Since that time, my colleagues and I, the 50 State migrant education coordinators or directors, have had to struggle with such questions or statements as:

Migrants, what's that? I didn't know that we had migrant workers in our State. Why should we concern ourselves with those people-they are only here a short time? Why should those kids get special attention? They are Chicanos, or dumb black southerners, or Puerto Ricans who don't even belong here. Hey, take this program and spend the money. You can take care of it in addition to what you are already doing.

Mr. Chairman, even some of your colleagues and members of the bureaucracy charged with providing guidelines and administrative rules and regulations are not convinced that we have migrant children, or if it is admitted, that special moneys should be provided for educational and supplementary services.

The migrant education program, I would dare say, has been investigated, looked into, criticized, ostracized, accused, and doubted more than any other federally funded program in terms of national goals and the children whom we are serving. Even now there is an attempt by the U.S. Office of Education to gain access to our national migrant student record transfer system which the State directors initiated, made it work better than any other similar attempt, and are continuously updating its flexibility, as well as ensuring privacy of information.

I ask you, sir, is this good administrative practice-to assure parents that the information on their children will be kept in strict confidence, and then suddenly it is released to an outside contractor for a report, whereby the best results will probably mean that some people had good jobs for a while collecting data?

In a recent meeting of the State directors we were presented with the work statement for that study, 120 pages of what is supposed to be done by the contractor. The final report is not due until 1979, a year after the current legislation expires.

I asked the specific question, how much money was this report going to require? I was refused an answer. But in reviewing this, I would estimate there would be several millions of dollars involved, an evaluation of the impact of ESEA's title I program.

Approximately 4 years ago, a Federal monitoring team visited my State to look at the migrant programs. I was severely criticized for serving 5-year provisional migrant children in some of my projects, yet the law clearly stated that these children could be served. I was not permitted to count them for reimbursement purposes either. Why wasn't this permitted? Why does the management not comply with the law and what I consider was the intent of Congress?

I understand that I am to be monitored again this year in January or February. The only migrants the team will see, at that time, are the 5-year provisional children whom we are serving. Why can't the team come during July or August, when I have the heaviest concentration of migrant children? Who makes those decisions? This is truly an administrative decision.

I have been advised that there is some question as to whether I should enroll and serve the 700 teenagers who leave Pennsylvania every summer to go to other States to pick tobacco. They leave under

is the who have dedicated werkers. The imple

Siste the development of education programs which

tests, the innovative mulace of migrants themselves

PS DÈ De soperire efforts among the DE LAS Re to believe that migra

ucation in America.

1 gerai and coordinating with the :DON States of Connecticut. Massachu and Feniania. We are the five States Puerto Rican children, and the Com Self their State department of eath of these are States to assist in the recruitericulum development and coordingthe premats that are taking place in Puerto Rico and

inroduce the coordinator from Paro Ris assigned to Pennsylvania, and a gentleman that I consider

prodirector. Senor Mannal Reiso. Mr. Reiso.

In 2 Pennsylvania is hosting the Ninth National Migrant Els Cation Workshop for those who work with migrant children. Two V 800, we held a planning committee meeting for that conference: of the 15 States comprising the planning committee, only 8 States sent or permittel representation at that meeting. Even the US. Offer of Education, who was invited, was unable to send a representative to help shape the program which will have great influence on the in Are these administrative problems and decisions, or, one

attendance at the workshop.

apathy?

become an expendable anachronism. The band of migrants

not

who over

In this Bicentennial year, we must insure that migrants do 300 years ago, seeking to escape oppression, arriving in a new world and starting what is now the United States of America, did not w

hard and long in vain.

The Congress of this United States, the representatives of the people, the agencies charged with the interpretation of legislation, individual States and local education agencies must work together in order to say to the migrant child, "Come and let us go along together to the dignity and the standard of living that is the right of all American citizens, including our children of harvest."

Thank you, sir.

Mr. FORD. Thank you. And now Dale Hilburn, migrant education administrator for the State of Florida.

Without objection, the prepared statement of Mr. Hilburn will be inserted in the record at this point, and you may proceed, Dale, to add to it, underline, or whatever you will.

[The information referred to follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE HILBURN, ADMINISTRATOR, MIGRANT EDUCATION SECTION, FLORIDA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1. SERVING PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN

Since 1969 the State of Florida has had an extensive program for preschool age migratory children. There are presently in the FMCCP 210 classes serving 3, 4 and 5 year old migrant children. Each of these classes is taught by a certified teacher with the assistance of one aide. The State of Florida bases the establishing and maintaining of these classes for 3 and 4 year olds on paragraph A of Public Law 93-380 which states: ". . . that payments will be used for programs and projects (including the acquisition of equipment and where necessary the construction of school facilities) which are designed to meet the special educational needs of migratory children of migratory agricultural workers or of migratory fishermen, and to coordinate these programs and projects with similar programs and projects in other States, including the transmittal of pertinent information with respect to school records of such children; ..."

In January of this year (1975) the USOE conducted a program monitor of the FMCCP at which time they questioned the serving of the 3 and 4 year old migrant child based on paragraph D of Public Law 93-380: “... that, in planning and carrying out programs and projects, there has been adequate assurance that provision will be made for the preschool educational needs of migratory children of migratory agricultural workers or of migratory fishermen, whenever such agency determines that compliance with this clause will not detract from the operation of programs and projects described in clause (A) of this paragraph after considering the funds available for this purpose." The interpretation of the USOE of the above paragraph is that 3 and 4 year old migrant children cannot be served until all migrant students ages 5-17 are served.

It is this interpretation that has caused much concern to the FMCCP and to the many parents of migratory children who are receiving the benefits of the preschool program. We are therefore suggesting that paragraph D be rewritten to specifically state that preschool children are to be included in the funding to states.

Attached is a copy of an evaluation completed in June of 1975 that shows the gains made by migrant children who have been in the 3 and 4 year old components of the FMCCP.

REVIEW OF FLORIDA EARLY CHILDHOOD READING READINESS GAINS

Background

A. INTRODUCTION

A review of Early Childhood gains in language arts was undertaken in early Spring of 1975. The review was made on the basis of test scores from twenty Florida counties. The scores used in the review were those resulting from the pre and post testing procedures that are indigenous to each county's program.

Since the review vas motorted after-the-fact, the flawing two factors cmnstrained the experimental design:

1 Limited Bomber of students meeting the criteria for inclusion in experimental prongs by county.

2. A vast array of different tests across the state.

This factor is both an advantage and disadvantage. It is disadvantageons because the limited number of students take the same test restricts the aluat of data that can be pooled to obtain statewide representative samples.

The advantage offered by this factor is inherent in the effect of variety on test bias. Having a variety of test types means that statewide findings are ins likely to be a prvises of enltural, Enguistic or other bias exhibited by any one test. The net result of this factor is that whatever information is lost be 18 of test variety is offset by bellerability of the information that is presented It would have been possible to transform all scores to a standard syre and thereby pool all data. It was decided that such a procedure would intraday Lore uncertainty than certainty concerning the results and was not passed Table I lists the counties involved in the review and the test scores avalate

1

53-Polk..

55-St Johns...

56-St Lucie..

58-Sarasota.

59-Serainole.

2 RAW

Metro-reading readiness.

The objectives of the review were to supplement inquiry into the following questions:

1. Do first grade migrant students who have had Early Childhood program experience enter first grade with the same reading readiness level as do reguar school students?

2. What is the effect of varying amounts (none, one, two, and three years) of Early Childhood experience on reading readiness at first grade entry? 3. What is the effect of varying amounts (years) of Early Childhood experi ence on success during the first grade?

4. What is the relationship between age of a student and benefits to be gained from Early Childhood experience?

C.-DATA ANALYSIS

The strategy used in analyzing the data was as follows:

a. Data was pooled across all counties wherever common test data was available.

This approach permitted the use of parametric techniques such as analysis of variance. Parametric techniques of data analysis are of course the met powerful because magnitudes of differences as well as directions of differences are analyzed. (See Appendix B, Exhibits 1-4)

b. To use all the data for all groups across all counties, a non-parametric technique was used. This approach used information from more groups, but analyzed the direction of group differences. (See Appendix B, Exhibits 5-7)

The analysis is contained in two appendices. Appendix A contains tables and a county by county analysis of data. All data within each county were analyzed to obtain basic measures of dispersion, central tendency and departures from normality.

Appendix B contains selected comparisons within and between counties for each group.

Executive summary

SECTION I

All statements contained in the 'Executive Summary' are subject to the qualifications found throughout the review as well as the usual cautions inherent to statistical processes.

The purpose of this review was to inquire into four questions as stated previously. The findings are summarized in the following: A-Questions 1 and 2 Because of their interrelated nature, these questions will be addressed jointly. Question 1.-Do first grade migrant students who have had Early Childhood program experience enter first grade with the same reading readiness level as do regular school students?

Question 2.-What is the effect of varying amounts (none, one, two and three years) of Early Childhood experience on reading readiness at first grade entry? Results

a. Migrant students with two or three years of Early Childhood experience enter first grade with about the same level of reading readiness as do the non-migrant students reported in the review.

b. Migrant students with no Early Childhood experience and those with one year of Early Childhood experience enter the first grade with a lower level of reading readiness than do non-migrant students.