The first part of my testimony will be in pre-school. Pre-school as I will be discussing it includes 3- and 4-year-old migrant students. Public Law 93-380, under paragraph A is the same as it was in the 750 language, which said that the States would develop programs to meet the special educational needs of migrant children.

Under that guideline, under that statement, in 1969 Florida started into an educational 3- and 4-year-old program. It became the no. 1 priority of expenditure of the State grants in Florida, and up until 93-380, we were having no problems in running this educational program. But then under paragraph D, which the first time I read it, I liked it, because I thought it was encouraging pre-school education, but the interpretation that has come along since then, and it was conveyed to the State of Florida last January after an EO monitor, that it encourages pre-school provided an agency will assure that they have served the needs of all of the 5 to 17 year-olds inclusive migrant students in that State.

Thus it is impossible, at least in Florida, to do any pre-school, if we have to assure that every 5 to 17 year-old has been served adequately.

Yesterday, day before yesterday, at the OE meeting, one other additional interpretation was added that not only would the 5 through 17 current migrant, but every former migrant would also, 5 through 17, have to be served before you could serve pre-school youngsters.

I found out yesterday that there is only $4.8 million funded through OCD for migrant Indian preschool. I don't know how much of that goes to migrant and how much goes to Indian, but Florida alone spends more than that on their migrant in preschool education, and we are not serving all of the eligible current 3- and 4-year-old migrant students in Florida with that expenditure.

The $4.8 million in OCD is not a categorical allocation, it is an administrative decision as to how much they will spend of the OCD grant for migrant and Indian education.

I hope the intent of Congress was not the intent as is now being interpreted by some members of the Office of Education. If it was, I would hope that you will review the evidence that I have submitted that shows what effect preschool education can have an the life of a migrant youngster once he starts to school. Then maybe you could do one of two things: Eliminate the reference to clause A, or include the 3- and 4-year-old migrant students in the funding formula. And I would recommend the funding of the 3- and 4-year-old migrant

student.

The second part of my testimony is comparability. We have been told since the comparability regulations came out in 1971, or whatever year they first started, that comparability did not apply to the migrant program. This we have been told verbally by OE.

In July 1975, Florida had the unfortunate opportunity to appear before a hearing board to try to settle a 1969-70 migrant audit exception, and in that particular hearing, a member of general counsel from HEW quoted 116a.26 of the title I regulation and said that it applied to the migrant program. Then he proceeded to explain how a State migrant program would have to apply comparability, and his statement was that not at a district level; since it was a State program that

of within the boundaries of a school distric.

the State would be responsible for being comparable statewide insted In the proposed regulation which is in 1161.36. possibly a State could comply with that comparability regulation, but when Federi they will be trying to apply a comparability requirement that some auditors come into the State, probably next year, my concern is that has interpreted, an attorney for General Counsel in HEW, that is State has to be comparable statewide. And I can see 5 years of battling in which we are guilty until we prove we are innocent once they *! that we are not comparable, and it is not enjoyable spending you time trying to argue that fact.

Item No. 3, administrative and operational responsibilities of the

migrant program:

In 1966 when Congress amended the Elementary and Se only Education Act of title I to include migrant, they made it a State par gram, and I am sure they knew if they didn't it would be just title I and programs would be designed for kids as they reside in ne district and not for students that move across State boundaries or die trict boundaries. When that law was passed it did put a burden. responsibility at the State level that no one has really accepted as fact. and to function at the State level with the migrant program where you are responsible for developing and implementing a program for str dents that move, Congress also felt that it did not take very much effort. I would assume, since they applied the 1 percent of administra tion that had been applied to the regular title I act to give the States

to administer the migrant program.

Jesse mentioned 116d.33 earlier, which is the proposed regulations for migrant programs, and there is no way that a State can take away from regular title I, which is regular title I is not enough for them to administer their title I program at the State level, and take their money and apply it to the migrant program, which is much smaller but has much more responsibility at that State level, and then for that State to try to function and do the things that are expected to Then comes the hassle, what can you do with State administrative funds, and what you can do with migrant program funds. I think 1164.33 is very inadequate in describing the functions that are to be paid from title I funds and then trying to describe those functions that

comply with the State grant.

would be paid by program funds.

Thank you.

regard to these two general areas.

Mr. MEEDS [presiding]. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Ihare questions on two primary areas, and I am going to address them firs because I know you and have worked with you. Raul, to you. and then I would appreciate getting the comments of the other panelists with both Congressmen Ford and myself were rather critica 1. perhaps that is an understatement also, of the Office of Education efforts with reFirst, by way of background, you probably have been advised that from you (1) what efforts were made prior to our last hearing to get

gard to settled out migrants at our last hearing. I wot 1

you to get an accurate count or to involve you as State

Id like to know

directors in an

accurate count of settled out migrants? (2) has that effort changed i

any way, to your knowledge; and (3) how do you expect to either at their request or despite their request get this information, accurate information, to the Office of Education in the future?

Mr. DE LA ROSA. Congressman, I know of no directive or memorandum that has been issued to the directors soliciting such information. Mr. MEEDS. Well, they did have a memorandum, and evidently had made some phone calls and received some information which was, as I recall, grossly in excess of what may have counted as settled out migrants. They then chose to use the information which they already had. Do you recall ever being solicited?

Mr. DE LA ROSA. No, sir.

Mr. MEEDS. Was anything said at the last meeting you had, just 2 days ago, I believe, or yesterday, was it, with OE, with regard to a count on settled out migrants?

Mr. DE LA ROSA. No, sir, not to my knowledge.

Mr. MEEDS. Was any effort made, to the knowledge of any one of you panelists, to place some impetus on counting, locating, counting and providing assistance for settled out migrants at the last meeting?

Mr. LOPEZ, Congressman Meeds, California did receive a call, and I believe it was a call from Congressman Ford's office, regarding our estimated number of former migrants, or what we call 5-year migrants, as you call them, settled-in migrants. We had at one time estimated around 65,000 in California, and our figure right now is probably closer to 100,000 former migrants. We have not received any communication from the U.S. Office of Education regarding their interest in this.

The question of the former migrant was discussed verbally at the meeting that we just completed, and there was concern regarding our providing you with information at this time that they did not have in their hands.

To answer your question, the only request regarding the former migrants that we receive is through a phone call from Congressman Ford's office.

Mr. HILBURN. May I, please?

Mr. MEEDS. Yes.

Mr. HILBURN. This is from memory and it is only related to Florida. I don't know whether the same thing happened in others.

A year and a half or 2 years ago, it was before 93-380 passed, but it must have been nearing the ending stage, I received a phone call from the migrant branch requesting information in two categoriesfishermen and former migrants. At that time we contacted all of the superintendents in the school districts that we thought had fishermen, and that gave us an estimated number of fishermen. Also then we called Washington back and gave them this information. We also gave them a projected number of former migrants that we thought we had in the State of Florida.

Nothing else that I am aware of happened or came to us in reference to the former migrant or fishermen until December of last year at a meeting just like the one we have just concluded, and at that time the law had passed.

We were told at that time. if I remember correctly, it was on December 5-we were told by OE that the former migrants would be included in the funding and the fishermen would be included in the funding,

and that we were to enroll those students in the data system, and tha

the system then would be the method of funding.

We were told at that time if we enrolled between December 3 and the remainder of that month "" number of former migrants and fishermen, that it would be, I think 2 years, maybe 1977-I know it will be 1977 before the State of Florida, fiscal year 1977, before we can receive any funds for the fishermen that we put in by using the

data base.

Mr. MEEDS. Or the former migrants?

Mr. HILBURN. Or the former migrants, except those that would hare

been placed in the month, the 1 month.

I doubt if we got 500 of those former migrants enrolled during the Now, our schools were closed somewhere around December 20, and

month of December, of the remaining time.

So, if my understanding is correct, it would be 1977 before we receive funds for fishermen or any type of rational number of former did tell us in a meeting in December last year. Mr. DE LA ROSA. Did I understand you correctly-you said since

your last meeting?

Mr. MEEDS. Yes, which was about 3 weeks ago.

Mr. DE LA ROSA. Yes, sir; and since that date I still maintain my position, we have not either been called in the State of Washington nor has there been any directive issued to us soliciting such

information.

Mr. MEEDS. Was the special problem of former migrants, settled out migrants, settled in migrants, whatever terminology you wish to use, was that discussed, especially at the meeting you have just con

cluded with OE?

Mr. SORIANO. Yes.

Mr. MEEDS. Would you tell us what the import of that suggestion

was?

Mr. SORIANO. The import was simply it left it about as ambiguous as it had started out, and it revolved simply around definitions and intent of the legislation, and we never quite got away from that. The fact that we are having some difficulty identifying 5-year migrants in some States, coming up with some specific definition, and the other problem administratively at the State level making decision as to part of it was that once you have identified 5-year mirants, there is a whether you are going to serve them, or what proportion of your allocation, your State allocation, you are willing to use with year

migrants. That is generally the problem as it stands no", Certainly as we articulate, the State directors artic

Iated the prob

lem, that very simply you are placed in the bind beca 11 Se USOE tells you very specifically that the No. 1 priority is for the moving renze ster, the youngster who comes and goes, and yet you are allowed. according to the new legislation, you are allowed, you may pick up. provide services to the 5-year migrant, the 5-year migrant, interest No. 1 priority is the youngster who can generate more funds for your

you may provide services to the 5-year migrant, and

ingly enough and ironically enough, the youngster who

State.

when you do

does not have

I think that, unless I am mistaken, I think the entire discussion about 5-year migrants centered around those things, and that was about the import of the discussion on the 5-year migrant. I don't think we came away, at least I personally, and as I talked with other State directors, I don't think we came away with any satisfactory answers to the questions that we had with regard to the 5-year migrant. We still have some concerns about how we make those decisions at the State level with regard to the inclusion of the 5-year migrant. Perhaps Leo?

Mr. LOPEZ. There was one bit of information, and I questioned the figure when it came out on a report from the director of the migrant student transfer in Arkansas, and I asked him to repeat the figure, of what the anticipated, or at least guess at information as to how many former migrants there are, because I know there is competition for the title I buck, and at that time he gave a figure of 300,000 migrants, former migrants. That is a large figure, and evidently he was not supposed to say that. Evidently the U.S. Office of Education did not have the information prior to that. But I am saying if there are 300.000 I think it is a low estimate. You are talking about probably half a million instead of 300,000 former migrants, or even more.

For example, in California most of our former migrants, they outnumber the current migrants probably 4 to 1. If you have enough money California is going to take $97 million that you have already for the whole country. Texas will take the other $1 million.

You are competing for that title I buck. As long as it has to come off the top of that $1 billion or $2.5 billion or whatever it is for title I, there is going to have to be a down play on number of former migrants in each State.

As I said, in California you count the former migrants, I have 200,000 former migrants there, and we will take all of our $98 million allocation now.

Mr. MEEDS. Refresh my recollection. I am trying to get the research here very quickly. Could any of you refresh my recollection on the way the money is allocated? My recollection is that title I funds for migrant education go right off the top and are allocated on a State basis, on a migrant count. Is that correct?

Mr. LOPEZ. That is correct.

Mr. MEEDS. Therefore, if you have more settled out, settled in, or former migrants, you are going to have to have to get a bigger allocation; is that correct?

Mr. LOPEZ. That is correct.

Mr. DE LA ROSA. I think one distinction must be made. That is not on account of the child. You don't go by number of children; you go by the full-time equivalence, the residency of the child. That is why Mr. Soriano's statement is very important. That as you concentrate in the fifth-year child, that child is going to generate a full dollar.

Mr. MEEDS. Yes; this is the point I brought up with the OE people 3 weeks ago, when they tried to give me a full-time equivalent count for settled out or former migrants. It was my observation that they were almost all on an individual basis full-time equivalents, and that it would indeed increase the allocation to States where they had substantial numbers of settled out migrants. I strongly suspect that this is precisely why the effort has not been made to get accurate counts