The Workforce Investment Act – Lessons Learned, Planning for Reauthorization CASAS Summer Institute June 14, 2005 Jean L. Scott Administrator/State Director Adult Education Office

California’s Current WIA Title II System Competitive application each year Multiple provider types (283 total) Increasing enrollment (up 54% since 1999) Majority ESL (66%) Required CASAS assessments Pay-for-performance: Significant gains on CASAS tests Completion of 2 instructional levels GED/high school diploma Open competitive process to allow new agencies to apply, to expand services to unserved areas and populations Increased from 195 providers in 2000-01 to 291 in 2003-04 to 283 in 2004-05, significant increase in number of CBOs, as shown on next slide. Provided access to learners who may not otherwise be served. Enrollment has continued to increase each year, up 54% from 1999-00. A later slide will demonstrate what that looks like. ESL enrollment makes up the majority of our program,down from 68% in 2000-01. ESL is distantly followed by ASE at 21% of total enrollment up from 19% 4 years ago. ABE comprises12% of total enrollment, up slightly from 11% and finally, ESL-Citizenship, makes up less than 1% of total enrollment, down from 2% in the early years. All local programs must use CASAS assessment to measure learner progress. We pay our local programs for student outcomes.

CA WIA Title II Provider Types 1999-2000 through 2003-04

CA WIA Title II Learner Enrollment 1999-2000 through 2003-04

Major Policy Changes From: To: Funding “seat time” Pay for performance Serve below HS only 10% set aside for ASE Optional MIS Standard MIS End-of-year reporting Quarterly reporting Sample learner testing Testing all learners “Good ideas” Evidence-based practices

Major Program Changes From: To: Paper data submission Data disk or electronic Duplicate enrollment #s Unduplicated counts Few data checks Extensive data checks Teacher-centered Learner-centered Revolving door enrollment Retaining enrolled learners “What data?” “Our data shows…” Limited technology use Mentoring others

Major Learner Changes Annual increase in: Enrollment Average rate of level completion Average rate of core performance measures achievement

Positive Lessons Learned “Get what you pay for” Stronger infrastructure Improved curriculum Significant changes in classroom delivery and content Increased use of technology Expanded TA and training Expanded accommodation for special needs Two-year time frame for change If we pay for it, projects respond, e.g., student outcomes, data collection, technology plan Infrastructure - data collection processes, technology, professional development, focus LPs on same topic Improved curriculum – Cross Roads Café, Lifelines, Madison Heights, GED Connection More articulated continuum for learners, again learner-centered, e.g., low beginning, high beginning, and impact of EL Civics on ESL instruction Increase in distance learning opportunities, use of technology in classroom, technology mentor teachers, online professional development, systematic communication with the field, email lists, listservs, Web casts, online application, online program evaluation survey, electronic data submission Expanded TA & training, e.g., individual agency TA - EL Civics Program Specialists, networking groups, more PDCs Introduction of POWER assessment. Two years from projects to accept new ideas to improve the system.

Unintended Consequences Increased # of agencies = greater access to programs Increased # of agencies = diluted resources Improved instruction = increased benchmarks Increased benchmarks = maxed out funding levels

Future Plans Implement multi-year grants Reformulate pay-for-performance system Strengthen intake/goal setting processes Improve learner persistence Continue investment in: evidence-based practices infrastructure and technology Continue coordinating Leadership Project activities Strengthen collaboration with Title I Investigate data match for job outcomes