An Analysis and Illustration of U.S. Adult and Workforce Education Policy

Document Selection

Using our adapted policy matrix, we analyzed U.S. legislation spanning the years 1914-2014 that historically informed the general development of the AWE polity and policy area. We found it necessary to pay attention to key federal policies that initiated educational programming targeting adult learners or made significant changes to the education systems in which they participate, meaning a variety of legislative documents were examined as they influenced adult-learning programming (e.g., adult basic education, vocational education, training and development, workforce development, etc.). We identified legislation that contributed to the creation of AWE programs, or that significantly increased the scope, density, or intensity of educational programming for adults, which meant the documents originated within legislative acts spanning several federal agencies. We identified 19 foundational federal legislative documents and coded for each of the nine dimensions utilizing the policy matrix (see the appendix).

Application of Policy Matrix

A couple of distinct approaches can be taken when it comes to the content analysis of policy documents: inductive or deductive. An inductive approach, or one of context discovery, is where researchers explore textual content for broad patterns, themes, narratives, images, rhetoric, and qualitative characterizations in order to develop thorough descriptions or to generate new theories (Krippendorff, 2018). This is a common approach in basic qualitative and content analysis research. Alternatively, context justification is a deductive approach that applies already established models or coding systems to selected content to determine how they play out within a defined context (Reichenbach, 1938). For the purpose of this analysis, we chose a context justification approach to transform the data.

We analyzed and manually coded each policy document according to the policy dimensions and functions in the matrix, that is, we did not use a computer program for the coding process (see Erichsen & Salajan, 2014). Each of the locating codes for each line of text were entered into the analysis table. We then totaled the number of codes in each category as a representation of policy emphasis in each of the defined dimensions (see Table 2). The coding allowed patterns of policy development to emerge over time. The purpose of filtering the policy language of the documents by policy facet and function, and the subsequent quantification of the policy facet references, was to illustrate shifts in focus and degree of policy development over time. By applying the matrix to code each of the legislative documents, we were able to reduce the policy text into reference totals, meaning the number of times particular policy functions were addressed for each of the policy facets across legislative documents.

Waves of Policy

Figure 1 reveals patterns in the overall development of AWE policy, where legislation seemed to surge in particular decades (1910s, 1940s, 1960s, 1990s, and 2010s). Legislation and amendments were still passed during intermittent years, but policies were less encompassing. The first policy wave came after the Industrial Revolution, when programs were established in response to changes in the economic and social spheres. In that period, programs were also developed to help wartime veterans reenter the national economy. In the 1940s, again, legislation was passed in response to new social issues and economic patterns. It must be noted that several documents created in the first half of the 20th century have endured throughout the decades, and are still referenced in new legislation (e.g., the GI Bill). We discerned a cumulating effect of policy development as additional legislation and amendments were passed and added to the policy area, meaning educational policy has been expanding and becoming more complex.

The next major and visible wave of policy development occurred in the 1960s, where the federal government formally established adult education as an independent area of educational policy with the Adult Education Act of 1966. In this decade, legislation was further articulated across nearly all facets, showing how AWE policies were becoming more comprehensive, increasing both in density and intensity. In the 1960s, the fourth policy facet signifying funding displayed regular increases as the AWE programs were established, reauthorized, and amended into the 1970s.

Another wave of AWE policy development occurred in the late 1980s into the 1990s, when many AWE program areas were “reorganized” (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). The reference counts reveal that policies were becoming more comprehensive as all facets were addressed. Programs were continued, replaced, or expanded as technology and the shifting economy again became a focus of policy development. From the late 1990s into the 21st century, consistent additions were made to the architecture of the AWE policy arena, with additional references across the majority of policy facets. In response to the 2008 economic downturn, another wave of policy development occurred. Notably, in this most recent policy wave, more references were made to overall general education reform (Facet 8) than ever before, showing the beginnings of AWE alignment and integration with the massive K16 education systems in the United States (compulsory Kindergarten through 12th grade plus 4 years of undergraduate higher education). Below, we offer observations and interpretations of the developments within each of the policy facets.

Accessibility and Flexibility of Programs

The first policy facet represents legislative references aimed at improving accessibility to educational programming and making new kinds of training available (Figure 1, bottom row). Within this policy facet, programs were either created, maintained, expanded, or somehow further developed. References for this facet were primarily categorized under the function of policy framing. Legislative framing articulates the public need and justification for the creation and extension of education programs. We provide an example of a policy reference for this facet:

Academic and Career and Technical Education and Training—The Secretary may arrange for career and technical education and training of enrollees through local public or private educational agencies, career and technical educational institutions, technical institutes, or national service providers, whenever such entities provide education and training substantially equivalent in cost and quality to that which the Secretary could provide through other means. (WIOA, 2014, p. 1547)

Our analysis reveals that Facet 1 legislative references generally provide a framing for the establishment and continuance of adult learning programs. The 1914 Smith–Lever bill was one of the earliest federal initiatives to grant funding to States to make educational opportunities available for the general public through educational extension services, to help adults gain improved knowledge and skills to participate in the changing economy and society. More recently, the first purpose listed in WIOA (2014) legislation similarly reads:

(1) To increase, for individuals in the United States, particularly those individuals with barriers to employment, access to and opportunities for the employment, education, training, and support services they need to succeed in the labor market . . . (p. 1428)

This pragmatic, human capital development framing is a fairly consistent preamble across U.S. legislative documents. References under this facet also address provisions and services for individuals to help make AWE programming more accessible, such as support for travel to participate in programs, support to cover tuition, living expenses, child care, or other logistical factors that could affect participation.

Integration of Technology

The second policy facet (Facet 2) includes references that specifically address affordances for or the use of technology in the delivery of AWE programming (Figure 1, second row from the bottom). For example, WIOA (2014) mandates that State plans include a section addressing provisions for technology use in learning, both for educators and for learners:

The development of strategies for technological improvements to facilitate access to, and improve the quality of, services and activities provided through the one-stop delivery system, including such improvements to—

(A) enhance digital literacy skills; referred to in this Act as “digital literacy skills”;

(B) accelerate the acquisition of skills and recognized postsecondary credentials by participants;

(C) strengthen the professional development of providers and workforce professionals. (p. 1443)

Facet 2 reveals that specific references to technology for learning were mostly found in the 1990s, around 2006, and again in recent WIOA legislation. Several of the technology references were also cross-coded with references to the improvement of teaching and learning practices.

Transforming Teaching and Learning

Policy Facet 3 represents policy references intended to improve teaching and learning practices, encompassing provisions such as support for teaching, opportunities for professional development, and programs employing novel practices, and so on (Figure 1, third row from the bottom). AWE policy included increasing references to the improvement of teaching and learning practices in the late 1980s and early 1990s, revealing that policies were requiring more specificity regarding teaching practices and efforts to measure their effectiveness. For example, there is an increased focus in the 1990 Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act on activities to improve the development of curriculum and instruction:

(Sec.420.a) Demonstration Projects for the Integration of Vocational and Academic Learning (a) Program Authorized—The Secretary is authorized to make grants to . . . develop, implement and operate programs using different models of curricula which integrate vocational and academic learning by—(1) designing integrated curricula and courses; (2) providing inservice training for teachers and administrators in integrated curricula . . . (“Carl D. Perkins Vocational,” 1990)

Under more recent legislation, curriculum and teaching practices garner more policy references.

(Sec.242.c.1.B) (B) assistance in distance education and promoting and improving the use of technology in the classroom, including instruction in English language acquisition for English language learners;

(Sec.242.c.1.C) (C) assistance in the development and dissemination of proven models for addressing the digital literacy needs of adults, including older adults;

(Sec.242.c.2.A) (A) developing, improving, and identifying the most successful methods and techniques for addressing the education needs of adults, including instructional practices using the essential components of reading instruction . . . (WIOA, 2014, p. 1622)

With each wave and iteration of policy, AWE programs are increasingly required to refine instruction and demonstrate effectiveness of teaching and learning practices. Standards for college readiness are also increasingly outlined for adult education, revealing efforts to create interlocking curricular standards to facilitate smoother transitions between the AWE and K16 systems.

Financing AWE

To put federal funding for AWE into perspective, a survey of adult education providers found that “on average, 39% of program funds for AE programs come from the federal government, 49% from state government, 9% from local government, and the remaining 3% from other sources such as foundations, corporations, individual donations, or user fees” (U.S. Department of Education, 2008, p. 7). With that in mind, the AWE policy area has been steadily subsidized by the federal government for over a century, and many of the federal AWE programs are long-standing. Policy references to the federal funding initiatives in the AWE area (Facet 4) are represented in the fourth row from the bottom of Figure 1.

Four main funding mechanisms are utilized by the federal government to support AWE, including grants-in-aid, contracts for service, direct operational support, and aid to adult students (Houle, 1968). Each of these approaches provides for a differentiated funding pattern with numerous acting agents and purposes. Of the funding mechanisms, the most attention has been given to the distribution of federal grants-in-aid to the States to implement continuing programs like adult basic education, vocational education or rehabilitation, English language learning, or employment services. Also, financial aid has been provided to adult learners on a sporadic but large-scale basis in the form of educational benefits to veterans, scholarships for teachers of foreign language, science, mathematics, and other subjects, and providing education and training for employment transitions.

The funding structures for AWE are multifaceted involving multiple agencies, sources, and levels. The federal government’s ongoing investment in AWE certainly warrants a more long-term, comprehensive approach to resource allocation as opposed to piecemeal initiatives (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). As programs have multiplied over the decades across several federal agencies, issues of duplication, gaps in service, and competition between agencies (especially for funding) became evident. Studies were commissioned to explore mechanisms for streamlining and coordinating AWE programming (The American Presidency Project, 2007), and spurred the CP initiative and many of the additions to the 2014 WIOA legislation.

When looking at the growth in policy references to funding, it is important to note the citations do not necessarily mean more monies are being allocated to AWE. However, many of the references do address the myriad programs and funding streams in the AWE area and how to better coordinate and make use of fiduciary resources. The expanding funding facet signifies an increasing complexity in the financial structures for the provision of AWE programming nationally. The policies also specifically make room for the incorporation of financial resources outside of State and federal funding, outlining the process regarding braiding multiple funding streams to provide services. Consequently, AWE providers today are subject to fluctuating State and federal oversight and can be funded through several combinations of public (local, State, and federal) and private funds, such as donor gifts, endowment interest, and tuition revenues. This mixture of institutions and funding sources has made it even more difficult to follow the money to locate a coherent national AWE policy commitment and agenda (Belzer, 2003).

Historically, it appears that federal-level support has remained somewhat steady, while proportionally quite limited when compared with other areas of education. The Department of Education, ca. 2014, administered around $67.3 billion in discretionary federal appropriations for all levels of education, with just over $1.7 billion specifically appropriated for State and national programs under the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). For fiscal year 2018, the federal government reported the total amount distributed to States under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (Title II, WIOA) at $616,955,000 (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). The National Skills Coalition (2017) reports that States increasingly have to supplement AWE costs as federal funding of these adult education programs has been cut by approximately 21% over the past 15 years. Patterson (2018) analyzed 2012/2014 PIAAC-USA data, finding that 90% of U.S. adults aged 20 years and older (considered the least educated) had not recently participated in formal or nonformal education, suggesting the number of adults served by AWE is miniscule in comparison to the number of adults in need of further training and education.

Diversity of Stakeholders

Policy Fact 5 represents legislative references regarding the diversification of AWE policy stakeholders and actors (Figure 1, central row). Federal legislation has evolved in complexity regarding the variety and levels of stakeholders to be coordinated in the provision of AWE services. Initial references to multiple actors appear in the 1960s, outlining that providers could contract with a variety of stakeholders and partners for program implementation (Adult Education Act, 1966). In the 1990s, references in this facet increased, and have since remained consistent, with the aim of further diversifying stakeholder representation. In the 2014 WIOA legislation, the variety of partnerships were more clearly articulated regarding the kinds of stakeholders to be involved representing public/private/local/federal interests, and so on.

National policy has become the articulation of collective decisions about education processes that are to be collaboratively implemented. The horizons of action in AWE policy are community-level, State-level, and federal-level, with ideational input from business and industry, social services, providers, other education institutions/systems, not-for-profit organizations, and philanthropic interests. The more recent policies more clearly outline what is required of each of these actors, reflected in the increase of Facet 5, policy dynamics references.

It is important to understand that in the United States, individual States partner with both the federal and the local governments to create State plans to administer AWE education. For the most part, adult education is administered through school agencies (K12 systems) and community college systems, some local governments work through both, and others leverage workforce development initiatives as well as private providers. The broader network of formal and informal providers includes government agencies, welfare agencies, community organizations, businesses, religious institutions, social organizations, and professional societies. Consequently, the AWE area involves a diversity of interest groups with sometimes competing purposes, a multiplicity of voices and concerns, and a colorful host of philosophies, aims, and aspirations. Brown and Holcomb (2018) recently published a report outlining the key institutional features and collaborative dynamics of the American Job Centers and provides a useful overview of the American Job Centers system during the early days of WIOA implementation.

Building Partnerships and Cooperation

Programming offering a variety of educational services in the AWE arena are located across five different federal agencies, making it difficult to discern the structure and strategy behind the polity. An Executive Order in 2007 called for an Interagency Adult Education Working Group to identify federal programs that focus primarily on improving the basic education skills of adults; have the goal of transitioning adults from basic literacy to postsecondary education, training, or employment; or constitute programs of adult education. The Working Group identified 11 major federal programs designed to improve adult literacy through adult basic education, adult secondary education, and English as a second language services (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Each agency (Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Defense, and Justice) apportions AWE funds and implements services according to statutory requirements. The aim of recent federal policy and legislation has been to clarify, streamline, reduce duplication, and improve funding coordination for AWE programming. These aims are clearly articulated in WIOA, and most AWE services are now situated under the broader umbrella of the Workforce Development system within the Department of Labor. In June 2017, the Department of Education’s Office for Career, Technical, and Adult Education issued a 40-page program memorandum to the State Directors of Adult Education outlining the “One-Stop Operations Guidance for the American Job Center Network.” The document states, “Due to the broad scope of the one-stop delivery system, encompassing multiple programs administered by different Federal agencies, this guidance provides the primary components for understanding and implementing an integrated American Job Center network” (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 1). For many service providers in recent years, this centralization and mainstreaming of service delivery has resulted in some programs being consolidated, relocated, discontinued, or redefined.

Policy Facet 6 denotes references to building partnerships and cooperation between the multiplicity of levels and AWE actors (Figure 1, fourth row down from the top). Since the 1960s, this policy dimension has expanded as the functional relationships between levels and kinds of partners and providers have been more clearly defined. References in this dimension are primarily categorized under the policy function of dynamics, where policy aims are defined in terms of relationships and responsibilities between the various actors in program implementation. The increasing number of Facet 6 policy references means that AWE policy is growing in complexity as the relationships and responsibilities between the federal government, State governments, and local boards and service providers are becoming more clearly defined and formalized.

AWE services have been growing to address learning needs that are not, or simply cannot be, adequately met within the K12 and higher education systems. In looking at this policy facet, we argue the architecture of a more comprehensive system is being slowly built in the AWE realm, and is beginning to parallel and more closely resemble the existing structures of K12 and higher education systems. The 1998 WIA and 2014 WIOA legislation have gone a long way in defining the architecture of the AWE area; who the official actors should be at each level; and designing how the workforce, social, and education systems are to work together to improve educational, social, and employment-related services for adults. With this situatedness in mind, it will be particularly important for AWE researchers to identify and trace the impact and actual educational and economic access outcomes of these policy initiatives.

AWE Research and Evaluation

Facet 7 depicts policy references to program evaluation and research in the AWE realm (Figure 1, third row from the top). The growing emphasis in research and evaluation appeared in the early 1990s, at the turn of the century, and again in the 2014 WIOA statutes. The increasing number of references in this area, especially since the 1990s, mirrors the influence of the accountability movement in broader U.S. education reform. Policies have increasingly emphasized and mandated more uniform data reporting, and required evaluation of programs to measure implementation and determine value through vertical, mandated isomorphism. Legislation has also supported research initiatives to improve the quality and effectiveness of instruction and services, and to better understand the impact AWE programming has on communities and society overall.

A federal strategy in the area of research and evaluation is to fund innovative programs that will provide empirical evidence, and eventually serve as examples for developing more effective programming to later be adopted and adapted by other states through horizontal, mimetic diffusion. Mandates under this policy facet established federal research programs such as the National Institute for Literacy in the 1990s to disseminate scientifically based research pertaining to adult learning and instruction.

The federally funded U.S. Institute of Education Sciences also provides rigorous research to serve as a basis for education policy and practice, with an overall research expenditure of $605.27 million in 2017 (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2019). Between 2007 and 2017, the National Center for Education Research (NCER; one of the research offices of U.S. Institute of Education Sciences) invested over $95 million in the Postsecondary and Adult Education topic to support 59 research projects with the long-term outcome goal of establishing an array of effective tools and strategies (e.g., practices, assessments, programs, policies) for improving education outcomes of postsecondary students and adult learners (NCER, 2019). The Department of Health and Human Services is also responsible for federal programs promoting the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities. The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (2019) contributes to research for the more efficient functioning of the U.S. labor market, and announced 2018 grant funding opportunities totaling over $410 million in seven program areas.

The provisions for AWE research and evaluation are distributed across multiple national agencies making them somewhat difficult to locate and interpret. Although the support for such research and evaluation is distributed, evaluation and research will continue to be critical avenues for influencing policy development in the AWE policy realm. This suggests the continued importance of AWE experts seeking funding for and disseminating both research and evaluation results, return-on-investment studies, and primary research in the field to bring the importance of and needs in the AWE area to the government’s and public’s attention.

Systemic Education Reform

Facet 8 displays the number of references pertaining to policy initiatives aimed at broader education reform (Figure 1, second row from the top). Prior to WIOA, references to more general education reform were rare, perhaps because much of the AWE policy realm and programming has existed outside of the traditional educational policy area. It could also indicate that the AWE system itself has been underdeveloped, or that it has not been considered equally important in U.S. educational policy.

A couple of possibilities may explain why there have been more references to general education reform. Within the 2014 WIOA, federal mandates required States to begin aligning Adult Basic Education standards with K12 and higher education standards, and to align federal and State standards accordingly. The legislation addressed a variety of kinds of education, aiming to bring them together under one framework, including the coordination of adult basic education programs with workforce development programs. For example, local Workforce Boards are required to work with education providers locally. These groups also approve local adult education activities and make sure they are compliant with the local, regional and State plans respectively, which are also required to be in alignment with federal criteria. Within WIOA, these stipulations appear in very brief sections, but the resulting programming implications are extensive (Coordination with Education Providers; WIOA, 2014, Sec.107.d.11), the requirement for AWE to be integrated with broader education systems, overall, is tall order in a short line of policy.

The regulated alignment with the other levels and kinds of education, which heretofore were developed independently within their own areas (e.g., vocational education has historically developed national standards within its own area), constitutes a major implementation process, and carries implications for every level of policy and program delivery. The number of references to the Facet 8 domain do not adequately communicate the extent to which the broader education systems are supposed to come into alignment, nor do the references convey what a remarkable change this is in the provision of adult educational services nationally (Jacobson, 2017). The American Institutes of Research recently published a report (Cushing, Therriault, & English, 2017) that goes into more depth about the alignment and implementation process, with the aim “to stimulate conversations amongst state agencies, state agency offices, and local education agencies responsible for planning and implementing each of the three laws. The brief provides a common framework for identifying opportunities to align college and career readiness efforts” (p. 5). More research must be conducted to reveal the actual impact of such directives.

Historically, AWE policy has been embedded within general federal education policies and legislation, and yet has not been mainstreamed within the broader system as an integrated part of a more comprehensive national education framework. This has resulted in AWE policies that historically appeared to be incoherent and fragmented, more like an ad hoc patchwork of measures responding to specific issues (Hill, 2010). In the past, this left the impression of an underdeveloped policy area lacking a coordinated institutional framework, one intentionally linking articulated objectives to educational programs and services for adults (Milana & Nesbit, 2015). Despite commentary on the incoherent nature of AWE policy (Belzer, 2003), the policies have become more detailed and systematic over time. AWE policy making and reform at the federal level is becoming more coordinated as high-level councils and advisory structures have been developed and the architecture of the system formalized.

Diversity and Social Issues

Facet 9 references pertain to matters of greater social inclusion, programs for marginalized and underserved populations, and dictates related to offering more equitable education programming for those who are underserved in the traditional K16 systems (Figure 1, top row). The Facet 9 policy reference counts have consistently grown since the 1960s, and provisions to serve an increasing range of underserved and marginalized populations continue to increase with each wave of policy, contributing to the expanding architecture of the AWE system. Jacobson (2017) explains how “under WIOA, state and local systems are expected to provide a full range of services to marginalized populations with the understanding that learners will not be successful in education or training without them” (p. 22) emphasizing the social dimension of AWE policy. A generous interpretation would be the alterations in federal-state relations and policy dynamics, the expansion of nontraditional policy actors, and an upgrading of AWE as a national priority are efforts toward meeting more needs in a more comprehensive way. However, Jacobson (2017) cautions us to possible unintended effects:

Although WIOA prioritizes services for adults who are “basic skills deficient” (including English language learners), individuals with disabilities, and those going through reentry after incarceration, students from these populations may have a hard time demonstrating positive outcomes with regard to employment and income. This may lead to increased pressure to work with student populations who can more easily and quickly meet these measures, leaving certain groups of students who are in serious need of services further marginalized. (p. 24)

We understand the quantification of Facet 9 references cannot fully account for, or adequately explain, the detailed nuances of diversity and inclusion in AWE policy. While we have no space for deeper analysis here, a more detailed critical analysis of this policy facet is warranted. We also want to emphasize the importance of disseminating vigorous research that reveals the results and impact of AWE policies, identifies critical gaps in service, and reports results from current programming approaches and whether they improve adults’ educational and economic access. The field requires a growing and more diverse armamentarium of disciplined inquiry to argue and advocate for more accessible, effective, and socially conscious AWE public policy.