Vocational Education: Legislation to Reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act Page: 3 of 37

                                
Vocational Education: Legislation to Reauthorize the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act
Summary
The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act
provides federal assistance for secondary and postsecondary vocational education.
The Perkins Act was authorized through fiscal year 1996; nevertheless, FY1997 and
FY1998 appropriations have been provided for the Act. On July 22, 1997, the House
passed H.R. 1853, which would reauthorize the Perkins Act. On May 5, 1998, the
Senate passed H.R. 1385 in lieu of S. 1186, which would also reauthorize the Perkins
Act, among other provisions. This report presents background on vocational
education, on the Perkins Act, and on related action during the 104th Congress. The
report concludes by comparing major features of H.R. 1853 and the Senate version
of H.R. 1385.
The Perkins Act, currently funded at $1.1 billion, is the main source of specific
federal funds for vocational education, although these funds account for a small
percentage of the total spent on vocational education in the United States. The main
purposes of the Perkins Act are to improve the quality of vocational education and
to provide access to quality vocational education for "special populations," such as
disadvantaged and disabled students. The last reauthorization of the Perkins Act in
1990 made several significant changes to the Act. These included the creation of
new programs, most notably the tech-prep program, aimed at coordinating secondary
and postsecondary vocational education; the requirement of within state formulas
based mainly on poverty measures for the distribution of secondary and
postsecondary federal vocational education funds; the elimination of most set-asides
of funds for various "special populations"; and the requirement that states develop
and implement performance standards and measures.
Key differences between the House and Senate bills include: the House
would provide somewhat less targeting based on poverty in the state formula and in
the secondary substate formula; the Senate would retain current formulas. The House
would allocate 90% of state funds directly to the local level; the Senate would
allocate 75%. The House would provide for set-asides for grants to local rural and

urban areas; the Senate would not. The House would eliminate required funding at
the state level for a "sex equity coordinator" and reduce state administration funds
from 5% to 2% of the state grant; the Senate would retain funding for the sex equity
coordinator and increase funding for state administrative activities to 10%. The
House would require a state-determined board of vocational education to fulfill
requirements of the Act, such as submission of the state application; the Senate
would have the "eligible agency," the sole state agency that administers vocational
education policy, fulfill these requirements. The House would require states to
identify "quantifiable benchmarks;" the Senate would require the Secretary of
Education to establish "performance measures." The Senate would authorize the
Secretary to make incentive grants to states exceeding performance measures
established under the Act; the House has no provision for incentive grants.
Latest action: The Senate passed H.R. 1385 in lieu of S. 1186 on May 5,
1998, by a vote of 91 to 7.