Program Memorandum – OVAE/DVTE – FY 99-5
|Date:||January 7, 1999|
|To:||State Directors of Vocational–Technical Education|
State Directors of Community, Technical and Junior Colleges
State Tech–Prep Coordinators
|From:||Patricia W. McNeil|
|Subject:||Clarification of Program Memorandum – OVAE/DVTE – FY 99-2|
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify recent guidance regarding a State's options for submitting a State plan, due April 12, 1999, under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (Perkins III). As discussed in Program Memorandum OVAE/DVTE – FY 99–2, under Option 3 for a transitional plan, a State may extend with amendments or revisions its current State plan under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (Perkins II). We wish to clarify that the current State plan would have to be amended or revised so as to make it consistent with the requirements of Perkins III, particularly the requirements for within–State allocations, distribution of funds, and specific uses of funds.
If a State revises its current Perkins II plan only to the extent necessary to bring it within the new statutory requirements of Perkins III for the program year beginning July 1, 1999, we will not consider these changes to trigger the State plan amendment procedures. See section 4 of Perkins III (Transition Provisions). However, this option does not allow a State to delay implementation of Perkins III until July 1, 2000. In response to questions raised by some States, the difference between Option 3 and Option 1 under transitional plan in Program Memo FY 99–2 is that a State would not have to use the State plan amendment procedures for the one–year transitional plan under Option 3. Similarly, the State would not have to provide new assurances under the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) or meet the requirements of section 427(b) of the General Education Provisions Act, but rather the State may continue to rely on its current plan to meet those requirements.
Option 3 seeks to provide flexibility to a State that finds the development of a full–blown, five–year State plan too onerous or impossible given the short time for State plan development. Option 3 in no way relieves a State from the eventual completion of a comprehensive Perkins III State plan, nor does this option give a State the opportunity to expend new and carryover funds for Perkins II purposes that are not allowable under Perkins III. As discussed in Program Memorandum– OVAE/DVTE – FY 99 – 4, carryover funds from the grant funds that became available on July 1, 1998, must be obligated under the authority of Perkins III, and must be expended for purposes allowed by the new legislation once those funds become carryover funds. Because the grant funds first available on July 1, 1997, became carryover on October 1, 1998, before Perkins III was effective, a State has the option of spending those funds consistent with the requirements of Perkins II.