Page images
PDF
EPUB

says five years; the regulations say they maintain MSRTS records and forms particularly for audits.

10.

Parental consent signature could be put on MSRTS form only once

and be used for five years or more without requiring a new parent

signature every year.

11. There may be a question that the regulations may be interpreted to

mean that a migrant child may remain for six years after settling

out, as opposed to five years.

This needs clarification.

Testimony Presented at the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Reauthorization Public Hearings Held at 330 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

HEW North Building Auditorium,

July 13, 1977,
Before Dr. Mary F. Berry.

Assistant Secretary for Education,
and Dr. Ernest Boyer, Commissioner of Education

TARY ALICE KENDALL
MEMBER, NEW YORK BOARD OF RE: ENTS

AND
NEMBER, ECS INTERSTATE MIGRANT EDUCATION TASK FORCE

was not able to present this testimony, due to doctor's
orders. Instead,

I, VICENTE Z. SERRANO
DIRECTOR OF THE ECS INTERSTATE MIGRANT EDUCATION PROJECT

has had to give this testimony in her stead.

The Education Commission of the States (ECS) Interstate Migrant Education Task

Force and staff have arrived at some positions that address some of the concerns

suggested by HEW staff.

These positions are in order of questions circulated

by HEW:

A.

Funds Allocation Issues

1.

Should the practice of automatic full-funding for State operated

programs be continued?

Yes.

Elementary/Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I Migrant must

remain a categorical program based on an allocation formula using

the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS) data.

Migrant education must continue to be funded at 100 percent of need

as indicated by MSRTS allocation formula.

2.

Should hold harmless levels for State operated programs be changed?

No.

The hold harmless provision is necessary due to the mobility

patterns of migrants.

The commissioner of education can make these

adjustments on a case-to-case basis, as the need arises.

[blocks in formation]

a.

Should more specific statement of purpose be added to the law for

State operated programs?

Yes.

Specifically, to address the educational needs of the

ini grant children and the fact that this is a State educational

agency-operated program.

Migrant education was originally, and still is, designated as a

categorical program designed to assist children who have been

excluded from receiving cqual educational opportunity.

The majority of migrant children move from one state to another.

Mi grant education, therefore, must be a national effort aimed at

providing continuity of education for migrant children.

ESEA Title I migrant education is unlike regular ESEA Title I

programs in that it is a state education agency program.

The

funds and the use of funds are the state agency's, rather than

the local education agency's, responsibility.

Because of the

funding differences, the administrative procedures for migrant

education programs are different than they are for regular

Title I. (Side remark: Today's scheduling is an example of the low visibility profile that the Title I Migrant program has even within HEW.)

2.

Migrants

a.

Should the priority system be changed so that services are

provided first to current migrants (pre-school and school age)

and then to former migrants (pre-school and school age)?

Yes.

With the order of priority being served in the order that

follows:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Currently migrant school age.
Currently migrant preschool.
Five-year provision school age.
Five-year provision preschool.

Presently the program is serving about 50,000 current migrant

preschool age children that do not generate any funds.

Migrant legislation must recognize the need for providing

services to migrant children from birth through secondary

education.

The task force suggests that additional funding should be allo

cated to encompass these children, especially 0-5.

Should the definition of "migrant" be changed?

Yes.

The present definition for Title I Migrant is clear as a'

definition, but not as to who qualifies as to category of agri

[blocks in formation]

Should the administration of the Migrant and Neglected or Delinquent

programs be changed?

Should these programs be administered

separately from the basic Title I LEA program?

Presently Title I Migrant does not have enough staff or identity at the

federal level to carry out its functions.

The program should be

aligned so that it is more compatible with its responsibilities at both

the federal and state levels.

The United States Office of Education must provide more direction and

leadership in pursuing the goals and objectives of Title I migrant

programs.

Part of the difficulty appears to lie in the current organi

zation of migrant education programs branch within the United States

Office of Education.

Currently the migrant programs branch operates

within the framework of the Title I office in spite of the fact that

administrative relations and responsibilities for Title I are different.

Separate status should be granted to migrant and other state agency

programs, like the handicapped and Indian programs that also draw

their money froin Title I funds.

During the November 11 and December 5, 1975, hearings before the

Subcommittee on Agricultural Labor, chaired by the Honorable Carl D.

Perkins, a study in this area was proposed; but, to our knowledge,

it has not yet been made.

2.

Should there be separate set-asides for the SEA administration of

State operated programs?

Yes.

Presently the money goes out to the state in total, together

with Title I monies.

There should be money set aside commensurate

to their responsibilities for migrant education.

The state education agencies (chief state school officers) must provide

appropriate administrative and organizational support for ESEA Title I

migrant education programs; that is, within the state agency structures,

the migrant program operation must be placed in the most effective

organizational position to obtain the interest, support and cooperation

of the state board of educa.ion, the other divisions within the state

agency and the general public. Again, USOE must consider this in

their approval of the state plan.

* * *

*

« PreviousContinue »