Other: Interagency Cooperation The United States Office of Education must take a stronger hand in the enforcement of the interstate-interagency requirements of migrant legislation. As a first 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 legislation. USOE must not approve a state's plan without this assurance. Our main concern, however, is that the educational structures of 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. Additionally, 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. 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 duplications and identifying gaps in services. USOE could encourage this in the regulations. 2. That states cooperatively plan future activities. This could be boards. 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 lifestyle 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. April 29, 1977 STATEMENT FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MIGRANT EDUCATION TASK FORCE 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 relationship of Title I migrant to the regular Title I program. In view of the forthcoming congressional re-authorization discussions of Title I (Public Law 93-380), it is imperative that a definitive position be taken on Title I migrant education. Rationale Before any consideration regarding migrant education is undertaken, three major facts must be accepted. They are: 1. 2. Migrant education was originally, and still is, The majority of migrant children move from one state education for migrant children. ESEA Title I migrant education is unlike regular ESEA 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 programs 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. Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I 1. Migrant must remain a categorical program based on an allocation formula using the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS) data. 2. 3. 4. 5. Migrant education must continue to be funded at 100 percent of need as indicated by MSRTS allocation formula. Program regulations must be prepared by the United The United States Office of Education must take a 6. 1. on a common definition of migrant. Secondly, The state education agencies (chief state school I placed in the most effective organizational position |