Page images

this task force, related to us in his conversations with a mother of some migrants that two of her children had graduated from high school. Two of her children had graduated from high school. As an educator and as a citizen of this nation, that makes me proud to know that the expenditure of these funds and the efforts of the people involved in migrant education have really counted, and I know that Joe could come up with many more statistics than those two, but that was a real experience.

There was the mother, and she had two kids who had graduated from high school under very difficult circumstances, not like getting up every day and getting on the big yellow bus and being taken back and forth for nine months. I think these people have accomplished something extraordinary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Perry follows:]






October 12, 1977

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Education Commission of the States' (ECS) Interstate Migrant Education Project and Task Force, we want to thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of migrant agricultural workers, migrant fishermen and their children. This project originated in 1976 and is composed of eight state departments of education -- Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, New York, Texas and Washington using Title I migrant education funds to explore critical issues and to develop recommendations and policies that meet the educational needs of migrant children. The project is a milestone because several states have entered into an interstate agreement to jointly bring about increased interstate cooperation.

We feel that the Title I legislation has been very positive in addressing itself to the national nature of the mobile or migrant constituency that it was designed to serve; but, as the program has evolved and matured, we find that we have identified areas that may need to be revised, removed or replaced with new approaches or methods to fully carry out the intent of the law. The ECS Interstate Migrant Education Task Force submits the following items for your consideration, not in the order of priority, but as items or areas that need to be further discussed in the process of the reauthorization of the migrant education program under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary. Education Act (ESEA) (Public Law 89-10), as amended under Public Law 93-380). 1. Migrant education legislation should remain as part of Title 1. The present manner of funding state-operated programs more adequately addresses the fiscal needs of the program. The program dollars follow the child for more direct services.

2. We recommend the continuation of the funding, as presently written in the law, of children ages 5-17, including the 5-year "settled out“ migrants. 3. We further recommend the funding of children, as identified and entered in the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS) at the 0-5 lower age level and at the 18-21 upper age level, so that subsequently children 0-21, including the 5-year "settled out" children, will be provided better. education access. Presently, the program encompasses and serves the 5-17 age range, but various circumstances - primarily those of economics, with older children needing to contribute to the total income of the family and the interruption of the continuity of the education of the mobile migrant child -- hinder the students in attaining or attending higher levels of education above the 8th grade. Encompassing and providing the additional funds for serving the lower age levels of 0-5 will provide early childhood services that will promote better educational experiences and readiness for entry into school, resulting in more positive learning experiences and retention at the 8th grade level and above.

The funding of the 18-21 age level, with the utilization of innovative approaches for reaching and retaining this age group, such as the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), will further provide educational opportunity for migrant students that will result in alternative choices for their life's work in other than migrant labor. 4. In line with recommendation #3, we also recommend the authorization of incentive or special grants in the 0-5 and 18-21 levels. These grants would generate and engender special approaches for providing the indepth looks at meeting the unique needs of these two age level groups, such as the incentive grants being presently used to meet the special needs of handicapped children. 5. Special emphasis has to be placed on serving migrant dropouts. The first step has to be in the prevention of the dropout. The above recommendations could be the first step toward this prevention. Retention and the continuity of the migrant child's education are the crucial steps toward preventing his or her dropping out of school.

The expansion of secondary and postsecondary programs, like HEP and CAMP,
needs to be further established to retain or recover the potential or actual
The possibility of a stipend or work-study program for older children -- 14
years and older -- should be established in order to help students through
the hard decision of helping toward total family income or the "long-range"
goal of an education.

We have found that the average grade level for migrants is 5.3. Their comparative enrollment chances are:




at the 9th grade level: 40%

pared to

96% at the 12th grade level: 11% compared to 50% 80% 6. The present funding is often expended before serving all the priority categories. Very often, particularly in the larger sending and receiving states, the impaction of "currently migratory children" is so great that "formerly migratory children" or "day care" children cannot be adequately and properly served because there is not enough funding to cover all the eligible children. The category of children that may be served, but often cannot be served due to the above stated circumstance, is the preschool or "day care" children. They cannot be served until the other categories are served because they presently do not generate any funds. Only the 5-17 year old migrants generate funds on a Full Time Equivalency (FTE) basis of residence in the reporting or host state.

1. Interstate and interagency coordination must be emphasized. This ECS project is an effort toward increased interstate cooperation and, as it has developed and evolved, we have found that the national nature of the mobile migrants demands greater interstate coordination. The present project states, as well as other states that have formed similar coordination groups (such as the Western States Coordinating Council for Migrant Education, The Eastern Stream States and the Five Midwest States groups), need to be helped in their efforts to promote interstate coordination at all levels federal, regional, state and local.

Federal rules and regulations must be supportive of these tasks by facilitating and expediting these efforts by lessening the "red tape" and paper work that may hinder their formation. Technical assistance in the formation of such groups should also be provided. Model formats or procedures should be formulated in order to provide a guide or guidance toward the development of such coordination groups. This would result in improved cooperation among state education agencies in the administration, planning, implementation, staffing, monitoring and evaluation of the Title I (migrant program) of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Interagency coordination is also very necessary at all levels. A11 federal agencies that have migrants in the populations they serve should formulate specific interrelated regulations for migrant programs and services. The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Labor, the Public Health Service and the Office of Child Development (Headstart and Indian/Migrant Division), Department of Social Welfare Medical Services, through Title XIX of the Social Security Act, EPSDT, should standardize the definition of migrant workers and eligibility. The federal government should assure that migrant funds are focused on the concerns and specific needs identified by the agencies. It should also assure equal access to services on an interstate basis for all federally supported programs; i.e., education, social services, Title XIX, Title XX, labor, etc.

8. The above emphasis on interstate and interagency coordination should be included in the intent section of the legislation. These are key elements that must be applied to this program in order to fully carry out the intent of the legislation.

9. Migrant education should be viewed in the totality of the education process, providing access to the mainstream of the whole educational system. Migrant education is not another educational system, but an alternative approach toward providing the continuity of education to the "mobile" migratory child. Its most unique feature, especially in the "instream" receiver states, is that it is forced to provide the continuity of education in segments of time varying from 6 to 8 weeks or 3 to 6 months, depending on the crop or crops that the workers are engaged in.

The regular educational system is carried out in the traditional time frame of the 9-month school year. Some of these children go to school all year, not on a continuous basis, but on an intermittent basis. This intermittent attendance does not always add up to the traditional 180 days of school attendance, so it may take longer. Migrant education provides the alternative toward getting an education, as well as provides the transition from "mobile" school attendance patterns to a "settled out" enrollment for the no longer "mobile" migratory child into the mainstream of the whole educational system. It could be more adequately described as a parallel system that facilitates for the migrant child the moving in and out of the non "mobile" regular school system. It minimizes the trauma or shock of the transition into regular school for the bilingual, as well as the monolingual child. 10. The Title I migrant program has been very successful in carrying out early childhood education, even though children served do not presently generate any funds. As an example of the number of chi Toren served, we have asked the Migrant Student Record Transfer System for the following figures for the ECS project member states:

[blocks in formation]

The grand total of 28,846 preschool children served by the ECS project states
during program year 1977 is very significant. These and the other states know
the importance of this much needed headstart for children who very often
have negative educational experiences, due to the many interruptions in their
education. The states have developed early childhood approaches in order
to give preschool children an early start toward positive educational
experiences. They have been very successful in providing the needed services,
even though they have had to stretch their present funding to do this.

These children are being served, but they could very well be denying other
children access to a local program or to the services provided. That is why
every child identified and served must generate funds. Proper and full
services must be provided to all these children.
Presently, a committee has been formed by the state migrant directors in order
to formulate an early childhood curriculum to meet the present needs of pre-
school children. They also anticipate expanding the program should additional
funds be provided in the reauthorization of the legislation.

11. The ECS Interstate Migrant Education Task Force would like to request
of this committee that it request of the Assistant Secretary of Education,
Dr. Mary F. Berry, as Chairperson of the Federal Interagency Committee on
Education (FICE), a report on the overall role of the federal government
on migrant education.

We want to once again thank you for this opportunity and would respectfully
request that you permit us to defer to Mr. Raul de la Rosa, President of
the National Association of Directors of Migrant Education, and a number of
his peers who would also like to present testimony on the reauthorization of
Title I migrant legislation.

[Additional material submitted by the Education Commission of the States Interstate Migrant Education Task Force follows:]




Additional Information Submitted for the Record
by Mem of the Education Commission of the States'
Interstate Migrant Education Project Task Force

in the form of Testimony Presented at
Office of Education Regional Hearings on

the Title I Migrant Program Requlations

« PreviousContinue »