States have not assumed responsibility for compensatory education in the past, and there is scant assurance that anything short of categorical federal funding will dispatch necessary financial resources to the proper school district at the proper time.

Let us examine, briefly, the theme of the president's budget message at it relates to revenue sharing. The FY-1974 federal budget for education is reputed to assess national priorities and strengthen those that produce real results. Authority is to be decentralized and decision-making given to states and local governments, by means of revenue sharing.

Such a policy is not only destructive of hard-won gains, but fiscally bankrupt. Consider the problem of voluntary compliance by states and local districts. In California, prior to the implementation of the migrant program, only 4% of migratory children were being served by local educational agencies. Today, in contrast, more than 65% of these children are now receiving attention. In addition to academic help, they are getting medical, nutritional and cultural services previously denied them.

Passage of H.R. 69 can keep us operating at least at that level. Revenue sharing, on the other hand, will mean a decline both in quality of programs and services to migrant children. We urge the members of this committee to maintain categorical aid programs, and reject the sham and pretense of block grants.

Revenue sharing will not simply transfer stewardship of migrant programs to willing, capable new hands. If the administration holds to such a belief, it is totally innocent of any contact with the hard truths of historical indifference to these children in all too many local districts. I have attached as Annex "A" to this testimony an extract from an objective survey by the General Services Administration which indicates the nature of that apathy.

Migrant education must be a state-coordinated effort. Only if leadership is provided through a single office can there be the certainty that education will be continuous, and of consistent quality, as migrant children move from district to district and county to county.

The same is true of interstate migrant flow, which will be discussed by a later witness.

The California Plan for the Education of Migrant Children has been carefully structured to deal with the migrant stream. We have divided the state into six regions, based on migrant impaction. Each region roughly approximates one agricultural area. In each of these regions we have selected one county superintendent to act as the "agent" for migrant education in that region, and to administer the program. He employs a regional migrant director, coordinators and other staff.

I feel that the California Plan for the Education of Migrant Children is an exemplary program, one which has demonstrated quantifiable gains in achievement, led to increasing numbers graduating from high school, and thus has provided hope for migrant families that their children can make a higher ascent culturally and economically than they previously had even dreamed of.

Given the limitations of time, I will not dwell at length on a justification of that statement. Instead, I have attached several annexes to copies of this testimony in order to provide documentation of our program, which you can examine at your convenience.1

No program under block grants to local districts can match the scope of a statewide coordinated effort because they have neither the human nor financial resources to do so.

Migrant children's programs are already underfunded. The reason for the deficiency in appropriation is the result of an erroneous basis for determining state entitlement. Educational agencies at the state level receive migrant funds based upon Department of Labor statistics, which indicate that 161,000 children require the program.

Actually, the Migrant Student Record Transfer System in Little Rock shows that figure to be far short of the mark. According to their records, some 380,000 students are now being served by programs throughout the country. We are thus funded at a level of less than half an equitable entitlement.

In California, we are able to serve only about 50% of the children who need the program: some 40,000 of the 80,000 we can identify in impacted districts. We presently have programs operating in 224 school districts, out of a total

1 Annex B, Goals and Objectives of the California Plan; annex C, Overview of the Program.

of 900, but we are still acutely in need of an additional $1.4 million appropriation because of increasing numbers of migrant children.'

Bearing in mind that we do not now have sufficient funds to implement an idea program for 224 districts, what sense does it make to withdraw categorical aid funding from highly selective target districts, and scattershot what little we have among an additional 676 districts? This will mean squandering upwards of 60% of an already meager resource now concentrated on priority districts To my mind, that is fiscal waste and a careless insult to the educational and social well-being of this nation.

I have heard from any of my colleagues in migrant education, and they unreservedly share that view. I have many letters from them, which I will not read here, but which are annexed to copies of this testimony."

Finally, Mr. Chairman and members, in urging your favorable consideration of H.R. 69, I should like to submit suggestions for amendments which will make this excellent measure even more responsive to current conditions:

(1) A new formula should be established based upon the actual count of children as they are identified throughout the nation and registered in the national migrant record transfer system, Moreover, this should include children of Puerto Rican parents who are migratory workers.

(2) There should be a full appropriation of funds for all Title I programs. Presently, for example, an Indian child is, in reality, competing for funds with a migrant or ghetto child for the limited monies available.

(3) The funding program for migrant children should be expanded to include the needs of the 5-year migrant child currently authorized by legislation. Current appropriations are for children who follow the crops on an annual or more frequent basis. No funding is available for children whose parents become permanent residents of a community where they have worked, even if they are still seasonally employed in agriculture.

(4) Legislation should be adopted to provide a compatible and expanded definition of who is a migrant child. Definitions used by different agencies are inconsistent, and interagency cooperation is thus hindered (e.g. Department of Labor).

(5) Legislation should be adopted to authorize the expansion of the migrant program to meet family unit needs. This would better serve the special educational, health or welfare needs of the child.

(6) Extensive pre and inservice training for development of migrant education staff should be authorized. There is a shortage of trained personnel.

(7) There should be a clear declaration of legislative intent that migrant education, by reason of the migrant stream, is conducted in school districts which are realistically more a part of the nation than a state or local entity. And, further, that this national problem cannot be solved without a national records system for national information sharing.

(8) There should be some greater flexibility of federal registers or subsequent audits so that schools providing education for migrant children can be more innovative without penalty. This is a complicated situation which is discussed in detail in Annex "G" to this testimony-as are other recommendations.

(9) Lastly, unused funds returned to the federal government should be authorized for reallocation to the states where funds are insufficient for existing needs.

In summary, then, it is imperative that funding be continued for migrant education. These must be categorical monies, safe from capricious diversion to less crucial efforts. Migrant children are becoming better achievers. More and more of them now enter and finish high school. But the change has only begun.

Only through education can these youngsters be provided free and rational choices for the future. And only you can provide a safeguard system of funding for the million migrant children who deserve a better chance in life. H.R. 69 will give it to them.

Thank you.

1 Annex E, Justification for Increased Appropriation for California.

2 Annex F, Letters from Migrant Directors.

ANNEX A

EXTRACT GENERAL SERVICES REPORT ON KERN COUNTY1

NONPARTICIPATION SCHOOL DISTRICTS

In California, school districts are eligible to participate in migrant education programs if migrant children constitute over 4 percent of their enrollments. Enrollment records of 19 nonparticipating school districts showed that during the 1969-70 school year, in six districts migrant children exceed the required 4 percent and were sometimes as high as 17 percent of the school's average daily attendance. During the school year, these school districts could have used $131,000 migrant education funds but returned them.

Officials of the six school districts said that they were unaware of the migrant education program or of the number of migrant children enrolled in their schools or that too much time and paperwork was involved. Three of these districts planned to join the program during the 1971-72 school year.

ANNEX B

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE CALIFORNIA PLAN FOR THE EDUCATION OF MIGRANT

CHILDREN

GOALS FOR MIGRANT STUDENTS

Goal (1): To develop skills in reading, writing, and listening in English and their dominant language.

Objectives. (a) At each grade level, migrant children whose dominant language is not English, will demonstrate a facility in their dominant language comparable to his grade level.

(b) Migrant children whose dominant language is not English will demonstrate ability to listen, speak, read, and write English at minimal level in a class which is taught in English.

(c) Migrant children whose dominant language is English will demonstrate ability to listen, speak, read, and write at a comparable level to resident children.

(d) After twenty months enrollment in California schools, migrant children whose dominant language is not English will demonstrate ability to listen, speak, read, and write English comparable to resident children.

Goal (2) To gain a general education.

Objective. Migrant children will demonstrate achievement in all subject matter required to be taught in the schools of California at their respective grade levels comparable to that of resident children.

Goal (3) To develop a desire for learning now and in the future.

Objectives. (a) Migrant children will demonstrate the same desire to continue their learning as resident children by continuing their formal education in the same proportions.

(b) Attendance rate for migrant children will be the same as that for resident children.

Goal (4) To develop a good self-image and a feeling of self-worth. Objectives.-(a) Migrant children will evidence acceptance and participation equal to resident students as measured by the results of a sociogram.

(b) Migrant children will demonstrate a positive self image and a feeling of self worth as measured by perception survey responses by migrant parents. Goal (5) To develop skills to enter specific fields of work, be prepared for better jobs, and gain information needed to make job selections.

Objectives. (a) All migrant children when exiting high school will have alternative marketable skills as measured by the criteria established by the California Career Education Task Force.

(b) Migrant children will demonstrate awareness of the vocational and occupational opportunities available to them, thus enabling them to select from a broad list of career opportunities.

Goal (6) To learn to respect and get along with people who think, dress, and act differently.

1 Report to the Congress, Impact of Federal Programs to Improve the Living Conditions of Migrant and Other Seasonal Farmworkers, February 6, 1973.

Objective.-Migrant children will participate in programs at all levels designed to improve abilities to get along with people who think, dress and act differently as measured by participation in co-curricula activities.

Goal (7): To learn to respect and get along with people with whom they work and live.

Objectives.— (a) Migrant children will assume responsibilities in the home appropriate to their age level, as determined by a parent survey.

(b) Migrant children will participate in organizational development team building at levels appropriate to the age and maturity. Measurement will be by questionnaire and outside audit using scaling techniques.

Goal (8) To develop an awareness of civic rights and responsibilities. Objective.-Migrant children will know their civil rights and civic responsibilities appropriate to their grade level.

Goal (9): To learn how to examine and use information.

Objective.-Migrant children will learn how to examine and use information by being taught skills of observation and perception in their continually expanding environment as measured by growth in academic achievement or teacher

observation.

Goal (10): To learn to be good managers of money, property, resources, and to deal with their economic future.

Objective.-Migrant children shall demonstrate an awareness of consumer practices including management of money, property, resources, interest rate, investment and the like as measured by their ability to identify sources of consumer information.

MIGRANT PROGRAM GOALS

Goal (1) To provide inservice for all personnel involved in the education of migrant children.

Objectives. (a) Migrant education, in cooperation with school districts shall provide an ongoing comprehensive inservice program for all personnel involved in the education of migrant children. At least one inservice program shall be conducted in each school district serving migrant children.

(b) All personnel serving migrant children shall receive inservice training. Included in such training shall be cultural awareness, how to include the migrant child in the regular school program, and using the migrant child's dominant language to facilitate his learning.

Goal (2) To provide special educational services for "exceptional" migrant children.

Objectives. (a) Migrant education shall provide bilingual/bicultural1 persons to assist school districts in the identification of "exceptional" migrant students.

(b) Migrant education shall assist in placing identified "exceptional" migrant students in appropriate school district programs, and assure they receive services which are comparable to those of resident children.

(c) The migrant education project will provide trained and credentialed language teachers who are bilingual in English and Spanish, both oral and written, to teach English to non-English speaking migrant children wherever there are enough such children to warrant such a service.

(d) The migrant education project will train their specialist English as a Second Language teachers in methods of teaching basic reading (both in English and in Spanish) and basic arithmetic to intermediate and upper grade students and will provide time and materials for them to teach these skills to migrant children in grades 4-12 who have had little or no previous school experience.

Goal (3) To insure that pupil personnel services are provided to meet the special needs of migrant students.

Objectives. (a) Migrant education shall assist school districts to identify migrant children who require pupil personnel services.

(b) Migrant education shall assure that migrant children receive pupil personnel services in their dominant language.

Goal (4) To establish priorities for the allocation of migrant education funds.

1 Definitions: (a) Bilingual: able to carry on a conversation using complex sentence patterns in English and in the language spoken by migrants most prevalent in the area the prospective employee will work. (b) Bicultural: able to function comfortably in two cultures.

95-545 73 pt. 1 56

Objective. Each region shall establish priorities for the allocation of migrant education funds through a needs assessment involving migrant parents, students, staff, school personnel, and migrant advisory committees.

:

Goal (5) To insure the delivery of the necessary health services and system to the migrant students.

Objectives. (a) Migrant education will insure the delivery of necessary health services and systems to migrant children.

(b) Migrant education will assist in mobilizing all resources to provide food services, including a breakfast program, for all migrant children in schools.

(c) Migrant education will assist in mobilizing community resources to provide dental and health services for all migrant children in schools.

(d) Migrant education will provide to parents of migrant children information regarding agencies providing health, food, and welfare services.

(e) Migrant education will provide for parents of migrant children education in such areas as nutrition, dental care, and health.

(f) Migrant education will meet those health needs which interfere with children's learning which are not met through any other source.

Goal (6) To provide for migrant parent involvement in cooperation with school districts serving migrant students.

Objective.-Migrant education will assure that migrant parents are involved in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of educational programs for their children.

Goal (7): To provide for bilingual/bicultural instructional aides (tutors) for individualized instruction of migrant students.

Objectives. (a) Migrant education will assure that all migrant children who need help receive tutorial services.

(b) Migrant education will recruit, employ, and train (or assist districts to do so) bilingual/bicultural 1 persons to tutor migrant children.

Goal (8) To provide bilingual/bicultural teachers to migrant-funded teaching positions. Objectives.

(a) Migrant education will employ bilingual/bicultural' teachers and resource teachers.

(b) The Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Education will maintain active placement files of available bilingual/bicultural* candidates available for employment in districts or regional offices.

Goal (9): To attract bilingual/bicultural teachers to migrant-funded teaching positions.

Objectives. (a) The Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Education of the State Department of Education, shall provide informational workshops quarterly or biannually so as to facilitate and interchange knowledge and methodology of bilingual/bicultural information at the local level. These informational workshops will be evaluated by means of already developed assessment instruments.

(b) The Bureau of Community Services and Migrant Education of the State Department of Education, shall make an immediate and comprehensive biannual study of all services of a bilingual/bicultural nature being provided in the schools participating in the migrant education program. This information will be disseminated to the institutions of higher learning, appropriate public agencies, and community organizations for the purpose of attracting bilingual/bicultural teachers.

ANNEX C

OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM

There are an estimated one million migrant children in the nation. Approximately half that number are benefiting from 89-750. In California the ratio is the same of our 80,000 migratory children, approximately 40,000 receive proper help. Most of the migrants in California are intrastate; they move within the boundaries of California as they follow the crops. Nonetheless, as they work their path from the fertile desert of the Imperial Valley at the Mexican border to the hills of the Tule Lake region at the Oregon State line, their children may attend as many as eight schools during one year. Further, they miss many days due to the travel and the need for them to contribute to the earnings of the family. Ours is a supplementary program. It is expected that every school district offer the identical program and services for migrant children as it does for resident children, and that we provide that additional effort needed to compensate for the unique deprivation of our clients.