the quota or not, which can be determined by them in correspondence and conference with the Commissioner.

Mrs. GREEN. How many institutions of higher education would have programs where people could go for this training?

Mr. FULLER. Probably only a handful. Here, again, you see the State department of education with these numerous responsibilities for summer schools, for records, and for the alerting of the local districts to receive the children, and all of the rest, would be in a position to make arrangements with their State university or with the teachers college to set up the courses. I do not believe there is any other agency in the State that could do that in as effective a manner as the State department of education coordinating all of their other responsibilities with a course in a university for the people who want to prepare to teach these children in a special way.

Mrs. GREEN. You say the State agency could set up the program at the State university but you are not suggesting that in each of the 50 States you have that training?

Mr. FULLER. No, I think not. I am not certain just how many States have enough migrants but I suspect there are 20 or 25, something of that order. There are three major streams of migrants which extend northward up to New Jersey and beyond, up the Pacific coast and the middle of the United States from Texas to the Grain Belt. That is a difficult problem but I still would place the responsibility for the arrangements of all kinds in regard to the solution of the entire problem with the State department of education in collaboration with the higher institutions in each State, giving the U.S. Commissioner of Education only the powers that must be exercised at the Federal level.

Mrs. GREEN. I am in agreement with your suggestions until we get to the fellowships. I must say that with 100 fellowships to be awarded, it seems to me that there should be: (1) no quota; (2) I would be far more concerned about getting some educated, intelligent people whether 15 came from my colleague's State of Arizona and none from Oregon than I would be that 2 came from Oregon and 2 came from every other State in the Union.

It seems to me that we want quality of individual here.

Mr. FULLER. You have in the bill an allocation according to the population of migrants. This could also be used as the standard, difficult as it is to ascertain, for the number of fellowships to be granted.

The Senate bill, for instance, defines the educational load by counties. I think it is a density measurement.

Mrs. GREEN. This is for the moneys to be spent for the children, operating expenses?

Mr. FULLER. I understand, but the teachers who are needed are roughly in correspondence with the density of the migrant population and the children who are there to be taught. I would see no objection to using this same standard of density for counting the migrant population as the standard for the fellowships. Incidentally, there would be far more than 100 with the same money if you had only 1-year fellowships. You could have then 300 or 400 with the same funds that would be necessary for the 3- or 4-year plan.

us.

Mrs. GREEN. Unless the Appropriations Committee disagrees with

Mr. FULLER. I have no doubt that your witnesses are stating ideals. I realize that. You will have to shave the edges according to the political requirements, I am certain, and the financial requirements. Mr. UDALL. Thank you very much, Dr. Fuller.

Mr. FULLER. Thank you.

Mr. UDALL. You have helped the committee, I am sure.

We have one more witness, Mr. Curtis Gatlin.

You are representing another individual, is that right?

Mr. GATLIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of Eli E. Cohen who expressed his disappointment at being unable to be here today. I offer his statement for the National Child Labor Committee.

Mr. UDALL. You are a member of this committee?

Mr. GATLIN. Yes, I am one of the field representatives of the National Child Labor Committee.

Mr. UDALL. I hope that in your introductory remarks, you will tell us a little bit about this committee.

STATEMENT OF CURTIS GATLIN, NATIONAL CHILD LABOR

COMMITTEE

Mr. GATLIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to do somewhat the same as Dr. Fuller did, to offer the prepared statement which has been circulated and also to hand it to the committee for inclusion, as is, and then just to take excerpts from it, perhaps leaving some time, if it is desired, for some questions.

Mr. UDALL. Very good. Proceed.
(The statement referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY ELI E. COHEN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
NATIONAL CHILD LABOR COMMITTEE

I wish to speak on behalf of the National Child Labor Committee in support of legislation to provide Federal assistance to the States for improving the education of the children of migratory farmworkers.

The National Child Labor Committee is a nonprofit social welfare agency founded in 1904 and incorporated by act of Congress in 1907. Policies are determined by a board of trustees consisting of distinguished men and women in social welfare, education, medicine, law, industry, labor, religion, and finance. Support comes primarily from contributions of 10,000 members throughout the Nation. Our organization has been deeply concerned about the Nation's migratory farmworkers and their children for many years. We have worked with State and local groups all over the country to improve their educational opportunities and to extend to them the same privileges accorded citizens in other occupational groups. In Potter County, Pa., and Bay County, Mich., we helped set up experimental summer schools to demonstrate the value of supplemental schooling. In Arizona, Colorado, and Idaho, we helped set up summer workshops to give teachers the special training they need to meet the special needs of these children. Finally, we have been working for over a year on a demonstration project in the State of New Jersey. This project promises not only to offer migrant children in that State the best possible schooling but also to perfect a program of action that can be applied in other States.

Our firsthand experience with these problems convinces us that Federal action is necessary. Our Nation cannot afford to continue to slight these citizens educationally. With manpower shortages already as acute as they are and promising to become more so with the development of automation and the ensuing

demand for more skilled and educated workers-we cannot afford to overlook any of our human resources.

We now permit migrant children to grow up without even a decent elementary school education. Most of them are from 2 to 5 years behind their age groups in school-a fact called to national attention as long ago as 1951 by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor and confirmed by school personnel ever since.

Last year we heard about a family in New Jersey with five school-age children who hadn't gone to school for 4 years. We have also been told about children from Texas and Arkansas who have been out of school for more than a year at a time. These children are not exceptions; only 1 out of 50 ever gets to high school. In this day of mass education, it is a bitter commentary that migrant school-attendance beyond grammar school is so rare that the newspapers make a fuss over the enrollment of three Pennsylvania migrant girls in college, and the event is noted in a public statement by the Governor of that great Commonwealth.

These are some of the reasons why we are particularly gratified at the introduction of H.R. 10378, and H.R. 9872 which will improve educational opportunities for this one-quarter to one-half million young Americans. The National Child Labor Committee wishes to take this opportunity to commend those responsible and to express its enthusiastic endorsement of the proposed legislation. It has been obvious to us for some time that Federal funds were needed to help the States improve the education of migrants. The States acting independently have been unable to solve the problem. Even those that have made significant and commendable efforts to reach and teach the migrant child sorely need Federal help to coordinate and strengthen their work.

The problem of migrant schooling is peculiarly complex because the children move so often with their families from one State to another, following the crops. States look on them as nonresidents, and few localities outside of Florida, Texas, and California (the major source States) recognize them as belonging. These States have a huge migrant population of their own. In Texas, California, Colorado, and Arizona, migrant families can move hundreds of miles without ever leaving the State.

The interstate nature of their existence makes their problem national in dimension and one that requires Federal attention and financing. Migrancy is essential to the national economy, which depends heavily upon the availability of a dependable supply of labor at harvest periods. The volume and concentration of this demand greatly exceeds local labor supply and makes it necessary to get workers from other parts of the country.

This means that rural and small town districts have to play host to a flood of temporary residents during peak crop periods. Most localities don't begin to have enough money to take care of them. Their schools are certainly not equipped to absorb a small army of young migrants who often outnumber resident children, and few States help them bear the extra costs. Federal aid would seem just as necessary in areas of migrant worker concentration as it is in the so-called defense-impacted areas that now receive Federal moneys for education. In addition, a national program under the direction of the U.S. Office of Education could offer strong incentive to all States affected-and that includes all but five or six.

"

Evidence that Federal action would receive enthusiastic support has come to us from officials in 16 different States, to whom we wrote for reactions and suggestions to the bills now being considered by this committee. An official of the Colorado Department of Education expressed the typical reaction when he said, "Our immediate response to these bills is favorable. We feel the programs they would create are greatly needed and will come about in most areas only with Federal financial assistance *** We urge *** * passage* Such reactions confirm our own feeling of the importance of the proposed legislation. We are particularly pleased that the Bailey and Green bills, in addition to proposing financial help to local schools for the education of migrant children in regular sessions, also propose funds for special summer schools, and for grants to the States to stimulate better attendance, to improve the quality of schooling offered, and to coordinate these education programs among the States.

It has been our experience, and that of many other specialists in this field, that summer schools are essential to make up for the deficiencies that necessarily result from moving from school to school and losing time during the

regular school year.

Summer schools are a tested technique for supplementing education for migrants. They have been tried and their usefulness demonstrated over the past 30 years by State and voluntary agencies. But they are still limited in number and reach a mere fraction of the children who need them.

We also favor the additional title providing for teacher training in H.R. 9872, introduced by Mrs. Green. We think both proposed bills are excellent and want to do everything we can to urge that they be adopted. So that they may become the best possible legislation, we would like to suggest some changes.

For example, in H.R. 10378 and H.R. 9872, the definition of "migrant agricultural employee" is ambiguous. It is not clear to me whether it is meant to include intra as well as inter State migrants. The definition as written would appear to exclude many intrastate migrants who own a residence even if it is no more than a shack-as thousands do in Texas, Colorado, and California. Such an exclusion would not be minor. In 1958, 26.9 percent of the children enrolled in four Colorado summer schools were intrastate movers. We recommend clarification.

The definition of "migrant agricultural employee State" in H.R. 10378, section 4(8), also needs rewriting. As now presented, it actually sets four different minimums in paragraphs A, B, C, and D. If left as written, a State having as few as 500 migrants could qualify under certain conditions, while another with as many as 2,999 concentrated in only one county could not. A better wording has been suggested by Secretary of Labor William L. Batt, Jr., of Pennsylvania:

"The term 'migrant agricultural employee State' means any State which has 500 or more of its statewide total of migrants concentrated in from one to five counties, provided there is a minimum of 100 migrants in each county included in such a combination of counties."

I should also like to question some provisions of title I, section 102(a). First, why are reimbursements to local schools for expenditures in the education of migrant children set at 75 percent for the first 2 years and 50 percent the other years? Why not 100 percent each year? Second, why set 10 days as the minimum for attendance before reimbursement begins?

On this latter point, you might be interested in the thinking of Dr. Alfred M. Potts II, project coordinator of the migrant education research project for the State of Colorado, which is shared by a number of officials in other parts of the country. Dr. Potts suggests:

"The first days should be paid, as they cost the district as much per day as later days of attendance. The intent here may be that a child must attend for 10 days before any reimbursement can be figured. If a minimum attendance is to be required, 5 days would be more equitable than 10. Once the minimum attendance requirement is met, all the days should be reimbursed. However, I do not favor a minimum. The effort required to get a child into school for 3 days may be as great as that required to get him in attendance for 30 days." Actually, migrant children often stay in a school less than 10 days. But even such a short period is not wasted. Short periods of instruction were found to be very important in a 3-year program conducted cooperatively by the Palm Beach County, Fla., and Northampton County, Va., boards of education, according to Dr. Howard Dawson, executive secretary of the Rural Education Department of the National Education Association.

The only reservation we have about title II has to do with money. I seriously doubt that $300,000 is enough to finance all the summer schools needed and possible throughout the country, although it might be enough to finance those started in the first year of operation.

A 6-week summer school for 50 children in three classrooms costs about $5,000, if you take the experience of Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Ohio, and Michigan. But much larger schools are needed in many areas.

The $300,000 recommended would allow for only 60 schools. But estimates supplied us by 10 States indicate that 115 to 125 are needed. At least six other States with large numbers of migrant children are not included in these estimates. Dr. Potts thinks a more likely figure is 205 summer schools for the 20 States using the largest number of migrant workers with children-excluding Texas, where summer schools are not feasible.

The value of summer sessions cannot be overemphasized. All the experimental programs have demonstrated that migrant children, like all others, respond eagerly to the warm and personal attention of genuinely concerned

teachers. The schools often mean so much to them that they attend against parental opposition or indifference, bargaining with crew leaders for permission to go to school some days and work in the fields on others.

The schools are a real alternative to child labor for migrant children. They are "the single most important factor in the virtual elimination of child labor among agricultural migrants," according to a report from Potter County, Pa. The Potter County school for migrant children also reports that the summer school "has spurred the enrollment of a greater proportion of migrant children in the local schools when trhey open in the fall."

Our main concern about title III has also to do with money. The $250,000 proposed seems far too little, if this title is the one that carries the burden of realizing all the purposes of the act, as it appears. This amount would allow only an average of $12,500 each for the 20 major States, not nearly enough for States like California or Michigan. All the proposals are important: establishment of lines of communication between the States, surveys for locating summer schools, research and studies for development of the best possible curriculums and teaching techniques, and seeing to optimum enrollment and attendance. All are large undertakings, which most State agencies would not be able to assume without additional manpower. It would seem to us that even the $500,000 suggested in Mrs. Green's bill would be insufficient for proper implementation of title III.

Mrs. Green's provision for specialized teacher training in title IV is splendid, and we would like to see it incorporated into the legislation proposed by this subcommittee. This provision is so important because teachers of migrants need particular skills, flexibilities, and knowledge. Recognition of their specialized needs has led to summer workshops and extension courses by a number of colleges and universities, after California started such training courses in 1956. These need to be developed in other areas. Perhaps title IV could also be modified to include a plan for shorter periods of inservice training for many teachers not included in the proposed fellowships for long-term training.

But despite these recommendations, I want to reemphasize our enthusiasm for the proposed legislation and to urge you to report it out favorably without delay. Although the Congress has never before considered such measures, the conditions they are meant to rectify have been with us far too long. I think all of us are aware of the history being made here today.

I do not think, however, that these proposals come by accident at a time when the Nation is experiencing the most critical need it has ever known for all its citizens (and especially its citizens of tomorrow) to be educated and utilized to their fullest capacities. The United States can no longer afford to have large groups of underdeveloped and undereducated citizens. The moment has come when destiny will not permit our civilization to dissipate its human resources and survive.

I urge you to press for this legislation to enable the children of our migratory workers to become the educated and responsible citizens we need.

Mr. GATLIN. In speaking on behalf of the National Child Labor Committee, I am pleased to express our delight and enthusiasm that these two bills are before thsi committee and are getting such careful atttention and consideration.

The National Child Labor Committee is a nonprofit social welfare agency founded in 1904 and incorporated by act of Congress in 1907. Policies are determined by a board of trustees consisting of distinguished men and women in social welfare, education, medicine, law, industry, labor, religion, and finance. Support comes to us primarily from contributions of 10,000 members throughout the Nation.

Our organization has been deeply concerned about the Nation's migratory farmworkers and their children for many years. We have worked with State and local groups all over the country to improve their educational opportunities and to extend to them the same privileges accorded citizens in other occupational groups. In Potter County, Pa., and Bay County, Mich., we helped set up experimental schools to demonstrate the value of supplemental schooling to these children.