�鶹������ý

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) the “historic expansion” of combined state Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins) plans. Per the Administration’s announcement, 21 states have submitted state WIOA plans combined with Perkins. This is a big increase from 2024, when This jump, according to ED and DOL, means that more states will benefit from joint planning, which, in their words, “creates greater efficiency and helps align education and workforce priorities.”

But will they, really? 

What Our Research Says

Last year, �鶹������ý surveyed state CTE and workforce directors to better understand the motives, experiences, and outcomes of adopting a combined WIOA-Perkins plan. Through survey responses from 37 states and territories and interviews with nine state leaders, we found that combined planning has the potential to better align education and workforce systems—at least conceptually—but that the planning process ultimately lacks efficacy as a tool to drive greater coherence or cooperation across systems. In other words, a combined WIOA-Perkins plan can help a state develop a shared strategy and coordinate implementation across WIOA and Perkins, but it also might not. 

To improve both the uptake and effectiveness of combined planning, we said, the federal government needs to provide state leaders with more robust, coordinated support. We recommended federal incentives in the form of time, money, or flexibility; shortening plan length; and more joint guidance from ED and DOL to demonstrate buy-in from both agencies and to share benefits, best practices, and technical assistance for combined planning. To the Administration’s credit, they took steps to provide some of these resources. For example, extended the plan submission deadlines to allow more time for combined planning and to align due dates. ED’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) also released a outlining program areas that are ripe for greater alignment (e.g., work-based learning and apprenticeship) and opportunities that combined planning can help identify or create, like shared data systems and braided funding. 

The memo is detailed and comprehensive, but it seems unlikely to be enough to induce states to suddenly advance significant new system alignment priorities through the combined WIOA-Perkins planning process. In our prior analysis, we found that submitting a combined WIOA-Perkins plan alone does not indicate that a state has, or will, meaningfully align its education and workforce efforts. At the same time, many states working hard on system alignment efforts chose to keep their plans separate, noting that combined planning introduced timing and other constraints that weren’t justified by benefits they couldn’t achieve with separate plans. 

What Questions We Have

So what led to the uptick in combined submissions? And is there reason to be optimistic that this new batch will use the combined planning process to advance alignment between state education and workforce systems? Based on our analysis of the first nine states, we are skeptical that the submission of a combined WIOA-Perkins plan alone allows states to, in ED and DOL’s words, “streamline workforce planning, better align valuable credentials with in-demand jobs, reduce administrative burdens, and prepare for Workforce Pell Grant program implementation this summer.” 

We have not seen the 13 new combined WIOA-Perkins plans, nor do we know which states submitted them, aside from Mississippi and Florida, which are highlighted in the press release. But when looking at the extent to which these claims are true, we want to understand:

• Is there alignment within the planning process? Or are they largely two separate processes resulting in two separate plans, just submitted together? For example, are partner engagement and public comment integrated between WIOA and Perkins, given the significant stakeholder overlap? 
• Do the plans outline specific cross-system alignment efforts? For example, are recognized postsecondary credentials jointly defined? Are opportunities for braiding funding in pursuit of strategies like apprenticeship clear? 
• Do the plans attempt to align data? Does the plan reflect efforts in state-level data sharing between systems? Are metrics aligned where possible?
• Is there evidence that system alignment efforts are happening outside of the plans themselves? Is it a governor’s priority? Do we see state-level policy decisions that reflect or support alignment efforts? Is communication between state agencies and system leads enhanced? 

In short, we have more questions than answers about this new batch of combined plans and their ability to drive systems alignment. And while we can begin answering some of these when the plans themselves are released, we also hope to see the Administration identify options for supporting workforce and education alignment beyond their emphasis on combined plans. 

Many thanks to Lancy Downs for her thought partnership supporting this In Short Insight.