On May 4, the House approved, 416-9, a bill (H.R. 366) to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (P.L. 105-332). The House Education and Workforce Committee approved the measure on March 9. The Senate approved similar legislation (S. 250) on March 10 (see The Source 3/11/05).
Sponsored by Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act would authorize $1.31 billion for FY2006 and such sums as necessary through FY2011 for vocational and technical education programs. Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill would fold the Tech-Prep program, which provides courses in math, science, and technology, into the Perkins state grants program. Under the bill, not more than 10 percent of funding could be spent on state leadership activities, and of that amount, not less than $60,000 and not more than $150,000 would be available for services that prepare individuals for nontraditional employment. H.R. 366 would require the state plan to include information on how vocational and technical education programs would prepare special populations, including single parents and displaced homemakers, for high-skill, high-wage occupations that will lead to self-sufficiency.
During consideration of the bill, the House approved the following amendments by voice vote:
|
Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA) indicated her support for the bill and Perkins-funded programs: “Perkins will help fund training for displaced homemakers and single mothers to help them attain self-sufficiency through programs that provide career counseling, skills training and job placement…Graduates of these types of programs can be employed more quickly and at better salaries, and in a situation where a woman is a displaced homemaker, that is key.”
Noting that the bill “rightly strengthens accountability for State and local programs,” Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) pointed out that “it cuts by 60 percent the funds that States can use for that very purpose.” Rep. Woolsey also expressed her frustration that the rule governing the debate did not allow for consideration of her amendment: “We are not debating an issue that has long been important to me and I consider critical to our country’s future, that is, the lack of women and girls in science, math, engineering, and technology. My amendment would have helped school districts increase girls’ interest in studying in these careers and in these areas.”
Both House and Senate committees considered similar bills last year, but no final action took place before the end of the 108th Congress (see The Source, 9/24/04). A House and Senate conference committee will now meet to work out differences between the two bills.
