Mrs. GREEN. In regard to the fellowships in title IV, the bill now provides that these periods of study are not to be in excess of 3 academic years. What would be your reaction if this were cut down to 1? Mr. PUTNAM. I would say offhand, I would have no objection to it at all.

Mrs. GREEN. Would you think it would be preferable?

Mr. PUTNAM. I think it would be preferable to 3 years. I think 1 year, with some sort of a controlling situation as to whether it would be continued or not, would be all right.

Mrs. GREEN. The teacher who is qualified should be able to get any additional training in regard to children of migrant workers in that year's time in which to spread the funds?

Mr. PUTNAM. I would think so.

Mrs. GREEN. One of the other witnesses earlier suggested that workshops be held and that title IV be expanded to the place where we might use workshops.

Mr. PUTNAM. I think that would be very valuable also.

Mrs. GREEN. You would approve of that?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes.

Mrs. GREEN. Again, may I have your own opinion on whether this bill should cover the children of intrastate migrant children and interstate migrant children or is the Federal responsibility limited only to the children of interstate migrant laborers?

Mr. PUTNAM. My reaction, off the cuff, to it is that this should include both. The school district is hit in the same way anyway.

Mrs. GREEN. Would you have difficulty in administering the law if it were limited to interstate?

Mr. PUTNAM. Intra or inter?

Mrs. GREEN. Interstate.

Mr. PUTNAM. There would be some difficulty there. I visualize some difficulty there, yes.

I have not had an opportunity to think that through. I am thinking primarily of the local school districts that are affected quite drastically now and then by that influx of labor just once or twice a year.

Mrs. GREEN. Title I of the bill now reads that the funds shall go for each day's attendance in excess of 10 during the school year. I have given some consideration to changing this and making it retroactive to the first day, but the child would be limited to the 10th or 11th day. Another witness suggested that this 10 days be changed to 5 and retroactive to the first day.

Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. PUTNAM. I would agree with the 5.

Mrs. GREEN. You think they should qualify if they have been there for 5 days and then it would be retroactive to the first day?

Mr. PUTNAM. Yes. I do not have any particular urgency about it. It just appears to me that as soon as possible the local district should be assured of the position in which it is in accepting these migrant children.

Mrs. GREEN. No more questions, Mr. Chairman.

Again, thanks to you, Mr. Putnam, for appearing before our committee this morning.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you.

Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Dr. Edgar Fuller, Council of Chief State School Officers.

We are happy to have you with us this morning.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Mr. FULLER. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Green, if you permit, I would like to make one correction in my statement and then file the statement and not read it.

I will then discuss these particular points.

Mr. UDALL. You are an old pro, Dr. Fuller, and we appreciate such procedure always. Go right ahead.

Unless there is objection, the statement will be submitted and will appear in the record with the change Dr. Fuller mentioned. As a Congressman who has a district which borders on New Mexico and which has many Spanish-American citizens, I appreciate the reason for the correction.

(The statement referred to follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Edgar Fuller, executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers, an independent educational organization with an office of three persons here in Washington. I represent the State superintendents and State commissioners of all the States and the chief school officers of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and American island dependencies.

At the recent White House Conference on Children and Youth the following resolution was adopted:

"We recommend that departments of education assume responsibility for the education of migrant children while they are within their State by providing opportunities for uninterrupted education during the regular school sessions, and supplementary summer schools to help them reach their proper grade level; we further recommend that Federal funds be provided to departments of education for general education and vocational training of migrant children and youth in both farm and nonfarm occupations, for basic education and vocational training of adult migrants, and for teacher training to meet the special needs of migrant children; we further recommend that such funds be allocated according to the density, location, and duration of residence of the migrant population."

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this resolution represents a large majority of informed opinion on the problem of educating the children of migratory laborers. Legislation along the lines of your bill (H.R. 10378), Mr. Chairman, and the bill introduced by your colleague, Mrs. Green (H.R. 9872), would be a major step forward, and we favor its enactment.

SCOPE OF PROBLEM

The Council of State Governments has estimated that about one-tenth of the entire labor force in agriculture is comprised of migrant agricultural laborers. The exact number is unknown, but the Council of State Governments has estimated the total at more than 800,000 persons. Half of these are seasonal laborers from Mexico but there are some from British West Indies and Canada, and a few from Japan and the Philippines. Approximately 400,000 are domestic migrants with all these except 25,000 Puerto Ricans being interstate workers within continental United States.

Studies have shown that mobility alone is not the problem. Other groups in the population are fully as mobile as agricultural laborers. Nor does mobility in and of itself produce personal demoralization or social disorganization. It is mobility combined with unemployment, poor education, limited occupational skills and inadequate income that is devastating to children. They have poor influences all about them; not enough regular income to provide a minimum standard of living, housing that violates human requirements for health, lack

of privacy, poor medical care, and poor education. All of us who have lived in the migrant areas know there is an attitude in most settled communities hostile or nearly hostile to the poorly clothed, poorly housed, unclean, and often semi-illiterate laborers who arrive only to harvest the crops. We believe that education would begin to roll back the disadvantages that exist for these migrants. Within a generation or two education could reduce or eliminate both the educational and social problems that are now perpetuated from generation to generation.

Studies have shown that the children of these migrants are seldom found in schools. When they are, they are likely to be retarded and rejected by the community, and even rejected by their classmates in the school. They are the innocent victims of a social scarring that no child should be allowed to suffer. Mr. Chairman, this migrant population is an interstate population, for whom no single State has yet demonstrated its willingness and ability to care for in an adequate manner. It is therefore a proper matter for Federal concern. It is interstate commerce in human beings, during the course of which the Nation cannot afford the loss of human resources due to economic and educational circumstances. I congratulate you and Congresswoman Green for introducing and working to enact this legislation. I hope we can be of some assistance to you.

STATE ADMINISTRATION

Taking H.R. 10378 as a basis for discussion, we find one administrative detail that we would like to have you reconsider. The administrative relationships for several of the titles run directly from the U.S. Office of Education at the Federal level to the local educational agency in the States. The way the bill reads now, the local educational agencies make applications directly to the Commissioner of Education. Then the Commissioner of Education is given considerable discretion in deciding what grants, if any, should be made to the local district.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the children are so transitory that to depend on local applications is to miss many of the school districts. They will be unprepared to cope with the problems of making applications when the children arrive. We believe the State department of education should handle this program in each State. The State department of education, utilizing its contacts with all local school districts, can prepare all districts to receive and enroll them. It can keep up with the migrant children but no other agency is in a position to do so. Therefore, in the definitions of findings and purpose of the act, section 2, we would suggest that it provide assistance to State agencies for the reimbursement of local educational agencies for their additional expenses in providing education to the children of migrant agricultural employees as defined by this act.

In title I, section 102(a) we would say that the applications for school districts should come from the State educational agency on behalf of the local educational agencies in the State, and that the State department should certify to the U.S. Commissioner of Education the average daily current expenditures, the enrollments of migrant children and other data necessary to qualify for the Federal payments under the act. We would carry this theme through title 3, section 203 (1) and (3), covering planning agents to survey the need for summer sessions for children of parents who are migrant agricultural employees; to develop plans for such summer sessions; to develop and carry out programs to encourage such migrant children to attend school during the regular academic year and during summer sessions; to improve the quality of education offered such children; and to coordinate the programs for migrant children provided under the act.

We believe allotments of funds should be made to the State for the use of the State department of education for these purposes.

Mr. Chairman, we might add that we hope legislation will define this as an educational program to be administered in the schools at the local and State levels. We would appreciate very much having the school authorities made fully responsible for the program.

AMOUNT OF APPROPRIATIONS

Accurate data are difficult to obtain in this field, and the proposed legislation is in a sense experimental in nature. We believe that title I could well carry an annual authorization of $3,500,000 instead of $2,500,000 and that the average

daily current expenditures per public school child should be the measure of the Federal payment for each day's attendance in excess of 10 during the school year, rather than 75 percent of the average expenditures per child.

We suggest this because the expenditures for educating migrant children are certain to be at least 50 percent higher per school child per year of attendance than for regular students. The financial incentive to take care of these underprivileged school children should be strong. Under the provisions we suggest, the influx of migrants for short periods will bring many extra expenditures beyond the regular student cost, so there will still be a subsidy by the local school district both in money and extra professional effort.

Mr. Chairman, we would increase the amount for summer schools from $300,000 to $500,000. There would probably be 100 summer schools at an average cost of $5,000 each, once the program is underway.

Under title 3 there is authorized to be appropriated $500,000 annually for each of the 5 fiscal years for planning and necessary administrative functions defined in the bill. We believe this appropriation is adequate, but not excessive.

FELLOWSHIPS

Mr. Chairman, your bill has no title 4, but H.R. 9872 does. Switching to that bill, we would favor the title, but with substantial changes. In its present form it allows 100 fellowships for the first year and then 150 fellowships for each of the succeeding 3 fiscal years. Instead of 100 fellowships at each of the sophomore, junior, senior, and graduate levels, some of which would run for 3 years, we would make all these fellowships for 1 year only. This is because young persons anticipating teaching do not need 3 years especially to prepare themselves adequately to deal with migrant schoolchildren. If they are already teachers, they can learn as much as they need to know in 1 year if they have the will and the heart to get into the education of migrant children. One-year fellowships for certified teachers or persons who will be able to gain regular certification at the end of the fellowship year would produce far more teachers for the migrant children, more effectively and with less delay.

We would suggest that the appropriation authorized remain merely "such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this title," but we would favor greatly increasing the number of fellowships.

We favor the stipend of $400 for each dependent. Reimbursement of the institution of higher education for its costs would lead to the establishment of better services in a limited number of institutions of higher education.

Mr. Chairman, we believe that section 403 (a) should provide that the State education agency and the institution of higher education concerned, rather than the U.S. Commissioner of Education, should approve the programs in institutions of higher education acceptable for holders of the fellowships. The certification by the State education agency and the institution of higher education that the approved program will prepare teachers to meet the specific problems of educating the children of migrant agricultural employees can best be administered by the State education agency and the institution of higher education giving the

course.

We also believe that the U.S. Commissioner of education should not undertake to see that very student maintains satisfactory proficiency in his studies. Again, this should be a joint function of the State education agency and the institution of higher education being attended. The certification by these two agencies to the Commissioner of Education that the student's work is satisfactory should be regarded as adequate in connection with the Federal administration of the law.

MIGRANT AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEE

In section 4(1) (4) the term "migrant agricultural employee" is defined in accordance wih the Fair Labor Standards Act and a section of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as: "On a seasonal or other temporary basis in a State where such individual does not maintain a permanent residence." Then are added the words "* * * for the purposes of this Act maintaining a permanent residence shall include the ownership of real property by either such individual or the spouse of such individual." We believe the last sentence should be omitted, and that the administrators of the act at the State level, whether the State education agency or the institution of higher education, as the case may be, should judge whether the children involved are the children of migratory agricultural workers. The ownership of real property would lead to many unjust restrictions, 55908-60-8

and would add a serious burden of administration. Searching for legal interests in real property in such instances as these is a well-nigh hopeless task. We also question practicality of the term "migrant agricultural employee State" for similar administrative reasons. We prefer to simpler provisions of H.R. 9872.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you, the members of your committee, and the other Members of the Congress who are showing an interest in this legislation. Most of us believe the Federal Government should assume a much larger share of the support of public elementary and secondary education. We also believe this sharing of public school support should be in general terms, so that States and local school districts could use Federal funds for the same purposes for which their own funds are appropriated. At first blush, it may seem that support of this legislation contradicts the above stated general policy. I do not believe it does.

It is doubtful that most States and communities, after Federal funds have been granted generally for schools, will rise to the occasion to bring the migrant children into full school membership promptly when they arrive in the community. This is a harsh but a practical judgment. Even substantial Federal funds may be used for resident students, leaving the situation for newcomers substantially unchanged. The amount proposed in these bills is small, but the benefit could be very great indeed.

Another point is worth noticing. The kind of treatment afforded 400,000 Spanish-American children each year, taken alone, would be an investment in good human relationships well worth the cost of the entire program. The education of the children of the Puerto Ricans who are among the migrants would be invaluable in the assimilation of those American citizens into the main currents of American life.

Giving the public schools financial capacity to ducate the migrants, in spite of a reluctance among the citizens of many communities to take them in, will enable school people to do so. Not many of us believe that children of 9, 10, 11, and 12 years of age should work 8 or 10 hours each day in the field during the school term. It is against the laws locally, in the States, and the Child Labor Acts, and yet the practical problem of educating migrant children is such that these laws are not enforced strictly enough for the public welfare.

To break up the vicious circle that haunts the hobo child is a wonderful objective, Mr. Chairman, we hope the Congress will recognize the great leadership you and your colleagues continue to exercise in education, and that it will enact legislation in this field. When you do, the State departments of education and the chief State school officers that head them will do all they can in the States to make it work economically and effectively.

It has been a privilege, once again, to appear before your subcommittee.
Thank you.

Mr. FULLER. It seems to me you have here legislation which ought to be enacted in one form or another. The pitfalls are numerous but the Federal responsibility, it seems to me, is quite clear. I have made some suggestions in the formal statement about the amounts of appropriations, and in regard to administration through the State agencies, which I believe Superintendent Putnam and myself concur in, and about which others have testified.

I would be glad to have questions directed to me and then lead into an informal discussion of these points so that we might be able to save time for two very busy and fine congressional Members whose time we need to preserve for the welfare of schools and the people generally. Mr. UDALL. I take it from your statement that you concur with the recommended change that Mr. Putnam suggested to us with regard to administration at the State level?

Mr. FULLER. Yes, I do. For the keeping of records and the contact with the numerous districts, and all of that, you cannot depend on the initiative of the local districts to take care of any situation which arises so rapidly. It needs to be done on a planned basis. I do not know of any other agency that could really do the job well over an entire State.