Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

STATEMENT OF C. L. CONYERS, SUPERVISOR OF MIGRANT
EDUCATION, STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. CONYERS. C. L. Conyers, supervisor of migrant education for the State of Virginia.

Prior to the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Act and ultimate the amendment that included the migrant program many of these children came into local school districts were not entered or recorded into the registers.

To point out that fact many of the children were sat over in the corner and given crayon to color and paint because they knew they weren't going to be there very long. Why mess up a register to include a child who was only going to be there a few days.

We have captured that fact in that many of us have put up in our offices and displays the painting of these children which clearly show they had some creative talent.

If someone would take an opportunity to work with them, I think what we are trying to say is that a continuation of this program for migrant children that would certainly give them the opportunity to be loved and to be respected and to be admired and to be somebody, and to be a contributing factor to society is what we are asking for your help in this endeavor.

For this child as many have stated, no one claims him as their own and if we don't have this kind of interstate cooperation that we have been able to do over the few years, that when that child leaves, much of our efforts will be lost.

No longer can we be able to say then that we are truly interested in all children. Yet we are talking about the most disadvantaged child in America, hampered by his frequent mobility and the fact that his parents must travel for miles and miles in order to find work to make a living.

This is why we are so vitally concerned that we get this kind of cooperative effort not only from a State level but from a Federal level so that all of us can continue to work in our efforts to improve this child.

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. CORTEZ, STATE MIGRANT EDUCATION DIRECTOR AND STATE ASSISTANT TITLE I DIRECTOR, STATE OF UTAH

Mr. CORTEZ. David L. Cortez, from the State of Utah; State migrant education director, and State assistant title I director.

I have a few comments here that I am sure will interest each and every one of you as much as it interests us. The reason I say it will interest you is because it gets a little personal. I am MexicanAmerican. I was once a migrant. Because of some help somewhere along the line, I was the only one out of eight in my family that was able to extricate myself from migrant conditions and obtain 5 years of university work. It was through their suffering that I was able to do this.

But I didn't come here to testify about my own personal experiences but about the migrant as I see them because I have worked with them and as I now direct the programs in the State of Utah.

Gentlemen, Utah supports H.R. 69 because it guarantees the survival of the migrant child's program. We need the migrant program administered from the Federal to the State level in order to make the local educational associations accountable to the State.

The States also need to have some guidelines from the Federal Government. This particularly in the educational endeavor, especially when it concerns educating those from other States involved in interstate labor.

Without the passage of that H.R. 69, the millions of dollars that have been spent and put into the organization of migrant education since 1966 would be a waste, a total waste of your money and our tax moneys.

We feel that this, in turn, would be the national guilt that we once felt because of not helping these people that were in dire need of assistance. We would be losing our most valuable resources, human lives.

Gentlemen, with all due respect to your positions, picture your 10or 11-year-old child working all day in the hot sun or the cold, 10 and 12 hours surrounded by the wringing stench of their own perspiration, and you will get a small glimpse of what I am trying to convey to you. This is but a fraction of the suffering that they will experience when they become parents and have to deny their children the normal life, the well-being and giving them the school programs that they deserve.

Instead they would receive the school interruptions, lack of medical attention, and more important, lack of human dignity because someone in a position such as yours made the wrong decision without having firsthand knowledge of the lives they were affecting.

Yes, you support H.R. 69 because it will give these children the weapon they need, the weapon that all of you have, education. Education to break the vicious cycle of poverty.

Gentlemen, it has been predicted by experts that for every dollar spent on the program today for migrant education at least $25 of welfare and other expenses will be saved 10 years to come.

Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. MILLER, SECTION CHIEF, SPECIAL PROGRAMS, DIVISION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF OHIO

Mr. MILLER. I am James Miller, representing the Ohio Department. of Education.

I would like to make a brief statement, for which David laid the groundwork quite beautifully.

[The statement referred to follows:]

STATEMENT BY JAMES W. MILLER, SECTION CHIEF, SPECIAL PROGRAMS, DIVISION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is James Miller; I am the Section Chief, Special Programs, Division of Federal Assistance, Ohio Department of Education. The major responsibilities of the Division include the administration of the various programs funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today in support of H.R. 69. I will limit my statements to the migrant education component of Title I.

Title I funds for migrant education projects have made a significant impact in Ohio. Prior to federal funding little had been done to help migrant children in

Ohio. As an example, in 1960 only 207 migrant children were enrolled in Ohio schools. During the 1971-72 school year 6,328 children were enrolled.

Due to a lack of financial resources, Ohio schools simply did not have enough money to hire a sufficient number of teachers, to train teachers, to provide any supportive services, or to provide instructional supplies. The program operated in isolation from other states. Now the Ohio migrant program is cooperatively planned with our primary sending states, Texas and Florida. The coordination among states has resulted in a continuity of educational programming and services that was never possible prior to Title I.

As specific examples of the impact of migrant education funds, the following is submitted for your information:

1. The migrant program in Ohio has increased in enrollment by 450% since Title I funds became available. The highest number of children ever enrolled prior to 1967 was 1,415 students. The program has expanded to an enrollment of 6,328 children for the 1971-72 school year.

2. For the first time migrant children have been provided trained teachers who understand and can provide for their educational needs.

3. All administrators, teachers, and teacher-aides now have an opportunity to participate in inservice training programs designed for migrant project staff members. Prior to federal funding no inservice training for migrant teachers existed in Ohio.

4. Educational opportunities are now available to migrant children in Ohio from April through November. Before federal funding, programs used to operate for just a few weeks.

5. Cooperative efforts among the states have resulted in program improvement never before possible. This past year, as in the previous four years, more than 40 Texas and Florida teachers came to work in Ohio migrant education programs. These teachers have worked with migrant children in their home states and are familiar with the children's cultural and educational background. The instructional content of the Ohio program is designed to supplement the instruction the child receives in his Texas and Florida schools. Frequently the same materials are used. Consultants from the home base states are used to train Ohio teachers so that the child has an opportunity for continuity in instruction that was never possible before.

5. Smaller class sizes permit an individualized approach which is absolutely necessary in order to provide maximum assistance for the children. In summer programs for migrant children, class size now averages 15 students per teacher as contrasted with 35 per teacher which was common at the beginning of the Title I program.

6. Migrant children now have access to school nurses whose sole responsibility is to provide services to them. Due to the condition in the camps and the problems caused by being constantly on the move, children come to Ohio schools with a number of health problems. The incidence of skin diseases, respiratory infection, nutritional problems, dental problems, and other health problems is much above average. The school nurses also help to obtain health services from migrant clinics for the children and their families.

7. Comprehensive supportive services such as transportation, food services, special oral language teachers, and recruiters to work between the school and the camp are now available. Prior to Title I schools did not have enough money to employ the basic staff let alone consider the employment of supportive staff. 8. It is now possible to provide a variety of instructional materials suitable for the migrant child. No longer is it necessary to give the migrant the "handme-downs" which were leftover from years of use in the regular program.

9. Ohio now has a transfer record terminal. Prior to the implementation of the transfer record system, Ohio as a receiving state, received little or no information concerning the children. There was no organized informational system other that what the child would bring to school. The lack of information resulted in (1) teachers having no way to judge where a child should be placed, (2) no information was available about previous educational experiences, (3) no test data could be located, (4) previous health services were unknown, and (5) children frequently did not get credit for work performed in receiving states. Now teachers and nurses have updated information on about every child.

10. Schools are now enrolling pre-school migrant children. It is proving to be a sound investment of the federal dollar to provide readiness opportunities in preparing migrant children to move into academic programs. By providing language development, perceptual skill development, and other readiness, activities,

many problems can be prevented. A child who is constantly on the move does not have the opportunities that the child with a more permanent status has to prepare for school. Books, crayons, newspapers, coloring books, scissors, and paste are not to be found in the migrant camps.

11. Most teachers have the services of a trained aide many of whom are bilingual and bicultural. Spanish-speaking aides provide valuable assistance for those teachers who are working with students who are learning English as a second language.

Ohio has provided migrant education programs as Congress has intended. Migrant education funds in Ohio are being used to provide direct services to children. Little money is expended for equipment and no money is used for construction. Federal dollars are used to provide what migrant children need the most-well-trained teachers and a good instructional program.

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS EXPENDED FOR OHIO MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAMS
FOR THE LAST 3 FISCAL YEARS

Fiscal year

Category

1970

1971

1972

Percentage of funds expended for salary, fringe benefits, and training.
Percentage of funds expended for supportive services (food, health, transportation).
Percentage of funds expended for instructional materials and equipment..
Percentage of funds expended for all other purposes.

[blocks in formation]

Migrant children are benefiting from their participation in the migrant program. About 60% of the students enrolled in this past year's program demonstrated growth in language skills. In a short term program, such as we conduct in a receiving state, the instructional program must be sharply focused. For this reason major emphasis is placed on the migrant child's primary educational needs, English language development, the key to his success in school.

Observations

1. The plight of migrant children had been virtually ignored nationally and in Ohio until Title I was enacted.

2. For years the drop-out rate for migrant children has been one of the highest of any student population in the country. There is evidence, since the inception of Title I, that the drop-out rate for migrant children has started to decline. A sustained national effort must be maintained to provide an opportunity for the thousands of migrant children to finish school.

3. The full impact of migrant education programs may not be totally visible for many years. Effort to help migrant children had been too limited to expect quick solutions.

4. The present categorical approach has made it possible to insure that money is spent on migrant education and not directed to other purposes.

5. The need for migrant farm workers is still present in Ohio. Therefore, it will be necessary to continue the operation of special educational programs for some time to come.

6. Any reduction in funding will cause a reduction in services to children who have been neglected too long.

7. Expansion of the program is limited by the present level of funding.

8. In the absence of federal support most Ohio schools would not have the resources to provide any program.

Recommendations

1. The present categorical funding approach for migrant education programs should be maintained. Funding should be maintained at a level which permits the operation of a sound educational program.

2. Criteria for participation in migrant programs should be extended to enable schools to develop special programs for children whose families have settled-out of the migrant stream. This would require additional funds. Currently, settled-out children can only be served on a space available basis during the time interstate children are enrolled. It is a paradox that on one hand educational programs are funded to enhance the migrant families opportunity to leave the migrant stream, yet no funds are provided to help children once they settle-out in a northern community. Statistics show that migrant children are frequently behind their

« PreviousContinue »