« PreviousContinue »
says five years; the regulations say they maintain MSRTS records and forms particularly for audits.
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,
Assistant Secretary for Education,
TARY ALICE KENDALL
was not able to present this testimony, due to doctor's
I, VICENTE Z. SERRANO
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
Funds Allocation Issues
Should the practice of automatic full-funding for State operated
programs be continued?
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.
Should hold harmless levels for State operated programs be changed?
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.
Should more specific statement of purpose be added to the law for
State operated programs?
Specifically, to address the educational needs of the
ini grant children and the fact that this is a State educational
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.
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.)
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)?
With the order of priority being served in the order that
1. 2. 3. 4.
Currently migrant school age.
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
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?
The present definition for Title I Migrant is clear as a'
definition, but not as to who qualifies as to category of agri
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
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.
Should there be separate set-asides for the SEA administration of
State operated programs?
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.
* * *