The MOE requirement does not apply to the MEP. The U.S. Department of Education recently issued a final rule effective July 1, 2019 making technical amendments to regulations to align with changes made to the ESEA by the ESSA. The regulations in 34 CFR §299.5(b) identify the programs to which the MOE requirement applies (copied below).:

• (b) Applicable programs. This subpart is applicable to the following programs:
• (1) Part A of title I (Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies).
• (2) Part D of title I (Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk).
• (3) Part A of title II (Supporting Effective Instruction).
• (4) Part A, subpart 1 of title III (English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement), except for section 3112.
• (5) Part A of title IV (Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants).
• (6) Part B of title IV (21st Century Community Learning Centers).
• (7) Part B, subpart 2 of title V (Rural and Low-Income School Program).
• (8) Part A, subpart 1 of title VI (Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies).

The Office of Migrant Education (OME) stands by its previously issued policy that MEP funds may not be used to purchase electronic devices for migratory children to keep indefinitely. In accordance with the cost principles that guide Title I, Part C grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), in order to be considered allowable, costs must be allocable or chargeable to the MEP, relative to the benefit received (see 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §200.405)). In addition, 2 CFR § 200.302 (b)(4) requires grantees and subgrantees to have financial management systems that maintain effective control and accountability for all funds, property, and other assets. This same provision requires grantees and subgrantees to adequately safeguard all such property and must assure that it is used solely for authorized purposes. Although the previously issued response did not specifically list Kindles as an example of electronic devices, the rationale is the same. We do not believe the purchase of Kindles for migratory children to keep indefinitely is an allowable use of MEP funds because the MEP would not be able to assure that the devices are used solely for authorized purposes, nor would the MEP be able to maintain effective control over the devices once the students’ MEP eligibility ends.

If the goal is to expand access to electronic books for migratory children, we offer the following suggestions to add to the number of e-readers that may be loaned to migratory children in need of such devices:

1. Inquire as to Amazon’s (company that owns Kindle) policy for allowing additional accounts and/or devices per user— particularly in school-based/educational settings.
2. Encourage districts to identify additional staff willing to create accounts.
3. Explore other brands of e-readers that are comparable in cost and allow more devices per account.

The Office of Migrant Education (OME) appreciates the MEP and HEP’s efforts to collaborate to provide services to migratory children. If the regional MEP decides to enter into a contract with the university, the region must follow its own documented procurement procedures, which reflect State and local laws, and procurements must conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR §200.317-200.326). If the amount awarded will be under the simplified acquisition threshold, small purchase procedures may be used. Such procedures do require the region to obtain price or rate quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources (2 CFR §200.320(b)). The region may wish to explore other available funding mechanisms to achieve its objective of summer programming, such as a subgrant or cooperative agreement, depending on State and local procedures for exercising those options. Again, if a contract is the method selected for the MEP’s agreement with the university, the region will need to follow Federal, State and local law for procurements.

Based on the information provided, the Office of Migrant Education (OME) would not consider this work to be “agricultural work or employment” for purposes of the MEP because it is beyond the initial processing stage. That is, the raw agricultural product has begun the process of transformation into something more refined (see MEP Non-Regulatory Guidance Chapter II, F20, 24 and 25).

MEP funds may be used to pay for costs associated with the CIG, provided those costs are allowable under the MEP — e.g., to promote interstate coordination of educational programs for migratory children. As with any use of MEP funds, we encourage States to consider whether the cost meets the following criteria:

1. The activity or service comports with the results of the State's Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) and the strategies outlined in the State's Service Delivery Plan (SDP).
2. MEP funds are first used to meet the identified needs of migratory children that result from their migratory lifestyle, and to permit these children to participate effectively in school.
3. The activity or service meets the needs of migratory children that are not addressed by services available from other Federal or non-Federal programs.
4. MEP funds are used to supplement, rather than supplant, the use of State and local funds.
5. The costs of the service or activity comports with the cost principles described in the Uniform Guidance (Subpart E of 2 CFR Part 200). The cost principles require, among other things, that costs of the service or activity be reasonable and necessary, and be allocable (or chargeable) to the MEP relative to the benefit received.