the recent testimony. 

And the community-based job training initiatives also continue 

the work of the President’s High Growth Job Training initiative, by 

again, incorporating through these two initiatives a focus on high 

growth, high demand industries, and also the emphasis on partnerships with the Workforce Investment System. 

Secretary SPELLINGS. Let me talk for a second about some specific examples of just that. In fact, just last week we co-chaired and 

partnered together on a virtual summit that went out to about 10 

community college sites all over the country with our staffs both 

leading it, and I think that shows the kind of cooperation that is 

going on here in Washington. 

One of the things we have also worked together on—and you can 

help us on this as you reauthorize these statutes as well—is common definitions, and common performance standards, and common 

expectations. We tend to send mixed signals about what we want 

from this particular funding source versus that, and so to the extent that you can help reconcile some of that, that is very useful. 

We have a memorandum of understanding between these two departments that has been ongoing since 2001 I believe. 

And on the early childhood end, I would tell you that Secretary 

Levitt and I have revived an interagency process on those issues 

which we have asked Reid Lyon to help guide us, or translating our 

best research and best science into practice at the policy level, and 

we have both provided staff to that effort as well. 

So a number of specific examples building on Secretary Chao’s 

answer. 

18

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I appreciate and I am aware of 

the cooperative spirit and the interaction between the two departments, and really appreciate it. I think that does provide some tremendous opportunities for implementation as well as improvement. 

In Wyoming and many other States, we are looking at a severe 

shortage of workers within the next decade. For example, in Wyoming it is estimated that we are going to lose one-third of the State 

Government workforce through retirement within the next 5 years. 

What can we do to address the deficit of skills, abilities and knowledge in both the short and long term to ensure that the Nation’s 

competitiveness is upheld? 

Secretary CHAO. I think, Mr. Chairman, first of all, in the short 

term we need to understand much better what are the skills that 

are required to be competitive in today’s environment. That starts 

with connecting with employers so that workers in declining industries can be trained for better paying jobs with high growth potentials in high growth industries. I think in the long term we need 

to encourage more high school graduates to continue their education through community colleges, apprenticeships and other 

training opportunities, and that is again why the President’s vision 

for the comprehensive job training reform is so important because 

there is a long term and there is a short term component to all of 

this, and we look forward to working with you on all these issues. 

Secretary SPELLINGS. I would agree with that completely. Again, 

the primary, prime directive, as I call it, at the Department of Education is that preparedness pays, to make sure that we have workers in the pipeline or kids in the pipelines that have the skills that 

can step into those jobs that the retiring workforce—although some 

might say that having State employees retire would be a good 

thing, but we need to make sure that we have kids in the pipeline 

that can meet those needs, and the only way we are going to do 

that, obviously, is ramping up the levels of rigor and the number 

of kids who are meeting those levels and those standards more rapidly and more effectively. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

For Secretary Spellings, given the fact that 68 out of 100 ninth 

graders will not graduate from high school on time, which is the 

lowest of any industrialized nation, what do you suggest we do to 

raise that completion rate and ensure that colleges and universities, as well as employers and students do not spend significant 

amounts of time and resources in remediation? 

Secretary SPELLINGS. I think there are a couple of things that I 

want to amplify on that particular piece of data. When we start to 

look at that information in a disaggregated sort of way as we talk 

about, in other words, by student group, you know, minority kids 

are being hurt the most. That is the underpinning of that statistic. 

They are dropping out at higher levels than more advantaged students. So I just want to make sure that that point is made. 

But I think again it is putting standards in place, both in technical training programs that many of these students find attractive 

so that they do embed the necessary reading and math rigor that 

they are going to need to apply in the workplace and they are going 

to need in order to avoid remediation. I think it is the ability to 

use measurement, to use assessment to find out where kids are, 

19

what the deficiencies are and what the educational cure might be, 

if you will, so that we can get those kids out of high school. 

Additionally, I think—and this is embedded in the President’s 

budget in a striving readers and a math intervention program, that 

requires us really to take a look at every 9th grader and say, ‘‘How 

are we going to get you out of high school? What are your needs? 

What are your deficiencies? What are the necessary things for you 

to have in place to meet those standards?’’ In many cases, it is a 

deficiency in reading, and we need to take what we have learned 

from our brain research and at the early grades and move those 

strategies up in middle and high schools to make sure kids have 

necessary literacy levels. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Next we will have Senator Lamar Alexander, who is the Subcommittee Chair for Education and Early Education. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mike. I want to say how much 

I appreciate the Chairman’s broad focus on this. This helps a lot, 

and I appreciate the way the two Secretaries are working together. 

I learned pretty early in my public career that better schools 

means better jobs, and it is just about that simple. 

You have also well stated, all of you, the point that while September 11 was a big surprise to our security, our next big surprise 

is likely to be to our pocketbook, and the major way to avoid that 

big surprise is to focus on brain power, and you have given some 

of the statistics there. We have 5 or 6 percent of the world’s population and we produce about a third of the money, and the rest of 

the world is looking at that and saying, ‘‘How do they do that?’’ 

And the way we have primarily done it is through science, technology and a good education system. That is what has produced 

most of our high standard of living. And so this is not a series of 

slogans we are spouting here, we have over the next 10 years a 

real challenge. 

I want to ask you to help me with a specific example. The old 

model was we were focusing on making sure that students who 

graduated from high school had a certain level of accomplishment, 

and we still should focus on that. But as the Chairman said, the 

real person we are focusing on, I think even more today, is the person that if I am making a commencement address and someone 

gets a diploma, the cry that goes up from the audience is likely to 

be, ‘‘Way to go, Mom,’’ because it is a mom who has gone back to 

school, either to change jobs or to take a new job or because she 

has lost a job. The question is, what is the appropriate and most 

effective thing to do from here to help? My experience in different 

levels of Government is to be skeptical of what can be done from 

here in terms of managing and customizing and writing big books 

about what should happen in 3,800 places or tens of thousands of 

places, so I welcome your comments about bureaucracy, management, consolidation and all of that. 

To get right to the bottom line then, I am going to ask you a 

question. My bias has come to be that we should focus first on the 

person changing jobs. We should focus second on giving that person 

as many individual choices as possible of options for education and 

20

training, and that we should focus third on letting the employer be 

as involved in the training as much as possible. In other words, I 

think the model we have got for higher education, where we providentially give money to the student and do not give it to the institution, I mean if we did not have it, I guarantee you we would not 

be competitive 10 years from now because we would be all balled 

up in trying to figure out—we would be training people for the 

wrong jobs and putting money into bureaucracy, et cetera. 

Now, as I am listening to you and I am thinking if I am the single mom or dad changing jobs, you mentioned training accounts. 

There is unemployment compensation. There are Pell grants. There 

are student loans. Secretary Chao, your testimony mentions personal reemployment accounts. What can each of you say to me 

about the idea of focusing most of our—as much of our existing 

money as possible to individuals and most of our new money to individuals, rather than the idea of giving it to institutions and ordering them to do this, that or the other, or perhaps you disagree 

with what I have said about a bias and a strategy for how to spend 

our Federal dollars. 

Secretary CHAO. Senator Alexander, you make some excellent 

points, and I agree with your assessment of the current system. 

The current Workforce Investment System has 17 mandated programs. If you are a person out of work and you are discouraged, 

you are kind of down, you just want assistance. You do not want 

to have to find out and go through different bureaucracies as to 

what programs you can apply for. So that is what the President’s 

Workforce Investment Act reauthorization reform is all about. It is 

to make simple the access to all these different programs to individuals who are going through a lot of stress in their lifetime. And 

so we also want to make sure that they are given the options because they know what they want to do best, they know what interest areas they hold and what kind of jobs they would be interested 

in. 

We also need to get employers much more involved in the system 

because employers after all know where the jobs are, what skill 

sets are required, and all of these principles that you have outlined 

are indeed embodied in the President’s new Workforce Investment 

reform proposal. 

I would just add two other things. We have been experimenting 

with the Personal Reemployment Accounts on a voluntary basis in 

seven States in which a worker would be able to have a—would be 

empowered with a personal reemployment account, which would be 

about $3,000. With that $3,000 the worker can access or buy any 

kind of training program that they want that would advance their 

career in a high growth industry, because after all, we want people 

to go into high growth industries with good earning potential as 

they progress in their career path. Based on our preliminary results the personal reemployment accounts have been, number one, 

popular; and number two, seemingly quite effective. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Secretary SPELLINGS. I think from our end, Senator, we can do 

things that recognize that people are going to need to be educated, 

that single mom, in their own time and in their own way. So we 

need to find ways, particularly within Pell and our financial aid reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
21

sources, to break down barriers, so that if people are taking courses 

through technology, they should be allowed to do that. If people are 

attending school year round or taking heavier course loads or some 

of these impediments that we have put up in our system. We need 

to remove those. 

We at the Department of Education collect through our postsecondary education database everything you want to know about a 

full-time, first time, non-transfer degree-seeking student, but that 

is not your mom or the mom you talked about, and I think we can 

figure out this new changing student body a lot better. Many of our 

students now are what we call non-traditional, and I think we need 

to have systems that meet those non-traditional models as well. 

I would also highlight the High Growth Job Training Partnership 

Initiative that Secretary Chao spoke briefly about, which literally 

has the employer, you know, guarantee a job, if you will, for the 

person who is going through the training. So it is a partnership between the community college, between the employer and between 

the individual, and those are the sorts of things that we want to 

make sure that we are connecting together. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to both Secretaries. I think it is not a mistake that in 

addition to the Chairman you have three members of the Senate 

from the Southeastern part of the United States. Not only have we 

had a job dislocation problem, it continues today. I think what we 

see and what we feel when we go home is that we see what was 

a 50-year cycle of an economic sector, textile manufacturing, furniture manufacturing, or a vibrant agricultural community, where 

all of a sudden that economic sector has been tossed upside down. 

It is not totally gone, but we certainly know that it has changed 

drastically. 

One of the things that I think you have to deal with and we have 

to deal with is do we ever see that kind of economic sector again? 

And I think the answer is no. The technology has affected that 

greatly, and whether it is a 10-year cycle or a 15-year cycle, we all 

understand that the ability for workers to find employment in large 

part means that they have to continue to have the ability to learn 

throughout their lifetime. 

Secretary Spellings, I think it starts with teaching teachers to 

teach children to learn, and I think we do a good job of teaching 

teachers to teach. There is a difference between that and having 

teachers to teach them to learn. But my fear is that—and I think 

Lamar put it very well—that we have got this effort that we cannot 

lose focus of, we have to do things in parallel. I would only tell you 

that there is a next generation effort and there is a current generation effort, and we have got to make sure that both of them are 

serviced in the most effective way, though they may be very different. 

Secretary Chao, you have responded extremely well from the Department of Labor to North Carolina’s needs, and specifically the 

emergence of biotechnology as a new economic sector. And that was 

most recently felt with a grant to Forsyth Technical Community 

22

College, which was very effective. How through the reauthorization 

of the Workforce Investment Act can we create more examples like 

Forsyth Tech and the biotechnology industry to assure that workforce training is coordinated with job paths and job skills of tomorrow? 

Secretary CHAO. Senator, as you well know, we have worked very 

hard on addressing some of the dislocation issues in your State. In 

particular, I have Emily DeRocco, the Assistant Secretary of Employment Training Administration, and I want to give her a lot of 

credit for assembling all of the Government’s resources to help the 

workers of Kannapolis, for example. 

The President’s reform package would offer flexibility because 

what is happening, for example, in the high tech will be very, very 

different from what is happening in North Carolina. Forsyth Community College is doing a great job in training workers for wellpaying jobs in high growth industries like the life sciences, and we 

want to encourage that path. But each community is different, and 

so therefore the Workforce Investment System needs to have flexibility, and right now there are stovepipe funding mechanisms, 

silos, and there are good people in the system, but it is very hard 

for them to overcome the silo effect. 

So, for example, currently under the Workforce Investment Act, 

local areas are prohibited from serving incumbent workers. So if, 

for example, a textile worker came into a One-Stop Center seeking 

help in retraining for a career in biotechnology, financial services 

or health care services, let us say, which are growth industries, before they were laid off they would have been denied services. That 

does not make sense. If there was a long-term unemployed person 

and you would think that the whole Workforce Investment System 

is geared toward them, and yet many of the long-term unemployed 

cannot access Workforce Investment programs because of the very 

narrow definitions and the lack of flexibility. 

So this makes a little sense from a economic or a social point of 

view, and indeed it really restricts the ability of the local community to come together and help one another. So again, the Administration’s reform proposal would free the States and the local communities to serve incumbent workers, long term unemployed workers on a more proactive basis, and also provide these individuals 

again with much better opportunities in accessing new opportunities. 

So we are also proposing within the President’s reform packet, 

the New Innovation Training Accounts. That again will also help 

workers access a whole range of new resources as well. But you are 

absolutely right, the inflexibility within the system and the inability to focus on the high growth industries is not an optimum use 

of our resources, and we are not doing the best job that we can for 

these workers. 

Senator BURR. I will be very quick, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Spellings, it seems like I have a tendency to come to 

you and always talk about community colleges, and maybe it is because we do have such an infrastructure in North Carolina. How 

can we use North Carolina’s or any State’s community colleges to 

better utilize and bolster the transition from high school into postsecondary education and training? 

23

Secretary SPELLINGS. We can do that first by the President’s call for this $125 million Community College Access Grants, which does 

just that, which partners high schools and community colleges, allows for more dual enrollment, more articulation—to use our education word—between those two enterprises, around standards and 

certification programs and we are seeing more and more of that 

around the country, which I am really proud of. 

Having worked in a community college and worked in schools, I 

understand that we do not always speak the same language. The 

standards are not the same. We frequently see more rigorous academic content at the community college level and we have to get 

that down into the high school level or say we are not going to do 

that any more, we are going to let our community colleges do that. 

Senator in your comments, what I heard you saying is, how are 

we going to remain a world leader? And we have to ramp up the 

level of skills, and we need to focus in particular on math and 

science because that is where the jobs are. We do not have to have 

everybody get a baccalaureate degree, no doubt about that, but 

they must have higher levels of skills embedded in these standards 

of these technical training programs, and my experience is that 

community colleges do that really well. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Isakson, who is the Subcommittee Chair for the labor 

issues, which covers the Workforce Investment Act, part of it. I 

mentioned that Senator Burr is the Subcommittee Chairman for 

the Bioterrorism and Public Health area. Our Subcommittee Chair 

for pensions is also in the Armed Services Committee and on the 

floor with a supplemental budget today. 

So Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Following up on Senator Burr’s comment about students and 

community colleges, I want to ask you what I think is a very 

friendly question. 

Secretary SPELLINGS. I hope so. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ISAKSON. Secretary Spellings, the President’s initiative 

at the high school to expand accountability and close the achievement gap as we have done in K–8 with No Child Left Behind is 

going to expand more opportunity for more students to in fact get 

a postsecondary education whether it be university, community college or adult and technical; would you not agree? 

Secretary SPELLINGS. I would absolutely agree, and I would say 

that that is the genius of No Child Left Behind. Our high school 

investments I think could be used more wisely if we had more information to manage the enterprise. 

Senator ISAKSON. The reason I made that statement, Mr. Chairman, is I had a—I did not realize I would recite this event that 

happened yesterday today until Richard’s question, your being 

here—but yesterday I had a phone call from Dr. Alvin Wilbanks, 

who is one of the top superintendents in the country and the superintendent at large in his public school system in Georgia, the 

Gwinnett County system, which also has some of the highest test 

scores, not only in Georgia but in the United States. His call was 

24

specifically to volunteer to see what he could to assist the Administration and help to spread the word on the need for this accountability and close the achievement gap at the high school level. I am 

going to do a little pandering here, wanted to see you, Ms. 

Spellings, to do just that. 

Secretary SPELLINGS. Cannot wait to meet him. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ISAKSON. My point on this is here you have a system 

which embraced from the beginning—in fact had a program called 

Gateway—this whole idea of achievement, assessment, accountability and intervention early rather than late, that is looking to 

take—and it is a high achieving system but wants to do more—is 

looking to see to it that we are not leaving anybody behind. I believe, just as the No Child Left Behind is proving it over time, is 

going to prove conclusively that we fundamentally changed the 

lives of many, many children, I think raising the element of No 

Child Left Behind at the high school will in fact have the same 

positive effect. 

I will call you on that, but I thought that was a great testimony 

that you ought to hear, not from me, but from Dr. Wilbanks. 

Secretary SPELLINGS. Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. Secretary Chao, 30 years ago when I started in 

the Georgia legislature and we started a program called Quick 

Start in our adult and technical education schools, we would tell 

a company, ‘‘if you will bring your company to Georgia, we will 

train the workers to do what you want them to do.’’ A lot of that 

training sometimes bordered on advancing their reading and math 

skills before we could advance them on any other skills, meaning 

that the level of training was more remedial then than it should 

have been, and unfortunately today remains that way, which I 

think is why No Child Left Behind is such a great foundation to 

build on the skills of the 21st century workers in terms of their 

ability to learn skills. 

But to that end, I want to reflect on last year’s debate in the 

House, and our work in the Education Labor Committee on the Administration’s proposals with regard to WIA, and I wanted to comment that consolidation and flexibility and student focused training 

is going to be the key in the 21st century to us, allowing people 

to reach their dreams, and in fact, find the jobs of the 21st century. 

And I hope, Mr. Chairman, as we get to that markup that we 

will find ways, either through demonstrations or through actual 

programs, that we allow consolidation, we allow One-Stop, encourage One-Stop, we allow flexibility, and the Personal Re-employment Accounts are a dynamic idea because they are an individual 

motivator and incentive for the very person we are trying to benefit 

with the One-Stop. 

So that is a statement and not a question and I apologize. 

[Laughter.] 

But I will give you my remaining 1 minute if you want to elaborate. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary CHAO. Senator Isakson, you are absolutely correct. We 

are trying to help workers, again, who are going through a very difficult period in their lifetime. So when they believe in us, the 

25

Workforce Investment System, and put their futures in our hands 

by coming to us for help, hoping that we will be able to indeed give 

them the new entre into a new life, we have a very big responsibility to carry through. So it is absolutely essential that these 

workers that are coming to us for help receive, number one, relevant training, that they are coming to an environment that is caring, that is client-based. As I mentioned, there are 17 different 

mandated funding streams, and it is very confusing for a worker 

to access all the different Government programs or to even know 

where to access and how to access the many different Government 

programs for which they are eligible, and that is the beauty of the 

One-Stop Centers. 

It is supposed to be a One-Stop Center, an entryway into the 

many Government programs which are potentially accessible to 

them, and again, it has to be flexible and it has to be client-based, 

student-focused, as you mentioned, because I think the workers 

who are asking for this help deserve no less and we have a responsibility of ensuring that they are reconnected with the workforce. 

Thank you. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And I want to thank Secretary Chao and Secretary Spellings for 

being here today, and I would mention that the record will stay 

open for another 10 days, and that is so that you can expand on 

any remarks that you want to. It is also so that members of the 

committee can submit questions. We try to keep the ones here of 

a more general nature. We have several that are more specific, but 

we found that has a tendency to put the people behind you to sleep. 

[Laughter.] 

It takes more time to really get the meat out of it, but there are 

some very specific things on the legislation that we will need your 

help on. 

I really appreciate your participation and all of the help that you 

have given us so far. Thank you for being here today. 

Secretary CHAO. Thank you. 

Secretary SPELLINGS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. At this point we will welcome the second panel. 

I will ask them to come forward. They are putting some name tags 

up at the front counter, switching out the water. While the switch 

is being made I will go ahead with the introductions. 

The first member of the panel is the Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius. Senator Roberts wanted to be here today to introduce the Governor of Kansas, Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Unfortunately, his duties as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee are keeping him very busy today. He sends his regrets. He 

wanted me to share with the members of the committee that Governor Sebelius and Senator Roberts’ families share a long history. 

In fact, Senator Roberts used to work for Governor Sebelius’ fatherin-law, the former Kansas Republican Congressman Keith Sebelius. 

He was Congressman Sebelius’ administrative assistant for 12 

years before Congressman Sebelius retired and Senator Roberts followed in his footsteps by representing that first district in Kansas 

for 16 years. 

26

Governor Sebelius has steered the Kansas Economic Growth Act 

to passage and restructured the existing Comprehensive Highway 

Package, ensuring the timely completion of all projects. She has 

also proposed sweeping educational reforms and has put forward 

several common-sense health care proposals to reduce costs and increase insurance coverage. 

The second member of our panel is the Kentucky Governor, 

Ernie Fletcher, who just flew in. 

[Laughter.] 

One of Governor Fletcher’s top priorities is economic development, and since coming into office more than 49,700 jobs have been 

created, ranking Kentucky as the fourth best among States. 

Pleased to have you here. 

The third member of our panel is former Congressman from Wisconsin, Steve Gunderson. He is the Director of the Washington Office of the Greystone Group, a strategic planning and research consulting firm. I have come to respect Steve’s work even more after 

reading his book, and I recommend this book to everyone, The Jobs 

Revolution: Changing How America Works. Some great statistics. I 

quote from it frequently. I do not always credit it. 

[Laughter.] 

Our fourth panel member is Brian Fitzgerald, who is the Executive Director of the Business Higher Education Forum, a Washington-based organization that encourages dialog among leaders of 

the business and higher education sector on issues central to the 

role of higher education in the global economy. Brian previously 

served as the Staff Director of the Advisory Committee on Student 

Financial Assistance, which was established to advise Congress 

and the Secretary of Education. 

The final member of this panel is Ms. Pamela Boisvert. The first 

part of your name in Wyoming we would call ‘‘Boyce’’ because we 

have DuBoise, but Boisvert, I am sorry. The Vice President of the 

Colleges of Worcester Consortium, Inc., a not-for-profit association 

of public and private accredited colleges and universities in Central 

Massachusetts. 

I welcome all of you. I assure you that your full statement will 

be a part of the record. I would ask you to condense your remarks 

to 5 minutes so that we will have time for questions before we have 

a vote that will be coming up. 

Governor Sebelius. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, GOVERNOR OF 

KANSAS, CHAIR OF THE NGA EDUCATION, EARLY

CHILDHOOD AND WORKFORCE COMMITTEE, ON BEHALF OF 

THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION 

Governor SEBELIUS. Thank you, Senator Enzi and committee 

members. It is a great pleasure to have the chance to be with you 

today. I am Kathleen Sebelius, the Governor of Kansas, and this 

year I have the pleasure of being the Chair of the National Governors Association Committee on Education, Early Childhood and 

Workforce Training. 

You mentioned legislators from Wyoming, and I just noticed that 

there are some legislators from Kansas here also. The NCSL is 

meeting today, so I am glad to have some folks from our home 

27

State who are on the front lines really figuring out education and 

workforce training at the State level. 

A lot of what Secretaries Spellings and Chao said today we certainly agreed with, that our high schools particularly are in jeopardy. We have too many students dropping out, too many high 

school graduates unprepared for the demands of postsecondary 

education and work. 

Governor Fletcher, my colleague from Kentucky who is here is 

going to focus specifically on some of the initiatives on high school 

reform, and I am going to talk a little bit about the P–16 alignment 

which is going on in a lot of States across the country, as well as 

the Workforce Investment Act. 

To make this a little more specific, about 75 years ago I think, 

a Kansas child could have assumed that he or she would spend 

their lives on the family farm, producing wheat, soybeans and 

other crops, feeding Americans and the world, and today only 3 

percent of our workers in Kansas are directly associated with farm 

jobs. That is a testimony to efficiency, but it means we also need 

to cultivate fertile minds as well as fertile soil in this day and age, 

and diversify that economic workforce. 

As we have already said, the world is changing dramatically and 

we need to be prepared for those changes. The cost of not doing 

what we are supposed to be doing is extremely high. Sixteen billion 

dollars is spent every year on fixing the lack of adequate preparation for kids going to college. It is paid for by businesses, by colleges and by the under-prepared high school students themselves. 

We think very strongly as Governors that aligning preschool 

through university education and workforce development need to 

work together. They are the best way to prepare an educated workforce and the best way to prepare for jobs for the future. There is 

a unique opportunity here in Congress, the pending reauthorizations of several major programs this year. The Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, Head Start, and the Carl Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act represent an unprecedented opportunity to align Federal education laws and promote 

lifelong learning, the kind of P–16 and beyond system. 

Governors really agree on a number of major requests. We hope 

that you here in the Senate and your colleagues in the House will 

embrace the state-coordinated P–16 efforts and support our lifelong 

learning initiatives, that you will provide—and both the Secretaries 

echoed this—greater flexibility to States, give Governors more authority to coordinate Federal funds. We are happy to be accountable for those funds and responsive to data requirements, but right 

now those data requirements are often duplicative and do not ask 

for the same sets of data, so a lot of time and energy and money, 

frankly, is spent on the bureaucratic requirements. 

Complementing our educational efforts are specific programs to 

improve the skills of our States’ workforce. It is a daunting task. 

Workforce development challenges us all, and yet there are few opportunities that yield such promise. We have a different workforce 

today, ethnic and cultural challenges to deal with, the needs of 

working families and individuals with disabilities. We have to address literacy gaps of low-skill workers and language needs of some 

28

of our newly arrived workers, all within a diverse and dynamic 

economy. 

What we are concerned with is a one-size-fits-all program with 

rigid regulation and service delivery structures, does not really 

work well for States across the country. We are different. We in the 

heartland are different from Kentucky and California and need 

some flexibility to recognize those differences. Again, we support 

accountability but feel that coordination at the State and local level 

can give us the opportunity really to use the funds in the most appropriate measure. 

So the four or five things I would just like to highlight in the 

Workforce Investment Act would be: 

Provide flexibility to Governors to coordinate our funds at the 

State level, and the option to coordinate funding streams; 

Relieve some of the mandates that are currently in place like the 

amount of funding that must be spent on a specific category or 

group. We think State needs are different and State workforces are 

different; 

More flexibility in success and participation, that individuals 

should be able to easily enter and reenter the system at different 

times, as opposed to going through a mandated sequence of events; 

Serving the business community and fostering economic development. We in Kansas have just totally overhauled our workforce system to make it more market-driven, more nimble—broaden community college training, but very much involve the community. That 

works in Kansas. A different format may work better in Kentucky. 

We are trying to make sure that we deal with accurate forecasting 

so that our business leaders have the job security for the future. 

Encourage innovation in States. Let us be the laboratories of 

what works and design programs in a way that we can give you 

the reports that are important, but also get rid of the limits on 

transferring the funds. 

Align more clearly the workforce and education programs, and 

coordinate management and performance information. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity. We have submitted some detailed written testimony. We would be happy to answer some questions. We are eager to work with the Senate as you overhaul and 

review these programs so that we make sure that not only are all 

children prepared for success in the future, but that we have the 

best educated, best trained workforce for the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Sebelius follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS

Chairman Enzi, Senator Kennedy and members of the committee, I am Kathleen 

Sebelius, Governor of the State of Kansas, and Chair of the National Governors Association Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Nation’s Governors on lifelong 

learning. 

NEW NGA EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE POLICIES

In February, the Nation’s Governors approved three new policies that offer bipartisan recommendations to align Federal education laws, accelerate State high school 

redesign, and promote lifelong learning through the Workforce Investment Act 

29

(WIA). The full text of the new policies is attached. I’m very proud of our work on 

the NGA to reach a bipartisan agreement on these issues. 

Today, I’ll limit my comments to Governors’ new vision to align Federal education 

laws and to streamline workforce programs. Governor Fletcher will discuss how 

Congress can help accelerate State high school redesign action plans. 

EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY

Our economy is changing, and we must change with it. Technology and trade have 

revolutionized the way companies do business. Manufacturers in Kansas must compete with manufacturers in Europe, Asia, and South America. What took 20 workers 

a full day to produce just a generation ago can now be handled by a single worker 

with the right machinery and a computer. A small shop owner in Frankfort can fill 

an order from Tokyo just as easily as a college student in Topeka can order from 

a store in Paris. 

What all of these scenarios require however is skilled and educated labor. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that by 2020, there will be a 22 percent increase 

in the number of jobs requiring some postsecondary education. Yet during the next 

20 years, we will lose 46 million skilled workers as baby boomers retire. Even with 

more people getting some form of secondary education, as many as 12 million jobs 

are likely to go unfilled; a loss that will disproportionately affect industries that are 

critical to our economic growth, including education, health care, technology, and 

manufacturing. This shortage constrains the productive capacity of key industries 

and jeopardizes the quality of services in others. 

But developing an educated and skilled workforce is not just good for business, 

it is good for people. Census data shows the median earnings of a high school graduate ($30,800) are 43 percent higher than those of a non-graduate ($21,600). Those 

of a college graduate are 62 percent higher than those of a high school graduate. 

States stand to benefit too. Economist Anthony Carnevale estimates that if States 

expand college access among African Americans, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic 

whites, (the resultant earnings improvements would certainly narrow income differences and could add as much as $230 billion in national wealth and $80 billion 

in new tax revenues every year.) 

NGA PRINCIPLES OF PRESCHOOL–COLLEGE (P–16) ALIGNMENT

In the 21st century, the economic strength of the United States will depend on 

the ability of each State and our Nation to develop a coordinated and aligned education and workforce system that supports, trains, and prepares a skilled set of 

workers. Now is the time to take action to create a seamless American education 

system, by aligning Federal education laws to promote lifelong learning. The pending reauthorizations of the Workforce Investment Act, Higher Education Act, Head 

Start, and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act present an 

unprecedented opportunity to align Federal education laws and promote lifelong 

learning. 

The pathway to progress is clear. Federal education laws from pre-school through 

college, commonly referred to as P–16, must be aligned to foster State innovation, 

eliminate costly duplication, and ultimately improve education outcomes for all students. 

NGA recently commissioned a study by Holland and Knight that examined the 

relationship between key provisions of these major laws: Head Start, the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the 

Carl D. Perkins Vocational Technical Education Act, the Higher Education Act 

(HEA), and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). The initial analysis will inform 

congressional debates and will help the larger education and workforce community 

to begin a dialog on education alignment and coordination. 

The NGA’s study of relevant laws revealed several important initial points. Some 

laws, such as NCLB and IDEA provisions related to improving student performance, 

‘‘read together’’ and can be implemented in an integrated fashion. However in too 

many cases, Federal education laws:

• Do not reinforce each other’s substantive requirements; • Establish duplicative requirements that may result in unnecessary burden on 

States (most notably the duplication in reporting requirements and data collection); • Create no clear, coherent system to effective and efficient reporting of information to the (1) public, (2) Federal agencies, or (3) Congress; and 

• Provide funding in ways that discourage the integration and strategic use of all 

available Federal dollars for a common purpose.

Too often, Federal education laws are isolated, one from another. But education 

begins in the early years and continues for a lifetime. The federal-state-local eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
30

cation system must be coordinated to serve the needs of all students, young and old. 

Limits and restrictions on State innovation generate costs that our Nation cannot 

afford. 

Governors believe that the Federal education laws should be aligned to:

• Embrace State coordinated P–16 efforts; • Provide greater flexibility to States; • Streamline Federal data reporting requirements; • Expand gubernatorial authority to coordinate Federal funds; • Recognize and reinforce constitutional gubernatorial authority over education in 

their States; and • Support lifelong learning.

From California to Georgia to Delaware, Governors are leading P–16 reform efforts to oversee the integration of early, elementary, secondary and postsecondary 

education. Governors urge this committee to carefully consider how Federal education laws relate to each other. We need to break down the isolation, eliminate the 

duplication, and provide new flexibility, so that Governors can build more seamless 

education systems. 

TRANSITION TO AND PREPARING FOR THE WORKFORCE

Education is the ultimate form of economic development. Education can not end 

at the classroom door. Rather its continuation is the cornerstone of developing and 

maintaining a competitive workforce. As Governors, we are continually working to 

ensure that our institutions of higher education and our workforce systems are 

ready to develop and sustain a skilled workforce for today’s modern, global economy. 

Our workforce’s increasing diversity and growing needs for skills offer new challenges in how we educate and train workers. We must accommodate ethnic and cultural differences; we must provide for the needs of working and individuals with disabilities; and we must address the literacy gaps of low-skilled workers and the language needs of immigrant workers. 

Exacerbating these challenges is the global economy that continually creates and 

eliminates jobs. Every year, up to a third of all jobs are either added or eliminated 

from the economy. This churning has contributed to the breakdown of the social contract between workers and employers and reduced the incentives for employers to 

invest in their workers. For many employees, the traditional concepts of job security, career ladders, and job progression simply do not exist. Increasingly, workers 

experience periods of dislocation and must have the tools to manage their own careers through first-rate labor exchange services. Lifelong education is a key part of 

moving through a career that consists of multiple jobs. 

To address these issues, our public workforce programs must have enough flexibility to meet the demands of an unpredictable economy and a changing worker population. These programs cannot be a one-size fits all systems with rigid regulations 

and service delivery structures. Rather, the programs must recognize the differences 

among States and communities, and thus provide Governors, working with local 

government, business, and labor to design flexible ways to meet distinct needs. At 

the same time, programs must remain accountable, given their reliance on public 

investments. 

REAUTHORIZING THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT

WIA authorized Governors to initiate broad structural reforms in their workforce 

development systems. With this authority, the Nation’s Governors have made significant progress in restructuring these systems and strengthening the essential 

partnerships between Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector. 

Yet State-by-State experiences reveal that many challenges remain, such as providing a comprehensive, highly integrated education, training, and employment 

services for workers. In addition, States need help in meeting reporting requirements, coping with resource constraints and fully engaging the business community 

as partners. 

On March 24th, the Nation’s Governors sent a letter to the members of this committee enumerating our bipartisan recommendations for the reauthorization of the 

Workforce Investment Act. The full text of our policy is attached. 

Governors believe that WIA reauthorization presents a great opportunity to enhance the Federal-State workforce system, support State innovation, and provide 

greater authority to Governors in overseeing the implementation and coordination 

of workforce programs. Combining a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible workforce system with nimble State economic development strategies, the Nation will 

have the tools for speedy, effective responses to the changing needs of workers and 

businesses alike, as they compete in the global economy. 

31

To address those challenges and strengthen the Nation’s workforce development 

system, Governors offer the following recommendations for any legislation to reauthorize WIA:

• Provide flexibility to coordinate funds: As noted by Secretary Chao, the Administration’s proposal would consolidate four WIA programs: Adult Training, Dislocated 

Worker Training, Youth Training, and Employment Services. It also creates various 

options for consolidation with five other programs. Instead of consolidating Federal 

WIA programs, however, the Senate WIA bill should offer Governors the option and 

authority to coordinate WIA program funding to meet the unique needs of their 

States; and it should also include a hold harmless provision to protect against any 

diminished Federal investment in workforce and related programs. Congress should 

provide Governors with the option, at their discretion, to pool WIA, higher education, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other sources of Federal training money to respond to the state-level needs of workers, businesses and 

other interests. 

• Eliminate youth spending mandate: WIA should not mandate the amount of 

youth funding that must be spent on out-of-school or in-school youth. Governors 

should be able to direct youth funds according to the needs of their respective 

States. 

• Improve access and participation: Congress should ensure that individuals can 

easily enter and reenter the system at any point and access services as needed, not 

in a prescribed sequence. Congress should also work to fully engage businesses in 

the workforce system and eliminate barriers that prevent workers and businesses 

from receiving assistance in a timely and efficient manner. 

• Serve the business community and foster economic development: WIA needs to 

better serve the business community and to connect with the economic development 

needs of the State. WIA reauthorization should also recognize the important partnerships among Federal, State, public, and private workforce programs and the 

Governors’ authority to press for innovations. For these reasons, Congress should 

support strong State public-private partnerships to ensure an adequate supply of 

workers for high-growth occupations as determined by individual States. To facilitate the relationships between Governors and their business community, Congress 

should also encourage coordination by the U.S. Department of Labor. 

• Encourage innovation: Congress should remove barriers to State innovation; 

these include, but not limited to, overly burdensome reporting requirements, inconsistent terms and definitions, and limitations on transferring funds. 

• Align related workforce and education programs: Partnerships within One-Stop 

centers have proven difficult to foster; given myriad agencies, organizations, financing, and responsibilities involved in delivering the array of services in one location. 

Governors recommend that the Federal partner agencies develop a joint initiative 

to align Federal regulations and encourage support for and participation in OneStop centers. Alignment efforts should encompass WIA, higher education, TANF, vocational rehabilitation, vocational and technical education, trade adjustment, veterans’ employment, and other distinct programs. In particular, Governors strongly 

support efforts to coordinate WIA and TANF to give welfare recipients and other 

low-income workers easier, more effective access to education and training. 

• Coordinate management and performance information: The initiative should address common management and performance information, including cost sharing, 

resource allocation, and joint case management, it should also facilitate the sharing, 

processing, and providing of services to participants. Establishing cross-system 

measures could support consistent information systems that span State and Federal 

workforce programs. 

• Streamline the Workforce Boards: The Senate WIA bill should give Governors 

the authority to design and re-designate the local workforce areas without Federal 

interference. 

• Eliminate Section 191: Section 191(A) of WIA has led to problems within some 

States by requiring that all WIA funds are subject to appropriation by the State legislature. This unnecessary provision should be eliminated to ensure that gubernatorial authority to allocate Federal funds. 

CONCLUSION

We must never stop learning. Congress should view today’s workforce and education programs as part of a continuum of lifelong learning. Current and future 

workers should have the opportunity to equip and reequip themselves for productive 

work through training, education, and professional development. Governors stand 

ready to work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that our workers and 

economy continue to lead the world in the 21st century. 

32

NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001, 

March 24, 2005. 

Hon. MICHAEL B. ENZI,

Chairman, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, D.C. 20510.

Hon. EDWARD ‘‘TED’’ M. KENNEDY, 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, D.C. 20510.

DEAR CHAIRMAN ENZI AND SENATOR KENNEDY: On behalf of the Nation’s governors, we are pleased to offer the following bipartisan recommendations for your 

consideration as you work to improve the Workforce Investment Act (W1A). 

WIA reauthorization presents an opportunity to enhance the Federal-State workforce system, support State innovation, coordinate the delivery of services, and provide greater authority to governors to oversee the implementation and coordination 

of workforce programs. Through a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible workforce 

system and State economic development strategies, the Nation will be better 

equipped to quickly respond to the changing needs of its workers and businesses as 

they compete successfully in the global economy. 

Governors urge the Senate to strengthen the Nation’s workforce development system by incorporating the following recommendations into any legislation to reauthorize WlA:

• Improve access and participation: Congress should ensure that individuals 

can easily enter and reenter the system at any point and access services as needed, 

not in a prescribed sequence. It should also work to fully engage businesses in the 

workforce system and eliminate barriers that prevent workers and businesses from 

receiving assistance in a timely and efficient manner. 

• Provide flexibility to coordinate funds: Instead of a Federal consolidation 

of WIA programs. Congress should provide governors with the option and authority 

to coordinate WIA funding to meet the unique needs of States and include a hold 

harmless provision to ensure that the Federal investment in workforce and related 

programs is not diminished. Congress should provide governors with the option, at 

their discretion, to pool WIA and related sources of Federal training money at the 

State level. 

• Encourage innovation: Congress should remove barriers to State innovation, 

including, but not limited to, overly burdensome reporting requirements, inconsistent terms and definitions, and limitations to transfer funds. 

Additional information and specifics regarding the governor position on WIA can 

be found in the attached NGA policy which was revised and reaffirmed last month 

at the NGA Winter Meeting. 

Governors look forward to working with you to improve and reauthorize WIA in 

the coming months. Thank you for considering our views. 

Sincerely, 

GOVERNOR KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, 

Chair, Education, Early Childhood 

and Workforce Committee. 

GOVERNOR TIM PAWLENTY, 

Vice Chair, Education, Early Childhood 

and Workforce Committee. 

NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION

POLICY POSITION

ECW-1. Governors’ Principles to Ensure Workforce Excellence Policy 

1.1 Preamble 

In the 21st century, the economic strength of the United States will depend on 

the ability of each state to compete successfully in the global economy. Today’s jobs 

require workers to have more advanced training and higher levels of education. In 

33

order to compete most effectively, state economic development strategies must build 

a skilled workforce through lifelong learning and worker training. 

Governors recognize that a strong workforce development system must encompass 

education, human service, and economic development programs and ensure the attention and investment of all levels of government and the private sector. In this 

era of global competitiveness, an effective workforce development system should address the needs of all workers, regardless of the worker’s skill level. Through a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible workforce system, the Nation will be equipped 

to quickly respond to the changing needs of its workers and businesses to compete 

successfully in the global economy. 

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) authorized Governors to initiate broad 

structural reforms in their workforce development systems. With this authority, the 

Nation’s Governors have made significant progress in restructuring their workforce 

development systems and strengthening partnerships among Federal, State, and 

local governments and the private sector. These reforms are producing highly skilled 

workforces that strengthen businesses and the economy. Yet experiences from 

States reveal that many challenges remain, such as providing a comprehensive, 

seamless system of education and training and employment services for workers; 

meeting reporting requirements; coping with resource constraints; and fully engaging the business community as partners. To address those challenges, Governors 

support additional efforts to strengthen the system and provide the following core 

principles and recommendations to guide actions by the Administration and Congress. 

1.2 Principles for Workforce Excellence 

The Governors recommend the following principles to help ensure workforce excellence. 

1.2.1 A Comprehensive, Flexible, State-Based Workforce System. The workforce system should be a comprehensive and flexible state-based system that is centered on the needs of local regions and communities and accountable for results. The 

workforce system should be readily understood, accessible, and responsive to local 

and regional workers, job seekers, students, and businesses. These customers should 

receive information about the full array of services available from public and private 

sources and should be able to easily enter and reenter the system at any point and 

access services as needed, not in a prescribed sequence. Governors should have the 

flexibility to build on the current strengths in the system, including the authority 

to design and re-designate the local workforce areas without Federal interference. 

1.2.2 Lifelong Learning Opportunities. Job training and education programs 

should be available to the entire workforce and the business community as part of 

a continuum of lifelong learning. Current and future workers should have the opportunity to equip and re-equip themselves for productive work through training, education, and professional development. Education and workforce partners should pursue new educational methodologies such as modularization of curriculum, portable 

credentials for students and workers, e-learning, and other distance learning opportunities. In addition, student financial aid guidelines should be revised to better 

serve working adults. Due to the vital role that job training and education programs 

play during an individual’s lifetime, it is critical that Federal education and workforce programs be aligned to function most effectively to support the lifelong learning opportunities for individuals in state-determined high demand occupations. 

1.2.3 Education and Career Linkages for Students. In a knowledge- and 

skill-based economy, education is increasingly linked to economic success, with postsecondary education and training often leading to higher earnings and employment 

stability. WIA should reinforce with students the importance of acquiring basic 

skills, such as reading or math, that lead to a high school degree or equivalent, thus 

ensuring students have the foundation of skills and knowledge to enter any career 

and to support continued lifelong learning. For these reasons, the workforce development system should effectively support career exploration opportunities and should 

link education and work through work-based learning, internships, career guidance, 

youth apprenticeship, and other options that enable students to obtain the academic, occupational, and work-readiness skills needed for employment. Businesses, 

unions, schools, colleges and universities, community-based organizations, teachers, 

students, and all levels of government must share the responsibility to ensure that 

alignment of these programs produces economic success for students. 

1.2.4 Barriers to Innovation. Governors continue to develop innovative workforce systems that respond to customer needs, reduce fragmentation, promote accountability, deliver services efficiently, and engage the business community. To ensure a higher quality Federal-State workforce system for America’s workers. Congress should remove barriers to innovation including, but not limited to, overly burVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
34

densome reporting requirements, inconsistent terms and definition, and limitations 

to transfer funds. 

1.2.5 Governors’ Leadership in Workforce Programs Innovation. WIA reauthorization should recognize the important partnerships among Federal, State, public, and private workforce programs and Governors’ authority to develop an innovative workforce development system. Congress should encourage the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to coordinate with the Governor when working with a State’s 

business community. 

1.2.6 Integral Role of the Private Sector. Workforce development has two 

major groups of customers—workers (both current and future) and businesses. Although WIA made strides in recognizing the needs of businesses, work remains to 

ensure that businesses are fully engaged in the law. Federal policy should not undermine the vast investment that private sector businesses have made to train 

workers. Also, Federal initiatives should be designed to support state-based programs, particularly State efforts to build partnerships with business. Federal WIA 

policy should support strong public/private partnerships and provide Governors the 

authority to build these partnerships to ensure an adequate supply of high-growth 

industries and occupations. Federal efforts should be designed to support statebased programs, including State efforts to partner with businesses. 

1.2.7 Efficient Assistance for Business Firms and Dislocated Workers. Federal dislocated worker initiatives and funding should be responsive and flexible to 

address the impact of economic changes on workers in States across the Nation. In 

addition, workers and businesses negatively affected by Federal policy decisions 

should receive adjustment assistance in a timely and efficient manner. Federal assistance should be provided through state-based networks and initiatives, and final 

authority to implement the provision of assistance should be determined by the Governor. 

1.3 Recommendations for Strengthening the Workforce Development System 

The Nation’s Governors strongly support the following recommendations to 

strengthen the workforce development system. 

1.3.1 Funding. Governors support an increase in the Federal Investment in WIA 

programs to support lifelong learning and economic development. WIA funding helps 

support critical workforce services to ensure that America’s workers will remain 

competitive in the 21st century global economy. To adequately respond to the global 

economy. WIA funding should be flexible and responsive to worker shortages, high 

demand occupations as determined by each State, major shifts in the national economy, and State economic development goals. 

1.3.2 Flexibility to Coordinate or Transfer Funds. Congress should provide 

Governors with the option to coordinate WIA funding to meet the unique needs of 

their States and should include a hold harmless provision to ensure that the Federal 

investment in workforce and related programs is not diminished. At their discretion, 

Governors should be given the option to pool WIA, higher education, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other sources of Federal training money 

at the State level to respond to the needs of workers and businesses. 

1.3.3 Performance Measures. Governors urge the development of a new streamlined—yet strong—performance measurement based on State and local input. The 

framework should include a core set of measures that are meaningful across workforce development programs. These measures should readily illustrate the value the 

workforce development system adds to meeting economic development goals. Governors should be closely consulted if any Federal measures are adopted. Performance measures should be flexible and easy to collect to allow the evaluation of shortterm results on and long-term efforts by workers and businesses. The current multiplicity of measures and data collection impedes service delivery in States. Congress 

and DOL should also support the voluntarily development of State integrated performance measures and information systems that include common definitions and 

measures. 

1.3.4 Reporting Requirements. The current workforce system is fragmented 

and consists of inconsistent terms and definitions, as well as overly burdensome reporting requirements. This system impedes efficient service delivery in States and 

localities; deters participation of eligible job training providers, including educational institutions such as community colleges and apprenticeship programs; and 

discourages partnerships within one-stop centers. Governors urge Congress to 

streamline and improve Federal reporting requirements. Until Federal law is revised to provide such flexibility, Governors expect DOL to approve appropriate waivers of Federal regulations to reduce the financial burden of unnecessary paperwork 

and remove barriers to innovation. 

35

1.3.5 Regulations. Governors urge DOL to develop regulations in close consultation with States. Moreover, DOL should only develop regulations when the law is 

unclear and needs clarification, and these regulations must be consistent with the 

intent of Congress. 

1.3.6 Federal Partner Programs. Partnerships within one-stop centers have 

been difficult to foster given the myriad of agencies, organizations, financing, and 

responsibilities involved in delivering the array of services in one location. Governors recommend that the Federal partner agencies develop a joint initiative to 

align Federal regulations to consistently encourage support for and participation in 

one-stop centers. Alignment efforts should encompass WIA, higher education. TANF, 

vocational rehabilitation, vocational and technical education, trade adjustment, veterans’ employment, and other distinct programs. In particular, Governors support 

efforts to coordinate WIA and TANF systems to help welfare recipients and other 

low-income workers better access education and training. 

The initiative should address common management and performance information, 

including cost sharing, resource allocation, and joint case management, as well as 

the sharing, processing, and providing of services to participants. Flexibility to establish cross-system measures could support consistent information systems across 

State and Federal workforce programs. 

1.3.7 Greater Access to WIA Training. Training is important in providing a 

continuum of skill development, ranging from initial preparation to ongoing career 

advancement. A basic tenet of WIA is to facilitate an efficient transition for qualified 

individuals through core, intensive, and training services. Govenors recommend that 

DOL work with States to issue clarifying guidance to ensure that enrollment in 

training is not blocked or delayed by a rigid application of WIA eligibility criteria 

for intensive services and training, particularly when a one-stop partner has already 

properly determined the need for training. 

1.3.8 Readjustment and Training for Dislocated Workers. Under current 

law, to be eligible for job training services, dislocated workers must first participate 

in the required sequence of services. Governors recommend that States and localities be given flexibility to apply eligibility criteria to permit rapid passage through 

the initial services when there is a ready presumption that other work is not available. To ensure training opportunities for unemployed workers, participation in WIA 

intensive and training services should be allowed to satisfy unemployment insurance work search requirements. Additionally, Governors recommend that the wagereplacement performance standard be eliminated because it inadvertently discourages enrollment of high-wage workers when replacement jobs are not available at 

similar pay levels. 

1.3.9 Flexibility for Youth Programs. Under current law, local WIA program 

administrators are required to contract-out training and development services for 

youth, regardless of a lack of qualified service providers. At the same time, Governors may grant waivers to local boards allowing them to consolidate service delivery for adults and dislocated workers in rural areas. Similar rules should apply to 

the WIA youth funding stream so that local boards may streamline program services 

in areas with insufficient numbers of qualified service providers. 

WIA should not mandate the amount of youth funding that must be spent on outof-school or in-school youth. Governors should have the discretion to direct youth 

funds according to the needs of each State. 

1.3.10 Incentives for Comprehensive System Building. Incentives, including 

access to waiver authority and additional Federal funds, should be provided to all 

States to establish comprehensive workforce development systems in partnership 

with local governments and private sector leaders. 

1.3.11 Section 191. Section 191(A) has led to problems within some States by requiring that all WIA funds are subject to appropriation by the State legislature. 

This unnecessary provision should be eliminated to ensure that Governors retrain 

unfettered authority to allocate Federal funds. 

Related Policies 

ECW-11, Employment Security System Policy 

ECW-15, Principles of Federal Preschool–College (P–16) Alignment 

HH S-21, Welfare Reform

Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2005 Winter Meeting 2007). 

Adopted Winter Meeting 1993; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1995; revised and reaffirmed Winter Meeting 1997; revised Winter Meeting 1998, Winter Meeting 2000, 

Winter Meeting 2002, Annual Meeting 2005, and Winter Meeting 2005 (formerly Policy HR-I). 

36

ECW-13. High School Reform: Aligning Secondary and Postsecondary Education Policy 

13:1 Preamble 

Governors are leaders in high school reform and Federal policy should support 

their authority, initiatives, and innovation. States are implementing and developing 

strategies to increase student participation in college preparatory courses, better 

align expectations between high school and postsecondary education, and ensure 

students graduate from high school ready for college or the workplace. 

Governors recognize that education is a fundamental State responsibility. To ensure the proper federal-state-local partnership, Federal education laws and regulations must be accompanied by broad flexibility. While States invest significant resources in education programs, Governors also recognize and appreciate the Federal 

Government’s contribution to provide additional resources or assistance for those 

most in need. 

High school reform requires systemic change in Federal education policies to 

break down barriers, align and raise standards and expectations, and allow for 

greater flexibility at State and local levels. Also critical to reform will be an increased focus on rigor and relevance of secondary school for all students. Federal 

programs for middle school, high school, career and technical education, and postsecondary education must be aligned to support State high school reform efforts and 

to ensure that every child graduates from high school ready to succeed in the global 

economy. Federal funding must be appropriated to meet new school improvement 

goals and current mandates. 

13.2 Principles for High School Reform 

Governors recommend the following principles for Federal high school reform. 

• Support State efforts to reform high school. • Recognize Governors’ responsibilities in early education, kindergarten–12th 

grade (K–12), and postsecondary education, and strengthen their authority to coordinate statewide education policies across grades and education settings. • Better align early education through college educational standards. • Increase academic rigor for all students. • Support State high school accountability through a range of testing and assessments. • Support expanded and diverse learning options. • Address literacy needs of adolescents. • Expand guidance and counseling services to students. • Better prepare high school students for college or work expectations. • Support new models for teacher and school leader compensation. • Expand professional development for secondary teachers and school leaders. 

13.3 Recommendations for High School Reform 

Governors support the following recommendations to reform high school, align 

secondary school with postsecondary or college expectations, and promote lifelong 

learning. 

13.3.1 Preschool-College (P–l6) Alignment of Educational Standards, Systems, and Expectations. Governors have taken the lead in recognizing the fundamental State responsibility for a seamless progression from early childhood through 

lifelong learning opportunities. Recognition of this seamless educational continuum 

is important in fashioning education policies at the Fede14ral level. Congress should 

support State efforts to closely align high school standards with expectations and 

requirements for postsecondary education and work. Congress should encourage K–

12 and postsecondary institutions, or provide incentives to States, to streamline 

high school assessments with college admission or readiness for work testing. 

13.3.2 K–12 Accountability. Governors support State efforts for rigorous testing 

and assessment of high school students. States have made considerable progress to 

institute standards-based testing and demand greater accountability in K–12 education. Governors urge Congress to closely consult with States on any Federal expansion of testing and to continue to respect Governors’ authority over education. 

Any costs associated with federally mandated testing or Federal reporting on State 

exams must be completely covered by the Federal Government. Maximum flexibility 

in designing State accountability systems, including testing and other assessments, 

is critical to preserve the unique balance involving Federal funding, local control of 

education, and State responsibility for systemwide reform. Maximum flexibility in 

State testing will help improve how students are assessed for academic proficiency 

and postsecondary readiness. 

13.3.3 Professional Development for Teachers and School Leaders. High 

school reform will require new investments in the capacity of teachers and school 

37

leaders. Governors support expanded flexibility to increase professional development 

opportunities for secondary school teachers and school leaders, in particular those 

individuals working in hard-to-serve schools or critical shortage areas, such as 

math, science, reading, and special education. 

13.3.4 Models for Teacher and School Leader Compensation. Governors understand that systemic improvement in high school achievement, as well as college 

and workplace readiness, may require additional support for teachers and school 

leadership. High schools must compete with other more highly compensated professions for teachers and school leaders, especially in the areas of math and science. 

Congress should support state-administered pilot projects on performance pay, especially in critical shortage areas or hard-to-staff schools. 

13.3.5 Dual Enrollment and Early College. Governors recognize the importance of promoting innovation and integration among secondary, postsecondary, and 

industry-recognized institutions. Federal policies should encourage—not discourage—promising State efforts in dual enrollment programs that permit students to 

obtain college-level credits or provide the opportunity to earn an industry-recognized 

credential while still in secondary school. Specifically, Congress should encourage 

State dual enrollment or early college programs, and allow high school students participating in these programs to be eligible for Federal financial aid. 

13.3.6 High School Rigor. Across the Nation, high percentages of high school 

graduates are entering college, but increasingly they are not adequately prepared 

for the rigor of postsecondary courses. As a result, States, parents, and students are 

expending a great amount of resources on developmental courses instead of on college-level education, and students are taking longer to graduate or, are not attaining a degree. Congress should support State and local efforts to improve high school 

rigor, while working with colleges and universities to phase-out developmental 

courses. Congress should also support State collaborative efforts with high schools 

and postsecondary institutions to acquire information about attrition and academic 

progress. 

13.3.7 State Scholars. The State Scholars Initiative supports State efforts to voluntarily develop and promote more rigorous coursework for high school students 

and offers incentives to those students accepting the challenge. Governors believe 

that funding should be adequate so that any interested State could voluntarily participate in the program. 

13.3.8 Industry Certification, Advanced Placement, and International Baccalaureate Programs. Congress should provide financial incentives to States to support 

industry-recognized certification exams among high school and postsecondary school 

students. Congress also should support State efforts that encourage more students 

to enroll in Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) 

coursework and pay for student AP testing. 

13.3.9 Diverse Learning Opportunities for Students of All Ages. A one-sizefit-all approach to high school learning is outdated and does not support the diverse 

needs of students. Governors encourage Congress to support State and local policies 

and programs that expand the availability of learning opportunities for students of 

all ages, including but not limited to, distance learning, service learning, internships, and the availability of financial aid. 

Diverse learning options can increase access to postsecondary education and lower 

costs. Governors urge Congress to afford students participating in state-accredited 

distance and online education programs full access to Federal student financial assistance. The Higher Education Act (HEA) should provide the U.S. Secretary of Education with the authority to exercise discretion to allow States and institutions to 

appropriately experiment with new ideas and approaches to meet the financial aid 

needs of students enrolled in such programs. 

13.3.10 Guidance and Counseling Services. Congress should expand Federal 

support for counseling services to secondary school students. Governors support Federal programs, such as Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate 

Programs (GEAR-UP), the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP), 

and the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program (ESSCP). In all 

three programs, Congress should provide States and local school districts with 

greater flexibility. Congress should also reauthorize GEAR-UP, and other Federal 

programs that encourage college attendance, in an equitable way that allows students to benefit from these opportunities in all States that apply for grants. Additionally, State innovation in this area should be further supported by Congress to 

broaden opportunities and encourage systemic improvements. Under the ESSCP 

program, local school districts should be given flexibility to allocate resources between the elementary or secondary school level for key Federal programs. 

Governors understand the importance of early college planning and preparation. 

Congress should support State strategies that promote early college awareness, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
38

cluding middle school programs that focus on the importance of high school to prepare for college and college admissions tests. 

13.4 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act 

The reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 

Act (Perkins) is an important component of high school reform. Career and technical 

education can bridge the transition between high school and postsecondary activities 

by providing students with real-world skills to better prepare for the 21st century 

workplace. In particular, the Perkins reauthorization should improve the academic 

rigor of career and technical education for students. To this end, Governors support 

increased Federal funding for Perkins’ programs. 

13.4.1 State Leadership. Governors support the strong role for State leadership 

in Perkins. This role can only be maintained with adequate resources for administration, leadership, and innovation. Governors oppose any reduction in the Federal 

commitment to fund and support this important State role. 

13.4.2 Federal and State Alignment. The goals and objectives of career and 

technical education should align with other Federal education and workforce development programs to promote lifelong learning opportunities, work readiness, and 

school readiness. Furthermore, Governors believe that career and technical education programs must complement the academic mission of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. In recognizing the importance of coordination and alignment 

among different Federal programs, Governors support aligning Perkins with NCLB 

and eliminating duplicative reporting requirements fulfilled by NCLB. 

13.4.3 State Flexibility. Congress should maintain and enhance the flexibility to 

fashion career and technical education programs to meet each unique State situation. Governors support continuing and enhancing the flexibility currently allowed 

under Perkins, such as allowing States to determine the allocation of funds between 

secondary and postsecondary institutions. Congress also should give States the authority to combine Tech Prep with Basic State Grants. 

13.4.4 State Accountability. Federal policy should continue to recognize the critical State role of determining and setting performance standards and other measures to ensure student success in career and technical education programs. Governors support the use of State determined accountability measures. 

13.4.5 Paperwork Reduction: State Plans. Governors recognize the important 

objectives sought by the different provisions within Perkins. However, Governors believe that States should be able to file a single unified plan to substantially reduce 

the paperwork burden on State agencies and to increase collaboration between Perkins’ programs. 

13.4.6 Data Collection and Maintenance. Governors recognize the importance 

of having reliable and useful data to measure student performance in career and 

technical education programs. Congress should allot additional Federal resources to 

develop, maintain, or support State data systems to comply with Perkins. To this 

end, Congress must cover any increase in the cost of administering or implementing 

new federally mandated data requirements. 

13.5 Higher Education Act of 1965

It is essential that postsecondary institutions keep pace with the ever-changing 

global economy and reforms implemented in elementary and secondary education. 

While the Higher Education Act of 1965 expanded opportunities for students, reform 

to the larger postsecondary system has been slow and graduation rates remain relatively stagnant. In this new economy and era of education reform, now is the time 

to reform postsecondary education by increasing relevance and rigor, accountability, 

linkages with K–12 education and the workplace, and by expanding financial aid to 

students of all ages. Governors urge the 109th Congress to reauthorize HEA and 

to strengthen the State-Federal partnership in postsecondary education to serve the 

Nation well into the 21st century. 

13.5.1 Higher Education Act Principles. HEA provides the statutory framework for a wide range of student financial assistance that enables expanded access 

by all students to higher education institutions; ensures affordability for low- and 

moderate-income families; and provides for Federal programs to strengthen graduate education, minority-serving institutions, and international education. Governors recommend the following principles for HEA reauthorization.

• Support State strategies to improve enrollment and completion of postsecondary 

education. 

• Make college more affordable for students. 

• Simplify forms for the complex program of student financial assistance. 

• Align HEA with other Federal education programs, including increased accountability in the system. 

39

• Recognize the growing need for services and supports for nontraditional students to be successful.

13.5.2 College Affordability for All Students. The Nation’s Governors recognize the vital importance of financial aid programs to make college education more 

affordable for students, including part-time and nontraditional students. In addition, 

Governors support a strong Federal commitment to ensure affordability through 

both Federal grant aid and loan programs. Congress should work to ensure that 

Federal higher education assistance substantially defrays education costs. Governors also appreciate that student loan consolidation provides students with another mechanism to address college affordability. 

13.5.3 Student Loan Financing Loophole. Congress should permanently close 

the student loan financing loophole and reinvest those savings into other Federal 

education programs. The closure of the loophole will save taxpayers money while expanding opportunity and support for students. 

13.5.4 Pell Grants for Students. Governors recognize the value of need-based 

financial aid programs, such as Pell grants. Governors are concerned with the historical inadequate funding of Pell grants to provide the maximum allowable awards 

to eligible students and believe that Congress should consider raising the Pell grant 

maximum. Governors believe that the Federal Government should review the Pell 

grant program to ensure that the purchasing value of this grant has not diminished 

over time. Congress should also fund an enhanced Pell grant for those students 

graduating in the top 10 percent of their high school class for the first 2 years of 

college, as long as there is no reduction in the total number or size of grants awarded to other Pell Grant recipients. 

The Pell grant program should be modernized to reflect the varied needs of today’s high school and postsecondary school students, including independent students 

and those attending less than half-time. Governors also support extension of Pell 

grants for students whose educational pursuits extend beyond the typical calendar 

year. Pell grant eligibility should extend to summer classes and mid-term classes 

to allow these students to pursue their studies throughout the year, if possible. 

13.5.5 Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnerships. Congress should expand the Federal investment in the LEAP program to continue to spur State investments into need-based grant aid, merit scholarships for needy students, and needbased scholarship programs in specialized areas. The LEAP program represents an 

excellent Federal-State partnership to support and encourage eligible students to attend and stay in college. To better enable States to compete for these funds, Congress should add more flexibility to allow local and private fund matches to be 

counted towards the State maintenance-of-effort. 

13.5.6 Form and Program Simplification. Governors believe that the current 

Federal, State, and private student financial assistance programs have provided unprecedented opportunities for students in America. However, the array of Federal, 

State, and private scholarships, grants, loans, tax breaks, and work-study programs 

presents a complex and often confusing set of choices for students. The reauthorization of HEA should require coordination and collaboration between Federal Agencies 

to simplify the application process and forms, to utilize information technologies to 

facilitate navigation among the many choices and opportunities, and to strengthen 

the role of state-based guarantee agencies in the financial aid process. Additional 

transparency and education about the Pell grant award process, as well as other 

programs of financial aid, should be encouraged. 

Moreover, Governors believe that the administrative burdens and excessive regulations associated with the Federal student financial aid process must be substantially improved for students, institutions of higher education, and States. 

13.5.7 Postsecondary Accountability. Accountability of higher education institutions is an important issue for Governors, and the Federal Government should 

defer to the States’ leadership in this area. For this reason, Congress should require 

greater accountability from postsecondary institutions as defined by the State. Postsecondary institutions should strive to improve the retention and completion of all 

enrolled students and to increase postsecondary attainment. For this reason, Governors support the State development of clear, significant, and measurable goals for 

postsecondary institutions. 

13.5.8 Accountability for Teacher and School Leader Preparation Programs. HEA reauthorization should strengthen the Federal-State partnership for 

the preparation, training, and professional development of the next generation of 

the Nation’s teachers and school leaders. Governors have taken the lead in their 

States advocating stricter standards for teacher preparation and performance. Governors urge the Federal Government to defer setting national standards, and instead allow States to give their own teacher preparation programs an opportunity 

to demonstrate their effectiveness. However, Congress should support and build on 

40

State reforms to expand accountability for teacher preparation programs and to 

align NCLB standards with HEA Title II programs. 

13.5.9 Coordination with Workforce Programs. An educated workforce is an 

essential element of a State’s success in the new economy, and effective postsecondary education is a key factor for a successful economic development program 

today. Congress should strengthen the ties between postsecondary institutions and 

workforce programs by coordinating programs at the U.S. Department of Labor and 

the U.S. Department of Education that address workforce training and preparation. 

13.5.10 Access for Nontraditional Students. Governors recognize the diversity 

of today’s postsecondary students. Governors support the removal of barriers within 

the financial aid systems that make it difficult for part-time, financially independent, or nontraditional students to qualify for financial aid. 

13.5.11 Loan Forgiveness for Teachers. Governors support congressional efforts to expand student loan forgiveness for teachers, specifically those teachers 

working in hard-to-staff schools, including schools identified as in need of improvement, or those teachers working in critical shortage areas, such as special education, 

math, reading, and science. 

13.5.12 Encouraging Families to Save for Their Children’s Higher Education. Governors have taken the initiative in establishing college savings plans in 

their States that increase affordability of a postsecondary education for middle-income families. These programs should be supported and encouraged in the reauthorization of HEA according to the following principles of a Federal-State partnership.

• College savings incentives at the Federal level should be designed to simulate 

and complement, rather than preempt, similar policy initiatives by States and public and private higher education institutions. • Congress should strive to simplify the tax code as it relates to college savings 

and tax credits wherever possible. An overly complex system can dissuade those 

most in need of financial aid from pursuing it. • Reduced revenue resulting from tax incentives for savings for higher education 

should not lead to reductions in other vital Federal higher education programs. 

Related Policies 

ECW-5, Great Expectations: The Importance of Rigorous Education Standards 

and K–12/Postsecondary Alignment 

ECW-12, Building Successful Literacy Initiatives 

ECW-15, Principles of Federal Preschool-College (P–16) Alignment

Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2005–Winter Meeting 2007). 

Adopted Winter Meeting 1998; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 2000; revised Winter 

Meeting 2001, Winter Meeting 2003, and Winter Meeting 2005 (formerly Policy HR44). 

ECW-15. Principles of Federal Preschool–College (P–16) Alignment 

15.1 Preamble 

In the 109th Congress, three of the five major education laws—Head Start, the 

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (Perkins), and the Higher 

Education Act (HEA)—are scheduled for reauthorization. Congress recently reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and is expected to 

review the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in the next several years. Given the 

confluence of these significant education reauthorizations, Congress should take this 

unprecedented opportunity and make every effort to align the Federal education 

laws, as well as support State efforts to create an educational continuum from preschool through college, commonly referred to as P–16 alignment. 

The Nation’s Governors have taken the lead in recognizing each States fundamental responsibility for a seamless progression in education for citizens from preschool through college and into lifelong learning. Governors are leading efforts to 

oversee the integration of early childhood, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary 

education, including creating and strengthening statewide P–16 councils or other 

collaborative efforts. Governors are also leading efforts to better monitor and assess 

student success throughout their education experience. Recognition of the need for 

a seamless educational system is important in fashioning education policies at the 

Federal, State, and local level. 

Congress should align Federal education laws so that legislation relates, supports, 

and builds upon each other. Federal education laws should no longer be silos of assistance providing support or opportunities to limited populations. Federal and 

State education reform must be systemic, coordinated, and aligned for student 

needs. 

41

Federal P–16 alignment is not a one-size-fits-all mandate—it is the alignment of 

existing and future Federal laws. If the Federal Government has issued a law, such 

as IDEA, then other Federal education laws should coordinate, support, and relate 

to IDEA. If the Federal Government has not preempted State or local rule on an 

issue, Congress should refrain from establishing any Federal mandates to ensure 

maximum State and local flexibility to create P–16 systems. To achieve this goal, 

Congress must provide States with greater flexibility and authority to align education systems and standards. 

Alignment of Federal P–16 laws will ultimately improve education for students of 

all ages by eliminating unnecessary government bureaucracy, reducing costly duplication, aligning academic rigor and preparation, expanding systemwide accountability, and promoting flexibility for innovation. For these reasons, Governors believe that the following principles of Federal P–l6 alignment should be incorporated 

in the reauthorizations of Head Start, NCLB, Perkins, HEA, IDEA, and related regulations and laws. 

15.2 Principles of Federal P–16 Alignment 

• Align Federal data reporting requirements. The U.S. Department of Education and related agencies should coordinate and simplify efforts to collect data 

from States and localities. Aligned Federal data reporting requirements can support 

State data systems, simplify data collection, and reduce duplication. Existing Federal data sets should be comparable from age-to-age and state-to-state. Duplication 

should be eliminated by Congress. The cost of any federally mandated data reporting requirements, including systems and personnel, should be fully covered by the 

Federal Government.

• Support state efforts to build the data capacity to track student 

progress from early childhood through postsecondary school or the workforce. Exemplary state data systems provide student-level information for accountability purposes, improve teaching and learning. and inform resource allocation decisions. • Increase and align academic rigor for all students. Academic rigor should 

be increased across grades to ensure that students complete high school and prepare 

for college or work. All students benefit from the completion of more rigorous 

coursework. • Align educational systems. Federal laws should support State alignment of 

standards across grades and education settings. Federal early education programs 

should be aligned with school readiness requirements for kindergarten, and high 

school standards should be aligned with requirements for postsecondary education 

and work activities. As a result, preschool children will be better prepared for kindergarten and high school students will be better prepared to be successful in college or work. • Expand educational options and delivery methods for all students. Students learn in a variety of formats, methods, and settings. Federal education policy 

should support students’ diverse learning needs as determined by States. 

• Support state-level P–16 accountability systems. Exemplary state-level P–

16 accountability systems hold all levels of the education system accountable for student progress and achievement. While NCLB placed new accountability requirements on K–12 education, factors influencing success in other grades remain largely 

unchanged in Federal education law. Teacher training, early education, and academic rigor in vocational education programs are factors that impact the success of 

students, teachers, and school leaders in elementary and secondary education. Public reporting of information will also help to empower parents, students, the public, 

and decisionmakers to evaluate education in their communities. 

• Expand gubernatorial authority to coordinate Federal education funds. 

Governors should be given greater authority to coordinate Federal funds within education programs and across grade levels to create aligned P–16 systems to better 

serve students’ unique and diverse needs. 

• Support State efforts to create P–16 educational systems; oppose a onesize-fits-all Federal education system. P–16 alignment is complex and unique to 

each State. The Federal Government should recognize differences among States and 

support State innovation to create P–16 education systems, as well as refrain from 

setting any broad sweeping Federal mandates on States. Congress should support 

the State creation of strong P–16 councils and other collaborative efforts, as well as 

the development of State databases to collect longitudinal data on students’ academic progress throughout the P–16 system. 

• Centralize educational governance with Governors. Governors are the 

chief executive officers of States and are responsible for the education of their citizens. Unfortunately, Federal laws and regulations sometimes undermine, dilute, or 

42

create barriers to State efforts to align education programming. Congress should 

recognize and reinforce Governors’ authority over education in their States. 

Related Policies 

ECW-2, Education Reform 

ECW-3 An Active, Knowledgeable Citizenry 

ECW-4, Head Start: Strengthening Collaboration 

ECW-5, Great Expectations: The Importance of Rigorous Education Standards 

and K–12/Postsecondary Alignment 

ECW-7, Child Care and Early Education 

ECW-8, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

ECW-12, Building Successful Literacy Initiatives 

ECW-13, High School Reform: Aligning Secondary and Postsecondary Education 

ECW-14, Public Charter Schools

Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2005–Winter Meeting 2007). 

Adopted Winter Meeting 2005.

Joan Wodiska, Director, Education, Early Childhood and Workforce Committee, 

444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 267, Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 624–5361 

(202) 624–5313 jwodiska@nga.org. 

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned that some of the legislators are 

here. Is your Chairman of Senate or House Education here? Raise 

your hand if you are. 

[Laughter.] 

Governor SEBELIUS. I did not see them as I looked around. 

The CHAIRMAN. The only reason I mention that is because the 

Wyoming Chairman of Education is here. 

Governor SEBELIUS. I know they are here in Washington, but I 

do not know that they are here in the room. 

The CHAIRMAN. He has been standing patiently in the back, and 

since we are short on seats, I would invite him to come up and 

have a seat up here in the front. And if any of the other Chairmen 

of Education from any of the States are here, you are welcome to 

come up and join us too. 

Governor Fletcher. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNIE FLETCHER, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION 

Governor FLETCHER. Chairman Enzi, Senator Alexander, Senator 

Isakson, it is good to be with you. Thank you for this kind invitation and the honor. Certainly it is good to see Senator Isakson 

here. We spent some time together on the Education Committee on 

the House side, and I want to congratulate you for being here. 

I also want to recognize Secretary Spellings and Secretary Chao. 

Secretary Spellings will be visiting us in May in Kentucky, and 

Secretary Chao, I want to thank her for the work on WIA Plus. 

That will give States the flexibility to use workforce money to support economic development and create more jobs, and also thanks 

for her leadership as a great Kentuckian as well as a great Secretary. 

It is good to join Governor Sebelius here, and as she discussed, 

Governors are eager to align preschool through college education 

systems to ensure that America remains competitive. To promote 

this concept in Kentucky I have reorganized our education cabinet, 

bringing together all education and workforce development entities 

to make lifelong learning seamless and more effective. With me 

43

today I have Secretary Virginia Fox, who is Secretary of Education 

in Kentucky. 

We all recognize that high schools are our Nation’s front line in 

the battle to strengthen America’s global competitiveness, and acknowledge that education is economic development. Without question, high school completion is essential not only for postsecondary 

education, but also for work readiness and lifelong learning. 

Too many of our Nation’s youth are dropping out of high school 

and too many high school graduates are unprepared for the demands of postsecondary education, and they are unprepared for the 

21st century workplace. 

The Achieve Board and Achieve, Inc. and the NGA have developed data profiles indicating that nationally only 68 out of 100 students will graduate from high school on time. Furthermore, those 

numbers drop significantly when we look at the college success 

rates. Nationwide only 18 of those 68 high school graduates will 

complete college within 6 years. As such, Governors are working to 

improve the high school experience to ensure that our students are 

ready to earn and learn well beyond graduation day. 

NGA, with Chairman Governor Mark Warner, launched an initiative entitled Redesigning the American High School. This was 

done in partnership with the Wallace Foundation and four other 

national organizations. The NGA developed several publications including ‘‘Getting it Done,’’ and ‘‘Ten Steps to a State Action Agenda’’ to provide Governors with concrete strategies to redesign their 

high schools. In addition the NGA is convening six town hall meetings to listen to student suggestions to improve high schools. 

The 2005 Summit on High Schools drew nearly 50 Governors, 

Secretary Spellings, Senator Bingaman, and 2 members of the 

House. And Governors returned to their States with high school action plans in hand, and the NGA and its five-partner foundation 

announced a $42 million initiative to help States with this implementation. 

Governors would like to partner with Congress and the Administration to accelerate our high school redesign action plans. Let me 

point out some specific actions, how we might work with Congress 

to accomplish that. 

First, States are connecting classroom work to real life problems 

and are improving connections to postsecondary education. Congress can support State reform by lifting burdensome reporting requirements and allowing Governors greater flexibility to coordinate 

funds to serve unique student needs better. The Perkins Act will 

assist in this endeavor. Career and technical education can bridge 

the transition between high school and postsecondary education by 

providing students with real world skills to better prepare them for 

the modern workplace. 

Next, States are expanding opportunities that increase rigor and 

relevance for high school students. Congressional support to expand opportunities for students to participate in advanced placement, international baccalaureate, industry certification programs, 

distant learning, and the State scholars program will help us implement dual enrollment programs. One vehicle for this support is 

through tuition assistance program modification and flexibility. 

44

1 National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Policy Alert: The Educational Pipeline: Big Investments, Big Returns (San Jose, Calif.: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004), at http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pipeline/pipeline.pdf. 

In addition, States are developing new targeted recruitment incentives to attract and retain teachers and principals. Additional 

Federal flexibility and incentives would further this critical work 

by expanding professional development and piloting alternative 

teacher compensation models. We additionally believe that permanently expanding loan forgiveness from 5,000 to 17,500 will facilitate the recruitment of teachers in the critical shortage areas and 

hard-to-staff schools. 

Also States are investing more resources into need-based aid to 

make college an option. We ask that you consider raising the maximum Pell grant award and provide new flexibility to respond to 

students’ needs including extending eligibility beyond the typical 

calendar year. In addition, student financial aid guidelines should 

be better revised to better serve working adults. 

Finally, States are improving college and work-readiness assessments in high school, and we encourage consultation with States 

on any Federal expansion of testing, and to continue to respect 

States’ responsibility and authority regarding education. Maximum 

flexibility in designing State accountability systems including testing and other assessments is critical to preserve the unique balance 

involving Federal funding, local control of education, and State responsibility for statewide reform. 

In closing, Governors hope to forge a new Federal/State partnership that strengthens State ingenuity and innovation. Every child, 

every teacher, every school and every State is unique. Our Nation 

must not fail to provide students with a foundation for lifelong 

learning. The cost to our children and our Nation is too high. 

The Nation’s Governors stand ready to work with you to create 

a common vision to support lifelong learning and to redesign our 

Nation’s high schools. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Fletcher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERNIE FLETCHER

Good morning Chairman Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and members of the committee. 

I am Ernie Fletcher, Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and I’d like to 

thank you for the invitation to testify on behalf of the Nation’s governors regarding 

lifelong education. As Governor Sebelius has discussed, governors are eager to align 

preschool–college education systems to promote lifelong learning and to ensure 

American business and workers can remain competitive. 

High schools are our Nation’s front line in the battle to restore America’s global 

competitiveness. High school completion is the first step in the earnings and skill 

ladder and the bridge to postsecondary education, work readiness, and lifelong 

learning. 

A CALL TO ACTION

For more than a century, our Nation’s high schools fulfilled this task and prepared students for good jobs at decent wages. As you already heard from Secretary 

Spellings, the legacy of our Nation’s high schools is in jeopardy—too many of our 

Nation’s youth are dropping out of high school and too many high school graduates 

are unprepared for the demands of postsecondary education or work. 

Three out of ten students who enter high school do not graduate. Four out of ten 

who graduate lack the skills and knowledge required to go to college or succeed in 

the workforce. Five out of ten who go to college do not finish.1

45

2David Breneman and William Haarlow, Remediation in Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: 

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, July 1998); and Ronald Phipps, College Remediation: What It 

Is, What It Costs, What’s at Stake (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy, December 1998.) An Action Agenda for Improving America’s High Schools: 2005 National Education Summit on High School (Washington, D.C., February 2005). 3 Jay P.Greene, The Cost of Remedial Education: How Much Michigan Pays When Students 

Fail to Learn Basic Skills (Midland, Mich: Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2000). An Action 

Agenda for Improving America’s High Schools: 2005 National Education Summit on High School 

(Washington, D.C., February 2005). 

Our high school students’ lack of preparation has serious implications for our 

economy and prosperity. Every year taxpayers pay $1 billion to $2 billion to fund 

remedial education to students at public universities and colleges.2 Shortfalls in 

basic skills cost businesses, colleges and under-prepared high school graduates, as 

much as $16 billion annually in lost productivity and remedial costs.3

Our Nation has a powerful incentive to plug the leaks in the education pipeline. 

In the next decade, two-thirds of new jobs will require some postsecondary education beyond a high school degree. To be competitive and create the conditions for 

strong economic growth, States need to help all their residents increase their skills 

and be prepared for lifelong learning. Much is at stake. 

NGA ‘‘REDESIGNING THE AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL’’

Governors are working to improve the high school experience to ensure that our 

students are ready to earn and learn well beyond graduation day. Under the leadership of NGA’s Chairman, Virginia Governor Mark Warner, NGA launched an initiative—‘‘Redesigning the American High School’’—to spur State action and systemically change high schools. As part of the Chairman’s initiative, NGA:

• Convened governors advisors from over 30 States to develop an understanding 

of the diverse problems in high schools and increased awareness of promising State 

best practices; 

• Developed several publications such as Getting it Done: Ten Steps to a State Action Agenda to provide governors with concrete strategies to begin redesigning their 

high schools; and 

• Convened town hall meetings in Cleveland, Ohio, Conway, Arkansas and Norfolk, Virginia to listen to students’ suggestions on what governors can do to improve 

their State’s high schools. Three additional town hall meetings are scheduled to take 

place in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Portland, Maine; and Des Moines, Iowa.

As a result of these efforts 26 governors made high school reform a priority in 

this year’s State of the State addresses. 

2005 NATIONAL EDUCATION SUMMIT ON HIGH SCHOOL

Most recently, NGA and Achieve convened the 2005 National Education Summit 

on High Schools. The summit addressed such core high school reform issues as 

strengthening high school graduation requirements, expanding options and supports 

for students to achieve higher standards, improving teaching and principal leadership, and strengthening high school and college data and accountability systems. 

An Action Agenda for Improving America’s High Schools was released at the summit. The publication provides States with a framework to build their high school 

agendas. The framework calls for:

• Restoring Value to the High School Diploma by anchoring high school academic standards in the real world; upgrading high school coursework, and creating 

college and work ready tests. 

• Redesigning High Schools by reorganizing low-performing high schools first; 

expanding school options in all communities; and providing support to low-performing schools. 

• Giving High School Students the Excellent Teachers and Principals 

They Need by improving teacher knowledge and skills; providing incentives to recruit and keep teachers where they are needed most, and developing and supporting 

strong principal leadership. 

• Setting Goals, Measuring Progress, and Holding High Schools and College Accountable by strengthening high school accountability, intervening in lowperforming high schools, and strengthening postsecondary accountability. 

• Streamlining and Improving Education Governance by building a stronger working relationship between elementary, secondary and postsecondary education.

46

Nearly 50 governors took part in the Summit, which marked the fifth time since 

1989 that governors, CEOs and education leaders gathered to address the urgent 

needs of America’s educational system. 

HIGH SCHOOL REFORM ‘‘GETTING IT DONE’’

At the close of the NGA Winter Meeting and High School Summit, governors returned to their States with high school action plans in hand. Some governors will 

take immediate action to expand college-level learning opportunities in high schools, 

or fund supports to help students pass their high school exit exam. Other governors 

will develop long-term plans for aligning high school standards with the expectations of employers or universities to ensure that high quality teachers and principals teach in the neediest high schools. 

To ensure that ‘‘Redesigning the American High School’’ became a reality, NGA 

and five partner foundations—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Michael 

and Susan Dell Foundation, The Wallace Foundation, The Prudential Foundation 

and the State Farm Foundation—joined forces and announced a $42 million initiative to translate Summit discussions into State action to help States create and implement policy strategies to improve graduation and college-readiness rates. In addition, NGA’s Center is also exploring partnerships with the GE Fund, Ewing Marion 

Kauffman Foundation, The Lumina Foundation, and the Bell South Foundation. 

This month, NGA released a Request for Proposals to all States interested in creating a high school redesign agenda. 

NGA HIGH SCHOOL REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS

Governors would like to partner with Congress and the Administration to accelerate our high school redesign action plans. Governors are leading innovative high 

school redesign across the Nation. Let me point to several specific ways that States 

are reforming high schools and how Federal policy can help spur State innovation 

and best practices:

• States are creating different high school models that strengthen student relationships with adults; connect classroom work to real-life problems; and improve connections to postsecondary education. • Congress can support State reform by lifting burdensome reporting requirements and allowing Governors greater flexibility to coordinate funds. Congress 

should provide greater gubernatorial authority to coordinate Federal funds 

within education programs and across grade levels to better serve students’ 

unique and diverse needs. 

• The Senate’s recent action to reauthorize and improve the Vocational Education Act will assist in this endeavor. Perkins is an important component of 

high school reform. Career and technical education can bridge the transition between high school and postsecondary education by providing students with realworld skills to better prepare for the 21st century workplace. Perkins should improve the academic rigor and preparation of career and technical education for 

all students. 

• States are expanding high school opportunities that increase rigor and 

relevance of high school for all students. 

• During the reauthorization of HEA and WIA, Congress should support expanded opportunities for students to participate in advanced placement, international baccalaureate, early college, industry certification programs, distancelearning, and the State Scholars Program. State innovation can be further supported by providing greater flexibility in student financial aid eligibility requirements. Congress should also encourage and provide incentives to States to create dual enrollment programs that permit students to obtain college-level credits or provide the opportunity to earn an industry-recognized credential while 

still in secondary school. • States are developing new targeted recruitment incentives to attract 

teachers where they are needed most, and provide support to retain them. 

States are also working to improve principal recruitment, preparation, and 

professional development. 

• Congress should provide additional flexibility and incentives to support this 

critical work by expanding professional development and piloting alternative 

teacher compensation models. Loan forgiveness should be permanently expanded from $5,000 to $17,500 to recruit teachers into critical shortage areas 

and hard-to-staff schools. 

• States are developing more rigorous standards for teacher preparation 

and performance. Governors are committed to improving high school students’ academic proficiency with stronger teaching. 

47

• Congress can encourage State innovation and continuous improvement by deferring national one-size-fits-all benchmarks and allowing States time to refine 

their teacher preparation programs. In addition, Congress should work with 

Governors during HEA reauthorization to expand State accountability for teacher preparation programs to align with the rigorous requirements of NCLB. 

• States are investing more resources into need based aid to make college an option. 

• Federal policies to increase preparation and learning opportunities should be 

matched with additional flexibility and affordability in higher education. To 

help make college more affordable, Congress should consider raising the maximum Pell grant award and provide new flexibility to respond to students’ 

needs, including extending eligibility beyond the typical calendar year. In addition, student financial aid guidelines should be revised to better serve non-traditional students and working adults. These reforms should be enacted in HEA. 

• States are improving college and work-readiness assessments in high 

schools. 

• Across the country, Governors have made considerable progress to institute 

State-based accountability in K–12 education. Governors are also working hard 

to implement NCLB, which expanded high school accountability by requiring 

States to test students at least once in grades 10–12. 

• Governors urge Congress to closely consult with States on any Federal expansion of testing and to continue to respect Governors’ authority over education. 

Any costs associated with federally-mandated testing or Federal reporting on 

State exams must be completely covered by the Federal Government. Maximum 

flexibility in designing State accountability systems, including testing and other 

assessments, is critical to preserve the unique balance involving Federal funding, local control of education, and State responsibility for systemwide reform. 

Maximum flexibility in State testing will also help improve how students are 

assessed for academic proficiency and postsecondary readiness. 

CONCLUSION

Working with businesses, education leaders, parents and students, governors understand the unique challenges our Nation faces in redesigning high schools. Governors also understand how much State flexibility is required to develop and implement meaningful solutions. There are no easy answers. Every child, every teacher, 

every school, and every State is different. Governors hope to forge a new FederalState partnership that strengthens State ingenuity and innovation. 

Our Nation must not fail to provide students with the foundation for lifelong 

learning—the cost to our children and our Nation is too high. The Nation’s governors stand ready to work with you to create a common vision to support lifelong 

learning and redesign our Nation’s high schools.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I really appreciate the two Governors completely rearranging 

their schedule so that they could be here today. You realize that 

by being here you become our State experts on education, and we 

will be directing a lot of questions—besides the ones that we do 

when we get to the question part—to you, because as Governor 

Sebelius said, you are the laboratories for education. None of it 

happens at the Federal level. I thank both of you for going to that 

special effort. 

Before we start questions we will get the rest of the testimony 

here though. 

Mr. Gunderson. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE GUNDERSON, DIRECTOR, 

WASHINGTON OFFICE, THE GREYSTONE GROUP 

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, Senator Alexander, Senator 

Isakson, I feel like I am coming home to friends both in terms of 

colleagues on the panel and the staff that is supporting you because I have had the privilege of working with so many of you for 

so long on the education and training issues of our country. 

48

The jobs revolution is to date a silent revolution. The media do 

not cover it. Our citizens do not recognize it. The business community only sporadically is concerned about it. Thus, policymakers 

have not made it a national priority. It is my hope that with your 

leadership, Mr. Chairman, we might engage in a national conversation leading to a national understanding and commitment of preparing workers for the future workforce and workplace. 

As the Nation considers proposals to reform and save Social Security, I would like to recall two key elements that are not being 

discussed. We talk of the Social Security Fund spending more 

money than it takes in starting in 2017 or 2018, but a full 10 years 

before that, in 2008, the baby boom generation begins retiring. 

Second, consider the impact education attainment, workforce 

skills, good jobs and good wages would have on extending the solvency of this fund. If we can double or triple salaries, we double 

or triple the contributions into Social Security solvency. 

Three factors, demographics, workplace skill demands, and the 

global economy are combining to create a jobs revolution. Any of 

these factors is a dramatic transition. Combined, they are nothing 

less than a revolution. 

Baby boomers are leaving, but there is no one to replace them. 

By 2030 some 76 million baby boomers will have retired, while only 

46 million of Generation X and Y will have entered the workplace. 

Meanwhile, we are changing the face of the American workforce. 

By 2010 blacks will increase by 21 percent and hispanics by 43 percent. Until we provide them with equal education attainment this 

is just another false hope. 

Second, the workplace itself is changing. The average worker 

today entering the workplace will have 10 to 14 careers in their 

lifetime, as you have mentioned. 

Third, the global economy. We see India graduating twice as 

many students from college as America, while China is expected to 

graduate three times as many, and that is only half the story. 

Forty-two percent of the students in China earn undergraduate degrees in science and engineering compared to 5 percent in the 

United States. What else can you call it but a revolution? 

We need also today to recognize that the workplace is requiring 

higher and higher skills, and thus an increasing number of individuals are unwilling to even seek employment knowing they will face 

rejection. For the past 3 consecutive months the civilian labor force 

participation rate in America has been 65.8 percent, the lowest 

since 1988. 

In our book The Jobs Revolution, my colleagues, Bob Jones, 

Kathryn Scanland and I make three points challenging both political parties. We agree with the Republicans that one cannot stop 

the emerging global economy and we should not try. But we agree 

with the Democrats that one cannot transition to a knowledgebased global economy on the cheap. Third, while post-high school 

education used to be an opportunity, it is today a necessity. We 

must change our public educational commitment from K–12 to P–

14 or beyond, as our Governors have suggested. 

As you consider various suggestions, let me just quickly highlight 

two or three. 

49

Prepare America’s workforce for the 21st century. It begins with 

basic academic skills, but it must connect academics and career 

skills. 

Second, connect the programs. Today we are faced with disjointed programs and turf battles over money and responsibility. 

Third, recognize the importance of a mobile workforce to have 

employer-recognized, industry-based certificates that will be moving with them across the Nation. 

Fourth, promote a regional response. We have seen in recent 

days, in recent weeks, in recent years quite a battle between the 

President’s proposal to send most of the training dollars to the Governors and the Workforce Investment Board’s advocacy for maximum local control. One compromise might be for regional strategies. I am impressed by how economic development and workforce 

investment strategies are more and more done not on a statewide 

and not on a local, but rather on a regional basis. 

In closing, let me close from the last words of our book. ‘‘We are 

growing desperate for leaders who will go beyond speeches to action. America has 5, maybe 7 years in which to radically revamp 

its fundamental assumptions about workforce development and 

then to act. Whatever is going to be done to prepare us for shortages of workers and skills, increased global competition, disparities 

in achievement between ethnic American communities and technology that changes while we sleep—whatever we are going to do, 

must be done now.’’

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gunderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE GUNDERSON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Steve Gunderson, a senior 

consultant with The Greystone Group, a strategic planning and research consulting 

firm based in Chicago, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and here in Washington, D.C. (Arlington, Virginia). I joined Greystone in 1996 after the 16-year privilege of representing Western Wisconsin in the U.S. Congress. During my congressional years 

I became, and have remained, passionately involved with national issues of education and job training. Many of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and 

many of the staff for this committee, are long-time friends and associates. So it is 

not only a high honor but also a real joy to be with you again. 

The jobs revolution now occurring in America is almost certain to have more impact on the economic, social, and cultural future of this Nation than any other single 

factor. Even so, it is to date a silent revolution. The media do not cover it, our citizens do not recognize it, the business community is only sporadically concerned 

about it, thus policymakers have not made it a national priority. It is my hope that, 

with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, we might begin a national conversation leading to a national commitment to prepare our workforce and our workplace for the 

future. 

As the President, the Congress and the Nation consider proposals to reform and 

save Social Security, I’d like to recall two key facts that have been missing in this 

discussion. 

First, we talk of the Social Security Fund spending more money than it takes in 

starting in 2017 or 2018. But a full 10 years before that, in 2008, the baby boom 

generation begins retiring. This is a far more immediate crisis because 2008 is—

in terms of budgets, proposals and action—upon us. 

Second, while we seek consensus on keeping Social Security solvent, consider the 

impact educational attainment, workforce skills, good jobs and good wages will have 

on extending the solvency of this fund. We could keep the system solvent much 

longer by lifting the incoming generation of workers’ skills and incomes. Americans 

without a high school diploma generally earn about $30,000 per year. If we can extend their educational attainment and skills, we can reward them with incomes in 

the range of $55,000 with 2 years of postsecondary education, and $75,000 or more 

50

on average with a college degree. They will then be contributing two to three times 

as much into Social Security, offsetting losses that will begin very soon. 

THE JOBS REVOLUTION

Three factors—demographics, workplace skill demands, and the global economy—

are combining to create a jobs revolution. Any one of these factors represents a dramatic transition in our economy. Combined, they create nothing less than a revolution. 

Look briefly at demographics. The primary reason we fear Social Security insolvency is the changing demographics of our population. In 2008 the baby boomers 

begin retiring. In 2011 they begin qualifying for Medicare. But as baby boomers 

leave, no one is ready to replace them. By 2030, some 76 million baby boomers will 

have retired while only 46 million people in Generation X and Y enter the workplace. Our labor force will decline in real numbers. Meanwhile, we’re changing the 

face of America’s workers. Tomorrow’s workers are much more likely to be people 

of color—Hispanic, Black, and Asian. By 2010, Blacks in the workforce will increase 

by 21 percent and Hispanics will increase by 43 percent. The good news is that due 

to changing populations, minorities will be given a greater chance at success in the 

American economy than ever before. But the bad news is that, until we provide 

them with equal educational attainments, this is just another false promise. 

Second, the workplace itself is changing. Former Secretary of Education Richard 

Riley has said the top 10 occupations in 2010 have not even been created yet. The 

Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us the average worker entering the workplace today 

is expected to have 10–14 careers in their lifetime. Flexibility rooted in the ability 

to learn and relearn, with in-demand skills—these are the keys to success in such 

a workplace. 

Third, the global economy is often misunderstood. ‘‘Outsourcing’’ is just one element of today’s global economy. Deloitte Research projects that, over the next 15 

years, 80 percent of workforce growth in North America, Europe, and Asia will occur 

among people over 50 years of age. On the other side of the globe we see India graduating twice as many students from college as America, while China is expected to 

graduate three times as many. And that’s only part of the story. Forty-two percent 

of students in China earn undergraduate degrees in science and engineering compared to 5 percent in the United States. 

Combine these dynamics with the emerging global, knowledge-based economy and 

one soon realizes the magnitude of change before us. What else could this be called 

but a ‘‘revolution.’’

THE NEED FOR LIFE-LONG LEARNING IS ALREADY PRESENT

During 2004, we all rejoiced in the growth of 1.7 million jobs. Leading the way 

was professional and business services with 546,000 new jobs followed by 342,000 

new health care jobs. We ended the year with a 5.4 percent unemployment rate. 

But the reality is that, in today’s workplace, unemployment rates are no longer 

a reliable guide for the Nation’s economic health. It’s a legacy of the Great Depression and offers little insight into either current or coming trends. We need, today, 

to reckon with a workplace requiring higher and higher skills and an increasing 

number of individuals unwilling to even seek employment knowing they will face 

rejection. For the past 3 consecutive months the civilian labor force participation 

rate in America has been 65.8 percent—the lowest since 1988. These numbers suggest that 34 percent of the American citizens have chosen not to seek private sector 

employment, many—perhaps most—because they’re convinced they lack skills needed to be hired. 

The Washington Post recently published a series on the vanishing middle class. 

The articles described the experiences of workers who thought they had done everything right: high school graduation, marriage, suburban life and a steady job at a 

local manufacturing plant. But when this plant was closed, they lost their future. 

Since 1967 we have lost 25 million factory workers in America. No wonder the category of ‘‘temporary workers’’ has increased five-fold over the past 2 decades, leaving 

millions of families without insurance, without pensions and without hope of a permanent job. 

PUTTING THIS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

To understand the magnitude of change, we must recognize that in 1990 there 

was one Web site; today there are 50 million. We now expect as much change in 

the next 25 years as we’ve experienced in the last 100. 

51

A ‘‘revolution’’ is a complete change, a re-organization, a transformation, an upheaval. During America’s history we’ve had four experiences when economics and 

politics combined to change the way we live and work. They were:

• The American Revolution—when patriots originally sought less economic interference from Britain rather than a political revolution. 

• The Agricultural Revolution—when America decided to move west and feed a 

global constituency. 

• The Industrial Revolution—when America’s children left the farms and moved 

into the cities to work, and 

• The Information Revolution, based upon the creation of the microchip shortly 

after World War II.

We are now living through a ‘‘Jobs Revolution’’ yielding seismic shifts in who 

works, when they work, where they work, how they work—even whether they work. 

History will record the first years of the 21st century as a jobs revolution. It will 

also recall what we did in response to these changes. 

THE WORKFORCE OF THE FUTURE

Mr. Chairman, as you and your colleagues consider appropriate policies for tomorrow’s workforce, I encourage you to keep some data at your fingertips.

• Of the 30 industrialized nations, the U.S. ranks first on the percentage of 45–

64 year olds with high school diplomas. But we fell to 5th place for those in the 

35–44 age group with high school diplomas, and are down to 10th place for those 

between 25 to 34 age bracket with high school diplomas. We could wish the opposite 

were true. 

• Seventy-five percent of all ‘‘new jobs’’ will require some level of postsecondary 

education. The trend is against us. 

• The average job will last 3 to 5 years. After that, workers are dependent on 

flexibility and skills to find their next new job. 

• The Urban Institute reported that only 68 percent of those entering high school 

4 years ago have graduated; for communities of color the graduation rate is 50 percent. 

• Last fall, ACT released data showing that of those graduating from high school 

and planning for Technical College studies: 

• only 10.8 percent have achieved Science Readiness, 

• only 10.8 percent have achieved Math Readiness, and 

• only 36.4 percent have achieved English readiness. 

• Anthony Carnevale has suggested we are facing a skill shortage of 5.7 million 

by 2010 and 14 million 10 years later.

Looking at the decade of employment change from 1992 to 2002, we see an actual 

decrease of 400,000 jobs requiring less than a high school education. Those with a 

high school diploma maintained their level of jobs (a 1 percent increase). But the 

demand for skills reflected in at least 2 years of postsecondary education became 

very evident. We witnessed a 2.4 million increase in jobs for workers with some college education, a 2.2 million increase for those with 2 years of academic preparation 

beyond high school, and a 2.6 million increase in technical degree jobs. Combined, 

those with some level of post-high school education and training exceeded the 6.4 

million increase in jobs for those with a 4-year college degree. The message is clear. 

Not everyone needs a college degree to succeed in the future. But everyone does require some level of post-high school education. We are moving to a P–14 concept 

in educational preparation for our citizens; this is reality. 

And here is one point at which unemployment statistics are instructive: Take any 

recent month. Those with less than a high school education had an unemployment 

rate almost 11⁄2 times the national average. On the other side of the equation, those 

with a college degree experienced an unemployment rate half the national average. 

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

I realize, Mr. Chairman and members, that there are many important issues on 

your Congressional agenda and your personal schedules. But it is my fervent hope 

that you will help our Nation avoid the deadly collision of workforce demographics 

and workplace skills already putting our economic future at risk—both within our 

own economy and in the knowledge-based global economy of the 21st century. 

In our book, The Jobs Revolution, my colleagues Bob Jones, Kathryn Scanland 

and I make three key points challenging both political parties. 

1. We agree with the Republicans that one can’t stop the emerging global economy. And we shouldn’t try. 

52

2. We agree with the Democrats that one cannot transition to a knowledge-based 

global economy on the cheap. It will take a major commitment of public and private 

dollars, at all levels, to support this transition in the workforce and the workplace. 

3. Thus, while post-high school education used to be an opportunity, it is increasingly becoming a necessity. We must change our public educational commitment 

from K–12 to P–14. As the purpose of this hearing suggests, we must move toward 

a full understanding of and support for life-long learning. 

We don’t suggest this is exclusively a Federal responsibility. But we do ask for 

your leadership in communicating the crisis, in developing the strategies for a holistic response, and in designing Federal programs that encourage value-added participation from all sectors. 

As you move through the many important legislative re-authorizations and the 

difficult decisions over budget and appropriations I hope you will consider the following suggestions: 

1. Prepare America’s workforce for the 21st century. This begins with the basic 

skills. It moves towards a direct relationship between academics and career skills. 

It continues with programs promoting flexibility and mobility in the workforce. It 

creates a Nation of life-long learners. 

2. Connect the programs! I encourage one of you to consider introducing legislation that reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), the Higher Education 

Act, and the Perkins Vocational Education Act in one unified piece of legislation. 

Today, we are faced with disjointed programs and turf battles over money and responsibility. Yet the mission of these programs is totally connected within a strategy 

appropriate to the 21st century workforce. 

As you reauthorize these programs, find ways to bridge the gaps. Today, the Higher Education Act is the single most important tool in workforce training because of 

the student financial aid. Our problems in building cooperation between WIA and 

our Community Colleges is the disconnect that exists between the programs. WIA 

delivery must meet performance standards set by the Department of Labor while 

Community Colleges are financed by credit hours. No one’s to blame, but in this situation it’s very difficult to achieve the cooperation we—and the local providers—

seek. 

3. We need to design our training protocols in ways that support the increased 

mobility of our workers. We must move towards employer-recognized, industrybased certificates that will be recognized throughout the Nation. It is the best investment we can make in the future employability of a worker. 

4. Promote a regional response. We’ve seen in recent years quite a battle between 

the President’s proposal to send most training dollars to the Governors and the 

Workforce Investment Board’s advocacy for maximum local control. One compromise 

might be incentives for regional strategies. I’m impressed by how many of our economic development and workforce investment strategies are now built upon regions. 

This is appropriate. In today’s world, economic development does not occur on either 

a statewide or a local community basis. It is done through regional economies. You 

should promote and encourage such thinking and cooperation. 

5. You must redesign unemployment insurance into some system of employment 

insurance. American workers, often through no fault of their own, will increasingly 

face job dislocation and transitions. We need to support the research and design of 

a system that can provide the skill training and the income insurance necessary to 

move from one job and profession to another. If we can insure cars, boats, stereo 

equipment and even pets, we should be able to design some limited program of 3–

6 months providing income insurance and retraining funds during a transition. 

6. We need to redesign our programs to make them appropriate for the 21st century workforce. I remind everyone that in 2003 we spent $42 billion on unemployment insurance and only $6 billion on job training at the Federal level. Sometimes 

it’s not just how much we spend—but how we spend it. 

7. Design your response appropriately for the global economy of today. I strongly 

encourage this committee to recognize the global realities of a 21st century workforce. Many of our new workers are immigrants. The only growth in the workforce 

in the northeastern part of the U.S. today comes from immigration. 

Europe, through their Bologna Accords, is designing a European-wide higher education system consisting of 3 years of college and 2 years of higher education related 

to specific careers. We need to be aware of such programs, and their impact on global competitiveness. 

8. Recognize the increased role of graduate education in workforce investment. We 

used to think of graduate education only in the context of research and Doctoral degrees. That is no longer the case. We now witness a growing interest in professional 

masters’ degrees. And all of us with B.A. degrees who upgrade our skills are actually participating in some form of graduate education. 

53

9. Recognize the appropriate partnership between WIA and Community Colleges. 

As I travel the Nation and speak on the jobs revolution, I’m struck by the turf and 

money battles between our Workforce Investment Systems and our Community Colleges. The truth is that we need them both, and we need them to partner in the 

preparation of our future workforce. Local Workforce Investment Boards must provide the leadership in bringing together all sectors of the local business and education communities around current labor market information guiding their workforce investment strategies. Community Colleges must design and deliver flexible 

training, academics, and professional skills reflecting such vision and strategies for 

their region. We need both of them. We need them to work together and we need 

the funding streams to make clear the appropriate roles of each provider. Do everything you can to encourage coordination in the design and delivery of such programs. 

VOICES FROM THE COUNTRY

I want to share with you some thoughts regarding the delivery of our education 

and workforce programs from experts across the Nation. Here is a sampling of what 

they said: 

A. Recognize the role of P–12 education to our workforce. We need to constantly 

revisit the need for academic achievement, and its relationship to careers. Harold 

McGraw III (of McGraw Hill Companies) recently observed that across the Nation 

and ‘‘twenty years after the urgent warnings of A Nation At Risk . . . the level of 

complacency at lackluster student performance is shocking.’’ While School-to-Work 

programs no longer exist at the Federal level we must recognize that all students—

not just the college-bound—need academic achievement. And for those most at risk, 

we can best accomplish this goal by making the appropriate connections to the 

workforce. The cost of complacency is staggering. 

B. An IBM Vice-President chairing New York State’s WIB Board: ‘‘There is no 

process for Community Colleges to engage with business to fill existing needs in the 

workforce. The unstructured process and the lack of consistent funding hinders the 

ability of these colleges and business to work together to design and deliver an appropriate curriculum as needed.’’

C. Ohio: Our local WIB recently worked with Community Colleges to design two 

1-week training programs. Each resulted in 100 percent employment for the graduates. We explained the needs as defined by our labor market research. Thus; 

• The WIB determines the training needed. 

• The WIB and the Community College work together to design the curriculum. 

• The WIB pays for the training. 

• The Community College provides the training. 

• This needs to become the rule—not the exception of cooperation and program 

delivery.’’

D. Washington State: ‘‘Sometimes it seems that Community Colleges see WIBs as 

nothing more than a checkbook for ideas and training. Rather we need to build partnerships at the local level using: 

• The local labor market information to define emerging skill sets and jobs; 

• The local One-Stop for assessments; and 

• The local Community College for delivery of training.’’

E. Michigan: ‘‘The agendas and focus of Community Colleges and Workforce Investment Programs seem to be growing apart—not closer together. Our mutual 

goals should be: 

• serving our community, and 

• serving our employer/employee needs. 

• We must find ways to design and deliver a comprehensive, integrated system 

(K–12; CC’s and WIB’s).’’

F. Texas: ‘‘We need to focus on the development and delivery of workforce issues—

not our specific acts or programs. Today, policy and implementation are confused. 

There is a lack of integration. WIA looks at programs. Community Colleges look at 

courses. We both need to look at the big picture of training needs. 

WIA can not see training as a ‘‘2nd chance system,’’ and Community Colleges cannot see training as ‘‘academic hours.’’

G. New York: ‘‘Companies often use private trainers, due to the perceived ability 

of private trainers to tailor delivery and curriculum to a specific company’s needs 

and timetables. We, together, need to figure out how to serve this need.’’

H. Florida: ‘‘There are four keys to our mutual success!’’

1. Understand—what is important to each other. Community Colleges need to understand WIA performance measures; and WIA needs to understand Community 

Colleges’ academic outcomes and funding streams. 

54

2. Flexible—Think about outcomes, not process. 

3. Speed—Develop a sense of urgency to get things done. Business thinks in terms 

of hours and minutes, not semesters. 

4. Personal Relationships—Business believes it is all about personal relationships! 

I. Massachusetts: ‘‘The key to effective training is knowing your labor market. We 

must constantly review and upgrade our training based upon changes in our labor 

market—both in terms of worker needs and business demands.’’

J. California: ‘‘If you want cooperation between Community Colleges and WIBs, 

you must start at the senior most levels—sending the message to everyone to work 

together, and quit fighting for turf. Clarify roles and responsibilities. WIBs are best 

at bringing people to the table. Community Colleges are best at doing the training.’’

CONCLUSION

This Congress will reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Vocational Education Act. As you consider these issues it is important for the Congress and the Nation to recognize that we live in a very different 

workplace today than before. Today education is workforce investment and workforce investment is economic development. While we should think globally (recognizing the global knowledge-based economy), we must also act regionally. Today, 

economic development and workforce recruitment is done on a regional basis. And 

as we each chart our national, State, regional and local strategies, let us recognize 

this will require public-private partnership between government, education, and—

most importantly—the private business community. 

In closing, I want to plead for your bipartisan leadership on behalf of the jobs revolution, and especially those Americans who will be most affected by it if we do 

nothing. And in making this request, I want to close my testimony with the same 

words we use in closing our book, The Jobs Revolution:

‘‘We are growing desperate for leaders who will go beyond speeches to action. 

America has 5, maybe 7, years in which to radically revamp its fundamental 

assumptions about workforce development and then to act. Whatever is going 

to be done to prepare us for shortages of workers and skills, increased global 

competition, disparities in achievement between ethnic American communities 

and technology that changes while we sleep—whatever we are going to do, 

must be done now. 

All that is at stake is our children. And our communities. And our future.’’

Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN K. FITZGERALD, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, BUSINESS-HIGHER EDUCATION FORUM 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the 

HELP Committee. I am pleased to testify before you today on behalf of the Business-Higher Education Forum. 

I might offer a special greeting to Senator Alexander who is an 

alumnus of the Business-Higher Education Forum from the time of 

his tenure as president of the University of Tennessee. 

Our mission, Mr. Chairman, is to encourage dialog among corporate and university leaders on issues central to the role of higher 

education in a global economy, and to provide the leadership in 

shaping sound policy. Our recent work has ranged from university 

and industry research collaborations to the changing nature of student skills needed in the workforce and improving access to higher 

education for an increasingly diverse population. 

In February 2005, the Forum released its most recent report, ‘‘A 

Commitment to America’s Future: Responding to the Crisis in 

Math and Science Education,’’ which may represent our most challenging problem. 

Many of our members are CEOs of major U.S. based corporations 

and research universities and are keenly aware of the challenge 

55

the Nation faces in creating a workforce equipped with 21st century skills and the need to continue to advance learning long after 

our students have graduated from our high schools, colleges and 

graduate schools. Our members are also sensitive to the implications of a well-educated workforce for research, innovation and ultimately economic development and global competitiveness. 

Concerned by these challenges, our co-chairs, Bill Swanson, CEO 

of Raytheon and Warren Baker, President Cal-Poly Tech State University in California, led an initiative to explore the state of math 

and science education in this country, workforce trends, and effective policies for responding to what they see as a crisis. 

While it is common for groups to come before you and proclaim 

national crises, the data and trends our initiative collected are 

truly shocking. The demands for graduates who are literate in 

science, technology, engineering and math, the so-called STEM disciplines, will surge over the decade while the production of Americans educated in these fields declines. 

Our research identified four disturbing trends: increasing demands for U.S. workers with higher levels of math and science 

skills, as you Mr. Chairman, have noted; disappointing performance trends of U.S. students on comparative international math 

and science assessment; decreasing numbers of science and engineering degrees awarded to U.S. citizens; and a critical shortage of 

qualified math and science teachers, which your bill, Mr. Chairman, seeks to address. 

Let me share just two estimates with you that I think capture 

these trends. NASA estimates that by 2008, 2 million science and 

engineering workers are expected to retire, resulting in a shortfall 

of more than 2 million workers; and second, the Department of 

Education estimates that we will need between 260,000 and 

290,000 new math and science teachers in the 2008–2009 school 

year, and they are not in the pipeline today. 

These facts suggest a systemic problem in math and science that 

will limit our ability to create and maintain a 21st century workforce. 

Our report proposed several recommendations, but let me just 

focus on one—the Governors have talked about this—establishing 

P–16 or P–20 councils in each State with balanced representations 

from corporations, education and policy leaders to define, benchmark and initiate P–16 plans for ensuring all students successfully 

complete high-quality math and science education. 

While these recommendations address only a small portion of the 

much broader systemic crisis in the STEM disciplines, the Forum 

is launching a second phase to develop Federal policy recommendations as part of a comprehensive strategy to address these problems. 

We will examine policies to attract more students into the STEM 

disciplines in community colleges as well as our universities. For 

example, more than half of students will first study math and 

science in community college. 

Provide incentives for students to choose careers in teaching 

these subject; encourage more collaboration among universities, 

corporations and Government to tackle the sources of the crisis, including lifelong learning; ensure that programs that support stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
56

dents in STEM disciplines and institutions conducting basic research are strengthened, especially programs in the National 

Science Foundation; and ensure that American postsecondary institutions and corporations can recruit the most talented foreign students, scholars and researchers. 

Unless we develop a systemic response to the crisis in STEM 

education beginning in middle school through lifelong learning, we 

risk ceding leadership in science, technology, research and innovation to other nations, which will have a profoundly negative consequence for the Nation’s economic well-being. Unlike many crises 

there is consensus about the seriousness and implications of the 

problems and the tools at our disposal. 

The challenge we face is to generate consensus on how to act at 

the Federal, State, institutional and corporate levels. I can assure 

you, Mr. Chairman, that members of the Forum feel the urgency 

of these crises, they enthusiastically support the efforts of the National Governors Association for action at the State level, and they 

stand ready to help the committee in addressing these critical 

issues at the Federal level. 

I would be happy to address any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzgerald follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN K. FITZGERALD, ED. D. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy and members of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I am pleased to testify today for the Business-Higher Education Forum (The Forum). The Forum is a national non-profit 

membership organization of chief executives drawn from American corporations and 

higher education. I might offer a special greeting to Senator Alexander, an alumnus 

of the Forum, from the time of his tenure as President of the University of Tennessee. The Forum’s mission is to encourage dialogue among leaders of the two sectors 

on issues central to the role of higher education in the global economy and to provide leadership in shaping sound policy around those issues. We achieve this 

through collaboration of corporate and academic members, the highest quality research, effective communication, and advocacy with Federal, State, institutional and 

corporate policy makers. 

Our recent work has centered, among other issues, on university-industry research collaborations, the role of information technology in transforming teaching 

and learning, the changing nature of student skills needed in the workforce, and on 

the challenges of improving access to higher education to an increasingly diverse 

population. In February 2005, The Forum released its most recent report, A Commitment to America’s Future: Responding to the Crisis in Mathematics & Science 

Education, an action plan for systemic reform. 

Many of our members are CEOs of major U.S.-based corporations and research 

universities. Indeed, our corporate members represent some of the largest researchbased pharmaceutical and high-tech corporations in the Nation—among them are 

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, Raytheon and Boeing, IBM and Sun Microsystems to 

name a few. Our academic members represent a critical mass of the Nation’s research universities that both educate and employ substantial numbers of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. As such, our membership is keenly aware of 

the challenges the Nation faces in creating a workforce equipped with the adequate 

21st century skills and the need to continue to advance learning long after our students graduate from our high schools, colleges and graduate schools. These challenges are particularly acute in light of rapidly changing demographics, which will 

bring unprecedented numbers of minority youth to the doors of U.S. postsecondary 

education institutions and into our economy. Our members are also sensitive to the 

implications of a well-educated workforce for research, innovation and, intimately, 

for economic development and global competitiveness. 

Concerned by these challenges, in 2002, Forum members launched an initiative 

on the state of U.S. mathematics and science education. Led by co-chairs William 

H. Swanson (Chairman & CEO, Raytheon Company), Warren J. Baker (President, 

California Polytechnic State University), and L. Dennis Smith (President Emeritus, 

57

University of Nebraska) and supported by a working group of members, this effort 

explored indepth the state of mathematics and science education in this country, 

workforce trends, and effective policies for responding to what they defined as a crisis. 

While it is common for groups to come before the Senate and proclaim national 

crises, the data and trends that our initiative collected are truly shocking. Frankly, 

it has our corporate and university CEOs extremely worried, not just for U.S. corporations’ ability to compete globally, but for the health and effectiveness of the Nation’s schools and colleges as well. The trend lines for demand for graduates who 

are literate in science, technology, engineering and math will surge while the production of Americans educated in these fields declines. 

Our research identified four disturbing trends:

• Increasing demands for U.S. workers with higher levels of mathematics and 

science skills; 

• Disappointing performance trends of U.S. students on comparative international 

mathematics and science assessments; 

• Decreasing numbers of science and engineering degrees awarded to U.S. citizens; and 

• A critical shortage of qualified mathematics and science teachers.

Let me briefly share with you the data that demonstrate these trends: 

RISING DEMAND

• Jobs requiring science, engineering, and technical training will increase by 51 

percent between 1998 and 2008, four times faster than overall job growth (U.S. Department of Labor). 

• By 2008, 6 million job openings for scientists, engineers, and technicians will 

exist. Of the 20 fastest-growing occupations projected through 2010, 15 of them require substantial mathematics or science preparation. (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 

• More than 60 percent of new jobs will demand a solid high school education and 

some postsecondary education, while only 12 percent of new jobs will be available 

to workers without a high school diploma (Council on Competitiveness). 

DISAPPOINTING TRENDS IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE

• U.S. student performance on international assessments show that: achievement 

in mathematics and science deteriorates from being significantly above average at 

grade 4 to near the bottom in high school; and, problem solving performance by 

grade 10 students is significantly lower than their peers in 25 countries. Shockingly, 

58 percent of U.S. students did not exceed the lowest level of problem solving 

achievement. 

• In addition, recent NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) results 

indicate that 30 percent or less of the students who take the test in the United 

States attain the proficiency level. In mathematics and science achievement, when 

results are broken down by race/ethnicity, we see African-American students lagging 

far behind other groups. Specifically, in 2003, student achievement in 4th- and 8thgrade mathematics showed percentages of African–American students at or above 

proficiency to be respectively 10 and 7 percent. In 2000, results in science achievement were no more encouraging, with percentages falling from 7 percent in grade 

4 to 3 percent in grade 12 (National Assessment of Educational Progress). 

• Twenty-two percent of all American college freshmen do not meet the performance levels that are required for entry-level math and need remedial courses. Less 

than 40 percent of the students who plan to enter science and engineering majors 

graduate in 6 years from those fields. 

DECREASING DEGREE PRODUCTIVITY

• In 2001, U.S. citizens and permanent residents comprised approximately 60 

percent of full-time graduate students in science and engineering, down from 70 percent in 1994. In engineering, this percentage dropped from nearly 60 percent to a 

little more than 40 percent; in computer science, from a little over 50 percent to 35 

percent (National Science Foundation). 

• By 2008, 2 million science and engineering workers are expected to retire, resulting in a shortfall of more than 2 million workers (NASA). 

• The European Union out-produces engineers two-to-one compared to the United 

States. The college population is increasing 10 times faster in China than in the 

United States, where less than a third of students enter science and engineering 

programs, and nearly 75 percent of the students in China are pursuing degree proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:19 Oct 25, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\20732.TXT SLABOR3 PsN: DENISE
58

grams in science and engineering in universities that are increasingly high quality 

institutions (National Science Foundation). • In 1999, America granted only approximately 61,000 bachelor-level engineering 

degrees, compared to more than 134,000 in the European Union, 103,000 in Japan, 

and more than 195,000 in China. Only 7 percent of the 868,000 bachelor-level engineering degrees granted worldwide were earned in the United States (National 

Science Foundation). 

SHORTAGE EXTENDS TO TEACHERS

• Between 260,000 and 290,000 new math and science secondary school teachers 

will be needed in the 2008–2009 school year (U.S. Department of Education). • In 1999–2000, approximately 50,000 more teachers left the profession than entered it (The Christian Science Monitor). • During 2002–2003, nationwide, districts hired more than 10,000 foreign-born 

teachers with H1B visas in public and private schools. Decreases in numbers of 

available visas coupled with an international shortage of teachers are threatening 

offshore supply.

These facts suggest a systemic problem with mathematics and science education 

in the United States that will limit our ability to create and maintain a 21st century 

workforce. They will affect: our ability to place qualified science and math teachers 

in our schools; qualified professors in our college classrooms and labs; conduct basic 

research in our university labs; limit our corporations’ ability to compete globally; 

and, ultimately the ability to grow our economy in a globally competitive environment. 

The Forum recommends taking immediate action to address this crisis by working 

simultaneously on all the P–12 components of systems of education. In A Commitment to America’s Future, we recommend several immediate actions for State policymakers and corporate leaders: 

Action 1: Establish a new element of State education infrastructure, a P–16 education council with balanced representation from corporations, education, and policy 

leaders. The council should be charged by the State to define, benchmark, and initiate a statewide P–16 plan for ensuring that all P–12 students successfully complete a high-quality mathematics and science education. 

Action 2: Simultaneously address and align five key components of a P–12 education system. Effective mathematics and science education requires the close alignment of a P–12 system’s student standards, curricula, student assessment, teacher 

quality, and accountability. Proposed change in any one of the five components demands attention to resultant effects in the other four. In particular, it demands attention to necessary changes in the policies and practices of higher education, corporations, and government. 

Action 3: Engage corporations and higher education in more effective P–12 reform 

roles. Corporations must accept responsibility for leading a State’s P–16 council 

work; it also must align all corporate education outreach initiatives with the State’s 

vision of standards-based improvement of P–12 mathematics and science education. 

Higher education must implement policies and programs that place the education 

of teachers—in particular, teachers of mathematics and science—at the center of its 

mission. 

Action 4: Implement coordinated national and State-specific public information 

programs. These two professionally designed programs must be based on a common 

set of core messages. The corporate-led national campaign should be designed to 

convince the public that a high-quality mathematics and science education is necessary to ensuring the adult educational, economic, and civic life of the students 

now in the schools. Each State-level campaign, developed in cooperation with the 

State’s P–16 council, should localize and support the core messages of the national 

campaign. 

While these recommendations address only a small portion of a much broader systemic crisis in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education (the socalled STEM disciplines), the Forum is launching the second phase of its work in 

this area by examining the problems that exist in lifelong learning programs, community colleges, colleges and universities, and graduate schools. Members of the 

Forum also will explore problems encountered in student visa and immigration policies and their impact on the flow of students, scholars, and researchers to U.S. institutions of higher education, laboratories and corporations. 

Our June meeting will bring together scholars and policymakers to begin a process for developing policy recommendations as part of a comprehensive strategy to 

address these problems. The Forum will examine policies to:

• Attract more students into the STEM disciplines. 

59

• Provide incentives for these students to choose careers in teaching these subjects. 

• Encourage more collaboration among universities, corporations and government 

to tackle the sources of the crisis. 

• Ensure that the programs that support students in STEM disciplines and institutions conducting basic research are strengthened, especially programs in the National Science Foundation. 

• Ensure that American postsecondary education institutions and corporations 

can recruit the most talented foreign students, scholars and researchers.

Unless we develop a systemic response to the crisis in STEM education in the 

United States (beginning at middle school level), we risk ceding leadership in 

science, technology, research and innovation to other nations, which will have profoundly negative consequences for the Nation’s economic well-being. Unlike many 

crises, there is consensus about the seriousness and implications of the problems, 

and the tools at our disposal to address these. 

The challenge we face is to generate consensus on how to act at the Federal, 

State, institutional and corporate levels. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the 

members of the Forum feel the urgency of this crisis. They enthusiastically support 

the efforts by the National Governors Association for action in the States, and they 

stand ready to help the committee in addressing these critical issues at the Federal 

level. 

I will be happy to address any questions you might have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Boisvert. 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA BOISVERT, VICE PRESIDENT, 

WORCESTER CONSORTIUM 

Ms. BOISVERT. Chairman Enzi and distinguished members of the 

committee, I am very honored to testify before you today on the important topic of lifelong educational opportunities for all Americans. 

I serve as Vice President of the Colleges of Worcester Consortium 

in Worcester, Massachusetts. Among its other offerings, the Consortium provides educational counseling and placement services to 

low-income adults throughout Massachusetts through a Federal 

TRIO Educational Opportunity Center Grant. 

In this instance Massachusetts and Wyoming share another similarity, for in Wyoming as well, a Federal Educational Opportunity 

Center, hosted by the University of Wyoming, provided educational 

counseling services to adults throughout that State. 

I certainly join with the other witnesses in emphasizing the increasing need for lifelong learning programs with particular attention paid to low-income adults because this population is the least 

likely to participate in such activities, as seen in data from the National Center for Education Statistics. We see that adults with incomes of $20,000 or less participate in continuing education at only 

a 28 percent rate, compared to a 59 percent rate for those with incomes of $75,000 or more. It is also true that adults from low-income households are the least likely to receive employer support for 

their educational activities. 

Certainly, the Federal TRIO community brings a long history to 

this issue. For example, the TRIO EOCs for Massachusetts program, which I direct and I have been involved with actually for the 

last 25 years, was first funded in 1974, currently serves over 7,000 

clients per year, the majority of them low-income and first generation potential college students at an annual cost of less than $150 

per client. 

60

Services are offered at a network of six sites across the State and 

all six sites also provides services at satellite centers, including Career Centers, the One-Stop Centers that we have heard about 

today, welfare offices, vocational rehabilitation centers, public libraries, churches and schools. Where the clients go, we will go. In 

Wyoming I understand TRIO EOCs often operate from agricultural 

extension centers as well. 

Services offered by TRIO EOC programs are wide-ranging and 

consequently can be tailored to meet the needs of each individual 

client. They are both client-based as well as flexible, and we have 

certainly heard this morning about the importance of both of those 

characteristics. All services are offered to ensure that the clients 

are made aware of the importance of additional education, particularly postsecondary education, if appropriate, and the possibilities 

that such education provides. 

Individualized assistance is provided to ensure that the education program selected is appropriate to the client’s abilities and 

career interests and life situation. Of course a key component of 

participation in continuing education for low-income adult students 

is securing adequate financial aid. Accordingly, much emphasis is 

placed on assisting students and learning about financial aid availability and applying for that aid, and considering the advantages 

and disadvantages of various types of aid, particularly loans. 

All EOCs work closely with loan guarantee agencies to assist individuals who may have defaulted on previous loans to enter into 

an appropriate repayment plan so that their loan status does not 

jeopardize their ability to reenter a postsecondary program. This is 

really a critical part of what we do in order to ensure that these 

students can move forward. 

Low-income adult students generally must contend with great 

complexity in their lives, as I am sure you are all aware, and a limited network of support to manage that complexity. We often say 

that life happens. For example, 57 percent of low-income adult students in postsecondary education work full time, compared to 33 

percent of traditional students. Additionally, 64 percent of low-income adult students support dependent children, compared to only 

8 percent of traditional students. So in addition to assisting students in identifying an appropriate academic program and securing 

the financial resources to enroll, it is often necessary to assist clients in securing support from other academic and social services. 

Whether it is tutoring, day care services, transportation, and so on, 

all of those services need to be in place if these clients are going 

to succeed. 

One of the major strengths of TRIO’s Educational Opportunity 

Centers is that they are education brokers, not charged with filling 

seats in a particular program, but rather looking at the needs of 

each individual and providing them with the best academic fit possible. EOCs for Massachusetts program has an annual program enrollment rate of 45 percent. 

And as is true elsewhere and as we have heard, jobs of the future 

are going to require postsecondary programs. Education has historically been the pathway to viability, to self-sustainability, to an 

individual taking care of their family and ensuring that they all 

have a brighter future. 

61

I would like to just take a minute to share with you one story 

to try to put a human face on all that we have heard this morning. 

Arianne arrived at the EOC office through the encouragement of 

her counselor at the local housing authority. This 35-year-old African-American single mother has struggled within the walls of poverty her whole life. Her undiagnosed learning disability prevented 

her from ever succeeding in school. She dropped out at an early 

age, gave birth to a son 16 years ago and has struggled to provide 

for him ever since. 

She worked hard to obtain her GED and was able to finally have 

her disability diagnosed. Still she struggled to make ends meet. 

She lost her minimum wage job, found herself homeless and lost 

custody of her son, but again she struggled to find her way. 

Now receiving public assistance and through the encouragement 

and efforts of her EOC adviser and her self-sufficiency counselor at 

the Housing Authority, she has been able to work with the State 

Rehab Center to obtain services related to the disability. Career assessment testing through EOC has set her on the right path. She 

will be taking summer courses this year to get the prerequisites 

necessary to enter an occupational therapy program at the local 

community college in the fall. 

This is just one of thousands and thousands of examples of people who have succeeded through education. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Boisvert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAMELA BOISVERT

Chairman Enzi, Senator Kennedy and distinguished members of the committee, 

I am very honored to testify before you today on the important topic of Lifelong Educational Opportunities for Americans. My name is Pamela Boisvert and I serve as 

Vice President of the Colleges of Worcester Consortium in Worcester, Massachusetts. Among its other offerings, the Consortium provides educational counseling 

and placement to low-income adults throughout Massachusetts through a Federal 

TRIO Educational Opportunity Center grant. In this instance, Massachusetts and 

Wyoming share another similarity, for in Wyoming as well, a Federal Educational 

Opportunity Center hosted by the University of Wyoming provides educational counseling and placement services to adults throughout the State. 

I certainly join with the other witnesses in emphasizing the increasing need for 

life-long learning programs with particular attention paid to low-income adults because low-income adults are the least likely to participate in such activities, as seen 

in the following data from the National Center for Education Statistics.

Percentage of Adults Engaged in Continuing Education by Income 

$20,000 or less .......................................................................................................................... 28%

$20,001 to $35,000 .................................................................................................................... 39%

$35,001 to $50,000 .................................................................................................................... 48%

$50,001 to $75,000 .................................................................................................................... 56%

$75,001 and above .................................................................................................................... 59%

It is also true that adults from low-income households are the least likely to receive employer support for educational activities.

Percentage of Adults Receiving Employer Support for Continuing Education by Income 

$20,000 or less .......................................................................................................................... 48%

$20,001 to $35,000 .................................................................................................................... 58%

$35,001 to $50,000 .................................................................................................................... 66%

62

Percentage of Adults Receiving Employer Support for Continuing Education by Income—

Continued

$50,001 to $75,000 .................................................................................................................... 76%

$75,001 and above .................................................................................................................... 75%

Certainly the Federal TRIO community brings a long history to this issue. For example, the TRIO EOCs for Massachusetts program, which I direct, was first funded 

in 1974 and currently serves over 7,000 clients per year at an annual cost of less 

than $150 per client. Services are offered at a network of sites throughout the State 

in Boston, New Bedford, Lynn, Worcester, Springfield and Pittsfield. All six sites 

also provide services at satellite centers including job services offices, welfare offices, 

vocational rehabilitation services offices, public libraries, churches and schools. In 

Wyoming, TRIO EOCs often operate from agricultural extension offices as well. 

Services offered by TRIO EOCs are wide-ranging and can be tailored to meet the 

needs of individual clients. All services are offered to ensure that the clients are 

made aware of the importance of additional education, particularly postsecondary 

education if appropriate, and the possibilities that such education provides. Individualized assistance is provided to ensure that the educational program selected is appropriate to the client’s abilities and career interests. 

Of course, a key component of participation in continuing education for low-income adult students is securing adequate financial aid. Accordingly, a great deal of 

time is spent in assisting students in learning about financial aid available, and 

considering the advantages and disadvantages of various types of aid, particularly 

loans. The EOC works closely with loan guarantee agencies to assist individuals 

who may have defaulted on previous loans to enter into an appropriate repayment 

plan so that their loan status does not jeopardize their ability to re-enter a postsecondary program. 

Low-income adult students generally must contend with complexity in their lives 

and a limited network of support to manage that complexity. For example, 57 percent of low-income adult students in postsecondary education work full-time, compared to 33 percent of traditional students. Additionally, 64 percent of low-income 

adult students support dependent children compared to 8 percent of traditional students. So in addition to assisting students in identifying an appropriate academic 

program and secure the resources to enroll, it is often necessary to assist clients in 

securing support from other academic and social services agencies. 

One of the major strengths of TRIO’s Educational Opportunity Centers is that 

they are education brokers, not charged with filling seats in a particular program, 

but rather looking at the needs of each individual and providing them with the best 

academic ‘‘fit’’ possible. The EOCs for Massachusetts program has an annual program enrollment rate of 45 percent. 

Massachusetts is home to rapidly-growing immigrant populations, an expanding 

knowledge-based economy, and a shrinking ‘‘native-born’’ population. Education has 

historically been a cornerstone of our economy, both in terms of education-related 

jobs, as well as jobs requiring a higher education. Service related industries, including health fields and technology, are also showing significant growth. Self-sufficiency in Massachusetts now demands some form of postsecondary education, and 

TRIO is well positioned to provide access services leading to the American dream. 

I would like to share two stories of current EOC clients with you. 

Story I. Arianne arrived at the EOC office through the encouragement of her 

counselor at the local housing authority. This 35-year-old African-American single 

mother has struggled within the walls of poverty her whole life. Her undiagnosed 

learning disability prevented her from ever succeeding in school. She dropped out 

at an early age, gave birth to a son 16 years ago and has struggled to provide for 

him since. She worked hard to obtain her GED and was able to have her disability 

diagnosed. 

Still she struggled to make ends meet. She lost her minimum wage job, found herself homeless and lost custody of her child. Again she struggled to find her way. 

Now receiving public assistance, and through the encouragement and efforts of her 

Education Advisor at the EOC and her Self-Sufficiency counselor at the local housing authority, Arianne has been able to work with the State Rehabilitation Center 

to obtain services related to her disability. Career assessment testing through the 

EOC has confirmed that she has the strong interest and abilities necessary to 

achieve her dream of becoming an Occupational Therapist. Her desire is to help 

children with disabilities. She is now registered for summer semester classes at the 

local community college taking those prerequisites necessary to enter the occupational therapy assistant’s program that she has been accepted to in the fall. Arianne 

63

and clients like her need so desperately to be able to rely on those services provided 

by EOC and its collaborations with local social service organizations. These collaborative efforts have been instrumental in assisting so many in achieving self-sufficiency and success. 

Story II. Edlira Gostivari came to America from Albania in May 1999. She has 

been using the Worcester EOC services since August 1999. At first, she got help in 

applying for the ESL program at Clark University and Quinsigamond Community 

College (QCC) to improve her limited English skills. We assisted her in both the 

admissions application process and the financial aid application process at those 

schools. In Spring 2002, Edlira completed the ESL program at QCC. In Fall 2002, 

she enrolled in the Business Office Support Specialist Associate in Science program 

at QCC. She will complete that program in May 2005. She plans to transfer to Becker College, Anna Maria College, or Worcester State College in Fall 2005 to earn a 

Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, History, or Legal Studies. She would like to 

attend Law School after she completes her Bachelor’s Degree. The Worcester EOC 

has assisted Edlira effectively in achieving her educational goal successfully. Using 

our services, as an immigrant with limited English skills, she has become proficient 

in English and studied successfully in American colleges. I believe she will achieve 

her dream of becoming a lawyer with her strong will, high motivation, and the continuous efficient assistance from the Worcester EOC.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I appreciate all of the testimony that we have heard. I will begin 

with some questions. 

Governor Sebelius, in your testimony you mentioned the alignment of Federal education laws to promote lifelong learning. Do 

you have any suggestions or examples that might assist us as we 

consider the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, the 

Higher Education Act, the Head Start Act, the Carl Perkins Vocational Technical Act, or any of the other 38 that we are going to 

do to ensure that we provide opportunities for students and workers of all ages? 

Governor SEBELIUS. Well, thank you, Senator. Yes, I think that 

as our last panel has talked about, putting a sort of human face 

might make it a little easier. And let me just give you a hypothetical: Danny from Salina, Kansas, who is a low-income, special 

needs child, and walk you through what happens when he hits 

school. 

First, hopefully we will get him into Head Start in Kansas, and 

that has its own set of requirements, Head Start or one of the 

other 69 programs that is available for preschool kids, which has 

its own funding streams and its own data requirements. 

Once he hits kindergarten, IDEA kicks into gear as well as No 

Child Left Behind, each with different reporting requirements for 

him and very little flexibility or ability to pool the funds and make 

sure that he gets specifically the training he needs. 

His teacher training comes under the Higher Education Act and 

loan forgiveness and other entities, so we have now got three Federal laws that impact him, as well as title I requirements in the 

school where he is. 

As he gets into high school, those requirements stay in place, but 

Perkins vocational training comes into being, again, with a different data set, different reporting requirements, different yearly 

titles. And hopefully we can either help move him successfully into 

a job or into higher education. 

I am just giving you a little example of a child in Kansas, and 

I think what we are saying at the State level is if we had some 

ability to pool a stream of funds, if we had some ability to give you 

one plan with a data set that was then able to be replicated for the 

64

various acts in charge, and if we had more ability really to look at 

two key transitions—what happens from early education into 

school, how we make those funds flow and make sure children are 

ready to learn, and what happens as children exit high school into 

either higher education or vocational training or hopefully both—

again, pooling and streaming funds, alignment at those levels 

would make, I think, not only us able to be more successful, more 

nimble, more responsive to parents and teachers, but also make 

sure that we are getting the best bang for our buck. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Very succinct and comprehensive. 

Governor SEBELIUS. And there are probably those other 38 acts 

that are going to kick in at some point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and the 69 preschool programs, yes, we will 

be working on those. 

Governor Fletcher, what best practices in local communities are 

creating better coordination of all available resources for youth to 

achieve positive outcomes after leaving formal secondary education 

programs, including the workforce, obtaining a college degree, or 

starting their own business? That is one of my favorites. 

Governor FLETCHER. Well, in Kentucky—and not only in Kentucky, but I think the greater push for P–16 counsel is extremely 

helpful, especially in the Workforce Investment Act, flexibility 

would certainly help us there. The best practices that we have so 

far are strengthening P–16, and what we do is integrate economic 

development with education to make sure that not only are economic development individuals and interests interested in education, but education sees economic development as part of their 

responsibility. 

One of the things we are doing in postsecondary education is 

what we call stewards of place. Our universities and institutions 

have responsibility not only for recruitment, enrolling, and graduating, but see a greater responsibility for the economic development of their communities that they live in. 

That means that when we are looking at attracting businesses or 

trying to grow a particular industry, they can get involved in that 

from the outset, including curriculum, making sure that their students are ready for that type of workplace. 

I think the Workforce Investment Act would help us tremendously in the sense that we would not have silos. This year, we had 

$29 million that we could not access, but we could have used that 

money tremendously in other areas of postsecondary education to 

help educate workers in particular areas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I am out of time, but I am going to 

take the Chairman’s prerogative and do one more question before 

I go to written ones. 

Mr. Fitzgerald, how difficult is it for your member companies to 

find employees with skills to continue to compete? What are your 

concerns about the skill level of the workforce and the American 

businesses to compete internationally and our Nation’s economic 

success? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Chairman, our corporate members are extremely concerned about the ability to access the kind of skilled 

workforce. Many of our corporations are global corporations, and, 

65

frankly, they find it easier to find highly skilled talent in their laboratories and their plants in other parts of the world. 

I know many people talk to you about homeland security issues 

and the implications in the post-9/11 world, but let me give you one 

example of the implications of this real crisis in a qualified workforce. 

Two of our corporate members—in particular, Bill Swanson at 

Raytheon—they need to find American or at least U.S. citizens who 

can do work, classified work at the highest levels of research and 

development. Bill hoped actually to be here with you today but 

could not change his schedule. He is scared to death about the ability of, broadly speaking, our educational system to produce the 

kind of workforce we need. Companies like Pfizer find it much easier to find highly skilled, highly trained professionals, technicians, 

researchers, in places like India than here. 

We need to address this in our high schools, in our middle 

schools, but we also need to address this in our colleges and universities and support the stem disciplines and research, basic research 

at universities so that we have the workforce domestically that our 

corporations need to compete globally. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of 

the witnesses for very helpful testimony. I mentioned to Governor 

Sebelius that we have scheduled for the 20th of this month the 

first of a series of hearings and roundtables to try to take a look 

at the 69 early childhood education programs that help children 

under 6 and spend about 20 billion Federal dollars just to see what 

we might do to coordinate them better. So I know you will be interested in that, given your NGA position. 

I want to start with Mr. Gunderson because I know he has been 

around on these issues for a long time. I was Governor when CIDA 

was abolished and the Joint Training Partnership Act came in, and 

like a good soldier, I remember flying all around the State and 

forming all these councils and whooping it up and saying this is 

going to be a great thing, because on paper it is. You know, the 

idea is connect the employers and the community colleges and meet 

the new needs and get everybody working on the same thing together. And so we did that. I thought we did a really good job on 

it. 

The longer I have been around, the more I have been 

unimpressed with our ability to form councils and direct things 

from here, to review reports and papers, and the more impressed 

I have been with the higher education model, which I mentioned 

to the first panel, which is basically to give the money to the student or the out-of-work person or the person changing jobs and let 

them go look for the service they need. 

That is why I was interested in the personal retirement account 

that is being—I mean, that makes a lot of sense to me, that if I 

am sitting there having changed jobs and I get $3,000, then I can 

make a choice about whether to spend it here, here, here or here, 

then the whole system has to really respond to me. I think that is 

the real reason why we have the greatest system of colleges and 

universities in the world, is because we have emphasized autonomy 

66

for those institutions, a lot of Federal dollars, but it follows students to institutions they choose. 

I think as we articulate high schools and community colleges 

that high school money ought to be following students more to the 

community college in courses that they choose to take at the community college, that would require State and local decisionmaking. 

But I want to go to a recommendation you made and just ask you 

to elaborate on it a little bit, and if anyone else wants to comment 

and there is time, terrific. 

You suggest we reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act and 

the Higher Education Act and the Perkins Act all at once and take 

a look at it, simplify it. If I have got my numbers right, as an example, we spend about $4 billion in adult education through the 

Workforce Investment Act, some of it here, some of it at the State 

level, some of it here, some of it there. We spend $12 billion on Pell 

grants. I guess an alternative would be looking at that, take the 

whole $4 billion, and just spend it on Pell grants or just spend it 

on personal reinsurance accounts or to spend half of it on Pell 

grants and personal reinsurance accounts. 

Have you thought that through or do you have any recommendations for us about—or do you even agree that we would be better 

off with fewer councils, less bureaucracy, and more Federal dollars 

to go directly to the worker we are hoping to train, and then let 

that worker then seek out his training? I would expect it would 

often be with an employer or with a community college or a technical institute, or who knows, but as long as they are certified in 

some way. 

What would be your elaboration on those points? 

Mr. GUNDERSON. Let me try to be brief because we could speak 

for hours on this. 

I agree, first of all, and I think we need to recognize our problem. 

In the last reauthorization of WIA, we said the WIBs do not deliver 

the training, they just design. The problem is we have a WIA system that is guided by performance standards, and we have a community college system that is funded by credit hours. And there is 

a huge disconnect, and we have got to figure out how you connect 

these two so you get those outcomes. While we would like to have 

credit hours, let’s recognize that we are more into employer-recognized, industry-based certificates that are going to be portable 

skills, that are not going to be built on credit hours. So that is why 

I think you have got to try to figure out how do you redesign and 

connect these in a way that gets them to talk to each other and 

works in ways that it does not today. 

The second thing I want to suggest to you, Senator, is you and 

I, because we are both Republican, believe in an ownership society. 

We are not going to have enough Federal or enough Federal and 

State dollars to meet the need that is going to be necessary in this 

area. One of the things I have suggested is that we create lifelong 

learning accounts. If we would take simply for a 20-year period, 

from age 25 to 45, if we would take 25 cents per hour—I don’t care 

if it is employee or employer funded—and put that into that person’s individual lifelong learning account, they would have well 

over $10,000 to spend on continued education or training. Cut it 

67

down to a dime, you have still got over $5,000 in that person’s account. 

If every individual had that and it was said you could use this 

for your upgrading of skills or at the age of 65 you could convert 

it into a retirement account, we would change the culture in this 

country, number one. Number two, we would get the resources, unlike anything we anticipated, to meet the demand in this area. 

And, third, all of a sudden we would have the delivery mechanism 

that would look at ways where they could access and meet and 

serve those needs. We would not have the debates about whether 

incumbent workers were or were not eligible for a Federal program 

because every incumbent worker would have the resources to use 

to upgrade their skills. 

So, yes, I think you are moving in the right direction. I do think 

we have got to find a way to merge these Federal programs because what you do here impacts what happens down at the local 

level. 

A caution. With all due respect to our Governors, I was at a 

meeting recently with a bunch of State directors for WIB who said 

we are going to ask for some waivers so that we have discretionary 

money, but we are not going to do it until our State legislatures 

are out of session, because if our State legislators see that we have 

that discretionary money, they are going to automatically use that 

money and program that money to meet their State needs. So it is 

going to supplant that State funding. 

What we have got to do is make sure that we have the State dollars, we have the Federal dollars, we have the private sector dollars. There is not going to be enough. We cannot let one dollar replace another. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. If I had had more time, I would have asked the Governors whether they support the President’s proposal to extend No 

Child Left Behind to high school, but maybe someone else will do 

that. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I took some latitude. I will let you ask that question. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Seriously, do you support or what is your 

comment on the President’s proposal of extending No Child Left 

Behind to high school? 

Governor SEBELIUS. Well, Senator, I think my comment would be 

I would certainly support rigorous training and testing and think 

that we need to do measuring in high school. And it is part of what 

our high school reform effort at the National Governors level is 

about. 

There is clearly concern about underfunding, and I would say 

that at least in Kansas, we have experienced that the new layer 

of testing requirements, in addition to the testing requirements we 

already had in place in Kansas, has put us even further behind in 

trying to make our school system work for every child. So I would 

be very cautious about endorsement without the funding to go with 

it. 

One other area I would just point out, as long as we are here—

and I will let my colleague, Governor Fletcher, answer also. But 

68

there are some inconsistencies—back to Senator Enzi’s earlier 

question—in alignment. We have talked a lot about moving kids 

from high school into either workforce training or community college, doing that fairly seamlessly. 

One of the things we find with No Child Left Behind, teacher requirements, as we looked at it in Kansas, is that dual enrollment 

is problematic because a number of our teachers in our community 

colleges do not meet the qualified standards for No Child Left Behind. They cannot teach the high school kids because they do not 

have the adequate hours of training in the specific subject. 

So that is another issue that we might want to address. I think 

advancing and accelerating students’ learning into higher education is great. But we are finding that it is complicated by the current structure of No Child Left Behind as it relates to teacher 

training. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you. 

Governor FLETCHER. Senator Alexander, I first want to thank 

Congress. I was here at the time when the No Child Left Behind 

bill was passed, and it was a great bipartisan effort. I think it 

brought some local flexibility as well as accountability which had 

not been there previously. And certainly those principles I endorse 

and I believe most Governors endorse certainly the flexibility and 

that there does need to be accountability along with that. 

One of the things that I think is extremely important as you are 

looking at expansion is the fact of the flexibility of the State setting 

those standards. But, additionally, I think there should be along 

with that some incentives. As we know now and recognize—in high 

school graduation there is—the need of the knowledge based, 

through, for example, the American Diploma Project, is similar 

whether that child decides to go to a postsecondary educational institution or whether they decide to go into the workplace. 

And so once we realize that, then I think if there is an expansion 

of No Child Left Behind, it really needs to provide incentives for 

us to move toward redesign of the high school, toward that purpose 

and accountability. 

The other thing I would like to see, because of WIA’s prescriptive 

measures in the different silos that exist there and the fact that 

we have dual courses, we have this seamless education that we are 

working toward. Some of the artificial barriers that are produced 

there prohibit us from having the flexibility of really preparing the 

workforce in a way that we can. 

So with those principles in mind, we certainly would look forward to working with you on the expansion of that, and always as 

we look toward education with these requirements, we certainly 

would encourage you looking at the funding as well. 

May I make a comment, too, if I might, Mr. Chairman, on the 

answer—there was one question that Senator Alexander had previous to this, and, you know, in looking at the money following the 

student, because I think as you look at improving education—we 

passed some tuition tax credits in Kentucky that we modeled after 

those tuition tax credits on the Federal level. But we gave a lot 

more flexibility in what institutions those would apply to and what 

diplomas or credentialing would require. 

69

That is a method that we use of allowing it to follow the student 

and allow them to have more choice. But we also give them the 

choice of going to some other institutions, and it provides up to 

$500 in our situation. We just passed that this year. 

Additionally, some flexibility as you are looking toward Pell 

grants and other tuition assistance programs would be helpful as 

you see that the tracks that a student takes may not be quite as 

traditional, but more focused on a specific vocation or profession. 

And if that can be blended with some flexibility of WIA grants, I 

think you could see that we would have a lot more tools as Governors to make sure that we get success toward developing individuals that are prepared for college that will be successful as well in 

the workplace. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Burr. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank this entire group of witnesses, and I will tell you 

up front that I will show some discretion and focus on those two 

guys in the middle. Steve, welcome back. And, Ernie, it is great to 

see you. You came this time with a little less fanfare than one of 

your last trips here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURR. We thank you for that. Seldom do Johnny and I 

have the opportunity to have two of our former colleagues on the 

hot seat where we can get them, and I want to take advantage of 

it. 

Steve, you said something that was unbelievably important, and 

I think it reflects sort of the last 10 years, and it is evidence that 

we are learning. Ten years ago, we would do anything to block 

grant everything to the States. Ten years later, we look at our Governors that are here and we look at the other ones around the 

country, and I think the important question that we ask is: Do you 

really want us to do that? Can flexibility be designed in a way that 

does not create this competitive spirit, personal urge to find an 

easy way out of a State budget problem or to create new revenues 

for the General Assembly to look at and say, But it is written in 

a way that you could do this, only to be audited 10 years down the 

road and find out that you have a problem? Unfortunately, you 

may not be there, we may not be here, but the loss is a generation 

of kids that went through the system. 

The thing that has probably gone unsaid is that I think we need 

to be focused as we go through reauthorization, as we go through 

any new legislation, less on process and all on outcome. No future 

employer is going to look and say, How did you get to this point? 

They are just evaluating whether they got to the point they need 

them. And so we need to be less concerned with how we get there 

and more focused on getting there. 

Steve, I think in your testimony—it was incredible testimony—

but I want to go right to something you said in the conclusion because I think it deserves saying publicly. Today, education is workforce investment, and workforce investment is economic development. The connection is already there. What we cannot do is break 

70

this up and then hope that it comes back together. It has to be designed as seamless. 

I would turn to the two Governors and just say, Can States make 

wise decisions if, in fact, we give you that flexibility? Or would you 

urge us not just to guess when the legislature is in or out? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURR. And be a little more prescriptive on how you access that money? 

Governor SEBELIUS. Well, Senator, I think not only can States do 

it, but we are doing it. And, frankly, if we do not do it, it does not 

get done. 

I think that there is an incredible innovation going on rethinking 

the whole seamless transition from school into workforce. And 

what, as Governor Fletcher has already articulated, we find over 

and over again are silos and data requirements and an inability to 

really deliver the end product, if you will, the educated worker to 

the business of tomorrow. It stumbles along the way. 

So I think you can have a maintenance of effort provision that 

makes sure that we do not transfer funds with the next crisis that 

happens. I would urge Congress to do the same thing as you reauthorize these acts. Maintain the effort. Do not under the guise of 

flexibility deliver less money with higher accountability standards 

and more demands, but that is a fair, I think, transfer, that is to 

say these efforts have to be directed. Ask for a State plan. Ask for 

a data set. Ask for accountability. And then let States be able to 

develop the workforce that is really needed in different parts of the 

country with different segments, with some flexibility. 

Governor FLETCHER. Senator Burr, it is good to see you again, 

and we enjoyed working with you on Energy and Commerce in the 

House. Congratulations to you as well for your success in being 

here. 

One of the things I think we are seeing is the transition from 

what I call prescriptive accountability, which means that you prescribe on the Federal level the methods, and that is the accountability, and the reporting is back, that you follow that prescription. 

No Child Left Behind moved more to results accountability, 

which said we give you some flexibility—and we would ask for 

more—and measure the results. 

One of the things that I think is different now than what we had 

in previous generations is this global competitiveness. That means 

that we are moving from an agrarian, manufacturing society to advanced agriculture and advanced manufacturing, biotech, knowledge-based economy, which means that we have to have a much 

more educated workforce to compete. And for States to be successful—and we are competitive entities, one with another as well as 

globally—we have to succeed in providing that knowledge-based 

workforce in order to maintain the workforce in our States and to 

maintain our revenue basically. 

So I think the accountability is there from the fact that in order 

to continue to grow in the competitive economy, we have to attain 

results. We are all focusing and realize that education, unlike previous generations, is absolutely essential for economic development. 

There were decades ago where you had high labor-intensive industries that did not require the technical education. But as we see 

71

now, high school graduation, whether or not you go into the workforce or university, it requires the same skills. That has come about 

because we have to have those skills in our workforce to be competitive and increase productivity. Otherwise, we lose those jobs. 

So the answer to that is, yes, I think so. I think it is good to 

move from a prescriptive accountability to a results-oriented accountability. And also you can roll into that there are some research-based methods that I think are important in education that 

can be utilized as well. 

Senator BURR. I will take the Chairman’s silence as I get an opportunity to go one more time. 

Steve, you talked throughout your testimony about the global 

change, the global economy. I believe that one of the most significant things that has been overlooked is the fact that 20 years ago, 

innovation was something that we just—we hold here in the United 

States, in part because of the education, in part because we had 

a model that protected intellectual property and a lot of things. 

Innovation is global today. There is as much innovation that happens outside the United States as there does inside the United 

States. 

How does that change the way we look at job creation from a 

standpoint of the fact that we just cannot rely on innovation that 

takes place here at home to employ that group that we know are 

coming in the next generation? 

Mr. GUNDERSON. Well, it is serious, Senator, because it has been 

our competitive advantage. We did not have a problem outsourcing 

low-skilled manufacturing jobs. We did not even have too big a 

problem when we started outsourcing those medium-level jobs. All 

of a sudden when we see that we are now outsourcing research and 

innovation, America’s leadership competitive advantage is at risk. 

All of the companies that Brian represents are seriously considering moving their R&D to the Southeast Pacific, not just because 

of low labor, but because of the brain power that is available there 

that is not available here. That talks about America’s quality of life 

in the future. 

Second, you know, we love to beat up on Europe in this country, 

but we need to be real careful because if you look at the Bologna 

Accord, Europe has redesigned their entire higher education system. They have gone from 4 years to 3 years of basic academic 

skills, combined that with a 2-year career and academic training 

focus. So it is a 5-year program for creating a high-skilled, portable 

degree throughout the entire European Union. 

Now, if Europe gets their act together, which I think they are 

going to do in that, all of a sudden, again, we not only face that 

competitive disadvantage with the Southeast Pacific, but we are 

now facing it with Europe. And they have the same population that 

we do. America is going to lose what has become its major ability. 

The other sides of this, of course, is we are the one country that 

is going to teach the world how do we educate and train a diverse 

population of race and ethnicity and succeed at it or fail at it. And 

that is the question that is before all of us today. 

Senator BURR. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I appreciate the patience of Senator Isakson. 

72

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. I just love Senator Burr. I would give him all 

the time in the world—as long as it does not take away from mine. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ISAKSON. [continuing.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Steve, on that great segue, at the end of your remarks, if I wrote 

it down right, you said one of the things to deal with is the fact 

that we cannot stop global competition, that you cannot educate on 

the cheap, and it is an absolute necessity to develop the workforce. 

You said we must connect academics and career skills, right? 

Mr. GUNDERSON. Yes. 

Senator ISAKSON. Then you just went into the EU model. Connecting academics and career skills in that comment manifests 

itself in the European concept in your mind of 3 years of basic and 

then 2 years of career. Is that what you meant? 

Mr. GUNDERSON. I think that is one option. I do not think it is 

the only option. But, you know, what I have said in my testimony 

that I did not repeat in my brief summary is that we have to 

change this mind-set of workforce investment to be only those people who, quote, do not go to college. I mean, I am excited by the 

Council of Graduate Schools in this country that has become major 

players in workforce investment because every one of us in this 

room who has a B.A. degree who goes back to school—guess 

what?—we are in graduate education. We never thought of that as 

workforce investment. And if we are going to compete, we have got 

to begin looking at this holistic system, which is not even just P–

16, it is P–16-plus, in a way that we have not redesigned that. 

We have had this concept in this country that graduate education is Ph.D. period. Somebody in the House of Representatives 

affectionately called graduate education as a prep school for college 

professors. You know, it is not that anymore. The reality is that we 

are now looking at graduate education in professional master’s degrees as connecting workforce investment, those skills that you 

were talking about with Raytheon and others that are going to become necessary. It is not just a Ph.D. degree in order to be competitive and to keep this Nation competitive. That is why we have to 

look at that holistic set. 

Senator ISAKSON. OK. The reason I wanted to follow up on that 

is, following that line a little bit further, we are not doing a good 

enough job of exposing our young people to the potential of careers 

that we need. We glorify the absolute least productive things in our 

society, some of them almost destructive, and it is done more often 

than not through television. But we do not institutionalize in any 

way, it seems like to me, the images of those things that we need. 

And this is kind of a statement following up on what you said. But 

I agree. 

And the P–16, Governor Sebelius and Governor Fletcher, I was 

so glad to hear both of you mention it, and then Steve added that 

add-on, you know, past P–16 to actually the career. But we are beginning to move, to filter down, I think, at the lower level some of 

the benefits of good academics all the way through. And I commend 

you all on what you are doing. 

I want to thank you for something, too. Unfortunately, some of 

the people that needed to hear it are not here today, but both of 

73

you talked about—two words—flexibility and consolidation. And I 

want to commend you for doing that because you are where the 

rubber meets the road. We are not. And consolidating programs, 

which we strive so desperately to do in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act but failed in a lot of them, to give these programs allowable use titles and combine all the funds so you can 

choose within those uses which you best need I think is the way 

to go to expand that academic funding. 

And to that end, my question to you, Governor Sebelius, is: You 

mentioned Perkins money. Would you like Perkins to be a part of 

that type of concept of flexibility and consolidating programs? Or 

would you want it to remain isolated? 

Governor SEBELIUS. Well, Senator, I would say I think I would 

prefer maybe coordination to consolidation, and particularly consolidation that is chosen, you know, at some other level. What we 

need a lot more flexibility to do is coordinate streams of funding, 

and I think Perkins should very much be a part of that. And we 

are doing a lot of that right now in Kansas. 

We have done a major overhaul of our workforce initiatives with 

a program called Kansas First, where we have a market-driven 

strategy with business leaders at the table coordinating with community college programs and workforce training efforts and kind of 

the one-stop shopping. And so our ability to pool those funds and 

design them so that they track the workers’ needs and provide the 

program opportunities for those workers would be very beneficial. 

Senator ISAKSON. Well, the reason I ask the question is I am a 

big Perkins supporter, and there has been a fear that the consolidation of Perkins money was an end to that program. And Perkins 

deals with some of the things Steve is talking about and Ernie has 

talked about, everybody on the panel, because it is career-oriented 

training for the jobs of the 21st century. And I appreciate your 

changing the response—not changing the response but using coordination rather than consolidation when you got into that answer. And I think maybe that is where we may be missing it, Mr. 

Chairman. There may be some need to coordinate toward the outcomes we seek so as we consolidate we are not losing sight of the 

goals that we have. And unlike my North Carolina friend, I will not 

use any more time in case he has another question. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and I want to thank all of the witnesses today. And as I mentioned, we will be leaving the record 

open for 10 days so that members who were not able to be here 

today can submit questions and so that you can expand on any remarks that you wish to expand on. 

As we talked about lifelong learning today, I think it came 

through very clearly that we need to concentrate our legislation on 

flexibility and coordination, counseling, and probably some emphasis on science and math. 

A couple of weeks ago, I held an inventors conference in Wyoming, and I had a fellow named Dean Kamen come out and be the 

keynote speaker. He invented the Segway. But that is kind of his 

hobby. He has 200 medical patents. One of them is heart stents. 

74

Another one is a diabetic pump. And he was lamenting the lack of 

science and math majors in the United States. 

Well, actually, we have a lot of science and math majors in college, but most of them are not from the United States. And that 

is going to result in some definite problems for us. 

He did point out, though, that you get what you celebrate, and 

we are celebrating entertainment and athletics. And he has an attempt to celebrate science and math. So something to keep in mind. 

Again, I appreciate everybody being here and the great testimony 

that we have had today. 

The hearing is adjourned.

[Editor’s Note—Due to the high cost of printing, previously published materials submitted by witnesses may be found in the files of the commitee.]

75

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DEWINE BY MARGARET SPELLINGS

Question 1. In Ohio, we are far behind many other States in terms of the number 

of high school graduates who go on to higher education, with just 39 percent doing 

so. I believe this is an issue created by problems with students being or feeling illprepared for college and lacking the access to it. I have been a big supporter of Pell 

grants and other important loan programs to increase access to higher education. 

But with rising college costs, what more can we do to actually increase that access, 

not just maintain current enrollment numbers? And secondly, what more do we 

need to do to make sure students are more prepared for college? 

Answer 1. I agree that providing adequate financial support to students enrolled 

in postsecondary education is critical to ensuring access. That is why the President 

proposes to invest $19 billion in new funding over the next 10 years to increase the 

maximum Pell grant by $100 over each of the next 5 years and retire the program’s 

longstanding funding shortfall. The 2006 Budget also includes a range of other proposals, such as increased student loan limits and new programs such as Loans for 

Short–Term Training, Presidential Math and Science Scholars, and an enhanced 

Pell grant for students who have completed the State Scholars curriculum, that 

would reduce financial barriers to higher education. The budget request also includes a $125 million Community College Access grants initiative, which would support expansion of ‘‘dual-enrollment’’ programs under which high school students 

take postsecondary courses and receive both secondary and postsecondary credit. It 

would also help ensure that students completing such courses can continue and succeed in 4-year colleges and universities. 

With that said, simply increasing financial aid is not enough. As you suggest, we 

must ensure that students are prepared to enroll and succeed in college. That is 

why I believe the President’s proposed $1.2 billion High School Intervention Initiative is essential. Under that initiative, each State would develop a plan for improving high school education and increasing student achievement, especially the 

achievement of students at greatest risk of failing to meet challenging State standards and of dropping out of school. School districts receiving sub-grants from the 

States would be held accountable for increasing achievement, narrowing achievement gaps, and lowering the dropout rate, but they would have flexibility to provide 

the full range of services students need to ensure they are academically prepared 

for the transition to postsecondary education and the workforce. The initiative also 

would deepen the national knowledge base on what works in improving high schools 

and high school student achievement by supporting scientifically based research on 

specific interventions that have promise for improving outcomes.

Question 2. In Ohio, we have had a rough time in terms of job losses the last few 

years. Since 2000, Ohio has lost more jobs than any other State in America—37 percent of all jobs lost nationwide. We know that manufacturing is never going to be 

the employment engine that it once was. We also know that we need to change the 

way we are teaching our children and youth so that they are prepared for the new 

high skills jobs which ARE being created. In 2003, U.S. employers submitted almost 

285,000 applications to obtain work visas for skilled foreign born workers to fill 

available jobs in this country. How do you, Secretary Spellings and Secretary Chao, 

plan to work together to bridge this skills gap which we are currently facing and 

which could worsen if unchecked? 

Answer 2. Our two departments have established a strong, collaborative partnership to improve the preparation of today’s and tomorrow’s workers. By working 

closely together and ensuring that our programs and investments support and complement each other, we believe that we can make a powerful difference in bridging 

the Nation’s skill gap. For that reason, the Department of Education’s (ED) Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education and the Department of Labor’s 

(DOL) Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training meet on a regular basis 

to coordinate our work and collaborate on projects of mutual interest. We include 

DOL officials in many of our public events. Most recently, ED sponsored a ‘‘virtual 

summit’’ on community college issues, and one of our featured speakers was the Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training. DOL has been equally inclusive. 

Education officials, for example, have participated in DOL’s outreach meetings with 

representatives of high-growth industries and addressed their annual ‘‘Workforce Innovations’’ conferences and regional outreach events. 

Both agencies recognize that improving the academic preparation of our children 

and youth is an essential part of addressing the skills gap. Employers are demanding stronger reading, writing, and math skills of all of their workers—and reporting 

76

that too many recent high school graduates are not making the grade. Seventy-three 

percent of employers rate the writing skills of recent high school graduates as fair 

or poor, while 63 percent express dissatisfaction with graduates’ math skills. Most 

of our students are leaving high school without the high-level academic skills they 

need to land the fastest-growing, higher-paying jobs in our economy. As noted above, 

the President’s proposal for a new High School initiative will focus on improving 

student achievement at the high school level and, in particular, on the students who 

are most at risk of dropping out or leaving school without the skills and knowledge 

necessary for further education or employment. 

The Department of Labor has launched a complementary initiative to improve the 

outcomes of our most disadvantaged youth. Last fall, DOL organized regional forums to promote greater collaboration among State education, workforce, and juvenile justice officials to address the needs of disadvantaged youth. The Department 

of Education participated in the planning of these meetings, and encouraged State 

education officials to attend. We are now working with the DOL to develop a plan 

for providing joint technical assistance to State leaders as they seek to use resources 

from multiple Federal programs to support a common strategy for improving the 

outcomes of at-risk youth. This recommendation came out of proposals developed at 

the White House Task Force on Disadvantaged Youth, which I chaired at the Domestic Policy Council. 

No Child Left Behind and the President’s High School Initiative will ensure that, 

over time, students graduate from high school with the knowledge and skills they 

need to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce. Yet many adults who 

already have been left behind are looking for a second chance. Some departed school 

before graduating, some graduated lacking basic skills, and some are recent immigrants with limited English literacy skills. The Departments of Education and Labor 

are working together to ensure that these adults have access to the quality education and training they need to succeed in our economy. 

The President’s reauthorization proposal for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act demands accountability for results from States and local programs to ensure that both the hours adults invest in adult education and the Federal dollars 

we invest in the program are used most effectively. We would offer incentives for 

success to States and local programs, but we would also create more explicit consequences for those that fail to perform, including technical assistance and sanctions. We also want to create more choices for adults who want to improve their 

literacy skills. Our proposal would expand the number of workplace literacy programs, improve the capacity of community- and faith-based organizations to provide 

adult education, and promote greater use of technology to deliver instruction. This 

year, we are launching a 3-year national technology initiative that will expand the 

capability of adult education programs to use distance learning and other technologies and make distance education resources more accessible to adults with limited basic skills. 

Finally, a major vehicle for enabling American students to attain the skills and 

knowledge they need to prosper in the 21st Century economy is to provide student 

assistance that ensures access to postsecondary education. The President’s proposal 

for raising the maximum Pell grant, providing enhanced Pell grants for students 

who have completed the State Scholars curriculum, and providing loans for shortterm training, among other things, meets that need.

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ