WORKING TOGETHER - ASU · WORKING TOGETHER ALIGNING STATE ... and are working hard to facilitate...

WORKING TOGETHER ALIGNING STATE SYSTEMS AND

POLICIES FOR INDIVIDUAL AND

REGIONAL PROSPERITY

DECEMBER 2006

WORKING TOGETHER ALIGNING STATE SYSTEMS AND

POLICIES FOR INDIVIDUAL AND

REGIONAL PROSPERITY

DECEMBER 2006

Co-Authors: Christopher Mazzeo, Brandon Roberts, Christopher Spence, Julie StrawnEditor: David Jason FischerManaging Editor: Melissa GoldbergDesign Firm: Opto Design

Workforce Strategy Center

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Workforce Strategy Center would like to thank The Joyce Foundation for their support ofresearch and development of this report—especially Jennifer L. Phillips and Whitney Smith forexcellent insights and advice. We are also grateful to the experts in the field who recommendedsites to use for illustrative purposes throughout the report and to the representatives at manycommunity colleges, state and local agencies, and other organizations who gave their time andenergy to support this work. The authors also would like to thank Davis Jenkins for inspiration and editorial assistance.

01 SECTION ONE

OVERVIEW

01 Context and Need03 Aligning Systems and Policies to Support

the Knowledge Economy

07 SECTION TWO

IMPROVING POLICIES AND

SYSTEMS IN STATES

07 Promoting Access and Improving

Alignment

07 Marketing Workforce Education and Financial Aid to Low-Wage Workers

08 Making Postsecondary Workforce EducationMore Affordable for Low-Wage Workers

09 Aligning Related Policies to Help Low-Skilled Adults Access Education and Training

10 Supporting Student Success

12 Using General Institutional Funding 12 Targeting Funding 13 Focusing Attention 13 Rewarding Successful Performance 13 Encouraging Transitions

14 Sidebar: Completions, Not Enrollments15 Setting Goals and Improving Data on Student

Transitions 16 Aligning Entry and Exit Criteria Across

Educational Levels 17 Promoting Institutional Practices that Improve

Transitions 18 Incorporating Employer Demand and

State Economic Priorities in Workforce

Educational Planning

18 Sidebar: Washington’s I-BEST Program19 Building Workforce Education into State

Economic Development Policy20 Linking Workforce Education to State and

Regional Economic Priorities21 Using Incumbent Worker and Customized

Training Programs Strategically

22 Building Capacity and Financing Improvement

23 Supporting Occupational and Workforce Development Programs of EconomicImportance to the State and Regions

24 Supporting Developmental and Adult Education Programs to Help Students Earn Credentials

25 Paying for Program Development and OtherInnovation Costs

25 Measuring Results

26 Developing a Comprehensive and Integrated Data System

27 Focusing Indicators on Special Populations and Labor Market Outcomes

27 Building in Capacity for Public Reporting and Analysis

28 Rewarding Successful Performance 28 Sidebar: Florida–The Gold Standard of State

Data Systems 29 Measuring Progress Toward Goals

30 SECTION THREEMOVING FORWARD

31 Setting Forth a Guiding Vision

31 Gubernatorial Leadership32 Agency Leadership32 Leadership from the Outside33 Catalyzing and Supporting Local Action

33 Frameworks for Local Action33 Financial Support for Planning and Piloting34 Sidebar: Career Pathways – A Local Strategy

to Make the Pieces Fit 35 Offering Technical Assistance and

Opportunities for Peer Learning and Support36 Breaking Down Silos to Promote Local

Cooperation

36 Dedicating Staff Resources37 Institutionalizing Cooperation

38 CONCLUSION

CONTENTS

FORWARD

As state educational budgets come under increasing strain from rising costs elsewhere in publicbudgets, states and communities across the U.S. are looking for ways to strengthen their systemsof education and training and extract more value from their investments in these systems. Strategiesto achieve these objectives include focusing on local economic sectors that promise the greatestopportunity for job growth and economic development; creating partnerships across institutionallines between educators, employers, social service providers and government; and developing public policies that create incentives to align these various stakeholders in pursuit of shared aims.Community colleges, industry associations, local governmental agencies and a wide range of other entities are finding common ground and common goals, and moving forward in partnership to achieve them.

As detailed in this report, a number of states have emerged as cutting-edge implementers ofthese strategies, including Kentucky, Ohio, Washington, Oregon and California. At the federal level,the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education are supporting these strategies by sponsoring “institutes” to share ideas, experiences and lessons around these approaches and continuing tofund the well-known Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) grants. The philanthropic community has embraced this vision as well, as demonstrated by the JoyceFoundation (the funder of this report) in their recently launched “Shifting Gears” employment policyinitiative and the Ford Foundation’s Bridges to Opportunity Initiative, among others.

At Workforce Strategy Center, we share the enthusiasm for new strategic approaches to pursue the complementary goals of worker advancement and community economic development. In our 2002 report, “Building a Career Pathways System: Promising Practices in CommunityCollege-Centered Workforce Development,” we introduced one such approach, known as careerpathways. This model allows state and local governments to blend together policy goals that simultaneously support worker advancement and regional economic growth. Much of the work inthe field since then has come at the local level, where leaders have sought to affect changes in policy and practice. At the same time, as noted above, state policymakers in growing numbers havebecome interested in career pathways and related efforts, and are working hard to facilitate policyimprovements in their respective states. While we have long held the view that state policies canboth assist and hinder local efforts, our past published work has not fully explored how state policymakers can move proactively to support local efforts.

With this in mind, WSC is proud to present this report. In its pages, we define the challengesand highlight the possibilities facing state-level policymakers who seek to align state policies andresources in support of worker advancement and economic growth. This report is the third in aseries: the first report, “Career Pathways: Aligning Public Resources to Support Individual andRegional Economic Advancement in the Knowledge Economy,” introduces the series with adefinition of career pathways and the economic justification for the approach. The second report,“The Career Pathways How-to Guide” seeks to provide step-by-step instructions for local practi-tioners working to develop career pathways. Whether you are an experienced architect of careerpathways, a newcomer unfamiliar with the concept, or anywhere in between, we hope you read allthree reports in the series and contribute to the ongoing development of this exciting field.

Julian L. Alssid Executive Director, Workforce Strategy Center

W O R K I N G TO G E T H E R : A L I G N I N G STAT E SYS T E M S A N D P O L I C I E S F O R I N D I V I D UA L A N D R E G I O N A L P R O S P E R I T Y

• Increase postsecondary educational accessand improve student success rates, particu-larly for low-wage and low-skill adults

• Weave together education and workforcestrategies with economic developmentstrategies and the needs of employers

• Build the capacity of providers and postsec-ondary institutions to make these improve-ments

Unfortunately, most states are not nowequipped to meet these challenges. With fewexceptions, state policies governing adult andpostsecondary education, workforce and economic development, and social and humanservices are designed and implemented inisolation from each other. Far more often thannot, these systems do not effectively worktogether to produce the kinds of workers needed in today’s economy. In short, our publicsystems—and our investments in those systems, as taxpayers and citizens—are inneed of a major adjustment.

For individuals as well as communities, thestakes could scarcely be higher. Over the last25 years, the economy has changed in ways

that virtually necessitate education and trainingbeyond high school for anyone who wants toearn a family-supporting wage. During that time,real wages have fallen by more than 18 percentfor men with less than a high school degreeand by approximately 2 percent for women inthe same group; over the same period, wageshave increased for men and women withcollege degrees by 21 percent and 42 percentrespectively.2 Over the next decade, the numberof jobs requiring some sort of postsecondarycredential is projected to grow at rates thatoutpace jobs requiring high school or less bysome 60 percent, even though jobs in the lattercategory will remain the largest in number. Asthese trends indicate, education has gainedincreasing value in the labor market, anddemand for jobs requiring postsecondarycredentials and degrees will increase fasterthan total U.S. job growth, though much low-skilled, low-paid work will continue to exist.

Despite the evidence that postsecondarycredentials are the path to family-supportingwages, many individuals are struggling toadvance in the knowledge economy. As shownin Figure 1, earnings vastly increase by levels of

SECTION ONE

OVERVIEW: CONTEXT AND NEED

In the globally competitive economy of the 21st

century, state economies in large part will thrive ordecline based on how well they cultivate and retain“knowledge workers”: individuals who possess postsecondary educational credentials (though notnecessarily a bachelor degree), technical aptitudes,the ability to learn rapidly, and an entrepreneurialapproach to employment.1 To produce workers withthese skills, states will need to do the following:

1 Richard Florida, The Riseof the Creative Class(Basic Books, 2004).

2 “The State of America,”(Washington, D.C.:Economic Policy Institute,2005), tables 2.18-2.19.

3 United States CensusBureau 2003 CurrentPopulation Survey,authors’ calculations.

2 W O R K F O R C E ST R AT E GY C E N T E R

education attained above a high schooldegree.3

According to the United States CensusBureau Current Population Survey, more than43 percent of adults between ages of 25 and64 have no more than a high school diploma orGED.4 Nearly 25 million American adultsbetween the ages of 18 and 64 have less thana high school degree or GED, and the U.S.Department of Education Office of Vocationaland Adult Education estimates that only aboutten percent of that population is enrolled in anadult education program.5 These individuals willfind it increasingly difficult to advance beyondsubsistence-level wages as the economyincreases its demand for advanced skills andeducation. The 2003 National Assessment of

Adult Literacy found that approximately 30million American adults are unable to performeven basic literacy tasks that involve readingand understanding information in short texts.Another 60 million can read only on a basiclevel: they are unable to summarize, make infer-ences or understand cause and effect inwriting.6 Such poor literacy will constrain thepotential of these individuals to be successful inthe knowledge economy.

Ideally, our public systems of K–12education, adult literacy and workforce devel-opment should serve as effective pipelines forproducing knowledge workers. But significantleaks have sprung within each of thesesystems. Nationally, estimates are that fewerthan half of students who enter the 9th grade

$0

$5,000

Not high school graduate High school graduate,including GED

Educational Attainment

Med

ian

Ear

nin

gs

Some college no degree Associate degree Bachelor degree

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000$17,967

$26,332

$30,539$32,154

$42,116

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

4 United States CensusBureau 2004 CurrentPopulation Survey,authors’ Calculations.

5 Ten percent is based onauthors’ calculationsdividing the number ofstudents enrolled in adulteducation nationally by the number of adultsestimated to have no highschool degree. Estimate of number of studentsenrolled in adult educationcomes from “AdultEducation and FamilyLiteracy Act: Program Year2003-2004,” (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, Office ofVocational and AdultEducation, 2006) p. iii; estimate of numberof adults with no highschool degree is from“Current PopulationSurvey,” (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Bureau of theCensus and U.S. Bureauof Labor Statistics, 2004).

6 National Assessment ofAdult Literacy, “A First Look at the Literacy ofAmerica’s Adults in the21st Century,” (Washington,D.C.: National Center forEducation Statistics, U.S.Department of Education,December 2005).

7 National Center for HigherEducation ManagementSystems(www.higheredinfo.org)

8 David Prince and DavisJenkins, “Building Pathwaysto Success for Low-SkillAdult Students: Lessonsfor Community CollegePolicy and Practice from aStatewide LongitudinalTracking Study,” (New York,NY: Community CollegeResearch Center, Teachers’College, ColumbiaUniversity, 2005)

FIGURE 1: EARNINGS BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF WORKERS AGE 25 TO 64 (2003)

3

graduate from high school and enter postsec-ondary education soon thereafter, with many ofthese students failing to even complete thehigh school diploma.7 Although many of thesestudents seek further education as adults, fewactually go on to earn a postsecondarycredential. Prince and Jenkins (2005) foundthat less than one-third of adult education andEnglish language students in the communitycolleges in Washington State earned acredential beyond the GED.8 Despite the greatneed of this population for further educationalattainment, our systems do not have thecapacity to serve them all.

Adults who do enroll in postsecondaryeducation often face the additional hurdle ofremedial education requirements, often referredto by colleges as “developmental education.”Adult students, many of whom have been out ofschool for years, are often ill prepared forcollege-level classes and often fail to meetthresholds on college placement exams inEnglish, math and reading. Roughly four out ofevery ten low-income adult students take atleast one remedial course in college, with muchhigher rates of remediation among students atcommunity colleges.9 Although remediationclearly benefits students, those who enroll inthese classes are still much less likely to persistand earn credentials.10 One study of a majorurban community college found that amongstudents enrolled in three remedial courses infall 1997, only 2.1 percent had earned anassociate degree four years later.12

Some states are taking action toaddress these gaps in the pipeline andimplement strategies to increase their numberof knowledge workers. In Michigan, thegovernor has challenged policymakers andpostsecondary institutions to double thenumber of state residents with college degrees

or other “valuable” credentials in the nextdecade.11 Similarly, in Ohio, the Commission onHigher Education and the Economy recom-mended a 30 percent increase in under-graduate and graduate enrollments by 2015.13

States taking these steps recognize thegrowing importance of skills and education forboth individuals and the economic well-being oftheir communities.

Research suggests that increasing theaverage level of education in a regionaleconomy has economic development benefits.14

Correspondingly, failure to act will have conse-quences: according to the National Center forPublic Policy and Higher Education, if currentracial and socioeconomic gaps in postsec-ondary attainment persist, real personal incomeper capita in the United States is projected todecline from $21,591 in 2000 to $21,196 in2020 (inflation-adjusted 2000 dollars)—a dropof $395, or 2 percent.15 Given these facts, it iscrucial for other state policymakers to showleadership and make the public case forimprovements in our public systems of postsec-ondary education and training.

Aligning Systems and Policies to Support the

Knowledge Economy

The balance of this paper examines policy andsystem improvements that state policymakerscan make to enhance outcomes for students inthe educational pipeline, and thus increase thesupply of knowledge workers. We focus ourrecommendations around six broad areas ofpublic policy. Briefly, they are as follows:

PROMOTING ACCESS AND IMPROVING ALIGNMENT

For states looking to grow their economies andhelp workers earn family-sustaining wages, thefirst task is to increase access to education andtraining for populations who historically may not

W O R K I N G TO G E T H E R : A L I G N I N G STAT E SYS T E M S A N D P O L I C I E S F O R I N D I V I D UA L A N D R E G I O N A L P R O S P E R I T Y

9 Brian Cook and JacquelineKing, “Low-Income Adultsin Profile: Improving LivesThrough Higher Education,”(Washington, D.C.:American Council onEducation, 2004); CliffordAdelman, “The ToolboxRevisited: Paths to DegreeCompletion from HighSchool Through College,”(Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Education,2005).

10On the benefits of remedi-ation, see Bridget TerryLong, “The RemediationDebate: Are We Servingthe Needs ofUnderprepared CollegeStudents?” (San Jose,CA: National Center forPublic Policy and HigherEducation, 2005). Longreports the findings from a study she conductedwith Eric Bettinger thatfound students in remediation had betterpersistence and degreecompletion outcomes,compared to students with similar back-groundsand preparation who were not required to takethe courses.

11“Baltimore City College at the Crossroads: HowRemedial Education andOther Impediments toGraduation are Affectingthe Mission of theCollege,” (Baltimore, MD:Abell Foundation, 2002).

12Final Report of Lt.Governor’s Commissionon Higher Education &Economic Growth,December 2004, p. 1.

13“Building on Knowledge,Investing in People: HigherEducation and the Future of Ohio’s Economy”(Columbus, OH: Governor’sCommission on HigherEducation and the Economy,April 2004), p. 21.


have been able to attend college. Given theaging of the American workforce, finding suffi-cient numbers of skilled workers will requirestates to look beyond traditional-age collegestudents to explore new potential sources ofskilled labor.

These new sources could include lower-skilled adults and immigrants, if states increaseaccess to workforce education. But the cost ofeducation presents a steep barrier to low-wageworkers, many of whom must pay tuition andfees and absorb lost wages when they reducetheir work hours in order to attend school. Low-income adult students receive less overallfinancial assistance and fewer grants than tradi-tional-age students, although those who takeout loans borrow more on average than tradi-tional-age students.16 Yet the majority of statefinancial aid policies are also not well suited foradult workers: one report found that in the1999–2000 academic year, only 19 percent ofadult undergraduates received any state grantaid.17 This same study found that adults atcommunity colleges were the least likely toapply for aid and when they did, received thesmallest amount of any group of students.Further, one in five low-income adult studentsparticipates in higher education on a less-than-half-time basis, making them ineligible for themajority of state—and federal—financial aid.18

Adult students often must balance family andwork demands with their classroom responsibil-ities; this requires flexible financial aid policiesthat account for their needs, circumstances andattendance.

States should also ensure that theirpolicies and programs around adult andworkforce education encourage—and arealigned with—postsecondary education.Students who complete adult or workforceeducation programs often find that they do not

meet the entry requirements for the next level ofeducation or require significant remediation. Inorder to improve the pipeline of knowledgeworkers in the economy, students must be ableto access the next level of education as theyfinish their current programs of study.

SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Increasing the number of adults with postsec-ondary credentials involves more than justexpanding enrollments. It requires boosting thenumber of students who successfully completetheir studies and obtain a certificate or degree.MDRC’s Opening Doors report and many otherstudies have shown that America’s highereducation institutions, particularly communitycolleges, have significant room for improvingretention and completion rates. According toMDRC, approximately 46 percent of studentswho begin their postsecondary studies atcommunity colleges never complete a degree.19

Minority and first-generation Americanstudents fare even worse. According to TomBailey, Davis Jenkins, and Timothy Leinbachin a 2005 report published by the CommunityCollege Research Center (CCRC), only 37percent of black community college studentsand 42 percent of Hispanic communitycollege students who enrolled in 1995–96completed either a bachelor or associatedegree or certificate within six years. Overall,only 47 percent of students in the lowestincome quartile finished at least a certificateor better in six years. Those seeking certifi-cates fare better; of those starting in1995–96, 84 percent of low-income adultsaiming to earn a certificate, and 52 percent ofother adults with that goal, had completed itby 2001.20 These results are not uniformacross the country or among institutions. As“Measuring Up 2004” shows, state-by-state

14Paul D. Gottlieb andMichael Fogarty,“Educational Attainmentand Metropolitan Growth,”Economic DevelopmentQuarterly, 17.4 (2003):325–336.

15“Income of U.S. WorkforceProjected to Decline ifEducation Doesn’tImprove,” (San Jose; CA:National Center for PublicPolicy and HigherEducation, Policy Alert2005).

16Christina Chang Wei,Stephanie Nevill, LutzBerkner and C. DennisCarroll, “IndependentUndergraduates: 1999–2000,” (National Center for Education Statistics,September 2005); Cookand King (2005), pp. 16–17.

17Wei, Nevill, Berkner,Carroll (2005).

18Cook and King (2004), p. 17.

19Thomas Brock and AllenLeBlanc, “PromotingStudent Success inCommunity College andBeyond: The OpeningDoors Demonstration,”(New York, NY: MDRC,May 2005).

W O R K I N G TO G E T H E R : A L I G N I N G STAT E SYS T E M S A N D P O L I C I E S F O R I N D I V I D UA L A N D R E G I O N A L P R O S P E R I T Y5

outcomes for community college studentsreturning after the first year range from a lowof 43 percent to a high of 70 percent.21

Numerous factors contribute to thesedisappointing figures, but one clearly importantfactor is that policies and practices used toimprove student retention and completion arenot sufficient to address the needs of allstudents. As such, student retention and completion outcomes suffer. To increase thenumber of knowledge workers entering theworkforce, state policies must address activitiessuch as student advising, counseling and personal supports.

ENCOURAGING TRANSITIONS

One of the hallmarks of a well-aligned system is the seamless transition from one part toanother—think, for example, of the skillful handoffbetween runners in a track and field relay race.Unfortunately, our current policies around educational and economic advancement rarelyafford as smooth and graceful a passage for themajority of student and worker participants.

Currently more than 17 million adults without a high school diploma participate insome form of formal education: 3 million withinfederal or state adult education and English literacy (EL) programs, 4 million in full or part-time postsecondary education and another million in work-related education.22 Yet at eachof these levels, unacceptably high numbers of learners end their progress through the educational system. According to one study ofthe 16 southern states, for every 100 youngadults (18 years of age or older) without ahigh school credential only one earns aGeneral Equivalency Diploma (GED).23

Nationally, only 30 percent of adults enrolledin federal adult education or English literacyprograms, who enter with the goal of entering

postsecondary education or training, enrolledin follow-up education after exiting theprogram.24 Those who participate in adulteducation classes are only a portion of thoseobtaining GEDs, however. National researchfinds that about 40 percent of the totalnumber earning a GED ever enroll in postsec-ondary education as compared to about threeout of every four high school graduates.25

To facilitate upward educational mobility fornon-traditional students leading into knowledgecareer tracks, policymakers should place particular emphasis on creating avenues forupward transitions both within and across systems and remove transition barriers amongadult and developmental education, workforcedevelopment, K–12 and postsecondary education systems.

INCORPORATING EMPLOYER DEMAND AND STATE

ECONOMIC PRIORITIES IN EDUCATIONAL PLANNING

Public education and training systems, whichprepare the supply of workers for the labormarket, must work together with business andindustry to clarify the demands of the labormarket. They must also work closely with devel-opment agencies, coordinating efforts tosupport strategic growth targets on theeconomic development front. Specifically,economic development, education andworkforce development policymakers alike mustknow what the current and projected workforceneeds of the business community are.

Some demographic trends may beimportant to consider in this context. Inparticular, the aging and pending retirement ofmillions of Baby Boomers could mean thatsome regions will be losing many knowledgeworkers; communities should conduct analysesto determine what economic repercussionsthese retirements might have. Given the impor-

20Cook and King (2004), p. 15.

21“Measuring Up 2004: TheNational Report Card onHigher Education” (SanJose, CA: The NationalCenter for Public Policyand Higher Education,2004).

22Marty Liebowitz and JudithTaylor, “Breaking Through:Helping Low-Skilled AdultsEnter and Succeed inCollege and Careers,”(Boston: Jobs for theFuture, 2004).

23“Investing Wisely in AdultLearning is the Key toState Prosperity,” (SREB,Atlanta, GA, 2005).According to the FederalDepartment of Education,Office of Adult andVocational Education, 7 percent of students infederal adult educationand English literacyprograms (Title II of theWorkforce Investment Act)earned a GED in 2002after entering the programas cited in Liebowitz andTaylor (2004).

24“Adult Education andFamily Literacy ActProgram Year 2002–2003:Report to Congress onState Performance,”(Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of EducationOffice of Vocational andAdult Education, 2004).


tance of human capital and workforce capacityto economic growth, policymakers must weaveeconomic development strategies together with education and workforce developmentstrategies.

BUILDING CAPACITY AND FINANCING IMPROVEMENT

To address the full range of issues describedabove, states will need to increase the capacityof postsecondary institutions and workforceeducation providers to provide high-qualitycurriculum and instruction, support and improvestudent success, and work more effectively withemployers. All these goals require money, butsecuring more resources will be a challenge inmost states. Not only are officials everywherereluctant to propose tax increases, but adultand postsecondary education has to competewith growing budgetary demands for otherpublic sector services such as Medicaid andK–12 education. As a share of total governmentexpenditures, state appropriations for publiccolleges and universities decreased by 4percent between 1987 and 2003.26

Though states’ financial conditions areimproving,27 states are not likely be able to fullyexpand capacity through new revenues. Rather,they will need to examine how they currently finance adult and postsecondary education—in particular, at broad access institutions such as community and technicalcolleges—and make strategic decisions aboutresource allocation.

MEASURING RESULTS

States looking to strengthen postsecondarypolicies to help more students to access,transition and successfully complete theirstudies must have a solid understanding ofcurrent outcomes and an ability to follow andreport on performance over time. Many states

have invested millions of dollars in buildingdata management systems to do this. Somehave even used their ability to measure institu-tional performance to guide budgeting anddirect funding for institutions of highereducation. Most states, however, cannot trackstudent access, success and transitions asthey move across various education andworkforce development systems, into theworkforce, and back into education—makingtrue performance evaluation of public systemsimpossible.

Identifying labor market outcomes forstudents and workforce training participants todetermine employment, earnings and occupa-tional status requires connecting the recordsof students and workforce participants toUnemployment Insurance (UI) wage recordfiles. For many states, these separate systemsreside in different departments; as a result,their ability to analyze data across depart-mental boundaries is often limited.

Despite evidence that our publicsystems can better serve individual andregional economic advancement, policymakershave been slow to act. This paper discussesaction steps to align policies and improvethese systems. Several cutting-edge stateshave learned that low-skill and low-wageworkers are an important untapped potentialresource for regional economic growth andthat enhancing the skills and employmentprospects of these workers can and willbenefit a state’s overall economy. Section Twoof this report provides lengthier discussion onthe six aforementioned policy areas andsolutions to many of the issues introduced.Section Three addresses how policymakerscan work together to implement this agenda intheir states.

25Magnus Lofstrom and John Tyler, “Is the GED an Effective Route toPostsecondary Education?”Working Paper, September2005; John Tyler, “TheGeneral EducationalDevelopment (GED)Credential: History,Current Research, andDirections for Policy andPractice,” The Review ofAdult Learning andLiteracy, 5 (2004).

26Lara K. Couturier and AlisaF. Cunningham,“Convergence: TrendsThreatening to NarrowCollege Opportunity inAmerica,” (Washington,D.C.: Institute for HigherEducation Policy, 2006),pp. 15–18.

27“The Fiscal Survey ofStates,” (Washington,D.C.: National GovernorsAssociation and NationalAssociation of StateBudget Officers, June2006).


Promoting Access and Improving Alignment

States have three primary ways to help lowerskilled adults more easily and affordablyaccess postsecondary education and training.They can take action by:

• Marketing postsecondary workforceeducation and financial aid to adults as atool for getting a better job

• Making postsecondary workforce educationmore affordable by keeping tuition low andby having adult-friendly financial aid policies

• Aligning related policies to help lower-skilled adults access education and training

Below, we discuss these approaches withstate-level examples of each.

MARKETING WORKFORCE EDUCATION AND

FINANCIAL AID TO LOW-WAGE WORKERS

A 2002 survey found that as family incomedrops, so too does the likelihood that familiesknow about the availability of financial aid, with the lowest-income families and Hispanic-Americans especially unlikely to know whatresources are available and how to accessthem.28 In general, receipt of financial aid for adults varies by the type of institution they attend: adults attending community

colleges are the least likely to apply foraid, and when they do, they receive thesmallest amount on average.29

A number of states have createdstatewide campaigns to market collegeaccess. While the majority of this work hasbeen directed at teenagers, a few states havealso targeted adult learners. In Kentucky, theGo Higher media campaign was specificallydirected at encouraging adults to return toschool at all levels, whether that meantcompleting a GED, an occupational certificateor a college degree (http://gohigherky.org/).30

Texas has launched a College for Texanscollege access campaign. While it has agreater emphasis on high school students than Kentucky’s effort, the program also hasdeveloped specific ads for adult learners,including Spanish-language ads (www.college-fortexans.com). The Pathways to CollegeNetwork has created a website that includes a step-by-step guide for states looking tocreate a postsecondary access marketingcampaign to increase collegeparticipation(www.college accessmarketing.org).

Going beyond media campaigns to morepersonalized outreach, federally fundedEducational Opportunity Centers (EOCs)across the country provide counseling and

SECTION TWO

IMPROVING POLICIES ANDSYSTEMS IN STATES

In this section, we examine ways states can improve their existing postsecondary education andtraining policies and create greater advancement opportunities for low-wage and low-skill workers.Recent efforts by cutting edge states as well asexisting research suggests six key areas of opportunity for states focused on increasing thesupply of knowledge workers.

28This is according to a2002 Harris Interactivepoll commissioned by TheSallie Mae Fund of 1,090parents of 18 to 24 year-olds and 811 young adultsaged 18 to 24.

29“Adult Learners in theUnited States: A NationalProfile,” (Washington, D.C.:American Council onEducation, March 2006).

30The KY Council onPostsecondary Educationhas created a valuableguide for other states considering similar initiatives, available at http://www.collegeaccessmarketing.org/casestudies/GettingStartedOnAnAdultLearningCampaign.doc. In particular, Kentuckypoints out that the benefitsof further education maynot be obvious to theadults the state is trying toreach, and in order to besuccessful, a marketingcampaign has to tacklethat issue.


help in applying for college and applying forfinancial aid. The centers work to increase thenumber of adults who enroll in postsecondaryeducation, with particular focus on first-gener-ation college students and low-incomeindividuals. A mix of community-based organi-zations and two- and four-year collegesoperate the 139 EOC projects funded in2005–06. The Council on Opportunity inEducation has profiles of many of the stateinitiatives and projects aimed at increasingaccess to college (see http://www.coenet.us/statesataglance.html), including college accesscampaigns, EOCs and other initiatives.

MAKING POSTSECONDARY WORKFORCE

EDUCATION MORE AFFORDABLE FOR LOW-WAGE

WORKERS

States can increase affordability in twoprincipal ways: by keeping tuition low and byhaving substantial financial aid programs thatwork for non-traditional students, such aslow-wage workers. The biggest expense thatadults face when they seek postsecondarycredentials is the cost of supportingthemselves (and often families) while they arein school. As shown in the Figure 2, theaverage cost of tuition and fees at public two-year colleges—where most low-wage workersenroll—was $2,191 in 2005. The totalaverage cost for commuter students at thoseinstitutions, however, was $11,692, becauseliving expenses were more than twice asexpensive as tuition and fees.31 Thus, whilekeeping tuition affordable is a valuable statepolicy tool for increasing access, it isimportant to keep in mind that this addressesonly one part of the overall affordabilitychallenge.

Community college tuition and fees varyconsiderably across regions. For example, a

2000 survey found that these costs averagedabout $3,400 in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, about $2,700 in the Midwestand the South, and less than $2,000 in theSouthwest and West. The most expensivestate, New Hampshire, had average tuitionand fees nearly ten times as high as the leastexpensive state, California.32 Tuition typicallyfollows a countercyclical pattern: when theeconomy turns down and states cut basefunding to institutions, colleges tend to raisetuition, but will keep costs level or reducetuition when the economy rebounds and stateaid increases.

Keeping tuition rates low across theboard clearly makes community collegesmore accessible. As an affordability strategy,however, it is a somewhat inefficientmechanism for helping lower incomestudents. States seeking to make postsec-ondary education and training moreaffordable for adult workers and non-tradi-tional students should look beyond tuitionpolicies and check that state financial aidpolicies, which frequently are designed withtraditional age students in mind, meet theneeds of adult learners.

Adult-friendly state financial aid programstypically feature more inclusive standards ofeligibility, making aid available for studentsattending less than half-time who are enrolledin certificate or degree programs, studentstaking remedial and non-credit occupationalprograms (if articulated to certificates anddegrees) and those taking short modules aspart of certificate or degree programs. Othercommon traits of adult-friendly assistanceregimes are that students can combine aidwith Pell grants, up to the total cost of atten-dance, and that aid is not merit-based and isavailable for year-round study.

31“Table 2: Sample AverageUndergraduate Budgets,2005-2006,” (New York,NY: Annual Survey ofColleges, The CollegeBoard, 2006).

32“State Funding forCommunity Colleges: A 50-State Survey”(Denver, CO: EducationCommission of the States,2000).


For example, the Monetary Award Program(MAP) in Illinois is a need-based student aidprogram that covers tuition and fees forstudents who do not have a BA, including lessthan half-time students. In FY 05 the programpaid out a total of approximately $330 millionto over 150,000 students.33 In FY 06 theprogram is serving about 128,000 students ata total cost of about $350 million and itsbudget will increase by $34.4 million in FY 07.For the 2007–08 school year, MAP will expandto support year-round study.34 Similarly, in2003 Minnesota’s state grants provided $133million in need-based grants to 72,000students. As in Illinois, students taking as fewas three credits can qualify. Minnesota supple-ments these grants with additional statefunding for child care grants and state work-study jobs for needy students.35

Georgia takes a different approach,providing Helping Outstanding PupilsEducationally (HOPE) Grants (not to beconfused with the state’s merit-based HOPEScholarships) to any state resident without aBA, regardless of income. The grant coverstuition, books and fees for technical certificatesand diplomas (but not degrees) at public insti-tutions. The average amount of aid is about$900 annually. HOPE Grants can cover devel-opmental education and are available to lessthan half-time students; they can also becombined with Pell grants. In FY 04, theprogram served 116,000 students at a cost ofabout $102 million. Washington’s state legis-lature approved a pilot version of a similar aidprogram in spring 2006, called OpportunityGrants, which will support students to earn notonly certificates and diplomas but alsoassociate degrees and which will cover the fullarray of educational expenses, not just tuition,fees and books.

From 2003–05, Louisiana used welfarefunds to pilot an innovative performance-basedfinancial aid program, Opening Doors, for low-income students who are parents. Participantsreceived an additional $1,000 in aid for eachof two semesters if they stayed enrolled atleast half-time and averaged grades of C orabove. Early results from a rigorous evaluationof the program at two local colleges found thatparticipants were more likely to enroll full-time,pass more courses, earn more credits, andpersist longer in their studies than non-partici-pants at the same schools.36

ALIGNING RELATED POLICIES TO HELP LOW-SKILL

ADULTS ACCESS EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Another way states can increase access is by ensuring that other programs serving low-skill adults have policies supportive ofpostsecondary education and training. Theseprograms include Temporary Assistance toNeedy Families (TANF), the WorkforceInvestment Act (training for adults, out-of-school youth, and adult education/ESL),Unemployment Insurance and TradeAdjustment Assistance (TAA). States shouldask two questions about these programs:

1. Could these programs be providing more financial support for postsecondary workforce education than they currently do? If so, what are the barriers to expanding that support?

2. Do these programs view referrals to post-secondary workforce education and finan-cial aid as an integral part of what they do? If not, what are the policy disincen-tives or alternative goals and visions for the programs that prevent more of those referrals from occurring?

33“Historical Awards andPayout Summary FY1991–FY 2005,”(Deerfield, IL: ISAC DataBook, 2005), Table 2.0a.

34FY 2007 Agenda Item 8Monetary Award Program(MAP) Recompute,www.collegezone.com/8691.htm.

35Total Financial Aid for AllMinnesota Schools, (St.Paul, MN: State ofMinnesota Office ofHigher Education, 2005).

36Thomas Brock andLashawn Richburg-Hayes,“Paying for Persistence:Early Results of aLouisiana ScholarshipProgram for Low-IncomeParents AttendingCommunity College,” (NewYork, NY: MDRC, 2006).


When they ask the first question, many statesare likely to find that they spend very littleTANF funding on any kind of education andtraining (the national average is less than 2percent).37 Similarly, the federally funded TradeAdjustment Assistance (TAA) program istypically underused even though it can provideup to six months of income support for workersin education and training, beyond the initial 52weeks of UI benefits, if they have lost their jobsbecause of trade policies. (TAA can also payfor training costs, but that funding is morelimited.) Many TAA-eligible workers do notknow that they qualify for support under theprogram. In 2003, for example, more than500,000 manufacturing jobs disappearednationally, but only 195,738 workers werecertified under TAA.38

The second question can help shed lighton policies that may hinder access even whenfunding is not a barrier. For example, about halfthe states have policies in place that restrictTANF recipients’ access to postsecondaryeducation and training well short of what thefederal law permits. Even in states that aremore willing to count postsecondaryinstruction as a work activity, the overwhelmingemphasis on caseload reduction and quick jobplacement can inhibit caseworkers fromreferring individuals to education and training.

The net result is that few welfare recip-ients are in any kind of education and trainingnationally; in fact, states could triple thenumber of welfare recipients in workforceeducation and still have them count towardfederal work rates.39 Given the variation acrossstates, each state should examine its workparticipation rate to see how much room thereis to increase postsecondary access. It is alsoimportant to keep in mind that federal TANFpolicies have changed this year, with new

interim final regulations that allow states tocount hours in postsecondary educationtoward work rates for programs that arerelated to employment goals and are at theassociate degree level or below. States maycount study hours toward the rates, but only ifstudy time is supervised. In addition, statesface higher effective federal work participationrates of 50 percent beginning October 1,2006. Increasing TANF recipient participationin postsecondary education and training canhelp states meet these higher rates.40

States that have successfully leveragedthese programs to support overall goals ofincreasing adult postsecondary attainmenthave made concerted efforts to align thesepolicies. Kentucky, for example, allowspostsecondary education as a TANF workactivity, and it requires TANF caseworkers toinform recipients that postsecondary educationis an option. The state also uses TANF fundsto support success in postsecondaryeducation through its Ready to Work programof campus-based case management and work-study jobs.

Supporting Student Success

States looking to increase the number ofadults with postsecondary credentials must domore than just expand enrollments. They mustfind ways to raise the percentage of enrolledstudents who successfully complete theirstudies by obtaining a certificate or degree.Many studies have indicated that America’shigher education institutions, particularlycommunity colleges, have significant room toimprove retention and completion rates.41

Researchers have found that approximatelyone-half of community college students fail toreturn after the first year and eventually fail toobtain a certificate or degree.

37Evelyn Ganzglass,“Strategies for IncreasingParticipation in TANFEducation and Training,”(Washington, D.C.: Centerfor Law and Social Policy,April 2006).

38Ross Eisenbrey, “On thePresident’s Fiscal Year2005 Budget for the U.S.Department of Labor,” (Washington, D.C.:Economic Policy Institute,March 2004).

39Ganzglass (April 2006).

40For more information seeGanzglass (2006) orElizabeth Lower-Basch,Evelyn Ganzglass, ElisaMinoff, Sharon Parrott andLiz Schott, “Analysis ofNew Interim TANF Rules,”(Washington, D.C.: Centerfor Law and Social Policy,2006).

41Brock (May 2005).


Experts offer a wide range of explana-tions for these outcomes, but one likelyimportant factor is that student support activ-ities, which are developed and administeredby local institutions, are not sufficient toaddress student needs. Institutions currentlygive little priority to this and states do little toencourage them to do so. As a result, studentretention and completion outcomes suffer.Almost across the board, colleges do notdevote enough resources and attention to thisarea, despite evidence that suggests moreand better student support services couldimprove rates of retention and completion.

Before considering how states can helpfacilitate improvement in support services, it’shelpful to briefly review just what theseservices are. Perhaps the most importantsupport services are those that help studentssuccessfully navigate academic challenges asthey develop. Effective programs work withstudents to establish educational plans thatare tailored to their career interests andprovide special workshops and assistance tohelp them learn effective study habits andreceive assistance with specific courses viatutoring, study groups, and so on. Alternativeinstructional models, which provide studentsopportunities to learn in non-traditionalformats that emphasizeaccelerated/compressed learning, non-regularhours, group/cohort learning (e.g. learningcommunities), distance learning, andcurriculums contextualized to career interests,are a subset of this category. A secondimportant group could be described aspersonal guidance services, which helpstudents to address personal issues that mayimpinge on their academic performance,through one-on-one, group and other forms ofassistance. Finally, supplemental supports

and services provide students access toresources that can help alleviate other familyand personal needs such as work study, childcare and transportation, among many others.

These activities are delivered at the insti-tutional level. Although not extensive, someevaluative research suggests that theseservices can improve student success. MDRCpoints to an evaluation of the national TRIOprogram—the federal program that supportsapproximately 1,000 higher education institu-tions nationwide to help low-income studentsaccess and succeed in higher education—which found that the campus-based StudentSupport Services program had positiveoutcomes: “Both students’ grade pointaverages and their year-to-year retention ratesincreased as they were exposed to services.”42

MDRC noted similar findings for twoCalifornia-funded student support serviceprograms; students receiving assistance “hadbetter academic outcomes—persistence,retention and degree completion— than full-time students not receiving assistance.”43

Another review of student support servicesfound “considerable research evidence thatcounseling has a significant positive effect onstudent retention and graduation.”44

Counseling, along with performance scholar-ships, was also a factor in improving theretention rates in the two Louisiana communitycolleges mentioned earlier.

States have four primary tools at theirdisposal to push educational institutions toimprove on their delivery of support services:

• Using general institutional funding • Targeting funding • Focusing attention• Rewarding successful performance

42Brock and LeBlanc (May2005), p. 33.

43Ibid.

44Ernest T. Pascarella andPatrick T. Terenzini, HowCollege Affects Students,2nd ed. (San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005);Kevin Dougherty, MonicaReid and H. KennyNienhusser, “HelpingStudents Enter andSucceed: Access,Success, andAccountability Policies inthe “Achieving the Dream”States,” (New York, NY:Community CollegeResearch Center,Teachers’ College,Columbia University,2006) p. 13.


USING GENERAL INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING

A majority of states fund their local collegesthrough some type of formula arrangement,based on projected needs and costs aroundvarious budget items such as instruction,financial assistance, student services, facilityoperations and other costs. Typically, the formuladoes not dictate or guide how resources shouldbe spent by local institutions; each institutionallocates the funds based on their perceivedneeds. One review of five states found that theapproach to general state funding for institutionsresulted in no specific or dedicated funding forcounseling and guidance.45

States can ask two questions todetermine if their approach to funding ishelpful for institutions looking to improve theirretention and completion rates:

1. Is the need for student services calcu-lated in the formula commensurate to theexpenditures by the institution? Oftenstudent service supports are not a high-profile item and “may be particularlyvulnerable to downsizing and eliminationduring times of budget constraints.”46 AsNorton Grubb notes, such activities asguidance and counseling “have oftenbeen relatively peripheral to communitycolleges.”47

2. Does the formula or other approaches to financing institutions differentiate among the types of enrolled students? Data suggests that lower-income, minority and first-generation students might require more assistance to improve their retentionand completion outcomes. Colleges serving higher percentages of these students may warrant additional funds for student services.

TARGETING FUNDING

Some states that do not require the allocationof general funds to cover certain importantinstitutional functions, such as studentservices, have begun to use categoricalprograms to address specific institutionalneeds. California has enacted specificprograms to support and encourage studentsupport services. Although the state expectsinstitutions to use their general formulafunding to finance students supports,California also uses general funds to financededicated student service programs. TheExtended Opportunity Program and Services(EOPS) program provides funding for institu-tions to assist low-income and educationallydisadvantaged students with academic andpersonal counseling, tutoring, and grants andservices for textbooks and other supportiveservices.The Cooperative Agencies Resourcesfor Education (CARE) program supplementsEOPS by targeting students on public assis-tance with children by providing them withchild care, transportation and other services.Together, funding for these two programs willtotal $112.9 million in FY 2006–2007. Inaddition, California allocates approximately$465 million (including EOPS and CARE)annually to cover all student service needs.

California and other states have alsotapped other sources of state funds toaddress students’ academic and personalneeds. In 2005, the state allocated approxi-mately $34 million in general revenue funds(down considerably from previous years) tothe community colleges’ CalWORKs(California Work Opportunity andResponsibility to Kids) program to better serveTANF participants. The colleges use theseresources for both academic and personalsupports, as well as for redesigning instruc-

45Ibid, p. 14.

46Brock and LeBlanc (May2005), p. 10.

47Ibid.


tional programs to better accommodate non-traditional students. For FY 2006–2007,California increased the CalWORKs budget tonearly $44 million to support additional work-study opportunities. Similarly, Kentucky uses$4.4 million annually in state TANF resourcesto finance its Ready-To-Work and Work andLearn programs, which provides participants incommunity/technical colleges and adulteducation programs with guidance, mentoringand supports to help them succeed. Schoolsin Kentucky also use these funds to financework-study opportunities for participants.

The federal Workforce Investment Act isanother resource states can tap to providesupports such as childcare and transportationfor participants in intensive services or training.Typically, local workforce investment boardsdecide whether they wish to expend WIAfunds for this purpose. States, however, havethe authority to guide policy on this issue.

FOCUSING ATTENTION

States can raise the visibility of studentretention and completion issues by bothsetting goals for improvement and requiringinstitutions to strengthen their student serviceactivities and practices. Through its Closingthe Gap initiative, begun in 2000, Texascommitted to increasing the number ofstudents obtaining degrees and certificates by50 percent over the following 15 years. Thestate also set goals for increasing the partici-pation and success of Black and Hispanicstudents. Although Texas has not providedadditional funds to achieve these retentionand completion goals, the state legislature hasrequired institutions to develop and utilize a“uniform recruitment and retention strategy” toguide their efforts. The plan requires the devel-opment of special strategies for serving at-risk

students that include key student supportservices such as advising, tutoring andmentoring. Institutions provide annual reportson how effective their retention strategieshave been.

REWARDING SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE

Ohio is among a number of states that havebegun to use incentive funds to encouragelocal institutions toward productive changes inpolicy and programming. Ohio offers financialincentives to their four-year state universitiesfor improved completion outcomes forresident undergraduates. The SuccessChallenge program is funded at $52.6 millionin FY 2007 and rewards universities forimproving graduation rates for at-risk studentsand for accelerating degree completion timesfor all resident undergraduates. At therequest of the General Assembly, the stateBoard of Regents is examining the possibilityof implementing a similar program for Ohio’sbranch campuses, as well as its communityand technical colleges. States consideringmoving in this direction have to be careful thatincentive structures account for differingcharacteristics of local institutions (e.g.,student demographics) and lead to the typesof program improvements desired.

Encouraging Transitions

Individuals looking to advance in their educa-tional and career goals must be able to moveseamlessly across different levels of educationand the workforce. Unfortunately, currentpolicies rarely provide such a smooth passagefor the majority of students and workers. Alltoo often, the transition of adults across insti-tutions and among various educational levelsis haphazard and infrequent, with particularleaks at key transition points from adult


education and English literacy to postsec-ondary education; developmental education tocollege-level coursework; non-credit workforceand technical training to credit-bearingpostsecondary education; and associatedegree to baccalaureate entry and completion.

The barriers all adults face in completingpostsecondary programs—whether time,money, personal factors or prior preparation—all help explain why transitions often fail. Butperhaps the most frequent cause is the disor-ganization and poor management of our publicpostsecondary education and training system

and the many disconnects among policy andpractice this system breeds.

States that wish to make improvements inthis area can pursue a number of strategicapproaches, including:

• Setting goals and improving data onstudent transitions

• Aligning entry and exit criteria acrosseducational levels

• Promoting institutional practices thatimprove transitions

COMPLETIONS, NOT ENROLLMENTS

A number of states are reconsidering their approach to financing colleges and universities tobetter support student success. According to Dennis Jones, Executive Director of NationalCenter for Higher Education Management Systems, one idea receiving increased attention isaltering the financing formula to emphasize outcomes such as course completions rather thanenrollments.48 This trend should result in institutions giving more attention to how they supportstudents for academic success.

The Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board articulated this as a goal inits 2004 Strategic Plan by expressing the need to “set clear and measurable goals that focuson outcomes rather than inputs alone.”

The Plan further noted that “the current state funding system for higher education is basedon enrollments (inputs) rather than recognizing positive achievements like student success(outcomes).” This led to a set of proposals to restructure the financing system for highereducation, including community colleges. One notable proposal was to calculate enrollmentlevels at the time of course completion rather than on the 10th day of classes. Under thisapproach, student enrollment would be counted for state funding purposes only if studentscompleted the courses, not if they just enrolled in them. Another was to base performancecontracts on the achievement of demonstrable progress toward specific student outcomes.49

The legislature has yet to adopt these proposals, although the Board continues to focus onthem and advocate for change. The Board has adopted a set of student success outcomes forboth the community college and technical system and the baccalaureate system. For the two-year system, outcomes include targets for improvement, which are set on a biennial basis. TheBoard will report on the outcomes and will require institutions to submit plans describing howthey will achieve measurable and specific improvements each academic year on both statewideand institution-specific performance measures.

48Phone interview, May 1,2006.

492004 Strategic MasterPlan for Higher Education(Olympia, WA:Washington HigherEducation CoordinatingBoard, December 2004),p. 1.


We discuss these strategies in more detailbelow, with state-level examples of each. But first it is helpful to consider how a moreseamless system of transitions might look.Prince and Jenkins (2005) offer the analogy ofa traditional urban commuter transit system,one “that is run on the schedule of workingadults and that can accommodate lots of on-and-off traffic, but still makes connections tolong-term destinations (and) provide(s) a clearmap of the educational pathways that adultstudents can follow to advance in their jobsand pursue further education.”50 Such a user-friendly system would help adults determinewhere they want to go and how to get there,with the least number of stops, and can beeasily understood and navigated even by first-time visitors. Additionally, this ideal systemwould reward experience and encourageeffort and hard work, while also fully preparingstudents for the challenges of the next level ofschooling or the workplace.

SETTING GOALS AND IMPROVING DATA ON STUDENT

TRANSITIONS

States should start by setting a policy goal ofimproved student transitions at all levels, anddeveloping indicators of success towardsmeeting this goal. Kentucky took this firststep in 2000, when the legislature passed acomprehensive reform of adult education.Among a number of objectives, the billcommitted Kentucky to improving the transi-tions of adult learners into postsecondaryeducation. The law also mandatesassessment and placement of students andformalizes a pathway for students from adultto developmental education and then on tocredit classes. Kentucky Adult Education(KYAE) measures progress toward a numberof goals, including transitions to postsec-

ondary education. Through demonstrationpilots, outreach, awareness and multiplepartnerships, KYAE has improved the rate ofGED graduates enrolling in postsecondaryeducation within two years from 12 percentin 1998 to 19 percent in 2004.51 In FY2005, 78 percent of adult educationstudents who indicated postsecondaryeducation as a goal enrolled in a postsec-ondary institution, much higher than thenational average of 30 percent.52

South Carolina has sought to improvetransitions since 2002, when the Governor’sTask Force on Workforce Developmentidentified 600,000 adults in South Carolina—one-third of the state’s workforce—as beingwithout the skills to participate in the neweconomy.53 The state responded by devel-oping a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)between its adult education and technicalcollege systems. The MOA included goals toimprove transitions of adult educationstudents to postsecondary education, reducethe placement of these students in remedialeducation, and develop “a more seamlessadult education delivery system.” As part ofthis partnership, the state has created theSkills Institute, a 60-hour instructional programthat offers basic math and reading skills fortransitioning students to better prepare themfor the technical college entrance exam.Institute classes are offered each semester ontechnical college campuses.54

For states to measure progress towardimproved transitions, they need to have datasystems that provide individual studentrecords from across K–12, adult and postsec-ondary education and workforce development.Such data systems must also be able tomatch these records with those from othersystems, such as TANF, and ideally should

50Prince and Jenkins (2005),p. 24.

51Statistics found in theKentucky Adult EducationReport Card 2005 atwww.kyae.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/38B5A853-0CFC-4688-919B-B86154ECA0EB/0/ReportCard05.pdf.

52Ibid; “Adult Education andFamily Literacy Act:Program Year 2003-2004,”2006.

53“South Carolina’sTechnical Colleges:Supporting EconomicGrowth – Today and intothe Future,” (Columbia,SC: South CarolinaTechnical College System,2002).

54Email correspondencewith South Carolina Adultand Community Educationstaff.

16

55The number 11 wasprovided to the authors ofthis report by the U.S.Department of Education,Office of Vocational andAdult Education (OVAE).

56See page 22 for more onhow states can refocustheir data collection procedures to better capture educational andoccupational outcomesacross systems.

57Judy Alamprese, “HelpingAdult Learners Make theTransition to PostsecondaryEducation,” (Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department ofEducation, Office of Adultand Vocational Education,No Date).

58“To Ensure America’sFuture: Building a NationalOpportunity System forAdults,” (New York, NY:Council for Advancementof Adult Literacy (CAAL),2003), p. 85; PatrickCallan, Joni Finney, MichaelKirst, Michael Usdan andAndrea Venezia, “ClaimingCommon Ground: StatePolicymaking for ImprovingCollege Readiness andSuccess,” (San Jose, CA:National Center for PublicPolicy and HigherEducation, 2006).

W O R K F O R C E ST R AT E GY C E N T E R

connect to UI wage records as well. Currently,11 states have the capacity to track studenttransitions from adult education into postsec-ondary programs.55 While states’ data systemshave varying capacities to track student transi-tions across different segments of the P–16continuum, only Florida can track studentsacross the entire P–16 continuum and intothe workforce.56

ALIGNING ENTRY AND EXIT CRITERIA ACROSS

EDUCATIONAL LEVELS

States can improve transitions by calibratingexpectations across institutions for students tofacilitate educational advancement and byensuring alignment between curricula andassessments. Too often, transitions arehindered by curriculum gaps betweensecondary schooling (including GED) andhigher education, and by assessments thatmeasure knowledge and skills not taught insecondary schools or within adult educationand workforce development programs.Evidence suggests that adult educationinstruction in particular is poorly aligned withrequirements for credit courses at mostcommunity colleges.57 States can start toaddress these problems by requiring clearcontent standards that address theknowledge and skills needed for students tomove to the next level.58 They can disseminatecurricular and diagnostic tools to assessacademic preparation and encourage localpartnerships of educators to coordinate theircurriculum planning. Beyond that, states canwork with local community colleges and otherpostsecondary providers to streamline theassessment and placement process. Takingsteps toward standardizing differentplacement exams used by colleges andsetting common cutoff scores can reduce

variability of expectations and increase trans-parency. Florida is one state that has adopteda common placement exam and common cutoff scores for all of its communitycolleges.

Ohio has recently developed policy toimprove articulation between its secondaryand adult career and technical education insti-tutions and its postsecondary educationsystem. The goal is to ensure that students atadult or secondary career-technical educationinstitutions can transfer specified technicalcourses that meet recognized industrystandards to postsecondary institutions in thestate. Ohio has begun by tracking studentoutcomes in such fields as nursing andengineering technology, and convening facultyteams to align courses that meet standardsand to facilitate credit transfer to postsec-ondary programs in these fields.

To improve transitions from communitycolleges to four-year institutions, statesshould develop a general education corecurriculum for all two- and four-year institu-tions and require articulation agreementsbetween the two. Policymakers should alsoconsider instituting common course-numbering systems that further alignment bydefining core competencies and curricularcontent within the general education corecurriculum.59 Transfer has proven particularlydifficult for students in Associate of Science(AS) and similar programs with strongtechnical content, since the courses in theseprograms rarely align with requirements for aBachelor of Science (BS) and students thusmust complete additional coursework. Floridahas sought to address this problem by devel-oping articulation pathways from the AS toBS in a number of occupationally focuseddegree programs.60 The Wisconsin Technical


College (WTC) and the University ofWisconsin (UW) systems have recentlybegun to implement a number of strategies toimprove credit transfers to ensure thatstudents can move between the two systemswith the greatest possible ease. Theagreement is designed to expand access tohigher education and improve transitions forworking adults, students of color, and low tomoderate income students. Among otherthings, the agreement provides a list oftechnical college core courses that willtransfer to all UW institutions. These courseswill have common titles, course numbers andcompetencies at all WTC institutions.61

PROMOTING INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES THAT

IMPROVE TRANSITIONS

Much of the hard work of improving transitionshappens at the local and institutional level.States that wish to make improvements in thisarea should thus concentrate some of theirenergies on building the capacity of collegesand providers to do this work and catalyzingand disseminating promising practices. Theycan start by providing seed funding and imple-mentation assistance to colleges andproviders to collaborate on local transitionsplans to meet statewide goals. Kentucky andMassachusetts are among the states thathave used this strategy successfully.62 Statescan and should tie these efforts to thestandards-setting, curriculum planning andalignment activities described above.

One particularly promising direction forstates is to promote dual enrollment and other “blended models.” In this approach, colleges combine adult and developmentaleducation, or develop bridge programs orlearning communities that integrate basic skills with content courses, often within

specific career-related fields.63

Blended models offer a number of advantages for institutions and students alike.They can accelerate degree progress andpromote curriculum alignment across differenteducational levels. They can reduce studenteducational costs in two ways, by usingtuition-free adult education resources for mostremediation, and by integrating basiceducation within degree programs—thusrendering more students eligible for financialaid. Finally, such models help students whoare proficient in one subject, but not another,or without sufficient English literacy skills, toadvance more rapidly. Blended models alsobenefit institutions by enrolling students inmultiple systems concurrently (i.e. adult anddevelopmental education, developmentaleducation and credit classes), helping to meetenrollment targets and/or generate enrollment-driven student funding. Kentucky, for one, hasenrolled students in adult and developmentaleducation simultaneously.

Colleges and providers will also need significant technical assistance in imple-menting these kinds of innovative practices, including faculty and administrator releasetime for planning, standards and curriculumdevelopment and professional development. In addition to supporting capacity-building,states can also facilitate the spread ofpromising practices by encouraging flexibilityin how local entities can use state and federalfunds. States and regions, for example shouldsupport and encourage using WIA and otherresources to support career pathways or otherblended models.

59Jane V. Wellman, “StatePolicy and CommunityCollege-BaccalaureateTransfer,” (Washington, DC:The National Center forPublic Policy and HigherEducation and The Institutefor Higher Education Policy,2002); “Improving Accessto the Baccalaureate,”(Washington, D.C.:American Association ofCommunity Colleges andAmerican Association ofState Colleges andUniversities, 2004). Ninestates— Alaska, Florida,Idaho, Minnesota,Mississippi, North Dakota,Oregon, Texas andWyoming—have adoptedcommon course numberingsystems.

60Katherine L. Hughes andMelinda Mechur Karp,“Strengthening Transitionsby Encouraging CareerPathways: A Look at StatePolicies and Practices,”(Washington, D.C.:American Association ofCommunity Colleges andLeague for Innovation in theCommunity College, 2006).

61Email correspondence withcentral administrative stafffor the Wisconsin TechnicalCollege System, Division ofTeaching and Learning.

62CAAL (2003), pp. 75, 84.

63For a discussion of thesepractices see Liebowitz andTaylor (2004), pp. 11–15.On learning communities,see Derek Price, “LearningCommunities and StudentSuccess in PostsecondaryEducation: A BackgroundPaper,” (New York, NY:MDRC, December 2005).On bridges programs, seeHenle, T., Jenkins, D., &Smith, W., 2005. “Bridgesto Careers for Low-SkilledAdults: A ProgramDevelopment Guide,”(Chicago, IL: WomenEmployed, October, 2005).

18

64“I-BEST: A ProgramIntegrating Adult BasicEducation and WorkforceTraining,” (WashingtonState Board forCommunity and TechnicalColleges, Olympia, WA:December 2005).

65 Ibid.


WASHINGTON’S I-BEST PROGRAM

States can use state and federal resources or private philanthropic resources to catalyze thedevelopment of blended models and other promising practices that improve transitions. In2004, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges and the Office ofAdult Basic Education and Workforce Education used state funds to develop I-BEST(Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training), a blended model demonstration projectdesigned to help colleges become more effective in serving low-skill students. The statefunded ten colleges to design and deliver demonstration programs that incorporate jointABE/ESL and professional-technical faculty planning and instruction together in theclassroom and result in gains in both literacy and workforce skills. Selected colleges werealso provided an incentive for integrated classes. The model offered an institutional incentivefor team teaching of basic skills and professional and technical classes by providing fundingfor a minimum 50 percent joint instruction and curriculum development time and by offsettingany additional costs of coordination and student supports. Colleges using this enhancedmodel could generate additional funding for I-BEST classes within the current funding formula,enhancing the potential for sustainability.64

A 2005 evaluation of I-BEST found that participating students earned five times morecollege credits on average, and were 15 times more likely to complete workforce training, thantraditional ABE/ESL students. By providing tailored language training within content classes,I-BEST was particularly helpful in accelerating progress of ESL students. ESL students in I-BEST classes increased their English language skills at the same rate as students in tradi-tional classes, suggesting that an integrated instruction model can effectively remediate skillgaps and may more quickly build the necessary language skills of students who wish toadvance further in postsecondary education.65

Incorporating Employer Demand and State

Economic Priorities in Workforce Educational

Planning

States can partner with employers to ensure thatincreased adult access and success inworkforce education translates into gains forboth workers and businesses. To achieve thesedual goals, states must be able to identify whereadditional investment in workforce education canmake a difference both for workers andemployers, and channel resources towardsupporting regional partnerships betweenemployers and providers of workforce education.

States pursuing these objectives shouldfocus on three primary strategies:

• Building workforce education into stateeconomic development policy

• Linking workforce education to state andregional economic priorities

• Using incumbent worker and customizedtraining programs strategically

When partnering with employers, statesshould aim to strike a balance between meeting individual employer needs, pursuing


66Amy-Ellen Duke, KarinMartinson and JulieStrawn, “Wising Up: HowGovernment Can Partnerwith Business to IncreaseSkills and AdvanceLow-Wage Workers,”(Washington, D.C.: Centerfor Law and Social Policy,2006).

67Peter Fisher and AlanPeters, “The Failures ofEconomic DevelopmentIncentives,” (Atlanta, GA:Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association,Winter 2004); “High RoadEconomic Development,”(Washington, D.C.: Centerfor Policy Alternatives,2005).

68Anna Purinton, “The PolicyShift to Good Jobs: Cities,States and CountiesAttaching Job QualityStandards to DevelopmentSubsidies,” (Washington, D.C., GoodJobs First, May 2004).

69”What Are OregonEnterprise Zones?” (Salem, OR: OregonEconomic and CommunityDevelopment Department,2006)

state economic development goals andhelping workers advance. The goal—indeed,the necessity—is that both public and privateinterests are served. Partnerships that tilt tooheavily toward one side tend to diminish thechances of serving the other. States canensure that policies to link postsecondaryeducation and training with economic prior-ities benefit both employers and workers byinvesting in partnerships that support postsec-ondary workforce education benefitingworkers across a group of employers—forexample, by funding for-credit programs.Another useful approach is to leverageemployer investments with state funds byrequiring employers to provide matchingfunds, paid release time for training, and/oruse of employer facilities or staff for training.States can also link their investments inregional partnerships to hiring preferences,wage increases, and promotions for workersparticipating in postsecondary education, andrequire that regional partnerships supportedwith state funds provide postsecondaryworkforce education to a range of workers,including entry points for those with lowerskills and/or limited English.66

Below, we examine the three primarystrategies in more detail, and consider howstates have pursued each in working with theprivate sector.

BUILDING WORKFORCE EDUCATION INTO STATE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY

States can use economic development policyto partner with employers and leverage invest-ments in postsecondary workforce educationto support economic growth and workeradvancement. Very few, however, do so at anykind of scale. While states and localities giveabout $50 billion annually to private business

and industry in support of economic devel-opment goals, anecdotal evidence stronglysuggests that little of that sum is directedtoward improving the skills of the workforce.67

Traditionally, state economic developmentpolicy has focused on bricks and mortar infra-structure, access to capital and financialincentives. States have tended to assume thatsuccess in attracting or retaining employerswould naturally lead to benefits for the state’scitizens. Recently, though, states have beguntaking a harder look at how they can structureeconomic development incentives to ensurethat public subsidies lead to concrete benefitsfor community residents. For example, as of2003, some 43 states had incorporated intotheir development subsidies standards aimedat ensuring that public investments result increation of high-quality jobs.68

States are also broadening their view ofwhat is needed to attract and retain family-supporting jobs and to recognize thatworkforce education can play a critical role in this. For instance, Oregon’s 49 localEnterprise Zones authorize property taxexemptions for companies in exchange forlocating or expanding in the zone. Amongother requirements, participating companiesmust enter into “first source” hiring agree-ments with local workforce educationproviders and, to receive the largest taxexemptions, compensate new workers at150 percent of county average wages.69 Andin Texas, the state charters local EconomicDevelopment Corporations (EDCs) which are authorized to collect and spend localeconomic development sales taxes onvarious economic development projects,including workforce education connected tojob creation. A 2003 report found thatsupporting workforce education was among

20

70Based on “TexasEconomic DevelopmentIncentives,” (Austin, TX:State of Texas Office ofthe Comptroller of PublicAccounts, March 2003)and email correspondencewith Don Baylor of theCenter on Public PolicyPriorities in Austin, TX who is preparing an as of yet untitled analysis ofTexas EDCs, forthcoming.

71“Economic DevelopmentCorporation Revenue andExpenditure History1997–2004,” (Austin, TX:Center for Public PolicyPriorities and TexasComptroller of PublicAccounts, October 2005).

72“Job Ready PA Update,”(Harrisburg, PA:Pennsylvania WorkforceInvestment Board, May2006).

73Mike Brennan, “Innovationsfor Success: Skills Panels,”(Olympia, WA: WorkforceEducation and TrainingCoordinating Board,January 2006).


the best practices used by the more effectiveEDCs; to date, however, few EDCs havechosen to devote revenues toward fundingeducation or training.70 From 1997–2004,Texas EDCs spent $15.8 million on jobtraining initiatives, about 2 percent of EDCs’“discretionary” spending, or about 0.56percent of total expenditures.71

LINKING WORKFORCE EDUCATION TO STATE AND

REGIONAL ECONOMIC PRIORITIES

States can use a variety of funding sourcesand mechanisms to connect postsecondaryeducation and training to employers andsectors that can offer quality jobs andadvancement potential for workers. In Illinois,the Critical Skills Shortage Initiative (CSSI)uses state WIA funds to fund regionalpartnerships of employers, economic andworkforce development agencies, andpostsecondary providers to identify occupa-tions in which there are critical shortages ofskilled workers and pull together services toaddress those shortages. The state has alsobegun to use the CSSI findings aboutshortages to guide other investments inworkforce education, such as the JobTraining and Economic Development grants(JTED) to partnerships of employers andcommunity-based organizations.

Another example is Pennsylvania’s $101million Job Ready PA initiative, which hasinvested in 73 industry partnerships involving980 companies and has directed PA HigherEducation Assistance Agency funding tonearly 3,000 adult learners in postsecondaryworkforce education and advanced trainingfor over 7,500 incumbent workers, all aimedat ensuring an ample supply of skilledworkers for businesses and opportunities forstate residents to acquire the needed skills

to move up to better jobs.72 InMassachusetts, the Extended Care CareerLadder Initiative uses state funds to makegrants to consortia of nursing homes,community colleges, and other providers tocreate career ladders and to address stafftraining, work environment, and quality ofcare issues. Industry Skill Panels inWashington State bring together business,labor, education and workforce professionalsto assess current and future skill needs andhow best to help workers advance andbusinesses prosper. The panels consider awide range of workforce education issues,such as articulation of education and trainingprograms, development of curricula andcreation of apprenticeships.73 In Georgia’sCertified Specialist Programs, the stateconvenes groups of large employers todevelop standardized statewide for-creditcurricula and credentials in key demandsectors such as construction, manufacturing,warehousing and distribution, insurance, andcustomer services.

States can help these regional partner-ships to succeed by building an infra-structure of staff whose job it is to connectpostsecondary programs with employers.Community and technical colleges in NorthCarolina and Georgia, for example, haveboth state-level and college-based staff witheconomic development responsibilities. InGeorgia, college Vice Presidents forEconomic Development not only managecustomized training programs at theirschools, but also market state student aid,such as HOPE grants, and for-creditoccupational offerings, such as the CertifiedSpecialist Programs, to employers andworkers.


74“Workforce Training:Almost Half of States FundEmployment Placementand Training ThroughEmployer Taxes and MostCoordinate with FederallyFunded Programs,”(Washington, D.C.: GAO-04-282).

75“Strategic Plan 05–06,”(Sacramento, CA:Employment TrainingPanel, California Labor andWorkforce DevelopmentAgency, 2005).

USING INCUMBENT WORKER AND CUSTOMIZED

TRAINING PROGRAMS STRATEGICALLY

Most states have incumbent or customizedworker training programs that partiallysubsidize employers’ costs of skills upgradetraining for current workers or new hires.Twenty-three states fund training throughsome form of employer tax revenues, includingUnemployment Insurance (UI) tax offsets, UIpenalty and interest funds, and separateemployer taxes.74 Incumbent and customizedworkforce education programs tend to viewthemselves as economic developmentprograms whose primary purpose is to helpindividual employers meet workforce needs.

Some states, however, use theseprograms more strategically: to advanceparticular economic priorities, such asattracting or retaining key businesses andindustries, helping dislocated workers retoolskills for new careers, and advancing low-wage or low-skill workers. Minnesota’s JobSkills Partnership (MJSP), which supportsincumbent worker training, has since 2001provided Low-Income Worker Training grantsto employment services providers to pay fortraining of individuals with incomes under200% of poverty. These grants provide aresource to frontline providers (both nonprofitgroups and the public One-Stop system) topay for training in demand by local employers.Most grantees pay for training at multipleemployers and in multiple occupations.

In addition, the Minnesota Legislaturegave the MJSP board the authority in 2006 tomake Special Incumbent Worker grants thatare more flexible than the traditionalPartnership grants: the board encouragesgrant applications that have statewide orregional impact, leverage the public universitysystem’s Centers of Excellence, address the

needs of multiple employers, or designservices for English language learners. InCalifornia, during the 2005–2006 schoolyear, the state’s Employment Training Panelprioritized incumbent worker training grants insectors identified as key to the state’s futureeconomic health, including aerospace, lifesciences, high technology and other types ofmanufacturing.75

Similarly, the Massachusetts WorkforceTraining Fund, the state’s incumbent workertraining program, set aside a portion of its2005 funding for grants focusing primarily onhelping employers upgrade workers’ basiceducation and/or English language skills,thereby enabling lower skilled workers to gainaccess to program training. Finally, NorthCarolina’s New and Expanding IndustriesTraining program and Georgia’s Quickstartprogram both provide customized workforceeducation to employers that create jobsthrough relocation, start-ups or expansion.This capacity to provide quick responsetraining to support job creation is an integralpart of both states’ economic developmentstrategies.

Beyond these state-level incumbent and customized training programs, mostcommunity and technical colleges maintainworkforce education departments thatcontract with local business and industry to provide customized training for theirworkers. These departments often have in-depth knowledge of local employers andtheir workforce needs. States could deploythis capacity to support goals of economicgrowth and worker advancement in targetedsectors, occupations or regions, especiallyif schools then articulate non-creditworkforce education to for-credit certifi-cates and degrees.

22

76Couturier and Cunningham(2006), pp.15–18.

77“State Funding forCommunity Colleges: A 50-State Survey,”(Denver, CO: EducationCommission of the States,2000). At the time of thissurvey, 29 of the 44 stateswho responded use afunding formula todetermine allocations tocommunity and technicalcolleges.

78In some high-growthstates and regions(California for example),demand for communityand technical college hasalso forced states to capFTE funds based on enrollment growth, thusremoving the incentives for aggressive student outreach and potentiallydiscouraging colleges fromserving lower-status, harder-to-serve studentssuch as welfare recipientsand English languagelearners.


Building Capacity and Financing Improvement

To make significant improvements in theirsystems of education and training, states willneed to greatly expand the existing capacityof postsecondary institutions and workforceeducation providers to provide high-qualitycurriculum and instruction, support andimprove student success, and work moreeffectively with employers. This will provechallenging given the recent state fiscalenvironment. As a share of total governmentexpenditures, state appropriations for publiccolleges and universities decreased by 4percent between 1987 and 2003 as adultand postsecondary education has had tocompete with growing budgetary demands inpolitically compelling areas such as Medicaidand K–12 education.76 These fiscal trendssuggest that states will not be able to fullyexpand capacity through new revenues. Ifthey are to find new sources of support,states will have to examine how they currentlyfinance adult and postsecondary education—in particular at broad access institutions suchas community and technical colleges—andmake strategic decisions about how toallocate resources to meet state educationand economic goals.

To take steps in this direction, statesshould consider increasing their investmentsin the following areas:

• Supporting occupational and workforcedevelopment programs of economic impor-tance to the state and regions

• Supporting developmental and adulteducation programs that help studentssuccessfully earn credentials

• Paying for program development and otherinnovation costs now borne by institutionsand providers

Before looking at ways for states to moveforward in terms of building capacity, it helpsto consider where they are now. Most statescurrently fund community and technicalcolleges and other postsecondary institutionsusing a funding formula that is driven primarilyby student enrollment, calculated based on afull-time equivalency (FTE).77 Among thevirtues of FTE funding formulas are that theytie financing directly to student demand forprograms and colleges and provide incentivesfor institutions to seek out new students andthus expand access.

But the formula-driven financing modelalso has its drawbacks. As noted earlier, onedrawback is that funding enrollments insteadof completions fails to provide incentives tosupport student success. In addition, themodel does not provide sufficient support forhigh-cost programs (such as nursing andengineering) that are of economic significanceto the state. FTE rarely supports non-creditworkforce development programs that canhelp low-wage workers obtain better jobs, ordevelopmental and adult education programsthat serve as important bridges to postsec-ondary education for low-skill adults. In mostcases, FTE is not sufficiently flexible tosupport program and curriculum development,or other discrete start-up and capacity-building costs, and it generally does notprovide incentives for institutions to improvestudent persistence and degree completion.Finally, this funding model can disadvantageinstitutions with significant part-time enroll-ments, which may have higher overall costs forinstruction and student services.78

States will have to find ways to tweakFTE formulas to address these problems. Theywill need to reallocate resources to bettersupport community and technical colleges,


79Larry Warford, “FundingLifelong Learning—ANational Priority,”(Washington, D.C.:American Association ofCommunity Colleges,2002). The four states areMaryland, Michigan,Oregon and Texas.

80“Michael Griffith, “Issues inCommunity CollegeFunding,” (Denver, CO:Education Commission ofthe States, April 2005).

81Ibid.

82Jennifer Cleary and AaronFichtner, “DeployingCommunity Colleges toStrengthen StateEconomic Development: A National Study,” (NewBrunswck, NJ: John J.Heldrich Center forWorkforce Development,2005).

and find ways to fully support high-costoccupational programs of greater economicvalue to the state. Formula changes shouldalso help states find additional dollars tosupport high-quality adult and developmentaleducation programs that help low-skilledadults access postsecondary education andearn credentials. Finally, states will need tobuild incentives into resource allocation thatencourage institutions to embrace key statepolicy goals.

SUPPORTING OCCUPATIONAL AND WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS OF ECONOMIC

IMPORTANCE TO THE STATE AND REGIONS

States should begin by examining their currentfunding arrangements for occupationaleducation and workforce developmentprogramming. According to a 2000 survey,only 17 states provide FTE resources for non-credit workforce education programs, and only4 states fund these programs at the same rateas credit programs.79 No comparable 50 statesurvey has been conducted to determine theextent to which states provide funding for high-cost programs, though a 2005 EducationalCommission of the States (ECS) survey of 11states found that six provided some additionalresources for high-cost programs.80

To avoid creating perverse incentives,states should convene their economic devel-opment, workforce development andcommunity and technical college leaders todetermine which academic and trainingprograms are of greatest importance economi-cally to the state (and specific regions) and/orhave the most potential to help low-incomeadults advance economically. States shouldthen work to provide additional FTE support forthese economically important programs. In thecase of non credit-workforce development

programs, states should condition additionalFTE support on better articulation of non-creditcertificates to credit-bearing programs withincolleges, to better enable adults in thoseprograms to move on and earn associate andbaccalaureate degrees.

A few states have made progress in thisarea. Ohio now distributes funding tocommunity colleges on a per-student amountbased on the program area in which a studentis enrolled. Colleges receive between $1,048and $4,276 per FTE in general educationclasses, but for students in Nursing andEngineering the FTE allocation is $7,101.81

As part of a larger effort to increase theproportion of state funding to colleges andbetter align these institutions with stateeconomic development priorities, Pennsylvaniahas retooled its funding formula to providemore generous reimbursement to communitycolleges that train students in high-demandoccupations at a higher than normal rate. Theamount of additional funding varies from yearto year based on the overall number of FTEsin the state.82

Mississippi also has implementedchanges in its funding formula for communitycolleges in recent years to give greaterfinancial support to colleges with significantenrollments of part-time and vocational andtechnical students. The new funding formulahas shifted from measuring fall headcount tousing semester credit hours generated forsummer, fall, and spring semesters todetermine FTE. The state legislature appro-priates funding for community colleges andthe FTE enrollments are used to distribute thefunding. Since many community collegestudents attend college on a part-time basisand the colleges’ expenses for accommo-dating these students increase annually, state

24

83Email correspondencewith staff for theMississippi State Boardfor Community and JuniorColleges.

84A number of states—including Wisconsin,Arizona, New Mexico,Virginia, and SouthCarolina—require studentsto pay all or most of thefull cost of developmentalinstructions at 4-year andthis general no FTE forthese campuses. Anumber of states—including Wisconsin,Arizona, New Mexico,Virginia, and SouthCarolina—require studentsto pay all or most of thefull cost of developmentalinstruction at 4-yearcampuses and thisgenerally means no FTEenrollment funding forthese purposes.

85ECS (2000), 37-38.

86See CAAL (2005); Amy-Ellen Duke, “A CrashCourse on AdultEducation,” Presentation atthe Working Poor FamiliesProject Meeting (CLASP,April 25, 2006).

87CAAL (2005), p. 71; ECS(2000), p.37.

88Liebowitz (2005);Materials on Minnesotaprovided by BarrySchaeffer, State AdultEducation Director.


leaders feel that converting to the new FTEformula better addresses the issue of studentequity. In addition, the credit hours generatedby part-time vocational and technical semesterhours are included in the calculations andearn as much revenue in the funding formulaas a per-semester credit hour taken by a full-time student in a general education track.83

SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENTAL AND ADULT

EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO HELP STUDENTS EARN

CREDENTIALS

Though funded through different sources andat different levels in most states, adulteducation (including English literacy) anddevelopmental education are both areas inwhich states should consider investingadditional financial resources to supportsuccessful programs. Like high-cost occupa-tional programs, most high-quality develop-mental and adult education programs requiremore resources and more intensiveinstruction than regular credit classes.Moreover, as noted earlier in Section IIC,developmental and adult education arecrucial points in the transitions of adultsseeking postsecondary credentials. In moststates, developmental education classes earn“institutional credit” and thus generate FTEenrollment funding, although these classesgenerate proportionally less funding perstudent than regular credit classes.84

According to a 2000 Education of the States(ECS) survey, 17 states provide the samelevel of support for developmental educationin their funding formula as regular classes,while 10 do not. The ECS survey found thatonly three states—Arkansas, Massachusettsand Nevada—provided a higher FTEreimbursement for developmental educationclasses.85

Adult education and English literacyprograms are funded partly through Title II ofthe Federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA).States must provide a 25 percent match toreceive federal funds, though most allocateadditional state resources beyond the match.The most common providers include schooldistricts, local community-based organizations,and community and technical colleges, withthe mix varying from state to state. Adulteducation classes at community colleges areusually non-credit and tuition-free. In moststates, however, they do not generate thesame FTE as other non-credit classes and thusprograms are much more reliant on federalfunding and other sources of state dollars. Forthis reason, capacity is severely limited: moststate adult education programs have longwaiting lists and serve only a portion of adultswithout a high school diploma.86

To address funding deficiencies in thisarea, states should begin by examining currentallocation and funding formulas for both devel-opmental and adult education. Many statesshould consider a more simplified fundingmodel such as Oregon’s, which funds bothdevelopmental and adult education on an FTEbasis, and at the same funding level as regularcredit classes. An alternative approach,adopted in recent years by Massachusetts andMinnesota, is to use other sources of statefunding to support these classes at moregenerous levels than currently found underfunding formulas.87 However policymakerschoose to proceed, they should targetresources to those colleges and providers thatare most effective in helping students transitioninto postsecondary education and earn collegecredits. As noted earlier, Kentucky has effec-tively tied adult education funding enrollment toperformance goals for providers.88


89This program is discussedin greater detail in Section3 of this paper.

90For a history and comprehensive overview ofstate higher education performance accountabilitysystems, see: Joseph C.Burke and Associates,“Funding Public Collegesand Universities forPerformance,” (Albany, NY:The Rockefeller InstitutePress, 2002).

PAYING FOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER

INNOVATION COSTS

Most of the innovative practices described inthis report require postsecondary institutionsand adult education and workforce devel-opment providers to develop new practices ormake significant changes to existing ones. Yetmost current state funding formulas include noincentives for many of the activities thatsupport innovation and improved practices—new program development, curriculum collab-oration and alignment, faculty professionaldevelopment. States, therefore, need to mimicthe private sector and create small “venturecapital” pools that can help seed and supportinnovation. States can make venture capitalfunding available on a competitive basis tosupport individual efforts by colleges andproviders, or use resources more systemati-cally to support the implementation of signif-icant new state initiatives. Kentucky, forexample, has used state customized trainingdollars to provide seed funding for localcommunity and technical colleges to implementcareer pathways.89

States have used a variety of otherfunding sources to support local innovation.Oregon uses WIA Title I discretionary fundingto support its career pathways initiative, whileArkansas uses its TANF surplus dollars. Atdifferent times, California, Kentucky andWashington have all expended TANF surplusfunds to support new worker advancementinitiatives. Other states (Oregon, for one) haveused WIA performance dollars (Title I and II)to support program development and otherinnovative local activities. However statessupport new venture capital pools they needto ensure that these funds support localinnovations that can endure after the initialinfusion of state dollars disappears. One

strategy to ensure sustainability is to limitventure funding to activities that createtangible tools (new curricula), develop signif-icant capacity among local colleges andproviders (intensive, focused professionaldevelopment) or create permanent structureslocally (reorganized college departments, localcross-agency collaborations). States can alsoconsider requiring local funding matchesand/or clear sustainability plans as a conditionof providing venture funding.

Measuring Results

To strengthen postsecondary programs byhelping more students to access highereducation, make transitions from one level ofstudy to the next, and successfully completetheir educations, states must possess a solidunderstanding of current outcomes and theability to track and report on performance overtime. Many states have invested millions ofdollars in building data management systemsfor this purpose. Some have even used theirability to measure institutional performance toguide budgeting and direct funding for institu-tions of higher education.90 The majority,however, still struggle both to understand howwell their current policies are serving theseends, and to use what knowledge they dohave to push for constructive change.

The already-daunting challenge ofmeasuring the results of postsecondarystudents and other participants in theworkforce development and adult educationsystems becomes even more complex whenstates desire to pay particular attention totargeted student populations (for instance,minorities, low-income, adult, part-time, andworking students), to follow students thatmove from one educational system to another,and to link educational efforts to labor market

26

91Kevin J. Dougherty andEsther Hong, “StateSystems of PerformanceAccountability forCommunity Colleges:Impacts and Lessons forPolicymakers,” (Jobs Forthe Future, Boston, MA,July 2005).

92“Next Generation Modelsof Education accounta-bility: The K-16 Model,”(Denver, CO: EducationCommission of the States,2003), p. 1.

93Dougherty, Reid andNienhusser (2006), p. 12.


outcomes. Longitudinal assessments—studiesthat track the progress and outcomes ofstudents over time—add yet another layer ofdifficulty. Putting together all the pieces of adata management system is not, however, thefinal goal. All of this is for naught if states donot use the data to inform state policy andimprove institutional operations.

A small number of states have evolved theirdata management systems toward realintegration and value.91 At the current time,however, most states are giving priority attentionand devoting significant resources to furtherdeveloping their K–12 systems in response tothe federal No Child Left Behind law. TheEducation Commission of the States proposesa system that encompasses students fromkindergarten through college (K–16) in order tofocus on the “crucial connection betweensecondary and postsecondary levels.”92

Various experts have weighed in withrecommendations for strengthening state datamanagement and performance accountabilitysystems. They include the following:

• Developing a comprehensive and integrateddata system

• Focusing indicators on special populationsand labor market outcomes

• Building in capacity for public reporting andanalysis

• Rewarding successful performance• Measuring progress toward goals

These recommendations are not simplyabstractions. As we detail below, severalstates have taken action along similar lines,and their experiences can serve as importantguides for other states seeking to moveforward. A number of these suggestions, such as developing linked state data systems and

more targeted indicators, mirror thechallenges identified earlier. For instance, animportant concept for overcoming fragmen-tation and limited accountability is the creationof a single authority for managing or warehousing all the data. This ultimately boilsdown to a state policy alignment issue.93

DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED

DATA SYSTEM

Although Florida’s K–20 system is the “goldstandard” among states (see Florida: TheGold Standard, page 28), other states havemade strides as well. In 1997, the TexasLegislature established the Texas PK–16Public Education Information Resource datasystem, which requires the state’s multipleeducation systems, including the K–12 systemand the college and university systems, toshare and integrate student data. Texas wasable to do this despite not having a unitedgovernance structure for its K–16 educationalprograms. Similarly, Maryland established thePartnership for Teaching and Learning, a K–16alliance of the state’s Department of Education,Higher Education Commission, and theUniversity System of Maryland. Among otherthings, a key priority of the partnership is toshare and use data on student achievementfrom preschool through college.

The issue of data sharing and privacy inparticular has limited some states’ efforts todevelop more comprehensive, integrated anduseful data systems. Concerns over individualprivacy, particularly sharing student socialsecurity numbers, have proven difficult forwould-be reformers to address. This is acomplex matter involving state legal, technicaland political issues as well as a federal law,the Federal Educational Rights and PrivacyAct, which places some restrictions on the


94Jack Mills, “State DataSystems and PrivacyConcerns: Strategies forBalancing Public Interest,”(Boston, MA: Jobs for theFuture, February 2005).

95Michael Collins, “By TheNumbers: State Goals forIncreasing PostsecondaryAttainment,” (Boston, MA:Jobs for the Future,February 1996)

96”Higher Education ReportCard 2005,” (Charleston,WV: West Virginia HigherEducation PolicyCommission and WestVirginia Council ForCommunity and TechnicalCollege Education, 2005).


sharing of student records and data. Jack Millsshows in a 2005 report on this issue that anumber of states as diverse as Florida,Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Washingtonhave found ways to “strike a balance thatprotects individual privacy while also making itpossible for community colleges and otherhigher education institutions to use individuallyidentifiable data records to drive institutionalimprovement.”94 For example, in Nebraska, asingle governing entity houses all data andmatching activities to insure that only onesource has direct control and that individualdata such as social security numbers are notdisclosed or even available to other entitieswithin state government.

FOCUSING INDICATORS ON SPECIAL POPULATIONS

AND LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES

Analyzing the performance accountabilitysystems of five states—Florida, New Mexico,North Carolina, Texas and Virginia—Dougherty,Reid and Nienhusser concluded that statesshould devote more attention to measures ofsuccessful remediation and post-transfersuccess, including success in other institu-tions. They urged all of the states to developmeasures that capture successful studentmovement from non-credit to credit programsand noted the importance of measuringstudent connections to and success in thelabor market, which typically meansconnecting student record data with statewage record files. To reach the needed levelof detail, states must disaggregate data byrace and income to assess the outcomes ofspecial populations and ensure that efforts tomeasure results do not prompt systems orinstitutions to shy away from students whomay not easily achieve desired outcomes.States should also consider including specific

performance indicators that focus on targetedpopulations and the outcomes related to theireducational circumstances. Two examples ofpossible indicators that illustrate this point are: 1) the measurement of successful transitionsfrom remedial or developmental education tothe completion of a certificate or degree, and2) the measurement of transitions from non-credit to credit programs.

BUILDING IN CAPACITY FOR PUBLIC REPORTING AND

ANALYSIS

Virtually all states collect and develop reportson student data at some level of detail. Rarely,however, are those data user-friendly orprepared for public consumption.95 WestVirginia is one state that attempts to make itsdata available and comprehensible by preparinga report card that presents overall stateperformance as well as the outcomes ofindividual institutions.96 The state posts the dataand report on the website of the West VirginiaHigher Education Policy Commission andpresents it to the legislature each year. Statesmight also find it useful to have an objective,non-vested entity, either public or private, thatwants and uses higher education data as partof its policy research or analysis process. TheOregon Business Council is a keen consumerof Oregon state educational data; as a result,the Council not only issues policy analysis onstate educational issues but is a significantproponent of a comprehensive and integratedstate educational data system. Finally, it isimportant that state and local institutions havethe capacity to conduct data analysis. Florida,which “has made notable efforts to support theinstitutional research capacity of communitycolleges,”97 shows how states can support suchefforts to effectively use data to assess andstrengthen performance.

28

98“Making AccountabilityWork: CommunityColleges and StatewideHigher EducationAccountability Systems,”(Washington, D.C., May2006), p. 7.


REWARDING SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE

Although performance budgeting and fundingmay not be as powerful a tool as desired, somestates do encourage institutions to focus oncertain issues by offering incentives for meetingdesired outcomes. North Carolina’s communitycollege system awards additional dollars forsuccessful and superior performance on sixstate indicators. The indicators focus onstudent success outcomes such as progress ofbasic skills students, passing rates on licen-sures and certificate exams, completions,employment status at graduation, and the

performance of college transfer students.Although the rewards are not huge, the mostsuccessful community colleges have earnedclose to $1 million, which provides flexiblemoney that systems can use to support newprogram development or other special initia-tives. In addition, focusing on certain indicatorsof student success tends to make colleges andother stakeholders more aware of the opportu-nities for program improvements.99

FLORIDA: THE GOLD STANDARD OF STATE DATA SYSTEMS

Florida’s data system has the ability to examine student outcomes across institutional systemsand into the workforce that is unmatched anywhere else in the country. Developed over thepast 20 years, the system is housed within the state’s Department of Education, whichoversees Florida schools from kindergarten through graduate study. The data warehouseincludes information on all students in public K–12, college, university, and career andtechnical students, as well as those in private colleges and vocational trade schools, casting aconsiderably wider net than any other state system.

The database captures outcomes for students who transition from one educationalsystem to another, as well as for participants of specific workforce development programssuch as WIA, Wagner-Peyser, TANF and Prison Industries. Outcomes are also generated forspecific categories of students. For example, data is available for community collegecompleters and leavers as well as by type of program study such as students pursuing acertificate program and those pursuing an associate degree. Importantly, the system measuresthe number students and program participants continuing their education into other systemsand tracks employment and earnings outcomes by connecting to the state’s wage record files,a capacity that would benefit all states.

The managers of Florida’s system have carefully “developed a culture in which institutionsare comfortable with providing data to a state agency that, in turn, provides valued reportsand services to cooperating institutions.”98 The multiple purposes for which the database isused—including research, institutional evaluation, accountability, and funding—have helpedcreate and sustain this culture. The system also provides longitudinal analysis and reports onfurther education and employment outcomes, thus providing educators, managers and policy-makers with a wealth of information on the long-term value of program investments.


99 Ibid, pp. 164–168.


101Ibid, p. 17.

102Mills (2005), p. 5.

MEASURING PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS

For states, developing the technical ability tomeasure student outcomes is only a first stepin using a performance accountability systemto guide postsecondary policymaking. Usingsuch a system to inform resource prioritiesand the design of institutional practices is theultimate bottom line. A measurement system,however, is most useful when used to assessprogress against articulated goals, whetherstatewide or institutional. Kentucky andWashington, among other states, have setstatewide goals for postsecondary educationand “have explicit measures of progresstoward those goals.”100 Setting goals to assessinstitutional performance can also be usefulprovided such goals are realistic and reflectthe differentiated missions and characteristicsof an institution.

Again, none of these strategies will leadto real gains unless states use their data toinform budgeting, policymaking and institu-tional performance. A number of states,however, have found that the ability to identify,assess and report student outcomes can beuseful in shaping state policy and strength-ening institutional performance. In Texas, forexample, some believe that student data onenrollments and completions, particularly forminority or low-income populations, helpedinfluence the state’s “Closing the Gap”initiative. As noted earlier in this report, thiseffort established state goals for significantlyincreasing enrollments and completions forminority students by 2015.101 Local institutionsare now developing specific plans to increasestudent enrollment and completion outcomes,using data to guide their efforts.

Accountability and transparency are,without a doubt, the wave of the future forhigher education. State policymakers now

have the opportunity to build accountabilitysystems that can help them more effectivelyuse limited resources while maintaining highstandards for quality and access.102 If designedand used effectively, these systems can playan important role in helping states achievebetter education and labor market outcomes.


That said, policymakers should undertakespecific governance changes in state postsec-ondary education and training systems onlywith caution. As noted above, the variouscomponents of this system (K–12 education,adult and postsecondary education, economicand workforce development, social and humanservices) are usually housed in differentagencies at the state level. While shiftingaround the “boxes” of funding and authority isoften an appealing fix to policymakers, there is

little evidence that such changes lead towholesale improvement in outcomes forstates, and can lead to distracting battles overresources and turf. Different governancearrangements—for example, whether statesadminister adult education and english literacyservices through the K–12 school system orwithin community college/postsecondarysystems or workforce development agencies—seem to matter less than whether actors andagencies cooperate and policy and practice is

SECTION THREE

MOVING FORWARD

We do not underestimate the difficulty in turning the recommendations from Section II into policy. To build systems that effectively leverage publicinvestment and help students achieve educationaland career goals, states must rethink how they do business, sometimes in very fundamental ways.Multiple state agencies and systems must worktogether, leaving behind old turf struggles andbureaucratic rivalries. To see this work through will thus require strong and sustained leadership that can bring together individuals of diversebackgrounds in the development and maintenanceof a shared vision. Though both the process and the final product will look different in each statebased on its political culture and existing policy governance arrangements, the goal of an integratedand coordinated system of education and workforcepolicies that can produce high-skilled workers inlarge numbers is one that every state shares.


103Davis Jenkins andChristopher Spence, “The Career Pathways How-ToGuide,” (New York, NY:Workforce StrategyCenter, October 2006).

104“Oregon’s Pathways to Advancement: Pathways Foundation Message,” (The Dalles, OR: Statewide Opportunities – Pathways to Advancement, Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development, May 2005).

105Ibid.

aligned. In the specific case of adulteducation/literacy programs, most expertobservers agree that both high quality andweaker programs exist across the governancespectrum. What matters more is a solidresource base, clear goals for clients, strongaccountability and solid strategies for workingwith other relevant state agencies.

In this section, we look what can be doneto develop shared agendas and long-termpolicy strategies that promote the action stepsdescribed in Section II.103 Specifically, weconsider how states can support progress by:

• Setting forth a guiding vision • Catalyzing and supporting local action• Breaking down silos to promote local

cooperation

Setting Forth a Guiding Vision

As with any effort to prompt wide-scalechange in policy and practice, leadership iscrucial to its ultimate success. Each state hasa unique political environment with a greateror lesser degree of administrative central-ization; accordingly, efforts to affect policychange gain traction in different ways fromstate to state. Leaders at the state level canhelp promote improvements in the postsec-ondary education and training system by artic-ulating a vision that helps to change mindsetsabout what is possible and encourages local-ities to critically reevaluate the status quo.Such a vision should emphasize how citizens,employers and local communities will benefitfrom proposed policy changes. At the sametime, the vision should include measurablegoals that promote greater alignment amongeducation, workforce development, socialservice and economic development agenciesand entities.

GUBERNATORIAL LEADERSHIP

In some instances, the governor’s office canprovide critical guidance and vision. Governorscan support long-term policy change byproviding direct leadership to state agencies;assembling working groups or commissions toinvestigate problems; coordinating inter-agencywork; and making recommendations.

Oregon provides an excellent example forhow a governor’s vision and leadership canresult in the flourishing of career pathwaysmodels across a state. In spring 2004,Governor Ted Kulongoski challenged thestate’s education and workforce systems toenable “all Oregonians, residents andbusinesses, to have the skills and resources toachieve economic prosperity.”104 In response,top administrators from the OregonDepartment of Community Colleges andWorkforce Development and OregonWorkforce Investment Board, together withstaff from the governor’s office, launched theOregon Pathways to Advancement initiativewith the aim of ensuring that “all Oregonianshave access to postsecondary skills, creden-tials, certificates and degrees that are valuedin the current and future economy leading togood jobs and higher wages.” 105 The agencyheads formed a steering committee that setthe following goals for the initiative:

• Increase awareness of the benefits ofpostsecondary certification and credentials

• Increase accessibility and affordability forpart-time, low-income, working adults

• Increase resources for essential supportservices to help students achieve their postsecondary goals

• Increase alignment between the state’seducation and workforce systems

32

106Ibid.

107David Prince and Davis Jenkins, “Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skills Adult Students: Lessons for Community College Policy and Practice from a Statewide Longitudinal Tracking Study,” (New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, April 2005).

108Ibid.


• Increase postsecondary degrees,certificates of completion and industry certifications earned through articulatedpathways

To achieve the vision and goals, the pathwaysteam emphasized the need to “transformeducation and workforce delivery systems tobe customer-focused and responsive tochanging student, worker and businessdemands—customized, just in time, justenough, just for me.” 106

AGENCY LEADERSHIP

Often, state agencies play leadership roles indeveloping guiding visions. In some cases, asingle agency might spearhead the wholeeffort; at other times, there may be severalagencies that come together and shareleadership responsibilities.

The impetus for improvements to thepostsecondary education and training systemin Washington came from a series of studiesconducted by the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC). One studytracked the enrollment patterns, educationalexperience and labor market outcomes ofstudents who entered the state’s communityand technical colleges through English-as-a-Second-Language and other adult basic skillsprograms.107 The study found that, on average,students who advanced beyond basic skillsprograms and then entered and completedcollege-level occupational certificate ordegree programs had the highest earningsgains—but that too few adult basic skillsstudents made it to that critical threshold. TheSBCTC used the findings from this study, andthe fact that there are as many low-skill adultscurrently in the Washington state workforce asthere will be students in the next ten gradu-

ating high school classes in the statecombined,108 to win support from the collegepresidents, the state board and the legislaturefor efforts to improve the transition of studentsin Adult Basic Education programs intocollege-level occupational programs leading towell-paying jobs.

LEADERSHIP FROM THE OUTSIDE

State officials seeking support in developingshared agendas can find help from theadvocacy and philanthropic communities,often a source of both ideas and financial orlogistical support. Additionally, those outsideactors can play the role of honest broker whenneutral ground is needed for discussionamong disparate constituencies. In at leastone case, leadership from outside of thegovernment has even “carried the flag” interms of moving the vision-setting effortforward and establishing a shared agendaamong disparate government groups.

In Ohio, where political leadership andpolicymaking are more decentralized, thevision driving policy change came not fromstate government, but rather from the field. Astakeholder group convened by theKnowledgeWorks Foundation formed in 2002to identify ways to assist the more than onemillion low-wage working adults in Ohio tomove up the economic ladder while alsohelping the state’s employers recruit andretain qualified workers. The organizationsrepresented in the stakeholder group includedcommunity and technical colleges, adultcareer-technical schools, Adult BasicEducation providers, Ohio Board of Regents,Department of Education, Department of Joband Family Services, Governor’s WorkforcePolicy Board, local workforce and economicdevelopment entities and employers. In 2003,


this 45-member group produced a vision andstrategies document that called for improvedalignment among the agencies and institutionsresponsible for adult workforce education inthe state and between those entities andagencies responsible for human services,workforce and economic development.

In an accompanying action plan, thestakeholders proposed a concurrent approachto fostering alignment; one focused onpractice at the local or regional level, and theother was designed to promote state policiesconducive to alignment. The stakeholdergroup has expanded and continued to meet.Since spring 2003, KnowledgeWorksFoundation and the stakeholder group havesuccessfully championed legislation toincrease the transition of adults from adultcareer technical schools in the state tocommunity and technical colleges. In spring2006, they helped convince Ohio GovernorBob Taft to empanel a commission to addressthe governance and funding of Ohio’s adultworkforce education programs.

Catalyzing and Supporting Local Action

Even with clear state-level vision and goals,getting localities to move in the desired directionwill require state policies to improve in terms ofproviding clear incentives and supporting localaction. As noted in Section II, the majority ofinnovative practices described in this reportrequire postsecondary institutions and adulteducation, workforce development and socialservice providers to learn new practices anddevelop new collaborative partnerships. In manyinstances, local players are already collaboratingand focusing on improved practices evenwithout state encouragement. In other cases,incentives and guidance from the state might becrucial to prospects of changing the status quo.

States can help catalyze change by:

• Providing a framework for local action• Providing financial support for planning and

piloting• Offering technical assistance and opportu-

nities for peer learning and support.

FRAMEWORKS FOR LOCAL ACTION

With state-level visions and goals in place,even the most decentralized states must setclear guidelines for local policymakers tofollow. Guidelines must be flexible enough toallow local actors the leeway to developsolutions of location-specific issues, but theyalso must specify objectives that ensure localactors support state visions and goals. Oneexample of a framework that allows flexiblelocal control but can support state visions andgoals is the career pathways framework (see“Career Pathways,” page 34).

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PLANNING AND PILOTING

Achieving reform at the local level involves agreat deal of planning, partnering and coordi-nation. States can provide support for theseactivities through grants to plan and pilotefforts. State officials can issue a request forproposals (RFP) in which state leaders asklocal or regional agencies to propose activitiesin keeping with state level visions. RFPs areparticularly useful when launching new effortsfor which a certain degree of local innovationand experimentation is required, allowing localagencies to customize activities to make theircontexts and circumstances and giving statesan opportunity to assess the differentpractices that result. State budgets are tightall over the country, and as such discretionaryfunding is hard to come by. Several stateshave shown great resourcefulness in using


CAREER PATHWAYS: A LOCAL STRATEGY TO MAKE THE PIECES FIT

In a growing number of communities around the country, local leaders are attempting to moreclosely coordinate publicly funded education, from primary through postsecondary levels,with social services and workforce and economic development programs to produce a bettertrained workforce and promote economic growth. Several states are actively supporting theefforts of these regional partnerships by restructuring funding, governance and other tools attheir disposal to influence local policymaking decisions.

“Career pathways” describes one particular framework or approach by which regionscan better align publicly supported systems and programs to build a knowledge-economyworkforce customized to meet the needs of local labor markets. A career pathway is a seriesof connected education and training programs and support services that enables individualsto secure employment within a specific industry or occupational sector, and to advance overtime to successively higher levels of education and employment within that sector. Each stepon a career pathway is designed explicitly to prepare the participant for the next level ofemployment and education.

Career pathways target jobs in industries of importance to local economies. They aredesigned to create both avenues of advancement for current workers, jobseekers and newand future labor market entrants, and a supply of qualified workers for local employers. Assuch, they also serve as a strategy for strengthening the “supply chains” that produce andkeep up-to-date a region’s knowledge workforce.

This model, however, cannot be purchased off the shelf. The specific form and contentof a career pathway will depend on the particular industries targeted, the requirements for

employment and advancement in the targetsector or sectors, and existing infrastructurefor job training and related education withinthose sectors. Building a career pathway is aprocess of adapting existing programs andservices—and adding new ones—to enable participants to advance to successively higherlevels of education and employment in the target sectors. Where it is most effective, thecareer pathways process helps to transforminstitutions and organizations involved ineducation, workforce preparation and social services. The process strengthens

cooperation among them in ways that improve their capacity individually and collectively torespond to the needs of local residents and employers.

To read more about career pathways, see the Workforce Strategy Center report titled“The Career Pathways How-To Guide.”

KEY FEATURES OF CAREER PATHWAYS

• Target jobs in industries of importance to local economies

• Create avenues of advancement forcurrent workers, jobseekers and new andfuture labor market entrants

• Increase supply of qualified workers forlocal employers in the target industries


federal dollars in programs such as theWorkforce Investment Act (WIA) andTemporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) tosupport pilots.

For the past two years, Oregon has usedWorkforce Investment Act (WIA) IncentiveAward funding to support the development of“career pathways” at 17 community collegeswithin the state. Each college has developedefforts in one or more transition areas: highschool to postsecondary, pre-college (AdultBasic Education, General Equivalency, Englishas a Second Language, etc.) to college, orpostsecondary entry for adults re-entering theworkforce or incumbent workers. With supportfrom the Governor’s Employer WorkforceFund, one five-college collaborative developed29 occupational “roadmaps” as tools foradvisors, faculty and students.

The Governor’s fund continues to supportthe efforts of the five-college collaborative andrecently provided funding for an additional sixcolleges to participate. Additionally, the U.S.Department of Labor awarded Oregon WIAincentive funds for the 2007 fiscal year, whichit will use to build career pathways systemsand capacity. In addition, the state hasdedicated some Perkins funds for careerpathways efforts. Teams from six regions wererecently awarded Perkins funding to developtools for facilitating the transition from highschool to college, including websitesdesigned for high school students that mapcareer pathways and dual enrollment opportu-nities in a broad range of career areas.

Arkansas is using TANF funds to supportefforts at 11 of its 22 community andtechnical colleges to enable career andeducational advancement among the TANFpopulation. The Arkansas Department ofHigher Education (ADHE) kicked off an

initiative in April 2005, with a meeting thatbrought together presidents and other leadersfrom each of the public two-year colleges inthe state. A public information campaign waslaunched and students were enrolled inAugust of 2005. The ADHE intends to involveall 22 schools because it is anticipated that allArkansas public two-year institutions anduniversity-affiliated technical institutes willbenefit from new projects and programssupported by the initiative.

Working with a TANF grant from the stateof Arkansas, Southeast Arkansas College(SEARK) set out to structure career pathwaysfor the large, low-income TANF-eligiblepopulation within the college’s six-countyservice area. Working with the Southern GoodFaith Fund (a local community-based organi-zation) and SEARK’s own adult educationprogram, the college has developed careerpathways leading to careers in fields withhiring demand including manufacturing,government, early childhood care, andhealthcare. The TANF Career Pathways grantprovides tuition, childcare, transportation andcounseling support for students throughoutthe pathways beginning at the level of adulteducation. The recent focus of the programhas been on establishing developmentaleducation bridge programs to improve theease of transition for students moving into thecertificate of proficiency, technical certificateand associate degree programs in thepathways.

OFFERING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND

OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEER LEARNING AND SUPPORT

The sorts of collaborative work describedabove require partners to think in new waysabout program design and delivery. Even withsolid plans at the outset, partners involved in


establishing new reforms often need assis-tance as the work unfolds and new challengesarise. If similar work is taking place at multiplesites, state agencies can support devel-opment by providing coaches to regionalsites. Coaches are experts in the relevantpolicy fields who help guide local actors byproviding on-site technical assistance andserving as intermediaries between the localproject and state officials. Sites oftenexperience similar challenges such as creatingcurricula in a particular field, developingpartnership agreements, engaging employersand institutionalizing sustainable fundingstrategies. State leaders can often assist sitesin overcoming these challenges by holdingworkshops that offer practical assistance inthese matters. Sites often find it very useful toshare their challenges and learn from theirpeers elsewhere in the state or the country.States can facilitate cross-site meetings orelectronic communications such as messageboards or chat rooms to offer opportunities forsites to share with each other. State officialscan jumpstart the learning process by invitingvisitors from states that have previouslyworked on similar efforts to share their experi-ences, lend advice and bring new perspectiveto the issues.109

For examples of technical assistance andpeer learning, see Section Three of theWorkforce Strategy Center report The CareerPathways How-To Guide.

Breaking Down Silos to Promote Local

Cooperation

When state agencies break down silos andbuild cooperation among themselves, partner-ships among education, workforce, humanservices and economic development entitiesat the local or regional level benefit.

DEDICATING STAFF RESOURCES

It is critical that partners not underestimatethe commitment in time and resourcesnecessary to establish new partnerships andreforms of this nature. Because new effortstend to falter unless someone actively keepsthe ball rolling, it almost goes without sayingthat the most demanding aspects ofpartnership building must receive theadequate amount of attention.

The Washington State Board forCommunity and Technical Colleges (SBCTC)generally has enjoyed good working relation-ships with other state agencies involved inWashington’s “WorkFirst” welfare-to-workprogram. Through its involvement in the FordFoundation-funded Bridges to Opportunityinitiative, the SBCTC has redoubled its effortsto break down silos at the state and locallevels. Using money from the Ford grant,the SBCTC hired a staff person to furtherpromote cooperation among the SBCTC andoutside agencies and among colleges andtheir partners at the local level with the aimof facilitating advancement by students,particularly low-income adults. This staffperson helped conduct the studies onexpanding baccalaureate opportunities forcommunity college students and evaluatingthe I-BEST integrated adult basic skills andworkforce training pilots. She also led alegislative study of the potential for co-location of One-Stop career centers oncommunity college campus, which wouldhouse the local Employment SecurityDepartment and Department of Social andHealth Services. The idea was championedby the state Speaker of the House, whoheads a community agency that serves low-income communities.

109Jenkins and Spence(2006).


INSTITUTIONALIZING COOPERATION

State legislators and other political leaderscan play an important role breaking down silosby mandating cooperation among agencies. In2005, KnowledgeWorks Foundation and thestakeholder group it has organized throughthe Ohio Bridges to Opportunity Initiative(OBOI) successfully lobbied the state legis-lature to pass a measure that mandates articu-lation and transfer of credits among the adultcareer centers, the community and technicalcolleges and public four-year colleges anduniversities. The new law also requires theOhio Board of Regents (which overseespublic two- and four-year colleges) andDepartment of Education (which administersthe adult career centers) to work more closelytogether to eliminate redundancies androadblocks. In spring 2006, KnowledgeWorksand the OBOI stakeholders helped draft arecommendation to create a commission toexplore a new coordinating structure for adultworkforce education and training in Ohio. Thegovernor has since issued an executive orderempanelling a 13-member commission (withan employer as chair) which must submit itsrecommendations to the governor and legis-lature no later than November 1, 2006.


As other policymakers move forward on theseissues it will be important to remember thatleadership can emerge from both the stateand the local level. The “career pathways”approach described above is one way statesand local communities can jumpstart efforts toadvance workers and support regional and state economic development. Howeverpolicymakers choose to proceed, individualsat all levels—public and private—must exerciseleadership and find ways to productively worktogether to support and grow the knowledgeeconomy in their states.

CONCLUSION

Despite evidence that both individuals and regionsbenefit economically when state systems effectivelyprepare skilled workers to participate in the knowledge economy, policymakers often come upshort in optimizing the performance of their publicsystems of education and training. This paperdetails how policymakers can take immediate actionto align policies and improve these systems, withnumerous examples of best practices in numerousstates. These cutting edge states have all learnedthat low-skill and low-wage workers are animportant untapped potential resource for regionaleconomic growth, and that enhancing the skills and employment prospects of these workers canand will benefit a state’s overall economy.

39

WHO WE ARE:

Workforce Strategy Center builds responsive systems for education, training, workforce and economic development to increase the competitiveness of the American economy. We are a leadingnational disseminator of innovative workforce strategy, providing technical assistance and cross-sitelearning to policymakers, educators and industry leaders.

WSC is a pioneer in developing the career pathways model for aligning the goals and activities ofeducation, training, workforce and economic development systems. Learn more about us at ourwebsite: www.workforcestrategy.org.

WORKING TOGETHER - ASU · WORKING TOGETHER ALIGNING STATE ... and are working hard to facilitate...

Documents

Transcript of WORKING TOGETHER - ASU · WORKING TOGETHER ALIGNING STATE ... and are working hard to facilitate...