Page images

Even in the new regulations recently implemented by the Office of Education, parental involvement is defined such that almost any community could ignore migrant parents without fear of penalty or rebuke.

We therefore recommend that the Congress amend the Title I Migrant Education statute to include the same language concerning parental involvement as now exists in Title I. This will assure the establishment and participation of migrant parental advisory councils in the planning, creation and evaluation of migrant education projects at the local level.

Three: In the 11 years since the start of the migrant education program the program's budget has grown from less than $10 million to Fiscal Year 1978's $145 million. Shockingly, during that same period the staff of the migrant branch of OE has not increased at all.

Though NCLC does not believe that all of the inadequacies of the migrant education program can be excused by the inadequate staffing of the program at the Federal level, it is clear that the program is in desperate need of substantially increased quality staff. The real needs of migrant children in the field cannot possibly be served if the central staff does not even have the basic capabilities of overseeing a $145 million nationwide program.

Therefore, we recommend that the Congress specifically earmark appropriations for the migrant branch of the Office of Education, thus eliminating the present cumbersome system which puts the migrant program in direct competition with and at the mercy of other needy Title I programs and assuring staffing which can begin to be responsive to program needs.

Four: In a number of States, State education agencies have ignored programs administered under Section 303 of CĚTA Title III, though these are the farm-worker-governed agencies within those States. When the Title I ME statute was passed in 1966, Section 122 al-b mandated coordination with these programs which were then administered under Part B, Title I, of the Economic Opportunity Act, EOA, of 1964. Since then, however, CETA has replaced EOA, but using the excuse that the law only requires such coordination with EOX programs, some States feel free to ignore what amounts to the only farm-worker-run programs.

The intent of Congress in 1966 was clearly to require this coordination. The transfer from EOA to CETA of farm-worker-run progrms does not change their importance to the delivery of wide variety of services to migrant families, nor does it basically change their importance to the State migrant education program.

We recommend that Section 122-al-b should be changed to read: “In planning and carrying out programs and projects there has been and will be appropriate coordination with programs and projects there has been and will be appropriate coordination with programs administered under Title III, Section 303, of CETA of 1973."

With the aforementioned concerns in mind, private and public organizations including the Migrant Legal Action Program, the National Council of La Raza, Program Funding Inc., the Youth Law Center of San Francisco, the National Association of Farmworker Organizations, as well as the National Child Labor Committee, all strongly urge the continuation of the migrant education program. We thank you for asking us here today and if you have any questions we would be glad to answer them.

Mr. FORD. Thank you very much.

Looking again at the chart attached to your testimony, Mr. Miller, on the MSRTS enrollments, I notice that the 1971 enrollment figures were less than 150,000. Then by 1972 enrollments reached 250,000, and then flattened out from 1972 to 1974, and then from there, there was a dramatic increase from 1974 through 1975 until 1976, and then it flattened out again.

One might look at that chart and get the impression that suddenly there were hundreds of thousands of new people entering the migrant streams.

What accounts for the dramatic change between the years 1971 through 1972 and then again 1974 through 1976?

Mr. MILLER. Public Law 93-380 extended to migrant education the opportunity to serve five-year, settled-out migrants. I believe it was sometime in December of 1974 that the Office of Education actually came out with a directive to the State directors encouraging them to start immediately to serve five-year, settled-out migrants.

In doing so, they started a recruiting program and initiated a recruiting program in their States to get those children into the system. That is the reason that you see the big growth from 1974 up to 1976, is because for the first time five-year, settled-out migrants were being put into the system.

The other main issue that you see is the settled out there, when you look at the chart and you see almost 550,000 being in the system, that is 550,000 students who have been enrolled on the data base. The program only looks at children between five and 17 inclusive to count for funding, so if you go back and look at the recommenation, that 750 children would be enrolled on the data base, does not mean that the FTE would increase.

For all practical purposes, I think that you will continue to see the leveling out there of children and also the FTE leveling out.

Mr. KILDEE. Does anybody want to comment on that?

Mr. DE LA ROSA. Yes. I think Mr. Miller would concur with me that resulted in just five-year settled-out migrant children. It included interstate or first-year migrant children so the figures you see in the total data bank reflected 31 percent of the total population as settled-out migrant children. I do want that clear, because the original question Congressman Perkins asked was relative to the number of children included in the data bank and did we foresee a large increase in the future?

I believe that will not be the case. I think what we are seeing now is a stabilization due to the efforts in recruitment identification and we will be able to stabilize on a figure which basically reflects what we have right now.

Mr. FORD. At which point on your graph did the use of the MSRTS data as a basis for counting children and allocating money to states occur?

Mr. MILLER. 1973.
Mr. FORD. Where?

Mr. MILLER. We run it on a calendar year, January 1 to December 31, 1973.

Mr. FORD. We have some questions first for the Office of Education

How does one answer the question of why we don't have regulations? It only took three and a half years to get the troublesome regulations written to enforce sex discrimination legislation and now we don't have permanent regulations for a program that was put into the law in 1966. What is holding them up?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I am John Rodriguez.

Following the amendments for 1974, regulations were developed as proposed rules and published in July of 1975. A public hearing was held on those proposed rules in August of that year.

Revision to those regulations, according to the comments which were offered, were finally published in July of '77. Those regulations became effective as interim regulations, however, having the full force of regulations on September 5 of this year.

We proposed them as interim regulations in that there were a significant number of changes brought about as a result of the comments offered on the proposed rules. Because of these changes it was felt best not to issue them as final regulations but to again have a set of hearings to again further comment with regard to the impact of such regulations. We did hold five hearings during the month of August in five locations across the country to gain further comment. Again, it was felt that parents in home states didn't have sufficient opportunity to comment and impact these regulations. Therefore, three additional hearings are scheduled for the month of November, beginning on November 14, in the State of Florida, Redlands, Florida, I believe, and the 14th and 15th, 17th and 18th in McAllen, Texas, and on the 21st and 22nd in Indio, California.

We believe in these hearings we will have sufficient comment from parents to finalize such regulations. The process is going on now with regard to comments already offered in review and categorizing such regulations before they do become final.

Mr. FORD. That indicates to me the present situation is predicated on the assumption by the department that the regulations are not ready to be finalized because there are more people to be heard from who may want to make some contribution to the final form of the regulation and obviously there is some question as to whether or not they can be implemented forthwith without some kind of consideration for the dislocation of existing practices.

What did we do from 1966 to '76? How did we function without regulations?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The migrant program operated under a general set of regulations for Title I which included provisions within certain sections of those regulations. There was not a clear and concise set of regulations devoted to the migrant program. A lot of confusion existed. When it was decided that new regulations would have to be issued for Title I, the migrant regulations as well as other state-operated programs were set aside in separate parts of Section 16.

Mr. Ford. How many professionals do you have in the migrant branch of USOE?


Mr. FORD. How many did you have the first year when the program was $9 million.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I don't know.

Dr. RIVERA. There were four. When I joined the staff, I was the fifth one, in 1968.

Mr. FORD. You have added four professionals while Congress has added $135 million to administer the program. It sounds as though somebody is cutting it off down at the pass in the Office of Education.

This Department of OE has not been given an opportunity to grow as Congressional intent might have suggested when the resources were increased to be administered by it. For years the attitude was that you did not need special regulations for migrant education; that it was a part of Title I.

Dr. RIVERA. I would like to offer a comment on that, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I have been involved in the State of Arizona as migrant director and prior to that for two and a half years to three years, I was involved in a research project. When I came on with the program, it was not difficult to understand the entire program with respect to the migrant. It is the kind of program which came on, as my colleague here from NEA said. We need to finish the construction. What happened here is a program within which you are operating within Title I, run it.

We said to the states, here is a program with different operational aspects, run it.

There were things not done such as taking a look at the one percent administrative money, the operational nature of the program. That when I joined the office in 1968, it had been up to two, three or four people, whatever it was, to implement the program right away. It has been in that kind of context. The growth of the program internally is predicated on the growth of the division. So, if you recall two years ago in the hearings that your committee held at that time, I think it was November of '75, there was some testimony presented at that time from our deputy commissioner trying to address that issue.

I believe, and I think it is well recognized, that it is really not a question of money, but a question of function. I will stop right there.

Mr. FORD. I think it is apparent that the role the Office of Education is expected to play in administering funds for and giving direction to migrant education and the role the state departments play in migrant education, is very much different than for any other elementary and secondary program.

The criticism is leveled at your office in some of the testimony here—that USOE doesn't give enough professional guidance and direction to people out at the state level. That goes hand in hand with the claim that we don't give the states enough incentive in the form of administrative money. That starves the office at that level.

I might be able to get the cooperation from my colleagues on the committee to do something about beefing up the operation at USOE. But it might be somewhat difficult to get money reinstated for state

departments of education since in some cases we are now paying for 80 percent of their budgets and some of us are alarmed at the amount of bureaucracy created by Federal dollars. In addition, we are faced with the dilemma that states may not use state resources if we don't come up with enough Federal resources. We may be forced to come up with more Federal administrative funds. Mr. Quie and I would be supportive of that if we could be guaranteed the additional money would be used for migrant education and not just go into the departments' general funds.

Reports have come to us from around the country that states are ingenious in being able to use Federal money for purposes other than intended.

Perhaps your office could be helpful in writing regulations governing use of federal dollars for administrative costs by states. That is something we might consider in enactment of this legislation. What I am suggesting to you is that the best way to get the additional administrative money is to guarantee at the state level it will only be used for migrant education and at the same time not to have federal dollars simply replace funding states were already using for this purpose.

Mr. DE LA ROSA. The objectives of a migrant program are reflected in the state plan which must be directed to the OE. Now, I know Mr. Rivera is restricted in terms of his testimony, at least I would conclude that he is restricted because he is being very careful with his wording, but you know, as a state director, some of us have submitted our state plans and we know how hard that staff works and we know how many state plans they receive, they must review, objective per objective, budgets.

Some of us during this current summer experienced a very difficult time with the OE in getting our grant. We, of course, called into the Office of Education and wanted to know the reason for the delay of the grant.

With the limited amount of staff Mr. Rivera has, he is required by his administration to fulfill the monitoring requirements of the states. While he had monitors out in the field, he did not have staff within his office to take care of reviewing our state plans to effect the grant expeditiously out of his office. So we found ourselves in essence saying to Mr. Rivera, either you get more staff and meet both the objective of executing the state plan and making our grant or you prioritize your activities and make our grant your prioriry. I have a gentleman here sitting next to me, he has done as much complaining about the situation as I have, but we have experienced a delay in getting the grant out into the state which ultimately has an effect on the services of the children and, Mr. Congressman, that is a very important point and I would like to tie it back to Mr. Newman's comments. They may have some validity. I would like to have them put in the context under which we are operating. These are tied to the staff. We are not going to get the kind of quality plans that really reflect the kinds of objectives and goals needed to meet the goals of the children.

Mr. FORD. You have to file an annual state plan.

Mr. DE LA ROSA. Yes, July 1 or under the new fiscal year it would be by September 31, if we want our grant to be effective October 1st.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »