Vocational Education: Legislation to Reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act

Vocational Education: Legislation to Reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act

97-283 EPW
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Vocational Education: Legislation to Reauthorize
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act
Updated May 18, 1998
Richard N. Apling
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT
This report presents background on the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act, provides a funding history of the Act, and tracks and analyzes legislation
during the 105th Congress to revise and reauthorize the Perkins Act. Specifically the report
examines H.R. 1853 as passed by the House and H.R. 1385 as passed by the Senate. Key
issues include whether and how to change state and substate formulas; what percentage of
funds to reserve for statewide activities and administration; and how best to ensure services
for “special populations,” such as students with disabilities. The report will be updated as
legislative action warrants.
Related CRS reports: CRS Report 97-534, Adult Education and Literacy: Legislation
in the 105th Congress, by Paul M. Irwin; CRS Report 97-536, Job Training Reform:
Legislation in the 105th Congress, by Ann Lordeman; CRS Report 94-224, Rehabilitation
Act: Major Programs, 105th Congressional Legislation, and Funding, by Carol
O’Shaughnessy.

Vocational Education: Legislation to Reauthorize the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act
Summary
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act
provides federal assistance for secondary and postsecondary vocational education.
The Perkins Act was authorized through fiscal year 1996; nevertheless, FY1997 and
FY1998 appropriations have been provided for the Act. On July 22, 1997, the House
passed H.R. 1853, which would reauthorize the Perkins Act. On May 5, 1998, the
Senate passed H.R. 1385 in lieu of S. 1186, which would also reauthorize the Perkins
Act, among other provisions. This report presents background on vocational
education, on the Perkins Act, and on related action during the 104 Congress. The
th
report concludes by comparing major features of H.R. 1853 and the Senate version
of H.R. 1385.
The Perkins Act, currently funded at $1.1 billion, is the main source of specific
federal funds for vocational education, although these funds account for a small
percentage of the total spent on vocational education in the United States. The main
purposes of the Perkins Act are to improve the quality of vocational education and
to provide access to quality vocational education for “special populations,” such as
disadvantaged and disabled students. The last reauthorization of the Perkins Act in
1990 made several significant changes to the Act. These included the creation of
new programs, most notably the tech-prep program, aimed at coordinating secondary
and postsecondary vocational education; the requirement of within state formulas
based mainly on poverty measures for the distribution of secondary and
postsecondary federal vocational education funds; the elimination of most set-asides
of funds for various “special populations”; and the requirement that states develop
and implement performance standards and measures.
Key differences between the House and Senate bills include: the House
would provide somewhat less targeting based on poverty in the state formula and in
the secondary substate formula; the Senate would retain current formulas. The House
would allocate 90% of state funds directly to the local level; the Senate would
allocate 75%. The House would provide for set-asides for grants to local rural and
urban areas; the Senate would not. The House would eliminate required funding at
the state level for a “sex equity coordinator” and reduce state administration funds
from 5% to 2% of the state grant; the Senate would retain funding for the sex equity
coordinator and increase funding for state administrative activities to 10%. The
House would require a state-determined board of vocational education to fulfill
requirements of the Act, such as submission of the state application; the Senate
would have the “eligible agency,” the sole state agency that administers vocational
education policy, fulfill these requirements. The House would require states to
identify “quantifiable benchmarks;” the Senate would require the Secretary of
Education to establish “performance measures.” The Senate would authorize the
Secretary to make incentive grants to states exceeding performance measures
established under the Act; the House has no provision for incentive grants.
Latest action: The Senate passed H.R. 1385 in lieu of S. 1186 on May 5,
1998, by a vote of 91 to 7.

Contents
Overview of Vocational Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of the Perkins Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1990 Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Basic State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Action During the 104 Congress
th
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
H.R. 1617 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Consolidation Through Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Differences Between H.R. 1853 (House) and H.R. 1385 (Senate) . . . . 6
Features of the House and Senate Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authorizations and Reservation of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
State Formula Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Allocation of State and Local Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Substate Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
State Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
State Planning/Application Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Performance Appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Uses of State Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Uses of Local Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Tech-Prep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Program Elimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
National Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix A: Authorizations and Reservations of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Vocational Education: Legislation to
Reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Applied Technology Education Act
Latest developments: The House passed H.R. 1853 on July 22, 1997, by a vote
of 414 to 12. P.L. 105-78 increased overall funding for the Perkins Act by 0.7%.
The President has requested less than a 0.3% increase ($3 million) in
appropriations for FY1999. The Senate substituted S. 1186 for H.R. 1385 and
passed the latter on May 5, 1998, by a vote of 91 to 7;
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act,
currently funded at $1.1 billion, provides federal assistance for secondary and
postsecondary vocational education. The Perkins Act was authorized through
FY1996; nevertheless, FY1997 and FY1998 appropriations have been provided for
the Act. The House has passed H.R. 1853, and the Senate passed H.R. 1385 in lieu
of S. 1186. Both bills would reauthorize and revise the Perkins Act. This repor
1
t
presents background on vocational education, on the Perkins Act, and on the attempt
by the 104 Congress to include the Perkins Act in a workforce and caree
th
r
development block grant to states. The report concludes with key features of H.R.
1853 and Title I of the Senate version of H.R. 1385.
.
Overview of Vocational Education
Vocational programs provide occupational preparation mostly at the high school
level and at less-than-4-year postsecondary institutions, such as community colleges.
These programs are aimed mainly at the three-quarters of high school students who
do not go on to earn bachelors’ degrees.
At the high school level, vocational courses can be classified into three groups:
! consumer and homemaking education;
! general labor market preparation, such as career exploration and word
processing; and
1 The Senate substituted the language of S. 1186 for the House language of H.R. 1385,
which deals with adult education and training, but not with vocational education. Title I of
the Senate version of H.R. 1385 deals with vocational education, as does H.R. 1853. This
report compares Title I of the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1385 with the House-passed
version of H.R. 1853.

CRS-2
! specific labor market preparation in occupational fields, such as agriculture,
health care, trade and industry, electronics, and computer repair.2
Most secondary vocational education takes place in comprehensive high
schools, although there are other providers such as area vocational-technical schools
(AVTSs), vocational high schools, and career academies. Nearly all high schoo
3
l
students complete at least one vocational education course. Far fewer (about one-
quarter) could be classified as “vocational concentrators,” completing three or more
related vocational courses.4
Postsecondary vocational education has a broader array of options, some of
which are in sophisticated high technology areas such as computer programming and
engineering technology. Most postsecondary vocational education takes place at
community colleges; for-profit proprietary schools are also an important provider.5
In school year 1989-90, approximately one-half of all students in nonbaccalaureate
postsecondary institutions reported that they were majoring in vocational areas.6
Overview of the Perkins Act
Named in honor of a former chairman of what was then the House Education
and Labor Committee, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act provides funds for secondary and postsecondary vocational education.
The main purposes of the Act are to improve the quality of vocational education and
to provide access to quality vocational education for “special populations,” such as
disadvantaged and disabled students.
1990 Reauthorization. The last reauthorization of the Perkins Act in 1990, P.L.
101-392, made several significant changes in the Act. The 1990 Amendments:
! Created new programs, most notably tech-prep education, aimed at
combining and coordinating secondary and postsecondary vocational
education activities into a coherent sequence of courses.
! Changed the allocation of funds between states and localities by reserving
a higher maximum percentage of funds for state programs — 25% instead of
20% — while reducing state discretion over these funds and lowering the
percentage that can be used for state administration from 7% to 5%.
2 U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Vocational
Education in the United States: The Early 1990s. Washington, 1995, figure 1, p. 3.
(Hereafter cited as Vocational Education in the United States).
3 AVTSs are regional vocational schools that usually serve more than one school district.
Vocational high schools are similar to AVTSs but usually serve students in one large school
district. Career academies usually focus on preparing students one or two career clusters
such as health or finance.
4 Vocational Education in the United States, p. 7-9 (based on 1992 high school students).
5 Ibid., figure 2, p. 6.
6 Ibid., p. 8.

CRS-3
! Specified substate formulas that require at least 75% of each state’s basic
grant to be distributed based mainly on poverty measures to local recipients
for secondary, postsecondary, and adult vocational programs and specifying
minimum local grant levels — $15,000 for secondary programs, $50,000 for
postsecondary and adult programs.
! Removed most set-asides for “special populations,” but required states and
local recipients to assure that members of these populations be given equal
access to high-quality programs, and required local recipients to spend federal
funds for the combined objectives of services for “special populations” and
program improvement.
! Required states to develop and implement performance standards and
measures, such as program completion and job placement, to assess gains in
learning and in program performance.7
Basic State Grants. Perkins basic state grants account for nearly 90% of the
funding for the Act. These grants are distributed by formula to states based mainly
8
on population, with adjustments for state per capita income and for a minimum grant
amount.
9 The central purposes of these grants are to improve the overall quality of
vocational education and to provide access for members of “special populations” to
high quality vocational education. These populations include disadvantaged and
disabled students, limited English proficient, and those in programs to eliminate sex
bias. Perkins funds support vocational education for these students by providing, for
example, equipment and classroom modifications, tutors, instructional devices,
counselors, and sex equity coordinators.
The basic state grant program supports program improvement by:
! Focusing funds on programs that integrate academic and vocational education
in a coherent sequence of courses;
! Supporting tech-prep programs, which aim to combine high school and
postsecondary vocational education; and
! Requiring states to develop performance standards and measures.
Funding. The Perkins Act is the main source of specific federal funding for
vocational education. Currently funded at $1.15 billion, the Act probably provides
10

7 For further information, see CRS Report 91-675, Vocational Education: Major Provisions
of the 1990 Amendments (P.L. 101-392), by Paul M. Irwin and Richard N. Apling.

8 Others parts of the Act include “special programs” for targeted purposes, such as tech-prep,
and “national programs” for data collection, evaluation, etc.
9 See page 8 for further discussion of the current Perkins Act basic state grant formula.
1 0 Considerably more federal funding is provided for postsecondary vocational education
through loans and grants to students attending community colleges and proprietary schools

CRS-4
less than 10% of national spending on vocational education, although no precise
calculation of the amount the U.S. spends on vocational education is available.
As Table 1 shows, Perkins Act funding has increased modestly since the Act
was reauthorized in 1990. Total funding was about $1.01 billion in FY1991 and
about $1.15 billion in FY1998 (a 13.5% increase). Appropriations for Perkins basic
state grants increased 19.0% (from $848 million to $1.0 billion). Between FY1991
(its first year of funding) and FY1998, tech-prep appropriations jumped from $63
million to $103 million (more than a 62% increase). The President has requested an
additional $3 million for the Perkins Act for FY1999, less than a 0.3% increase.
Action During the 104 Congress
th
H.R. 1617. The 104 Congress gave extensive consideration to consolidating
th
various federal job training and education programs. To accomplish this, the final
bill — the Workforce and Career Development Act of 1996 (WCDA), H.R. 1617 —
would have repealed the Perkins Act, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the Adult Education Act and consolidated
the funding and functions of these programs into a single workforce and career
development block grant to the states. Although H.R. 1617 was reported by a
conference committee, the conference version did not reach the floor of either the
House or the Senate; and the 104th Congress adjourned without taking final action.11
While H.R. 1617 would have authorized a single block grant to states, the bill
provided specific set asides of funds for vocational education and other program
activities. Of all funds allocated to states, at least 26% would have been used for
vocational education activities. Of this amount, 15% would have been used for state
activities and administration and 85% for local activities.
Consolidation Through Appropriations. Although final action on H.R. 1617
was never completed, the 104 Congress did accom
th
plish some program consolidation
by eliminating appropriations for some smaller programs authorized by the Perkins
Act while slightly increasing total funding. Appropriations for FY1995 eliminated
funding for:
! Community-based organizations,
! Consumer and homemaking education,
! Bilingual vocational training and
! Demonstrations.
who enroll in vocational programs.

11 For further discussion of H.R. 1617, see CRS Report 96-690, Employment and Training:
Workforce and Career Development Act of 1996 (H.R. 1617 Conference), by Richard N.
Apling and Ann Lordeman. See pages 15-17 of that report for a discussion of vocational
education provisions.

CRS-5
Table 1. Perkins Act Appropriations
(dollars in $000's)
Fiscal Year
% Change
% of Total
1991 to
Programs
1991
1996
1997
1998
1999 Request
for 1998
1998
Basic grants
a
Basic State grants (title II)
$848,360
$962,976
$1,004,904
$1,009,852
$1,010,522
88.0%
19.0%
b
Territorial set-aside (sec. 101A)
1,776

1,970

2,072

2,082

e
0.2%
17.2%
c
Indian & Hawaiian natives set-aside (sec. 103)
13,325

14,773

15,543

15,616

20,128

1.4%
17.2%
Subtotal (basic grants)
$863,461
$979,719
$1,022,519
$1,027,550
$1,030,650
89.6%
19.0%
Special programs
Community-based organizations (title III-A)
11,711

-

-

-

-

-100.0%
Consumer and homemaking education (title III-B)
33,351

-

-

-

-

-100.0%
Tech-prep education (title III-E)
63,433

100,000

100,000

103,000

106,000

9.0%
62.4%
Facilities and equipment State grants (title III-F)
-

-

-

-

Tribally controlled postsecondary
voc. institutions (title III-H)
2,440

2,919

2,919

3,100

f
0.3%
27.0%
State councils (sec. 112)
8,783

-

-

-

-

-100.0%
National programs
d
Research (title IV-A)
7,010

5,177

13,676

13,497

13,497

1.2%
92.5%
Demonstration (title IV-B)
12,970

-

-

-

-100.0%
Data systems (title IV-C, sec. 442)
4,880

-

-

-

-100.0%
Subtotal (national programs)
$24,860
$5,177
$13,676
$13,497
$13,497
1.2%
-45.7%
Bilingual vocational training (title IV-E)
2,888

-

-

-

-

-100.0%
Total
$1,010,927
$1,087,815
$1,139,114
$1,147,147
$1,150,147
100.0%
13.5%
aIncludes $6,848,000 through FY1997 from permanent appropriations (Smith-Hughes Act)
bIncludes $14,000 through FY1997 from permanent appropriations (Smith-Hughes Act)
cIncludes $107,000 through FY1997 from permanent appropriations (Smith-Hughes Act)
dIncludes $179,000 through FY1997 from permanent appropriations (Smith-Hughes Act)
e
.
President's request would include with basic grants
.
fPresident's request would include with Indians and Native Hawaiians
Note: P.L. 105-33 (the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) repealed the Smith-Hughes Act
Sources: Annual Department of Education "Press Releases" (FY92-FY99)

CRS-6
In addition to this list, appropriations for FY1996 eliminated funding for state
councils and data systems. Consequently, by FY1998, funded programs included
basic grants plus 3 smaller programs compared with basic grants plus 9 smaller
programs in FY1991.
Key Differences Between H.R. 1853 (House) and H.R. 1385 (Senate)
The 105 Congress is again considering vocational education and trainin
th
g
legislation. The House vocational education bill (H.R. 1853) is separate from its
training and adult education bill (H.R. 1385), which also amends the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 and the Wagner-Peyser Act. The Senate bill (H.R. 1385) contains
vocational education, adult education, and training program provisions, and amends
the Rehabilitation Act and Wagner Peyser. In addition to the dissimilar structures
12
of the two bills, key differences between the House and Senate bills include:
! The House bill would provide somewhat less targeting based on poverty in the
state formula and in the secondary substate formula; the Senate bill would
retain current Perkins Act formulas.
! The House bill would allocate 90% of state funds directly to LEAs and
eligible postsecondary institutions; the Senate bill would allocate 75%.
! The House bill would provide for state set-asides for grants to local rural and
urban area; the Senate bill would not.
! The House bill would allocate 8% of state funds for “state leadership”
activities; the Senate bill would allocate 14%.
! The House bill would eliminate the current 1% set aside for vocational
education for incarcerated individuals; the Senate bill would retain it.
! The House bill would eliminate required funding at the state level for a “sex
equity coordinator” and reduce state administration funds from 5% to 2% of
the state grant; the Senate bill would retain funding for the sex equity
coordinator and increase state funding for administrative activities to 10%.
! The House bill would require a state-determined board of vocational
education to fulfill requirements of the Act, such as submission of the state
application; the Senate bill would have the “eligible agency,” defined as the
1 2 Title I of the Senate bill deals with vocational education. Title II of the Act deals with
adult education and literacy. Titles VI and VII deal with vocational rehabilitation. For a
discussion of Title II, see CRS Report 97-534, Adult Education and Literacy: Legislation
in the 105th Congress, by Paul M. Irwin. For information on Title III, which deals with
training programs, see CRS Report 97-536, Job Training Reform: Legislation in the 105th
Congress. by Ann Lordeman. For information on vocational rehabilitation, see CRS Report
94-224, Rehabilitation Act: Major Programs, 105th Congressional Legislation, and
Funding, by Carol O’Shaughnessy.

CRS-7
sole state agency that administers or supervises policy for vocational
education, fulfill these requirements.
! The House bill would require states to identify “quantifiable benchmarks” to
gauge statewide progress; the Senate bill would require the Secretary of
Education to establish “performance measures.”
! The Senate bill would prohibit funds provided by the Act from being spent for
activities authorized by the School-to-Work Opportunities Act; the House bill
does not mention that Act or school-to-work in general.
! The Senate bill would authorize the Secretary to make incentive grants to
states exceeding performance measures established under the Act; the House
bill has no provision for incentive grants.
Features of the House and Senate Bills
H.R. 1853, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act
Amendments of 1997 would amend and revise the Perkins Act. It would rename the
Act the Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act and would authorize
$1.3 billion for FY1998 and “such sums as may be necessary” for fiscal years 1999
through 2002 for Perkins Act programs and activities. The bill refers to vocational-
technical education rather than vocational education. The overall purpose of the
Act would be “to develop more fully the academic, occupational, and technical skills
of individuals participating in vocational-technical education programs.”
H.R. 1385 (Senate) is entitled the “Workforce Investment Partnership Act of
1997.” Title I of the Act, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
13
Education Act of 1997, would repeal the current Perkins Act and replace it with the
new Perkins Act. The bill retains the use of the term vocational education. The
overall purposes of the Act would be to develop “more fully the academic,
technological, vocational, and employability skills of secondary students and
postsecondary students who elect to enroll in vocational education programs.” What
follows compares selected provisions of the current Perkins Act with provisions of
the House and Senate bills.
Authorizations and Reservation of Funds. Current law authorized $1.6
billion for the Perkins Act (for FY1991) and specifies amounts to be taken from the
14
total for “special programs,” such as tech-prep. After subtracting these specified
amounts from the total authorized amount, specified percentages are applied to the
remainder to determine amounts for basic state grants, territorial grants, programs for
Indian and Hawaiian natives, and national programs.

13 Unless otherwise noted, references to the Senate bill or to the Senate version of H.R. 1385
throughout the remainder of this report are references to Title I of that bill.
14 Current law authorized “such sums” for FY1992-FY1995.

CRS-8
The House bill authorizes $1.3 billion for the Perkins Act for FY1998 and
“such sums” for FY1999 through FY2002. Percentages of the total authorization are
specified for territorial grants, Indian and Hawaiian natives programs, and tech-prep.
In addition, the bill separately authorizes “such sums” for national programs.15
The Senate bill separately authorizes tech-prep at “such sums” and the
remainder of the bill’s programs and activities at “such sums” for FY1999 through
FY2004.
16 Percentages are specified for territorial grants, Indian and Hawaiian native
programs, programs for tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions,
national programs, and incentive grants.
Although the details of the two bills’ authorizations and funding reserves differ,
the results would be quite similar. For example, applying the specifications of the
two bills to FY1998 appropriations for the Perkins Act would result in an
appropriation for basic state grants that is 87% of the total for the House bill and 88%
for the Senate bill. (FY1998 appropriations for basic state grants is 88% of the total
appropriations.) The main difference between the two bills would result for the tech-
prep allocation, which would be about 10% of the total appropriation under the
House bill and about 9% under the Senate bill. FY1998 appropriations for tech-prep
is about 9% of the total.17
State Formula Changes. The current Perkins Act state formula (Section
101) is based on three population groups: individuals ages 15 to 19, individuals ages
20 to 24, and individuals ages 25 to 65. Subject to other formula provisions, 58.8%
of the funds is distributed in proportion to a state’s share of the national total of the
first group, 23.5% in proportion to a state’s share of the second group, and 17.6% in
proportion to a state’s share of the third group. States’ allotments are adjusted based
on states’ per capita income (PCI), with the maximum adjustment ratio being 0.6 (for
states with PCI’s substantially below the national average) and the minimum
adjustment being 0.4 (for states with PCI’s substantially above the national average).
Distribution of funds is also subject to a minimum grant provision of 0.5% of the
total grant amount, with constraints on increases states can receive because of the
minimum grant provision.18
The House bill state formula (Section 101) would be based on two populations
groups: individuals ages 15 to 19 and individuals ages 20 to 24. Subject to other
formula provisions, 50% of the funds would be distributed in proportion to a state’s
share of the first group, and 50% would be distributed based on a state’s share of the
second group. States’ allotments would be adjusted based on states’ per capita
1 5 The House bill authorizes $4 million for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational
Institutions for FY1998 and “such sums” for the next four years.
1 6 The Senate bill separately authorizes $25 million for FY1999 and “such sums” for the
next 5 years for a demonstration tech-prep program to locate secondary schools at
community colleges.
17 For further discussion of authorizations and reservation of funds, see Appendix A.
1 8 The current minimum grant is about 0.4% of appropriations for state grants because of
constraints on the application of the minimum grant provision.

CRS-9
Table 2. FY1998 Perkins State Grants and Estimated State Grants Under
the House and Senate Bills
(dollars rounded to the nearest $1,000)
FY1998 Perkins
% Change
% Change
Act Allocations
Estimated
Estimated
(House Bill (Senate Bill
(and Senate Bill
Allocations Under Allocation Under vs. Current
vs. Current
State
Estimates)
the House Bill
the Senate Bill
Law)
Law)
Alabama
$19,175,000
$18,345,000
$19,175,000
-4.33%
0.00%
Alaska
4,215,000

4,215,000

4,215,000

0.00%
0.00%
Arizona
18,079,000

17,931,000

18,079,000

-0.82%
0.00%
Arkansas
11,404,000

10,714,000

11,404,000

-6.05%
0.00%
California
108,186,000

110,716,000

108,186,000

2.34%
0.00%
Colorado
13,400,000

13,362,000

13,400,000

-0.28%
0.00%
Connecticut
8,355,000

8,239,000

8,355,000

-1.39%
0.00%
Delaware
4,215,000

4,215,000

4,215,000

0.00%
0.00%
District of Columbia
4,215,000

4,215,000

4,215,000

0.00%
0.00%
Florida
46,304,000

46,109,000

46,304,000

-0.42%
0.00%
Georgia
29,560,000

30,257,000

29,560,000

2.36%
0.00%
Hawaii
5,049,000

5,049,000

5,049,000

0.00%
0.00%
Idaho
6,000,000

5,714,000

6,000,000

-4.76%
0.00%
Illinois
38,934,000

39,350,000

38,934,000

1.07%
0.00%
Indiana
23,688,000

24,105,000

23,688,000

1.76%
0.00%
Iowa
11,964,000

11,840,000

11,964,000

-1.03%
0.00%
Kansas
10,245,000

10,368,000

10,245,000

1.20%
0.00%
Kentucky
17,906,000

16,843,000

17,906,000

-5.94%
0.00%
Louisiana
21,042,000

19,859,000

21,042,000

-5.62%
0.00%
Maine
5,053,000

5,049,000

5,053,000

-0.07%
0.00%
Maryland
14,812,000

14,573,000

14,812,000

-1.62%
0.00%
Massachusetts
17,324,000

17,324,000

17,324,000

0.00%
0.00%
Michigan
35,015,000

35,350,000

35,015,000

0.96%
0.00%
Minnesota
16,685,000

16,553,000

16,685,000

-0.79%
0.00%
Mississippi
13,364,000

12,818,000

13,364,000

-4.08%
0.00%
Missouri
20,940,000

21,047,000

20,940,000

0.51%
0.00%
Montana
4,912,000

5,049,000

4,912,000

2.79%
0.00%
Nebraska
6,817,000

6,941,000

6,817,000

1.82%
0.00%
Nevada
5,072,000

5,049,000

5,072,000

-0.44%
0.00%
New Hampshire
5,049,000

5,049,000

5,049,000

0.00%
0.00%
New Jersey
21,030,000

20,725,000

21,030,000

-1.45%
0.00%
New Mexico
8,017,000

7,473,000

8,017,000

-6.79%
0.00%
New York
51,362,000

51,362,000

51,362,000

0.00%
0.00%
North Carolina
28,781,000

29,322,000

28,781,000

1.88%
0.00%
North Dakota
4,215,000

4,215,000

4,215,000

0.00%
0.00%
Ohio
42,750,000

43,180,000

42,750,000

1.01%
0.00%
Oklahoma
15,094,000

14,197,000

15,094,000

-5.95%
0.00%
Oregon
12,410,000

12,320,000

12,410,000

-0.73%
0.00%
Pennsylvania
40,723,000

40,541,000

40,723,000

-0.45%
0.00%
Puerto Rico
18,458,000

17,947,000

18,458,000

-2.77%
0.00%
Rhode Island
5,049,000

5,049,000

5,049,000

0.00%
0.00%
South Carolina
16,635,000

15,811,000

16,635,000

-4.95%
0.00%
South Dakota
4,215,000

4,496,000

4,215,000

6.67%
0.00%
Tennessee
21,457,000

21,647,000

21,457,000

0.88%
0.00%
Texas
80,684,000

83,355,000

80,684,000

3.31%
0.00%
Utah
11,495,000

11,284,000

11,495,000

-1.84%
0.00%
Vermont
4,215,000

4,215,000

4,215,000

0.00%
0.00%
Virginia
23,247,000

23,785,000

23,247,000

2.31%
0.00%
Virgin Islands
568,000

693,000

568,000

22.05%
0.00%
Washington
19,584,000

19,570,000

19,584,000

-0.07%
0.00%
West Virginia
8,429,000

7,927,000

8,429,000

-5.96%
0.00%
Wisconsin
20,242,000

20,279,000

20,242,000

0.18%
0.00%
Wyoming
4,215,000

4,215,000

4,215,000

0.00%
0.00%
Totals
$1,009,852,000
$1,009,852,000
$1,009,852,000

CRS-10
income, with the maximum adjustment ratio being 0.55 and the minimum adjustment
being 0.4. Distribution of funds would also be subject to a minimum grant provision
of 0.5% of the total grant amount, with constraints (similar to current law) on
increases states could receive because of the minimum grant provision. The Senate
bill state formula (Section 111) would be the same as current law.
Overall, as Table 2 shows, estimated allocations (based on FY1998
appropriations) for the Senate bill formula would be identical to current law.
Estimated changes from current law resulting from the House bill state formula are
relatively modest (for the most part ranging from gains of about 7% to losses of about
7%). The exception would be the gain in funding for the Virgin Islands, which
would continue to be defined as a state for the purposes of the basic state formula.19
These losses and gains are due to changes in the population groups in the formula and
in the PCI adjustments. Since the House bill formula would increase the percentage
allocated on a state’s share of individuals ages 20 to 24, one would expect those
states to gain funds that have a large share of individuals ages 20 to 24 (as does
California). Finally one would expect states with much lower-than-average PCI’s,
such as Mississippi and Arkansas (that would receive the maximum PCI adjustment)
to receive fewer funds, since the maximum PCI adjustment would be less than in
current law.
Allocation of State and Local Funds. Section 102 of the current Perkins Act
specifies the following allotments of states’ basic grants:
! at least 75% for secondary, postsecondary, and adult vocational education;
! 10.5% for programs for single parents, displaced homemakers, and single
pregnant women (not less than 7% for these programs) and for sex equity
programs (not less than 3% for these programs);
! not more than 8.5% for state programs and state leadership;
! not more than 5% for administration of the state plan including not less than
$60,000 for a “sex equity coordinator;” and
! 1% for programs for criminal offenders.
Under the House bill (Section 102), states would allot their state grants as
follows:
19 The Virgin Islands allocation would increase because its allocation is based on one of the
formula constraints: the prohibition that a state grant not be below 0.5% of the overall
appropriation for state grants or 150% of the “national average per pupil payment,”
whichever amount is less The latter is almost certain to be the lesser amount for the Virgin
Islands. The calculation of this amount is based on a different population base in the House
formula than it is under current law or under the Senate bill (individuals ages 15 to 24 rather
that 15 to 65). Since the Virgin Islands’ share of individuals ages 15 to 24 is greater than
its share of individuals ages 15 to 65, the Virgin Islands allocation, which is too small to be
subject to other constraints in the formula, would increase substantially.

CRS-11
! not less than 90% for secondary, postsecondary, and adult vocational
education of which a state could reserve up to 5% of these funds (i.e., 4.5%
of the overall state grant) for grants to rural areas and up to 5% for urban
areas;
20
! not more than 8% for state programs and activities; and
! not more than 2% and not less than $250,000 for administration of the state
plan.
Under the Senate bill (Section 122), states would allot their state grants as
follows:
! 75% for secondary, postsecondary, and adult vocational education;
! not more than 14% for state leadership activities;
! not more than 10% (or $300,000, whichever is greater) for developing the
state plan, reviewing local applications, monitoring and evaluating the
program, providing technical assistance, and assuring compliance with
applicable federal laws; and
21
! 1% (or the amount expended in fiscal year 1997, whichever is greater) for
programs for criminal offenders.
The House bill would make significant changes in how states allocate their state
grant funds. First, at least 90% of these funds (rather than 75% under current law and
under the Senate bill) would be made available for LEAs and eligible postsecondary
institutions. The House bill would eliminate certain set asides (for gender equity
22
,
displaced homemakers, and prisoners) in cu
23
rrent law and create others — for grants
(at state discretion) to rural and urban areas. The House bill would slightly reduce
the percentage states could reserve for state activities from 8.5% to 8% and would
substantially reduce the percentage for administration from 5% to 2%.
Like the House bill, the Senate bill would eliminate set-asides for sex equity and
dislocated homemakers programs but would retain the 1% set-aside for criminal
20 The bill defines “rural area” as “an area that is not in a metropolitan statistical area” and
an “urban area” as “an area that serves a central city in a metropolitan statistical area.”
“Central city” and “metropolitan statistical area” are defined by reference to Section 10952
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
21 $60,000 of these funds would be required to be used for oversight of gender-equity
activities.

22 At least 81% of the state grant would be distributed locally by specified substate formulas;
as much as 9% of the state grant would be distributed locally to rural and urban areas at
states’ discretion.
23 Representative Mink introduced a floor amendment to require local recipients of funds
under the Perkins Act to reserve the same amount of funds for these programs as they
reserved from FY1997 funds. This amendment failed by a vote of 207 to 214.

CRS-12
offender programs. Unlike the House bill, which shifts current set-aside funds t
24
o
local grants, the Senate bill would keep the allocation for local grants the same as
current law (75% of the state grant) and shifts most funds for current set asides to
“state leadership” (14%, vs. 8% under the House bill) and state administrative
activities (10%, vs. 2% under the House bill).
Substate Formulas. As previously noted, one of the major changes in the 1990
reauthorization of the Perkins Act was the specification of substate formulas. Under
current law, states decide the percentages to be allocated to secondary and to
postsecondary vocational education and then distribute these amounts by specified
25
substate formulas. The current secondary formula (Section 231) is based 70% on
an LEA’s share of the state’s total Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
Title I basic grants; 20% based on an LEA’s share of disabled students with
individual education programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA);
and 10% based on an LEA’s share of total enrollment in schools and of adults
enrolled in training programs. The minimum grant amount is $15,000, subject to
LEAs forming consortia or receiving waivers because of geographic isolation.
Under the House bill states would decide whether and how much of the 90%
of Perkins funds for local vocational-technical programs would be allocated for rural
grants (up to 5% of the 90%) and for urban grants (up to 5% of the 90%). Of the
remaining amount (at least 81% of the total), states would then decide how much to
allocate to secondary vocational-technical programs and to postsecondary vocational-
technical programs. The House bill would gradually reduce the reliance on a poverty
factor in the formula allocating secondary funds to LEAs as follows:
In FY1998, funds would be distributed under the current Perkins Act secondary
formula with a minimum grant of $10,000:
! 70% of the funds would be allocated according to each LEA’s share of the
state’s Title I basic grant;
! 20% of the funds would be allocated according to each LEA’s share of
disabled students; and
! 10% of the funds would be allocated according to each LEA’s share of overall
enrollment.
In FY1999 and 2000, Perkins funds designated for secondary programs would
be allocated as follows:

24 The Senate bill (Section 168) has a definition of “gender equity,” which deals with access
for men and women to vocational education related to high-skill, high-wage occupations.
2 5 States’ percentages vary from nearly 100% for secondary programs to nearly 100% for
postsecondary programs. On average, about 60% of funds are allocated for secondary
programs.

CRS-13
! The portion of the amount designated for secondary vocational-technical
programs that is less than or equal to the amount the state designated for
secondary programs in FY1997 would be distributed as follows:
70% of these funds would be distributed based on each LEA’s share of
individuals ages 15 to 19 from poor families and
30% would be distributed based on each LEA’s share of the state’s total
population ages 15 to 19.
! The funds for secondary programs that exceed the amount the state allocated
for secondary programs in FY1997 would be allocated as follows:
60% of the funds would be allocated based on each LEA’s share of
individuals ages 15 to 19 from poor families and
40% would be allocated based on each LEA’s share of population ages 15
to 19.
In FY2001, funds for secondary vocational-technical education would be
allocated as follows:
! 65% of the funds would be allocated based on each LEA’s share of
individuals ages 15 to 19 from poor families and
! 35% would be allocated based on each LEA’s share of population ages 15 to
19.
In FY2002, funds for secondary vocational-technical education would be
allocated as follows:
! 60% of the funds would be allocated based on each LEA’s share of
individuals ages 15 to 19 from poor families and
! 40% would be allocated based on each LEA’s share of population ages 15 to
19.
The minimum grant amount would be $10,000 except for LEAs in rural areas or
charter schools that could not form consortia to meet the minimum grant provision.
The Secretary of Education could grant waivers to a state for an alternative secondary
formula if it “more effectively targets funds on the basis of poverty.”26
The Senate secondary program funds formula (Section 131) would be
virtually the same as current law. The minimum grant amount would be increased
to $25,000 from the $15,000 under current law. LEAs would be permitted to enter
into consortia in order to meet the minimum grant requirement. The eligible agency
could waive the minimum grant requirement for LEAs located in rural, sparsely
26 Current law does not authorize alternative secondary substate formulas.

CRS-14
populated areas. The Senate bill makes no provision for an alternative secondary
formula.
The House bill would make several changes in the formula distributing
secondary vocational education funds to LEAs. Most notably, the formula factors
would gradually change from 70% based on a proxy for poverty (i.e., share of Title
I allocation) to 60% based on share of poor individuals ages 15 to 19 and 40% based
on share of all individuals ages 15 to 19. Second, the House bill would reduce the
minimum grant from $15,000 to $10,000. Third, the House bill would make certain
charter schools explicitly eligible to receive Perkins Act funding. Finally, th
27
e
House bill would permit alternative secondary substate formulas. The Senate bill
substate formula for secondary vocational education would differ from current law
mainly in the increase of the minimum grant from $15,000 to $25,000.
The current Perkins Act postsecondary and adult formula (Section 232) is
based on “eligible institution’s” share of recipients of Pell grants (Higher Education
Act, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1) or recipients of assistance from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. The minimum grant is $50,000.
Like current law, the House bill postsecondary and adult formula (Section
222) would be based on “eligible institution’s” share of Pell grant recipients or
recipients of assistance from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The minimum grant
would be $35,000 to eligible institutions or consortia. Like current law, the House
bill would permit alternative formulas that result “in a distribution of funds to the
institutions or consortia . . . that have the highest numbers of economically
disadvantaged individuals.”
The Senate postsecondary and adult formula (Section 132) would differ from
the House bill (and from current law) mainly in that the minimum grant would be
$65,000, which could be waived due to location in a rural, sparsely populated area.
The Senate bill would continue to provide the Secretary with authority to approve
alternative postsecondary formulas.
The main change in the formula for distributing postsecondary vocational funds
to eligible institutions would be the reduction of the minimum grant from $50,000
to $35,000 in the House bill and an increase of the minimum grant to $65,000 in the
Senate bill.
The Senate bill (Section 135) would permit an LEA and a postsecondary
institution to form a consortium as long as the sum of their grants was at least
$65,000. The House bill states more generally that there is nothing in the Act that
would prohibit an LEA and a postsecondary institution from working together.
2 7 The House bill has no definition of charter schools. In general, “charter schools are a
relatively new type of public school that is released from many of the forms of regulation
that normally apply to public schools, in return for increased accountability in terms of
outcomes for pupils.” CRS Report 97-519, Charter Schools: State Developments and
Federal Policy Options, by Wayne Riddle, James Stedman, and Steven Aleman, p. 1.

CRS-15
State Governance. The current Perkins Act (Section 111) requires states to
designate or create a state board of vocational education to oversee the program.
Among its duties, the state board is to consult with the various individuals, groups,
and agencies that are involved in the planning and implementation of vocational
education programs. States must also designate a “sex equity coordinator” to oversee
sex equity provisions and programs. Current law also requires that a state’s plans
must be reviewed by the “sex equity coordinator” and individuals at the state level
responsible for IDEA, Title I, and bilingual education to assess compliance with
guarantees for members of those “special populations.” Section 112 requires states
to establish a state council on vocational education, which is to be consulted on the
development of the state plan and is to evaluate vocational education in the state.28
The House bill (Section 111) would retain the requirement to designate or
create a state board to oversee the program. With regard to the board’s consultative
role, the House bill would add the Governor to the list of individual, groups, and
agencies to be consulted on vocational education programs. The bill would remove
the requirement for the “sex equity coordinator” and for plan review by various state
special program administrators. Finally, the House bill would repeal the requirement
for a state council.
The Senate bill would make the “eligible agency” in each state responsible for
administering activities authorized by the bill. This agency is defined as “the sole
entity or agency in a state . . . responsible for administering or supervising policy for
vocational education . . . consistent with the law of the state” (Section 2(11)). The
Senate bill would require the eligible agency to develop the state plan with
representatives of secondary and postsecondary institutions; with representatives of
parents; with representatives of various population, such as students with
disabilities;.with representatives of businesses; and through consultation with the
Governor. The Senate bill would also repeal the state council.
The House bill would keep the overall state governance structure by recognizing
that states differ regarding which state entities have authority over vocational
education. Thus the House bill would leave to states (as does current law) the
designation of which state entity would serve as the “state board of vocational
education” to oversee the program. The major changes the House bill would make
to state governance would be the elimination of the “sex equity coordinator”and the
plan review roles of various state administrators. Under current law, the role of the
coordinator is intended to help improve gender equity in vocational education. The
plan review role for special program administrators is intended to help ensure that
“special populations” participate in vocational education and that their needs are met.
The repeal of the state councils is a formal recognition of their elimination through
the appropriations process beginning in FY1996. The approach in the Senate bill
differs from the House bill and current law but still recognizes that governance
structures for vocational education differ from state to state. Funding for oversight
of sex-equity activities would still be required.

28 State councils are no longer funded, and appropriations language stipulates that states are
no longer required to operate such councils.

CRS-16
State Planning/Application Process. The current Perkins Act (Section 113)
requires states desiring to receive funds under the Act to submit a state plan to the
Secretary of Education. The initial plan was for 3 years; subsequent plans are for 2-
year periods. The state plan details how the state proposes to meet the requirements
of the Act. Perhaps most notable are the extensive assurances of equal access to
vocational education for members of “special populations.”29
The state plan is submitted to the Secretary (Section 114), who must approve the
plan within 60 days if it “meets the requirements of Section 113 [the state plan
section] and is of sufficient quality to meet the objectives of this Act . . . and [the
Secretary] shall subsequently take appropriate actions to monitor the state’s
compliance with the provisions of its plan and the requirements of this Act on a
regular basis.”
The House bill (Section 112) would require a state application, rather than a
state plan, to be submitted to the Secretary of Education. The application would
cover, at a minimum, a 5-year period. The application would detail how the state
would propose to achieve various objectives and requirements. For example, states
would describe how the use of technology would be expanded; how parents, teachers,
business, and employee representatives would be involved in planning,
implementing, and evaluating vocation-technical education programs; and how
academic and vocational components of vocational-technical education programs
would be improved. With respect to “special populations,” the states woul
30
d
describe how programs would “lead to high skill, high wage careers for members of
special populations . . . and ensure that members of special populations meet state
benchmarks . . . and are prepared for postsecondary education, further learning, and
high skill, high wage careers.” The Secretary (Section 113(c)) would be required to
approve the state application, within 90 days, unless he or she determined “that the
application is in violation of the provisions of this Act.”
The Senate bill (Section 124) would require eligible agencies to submit a state
plan to the Secretary every 3 years with annual revisions as necessary. The pla
31
n
would include, for example, activities designed to achieve required state performance
measures (such as student achievement of academic, job readiness, and vocational
skills); a description of how parental involvement would be encouraged; a
29 Section 118 of the Act details “criteria for services and activities for individuals who are
members of special populations.”

30 The definitions of “special populations” in current law and in the House bill differ in some
respects (as indicated by the bold text). The current-law definition includes individuals with
handicaps, educationally and economically disadvantaged individuals (including foster
children), individuals of limited English proficiency, individuals who participate in
programs designed to eliminate sex bias, and individuals in correctional institutions.
The House bill definition includes individuals with disabilities, economically disadvantaged
individuals, individuals of limited English proficiency, and individuals participating in
nontraditional training and employment.
3 1 Title V of the Senate bill would permit states to develop a unified plan covering one or
more programs authorized in the bill (e.g., training or vocational education) and one or more
other programs listed in the bill (e.g., title V of the Older Americans Act).

CRS-17
description of how business and labor involvement would be encouraged; a
description of the use of funds to promote gender equity; a description of how
technology would be used and expanded; and a description of programs for
populations including:
! students from low-income families,
! individuals with disabilities,
! single parents and displaced homemakers, and
! individuals with other barriers to educational achievement, including
individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP).32
The plan would detail how equal access to vocational education would be provided
for these populations and how discrimination against these populations would be
avoided.33
In addition, the Senate bill would require that the state plan contain a description
of how duplication would be avoided and how coordination among programs
authorized in the Act and related training programs would be ensured. The
vocational education state plan would also have to provide information on how
services for postsecondary students and for school dropouts would be accessible
through the one-stop system authorized in Title III, what contribution would be made
to funding for the one-stop system, and how the state would assist in developing
agreements among local “one-stop partners” for the operation of the one-stop
system. The Secretary would be required to approve the plan if it met pla
34
n
requirements and if performance measures and levels were “sufficiently rigorous to
meet the purpose of this title.”
The House bill would require states to submit an application to the Secretary of
Education. The application would differ in several respects from the currently
required state plan to reflect different emphases in The House bill and in the current
Perkins Act. For example, the state application would detail how states would
bolster technology, involve parents and business, and improve academic and
vocational components. The House bill would reduce the number of currently
required assurances regarding “special populations.” Finally, the Secretary’s ability
to approve and disapprove applications and to monitor the program apparently would
be limited.
3 2 The Senate bill does not contain a definition of “special populations.” This list would
appear to be populations to be given special consideration.
3 3 Section 134(b)(4) of the Senate bill would have similar requirements for local
applications.
3 4 The Senate bill has a number of other requirements aimed at promoting coordination
among and avoiding duplication with education and training programs. For example, the
eligible agency would be represented in the statewide partnership. This partnership, which
would be led by the Governor and is described in Title III of the Act, would develop the
state’s workforce plan, advise the Governor on the development of the statewide workforce
investment systems, and assist in monitoring and improving these systems, among other
functions.

CRS-18
The Senate bill state plan would appear to place somewhat more emphasis than
the House bill on services to special populations by requiring the eligible agency to
describe the development of strategies to serve these populations. The Senate bill
also appears to have more extensive requirements concerning coordinating vocational
education programs with adult education and workforce development programs
authorized in Titles II and III of the Act.
Performance Appraisal. The current Perkins Act (Section 115) requires each
state board to “develop and implement a statewide system of core standards and
measures of performance for secondary and postsecondary vocational education
programs.” Each system must include “measures of learning and competency gains”
and measures of at least one of the following:
! competency attainment;
! job or work skill attainment;
! retention in or completion of secondary school; and
! placement in additional training or education.
Current law also requires each secondary, postsecondary, and adult program that
receives Perkins funds to conduct annual evaluations of their program’s effectiveness
using the standards and measures required in Section 115. Recipients failing to meet
these standards and measures must develop a local improvement plan. If “sufficient
progress” is not shown, a joint state and local plan for improvement is required.
The House bill (Section 114) would require states to identify in their
applications “proposed quantifiable benchmarks” to measure statewide progress,35
including measures of:
! challenging state academic proficiencies,
! high school diploma or equivalent attainment, and
! placement, retention, and completion rates in further training or placement and
retention in the military, employment, or apprenticeship programs.
Section 114(b) would require states that fail to meet their benchmarks to
develop a program improvement plan. The Secretary would be authorized to reduce
or withhold all or a portion of a state’s funding if it failed to meet its benchmarks and
did not submit an improvement plan. States would be required to report annually to
the Secretary on their performance. The report “shall include a description of how
special populations participating in vocational-technical education programs have
met the . . . benchmarks.” The Secretary and the states would be required to make
information from state reports widely available.
The Senate bill (Section 112) would require the Secretary, after consulting with
various interested parties, to publish performance measures to assess state and local
progress with regard to:
35 Alternatively, states could use performance indicators or benchmarks already developed.

CRS-19
! Student attainment of academic skills;
! Student attainment of job readiness skills;
! Student attainment of vocational skill proficiencies;
! Receipt of postsecondary degrees or certificates;
! Secondary school retention and completion; postsecondary entry, retention,
and completion; and entry and retention in employment and in the military;
and
! Participation in and completion of vocational education programs that lead to
“nontraditional” employment.
Through the state plan approval process, eligible agencies would establish levels of
performance with the Secretary. The Secretary would be required (Section 162(d))
to withhold state funds if an eligible agency is found “not making sufficient progress”
based on the performance measures and levels of performance. Eligible agencies
would be required to assess the performance of LEAs and eligible postsecondary
institutions based on these standards. Poor performing LEAs and postsecondary
institutions would be required to enter into improvement plans and continue to
evaluate their performance.
Beginning in FY2001, the Senate bill would authorize the Secretary of
Education to make incentive grants to states that exceed performance measures
established under the Act. Incentive grant funds would be used “to carry out
innovative vocational education, adult education, and workforce investment
programs as determined by the state.”
Although the House bill refers to benchmarks rather than standards and
measures, the major difference between the bill and current law would appear to be
that the bill provides the Secretary of Education with authority to withhold funding;
current law only requires the development and implementation of improvement
plans. The Senate bill performance measures would differ from the House bill
benchmarks and standards and measures under current law in that the Secretary
(rather than the states) would develop these measures. Finally, the Senate bill would
authorize the Secretary to provide incentive grants to states that exceed performance
measures established in the Act. Neither current law nor the House bill authorize
such grants.
Uses of State Funds. The current Perkins Act (Section 210(b)), the House
bill (Section 201(b)), and the Senate bill (Section 123) all specify certain required
uses of state “leadership” funds as shown in Table 3. All three require states to use
funds for professional development of teachers and other personnel; and all three

CRS-20
require states to conduct program assessment or evaluation. While current law and
the House bill have four required uses, the Senate bill has more than twice that
36
36 The House bill would prohibit any of these funds from being used for administration. In
addition, the House bill would prohibit use of any funds provided under the Act for
programs for students below the 7 grade
th
, except for purchase of equipment or facilities.

CRS-21
Table 3. Required uses of state “leadership” funding
(similar uses are in bold)
Current Law
The House Bill
The Senate Bill
(8.5% of state grant)
(8% of state grant)
(14% of state grant)
! provide professional
! provide professional
! provide professional
development,
development
development,
! assess programs,
! provide program
! monitor and evaluate
assessment,
supported activities ,
! develop and disseminate
! improve and expand the use
! develop and disseminating
curriculum, and
of technology, and
curriculum,
! develop standards and
! strengthen academic
! promote gender equity in
measures.
component of vocational-
vocational education,
technical education.
! support tech-prep,
! improve and expand use of
technology,
! support partnerships among
local providers of vocational
education and others, such as
employers and labor
organizations, and
! serve individuals in
correctional institutions.

CRS-22
number (presumably because the Senate bill has included as required uses some
activities that currently have set-asides, namely, supporting gender equity and serving
individuals in correctional institutions). In addition, the Senate bill requires states
to spend funds on tech-prep programs, which is permitted but not required under
current law and under the House bill.
In addition to required uses, current law and the two bills list various permitted
uses of state funds. For example, current law and the two bills permit use of state
funds to support vocational student organizations. In addition, current law and the
House bill have permitted uses that the Senate bill would require, such as support for
tech-prep and for promoting partnerships with business. Overall, the House bill lists
11 programs and activities, more than twice the number of either the current Perkins
Act or the Senate bill. One reason for this length is that the House bill includes some
permitted activities that have set asides under current law and that would be required
by the Senate bill, such as programs for corrections education. In addition, th
37
e
House bill has permitted uses that current law and the Senate bill do not include,
perhaps most notably support for vocational charter schools.
Uses of Local Funds. As with uses of state funds, the current Perkins Act
(Section 235), the House bill (Section 225), and the Senate bill (Section 133)
specify certain required uses of local funds as shown in Table 4. Current law requires
that local funds be used for vocational education programs with certain
characteristics, namely those of sufficient size, scope, and quality to be effective;
those that integrate academic and vocational education; and those that provide
equitable participation for members of special populations.
The Senate bill has three similar requirements. In addition, the Senate bill has
a general requirement to use funds for quality vocational education. Finally the
Senate bill has other required uses, such as linking secondary and postsecondary
vocational education (for example, supporting tech-prep programs) that are
permitted, but not required, under current law.
The House bill has no “size, scope, and quality” requirement for use of funds.38
Although it requires funds to be used for strengthening academic and technical skills
and for strengthening the academic component of vocational-technical education, it
apparently would not require funds to be used explicitly to integrate academic and
vocational education. Regarding “special populations,” the House bill would require
local assessment of how well needs of these groups were being met and how their
performance compares to benchmarks rather than requiring the explicit use for funds
to provide equitable participation or access of these students. The House bill would
3 7 Programs for corrections education apparently would be both a required use of state
leadership funds and a set-aside of 1%.

38 The House bill would require that local applications for funds include assurances that the
program to be provided “is of such size, scope, and quality as to bring about improvement
in the quality of vocational-technical education programs.”

CRS-23
Table 4. Required Uses of Local Funding
(similar uses in bold)
Current Law
The House Bill
The Senate Bill
local recipients must use funds for
general requirement: “improve
! initiate/improve/expand/
vocational education programs that:
vocational-technical education
modernize quality voc. ed.
programs;” specifically required
programs
!
are of sufficient size,
uses:
scope, and quality to be
! provide services and
effective,
activities that are of
sufficient size, scope, and
!
integrate academic and
quality to be effective,
vocational education, and
! integrate academic and
vocational education for
!
provide equitable
vocational students,
participation for
! provide programs that
members of “special
provide access to quality
populations.”
vocational education,
including members of
special populations,
! promote gender equity,
! develop, improve, and
! improve and expand the use
expand the use of
of technology,
technology;
! provide professional
! provide professional
development activities,
development;
! link secondary and
! strengthen voc.-technical
postsecondary vocational
students’ academic and
education, and
technical skills; and strengthen
! develop and implement
academic component of voc.-
performance management
technical education programs;
systems and evaluations.
and
! assess programs, including
whether needs of “special
populations” are met, and how
performance of these pops.
compare to state benchmarks.

CRS-24

CRS-25
require local uses not required in current law, such as developing, improving, and
expanding the use of technology and providing professional development. I
39
n
addition, current law, the House bill, and the Senate bill all have lists of permitted
uses of local funds, with some overlapping uses. Finally, the Senate bill woul
40
d
prohibit funds provided by the Act from being spent for activities authorized by the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act; the House bill does not mention that Act or
school-to-work in general.
Tech-Prep. As mentioned previously, a major change resulting from the 1990
reauthorization of the Perkins Act was the authorization of the tech-prep program.
Funding for the program has grown to $103 million—a 62.4% increase over its
funding in FY1991. The House bill would maintain a separately authorized tech-
prep program, which would be authorized to receive 10% of appropriated funds for
the Act under Section 3(a). For FY1998, this would be $130 million (10% of the
$1.3 billion FY1998 authorization). Specifics of the program would be similar to
current law. The Senate bill would also continue a separately authorized tech-prep
program similar to current law with an unspecified authorization level. The Senate
bill also would authorize a demonstration tech-prep program to locate secondary
schools at community colleges.
Program Elimination. Except for tech-prep and funding for tribally controlled
postsecondary vocational institutions, the House bill would repeal all the “special
programs” authorized under Title III of the current Perkins Act, which are:
! Support for programs conducted by community-based organizations*;
! Consumer and Homemaking Education*;
! Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Programs;
! Business-Labor-Education Partnership for Training;
! Supplementary State Grants for Facilities and Equipment*;
! Community Education Employment Centers; and
! Vocational Education Lighthouse Schools.
None of these programs are currently funded. Only those programs marked with an
asterisk (*) have ever received funding. The Senate bill, by repealing the Perkins
Act, would also eliminate these programs.41
National Programs. The current Perkins Act authorizes national programs in
the following categories:
39 These two uses would also be required by the Senate bill.

40 Current law limits use of local funds for administrative costs to 5%. The House bill would
limit use of funds for administrative costs to not more than 2%. The Senate bill apparently
would not place a limit on use of local funds for administrative costs.

41 In addition, the House bill would have repealed the Smith-Hughes Act. Originally enacted
in 1917, the permanent appropriations under this Act ( recently $7.1 million per year) have
been combined with the Perkins Act funds for nearly 30 years. The repeal provision in the
House bill is no longer needed because the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33)
repealed the Smith-Hughes Act.

CRS-26
! Research and development, which includes authorization for a national
assessment of vocational education programs and a national center or centers
for research in vocational education;
! Demonstration programs, for example, materials development for
telecommunication and programs for dislocated workers;
! Vocational education and occupational information data systems, which
include national and state occupational information coordinating committees
(NOICC and SOICC); and
42
! Bilingual vocational training, which authorizes programs such as training for
bilingual vocational instructors and research on bilingual vocational
education.
As Table 1 indicates, research is the only national program receiving funding
in FY1998. Funding for the NOICC and SOICCs comes through the U.S.
Department of Labor only.
The House bill would:
! Require the Secretary of Education to develop a single plan for evaluation,
assessment, research, demonstration, and dissemination;
! Authorize a national assessment of vocational education;
! Require the Secretary to collect and disseminate information on states’
benchmark efforts;
! Authorize a national center or centers for research on vocational education;
! Authorize the Secretary to carry out demonstrations and dissemination;
! Reauthorize provisions for data systems; and
! Repeal bilingual vocational education.
In all cases, the House bill authorizes “such sums as may be necessary” to carry out
these programs and activities.
The Senate bill would permit the Secretary (directly or through grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements) to conduct “research, development,
dissemination, evaluation, capacity-building, and technical assistance.” The bill
would require a national assessment of vocational education, permit the Secretary to
establish one or more national research centers on vocational education, and require
the Secretary to maintain data systems. By repealing the current Perkins Act and
4 2 For a discussion of NOICC and SOICCs, see CRS report 97-964, Labor Marker
Information: An Overview, by Linda Levine.

CRS-27
remaining silent on the NOICC and SOICC’s, the Senate bill would eliminate
specific authority for these committees in the Perkins Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 1803 (Clay, by request)/S. 993 (Kennedy, by request)
Carl D. Perkins Career Preparation Education Act is the Administration’s
proposal for amending and reauthorizing the Perkins Act. Introduced and referred
to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on June 5, 1997.
Introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources on
July 8, 1997. As used in the Act, Career Preparation Education is meant to support
state school-to-work systems. Priorities under the Act would include ensuring that
all students, including members of special populations, have “the opportunity to
achieve a combination of strong basic and advanced academic skills;” promoting the
integration of academic and vocational education; supporting links between
secondary and postsecondary education (including a separately authorized tech-prep
program); providing students with work-related experiences; and ensuring employer
involvement in designing and implementing the program.
H.R. 1853 (Riggs)
Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments of 1997.
Introduced June 10, 1997; House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and
Families considered, marked-up, and referred to the House Education and the
Workforce Committee June 12, 1997 by voice vote; ordered reported (amended) by
the Education and the Workforce Committee June 25, 1997, by a vote of 20 to 18
(H.Rept. 105-177). Passed House July 22, 1997, by a vote of 414 to 12.
H.R. 1385 (DeWine, Jeffords, Kennedy, and Wellstone)
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1997
(Title I of the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1997). Introduced Sept. 17,
1997; Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources marked-up and ordered
reported (amended) by voice vote, September 24, 1997 (S. Rept. 105-109); passed
Senate as H.R. 1385 in lieu of S. 1186 by a vote of 91 to 7 on May 5, 1998.

CRS-28
Appendix A: Authorizations and Reservations of Funds
Table A-1 summaries authorizations of appropriations and reservations of funds
for various programs and activities under current law and under the House bill and
43
the Senate bill. For comparison, the table also shows FY1998 appropriations for
various Perkins programs and activities.
Current law originally authorized a total of $1.6 billion for the Perkins Act
(row 12) and specifies amounts to be taken from the total appropriations for “special
programs” (rows 6-11), such as tech-prep. After subtracting these specified amounts
from the $1.6 billion, specified percentages are applied to the remainder to determine
amounts for basic state grants (row 1), territorial grants (row 2), programs for Indian
and Hawaiian natives (row 3), and national programs (row 4).
The column containing FY1998 appropriations shows that these percentages
have been applied for the territorial grants and Indian and Hawaiian Natives
programs. However, funding for national programs is about 1.3% rather than 2.5%
of the specified subtotal and basic state grants at 96.7% rather than 95.8%.
The House bill authorizes $1.3 billion for the Perkins Act for FY1998 and
“such sums” for the next 4 fiscal years (FY1999-FY2002). In addition, the bill
separately authorizes aid to tribally controlled postsecondary vocational-technical
institutions ($4 million for FY1998 and “such sums” thereafter) and for national
programs (“such sums”). Unlike current law and the Senate bill, the House bill
provides for a percentage (10%) of the total authorization (not including separately
authorized amounts) for tech-prep. In addition, although the percentages for
territorial grants and for Indian and Hawaiian native programs are the same as current
law, these percentages are taken from the total authorization (including tech-prep) in
the House bill. In current law, tech-prep is excluded from the base amount used to
determine these grants.
The Senate bill separately authorizes tech-prep at “such sums” and the
remainder of the bill’s programs and activities at “such sums”for FY1999-FY2004.
Percentages are specified for territorial grants, Indian and Hawaiian native programs,
programs for tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions, national
programs, and incentive grants. Beginning in FY2001, the Senate bill would lower
the percentage for national programs (which is 2.5% in current law and 1.3% in
appropriations) to 0.65% and add 0.65% for incentive grants. Like current law but
unlike the House bill, these percentages are based on a total that does not include the
tech-prep authorization, which has a separate authorization of “such sums.”
Because current law and the two bills apply percentages to different base
amounts to authorize appropriations for various programs and activities, it is difficult
to compare authorizations in the two bills to current law. Table A-2 aims to make
such comparisons easier by recalculating percentages based on total FY1998
4 3 Authorizations under current law are for FY1991. Current law authorizes “such sums”
for FY1992-FY1995.

CRS-29
Table A-1. Authorizations and Reservations of Funds Under the Perkins Act, the
House Bill, and the Senate Bill
FY1991
Authorizations
(last year for
which
The House Bill
The Senate Bill
Program/
authorizations
FY1998
(as passed)
(as passed)
Row
Activity
were specified)
Appropriation
Authorizations
Authorizations
95.8% of
Row 12 minus
Row 12 minus
Basic state
(row 12 minus
(rows
(rows 2-5, 7, and
1
grant
rows 6-11)
$1,009,852,000
2, 3, 4, 7, & 9)
row 9)
0.2% of (row 12
minus
0.2% of (row 12
0.2% of row 12
2
Territories
rows 6-11)
2,082,000
minus rows 4 & 9)
minus row 7
1.5% of (row 12
Indians &
minus
1.5% of (row 12
1.5% of row 12
3
Hawaiians
rows 6-11)
15,616,000
minus rows 4 & 9)
minus row 7
2.5% of (row 12
separate
National
minus
authorization of
0.65% of row 12
4
programs
rows 6-11)
13,497,000
such sums
minus row 7
Incentive
grants
0.65% of row 12
5
(FY2001-5)
na
na
na
minus row 7
State
6
councils
9,000,000
0
na
na
separate
authorization of
such sums plus
$25 million for
10% of (row 12
demonstration
7
Tech-prep
125,000,000
103,000,000
minus rows 4 & 9)
program
Other
“special”
8
programs
193,500,000
0
na
na
Tribally
controlled
4,000,000
postsec.
(separately
0.30% of row 12
9
voc. inst.
4,000,000
3,100,000
authorized)
minus row 7
Other
national
program
(other
10
research)
3,000,000
0
na
na
Bilingual
11
voc. ed.
10,000,000
0
na
na
$1,304,000,000
such sums + $25
12
Total
$1,603,000,000
$1,147,147,000
plus row 4
million
“na” means not applicable.

CRS-30
Table A-2. Comparison of Shares of FY1998 Appropriation for Perkins Act for Current Law, H.R. 1853, and
S. 1186
Current law
House Bill Senate Bill
FY 1998
House Bill
Senate Bill
vs.
vs.
Current
Current
Amount
Percent of Percent of
Percent of
Law (%
Law (%
Program/Activity
($000)
Total
Total
Total
pt. diff.)
pt. diff.)
Basic state grant
$1,009,852
88.03%
86.95%
88.06%
-1.08%
0.03%
Territorial set-aside
2,082

0.18%
0.20%
0.18%
0.02%
0.00%
Indian and Hawaiian set-aside
15,616

1.36%
1.48%
1.37%
0.12%
0.00%
National programs
13,497

1.18%
1.18% *
0.59%
0.00%
-0.58%
Incentive grants (FY2001-2005)
na
na
na
0.59%
0.00%
0.59%
Tech-prep
103,000

8.98%
9.85%
8.98% *
0.87%
0.00%
Tribally controlled postsec. voc. inst.
3,100

0.27%
0.35%
0.23%
0.08%
-0.04%
Total
$1,147,147
100.00% 100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
*separately authorized such sums; assumes same % as current appropriations
na = not applicable
appropriations for the Perkins Act. For programs for which the bills provide separate
but unspecified amounts (for national programs in the House bill, for tech-prep in the
Senate bill), the current perce
44
ntage of the total appropriation is assumed. Specified
percentages in the two bills are applied to subtotals of the FY1998 appropriations.
For the House bill, this is the total appropriation minus the specified authorization
for tribally controlled postsecondary vocational-technical institutions and the
assumed amount for national programs. For the Senate bill, this is the total
appropriation minus the assumed amount for tech-prep. These amounts are then
divided by the total FY1998 appropriations. These calculations produce percentages
that are usually somewhat different from those specified in the bills. For example,
the Senate bill specifies a percentage of 0.65% for incentive grants, but this is based
on a subtotal of funding that does not include tech-prep. Thus the estimated
percentage of the overall appropriations for incentive grants is 0.59%.
The last two columns of Table A-2 compare the bills to percentage allocations
under current appropriations. The main conclusion is that percentage allocations
differ very little. The House bill would allocate slightly less to basic state
grants—mainly because it would allocate more to tech-prep. The allocations under
the Senate bill are virtually the same as those under the FY1998 appropriations for
the Perkins Act. The major exception is that funding for national programs would
be lower because the Senate bill would lower this amount to provide incentive grants.
4 4 The $25 million authorized for a tech-prep demonstration is not reflected in the table
under the assumption that appropriations under the new act would be the same as under
current law.