Other: Interagency Cooperation

The United States Office of Education must take a stronger hand in the enforce

ment of the interstate-interagency requirements of migrant legislation.

As a

firs: step, interagency cooperation at the federal level must improve. All

federal agencies that provide funds for migrant services must agree on a common

definition of migrant. Secondly, state agencies, upon accepting migrant monies,

agree to comply fully with the interstate requirements of the migrant legisla

tion.

USOE must not approve a state's plan without this assurance.

Our main concern, however, is that the educational structures ɔf the states are

not well suited to migrant children.

Our major objectives surround improving

cooperation between the state educational agencies and between the many agencies

serving migrants.

We have found that the Title I programs must duplicate other services in order

to meet children's needs.

This is particularly true in health care.

Additionally,

we find that the regulations and P.L. 93-380 fail to serve many needy children,

especially preschoolers.

We have developed preliminary recommendations to

address these needs.

The recommendations are:

1.

Each state fix the responsibility for serving migrants with an

agency or interagency group under the auspices of the governor.

This group or agency would be required to integrate planning at

a state level to make services more available by avoiding dupli

3.

That USOE and the states settle on ways of involving parents that are

fitted to the migrant program's transitory nature and the mobile life

style of migrants.

*

Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony for the ECS Interstate

Migrant Education Task Force on behalf of migrant children and their parents.

We would also like to submit a copy of our Interim Report No. One, a survey

of Title I migrant regulations, a statement from the chairman of the migrant

education task force (The Honorable Raul H. Castro), as well as a written

copy of this prepared oral testimony.

1

April 29, 1977

STATEMENT FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE

MIGRANT EDUCATION TASK FORCE
THE HONORABLE RAUL H. CASTRO

This Statement was formulated by participating state directors

and submitted to the task force for review and comment.

The Issue

In 1966, when Title I of the Elementary Secondary Education

Act was amended by Public Law 89-750 allocating funds to state

departments of education for funding programs for migrant

education, there was considerable discussion regarding the re

lationship of Title I migrant to the regular Title I program.

In view of the forthcoming congressional re-authorization dis

cussions of Title I (Public Law 93-380), it is imperative that

a definitive position be taken on Title I migrant education.

designated as a categorical program designed to
assist children who have been excluded from receiving

Title I programs in that it is a state education agency

program. The funds and the use of funds are the state

agency's, rather than the local education agency's,

responsibility.

Because of the funding differences, the

administrative procedures for migrant education proyrams

are different than they are for regular Title. I.

Given the foregoing three major facts, on behalf of the ECS

Interstate Migrant Education Project, I would like the following

positions to be considered by ECS in its policy deliberations.

States Office of Education (USOE) in cooperation with

states specifically for migrant education programs.

ESEA Title I migrant funds must continue to be made

available for the "settled out" or formerly migrant child.

4.

The United States Office of Education must provide

more direction and leadership in pursuing the goals

and objectives of Title I migrant programs. Part of
the difficulty appears to lie in the current organi-

zation of migrant education programs branch within the

United States Office of Education.

Currently, the

migrant programs branch operates within the framework

of the Title I office in spite of the fact that

on a common definition of migrant.

Secondly,

state agencies, upon accepting migrant monies,

agree to comply fully with the interstate requirements of the migrant legislation. USOE must not

officers) must provide appropriate administrative
and organizational support for ESEA Title I migrant
education programs; that is, within the state agency

structures, the migrant program operation must be

placed in the most effective organizational position

to obtain the interest, support, and cooperation of

the state board of education, the other division

within the state agency and the general public.

Again, USOE must consider this in their approval

of the state plan.