Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

made available by the migrant student record transfer system or such other system as he may determine most accurately and fully reflects the actual number of migrant students.

SECTION 843 (d) OF PUB. L. 93-380

be served in such other States. The total grant which shall be made available for use in Puerto Rico shall be arrived at by multiplying the number of chudren in Puerto Rico counted as provided in the preceding sentence by 40 per centum of (1) the average per pupil expenditure in Puerto Rico or (2) in the case where such average per pupil expenditure is more than 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States, 120 per centum of the average per pupil expenditure in the United States. In determining the number of migrant children for the purposes of this section the Commissioner shall use statistics

Notwithstanding any provision of part A of title I of the Elementary and secondary Education Act of 1965 (section 241c et seq. of this title), the amount which the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is eligible to recelve under subpart 1 of such part A (this section) or under sections 121, 122, or 123. (sections 241c-1, 2410-2, or 2410-3 of this title) for

the Ascal year ending June 30, 1975, shall aot exceed 50 per centum of the full amount the Commonwealth Puerto Rico would recolve (after required ratable reductions) under such subpart (this section) or section (section 2410-1, 2410-2, or 2410-3 of this title) but for this subsection, and for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1976, September 30, 1977, and September 30, 1978, such amount shall not exceed 75 per centum of the full amount the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would receivo (after required ratable reductions) under such subpart or section but for this subsection.

[FR Doc. 77-19384 Flled 7-12-77:8:45 am)

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 42, NO. 134--WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1977

[blocks in formation]

Summary

The Migrant education program under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 89-10), as amended, is one of the three Part A programs referred to as State operated programs. Funding allocations for the program in FY 1978 are $145.8 million as compared with $9.7 million in FY 1967.

As one of the State operated programs, funds for the program are subtracted from the total appropriations before computations are made to determine the allocations for each State and subsequently for. each local educational agency (LEA). This funding of the program "off the top" results in the State operated programs being fully funded while the LEA portion of Part A of Title I may be prorated because of a total Part A appropriation that was less than the authorization or because of an unanticipated growth in the number of pupils in the State programs .

Each State's allocation is based on the number of pupils enrolled during the second prior year. In contrast to the operation of the portion of Part A that is allocated to LEAS, there is no local district entitlement under this program. The allocation is to the State and the State program allocation must be submitted and approved before funds are actually distributed.

For FY 1977 the pupil count for the various projects was estimated by United States Office of Education (USOE) at 675,000, but this number represents a duplicated count since pupils may participate in more than one project. The allocation to the States for FY 1977 was based on on 267,791 full time equivalent pupils, for FY 1978 the allocation figure is 296,430 pupils. The FY 1978 allocations have been based on programs projected for 46 States plus Puerto Rico.

The findings and observations of this study are based on a review and analysis of documents in the USOE and interviews with various persons who have been associated with the program at the national level. As a result of these activities, the following general observations seem pertinent:

1.

The funding requirements of the program will in all
likelihood continue to increase, for available infor-
mation suggests that not all of the participating
pupils are now being enrolled on the Migrant Student
Record Transfer System (MSRTS).

2.

The addition of the "children who have been migratory
within the preceding five years but who have settled in
an area operating a migratory program" has contributed
to much of the growth in the full-time equivalent pupils
in recent years. (Hereafter, these persons are referred
to as "five year" children.)

3.

The MSRTS data appear to represent a considerable
improvement over the Department of Labor (DOL) data that
were previously used to compute the allocations to
the States.

4.

The "hold harmless" provision may merit reconsideration
in view of the number of States whose allocations are
related to 1972 Department of Labor data that were based
on a hypothetical number of students.

5.

Operational problems with the MSRTS appear to be more
related to the inadequacies of input information from
local projects than to technical problems associated
with the operation of the MSRTS.

6.

Current efforts to develop a criterion referenced
testing system as an integral part of the MSRTS
should enhance the use of the MSRTS as an informa-
tion source on student academic attainment.

7.

Current procedures for determining the number of full-
time equivalent pupils appear to offer the possibility
that a State could receive credit for a child for a
full year even though the project in which the child
was enrolled may have lasted for only a few weeks and
the child may have left the State.

8.

When the recently published "interim final regulations"
become final, States may have sufficient direction to
avoid

many of the operational problems historically
associated with the program.

9.

Even though comments in the proposed regulations attempt
to clarify the matter, some confusion appears to exist
concerning the intent of the legislation as to the order
in which the target groups are to be served. Obviously,
the first choice is the currently migratory school aged
children of currently migratory parents.

The confusion
is related to the next group to be served. Comments in
the proposed regulations indicate that the next group is
to be the migratory school aged children of migratory
parents who are not currently migratory but have been
within the past five years. The statute appears to be
unclear as to whether this group of children would be second
in priority or the currently migratory preschool children
of currently migratory parents.

10.

The quality of the Migrant program reviews conducted by
the USOE Migrant branch staff has been improving, and the
reviews evidently have a positive impact on the Migrant
education delivery system.

11.

Current Migrant program evaluations from the States do not provide information of value in comparing programs on an interstate basis nor do they provide sufficient information to guide efforts for program improvement. Proposed changes appear to focus more on evaluations of student academic achievement progress than on program management oriented evaluations that might be used to improve the operational aspects of the program.

12.

Identification, recruitment, enrollment, and eligibility
of pupils appear to be continuing problems with the
Migrant education program.

13.

A comprehensive audit schedule for State Migrant programs
does not appear to have been developed.

14.

Evidence of positive action through interstate cooperative endeavors can be found, but much improvement can still be made in such areas as interstate cooperation, program planning, and program monitoring.

15.

The position of the administration of the Migrant program
within the USOE bureaucracy and the relative number of
staff members assigned full time to the Migrant branch
are perceived as problems by persons in the Migrant branch
and by "third party" observers.

16. Operationally, the Migrant education program is different

from other allocation programs. First, the program serves
a highly mobile population group. Second, in many cases,
the educational opportunities are provided by LEAs on a
project basis through the State educational agency. Third,
the USOE is responsible for approving and monitoring projects
on the basis of the State's program plan.

With the adoption of the proposed regulations, some additional guidance should be available for States to reduce the problems associated with ineligible pupils in the program and inappropriate uses of program funds.

17.

98-491 O - 78 - 13

« PreviousContinue »