Bill Seeks to Align Workforce Development with Employer Needs

House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., introduced legislation on April 6 aimed at updating the nation’s primary workforce development law.

The bill, A Stronger Workforce for America Act of 2026, would reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Originally enacted in 2014, WIOA chiefly provides funding to state agencies to help job seekers access employment, education, training, and support services.  

Walberg said the update would better align workforce programs with employer needs, strengthen accountability, and expand opportunities for workers to gain new skills.

“The workforce is evolving rapidly, and legislation designed over a decade ago is no longer meeting today’s demands,” Walberg said. “This bill modernizes a struggling and underutilized workforce development system, delivering reforms that strengthen participant outcomes and ensure greater accountability for taxpayer dollars.”

Event: SHRM 2026

Modernizing Workforce Funding and Accountability

Several elements of the legislation remain consistent with recent bipartisan-supported efforts, including:

• A requirement that 50 percent of adult and dislocated worker funding be spent on training activities, with 10 percent set aside for supportive services and individualized career services.
• The option to reserve an additional 10 percent of funds to support training aligned with industries facing workforce shortages.
• Dedicated funding for individual training accounts, on-the-job learning, and other employer-led and industry relevant initiatives.
• A focus on the law’s accountability system, holding states and local workforce boards responsible for delivering positive outcomes for workers and job seekers.
• Improvements to federal labor market reporting data.
• Reforms to the eligible training provider list.

In addition, workforce development experts view updating WIOA as crucial to allowing the U.S. Department of Labor to expand its registered apprenticeship program.

Resource: Workforce Development

Department Shift May Doom Viability

Controversially, the bill would move some adult learning programs run by the U.S. Department of Education to the U.S. Department of Labor, furthering a goal of President Donald Trump to close the federal Department of Education.

According to Walberg, the change would better connect adult education with apprenticeships and employer-driven training programs. Supporters argue the shift could help align foundational skills development with evolving labor market demands, especially as artificial intelligence reshapes skill demands. Those opposed to the move say that adult learning programs should focus more on preparing students for careers rather than train someone solely for a job.

“The transfer of adult education and family literacy functions from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor is not favored by the House minority and, therefore, the legislation has lost bipartisan support,” said Shannon Meade, executive director of Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. “Given the lack of bipartisan support and narrow House majority, the legislation is unlikely to advance,” she said.

Congress nearly approved the 2024 version of the legislation; it passed in the House and was considered in the Senate.

Implications for CTE, Apprenticeships, Community Colleges

There are some provisions in the bill specifically relevant to career and technical education (CTE), said Jimmy Koch, government relations manager for the Association for Career and Technical Education in Alexandria, Va.

“The bill modifies the membership of local workforce boards by adding an optional position for educators, although that falls short of the required CTE participation we have advocated for,” he said. “It modifies the functions of these boards to emphasize the alignment of career pathways with local CTE programs of study. The legislation also expands allowable statewide activities to include efforts to raise public awareness for CTE programs.”

Koch added that the legislation would establish a new Youth Apprenticeship Readiness Grant Program designed to increase participation in both pre-apprenticeship and registered apprenticeship programs and updates requirements for eligible providers of training services and operators of one-stop centers.

“Providers of registered apprenticeships and providers of Workforce Pell programs would automatically be included on the list of eligible training providers,” he said. “In addition, area career and technical education schools, institutions of higher education, joint-labor management organizations, and public libraries could serve as one-stop operators.”

The bill also would authorize $65 million in appropriations for the Strengthening Community Colleges Workforce Development Grant Program for schools that have established an industry partnership with one or more employers in in-demand industries.

“These grants recognize colleges as strategic economic partners, not just credential factories,” said Michael Hubbard, executive director of the University of Mary Washington-Dahlgren Center for Education and Research in King George, Va. “The bill rightly prioritizes institutions serving individuals with employment barriers and supports competency-based credits,” he said.

Hubbard also expressed concerns. Chief among them is the proposed transfer of adult education and family literacy to the Department of Labor, but “equally concerning” is the Make America Skilled Again workforce block grant pilot programs, he said.

According to the proposal, a state, local area, or consortium of multiple local areas with an approved pilot project would receive its adult, dislocated worker, and youth funds as a consolidated grant for five years with increased flexibility through waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements.

“By allowing states to waive statutory protections, this flexibility essentially functions as deregulation,” Hubbard said. “Absent floors, states could drop coverage of low-income adults or students with disabilities. Which raises a real question: If funding is simply a discretionary pot with no participant requirements, who gets left behind?”