the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS). The

possibility of constructing a national classroom system through the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS) should also

be explored.

(4)

Post-Secondary Education. There is an urgent need for Congress to enact legislation in the area of post-secondary education if migrant programs are to reach significant numbers of workers. NEA suggests a program of grants and scholarships as well as Congressional review of the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) and the California Mini-Corps, the only two postsecondary education programs now in existence. I caution that the numbers of migrant and ex-migrant workers in these programs are extremely limited; the reasons for this are lack of legislation and lack of funds.

(5)

Vocational, Career, and Adult Basic Education. Mr. Chairman, I began my presentation by discussing the need for comprehensive education legislation that will permit migrant workers to choose from a wide range of education opportunities. NEA believes that legislation for these programs will provide viable options for migrant workers. Again, we are concerned with education continuity and would ask Congress to make adequate provisions for career progression mechanisms. NEA urges Congress to enact legislation that specifies access to vocational, career, and adult basic education programs by migrant workers

(6) Coordination. The NEA fully supports the requirements in
migrant education legislation which call for coordination among
state and local programs, interstate cooperation and interstate
activities. However, we strongly recommend that Section D of
paragraph 116-D. 39, which reads, "the state program has been
planned and will be operated in coordination with programs
administered under Part B of Title III of the Equal Opportunity
Act of 1964" be changed to (D) "that the state program coordinate
with other federal and state funded migrant farmworkers programs."
In addition we strongly recommend that Congress provide similar
language for coordination in the legislation of other migrant
farmworker programs.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, I have outlined some of the administrative, fiscal,
and program changes that NEA considers must be authorized by
Congress if migrant farmworkers and their families are to have
access to the benefits of our society. We hope that Congress
will establish a National Office for Migrant Education and provide
the safeguards and funds necessary for making education programs
and services available to this important group of American

citizens.

Mr. FORD. We will go on now to Mr. Jeffrey Newman, Director of the National Child Labor Committee.

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY NEWMAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. NEWMAN. Thank you, Congressman Ford.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to appear before you today as the Director of a private, nonprofit citizens organization which has monitored, investigated and evaluated the migrant education program and urged its support since 1966.

We are particularly concerned with the migrant education programs' present and future. We have heard a lot of self-praise here today, and while some of it is justified, much of it is not.

I am particularly concerned that the committee recognize that the problems and failures of the migrant education program must not go quietly into the night.

I hope that some of you have had the chance to read our book, "Promises to Keep," a critical analysis of the migrant education program which was published earlier this year. (See Appendix 4.) It contains harsh criticisms of the administration of the program at the Federal, State and local levels, and while I will not go into extensive detail here, I would like to have the book included in my testimony for your consideration.

While we are extremely critical of how the migrant education program is implemented, we are nevertheless a strong advocate for the continuation and improvement of the program.

We recognize that tens of thousands of migrant children have been helped and served by the migrant education program, but we also recognize and feel strongly that tens of thousands of migrant children have not been helped who should have been.

In many ways, the migrant education program has failed to meet its goals and objectives, but we do not believe that it should therefore be abandoned. Any effort to meet the unique educational needs of more than 500,000 children, many of whom live in abject poverty, many of whom travel the country eight months of the year, many of whom do not speak English, must to a certain exent be an open process, constantly subject to re-evaluation and restructuring. We believe that the basic authorizing legislation is good but we are greatly concerned about the application, regulation and enforcement of the Act.

We firmly believe, and we think that all impartial evaluation have and will continue to bear us out, that the 1966 Title I Migrant Education Amendment has not been truly carried out. We have shown in "Promises to Keep" and others have shown elsewhere that the Title I Migrant Education Amendment is constantly being violated in both spirit and letter with little or no response from the agency charged with endorsement.

In short, the Office of Education, for whatever reasons, simply has not held States accountable for migrant education programs. Few, if any, specific enforcement or specific evaluation procedures exist, or if they do they are not utilized; and unless there is accountability and enforcement, as the committee well knows, the law can become meaningless.

This does not have to be the case with the migrant eduction program, but unless the Office of Education and the Congress concern themselves with correcting the situation migrant education will continue to fail large numbers of migrant children.

The following are illustrative of our concerns:

One, millions of dollars in migrant funds are illegally expended on nonmigrants each year.

Two, numerous States and communities with migrant education funds have no parent involvement and unless pushed by the Office of Education will have none despite the law's intent to include migrant parents in planning, development and actual programming. Three, the Office of Education has promulgated new regulations at the height of the migrant work season, effectively preventing participation in the process by migrant children, their parents and their advocates.

Over ten years ago the Congress recognized and acted on the neglected educational needs of migrant children. The Title I migrant eduction legislation of 1966 was and is a good law, but in too many instances it is being ignored or subverted, and in too many instances the educational needs of migrant children are not being served.

We therefore urge the Congress and this committee in particular to conduct oversight hearings in the very near future.

NCLC, along with other agencies, stands ready to assist the committee in such an effort should you so desire; but whether we participate or not, we would urge that such hearings concentrate on seveal areas-for example, accountability and enforcement, unserved migrant children, parental involvement, bilingual, bicultural education and program staffing-and seek out testimony from migrants themselves and from advocates not affiliated with or employed by Federal, State or local agencies. Unless a substantial effort is made to gather this kind of testimony, a stream of onesided, self-laudatory language will be all the committee will hear. Further, in addition to and apart from oversight hearings, we feel that there are certain changes and supplements which could substantially strengthen the legislation and the program, and which would help to assure that the educational needs of migrant parents and children will be better served in the years ahead:

Like many other agencies, we are concerned with the three- tofive-year-old child.

One: As the law now stands, preschool migrant children ages three through five are only served where there are unexpended funds remaining in local educational agency budgets. What's more, when three through five year olds are served, unlike other migrant children ages five through 17, their participation does not under the law generate funding. In short, three through five year old children are not counted in the program and therefore money cannot be sought for them specifically by local and State agencies.

The basic importance of preschool in a child's educational development is now a recognized fact. We therefore recommend that Congress amend the statute such that three through five year old children are eligible for and can generate funding, and that appropriations be increased accordingly to accommodate this additional group of children.

Two: The overall Title I program mandates parent advisory councils; the Title I migrant education program does not. Though this does not preclude parent advisory councils in the ME program and though in theory the Office of Education encourages the creation of these councils, parental involvement in many areas of the country is woefully inadequate or nonexistent.

Many migrant parents do not even know that they can form parent advisory councils and they are discouraged from doing so by official inaction and silence. Yet without some kind of parental participation and involvement-and this is a crucial point-it is hard to see how an educational program supposedly designed to deal with the unique lifestyle of migrant farmworkers and their children can succeed.