![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Chapter 102
Purpose: To provide financial assistance to State education agencies (SEAs) to establish and improve programs to meet the special education needs of migratory children of migratory agricultural workers or fishermen, and to improve the interstate and intrastate coordination activities required of State and local migrant education programs funded under Chapter 1. To provide financial assistance to SEAs or SEA consortia to improve the educational opportunities of migrant preschool children and their parents through the integration of early childhood education and adult education into a unified program.
Funding History
| Fiscal Year | Appropriation | Fiscal Year | Appropriation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1967 | $9,737,847 | 1986 | $253,149,000 |
| 1970 | 51,014,000 | 1987 | 264,524,000 |
| 1975 | 91,953,000 | 1988 | 269,029,000 |
| 1980 | 245,000,000 | 1989 | 272,145,0001 |
| 1981 | 2,666,400,000 | 1990 | 283,170,0002 |
| 1982 | 2,555,744,000 | 1991 | 296,089,0003 |
| 1983 | 255,744,000 | 1992 | 310,398,0004 |
| 1984 | 258,024,000 | 1993 | 305,451,0005 |
| 1985 | 258,024,000 | 1994 | 305,193,0006 |
1/ Includes an appropriation of $445,000 for the Migrant Education Even Start Program.
2/ Includes an appropriation of $726,000 for the Migrant Education Even Start Program.
3/ Includes an appropriation of $1,493,000 for the Migrant Education Even Start Program.
4/ Includes an appropriation of $2,100,000 for the Migrant Education Even Start Program.
5/ Includes an appropriation of $2,678,400 for the Migrant Education Even Start Program.
6/ Includes an appropriation of $2,741,200 for the Migrant Education Even Start Program.
Per-participant appropriations for the Migrant Education Program, whether measured in current or estimated constant dollars, have declined over the past decade. In 1981-82, the per-participant allocation in current dollars for all identified students was about $524; it was $450 in 1991-2, a decline of about $74. In constant dollars, the decline was $313 per participant (III.1).
The number of migrant children is thought to be growing. The National Commission on Migrant Education cites one estimate that suggests that about 800,000 students will be eligible for Migrant Education Program services by the year 2000--an increase of about one third over 1990 (III.1). In 1991-92, about 80 percent of the migrant students were Hispanic. Another 11 percent were non-Hispanic white, and three percent belonged to other ethnic groups (III.4). Their reported countries of birth were: U.S.--67 percent; Mexico--29 percent; Other--4 percent. Twelve percent of the students were in preschool or kindergarten; 56 percent in grades 1-6; and 32 percent in grades 7-12 (III.2). Nearly two-thirds of eligible children live in five States. States with more than 10,000 participants were California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington which, with the addition of Puerto Rico, accounted for 73 percent of total program participants (III.3).
The proportion of MEP students with low levels of oral English proficiency increased from slightly less than 40 percent in 1981 to about 54 percent in 1990. Their parents are likely to be not proficient in English: 84 percent of adult migrant farmworkers speak little or no English. Over 80 percent of the migrant students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals; more than one-third were over age for their grade; and 47 percent were eligible for the regular Chapter 1 program. Over three-fourths of migrant students exhibited two or more of eight indicators of need (i.e., one or more grades behind grade level, high absentee rates, eligible for regular Chapter 1, eligible for free or reduced price meals, exhibited severe behavioral problems, reading achievement level estimated to be below the 35th percentile, and mathematics achievement level estimated to be below the 35th percentile), and 25 percent had five or more indicators of need (III.2).
Studies have shown that children who change schools frequently are more likely to be below grade level in achievement, to be retained in grade, and to drop out (III.5). Under the definition in effect before the 1994 reauthorization of the migrant education program, currently migrant students made an average of 1.2 moves a year. An estimated 23 percent of regular term participants did not enroll in the school they were attending until more than 30 days after the beginning of school (III.1).
Poverty, poor health and nutrition, limited English proficiency, and school changes are among the factors that affect education outcomes. The Grade Retention and Placement Evaluation Project found that migrant students are older than grade peers and exhibit poor academic achievement. By second grade, 49 percent of MEP students were in a grade below their age peers. The National Commission on Migrant Education suggests that the Department of Education and the National Education Goals Panel identify alternatives to retention being used successfully by schools that combine promotion with supplemental remediation and other innovative approaches (III.1).
| SELECTED EDUCATION NEEDS | Regular term: Currently Migrant | Regular term Formerly Migrant | Summer term: Currently Migrant | Summer term: Formerly Migrant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One or more grades behind age cohort | 38% | 36% | 37% | 44% |
| Eligible for Chapter 1 | 53% | 44% | 36% | 17% |
| Reading achievement below 35th percentile | 50% | 42% | 39% | 20% |
| Mathematics achievement below 35th percentile | 39% | 33% | 28% | 15% |
| English language arts achievement below 35th percentile | 47% | 40% | 36% | 20% |
According to annual State performance reports, over 531,000 students in school year 1991-92 participated in MEP funded services. An estimated 467,000 identified migrant students were enrolled in school in regular term 1991-92, and an estimated 197,000 were in summer-term MEP projects (III.4). About 44 percent of regular school year and 41 percent of summer-term migrant students were currently migratory.
In 1990, just over 80 percent of migrant students enrolled in regular school year MEP projects received MEP instructional or support services; 60 percent of currently migratory and 50 percent of formerly migratory students received MEP instruction (III.2). Although legislative expansions of eligibility in the 1988 authorization included children ages 3 to 5 and youths ages 17 to 21, significantly increasing the number of eligible students, this had little effect on who received services in the first two years after implementation. While about half the regular school year programs report offering services for preschool students and for students between the ages of 18 and 21, only about five percent of MEP participants are of preschool age. Only 3 percent of regular term and 7 percent of summer term projects served out-of-school youth.
Reading, other language arts, and mathematics are the most common instructional services (see Table 2). For the 1990 regular school year, the major support activities included home-school liaison services, medical or dental screening and treatment, and guidance or counseling. Between 1984-5 and 1990-91, the proportion of MEP students receiving health care fell from 25 percent to 20 percent and the proportion receiving dental care fell from 18 percent to 9 percent (III.2).
| Service Area | 1984-85 | 1985-86 | 1986-87 | 1987-88 | 1989-90 | 1990-91 | 1991-92 | 1991-92 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instructional | ||||||||
| ESL | 17 | 14 | 19 | 17 | 16 | 20 | 15 | 31 |
| Reading | 48 | 41 | 44 | 43 | 40 | 39 | 36 | 31 |
| Other language arts | 23 | 12 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 17 | 18 | 17 |
| Mathematics | 33 | 29 | 32 | 31 | 29 | 28 | 28 | 24 |
| Vocational | 8 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Other | 11 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 16 | 19 | 20 | 13 |
| Supporting | ||||||||
| Guidance and Counseling: | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 49 | 50 | 10 |
| Social Work and Outreach: | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 18 | 19 | 57 |
| Attendance and Guidance: | 32 | 44 | 71 | 65 | 64 | NA | NA | NA |
| Health: | 25 | 33 | 31 | 33 | 31 | 23 | 20 | 13 |
| Dental: | 18 | 18 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Nutrition: | 7 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Transportation: | 12 | 9 | 14 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 7 |
| Other supporting: | 13 | 10 | 12 | 16 | 39 | 43 | 43 | 31 |
Source: III.4
Summer programs differ markedly from regular-school year programs. The predominant mode of instruction during the regular school year is to have additional teachers or aides assist in the regular classroom, or to pull migrant students out of the classroom for supplemental instruction. Summer-term projects are most likely to place students in special classes of predominantly migrant students. About half of the summer-term MEP projects reported MEP to be the only compensatory education program operating during the summer in the service area (III.2). In such cases, summer services are more costly because transportation, meals and other support must be provided. The MEP summer funding adjustment takes this into account but does not consider the cost or intensity of services (III.1).
The number of staff funded by MEP has decreased significantly. With the exception of 1988-89, the number of teachers and teacher aides has declined each year since 1984-85. States reported 55 percent fewer teachers and 37 percent fewer teacher aides in 1991-92 than in 1984-85. Overall, instructional staff comprised 59 percent of total staff in 1991-92, compared to 75 percent in 1984-85. The ratio of participants per teacher and teacher aide combined rose from 29.7 to 1 in 1984-85 to 90 to 1 in 1991-92 (III.8).
According to an audit by the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General, the statutory definition of an eligible migratory child allows a significant number of children to be counted and served as migrants even though their education has not been interrupted (III.8). Both Congressional and Departmental proposals for reauthorizing the program statute called for eligibility criteria that would more sharply focus on the neediest children.
About three-fourths of regular school year projects and two-thirds of summer-term projects reported not providing MEP instruction to all eligible students in 1990. Reasons for not serving eligible students, in order of prevalence, were: lack of demonstrated need, services from other programs, or the program not provided in that school or at that age and grade level. More than 40 percent of the projects also reported "other" reasons such as inadequate funds or insufficient staff (III.2).
Although intended as a program of last resort, MEP is frequently used as a first resort. MEP was the only source of compensatory instructional services for 71 percent of regular-school-year migrant students. About 80 percent of the currently migratory and 74 percent of the formerly migratory regular school year students reportedly did not receive regular Chapter 1 services. Twenty-four percent of the eligible MEP students attended schools where Chapter 1 is not offered; another 16 percent attended schools where Chapter 1 services were not offered at their grade level. Regular-school-year currently migrant students were almost twice as likely not to receive Chapter 1 services because they were enrolled in a school or grade that did not offer Chapter 1 (32 percent) than were regular school year formerly migrant students (18 percent) (III.2).
| REGULAR TERM FTE STAFF |
Percent of Staff | Percent change from prior year | SUMMER TERM: FTE Staff |
Percent of staff | Percent change from prior year | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOTAL: | 8,769 | 100% | -3% | 10,948 | 100% | 2% |
| Administrative | 377 | 4% | 29% | 540 | 5% | 5% |
| Teachers | 1,829 | 21% | 1% | 4,041 | 37% | 8% |
| Teacher Aides | 3,427 | 39% | -11% | 3,043 | 28% | - 7% |
| Support | 574 | 9% | 30% | 1,045 | 10% | 15% |
| Recruiters | 879 | 10% | 3% | 617 | 6% | 26% |
| Clerical | 531 | 6% | 10% | 549 | 5% | 27% |
| MSRTS Data Entry Specialists | 523 | 6% | 10% | 278 | 3% | -3% |
| Other | 246 | 3% | -53% | 614 | 6% | -34% |
Source: III.7.
The isolation of the migrant child from the rest of the community can be extreme and requires a greater emphasis on outreach activities than do programs for other populations (III.10, III.19). Effective migrant projects actively recruit migrant students using intensive door-to-door canvassing of the migrant community; establishing relations with employers, health providers and social service agencies; and encouraging word-of-mouth advertising through the families of already recruited migrant children (III.10). The 1992 descriptive study report (III.2) found that migrant children were generally identified through the regular school district enrollment process. If it appeared likely that the student was migrant, MEP recruiters followed up with a home visit. About half the local projects employed one recruiter, 25 percent employed from two to five, and six percent employed more than five. Most recruiters also served as teachers, aides, or in other MEP roles.
State MEP administrators must recruit actively if other States do so just to maintain their relative share of appropriated funding--but if total appropriations do not grow commensurate with the number of migrant students that have been recruited, services cannot be provided as intensively or extensively to the additional children recruited (III.1). The current system for allocating funds and the Federal capping of the MEP appropriation discourage the enrollment of some migrant children in the program. In cases where a given State's allocation shrinks from year to year, such "nonessentials" as active identification and recruitment are reduced to protect standard educational services. This is especially true in the States that are home bases for migrants. The children most in need of the services, the ones who are most isolated and who move most frequently, are the ones most likely to be ignored by such recruitment efforts (III.19). In FY 1992, grants to improve interstate coordination of identification and recruitment efforts were awarded to 14 States.
Migrant students with disabilities may not be identified and served appropriately. Problems include the lack of local expertise with Federal and State regulations on services to students with disabilities; lengthy or limited procedures for identification, assessment, and remediation of children's needs; and limited space on the MSRTS student record to record information on disabling conditions and treatments (III.11).
Project Management
Fifteen States employed State directors in 1990 whose sole responsibility was to direct the MEP. In the remaining States, directors spent on average 37 percent of their working time on MEP. While a number of State education agencies (SEAs) dealt directly with local projects, in other States--particularly the larger ones--MEP regional organizations acted as intermediaries. The frequency of assistance to local projects appeared to be greater in those States with regional offices. About 80 percent of the local MEP projects were administered by single school districts; roughly 15 percent were administered by a regional office of an SEA. Local projects reported general satisfaction with the level of technical assistance received from the State and other sources. Over half of the projects reported that their technical assistance needs were completely met (III.2).
MSRTS and Other Sources of Information
Case studies of effective projects indicated that it is critical that information on student needs reach those responsible for needs assessment and student selection as quickly as possible once a student is recruited and enrolled (III.9). To obtain information on the grade-level placement of a newly enrolled migrant student, staff were most likely to consult records from the prior school (66 percent for regular school year projects and 45 percent for summer-term projects). This was followed by information from parents or students (44 percent for regular school year and 49 percent for summer-term projects). Some 16 percent of regular school year projects used MSRTS; 35 percent of summer projects identified MSRTS as the source of information (III.2).
Local MEP projects use MSRTS principally as a means of ascertaining the migrant status of newly arrived students. Less than a third of regular school year projects use it for placement, identifying need for support services, or determining the number of credits for graduation (III.2). Sixteen percent of regular school year projects and 35 percent of summer projects reported using MSRTS for student placement. Project personnel cited health information on MSRTS as particularly useful. MSRTS was used by 38 percent of the regular year programs and 52 percent of summer programs for obtaining information on health and other support needs.
In districts with few migrant students, only two of the seven case sites made any use of MSRTS. In districts with medium to high migrant student concentrations, all but one reported using either MSRTS or a similar system. Two reported impediments to using MSRTS records locally were the delay in obtaining information and the burden of using the system. The average time for receipt of data by school staff was six days for regular-school-year projects and 7.4 days for summer-term projects. Lack of local terminals was a major contributing factor (III.2).
Because of poor attention to the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of MSRTS data, its student files may contain out-of-date information, or no information, for many variables of interest. Moreover, because only about 1,800 operating agencies receive MEP subgrants, information on eligible migrant children who move to a location without a project may not be updated until the children reach another school district with an MEP project and a link to MSRTS (III.2, III.20).
The National Commission on Migrant Education recommended reducing the MSRTS record to essential data on school enrollment and health, conducting a technical assessment of MSRTS with an independent research agency, developing MSRTS data quality procedures, providing a direct role for migrant students and their families, increasing the direct access of local educators to MSRTS, and requiring State compliance with MSRTS requirements prior to Departmental approval of migrant program applications (III.12). In response to concerns over the cost and effectiveness of the MSRTS, plans to recompete and improve the system in FYs 1992 and 1993 were cancelled. Instead, Congress and the Department investigating other, less costly means were of obtaining minimally necessary data and services currently provided by the MSRTS.
Project Expenditures
States reported SEA-level MEP expenditures for the 1988-89 school year (including summer 1989) of $21 million. Major SEA-level expenditures were for administration (42 percent), instructional and support services (35 percent), MSRTS (9 percent), identification and recruitment (7 percent), and interstate/intrastate coordination (4 percent) (III.2).
Major local project expenditures were for instructional services (about 62 percent), support services (about 12 percent), administration (8 percent), MSRTS (6 percent), and identification and recruitment (5 percent). Local projects reported receipt of in-kind contributions, gifts, and other fiscal assistance valued at about $11 million (III.2).
In FY 1993, the Department engaged in a technical assistance effort designed to help States improve the design and reporting of objectives and outcome data in their program plans. This work was intended to strengthen program accountability by helping States measure student progress and use the resulting information to improve program implementation.
In FY 1991, the Department began a study of the costs of migrant summer school projects to develop recommendations for a revised summer school funding formula that is better keyed to the needs of currently migratory children. Results of that study were to be available in 1994 and will be considered before publishing any formal proposal to adopt another adjusted formula.
The utility of reported data and evaluations can be improved. While evaluation requirement were always part of the legislation governing the program, development of a standard national form for State Performance Reports has occurred incrementally. By the 1990-91 school year, all States were able to provide actual or estimated participant counts in the required reporting format. Despite extensive verification and editing, anomalies remain in State-reported data. These are caused by factors including changes in State coding of services, shifts to MSRTS-based counts, and duplicative participant counts as students move from State to State. Information is not available on intensity of services or methods of service delivery. Because the State is the smallest unit of analysis in the reported data, it is not possible to examine MEP by project, district or region, or to analyze these data in conjunction with other data sets at the LEA level. While the statute requires reporting of standardized test scores, many of the State achievement data are based on very small samples, giving little confidence that the data provide an accurate estimate of the achievement. This leads to erratic fluctuations in average scores and pretest percentiles which are often well above the mean. Student mobility across LEAs and SEAs results in test scores that cannot be attributed to programs at a single district or State. Students tested in math and reading may not have received migrant education programs in those areas; the limited English proficiency of many migrant students requires appropriate assessment. These make currently reported state data of very limited use for accountability and program improvement (III.3).
[Formula Grants to States for Neglected or Delinquent Children ]