Vocational Education Reauthorization: Comparison and Analysis of Selected Provisions of S. 250 as Passed by the House and Senate

Vocational Education Reauthorization: Comparison and Analysis of Selected Provisions of S. 250 as Passed by the House and Senate

Order Code RL32962
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Vocational Education Reauthorization:
Comparison and Analysis of Selected Provisions
of S. 250 as Passed by the House and Senate
Updated July 21, 2006
Rebecca R. Skinner and Richard N. Apling
Specialists in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Vocational Education Reauthorization:
Comparison and Analysis of Selected Provisions
of S. 250 as Passed by the House and Senate
Summary
The federal government currently provides support for vocational and technical
education through the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998 (P.L. 105-332). (For more information about these acts, see CRS Report
RL31747, The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998:
Background and Implementation.) The Perkins Act authorized funding for
vocational and technical education through FY2003, although the Congress continues
to provide funding under the act. The 109th Congress has acted to reauthorize the
Perkins Act. On July 20, 2006, the Conference Committee agreed by voice vote to
file a conference report for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education
Improvement Act of 2006 (S. 250). No legislative language is currently available for
the bill, as the Conference Committee considered recommendations for the
agreement rather than statutory language.
While both the House bill (originally passed as H.R. 366, and subsequently
passed as S. 250 (House)) and Senate bill (S. 250 (Senate)) would retain much of
current law, both bills would make substantial changes to current legislation. Some
of the key changes include:
! The Senate bill would change the term “vocational and technical
education” to “career and technical education”;
! The House bill would eliminate a separate Tech-Prep program and
combine funding for the Basic State Grants program and Tech-Prep
program into a single state grant;
! The Senate bill would change the current funding formula for state
allotments to help all states reach a minimum grant of 0.5% of total
state funding;
! The House bill would require at least 88% of state funds to be
provided to local recipients, while the Senate bill would continue to
require at least 85% of state funds be provided to local recipients;
! The House bill would reduce the state set aside for administration
from 5% to 2%;
! The House bill would establish five core indicators of performance
at the secondary level and four core indicators of performance at the
postsecondary level, while the Senate bill would establish five core
indicators of performance at each level;
! Both bills would include accountability requirements for eligible
agencies and eligible recipients;
! Under both bills, eligible recipients could face sanctions for failing
to meet local adjusted levels of performance that could include a loss
of funding; and
! The House bill would reduce the percentage of funds set aside for
the outlying areas from 0.20% to 0.12%.
This report will not be updated.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Vocational and Technical Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Career and Technical Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Tech-Prep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Career Pathway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Eligible Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Nontraditional Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Articulation Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Community College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Special Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Outlying Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Changes Related to Other Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authorizations and Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authorization of Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Reservation of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Assistance for Outlying Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Native American Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
State Allotment Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Within-State Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Tech-Prep Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
National Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Occupational and Employment Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Accountability Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Core Indicators of Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Core Indicators of Performance for the Secondary Level . . . . . . . . . . 20
Core Indicators of Performance for the Postsecondary Level . . . . . . . 23
State-Adjusted Levels of Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Local Levels of Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Data Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Funding for Meeting Accountability Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
State Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
State Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Model Sequences of Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Career Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Tech-Prep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
State and Local Improvement Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
State Improvement Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Local Improvement Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Local Plans and Uses of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Local Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Local Uses of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Required Uses of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Permissible Uses of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of Proposed Changes That Would Be Made
by S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Reservations and Proposed Reservations Under
Current Law, S. 250 (Senate), and S. 250 (House) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3. Comparison of FY2006 Estimated Total State Grants
Under S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) and FY2005
Estimated State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4. Distribution of Basic State Grants Within States
Under Current Law, S. 250 (House), and S. 250 (Senate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Table 5. Comparison of Vocational Education Accountability Provisions
Contained in Current Law, S. 250 (House), and S. 250 (Senate) . . . . . . . . 21

Vocational Education Reauthorization:
Comparison and Analysis of
Selected Provisions of S. 250
as Passed by the House and Senate
Introduction
The federal government currently provides support for vocational and technical
education through the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of
1998 (P.L. 105-332).1 The act authorized funding for vocational and technical
education through FY2003, although the Congress continues to provide funding
under the act. The 109th Congress has acted to reauthorize the Perkins Act.
On January 26, 2005, H.R. 366 (the Vocational and Technical Education for the
Future Act) was introduced in the House. It was subsequently referred to the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce. On March 9, 2005, the full committee
ordered the bill to be reported. On May 5, 2005, the House approved H.R. 366, as
amended, by a vote of 416-9.2 Three amendments were considered and adopted
during deliberation of the bill on the House floor. The amendments made changes
to the amount of funds that could be used for tech-prep activities, added a new
provision allowing local funds to be used to support transitions from sub-
baccalaureate education to baccalaureate education, and added a new provision
allowing local funds to be used to provide training for automotive technicians in
alternative fuel automotive technologies.3
On February 1, 2005, S. 250 (the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Improvement Act of 2005) was introduced in the Senate. It was
subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions. On March 9, 2005, the full committee ordered the bill to be reported. On
March 10, 2005, S. 250, as amended, was approved by the Senate by a vote of 99-0.4
No amendments were considered.
1 For more information about the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
of 1998, see CRS Report RL31747, The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act of 1998: Background and Implementation, by Rebecca R. Skinner and
Richard N. Apling. (Hereafter cited as CRS Report RL31747.)
2 For more information, see Roll Call Vote No. 154, at [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/
2005/roll154.xml].
3 For more information, see H.Amdt. 104, H.Amdt. 105, and H.Amdt. 106.
4 For more information, see Roll Call Vote No. 43., at [http://www.senate.gov/legislative/
LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00043].

CRS-2
On July 12, 2006, the House substituted the provisions of H.R. 366 for S. 250
and passed S. 250 (referred to as S. 250 (House)) without objection. Subsequently,
on July 20, 2006, the Conference Committee agreed by voice vote to file a
conference report for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education
Improvement Act of 2006 (S. 250). No legislative language is currently available for
the bill, as the Conference Committee considered recommendations for the
agreement rather than statutory language.
This report analyzes selected changes that S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate)
would make to current law and key differences between the bills. It begins with an
examination of changes to relevant definitions made by both bills. This is followed
by a detailed analysis of changes to funding formulas — both state allotments and
within state allocations. The next section of the report considers changes that would
be made to the Tech-Prep program, particularly by S. 250 (House). Following this
discussion, the report analyzes accountability requirements in both bills, including
changes to the core indicators of performance and data reporting. The report
concludes with an examination of state and local plans and uses of funds.
Table 1 provides a general comparison of some of the key changes to current
law that would be made by S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate). Each of these
changes is discussed in detail in a subsequent section of this report.
Purpose of the Act
The House and the Senate bill would make several modifications to the current
wording of the purpose of the act, such as including as one of the purposes of the act
to integrate “rigorous and challenging” (S. 250 (House)) or “challenging” (S. 250
(Senate)) academic, vocational, and technical instruction. The Senate bill would also
add three new provisions to the purpose of the act focused on professional
development, partnerships, and the development of a highly skilled workforce.
Definitions
Both the House and Senate made changes to the definitions section (§3). This
section discusses some of the key changes made by each bill and their related
implications.

CRS-3
Table 1. Overview of Proposed Changes That Would Be Made by S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate)
Current law provisions (P.L. 105-332)
House bill (S. 250 (House))
Senate bill (S. 250 (Senate))
Refers to “vocational and technical education.”
Same as current law.
Would replace “vocational and technical education” with
“career and technical education.”
Specifies set asides for outlying areas, Indian programs,
Would reduce the percentage of funds set aside for
Same as current law.
Native Hawaiian programs, and incentive grants.
outlying areas from 0.20% to 0.12%.
Includes specific formula for state allotments for the Basic
Would maintain current formula but would combine
Would provide all states with a hold harmless grant at the
State Grants program and Tech-Prep program. Set asides
funding from Basic State Grants program and Tech-Prep
FY2005 level, while distributing all funds in excess of the
only apply to funds for the Basic State Grants program.
program into a single grant, subjecting what would be
FY2005 level (i.e., new money) to states that would not
considered Tech-Prep funding under current law to set-
otherwise receive 0.5% of the total funds available to
asides.
states. Once all states reach at least 0.5%, new money
would be distributed across the states.
Authorizes a separate Tech-Prep program.
Would eliminate a separate Tech-Prep program.
Same as current law.
Division of state allotment: At least 85% to local
Division of state allotment: At least 88% to local
Same as current law.
recipients, up to 10% for state leadership activities, and up
recipients, up to 10% for state leadership activities, and up
to 5% for state administration.
to 2% for state administration.
Establishes a performance accountability system based on
Would establish five core indicators for the secondary
Would establish five core indicators at the secondary level,
four core indicators that are identical for the secondary
level, and four core indicators for the postsecondary level.
and five core indicators at the postsecondary level.
and postsecondary levels. Only includes performance
Includes performance accountability requirements for
Includes performance accountability requirements for
accountability requirements for eligible agencies.
eligible agencies and eligible recipients.
eligible agencies and eligible recipients.
No sanctions for eligible recipients failing to meet
Would create sanctions for eligible recipients failing to
Would create sanctions for eligible recipients failing to
performance requirements.
meet performance requirements that could result in a loss
meet performance requirements that could result in a loss
of funding.
of funding.
State plans are developed for a five-year period.
Would require six-year state plans.
Would require six-year state plans.
Requires tech-prep programs to combine two years of
Would require the development of model sequences of
Same as current law and would also require the
secondary education and two years of postsecondary
courses.
development of career pathways under Basic State grants
education in a nonduplicative sequence of courses.
and the inclusion of career pathways in tech-prep
programs to the extent possible.

CRS-4
Vocational and Technical Education. S. 250 (House) would make
substantial changes to the current definition of vocational and technical education.
The most significant change would focus on what vocational and technical education
should be preparing students to do. Current law states that a sequence of vocational
and technical education courses should prepare students “for further education and
for careers (other than careers requiring a baccalaureate, master’s, or doctoral degree)
in current or emerging employment sectors.” The House bill would drop the
prohibition on preparing students for careers requiring a bachelor’s degree, which
could result in an increase in the number of four-year institutions participating in the
program.5 At the same time, however, S. 250 (House) would also specify that the
sequence of courses provided by vocational and technical education programs must
provide at the postsecondary level a one-year certificate, associate’s degree, or
industry recognized credential.6 Last, the definition would be revised to allow
students to receive the training needed to enroll in a sequence of courses. That is,
students could receive remedial coursework or training to prepare them to enroll in
their desired sequence of courses.
Career and Technical Education. Since S. 250 (Senate) would replace the
term “vocational and technical education” with “career and technical education”
throughout the bill,7 it would drop the current definition for “vocational and technical
education,” replacing it with “career and technical education.” The definition of
career and technical education would deviate from current law in at least one critical
way. Similar to the House bill, S. 250 (Senate) would lift limitations on the types of
careers for which students should be prepared. The Senate bill, however, would go
further than the House bill and eliminate the entire restriction on preparing students
for careers requiring bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. That is, students
could be prepared for careers requiring any degree level. Unlike S. 250 (House), the
Senate bill does not specify the types of awards that must result from career and
technical education at the postsecondary level, providing general requirements that
the sequence of courses lead to “technical skill proficiency, a credential, a certificate,
or a degree.” Similar to the House bill, this could result in an increase in the number
of four-year institutions participating in the program.
Tech-Prep. The House bill would drop the current definition of a tech-prep
program. This is probably due to the proposed elimination of a separate tech-prep
program in S. 250 (House). References to tech-prep, however, are made in various
places throughout the House bill. Section 135(b)(3) would define the components
of a tech-prep program under local uses of funds. For example, the components
would include the participants in a consortium that write an articulation agreement,
5 If more four-year institutions begin to participate in the program, there might be greater
overlap among institutions participating in both vocational and technical education programs
and programs authorized by the Higher Education Act.
6 Professions requiring a post-baccalaureate degree would still be excluded.
7 S. 250 (House) would continue to use the phrase “vocational and technical education.” In
instances where both the House and Senate bills would make similar changes to current law
that involve the phrases “vocational and technical education” and “career and technical
education,” respectively, this report uses the current law and House bill language in
discussing the changes.

CRS-5
program length, areas in which technical preparation must be provided, and use of
performance indicator data.
While the Senate bill would retain the definition of a tech-prep program, it
would make substantial revisions to the current definition. For example, the
proposed definition specifically includes the use of work-based and worksite learning
“where appropriate and available.” Current law addresses the strengthening of the
applied academic component. The definition in S. 250 (Senate) would no longer
specify areas in which technical preparation should take place (e.g., engineering
technology, applied science). Rather, the bill would focus on the provision of
technical preparation in a career field “including high skill, high wage, or high
demand occupations.” The current definition refers to participation in the tech-prep
program resulting in an associate’s degree, certificate, or high skill, high wage
employment. The definition in S. 250 (Senate) would require student competencies
to build in “technical skills and core academic subjects” through “applied, contextual,
and integrated instruction” which may include work-based learning. Current law
focuses on building student competencies only in mathematics, science, and
communications. It does not address how these competencies should be built. The
proposed definition would not limit degree attainment to a specific degree level.
Current law limits degree attainment to an associate’s degree. The Senate bill
definition would also require the use of career pathways “to the extent practicable.”
Career Pathway. The Senate bill, but not the House bill, would add a
definition for a “career pathway.”8 The definition would state what is expected from
the “coordinated and nonduplicative sequence of courses” that form the career
pathway. In addition to including secondary and postsecondary education
components, career pathways could also prepare students for dual or concurrent
enrollment programs to obtain postsecondary education credits. Student participation
in a career pathway would be required to result in “technical skill proficiency, an
industry-recognized credential, a certificate, a degree, or completion of a recognized
apprenticeship program.” No limits would be placed on the level of degree a student
may earn as a result of participation in a career pathway.
Eligible Institution. S. 250 (House) would change the definition of an
“eligible institution” from an “institution of higher education” to a “public or
nonprofit private institution of higher education.” S. 250 (Senate) would make a
similar change, but would require that courses provided by the institution lead to a
“technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a certificate, or a
degree.”9
8 The House bill includes the development of model sequences of courses, rather than career
pathways, but the term “model sequences of courses” is not defined in the definitions
section.
9 By specifying public or nonprofit institutions rather than “institutions of higher education,”
both bills would prevent private for-profit (proprietary) institutions from being considered
eligible institutions under this act if the definition of an institution of higher education
changed during the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to include proprietary
institutions. (See, for example, H.R. 609, §101.) It should be noted that neither bill would
(continued...)

CRS-6
Nontraditional Fields. Both bills would change “nontraditional training and
employment” to “nontraditional fields.” S. 250 (House) would add that fields of work
for which students are prepared can include current high skill occupations. The
current definition limits preparation to emerging high skill occupations. S. 250
(Senate) does not make this additional change.
Articulation Agreement. Both S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would
add a definition for “articulation agreement.”10 The House and the Senate, however,
have proposed different definitions of articulation agreement that would expand upon
current law. The House definition would specify that the articulation agreement be
established at the state level or “approved annually and facilitated by” secondary and
postsecondary consortia members. The definition would also retain a reference to
tech-prep education.11 S. 250 (Senate) would require that articulation agreements be
approved annually by a secondary and postsecondary institution or a sub-
baccalaureate degree-granting postsecondary education institution and a
baccalaureate degree-granting postsecondary education institution. Thus, under the
Senate bill, it would be possible to develop articulation agreements that do not
include representatives from the secondary level.
Community College. The Senate bill would add a definition of “community
college” to the definitions section. Currently, community college is defined under
Title II (Tech-Prep). The proposed Senate definition is identical to the existing
definition.12 The House bill does not include a definition of community colleges in
the definitions section or elsewhere in the bill.13
9 (...continued)
change the definition of a postsecondary educational institution which includes an
“institution of higher education that provides not less than a 2-year program of instruction
that is acceptable for credit toward a bachelor’s degree.” Thus, if the definition of an
institution of higher education is changed during HEA reauthorization, proprietary
institutions providing not less than a two-year program of study that is acceptable as credit
toward a bachelor’s degree would be considered postsecondary educational institutions for
the purposes of this program.
10 Articulation agreement is defined in current law under Title II (Tech-Prep).
11 Although the House bill would eliminate a separate Tech-Prep program, it would define
an articulation agreement as an agreement designed to support programs to “provide
students with a non-duplicative sequence of progressive achievements leading to degrees,
certificates, or credentials in a tech-prep education program linked through credit transfer
agreements.”
12 Proprietary institutions are not currently considered community colleges under the current
law and S. 250 (Senate) definitions of community college, as eligible institutions must be
institutions of higher education as currently defined in HEA, §101. If the definition of an
IHE changes to include proprietary institutions, as proposed by H.R. 609 §101, for example,
proprietary institutions would be considered community colleges based on the current law
and S. 250 (Senate) definitions. It should be noted, however, that under this definition, a
four-year institution offering bachelor’s degrees or higher could be considered a community
college based on the requirement that the institution provide “not less than a 2-year program
that is acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree.”
13 As previously mentioned, “community college” is defined under Title II in current law.
(continued...)

CRS-7
Special Populations. Both bills would retain the current law definition of
special populations, making only minor modifications. Special populations would
continue to include individuals with disabilities, individuals from economically
disadvantaged families, single parents, and displaced homemakers. Individuals
preparing for “nontraditional training and employment” would be replaced by
individuals preparing for “nontraditional fields” in both bills. Both bills would
modify an existing provision to eliminate “individuals with other barriers to
educational achievement,” retaining only language about individuals with limited
English proficiency. S. 250 (House) would add a separate provision for “individuals
with other barriers to educational achievement, as determined by the state” that
would not be included in S. 250 (Senate).
Outlying Areas. Both bills would drop the Republic of the Marshall Islands
and the Federated States of Micronesia from the definition of outlying areas. The
Senate bill would also drop the Republic of Palau.
Changes Related to Other Laws. Both the House and Senate bill would
add a definition based on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Senate would add one
based on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA; P.L. 105-220). S. 250
(House) would add a definition for “scientifically based research” that is aligned with
the definition used in ESEA. References to carrying out research in current law
would be modified in S. 250 (House) to focus on carrying out scientifically-based
research. S. 250 (Senate) would add a definition for “core academic subjects.” The
Senate bill would also add a definition for “local workforce investment board” that
references WIA.
Authorizations and Reservations
Authorization of Appropriations
Section 8 of the Perkins Act authorizes appropriations for the Basic State Grant
program.14 S. 250 (Senate) would continue the current-law authorization at “such
sums as may be necessary” and would update the fiscal years to which the
authorization applies to FY2006 through FY2011. S. 250 (House) would also
authorize appropriations for these fiscal years but would specify an authorization of
$1.307 billion for FY2006.15
13 (...continued)
S. 250 (House) eliminates Title II.
14 Authorizations for other programs and activities, such as national programs in §114, are
contained in those sections.
15 As mentioned previously, S. 250 (House) would repeal the Tech-Prep program. The
FY2006 authorization level in S. 250 (House) is slightly larger than the combined FY2005
appropriations for the basic state grant program and the Tech-Prep program ($1,194,331,296
+ $105,811,680 = $1,300,142,976).

CRS-8
Reservation of Funds
Section 111 of the Perkins Act specifies reservations of funds for certain
activities and specifies the state allotment formula. Table 2 shows current law
reservations and proposed reservations under the two bills. In brief, S. 250 (Senate)
would preserve current law reserves; S. 250 (House) would change only the
reservation for the outlying areas from 0.2% of the overall appropriation to 0.12%.
(The provision of funds for outlying areas is discussed below.)
Table 2. Reservations and Proposed Reservations Under
Current Law, S. 250 (Senate), and S. 250 (House)
Current law and S. 250
Reservation of funds
(Senate)
S. 250 (House)
Outlying areas
0.20%
0.12%
Indian programs
1.25%
1.25%
Native Hawaiian programs
0.25%
0.25%
Incentive grants
0.54%
0.54%
Remainder allotted to states
97.76%
97.84%
Source: Table created by CRS, June 3, 2005, based on current law, S. 250 (House), and S. 250
(Senate).
Note: S. 250 (Senate) would allow not more than 0.54% of funds to be used for incentive grants.
Current law and S. 250 (House) require 0.54% to be used for incentive grants.
Assistance for Outlying Areas
Section 115 of the Perkins Act authorizes grants to the Outlying Areas.16
H.R. 366 would increase the specified grant amounts as follows:
! For Guam, an increase from $500,000 to $660,000;
! For American Samoa, an increase from $190,000 to $350,000; and
! For Northern Mariana Islands, an increase from $190,000 to
$350,000.
In addition, a specific grant for Palau would be required of $160,000.17
Under current law, any additional funds are provided to the Pacific Regional
Educational Laboratory (PREL) for distribution to the Outlying Areas in the Pacific.
S. 250 (House) would eliminate PREL’s participation and require the Secretary to
distribute any remaining funds in equal proportions to American Samoa, Guam, and
16 For a discussion of the definition of “outlying areas,” see above.
17 Palau would no longer be eligible for Perkins funds after signing a new Compact of Free
Association.

CRS-9
the Northern Mariana Islands. S. 250 (Senate) keeps the same initial grant amounts
as under current law and would continue to have additional funds flow through the
PREL.18
Native American Programs
Sections 116 and 117 of the Perkins Act authorize funding for Native American
programs (including programs for Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians) and for
tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions. Neither S. 250 (House) nor
S. 250 (Senate) would make substantive changes to §116.
Currently two institutions receive grants under §117: United Tribes Technical
College in North Dakota and Crownpoint Institute of Technology in New Mexico.
The major changes S. 250 (House) would make to this section involve expenses and
indirect costs. The House bill would permit funds to be used “for institutional
support costs of the grant” as well as “for vocational and technical education
programs for Indian students.” The bill would also prohibit the Secretary from using
“a restricted indirect cost rate for grants issued under this section.” Finally the House
bill would eliminate the requirement for the Secretary to report on facilities needs.
(This study, which is required in current law, has been completed.) S. 250 (Senate)
would continue to require this study and would require that it be undertaken annually.
The Senate bill, like the House bill, would prohibit the use of “a restricted indirect
cost rate.” The Senate bill would provide the opportunity for tribally controlled
postsecondary vocational institutions to appeal decisions on the determination of
ineligibility for a §117 grant and on the amount of the §117 grant before an
administrative law judge. Finally, the Senate bill, but not the House bill, would
authorize $10 million to be appropriated for FY2006 and “such sums as may be
necessary” for subsequent years.
State Allotment Formula
Under current law, Basic State Grant funds19 are allotted based on states’
proportional shares of three population groups: individuals ages 15 to 19, 20 to 24,
and 25 to 65. In addition, the formula adjusts allotments based on states’ per capita
income (PCI) such that states with lower-than-average PCIs receive somewhat larger
grants and those with above average PCIs receive somewhat reduced grants. In
addition, certain minimum grant and hold harmless provisions are applied, assuming
that funds are sufficient to meet these provisions. The minimum grant provision
provides that no state shall receive a grant less than 0.5% of the overall amount
allotted to states; however, this minimum amount is limited so that no state, as a
result of the minimum grant provision, receives an allotment that is more than 150%
18 S. 250 (Senate) would appear to continue to authorize funds for the Republic of Palau
although the bill would remove it from the definition of “outlying areas.”
19 Under current law and the Senate bill, the Tech-Prep allotment provision simply cross-
references the basic state grant formula.

CRS-10
of “the national average per pupil payment”20 times the number of individuals in the
state ages 15 to 65. At current appropriation levels, the minimum grant is about 0.4%
of the total allotment. Finally, states are held harmless at their FY1998 grant level.
That is, assuming funds are sufficient, no state’s grant will be less than what it
received for FY1998.
Both the House and Senate bills would keep the basic structure of this formula
intact; however, each bill would make certain alterations. Since S. 250 (House)
would repeal the Tech-Prep program and allot funds through one state formula, it
would change the hold harmless provision from one based on Basic State Grants only
to a hold harmless based on a state’s combined allotment from the Basic State Grants
program and Tech-Prep for FY2005. The Senate bill would change the minimum
grant provision. The bill would remove current constraints on the 0.5% minimum
grant21 and provide for a 100% hold harmless based on states’ prior year grant
through FY2008. For FY2009 through FY2011, S. 250 (Senate) would provide a
hold harmless based on 95% of a state’s prior year grant. Based on CRS analysis of
estimated allotments from the U.S. Department of Education (ED), it would appear
that ED would interpret the Senate bill language as follows. Money in addition to the
amount appropriated for FY2005 (“new” money) would first be distributed to states
below the 0.5% minimum grant in proportion to how much they needed to achieve
the 0.5% minimum. In other words, states with initial grants that were further from
0.5% of the total state allotment would receive more funds than states with initial
grants that were nearly at the 0.5% of the total state allotment. Other states would
receive their hold harmless amounts until all states received at least the 0.5%
minimum grant.
Table 3 compares estimated FY2005 state allotments under current law to
estimated allotments under the two proposed formulas using the S. 250 (House)
FY2006 authorization of $1.307 billion. While the allotments for both bills were
calculated using the same amount, differences between the two bills would result in
slightly more money reaching the states under the Senate bill. In combining the
Basic State Grants with the Tech-Prep program grants, S. 250 (House) would subject
the “tech-prep portion” of those funds to set-aside requirements. Under current law
and under the Senate bill, Tech-Prep is not subject to set asides (e.g., funds for
outlying areas). S. 250 (House) would also reduce the percentage of funds going to
the outlying areas from 0.20% to 0.12%. Despite this decrease, the net effect of
combining the two Perkins programs would result in slightly more funds being used
for set-asides than would be used under current law or S. 250 (Senate). (S. 250
(Senate) would preserve the current set-aside percentages and applies them only to
the Basic State Grants program.) As a result of these differences in the two bills,
Table 3 shows $1.279 billion being allotted to states under S. 250 (House) and
$1.280 billion under S. 250 (Senate).
20 This amount is calculated by dividing the total amount allotted to states by the total U.S.
population ages 15 to 65.
21 The Senate bill would eliminate the requirement that no allotment may be more than
150% of the national average per pupil payment times the number of individuals in the state
ages 15 to 65.

CRS-11
Column 2 of Table 3 provides state FY2005 estimates for the Basic State Grants
and Tech-Prep programs combined based on data available from ED. Column 3
provides the estimated total amount of funding states would receive under S. 250
(House) at the proposed FY2006 authorization level of $1.307 billion. As previously
mentioned, S. 250 (House) would combine the Basic State Grants program and Tech-
Prep program into a single grant. Column 5 provides the estimated total amount of
funding (i.e., Basic State Grants and Tech-Prep combined) states would receive under
S. 250 (Senate) at the FY2006 authorization level proposed in S. 250 (House).
Unlike S. 250 (House), S. 250 would preserve the Basic State Grants program and
Tech-Prep as separate programs but, for comparison purposes, funding for both
programs has been combined in Column 5. Columns 4 and 6 compare funding under
S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate), respectively, with FY2005 funding. Column 7
compares estimated FY2006 funding under S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate).
Under S. 250 (House), 34 states would receive an increase in funding for
FY2006 compared to their estimated FY2005 grants. These increases would range
from an estimated $25,000 (Arkansas and Idaho) to $913,000 (California). The
remaining states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands would continue to receive
the same amount in FY2006 as was received in FY2005.
For the purposes of calculating estimated state allotments for the Basic State
Grants program and Tech-Prep under S. 250 (Senate), it was assumed that the Tech-
Prep program would receive the same percentage of total state funds as received in
FY2005.22 Based on this assumption, 12 states would receive an increase in funding
for FY2006 compared to their estimated FY2005 grants. These increases would
range from an estimated $18,000 (Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode
Island) to $1,027,000 (Wyoming).23 All other states would receive the same amount
of funding for Basic State Grants and Tech-Prep as was received in FY2005.
Table 3 also provides a comparison of estimated state grants under S. 250
(House) and S. 250 (Senate). As previously discussed, 12 states would get increases
in FY2006 under S. 250 (Senate) at the total authorized level contained in S. 250
(House). Eight of these states would receive larger state grants under S. 250 (Senate)
than S. 250 (House). Under S. 250 (House), these eight states would not receive any
increase in state funding for FY2006. The remaining four states that would receive
increases of about $18,000 under S. 250 (Senate) would actually receive larger
increases under S. 250 (House) (about $27,000). Nine states, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands would not receive any additional funding under either plan. The
remaining states would all receive larger grants under S. 250 (House).
22 For FY2005, Tech-Prep grants accounted for 8.1% of the total funding allotted for Basic
State Grants and Tech-Prep grants. The same percentage was used to determine how much
funding should be allotted for Tech-Prep grants under S. 250 (Senate) using the S. 250
(House) authorization for FY2006.
23 These states currently receive 0.5% or less of the total allotted to states.

CRS-12
Table 3. Comparison of FY2006 Estimated Total State Grants Under S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate)
and FY2005 Estimated State Grants
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Difference
Difference between
S. 250 (Senate)
Difference
Current law total
between FY2006
FY2006 funding
total Basic State
between total
Basic State Grant
S. 250 (House):
funding under S.
under S. 250
State
Grant and
funding under S.
and Tech-Prep:
FY2006
250 (House) and
(Senate) and
Tech-Prep:
250 (House) and
FY2005
FY2005 funding
FY2006 funding
FY2006
S. 250 (Senate)
under current law
under current law
Alabama
$22,487,000
$22,487,000
$0
$22,487,000
$0
$0
Alaska
$4,578,000
$4,578,000
$0
$5,567,000
$989,000
$-989,000
Arizona
$26,472,000
$26,644,000
$172,000
$26,472,000
$0
$172,000
Arkansas
$13,917,000
$13,942,000
$25,000
$13,917,000
$0
$25,000
California
$140,278,000
$141,191,000
$913,000
$140,278,000
$0
$913,000
Colorado
$17,041,000
$17,135,000
$94,000
$17,041,000
$0
$94,000
Connecticut
$11,038,000
$11,110,000
$72,000
$11,038,000
$0
$72,000
Delaware
$5,345,000
$5,345,000
$0
$5,919,000
$574,000
$-574,000
District of Columbia
$4,546,000
$4,546,000
$0
$5,549,000
$1,004,000
$-1,004,000
Florida
$68,467,000
$68,913,000
$446,000
$68,467,000
$0
$446,000
Georgia
$39,368,000
$39,625,000
$256,000
$39,368,000
$0
$256,000
Hawaii
$6,367,000
$6,394,000
$27,000
$6,385,000
$18,000
$9,000
Idaho
$7,451,000
$7,476,000
$25,000
$7,451,000
$0
$25,000
Illinois
$49,633,000
$49,919,000
$285,000
$49,633,000
$0
$285,000
Indiana
$28,950,000
$29,005,000
$55,000
$28,950,000
$0
$55,000
Iowa
$14,106,000
$14,106,000
$0
$14,106,000
$0
$0
Kansas
$12,830,000
$12,884,000
$53,000
$12,830,000
$0
$53,000
Kentucky
$20,270,000
$20,270,000
$0
$20,270,000
$0
$0
Louisiana
$24,268,000
$24,268,000
$0
$24,268,000
$0
$0
Maine
$6,367,000
$6,394,000
$27,000
$6,385,000
$18,000
$9,000
Maryland
$18,682,000
$18,772,000
$90,000
$18,682,000
$0
$90,000
Massachusetts
$20,382,000
$20,515,000
$133,000
$20,382,000
$0
$133,000
Michigan
$43,629,000
$43,790,000
$161,000
$43,629,000
$0
$161,000
Minnesota
$20,485,000
$20,533,000
$48,000
$20,485,000
$0
$48,000
Mississippi
$15,589,000
$15,589,000
$0
$15,589,000
$0
$0
Missouri
$26,335,000
$26,454,000
$119,000
$26,335,000
$0
$119,000
Montana
$6,016,000
$6,016,000
$0
$6,225,000
$209,000
$-209,000
Nebraska
$8,160,000
$8,160,000
$0
$8,160,000
$0
$0
Nevada
$8,761,000
$8,818,000
$57,000
$8,761,000
$0
$57,000

CRS-13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Difference
Difference between
S. 250 (Senate)
Difference
Current law total
between FY2006
FY2006 funding
total Basic State
between total
Basic State Grant
S. 250 (House):
funding under S.
under S. 250
State
Grant and
funding under S.
and Tech-Prep:
FY2006
250 (House) and
(Senate) and
Tech-Prep:
250 (House) and
FY2005
FY2005 funding
FY2006 funding
FY2006
S. 250 (Senate)
under current law
under current law
New Hampshire
$6,367,000
$6,394,000
$27,000
$6,385,000
$18,000
$9,000
New Jersey
$26,914,000
$27,078,000
$164,000
$26,914,000
$0
$164,000
New Mexico
$10,159,000
$10,212,000
$53,000
$10,159,000
$0
$53,000
New York
$65,380,000
$65,806,000
$426,000
$65,380,000
$0
$426,000
North Carolina
$37,515,000
$37,760,000
$244,000
$37,515,000
$0
$244,000
North Dakota
$4,559,000
$4,559,000
$0
$5,557,000
$998,000
$-998,000
Ohio
$50,903,000
$50,903,000
$0
$50,903,000
$0
$0
Oklahoma
$17,871,000
$17,871,000
$0
$17,871,000
$0
$0
Oregon
$15,844,000
$15,937,000
$93,000
$15,844,000
$0
$93,000
Pennsylvania
$50,768,000
$50,957,000
$190,000
$50,768,000
$0
$190,000
Puerto Rico
$21,528,000
$21,528,000
$0
$21,528,000
$0
$0
Rhode Island
$6,367,000
$6,394,000
$27,000
$6,385,000
$18,000
$9,000
South Carolina
$20,632,000
$20,699,000
$67,000
$20,632,000
$0
$67,000
South Dakota
$4,845,000
$4,845,000
$0
$5,691,000
$846,000
$-846,000
Tennessee
$26,519,000
$26,597,000
$78,000
$26,519,000
$0
$78,000
Texas
$104,154,000
$104,832,000
$678,000
$104,154,000
$0
$678,000
Utah
$13,955,000
$13,973,000
$18,000
$13,955,000
$0
$18,000
Vermont
$4,561,000
$4,561,000
$0
$5,558,000
$997,000
$-997,000
Virginia
$28,853,000
$28,949,000
$96,000
$28,853,000
$0
$96,000
Washington
$24,675,000
$24,791,000
$116,000
$24,675,000
$0
$116,000
West Virginia
$9,306,000
$9,306,000
$0
$9,306,000
$0
$0
Wisconsin
$24,705,000
$24,749,000
$44,000
$24,705,000
$0
$44,000
Wyoming
$4,493,000
$4,493,000
$0
$5,520,000
$1,027,000
$-1,027,000
Virgin Islands
$698,000
$698,000
$0
$698,000
$0
$0
Total
$1,273,390,000
$1,278,769,000
$5,379,000
$1,280,106,000
$6,716,000
$-1,337,000
Source: Table created by CRS on May 12, 2005. Data for the FY2005 state estimates was provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Budget Service.
Note: Grant amounts are estimates provided for policy discussion only and do not represent amounts that states would necessarily receive. Dollars are rounded
to nearest $000; details may not add to totals due to rounding.

CRS-14
Within-State Allocation
Section 112 of the Perkins Act specifies how states are to allocate their Basic
State Grant with respect to local activities, state leadership, and state administration.
In general, current law requires states to distribute at least 85% of their grants to local
recipients, while permitting them to reserve up to 10% for statewide leadership
activities (such as professional development and program assessment), and up to 5%
for state administration. The S. 250 (House) proportions would be at least 88% for
local recipients, up to 10% for leadership, and up to 2% for administration; the S. 250
(Senate) proportions would be at least 85% for local recipients and up to a combined
15% for leadership and administration.
Table 4, which compares these provisions in current law with those in the two
bills, shows that there are certain complexities within these distributions. For
example, under current law, a state may reserve the greater of 5% or $250,000 for
state administration. If a state chooses to reserve $250,000 for state administration
because that amount is more than 5% of its grant, it must reduce how much it
reserves for statewide activities because it must allocate at least 85% of its grant to
local recipients. Under S. 250 (Senate), a state may reserve the greater of 15% or
$750,000 for state administration and leadership. A state that would choose to
reserve $750,000 would apparently be able to allocate less than 85% of its grant to
local recipients. Somewhat similarly, S. 250 (House) would permit states to reduce
the amount required to be allocated to local recipients (ordinarily 88% of the total
grant) if the amount available for state leadership (ordinarily 10% of the total grant)
was less than the amount allocated for FY2005.24
Current law and both bills permit states to target up to 10% of local funds for
specified local recipients. Both bills preserve current-law categories of recipients in
rural areas and recipients with high percentages or high numbers of vocational and
technical students. Both bills drop the category of local recipients that were
negatively impacted by within-state formula changes made by the last Perkins Act
reauthorization (P.L. 105-332). The Senate bill would add two uses of these targeted
funds: for innovative statewide activities and for developing and implementing
career pathways or clusters.
Current law permits states to use their administrative set-aside for developing
the state plan, reviewing local plans, monitoring and evaluating program
effectiveness, assuring federal law compliance, and providing technical assistance.
Both S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) have similar uses of administrative funds.
S. 250 (House) removes technical assistance, which is a required use of state
leadership activities in both bills. S. 250 (Senate) retains the five uses in current law
24 An example of when this could occur is as follows: Under S. 250 (House), if a state
reserved $250,000 rather than 2% for administration, there would no longer be 10% of state
funds available for state leadership. If the amount still available for state leadership was less
than the amount for state leadership in FY2005, the state may reserve the same percentage
of funds for state leadership as were reserved in FY2005. The additional funds would be
taken from the funding designated for local recipients.

CRS-15
and adds the development and support of “State data systems relevant to the
provisions of this Act.”
Table 4. Distribution of Basic State Grants Within States
Under Current Law, S. 250 (House), and S. 250 (Senate)
Within-state activity
Current law
S. 250 (House)
S. 250 (Senate)
(Percentages are based on total amount allotted to the state)
State administration
Up to 5% or
Up to 2% or
Up to 15% or
$250,000, whichever
$250,000, whichever
$750,000 (whichever
is greater
is greater
is greater) for
activities that include
State leadership
Up to 10%, unless
Up to 10% unless
state leadership and
$250,000 is
this amount is less
state administration
allocated for
than the amount
administration, in
allocated for state
which case less than
leadership in
10% would be
FY2005, in which
available
case leadership
funds could be
supplemented from
funds otherwise
required to be
allocated to local
recipients
State leadership funds
Between $60,000
Between $60,000 and
Not less than
for preparation for
and $150,000 of
$150,000 of state
$60,000 from state
employment in
state leadership
leadership funds
leadership/state
nontraditional fields
funds
administration funds
Local distribution
At least 85%
At least 88%, unless
At least 85%
the amount available
for state leadership is
less than the amount
allocated for
FY2005, in which
case local amounts
could be reduced so
that the proportion of
funds for state
leadership is the
same as the FY2005
proportion. In
addition, funds must
be made available
for Tech-Prep
activities based on
the amount available
for FY2005.

CRS-16
Within-state activity
Current law
S. 250 (House)
S. 250 (Senate)
(Percentages are based on total amount allotted to the state)
Permitted reserve for
Up to 10% of the
Up to 10% of the
Up to 10% of the
specified local
85% for local uses
remaining amount
85% for local uses
recipients
for at least two
after providing
for:
categories:
funds for Tech-Prep
for at least two
1. rural areas, or
1. rural areas,
categories:
2. areas with high
2. areas with high
percentages or high
percentages of
1. rural areas,
numbers of
vocational education
2. areas with high
career/technical
students,
percentages of
education students,
3. areas with
vocational education
3. innovative
high numbers of
students, and
statewide activities
vocational education
3. areas with high
(technical assistance,
students, and
numbers of
career development,
4. communities
vocational education
and accountability
adversely impacted
students
systems), and
by formula changes
4. career pathways or
career clusters
Source: Table created by CRS, June 3, 2005, based on an analysis of current law, S. 250 (House),
and S. 250.
Section 124 of the Perkins Act outlines required and permitted uses for the state
leadership funding. Required uses include:
! Assessment of programs supported by the Perkins Act,
! Development, improvement, and expansion of technology in
vocational education,
! Support for professional development,
! Support for improving students’ academic and vocational and
technical skills,
! Support for nontraditional training and employment,25
! Support for partnerships between local educational agencies (LEAs)
and postsecondary institutions, employers, etc.,
! Services to individuals in state institutions, such as state correctional
institutions, and
! Support for “special populations.”
Examples of permitted uses of state leadership funds include technical assistance,
improving career guidance and academic counseling, support for vocational and
technical education for adults and for school dropouts, and support for public charter
schools that provide vocational and technical education.
25 Nontraditional fields means “occupations or fields of work ... for which individuals from
one gender comprise less than 25 percent of the individuals employed in each such
occupation or field of work.” Current law requires that between $60,000 and $150,000 of
state leadership funds be used for this purpose. S. 250 (House) has the same requirement.
S. 250 (Senate) requires that at least $60,000 be used for this purpose but sets no maximum
of state leadership funds that can be used for nontraditional programs.

CRS-17
Both S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would maintain most of these required
and permitted uses, in some cases with certain alterations. For example, the House
bill would add meeting “teacher certification or licensing requirements, especially in
core subjects as defined” under ESEA, under the required use of leadership funds for
professional development. The Senate bill, for example, would add “encouraging
lifelong learning” under the required use related to technology. In addition, both bills
would require leadership funds to be used for technical assistance, which is a
permitted use of state leadership funds under current law.
Finally, both bills would add to the list of permitted uses of state leadership
funds. Both bills would permit these funds to be used “to facilitate the transition of
sub-baccalaureate career and technical education students into baccalaureate degree
programs.” In addition, the House bill (but not the Senate bill) would permit funds
to be used “to support entrepreneurship education and training.”
Tech-Prep Program
Current law authorizes a separate state grant program to support tech-prep
programs. These programs aim at articulating vocational and academic course work
in the last two years of high school with vocational and academic course work at the
postsecondary level. S. 250 (House) would eliminate a separate state grant program
for tech-prep. However, the bill would still require states and local grant recipients
to spend some of their Perkins grant funds on tech-prep activities.26 Such activities
would be similar to current tech-prep programs with certain changes. For example,
S. 250 (House) cross-references §1111 of ESEA regarding academic standards for
the high school students participating in tech-prep programs.
S. 250 (Senate) would continue a separately authorized tech-prep program with
relatively minor changes. For example, the bill would modify the aim of the program
to provide preparation and placement in “high skill, high wage, or high demand
occupations.” Current law aims at preparation for specified careers in technical
fields, such as engineering technology and applied science, as well as careers in
agriculture and health occupations, and is “to lead to an associate’s degree or a
postsecondary certificate in a specific career field.” S. 250 (Senate) would specify
that the high school component of the program have “a common core of technical
skills and core academic subjects” and a higher education component that would
“lead to technical skill proficiency, a credential, a certificate, or a degree, in a specific
career field.” The Senate bill would broaden a program requirement from providing
“in-service training” specifically for teachers to “in-service professional
development” specifically for principals, faculty, and administrators as well as for
teachers. S. 250 (Senate) would eliminate authorization for the tech-prep
26 S. 250 (House) requires the same amount of funding to be allocated for tech-prep
activities as was allocated for the Tech-Prep program in FY2005. There is no provision in
the bill to increase the amount of funding allocated for tech-prep activities over time.
Section 135(b)(3) provides details on the required use of funds for tech-prep activities by
eligible recipients.

CRS-18
demonstration program, which among other requirements, involves “the location of
a secondary school on the site of a community college.”27
National Programs
Section 114 of the Perkins Act authorizes certain national programs and
activities, such as a national assessment of vocational education, research, and
dissemination. S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would make certain technical
changes to this section. For example, the House bill would replace references to
“research” wherever it occurs with “scientifically based research;” the Senate bill
would replace “vocational” with “career” everywhere it appears in this section.
Both bills would continue to require the Secretary to collect performance data
on vocational education. S. 250 (Senate) would add requirements that performance
data be disaggregated by “special populations” for postsecondary institutions and by
categories required under ESEA and special populations for secondary institutions.28
Both bills would continue to require “an independent evaluation and assessment
of ... programs under this Act” but would make various changes. For example, each
bill would require somewhat different membership on the independent advisory
panel, which advises the Secretary on the assessment. In addition, each bill would
have somewhat different requirements for the contents of the assessment.
Current law authorizes the Secretary to establish a national center or centers to
conduct research on vocational education and to disseminate findings. Both bills
would continue this authority; however, S. 250 (Senate) would authorize one center
while S. 250 (House) would continue to authorize one or more centers.29 In addition,
each bill would establish somewhat different research agendas for the center or
centers. Finally, S. 250 (Senate) would require an independent governing board for
the center, which would “ensure that the research and dissemination activities carried
out by the center are coordinated with the research activities carried out by the
Secretary.”
While S. 250 (House) would continue authorization for demonstrations and
dissemination of results, it would drop the requirement of demonstration partnerships
between postsecondary institutions and certain groups, such as local educational
organizations and volunteer groups. S. 250 (Senate) would continue this provision.30
27 This program was funded at $4.9 million for FY2005.
28 S. 250 cross-references §1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of ESEA, which lists the following groups:
“race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and status as
economically disadvantaged.”
29 In FY2004, ED awarded two grants under §114: to the University of Minnesota for the
National Research Center for Career and Technical Education and to the Ohio State
University for the National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education.
30 Under current law and the Senate bill, this partnership is between a four-year
(continued...)

CRS-19
As noted above, the two bills, like current law, would require a set-aside of
0.54% from total state-grants appropriations31 for incentive grants. Current law
authorizes these funds for carrying out §503 of P.L. 105-220 (the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA)) for FY2000 through FY2003. S. 250 (Senate) would simply
update the fiscal years for this provision to FY2006 through FY2011 and continue
to authorize funding for §503 of WIA. S. 250 (House) would add authority for the
Secretary of Education to award incentive grants to states. It would separate the
Perkins incentive grant funds from the incentive grant funds authorized by WIA. The
House bill would add to the Perkins Act factors the Secretary could consider in
awarding incentive grants: whether the eligible agency has successfully developed
connections between secondary and postsecondary vocational education and whether
such agency has integrated “rigorous and challenging academic and technical
coursework.” Performance on WIA programs would no longer be considered in
making awards. Finally, S. 250 (House) would specify that these grants could be
used to supplement activities authorized under §124 related to state leadership
activities (see discussion above).
Occupational and Employment Information
Section 118 of the Perkins Act authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance
and funding to state-designated entities that collect and disseminate occupational and
employment information. These entities are jointly designated in each state by the
Governor and the state agency that oversees vocational and technical education.
S. 250 would include a state application process that would require states to provide,
in addition to information required by the Secretary, “information based on labor
market trends to inform program development” and information on”academic content
standards and student academic achievement standards” adopted by the state as
required by ESEA. Both bills would make alterations in authorized state-level
activities under §118. For example, current law states that designated entities must
provide programs to assist “individuals” to improve career and occupational decision
making. S. 250 (House) would change this language to “students (and parents, as
appropriate),” and S. 250 (Senate) would substitute “students and parents.” A
possible impact of such changes would be to target occupation and employment
information programs rather than to make such programs available to the population
in general.
30 (...continued)
postsecondary institution, “local public education organizations,” and other entities, such
as business to provide programs related to emerging, as well as established, professions and
for retraining certain personnel, such as migrant workers and individuals displaced from
employment due to “corporate or military restructuring.”
31 Under current law and the Senate bill, this set-aside comes only from appropriations for
the Basic State Grants program, not from the tech-prep appropriation. Under the House bill,
this set-aside would come from the appropriation for the single state grant that the House
bill would authorize.

CRS-20
Accountability Requirements
Under current law, states are required to develop a “performance accountability
system.” The system is to be based on four core performance indicators: (1) student
attainment; (2) credential attainment; (3) placement and retention; and (4)
participation in and completion of programs leading to non-traditional training and
employment. States are required to determine how to measure each of the core
indicators and to propose levels of performance for each. States must then negotiate
with ED to establish negotiated levels of performance for each year. Both S. 250
(House) and S. 250 (Senate) would make substantial changes to current
accountability requirements, expanding and strengthening the current requirements.
For example, both bills would require performance to be measured at the state and
local levels, as opposed to at the state level only under current law. Table 5 provides
a comparison of the core indicators of performance under current law, S. 250
(House), and S. 250 (Senate). A detailed discussion of each component follows.
Core Indicators of Performance
The core indicators of performance serve as the basis for the current
accountability system for vocational and technical education. Both the House and
the Senate bills would make substantial changes to the core indicators, most notably
by establishing separate core indicators for the secondary and postsecondary levels.
S. 250 (House) would include five core indicators at the secondary level and four
core indicators at the postsecondary level.32 S. 250 (Senate) would include five core
indicators at the secondary level and five different core indicators at the
postsecondary level. In addition, both bills would include references to the ESEA
with respect to core performance indicators at the secondary level. This section
provides detailed information about proposed changes to the core indicators of
performance included in S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate).
Core Indicators of Performance for the Secondary Level. Both the
House and Senate bills would modify existing core indicators to include references
to the ESEA. For example, S. 250 (House) would include a core indicator focused
on student attainment of academic and achievement standards established by the state
under ESEA (§1111(b)(1)). It would also require, as does current law, measures of
vocational and technical skill proficiencies. A second core indicator would require
measures of student graduation rates as described in the ESEA. The Senate bill
would require measures of student attainment of state standards adopted to comply
with §1111(b)(1)33 of the ESEA and student performance on academic assessments
discussed in § 1111(b)(3)34 of the ESEA. While S. 250 (Senate) would require rates
of attainment of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent to be
32 Under S. 250 (House), the eligible agency continues to have the option to add additional
indicators of performance. This option is also retained under S. 250 (Senate). S. 250
(Senate) also suggests that the eligible agency may want to add an indicator for a specific
authorized activity, the “attainment of self-sufficiency.”
33 ESEA § 1111(b)(1) focuses on challenging academic standards.
34 ESEA § 1111(b)(3) focuses on academic assessments.

CRS-21
measured, it would not require graduation rates based on ESEA requirements to be
measured.
Both S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would include a core performance
indicator that requires measures of placements in postsecondary education, military
service, or employment. The House bill would also require placements in advanced
training to be measured, while the Senate bill would require placements in
apprenticeship programs to be measured.
Table 5. Comparison of Vocational Education Accountability
Provisions Contained in Current Law, S. 250 (House), and S. 250
(Senate)
Current law provisions
S. 250 (House)
S. 250 (Senate)
Performance accountability
Performance accountability
Performance accountability
system must be based on four
system must be based on five
system must be based on five
core performance indicators:
core indicators at the
core indicators at the
(1) student attainment; (2)
secondary level and four core
secondary level and five core
credential attainment; (3)
indicators at the
indicators at the
placement and retention; and
postsecondary level.
postsecondary level.
(4) participation in and
completion of programs that
lead to nontraditional training
and employment.
Student attainment of
Secondary level core
Secondary level core
challenging state established
indicator: student attainment
indicators: (1) student
academic, and vocational and
of academic content and
achievement on technical
technical, skill proficiencies
achievement standards, and
assessments and attainment of
vocational and technical skill
skill proficiencies; (2) student
proficiencies
attainment of academic
content and achievement
Postsecondary level core
standards
indicator: student attainment
of academic and vocational
Postsecondary level core
and technical skill
indicator: student
proficiencies
achievement on technical
assessments and attainment of
skill proficiencies
Credential attainment at
Secondary level core
Secondary level core
secondary or postsecondary
indicators: (1) student
indicator: rates of attainment
level
attainment of a secondary
of credentials at the
level credential; (2)
secondary and postsecondary
graduation rates
levels
Postsecondary level core
Postsecondary level core
indicator: student retention in
indicator: attainment of skill
postsecondary education,
proficiency, credential,
attainment of credential or
certificate, or degree, or
associate’s degree, or transfer
retention in postsecondary
to a baccalaureate program
education program

CRS-22
Current law provisions
S. 250 (House)
S. 250 (Senate)
Placement and retention with
Secondary level core
Secondary level core
respect to postsecondary
indicator: placement in
indicator: placement in
education or advanced
postsecondary education or
postsecondary education,
training, military service, or
advanced training, military
military service,
employment
service, or employment
apprenticeship programs, or
employment
Postsecondary level core
indicator: placement in
Postsecondary level core
military service, or placement
indicator: placement in
or retention in employment
military service,
apprenticeship programs, or
employment
Participation in and
Secondary level core
Secondary level core
completion of vocational and
indicator: participation in and
indicator: participation in and
technical education programs
completion of vocational and
completion of career and
that lead to nontraditional
technical education programs
technical education programs
training and employment
that lead to nontraditional
that lead to employment or
fields
self-employment in
nontraditional fields
Postsecondary level core
indicator: participation in and
Postsecondary level core
completion of vocational and
indicator: participation in and
technical education programs
completion of career and
in nontraditional fields
technical education programs
leading to employment or
self-employment in
nontraditional fields or high
skill, high wage, high demand
occupations
No similar provision
No similar provision
Postsecondary level core
indicator: Increase in
earnings
The remaining core indicators of performance at the secondary level included
in the House and Senate bills are indicators that exist in current law but have been
modified to either expand their scope or update terminology. Under current law, one
core indicator focuses on student attainment of a “secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent.” S. 250 (House) would modify this language to specifically
include “a secondary school diploma, General Education Development credential
(GED), or other state-recognized equivalent (including recognized alternative
standards for individuals with disabilities).” S. 250 (Senate) does not mention the
GED or alternative standards for individuals with disabilities. Rather, it would
require the eligible agency to measure student rates of attainment of a secondary
school diploma or its recognized equivalent, technical skill proficiency, an industry-
recognized credential, a certificate, and a degree. It does not specify a particular
degree level at which attainment should be measured.
The final core indicator of performance at the secondary level in S. 250 (House)
would be nearly identical to an existing indicator except that it references
“nontraditional fields” instead of “nontraditional training and employment.” S. 250
(Senate) would make a similar change but would also include “student participation

CRS-23
in and completion of career and technical education programs that lead to
employment or self-employment in nontraditional fields.”
Core Indicators of Performance for the Postsecondary Level. As
previously mentioned, S. 250 (House) would include four core indicators of
performance for the postsecondary level, while S. 250 (Senate) would include five
indicators for this level. The bills’ core indicators of performance share some
similarities. For example, both bills would require the eligible agency to develop
measures for placement in military service or employment. S. 250 (House) would
require the eligible agency to measure retention as well as placement in these two
areas, while S. 250 (Senate) would require measures for placement in apprenticeship
programs. Both bills would include a core indicator focused on student participation
in and completion of career and technical education programs in nontraditional fields.
The Senate bill, however, would focus on programs leading to employment or self-
employment in nontraditional fields or in “high skill, high wage, high demand
occupations or professions.”
Both bills would also require measures of retention in postsecondary education
and transfers to bachelor’s degree programs. S. 250 (House) would also require
measures for the attainment of an associate’s degree or “postsecondary credential.”
S. 250 (Senate) contains a more specific list of the types of student attainment for
which measures must be developed. Measures must be developed for student
attainment of technical skill proficiency, an industry-recognized credential, a
certificate, or a degree. This mirrors a similar core indicator of performance for the
secondary level that is included in S. 250 (Senate). The Senate bill, unlike the House
bill, would not specify a degree level for which attainment should be measured.
While other sections of S. 250 (House) would permit the attainment of a bachelor’s
degree as an outcome of participation in vocational and technical education, the
accountability requirements do not specifically mention measuring bachelor’s degree
attainment. Rather, they focus on transfers to bachelor’s degree programs but not on
the actual attainment of said degree.
S. 250 (House) would require student attainment of “challenging academic and
vocational and technical skill proficiencies.” This is similar to the first core indicator
in current law. S. 250 (Senate), however, takes a different approach to student
achievement, linking achievement on technical assessments and the attainment of
career and technical skill proficiencies with national recognized industry standards
in instances where this is possible and appropriate.35
S. 250 (Senate) includes a fifth core indicator of performance that is not part of
current law or S. 250 (House). The Senate bill would require the eligible agency to
develop measures of increases in earnings, if the data are available.
35 For a more detailed discussion of accountability provisions under current law, see CRS
Report RL31747.

CRS-24
State-Adjusted Levels of Performance
As previously mentioned, the eligible agency must determine how to measure
each of the core indicators and establish performance levels for each. These
performance levels must then be negotiated with ED to develop the state-adjusted
levels of performance. While S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would retain many
of the elements of current law with respect to these issues, several changes made to
current law in both bills are discussed below.
With respect to the measurements used for each of the core indicators at the
secondary and postsecondary levels, S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would
continue to require that measures be quantifiable (i.e., expressed as a percentage or
number). They would also require that the state make progress in improving its
performance on the indicators. Unlike current law, however, the House bill would
require states to make “continuous and substantial improvement” and would specify
that improvements must be made in students’ “academic and vocational and technical
achievement.” S. 250 (Senate) would include a similar addition requiring
“continuous and significant improvement in career and technical achievement of
career and technical education students, including special populations.” Neither
“substantial improvement” in S. 250 (House) nor “significant improvement” in S.
250 (Senate) is defined by the respective bills. The House bill does not specifically
mention “special populations.”
Under S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate), the process for establishing the state-
adjusted levels of performance would remain largely unchanged. The process for
establishing agreement on state adjusted levels of performance for the first two years
is identical to current law. The process for establishing agreement on state-adjusted
levels of performance for subsequent years differs from current law in two ways.
First, agreements would be established for the third through sixth program years.
Under current law, agreements are established only through the fifth program year.36
Rather than reaching agreement on all subsequent years prior to the third year, as
required by current law, agreement on the third and fourth program years would be
reached before the third program year, and agreement on the fifth and sixth program
years would be reached prior to the fifth year. Second, both bills would modify the
factors that must be taken into account when establishing agreement on the state-
adjusted levels of performance. Current law requires an analysis of the extent to
which the levels of performance promote “continuous improvement” on the core
performance indicators. S. 250 (House) would expand this analysis to consider the
extent to which the levels of performance promote “continuous and substantial
improvement” on the core performance indicators.37 S. 250 (Senate) would make a
similar modification, changing “continuous improvement” to “continuous and
significant improvement.”
36 Under current law, there is no “sixth year” for which agreements need to be established.
37 With respect to this requirement, “substantial” is not defined.

CRS-25
Local Levels of Performance
Both S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would require eligible recipients to be
accountable for local-adjusted levels of performance on the core indicators of
performance. For the most part, the process by which adjusted levels of performance
for core indicators of performance would be established at the local level mirrors the
process at the state level, except that the eligible recipient would negotiate with the
eligible agency instead of ED. The House bill would establish a requirement that
eligible recipients establish levels of performance for each of the core indicators in
their local plans. The Senate bill would require eligible recipients to either accept the
state adjusted levels of performance as their local levels or to negotiate directly with
the state to establish their own local-adjusted levels of performance.
Similar to the state level, local recipients would also have to establish levels of
performance that are quantifiable. S. 250 (House) would also require eligible
recipients to make “continuous and substantial improvement” in student
achievement, while S. 250 (Senate) would require “continuous and significant
improvement.” Both bills would require that in establishing agreement on the local-
adjusted levels of performance, the eligible recipient and eligible agency must
consider the performance of a given eligible recipient with the performance of other
eligible recipients taking into account various factors (e.g., characteristics of the
students served). They would also have to consider the extent to which “such levels
of performance promote continuous and substantial improvement” (S. 250 (House))
or “continuous and significant improvement” (S. 250 (Senate)) on the core
performance indicators by the eligible recipient. In addition, similar to current law
with respect to state-adjusted levels of performance, both bills would allow an
eligible recipient to ask to have the local-adjusted levels of performance modified if
unanticipated circumstances result in a significant change in the factors taken into
consideration when negotiating the adjusted performance levels.
Reporting
Both bills would retain some of the reporting requirements contained in current
law and add several new provisions, most notably with the addition of reporting
requirements for eligible recipients. Under S. 250 (House), each eligible recipient
receiving an allotment under §111 must submit an annual report to the eligible
agency describing its progress in meeting the local-adjusted levels of performance on
the core performance indicators, as well as their progress in meeting these levels of
performance on the core performance indicators with respect to Tech-Prep program
participants if the local recipient receives funds for this purpose.38 S. 250 (Senate)
would require eligible recipients receiving an allocation under §131 to “publicly
report” each year on its progress in meeting the local-adjusted levels of performance
38 S. 250 (House) would require eligible recipients receiving allotments under §111 to
prepare an annual report. Section 111 provides allotments from the federal government to
states. It does not include disbursements to eligible recipients. Section 112, within state
allocations, includes information about providing funding to eligible recipients. With
respect to the annual report required of local recipients, the proposed legislation may have
intended to reference §§112, 131, or 132.

CRS-26
on the core indicators of performance.39 Eligible agencies would not be required to
report on performance with respect to tech-prep activities under either bill.
Both bills would add new requirements regarding the dissagregation of data. S.
250 (House) would require both the eligible agency and eligible recipients to
disaggregate data for each of the core performance indicators using categories of
students specified in §1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA. These categories include
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial/ethnic groups,
students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. In addition,
the eligible agency and eligible recipients would be required to “identify and quantify
any disparities or gaps in performance” for a specific category of students compared
with overall student performance. The eligible agency, but not the eligible
recipients, would also be responsible for reporting data on special populations as
defined under this act and the populations referenced in §1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the
ESEA.40 This would include the populations referenced in §1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of
the ESEA, as well as reporting data for students by gender and migrant status.
S. 250 (Senate) would not require data to be disaggregated in the
aforementioned categories by eligible recipients. Eligible agencies, however, would
be required to disaggregate data at the postsecondary levels for special populations
and by gender. At the secondary level, data would have to be disaggregated by
special populations and by the categories included in §1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the ESEA.
Neither the eligible agency nor eligible recipients would be required to report on
disparities or gaps in performance among categories of students.
Also in line with the ESEA, neither bill would require data to be disaggregated
if the number of students in a particular category was too small to produce
statistically reliable data or if the results would reveal personally identifiable
information about an individual student.
Data Comparability
Current law provides states with flexibility to select performance measures most
appropriate for meeting their goals. This has resulted in a multitude of definitions
and measurement strategies across states, making state-to-state data comparisons
39 S. 250 would require eligible recipients receiving allocations under §131 to provide
annual reports. Section 131, distribution of funds to secondary school programs, focuses
exclusively on allocations to local educational agencies. Thus, assuming this section
reference is correct, it is unclear if an eligible recipient at the postsecondary education level
would have to prepare a report. It should be noted that no state currently allocates all its
funds to the postsecondary education level (U.S. Department of Education, Office of the
Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Service, National Assessment of Vocational
Education: Final Report to Congress, 2004.)
40 Data would have to be disaggregated by the groups described in §1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the
ESEA including race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency,
and status as economically disadvantaged.

CRS-27
virtually impossible.41 In response, ED awarded a grant for the Performance
Measurement Initiative, a project to develop and pilot test new secondary and
postsecondary assessment and accountability measures for academic and career and
technical programs that build on existing state and local data systems. A final report
on this initiative, however, is not expected until fall 2005.42
S. 250 (Senate) contains language that may partially address the data
comparability issue. The Senate bill requires that when identifying core indicators
of performance and other indicators of performance, states shall, to the extent
possible, define the indicators so that they are aligned with similar data collected for
other federal and state programs. The usefulness of this requirement, however,
would depend upon how it is implemented by states. For example, if states looked
to other states for definitions, it could be that a handful of states use one definition
for a measure, while another group of states uses another definition. This could
become even more complicated if some states opt to use federal definitions for
measures, while other states used state definitions that do not match the federal
definition.
Similar problems could also evolve within states if local recipients were given
similar levels of flexibility in developing their own measures of the core indicators
of performance. Under the Senate bill, eligible recipients could either accept the
state-adjusted levels of performance or negotiate with the state to develop local-
adjusted levels of performance. The House bill would permit eligible recipients to
develop levels of performance “as appropriate for the eligible recipient.” It is
possible that since all local recipients would be required to negotiate their
performance indicators with the state, the state would require all local recipients to
use the same definitions for various measures. This, however, is not specified in
either S. 250 (House) or S. 250 (Senate). Without a standard set of definitions,
however, it could be difficult for states to determine how a particular local recipient
is performing relative to other local recipients.
Funding for Meeting Accountability Provisions
As previously discussed, S. 250 (House) would reduce the percentage of funds
available for state administration from 5% under current law to 2%, while
simultaneously increasing state administrative requirements (e.g., accountability
requirements).43 During floor debate on S. 250 (House), Representative Woolsey
41 U.S. Department of Education, Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
of 1998 Report to Congress on State Performance: Program Year 1999-2000. Available
online at [http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/resource/vocedreport.doc].
42 Under National Activities (§114), the Secretary is charged to “ensure the performance
information system is compatible with other federal information systems.” This provision
exists under current law and would be retained in S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate).
43 It should be noted that the maximum set-aside for local administration would remain at
5% and that the proposed increase in funds to the local level under the House bill (from 85%
to 88%) would increase the amount upon which the 5% for local administration is based,
providing eligible recipients with additional funds to meet substantial new reporting
(continued...)

CRS-28
noted that “the bill rightly strengthens accountability for state and local purposes, but
at the same time it cuts by 60 percent the funds that states can use for that very
purpose.”44 S. 250 (Senate) would combine funds set aside for state leadership and
state administration at an amount not more than 15% of a state’s allotment.
State Provisions
This section analyzes changes that would be made with respect to the state plan
and improvement plans under the House and Senate bills.
State Plan
Current law requires states to submit a state plan to receive funding under this
act. The plan must meet specific requirements (e.g., cover a five-year period) and
contain numerous elements with respect to the plan content that are specified in
statutory language, such as the programs that will be provided and how these
activities will help the state meet or exceed its levels or performance, how
professional development will be provided, and how activities will be evaluated.
Under both the House and the Senate bills, the state plan would cover a six-year
period rather than a five-year period in current law. Both bills would increase the
number of groups that must have an opportunity to comment on the state plan (S. 250
(House)) or be consulted on its development (S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate)).
S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would also make numerous changes to the
plan content. For example, under both bills, the plan content would be required to
describe how the eligible agency will select eligible recipients. S. 250 (House) also
requires the eligible agency to explain how it will report on the integration of
“rigorous and challenging” academics in vocational and technical education
programs to allow for the quality of the integration to be evaluated, while the Senate
bill requires the eligible agency to explain how funds would be used to develop new
courses that meet state academic standards adopted in response to ESEA
requirements that will prepare students for high skill, high wage, or high demand
occupations. The Senate bill, but not the House bill, would also require the state plan
to address transitioning students from the sub-baccalaureate level to the baccalaureate
level and collaboration with other state institutions involved in education (e.g., state
institutions). The remainder of this section highlights changes made by S. 250
(House) and S. 250 (Senate) with respect to model sequences of courses, career
pathways, tech-prep, and professional development.
43 (...continued)
requirements. It is not clear, however, whether this increase at the local level for
administration would be sufficient to cover the potential costs of meeting the proposed
requirements.
44 Congressional Record, May 4, 2005, p. H2896.

CRS-29
Model Sequences of Courses. S. 250 (House) would require the
development of model sequences of courses for vocational/career and technical
content areas. Under S. 250 (House), these sequences of courses would have to
include both secondary and postsecondary education, and include “rigorous and
challenging” content in a “coordinated, nonduplicative progression of courses.” The
coordinated, nonduplicative progression of courses is similar to requirements under
the current Tech-Prep program. The goal of participation in model sequences of
courses, under S. 250 (House), would be to prepare students for postsecondary school
success. The sequence of courses would be required to lead to a one-year certificate,
associate’s or bachelor’s degree, or proficiency credential in conjunction with a high
school diploma.
Career Pathways. The Senate bill would require eligible agencies to support
eligible recipients in developing or implementing career pathways designed to meet
relevant workforce needs. The state plan would have to describe how the eligible
agency would assist eligible recipients in developing articulation agreements, and in
using labor market information to identify career pathways that will prepare students
for high skill, high wage, high demand occupations. Eligible agencies would also be
required to explain how they would publicize the availability of career pathways.
They would also have to describe how they would work with business and industry
and use industry-recognized standards and assessments when appropriate.
Tech-Prep. Although S. 250 (House) would eliminate a separate Tech-Prep
program, it would require that the state plan include provisions specifically focused
on tech-prep activities. The state plan would be required to describe how funds
would be awarded by competition or formula to support tech-prep activities, how
“measurable, sustainable, and coordinated” tech-prep activities would be carried out
in the state, how the plan would be developed with input from various groups and
organizations, and how students would be prepared for postsecondary education or
employment in “high-demand occupations.” The tech-prep activities would have to
include advanced academic and technical courses with at least two years of education
at the secondary level prior to graduation and at least two years of postsecondary
education or at least a two-year apprenticeship program.
Professional Development. Both bills would include a substantial
emphasis on professional development. S. 250 (House) would specify goals for
professional development, such as increasing the percentage of teachers that meet
certification and licensing requirements. S. 250 (Senate) would include a focus on
teacher recruitment and retention and teacher training programs.
State and Local Improvement Plans
Section 123 includes requirements for developing, implementing, and evaluating
the implementation of improvement plans. Both the House and the Senate bills
would include new requirements related to local improvement plans but few
substantial changes related to state improvement plans.
State Improvement Plans. Both bills would primarily make technical
changes to the requirements for state program improvement, with a few exceptions.

CRS-30
S. 250 (House) would require that state program improvement plans specifically
address performance gaps between the categories of students for whom data must be
disaggregated.45 In addition, the bill would allow eligible agencies to be penalized
for failure to meet “the purposes of this Act” in addition to other reasons for sanction
in current law.46 The Senate bill does not include these changes. Rather, the Senate
bill would modify one of the criteria leading to sanction. Current law states that the
Secretary may sanction an eligible agency for failing to meet the state-adjusted levels
of performance for two or more consecutive years. S. 250 (Senate) would alter this
requirement to sanction eligible agencies if they fail to meet more than one of the
state-adjusted levels of performance for two or more consecutive years.
Local Improvement Plans. Both the House and the Senate bills would
make substantial changes to the requirements for local improvement plans. Under
current law, eligible agencies are required to assess the progress of each eligible
recipient in achieving the state-adjusted levels of performance, and to take various
actions if an eligible recipient is not making substantial progress. S. 250 (House) and
S. 250 (Senate) would require eligible recipients to be evaluated based on their
progress in achieving local-adjusted levels of performance, rather than state adjusted
levels of performance.47 Under both bills, if a local recipient is not making
“substantial progress” in achieving these levels of performance, the eligible agency
would be required to take three actions. Each of the three actions is included in
current law, but both bills would modify them in different ways. First, the Senate bill
would require that as part of the assessment of the educational needs that the eligible
recipient must address to overcome performance deficiencies, the performance of
special populations must specifically be included in the assessment. The House bill
does not specifically mention special populations. Both bills would require that
based on the results of the assessment, the eligible agency must enter into an
improvement plan with the eligible recipient to be implemented the first program
year after the eligible recipient failed to meet performance requirements. Current law
and both bills would require eligible agencies to consult with a group of stakeholders
in carrying out these actions. S. 250 (Senate) would expand the group of
stakeholders to include principals, administrators, and faculty.
The House bill would require additional actions to be taken if an eligible
recipient was not making substantial progress. S. 250 (House) would also require the
eligible agency to take action if the evaluation of progress being made by the eligible
recipient revealed “persistent or a widening of performance gaps” between multiple
categories of students (for whom data must be disaggregated) when compared with
students overall. The House bill would also require that the improvement plan
agreement include strategies for professional development, rather than requiring the
consideration of professional development “where necessary.” In addition, the House
bill would require the improvement plan to give special consideration to performance
45 For more information, see previous discussion on accountability requirements.
46 These include not implementing an improvement plan when required, failure to show
improvement after one year of implementing an improvement plan, or failing to meet the
state-adjusted levels of performance for two or more consecutive years.
47 Eligible recipients have the option of adopting the state-adjusted levels of performance
as the local-adjusted levels of performance.

CRS-31
gaps between the aforementioned categories of students. The Senate bill does not
include these provisions.
S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would add new requirements for technical
assistance, sanctions for failure to perform, and the use of funds withheld from
eligible recipients. These requirements mirror the requirements established for
eligible agencies with respect to state program improvement.
Local Plans and Uses of Funds
All eligible recipients that want to receive funding must submit a local plan to
the eligible agency. The eligible agency has some discretion over the contents of the
local plan, but current law, S. 250 (House), and S. 250 (Senate) specify required
items that must appear in the plan. Current law and the House and Senate bills also
indicate required and permissible uses of funds by eligible recipients. This section
considers changes to local plans and the uses of funds that would be made by S. 250
(House) and S. 250 (Senate).
Local Plans
Both bills would make several changes to the requirements for local plans.
Many of the changes would involve incorporating language used throughout each of
the respective bills (e.g., adding language about model sequences of courses in the
House bill and adding language about career pathways in the Senate bill). For
example, S. 250 (House) and S. 250 (Senate) would both add a requirement that local
plans must describe how the eligible recipient will meet local-adjusted levels of
performance. S. 250 (House) would also require that the local plan describe how at
least one of the model sequences of courses developed by the state will be offered,
while S. 250 (Senate) would require the eligible recipient to explain how at least one
career pathway will be offered. The House bill would also require that “rigorous and
challenging” academics be integrated with vocational and technical education
programs in core academic subjects as defined by the ESEA. The House bill would
add a new requirement focused on professional development. S. 250 (Senate) would
require eligible recipients to describe how career guidance and academic counseling
would be provided to all career and technical education students and include links to
services provided through the one-stop delivery system established by WIA. It would
also require eligible recipients to describe how they would improve the recruitment
and retention of career and technical education personnel, including transitions from
business and industry to teaching.
Both bills would expand on the groups that must be involved in the
development and implementation of vocational and technical education programs
that receive funding. They would also require local plans to describe how activities
will be provided to prepare special populations for high-skill, high-wage jobs leading
to self-sufficiency.

CRS-32
Local Uses of Funds
Current law, S. 250 (House), and S. 250 (Senate) include provisions for the
required and permissible uses of funds by eligible recipients. Both S. 250 (House)
and S. 250 (Senate) would make changes to the required and permissible uses of
funds included in current law, adding new uses and modifying existing provisions.
Required Uses of Funds. Under current law, eligible recipients are required
to use funds for various purposes such as strengthening the academic and vocational
and technical components of vocational and technical programs, conducting program
evaluations, and providing professional development. Both the House and Senate
bills would make changes to these uses of funds. For example, S. 250 (House) would
add language focused on using model sequences of courses, ensuring learning in core
academic subjects as defined by the ESEA, increasing the focus on math and science
education, and requiring professional development to be based on scientifically based
research. The Senate bill, for example, would add language focused on the use of
career pathways, addressing linkages between secondary and postsecondary
education, and supporting articulation agreements.
Permissible Uses of Funds. Under current law, eligible recipients may use
funds for multiple purposes including providing career guidance and counseling, and
supporting mentoring services. As with the required uses of funds, both S. 250
(House) and S. 250 (Senate) would make numerous changes to existing provisions.
For example, the House bill would modify the allowable uses of funds for counseling
to include the provision of information on the “range of postsecondary options
available” and information for adult students in the process of changing careers or
updating skills. It would also allow funds used to develop new vocational and
technical education courses to be used to develop model sequences of courses and
dual enrollment opportunities. S. 250 (House) would allow funds to be used to
support tech-prep activities and to train automotive technicians in new technologies,
such as alternative fuel automotive technologies. Both bills would allow funds to be
used to support entrepreneurship education and training.
The Senate bill, for example, would include a provision to develop and support
career-themed learning communities and would add a provision allowing funds to be
used to support the transition of sub-baccalaureate career and technical education
students into bachelor’s degree programs.48 S. 250 (Senate) would specify that career
guidance and academic counseling be based on current labor market indicators and
should result in improved graduation rates and provide information on postsecondary
education and career options, as well as providing assistance for postsecondary
students, including adult learners changing careers or updating their skills.
48 A similar provision would be added to permissible uses of state leadership funds under
both S. 250 (Senate) and S. 250 (House). S. 250 (House), however, does not contain a
similar provision on the permissible uses of local funds.