Search

This report argues that this is a promising time for entrepreneurs and developers to enter the adult learning market. Economic and labor trends are applying unprecedented pressure on policymakers to think differently. Federal, and in turn state, policies are shifting. The adaptation of K-12 and postsecondary education technologies (ed-tech) to the unique needs of adult learners is only beginning to shape the delivery of adult learning. It is not a matter of whether technology can improve adult learning outcomes at scale, but how. Getting there will require a thoughtful conversation about both the potential and limitations of technology for adult learners. It will require careful consideration of policy-driven barriers and opportunities. We hope that this paper gives entrepreneurs and investors a window into the policy environment that shapes the adult education landscape and, in doing so, helps to inspire a thoughtful, collaborative conversation about what's possible. The Opportunity section identifies the market potential. It describes the pace at which emerging technologies have been adopted within our existing system of adult education and sizes up the opportunity. In Today's Federal Framework, we explain the policies and funding streams that shape the market today. In many ways, the adult education market is in flux. Shifting demographics and employer demands are forcing creative thinking, resulting in the emergence of policies that reflect the potential for technology to improve outcomes at unprecedented scale. This is followed by three short sections that look at emerging opportunities at the federal, state, local and philanthropic levels. The Tailoring Ed-tech Solutions shares perspectives from the field to help entrepreneurs understand the real world demands of practitioners, and think about use-cases and solutions. We provide illustrations from across the ed-tech sectors to inspire and challenge our discussions. Like all learners, the unique challenges of adult learners are not limited to the transmission and acquisition of content. Success requires wraparound services and expertise that should fuel Innovative Partnerships within the adult learning sector--including thoughtful collaboration with the public and private institutions that govern its success. [This report was written with Deirdre Dlugoleski. Foreword by Beverly E. Perdue. Digital Promise commissioned Whiteboard Advisors to prepare this this report.]

Gov. Wolf has indicated his willingness to modify pensions for future Pennsylvania public sector workers by using a variant of the "stacked hybrid" design proposed in 2013 by Pottsville Republican Rep. Mike Tobash. Negotiations of a compromise pension deal, however, remain stalled because Senate leaders remain committed to their own redesign of Pennsylvania pensions, SB 1, passed by the legislature at the end of June but vetoed by Gov. Wolf. One criticism of SB 1 has been that, even with improvements proposed by Senate leaders, SB 1 would cut benefits by up to two thirds for career workers. This would leave three of six career workers examined by the actuary for the school employees' pension with annual benefits of less than $10,000. This brief offers a new perspective on the adequacy of SB 1's benefits by comparing them to (a) those provided by typical private sector 401(k) plans; and (b) other public sector benefits across the country.

The Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program authorized under the" Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998" (AEFLA), enacted as "Title II" of the "Workforce Investment Act of 1998" (WIA) (P.L. 105-220), is the major source of federal support for adult basic education and literacy education programs. When AEFLA was authorized in 1998, Congress made accountability for student results a central focus of the new law, setting out new performance accountability requirements for state and local programs that measure program effectiveness on the basis of student academic achievement and employment-related outcomes. The Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) in the U.S. Department of Education (Department) established the National Reporting System for Adult Education (NRS) in program year (PY) 2000-01 to implement the accountability requirements of AEFLA and act as a reservoir of data collected under these measures. This report represents the 12th year of implementing the AEFLA requirements using the NRS. OCTAE, as part of its efforts to monitor data collection procedures and promote data quality improvement, developed data quality standards to clarify the policies, processes, and materials that state and local programs should have in place to collect valid and reliable data. OCTAE assisted states in meeting the congressionally enacted AEFLA standards by (1) providing technical assistance to improve data quality and (2) refining NRS requirements, including producing guidelines for conducting follow-up surveys used to obtain data on particular measures. OCTAE also has provided specially designed technical assistance to states on implementing the data collection and reporting requirements of AEFLA through the NRS. The Department is required by Sec. 212(c)(2) of AEFLA to make available and issue to Congress and the public the AEFLA annual report. Information on each state's yearly performance in the Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program is included in the annual report, as are aggregated data on national performance. [For the 2010-2011 annual report see ED584414.]

The Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds programs that connect and assist job seekers with training, support, and education services so that they can find and maintain employment. Services funded by WIOA will be available to job seekers of all ages, including the chronically unemployed, the disabled, displaced workers, and opportunity youth, who are 16 to 24 year olds who are neither employed nor in school. These job seekers can receive a range of supports, including training that can improve or teach technical skills, connections to actual jobs and employers, and workplace readiness development for those with limited employment histories. The legislation also aims to promote better alignment among the workforce, education, and economic development systems. This brief provides background on the law, highlights why it is important, explains how it is implemented, and investigates its effectiveness. [Foreword by Melissa Ehlinger. The brief was created in partnership with the Baptist Community Ministries and the New Orleans Business Alliance.]

This report summarizes respondent-identified facilitators and barriers to career pathways development and implementation as well as promising practices. In addition, respondent recommendations for what federal, state, tribal, and local agencies can do to support the successful development of career pathways systems are highlighted. The report concludes with an overview of key opportunities to advance some of the major recommendations in light of recent developments such as the passage of WIOA.

As policy makers have placed an increasing focus on training and preparing workers to obtain postsecondary credentials, questions remain about the value to various actors, especially for job seekers and workers who often invest time and money to obtain a credential with the hopes of improving their employment prospects and raising their earnings. This report begins to address this issue. Drawing on data from the randomized control trial of the Sectoral Employment Impact Study (SEIS), which included three sector-focused training programs, the authors explore whether individuals who obtain credentials work more and earn more over time than they would without such credentials. In Section 1, the authors describe sector-focused training programs, the individuals in the study. In Section 2, the authors describe the specific credentials provided to the program participants and explore the value of credentials using a statistical technique called instrumental variable (IV) and highlight three findings. Section 3 outlines conclusions and some essential caveats. All values stated in this report are in 2014 dollars, unless explicitly noted. [This report was co-produced by the Workforce Strategies Initiative (WSI) at the Aspen Institute.]

This paper examines how public school districts responded to Michigan's 2012 "right-to-work" law. It describes the key findings from reviews of more than 500 teacher collective bargaining agreements. It also raises several questions about the legality of some union contracts with regard to this new law. Approximately 75 percent of districts with contracts subject to the right-to-work law removed language that would require employees to financially support a union as a condition of employment. Both legal and policy questions are raised by the remaining 25 percent of districts, which kept mandatory dues language in one way or another, despite having a contract that took effect or was modified after the law's effective date. The study describes five issues with these contracts. Twenty-three contracts made no apparent changes and kept mandatory dues language. Eight districts created a separate agreement to require mandatory dues payment. Fifteen contracts were ratified before they would be subject to the right-to-work law, but then didn't take effect until much later. Five contracts made only the mandatory dues language immediately effective, while delaying the rest of the contract. Finally, at least six districts have modified parts of their contract without making the rest of it compliant with the right-to-work law

The price tag on a college education is higher than ever--but not having a degree is even more costly, according to recent studies. However, for lower-income students, getting to a college degree isn't so simple. Student financial need after grant aid (commonly referred to as "unmet need") averages $6,000 for students, even at lower-cost community colleges. For low-income students--and many moderate-income students, too--this can mean that paying for higher education may require holding a job while studying or taking out loans to meet college costs. Yet, employers' scheduling practices can wreak havoc on working students' ability to succeed in school. Particularly in lower-wage jobs, unpredictable and unstable schedules are becoming the norm. This means that many workers receive their schedules at the last minute--days or hours before they are required to work; few have input into their schedules; the timing of their shifts fluctuates from week-to-week; and the number of hours they receive (along with their paychecks) rises and falls unpredictably. For students, this has a host of implications, ranging from limitations on course choices, including those required for completion of their degrees; challenges in regularly attending classes; inability to complete out-of-class work; difficulty budgeting to cover tuition and expenses; and ultimately, greater obstacles to completing post-secondary programs. Policymakers are taking note of the challenges these job scheduling practices are presenting for students. A new bill introduced in Congress, the "Schedules That Work Act," would help all workers, while offering special protections to working students and others with special needs. This brief report provides statistics on the number of students balancing school, work, and family and the types of work schedule challenges they face. It also explains how the new legislation could help working students synchronize their work and school schedules.

This document contains Illinois' State Plan for Adult Education and Family Literacy under Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 for July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2015. The plan is comprised of the following sections: (1) Eligible agency certifications and assurances; (2) Description of the steps to ensure direct and equitable access; (3) Integration with other adult education and training activities; (4) Strategies for providing services to target populations; (5) Needs assessment; (6) Description of adult education and literacy activities; (7) Performance measures; (8) Procedures and process of funding eligible providers; (9) Annual evaluation of adult education and literacy activities; (10) Public participation and comment; (11) Descriptions of programs for corrections education and institutionalized individuals; and (12) State leadership activities.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which is the law that sets federal minimum wage and overtime pay requirements. The FLSA specifies that for an employee to be considered exempt from overtime pay requirements as a "white-collar" worker, the employee must: (1) be paid on a salary basis; (2) be paid at or above a minimum weekly salary; and (3) perform job duties that DOL finds are consistent with executive, administrative or professional work. In 2004, DOL set the minimum salary threshold for the white-collar exemption at $455 per week, or $23,660 per year. In 2016, DOL set a new threshold, which caused many higher education institutions to realign their exempt and nonexempt employees to meet the new threshold standards. However, just two weeks before the 2016 threshold was to take effect, a federal court issued an injunction preventing DOL from enforcing the new threshold. This meant the 2004 threshold remained in place. In March 2019, DOL proposed a new salary threshold of $679 per week, or $35,308 per year. In September 2019, DOL issued a final rule, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020, and sets the salary threshold for the white-collar exemption at $684 per week, or $35,568 per year. This report details the history of the salary threshold, changes higher ed institutions made based on the 2016 proposed salary threshold, and the implications of the newly updated overtime (OT) rule for higher education. [This report was made possible with the support of PageUp.]

As the free college debate continues to gain momentum in states across the country, advocates' and policymakers' growing success in reframing access to college as a guaranteed benefit raises the question: Should federal or state governments do more to ensure that guarantee includes access to quality job training programs more generally, and if so, how? Creating the clear pathways to training programs discussed in this report can also be a key component of broader efforts to open up access to middle-skill occupations that have historically excluded women and people of color, such as construction and manufacturing. Predicting precisely the future demand for job training--particularly the scale and type of job training needed--is difficult, and ensuring the quality of the programs offered is and will remain a challenge. The job training delivery system must be both large enough and accessible enough to respond to rapid changes in demand for skills, and targeted enough to provide the particular skills needed in growing fields. This report presents two distinct strategies to create guaranteed access to job training opportunities that do just that: (1) Create a guaranteed job training benefit through debt-free community college; and (2) Scale a job training benefit Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act (WIOA) or Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) by expanding employer engagement.

Throughout the history of the United States, adult education has played a continuous role in helping adults reach for better lives. In the early 20th century, as this country witnessed expanded growth and tremendous work opportunities, it became apparent that in order to have a productive workforce and economic stability, the language needs of so many arriving immigrants would need to be met in order for them to assimilate into the culture of this country. This paper s is a history of federal legislation and efforts to improve adult education in the United States--a history that may offer some insight and direction in years to come. In the following chapters, this paper discusses the evolution of the Federal Government's role in promoting adult education by placing major legislation, and significant amendments to that legislation, into historical, economic, and social contexts. [Roberta Pawloski is the contributing author.]

The dramatic evolution of computer and communications technology, coupled with an ever-increasing emphasis on cost-effectiveness, underscores the potential of technology-based learning (TBL), or elearning, in the public workforce investment system. The U.S. Department of Labor (the Department), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) launched a national initiative in 2008 to systematically explore TBL's role and its adoption within the workforce system. With funding from the Department, Abt Associates conducted a study during 2012-2013 to collect descriptive information about the use of TBL at the state and local levels of the workforce system. Data about state policies and support for TBL were collected in an online survey of state workforce agency (SWA) administrators (82 percent response rate), and data about local implementation of TBL were collected in an online survey of the Executive Directors of Local Workforce Investment Boards (LWIBs; 69 percent response rate). This report presents the findings from those surveys. Specifically, it provides a description of SWAs' efforts to promote and support TBL, as well as actual adoption and use of TBL at the local level in providing Workforce Investment Act (WIA) services. These include WIA Title I core, intensive, and training services and WIA Title II educational services. The report also identifies factors that appear to facilitate or impede state supports for TBL and local use of TBL.

Perhaps the most predictable lesson learned about the imposition of fiscal austerity over the past few years has been that it has generally failed where it has been tried. A recent Education International study of EI members examines global trends in freedom of association and collective bargaining in the education sector since the 2008 financial crisis. The study, conducted by Nora Wintour, found that in many countries, the economic crisis has been used by governments as a justification to cut education budgets and in particular, salaries and benefits of the education workforce. The attack on labour rights in Canada has also intensified in the crisis-driven climate of fiscal austerity, creating a divide and conquer mindset. Examples over the past thirty years include back-to-work legislation (including the arbitrary imposition of settlements), suspension of workers' bargaining rights and imposed wage freezes or rollbacks, restrictions on unions' ability to organize, and restrictions on the scope of bargaining and other union activities. Some of this legislation has violated the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Canada also has a poor record meeting its international labour obligations, specifically regarding the ratification of International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. As the Canadian Foundation for Labour Rights (CFLR) has documented, Canada has ratified only 34 of the ILO's 189 conventions, and only eight of the 31 conventions developed since 1982. Herein, the author reviews recent research relating to the imposition of fiscal austerity in Canada and the sustained attack on labour rights. It concludes with a discussion of the growth of income inequality and how unions help keep income inequality in check. Finally, the impact the labour movement in Canadian society has on the success of public education is addressed.

The Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program authorized under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998 (AEFLA), enacted as Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (P.L. 105-220), is the major source of federal support for adult basic education and literacy education programs. When AEFLA was authorized in 1998, Congress made accountability for student results a central focus of the new law, setting out new performance accountability requirements for state and local programs that measure program effectiveness on the basis of student academic achievement and employment-related outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) established the National Reporting System (NRS) to implement the accountability requirements of AEFLA, and act as a reservoir of data collected under these measures. This report represents the eleventh year of implementing the AEFLA requirements using the NRS. OVAE, as part of its efforts to monitor data collection procedures and promote data quality improvement, developed data quality standards to clarify the policies, processes, and materials that state and local programs should have in place to collect valid and reliable data. OVAE assisted states in meeting the congressionally enacted AEFLA standards by: (1) providing resources, training, and technical assistance activities to improve data quality and (2) refining NRS requirements, including producing guidelines for conducting follow-up surveys used to obtain data on particular measures. OVAE also has provided individual technical assistance to states on implementing the data collection and reporting requirements of AEFLA through the NRS. The Department is required by Sec. 212(c)(2) of AEFLA to make available and issue to Congress and the public the AEFLA annual report. Information on each state's yearly performance in the Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program is included in the annual report, as are aggregated data on national performance. [For the 2009-2010 annual report, see ED610077.]

In October 2012, Premier Christy Clark announced government would consult with the education partners for the purpose of reviewing teacher bargaining structures and processes with the goal of providing a more stable learning environment for British Columbia students. The review looked for opportunities to achieve two priorities: (1) Create long-term stability for students and families, as well as the education system as a whole; and (2) Improve how government interacts and works with the British Columbia Teachers Federation (BCTF) to help reduce the stress and disruption during and outside of contract negotiations. Government's view was informed by submissions from key education partners--most importantly, the BCTF--but also from previous reviews of teacher bargaining in B.C. and research into other potential bargaining models. The result is a proposed new framework for teacher bargaining and a more effective way of working together. With the goal of securing a 10-year agreement with the BCTF, government proposes a new teacher collective bargaining framework based on four key elements: (1) A dedicated Priority Education Investment Fund (PEIF) to address education priorities; (2) A new Education Policy Council (EPC) of representatives from government, the BCTF and boards of education trustees to advise government on public education policy priorities, including allocation of the PEIF; (3) Indexing of teachers' compensation to an average of other major public sector increases; and (4) A new structured and transparent bargaining process. Two appendices are included: (1) New Bargaining Process; and (2) Summary of Partner Recommendations.

The Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program authorized under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998 (AEFLA), enacted as Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (P.L. 105-220), is the major source of federal support for adult basic education and literacy education programs. When AEFLA was authorized in 1998, Congress made accountability for student results a central focus of the new law, setting out new performance accountability requirements for state and local programs that measure program effectiveness on the basis of student academic achievement and employment-related outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) established the National Reporting System (NRS) to implement the accountability requirements of AEFLA, and act as a reservoir of data collected under these measures. This report represents the tenth year of implementing the AEFLA requirements using the NRS. OVAE, as part of its efforts to monitor data collection procedures and promote data quality improvement, developed data quality standards to clarify the policies, processes, and materials that state and local programs should have in place to collect valid and reliable data. OVAE assisted states in meeting the congressionally enacted AEFLA standards by: (1) providing resources, training, and technical assistance activities to improve data quality and (2) refining NRS requirements, including producing guidelines for conducting follow-up surveys used to obtain data on particular measures. OVAE also has provided individual technical assistance to states on implementing the data collection and reporting requirements of AEFLA through the NRS. The Department is required by Sec. 212(c)(2) of AEFLA to make available and issue to Congress and the public the AEFLA annual report. Information on each state's yearly performance in the Adult Education--Basic Grants to States4 program is included in the annual report, as are aggregated data on national performance. [For the 2008-2009 annual report, see ED610075.]

This revised report was prepared for the Canadian Literacy and Learning Network (CLLN) and the thirteen-member provincial and territorial literacy coalitions. The purpose of the report is: (1) To provide background information on the labour market transfers from the Federal Government to the provincial and territorial governments; (2) To outline why one of these labour market transfers, in particular, the Labour Market Agreement, should matter to CLLN and the provincial/territorial literacy coalitions; and (3) To offer the provincial/territorial coalitions a customized package outlining the situation in their province/territory, giving an analysis of the situation, and suggesting questions that might be raised with the provincial/territorial governments. The report is divided into three parts. Section 1: introduces the different labour market tools, with information based upon on-line research; Section 2: focuses on the provincial and territorial literacy coalitions and the labour market agreements; and Sections 3-15: provide customized reports for each province and territory.

This report examines Ohio's changing economy and whether Ohio is well positioned to meet the shifting skill demand. After examining job losses and job growth projections by sector and education attainment, findings revealed that Ohio has a projected education attainment gap for workers with some post-secondary education but less than a college degree and for workers with a college or higher level degree. Ohio is also projected to have a surplus of workers with high school degrees or less. The state is not making the training gains it needs to make. At the same time, unfortunately, the state is losing jobs. So the proportion of new workers who will need post-secondary training is shrinking, not because Ohio is doing a great job with training, but because they are losing employment. Relying on the classification system outlined in Holzer and Lerman's 2007 skills report, "America's Forgotten Middle-Skill Job," the classification of occupations in this examination is based explicitly upon the minimum training typical of the job: (1) high school or less; (2) post-secondary; and (3) college or more. The Holzer and Lerman methodology was supplemented with education and training data included in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) long-term employment projections. Key findings include: (1) Sinking wages suggest that a skill gap is not driving unemployment; (2) If every job listed on the Ohio Means Jobs website were filled, slightly less than 15 percent of the state's 526,000 unemployed workers would have a job; and (3) Jobs requiring a college or higher degree, or a high school education or less, are projected to grow by nearly 10 percent, while jobs requiring some post-secondary education will remain stagnant. The shrinking share of post-secondary level jobs should not be viewed as a reason to reduce investment in education and training. On the contrary, the BLS data is a call to action both to boost educational attainment across the state and to directly address Ohio's slagging economy. [For the Executive Summary, see ED573561.]

The Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program authorized under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998 (AEFLA), enacted as Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (P.L. 105-220), is the major source of federal support for adult basic education and literacy education programs. When AEFLA was authorized in 1998, Congress made accountability for student results a central focus of the new law, setting out new performance accountability requirements for state and local programs that measure program effectiveness on the basis of student academic achievement and employment-related outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) established the National Reporting System (NRS) to implement the accountability requirements of AEFLA, and act as a reservoir of data collected under these measures. This report represents the ninth year of implementing the AEFLA requirements using the NRS. OVAE, as part of its efforts to monitor data collection procedures and promote data quality improvement, developed data quality standards to clarify the policies, processes, and materials that state and local programs should have in place to collect valid and reliable data. The Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program year begins July 1 and ends June 30 of the next year. For example, PY 2008-09 refers to July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009. OVAE assisted states in meeting the congressionally enacted AEFLA standards by: (1) providing resources, training, and technical assistance activities to improve data quality and (2) refining NRS requirements, including producing guidelines for conducting follow-up surveys used to obtain data on particular measures. OVAE also has provided individual technical assistance to states on implementing the data collection and reporting requirements of AEFLA through the NRS. The Department is required by Sec. 212(c)(2) of AEFLA to make available and issue to Congress and the public the AEFLA annual report. Information on each state's yearly performance in the Adult Education--Basic Grants to States4 program is included in the annual report, as are aggregated data on national performance. [For the 2007-2008 annual report, see ED610076.]

The Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program authorized under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act of 1998 (AEFLA), enacted as Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (P.L. 105-220), is the major source of federal support for adult basic education and literacy education programs. When AEFLA was authorized in 1998, Congress made accountability for student results a central focus of the new law, setting out new performance accountability requirements for state and local programs that measure program effectiveness on the basis of student academic achievement and employment-related outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) established the National Reporting System (NRS) to not only define the measures and implement the accountability requirements of AEFLA, but act as a reservoir of data collected under these measures. This report represents the sixth year of implementing the AEFLA requirements using the NRS. OVAE, as part of its efforts to monitor data collection procedures and promote data quality improvement, developed data quality standards to clarify the policies, processes, and materials that state and local programs should have in place to collect valid and reliable data. The Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program year begins July 1 and ends June 30 of the next year. For example, PY 2005-06 refers to July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. OVAE assisted states in meeting the congressionally enacted AEFLA standards by: (1) providing resources, training, and technical assistance activities to improve data quality and (2) refining NRS requirements, including producing guidelines for conducting follow-up surveys. OVAE also has provided individual technical assistance to states with NRS implementation. The Department is required by Sec. 212(c)(2) of AEFLA to make available and issue to Congress and the public the AEFLA annual report. Information on states yearly performance in meeting the Adult Education--Basic Grants to States program performance measures is included in the annual report, as is data on national performance outcomes. [For the 2004-2005 annual report, see ED515884.]

Administered by the Department of Labor (Labor), Job Corps received about $1.6 billion in program year 2007 and served about 60,000 students. Some have expressed concern that Job Corps centers are not meeting planned enrollment goals, particularly for women. To address these concerns, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the: (1) extent to which Job Corps centers are operating at or near capacity for residential students; (2) major factors that affect the recruitment and retention of residential students, particularly females; and (3) steps, if any, Labor has taken to address the recruitment and retention of residential students. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed Labor's enrollment data, surveyed Job Corps recruiters and center directors, and visited seven Job Corps centers. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor review career training nationwide, take steps to ensure that potential students are provided with complete and accurate information, and explore the feasibility of having virtual tours for each center. Labor generally agreed with the recommendations and noted efforts it has under way. However, GAO believes Labor's current efforts do not fully address the recommendations and stress the need for additional action. Seven appendices are included: (1) Objectives, Scope, and Methodology; (2) Listing of Job Corps Career Training Offerings in Program Year 2007, by Industry Area; (3) Career Trainings Offered at the Job Corps Centers That We Visited; (4) Percentage of Planned Enrollment in Program Year 2007, by State and Job Corps Center; (5) Regional Initiatives Approved by the Department of Labor; (6) Comments from the Department of Labor; and (7) GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments. (Contains 19 footnotes, 12 figures and 5 tables.)

One of the most important factors in school performance is parental involvement. However, many parents do not have the flexibility in their work schedules or the leave policies necessary to attend school functions. As a result, legislators are creating policies to address this issue. School involvement leave policies provide parents with short-term, job-protected time away from the workplace to attend parent-teacher conferences or other school-related events. This paper discusses the following: (1) What is school involvement leave and why is it a policy issue?; (2) What are the benefits and concerns regarding school involvement leave policies?; (3) What policies have been enacted or proposed to address school involvement leave?; and (4) Where can a person get more information? (Contains 9 sources.)