CONTENTS Hearings Held in Washington, D.C. on: November 11, 1975---. December 5, 1975. Statement of: de la Rosa, Raul, supervisor of migrant education, State of Washington Dunn, Joseph E., migrant education coordinator, Pennsylvania Department of Education___ Fuentes, Roy O., director, migrant project, National Education Asso- Hilburn, Dale, administrator, migrant education section, Florida State Pago 1 97 115 124 Lopez, Leo R., chief, migrant education section, California State 138 110 Soriano, Jesse M., supervisor, migrant education program, Michigan Wheeler, Robert R., deputy commissioner, Bureau of School Systems, Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, etc.: de la Rosa, Raul, supervisor of migrant education, State of Washington, prepared statement of.. 116 Dunn, Joseph E., migrant education coordinator, Pennsylvania Depart- 124 Letter from Roy O. Fuentes, dated November 3, 1975_ 106 106 Fuentes, Roy O., director, migrant project, National Education Association, prepared statement of-- Hilburn, Dale, administrator, migrant education section, Florida State Lopez, Leo R., chief, migrant education section, California State 98 131 111 34 Soriano, Jesse M., supervisor, migrant education program, Michigan 119 Vittetow, Frank H., Kentucky State Department of Education, prepared statement of. 46 Wheeler, Robert R., deputy commissioner, Bureau of School Systems, Comparison of final 1976 title I, ESEA grants to LEA's by State 51 Eligibility of 5-year provision migrant children for funding 43 (III) Wheeler, Robert R., deputy commissioner, Bureau of School Systems, p U.S. Office of Education, HEW :-Continued How OE prevents the double counting of settled out migrants who attend title I schools___. Letter to Chairman Ford, dated December 24, 1975, with enclosures requested--- Prepared statement of__ Programs coordinated and supported by the Federal Government.. Title I migrant program and title VII bilingual program coordination OVERSIGHT HEARING ON MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL LABOR OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m., in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, William D. Ford (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Members present: Representatives Ford, Dent, and Meeds. Staff present: Thomas R. Jolly, subcommittee counsel; Patricia R. Morse, subcommittee clerk; Toni Grant, research assistant; James J. Soran III, research aide, and Christopher T. Cross, minority counsel. Mr. FORD. The hearing will be in order. We had hoped to have this hearing before the field investigation that we conducted earlier this month. We have the reverse, but I am sure that it will tie together. We had meetings in Colorado recently with migrant education directors from the statewide program. We also took the subcommittee to Greeley, Colo., for the purpose of talking to the people actually in the field, working on migrant education. We have invited officials from the Office of Education to brief us this morning on what is going on in the administration and the organizational structure of programs within the Office of Education, designed primarily to enhance the educational opportunities for the children. of migrant and seasonal farmworkers. We also hope to hear from representatives of the National Education Association which has long been active in the area of migrant education and which presently funds a special migrant workers project to support efforts to improve the educational and economic opportunities of migrant workers. We have first Mr. Robert Wheeler, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of School Systems. Mr. Wheeler is accompanied by John Rodriguez, Associate Commissioner for Compensatory Educational Programs; Richard L. Fairley, Director, Division of Education for the Disadvantaged; Vidal A. Rivera, Chief, Migrant Branch, Division of Education for the Disadvantaged, Office of Compensatory Educational Programs; Albert L. Alford, Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, and Steven Schatken, Chief, Special Services Branch, Office of the General Counsel, Education Division. (1) Without objection, the prepared text will be inserted in the record at this point, and Mr. Wheeler, you may proceed in any way yo think most productive. [Prepared statement of Robert R. Wheeler follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT BY ROBERT R. WHEELER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUELA! OF SCHOOL SYSTEMS, U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ESTCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the program for migratory children that is being provided through grants to State educational agencies under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I have with me today the associate commissioner for compensatory educational programs, Dr. John H Rodriguez, the director of the division of education for the disadvantaged Dr. Richard L. Fairley, and the chief of the migrant branch, Mr. Vidal A Rivera, Jr. PROGRAM OVERVIEW Title I of Public Law 89-10, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, authorized a national education program for disadvantaged children This act was amended by Public Law 89-750 in November 1966 to incorporate special provisions for children of migratory agricultural workers. Section 16 of that law authorized "payments to State educational agencies for assistance in educating migratory children of migratory agricultural workers." P.L $ 750 also provided that grant monies were to be used for interstate coordination of migrant education programs and projects, including the transmittal of children's school records; and for coordination with programs administered under title III-B of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. P.L. 93-380, the Educa tion Amendments of 1974, further amended title I to include children of i gratory fishermen. Children of migrant fishermen are now being recruited and enrolled in the program during calendar year 1975. In 1967, 44 States participated in title I migrant projects. Since that time the program has expanded to encompass 48 States and Puerto Rico. The funding for these educational services has increased from approximately $10 mil lion in fiscal year 1967 to $97 million in fiscal year 1976. The mobility of migrant families presents a sizeable difficulty, not only in counting the children, but also in the maintenance and transfer of the student records. In the beginning, we relied on data prepared for us by the Department of Labor. This information, however, was considered inadequate for our purposes, When the migrant student record transfer system was established in 1970, to receive, store and transmit migrant student educational and health data among LEA's throughout the country, we also began to look at it as a possible basis for more adequately determining State allocations. The Congress also recognized the difficulty of counting migrant pupils for funding purposes, and, therefore, P.L. 93-380 provided that the number of mi grants will be estimated from "statistics available by the MSRTS or such other system as (the Commissioner) may determine most accurately and fully reflects the actual number of migrant students." A comparison of the quality of the data received from the Department of Labor, and information now available from the MSRTS, led to the decision that MSRTS would be more accurate for State allocation purposes. A GAO report of September 16, 1975 reaffirmed our decision to use this data. In FY 1975 and FY 1976, allocations were made on the basis of a count of children using data collected by the computer system. To assure ourselves of the accuracy and the completeness of the data used for funding purposes, we have conducted validation reviews. However, these reviews, up to this point, have been spot checks. A major feature of a forthcoming study of the migrant education program, will be a comprehensive validation of the allocation information stored in the MSRTS. In order to avoid any disruption to the on-going use of the MSRTS, we are now working with State title I migrant directors to determine the best approach to use in conducting the validation. We have also made arrangements for the on-going involvement of the state directors. In addition, we intend to continue and even increase the spot checks on the data. When the committee originally scheduled its hearings on migrant education, it indicated an interest in our contractor's concern that Federal privacy laws were not being adequately observed in the conduct of this evaluation. We have since visited Little Rock, having thoroughly considered the matter from the legal standpoint, and have, to the best of our knowledge, resolved this issue. RELATIONSHIP TO COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A very high percentage of migratory children attend schools serving attendance areas that have been designated for projects under the title I local program. Such children are expected to participate in title I local programs on the same basis as non-migratory children. Local title I project directors have the primary responsibility for ensuring the coordination of services from the two sources of funds (local title I and State agency title I migrant allocations), as a result, migratory children are participating in title I local projects and are receiving additional supplemental services under the title I migrant program. For example, in North Hampton and Columbus Counties, North Carolina, all of the migratory children attend title I project area schools and participate in special regular title I reading programs that are highly individualized to meet the needs of migratory and non-migratory children. Closely coordinated programs of title I and migrant services are provided in Texas in the Eagle Pass, Hereford and Edinburg School Districts and in New Mexico, in the Espinola, Las Vegas and Taos School Districts. In Texas, the title I program is providing diagnostic and prescriptive services and teacher aides for both migratory and non-migratory children. In the three districts of New Mexico, migratory children participate in title I reading programs and also receive special assistance from bilingual teacher aides provided with title I migrant funds. The integration of the support from the two sources (title I and migrant funds) is highly desirable. It allows greater flexibility in planning by the school districts, and makes for a more rational administrative task. Let me now share with you a few examples which may give the committee an idea of the nature and thrust of these migrant educational efforts: The New Jersey Department of Education has set up a mobile industrial training unit for migrant youth. The unit consists of a trailer with a simulated office and an industrial assembly line. It operates 12 months a year, serving 5 migrant education centers and 10 school districts throughout the state. The California mini-corps program was designed to utilize current and former migrant children as tutors and program assistants. It has had a two-fold impact: (1) provides assistance to former migrant pupils in order for them to pursue further educational opportunities in junior colleges and colleges, and (2) provides a model for individualizing instruction to further the educational achievement level of under-achieving migrant children. In Nampa, Idaho a project serves 344 migrant children, ages 14-21 by offering an evening program for youth who are unable or unwilling to enroll in a day school program. Many participants are former dropouts; most would attend no school if this facility were not available. ORGANIZATION OF THE DIVISION OF EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED Mr. Chairman, I would now like to focus our discussion on a subject in which your subcommittee has expressed an interest through your letter of August 19 to the commissioner of education. I am referring to your specific concern with regard to the organizational status of the migrant education program within the office of education. Let me first describe our current organizational arrangements. |