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 MARY ALICE KENDALL MEMBER, NEW YORK BOARD OF REGENTS AND MEMBER, ECS INTERSTATE MIGRANT EDUCATION TASK FORCE was not able to present this testimony, due to doctor's 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? 2. 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 Should hold harmless levels for State operated programs be changed? No. The hold harmless provision is necessary due to the mobility 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 migrant 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 equal educational opportunity. The majority of migrant children move from one state to another. Migrant 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. Currently migrant school age. C. Presently the program is serving about 50,000 current migrant 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- Yes. The present definition for Title I Migrant is clear as a definition, but not as to who qualifies as to category of agricultural or fisherman group. Administrative Issues 1. 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 organization 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. 2. Separate status should be granted to migrant and other state agency programs, like the handicapped and Indian programs that also draw their money from Title I funds. During the November 11 and December 5, 1975, hearings before the Should there be separate set-asides for the SEA administration of 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 education, the other divisions within the state agency and the general public. Again, USOE must consider this in their approval of the state plan. |