« PreviousContinue »
PART 17: TITLE I, STATE MIGRANT PROGRAM
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1977
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2257, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Perkins, Ford, Mottl, Le Fante, Kildee, and Murphy.
Staff present: John F. Jennings, majority counsel; Christopher Cross, minority senior education consultant; Nancy L. Kober, majority staff assistant; and Meredith Larsen, minority staff assistant. Chairman PERKINS. The committee will come to order.
The Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education is continuing hearings today on H.R. 15, a bill to extend several elementary and secondary programs which expire at the end of fiscal year 1978.
The focus of today's hearings will be on the third and last of the so-called state agency programs, the migrant program under Title I.
At this time Title I provides funds off the top of the appropriation to meet the special educational requirements of migratory students.
In fiscal year 1977, 2800 local education agencies in 46 States utilized Title I migrant funds for a total of $130,909,000, and 482,055 children were served.
Today we have a distinguished panel of witnesses. I hope you will be able to elaborate as to what further amendments are necessary to improve the programs when we mark up reauthorizing legislation.
Let me say to you gentlemen, Congressman Bill Ford has taken a special interest in this legislation.
Congressman Ford has been delayed for a few minutes; he will be here. But I want you to know he is on the job all the time on behalf of the migrants of this country. We will
call as witnesses this morning the following panel: Vidal Rivera, Jr., Migrant Branch Chief, U.S. Office of Education; Senator John Perry, New York State Senate, Member, Interstate Migrant Education Task Force, Education Commission of the States; Raul de
la Rosa, Supervisor of Migrant Education, State of Washington; Dr. Jesse Soriano, Supervisor, Migrant Education, Michigan Department of Education; C. L. Conyers, Supervisor, Title I and Migrant Education, Virginia Department of Education; Robert Youngblood, Director of Migrant Education, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; Winford M. Miller, Director, Migrant Student Record Transfer System; Roy Fuentes, Director, Migrant Project, National Education Association; and Jeffrey Newman, Director, National Child Labor Committee.
Senator Perry is not present yet.
May I say, all statements will be inserted in the record. You may proceed as you wish.
STATEMENTS OF DR. VIDAL RIVERA, JR., MIGRANT BRANCH
CHIEF, U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION; SENATOR JOHN PERRY, NEW YORK STATE SENATE, MEMBER, INTERSTATE MIGRANT EDUCATION TASK FORCE, EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES; RAUL de la ROSA, SUPERVISOR OF MIGRANT EDUCATION, STATE OF WASHINGTON; DR. JESSE SORIANO, SUPERVI. SOR, MIGRANT EDUCATION, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; C. L. CONYERS, SUPERVISOR, TITLE I AND MIGRANT EDUCATION, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ROBERT YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR OF MIGRANT EDUCATION, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION; WINFORD M. MILLER, DIRECTOR, MIGRANT STUDENT RECORD TRANSFER SYSTEM; ROY FUENTES, DIRECTOR, MIGRANT PROJECT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; AND JEFFREY NEWMAN, DI
RECTOR, NATIONAL CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE. STATEMENT OF DR. VIDAL RIVERA, JR., MIGRANT BRANCH
CHIEF, U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION Dr. RIVERA. I will briefly summarize the content of my statement. I am accompanied today by Dr. Richard Fairley, Director of the Division of Education for the Disadvantaged and, also, Dr. John Rodriguez, Associate Commissioner for Compensatory Educational Programs, U.S. Office of Education, H.E.W.
I appear before you today to provide an overview of the Title I, ESEA, program for migratory children of migratory agricultural workers and migratory fishermen.
Title I of P.L. 89-10, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, authorized a national program of Federal education support for disadvantaged children. In November of 1966, Title I, ESEA, was amended by P.L. 89-750 to incorporate special provisions for migratory children of migratory agricultural workers. Subsequent amendments to the statute provided for such program components as the eligibility of the five-year settled-out migrant, the use of carryover funds, the dissemination of information, preschool education, the use of statistics from the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS) for funding purposes, the eligibility of migratory children of migratory fishermen, and the funding for formerly migratory children.
In discussions associated with the preparation of the Education Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-380), Congress emphasized “that local educational agencies should give priority attention in operating Title I programs to the basic cognitive skills in reading and mathematics and to related support activities to eliminate physical, emotional, or_social problems that impede the ability to acquire such skills.” Both Senate and House discussions recognized, however, that such an assertion was not intended to preempt the prerogativees of local authorities to give priority to other areas (e.g. teacher training), if such emphasis were required to better meet the needs of disadvantaged children.
The formula for computing the maximum grants States will receive is based on the full-time equivalency of school-aged (5-17 years old) migrant children residing in the State. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the true number of migrant children is not known.
Chairman PERKINS. I notice this program has grown from $78 million in '74 to $145 million in 78 and most of this increase is due to counting so-called five-year migrants, the settled migrants. Those children increased 129 percent from 1976 to 1978.
In other words, the program grew from 45,477 children in '76 to 104,024 in '78.
Could you give us any idea of how much of a further increase there will be in the number of five-year migrant children within the next few years, say within the next two or three years. We certainly want to take care of these children, and I am making this observation because of the need for a greater appropriation for Title I funds. I think it behooves us all to work in that direction, and let the people know that we must take care of both the migrant children and the other disadvantaged children. After we take off the top for the State agency programs we are getting down to about 83 or 84 percent left for the other disadvantaged students. It is for this reason we all need to combine and make a greater pitch for a greater appropriation for Title I.
Could you give us an idea as to what the increase should be within the next three years?
Dr. RIVERA. The only estimate I could give you,
Dr. RIVERA. I believe it is going to increase but not in the same proportion. I know my fellow colleagues here will testify later on this. Because of the increased identification and recruitment that the States have implemented, the increase in the numbers of children, as you see now, the five-year provision child, has been because of the funding of the provisions made in 93-380. Prior to that, those children according to the statute could be served but there were no funds provided for them. As you well know, sir, the intent of all that was because once a child ceased to migrate, he would settle in a certain community and it did not necessarily mean the services should not continue for him.
In as educated a guess as I can give you, I would say it would increase for the next couple of years because of the identification and recruitment programs. Then there will be a tendency to level off. Whether that will be at the same rate, I can't tell you.
Mr. Miller will be testifying later and he can inform you as to the data the computer system shows.
Chairman PERKINS. Go right ahead.
Dr. RIVERA. The figure you stated a little while ago, 482,000 children being served, if I am not mistaken, the figure you were reading on the funding basis, is the full-time equivalent of that child as he resides in a particular state.
The child who lives in Texas for a five-month period of time, then takes off and goes to Illinois and Michigan, at that time that information is placed into the system that he is there in residency, the State of Illinois picks up the remainder of the full-time equivalent on that child.
When you look at one child being served in that program the fulltime equivalent of 365 days, which has been determined as residency, may be split up between three or four states. When you look at the funding, 483,000 children are being served. The full-time equivalent funding for last year was on the basis of 296,000 full-time equivalents.
On the basis of continued full funding for the program, there is a division made between the states in terms of the dollars.
The provisions of 93-380 indicated we should use the data from the MSRTS. The initial focus of that system is to accrue health and academic data on the children, no matter where the child goes throughout the United States, to increase his performance in academic skills and also to identify health conditions. That system has been in use since 1975. As a result, we have much more accurate information on children being served. The one flaw in 89-10 and 89750 was that the parent qualified the child, not the child qualifying himself, it was the mobility of the parent which qualified the child. At the beginning, if you recall, you will see we were making use of data furnished by the Department of Labor. One of the by-products was that at some point in time, we could use that system to give us an accurate look as to how many children were being served in the confines of the legislation.
The program in '67 was authorized for $40 million. However, it was not appropriated, because of the lateness of the moneys, only $9 million. It has grown to the present fiscal '78 amount of $145,759,940.
The migrant program is a State-administered program. One of the interesting aspects of the legislation is that it identifies the State educational agency in a particular State to be the administrating and operating body. The State must then submit an application to the U.S. Office of Education. They specify the areas in which they will work with the child, the types of activities, the appropriate budgets and the expected outcome.
Upon approval of that application by the Office of Education, the grant is made and the state has the option as to where the programs will operate. Most operate through the local educational agency because that agency is in the educational field.
However, the State is not precluded from working with public or private non-profit agencies, colleges or universities in developing some scheme for developing some program if the local education school board doesn't wish to operate a program.
The needs of migrant children are established through parent contact, teacher observations, and data available in the Migrant