DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 285 701 RC 016 331

TITLE Migrant Education: A Consolidated View.INSTITUTION Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo.PUB DATE Jul 87NOTE 41p.; Prepared by the Interstate Migrant Education

Council.PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Access to Education; Demography; Economic Factors;Educational Change; Educational Finance; ElementarySecondary Education; Federal Aid; Government Role;Higher Education; *High Risk Students; tMigrantEducation; Migrant Problems; *Migrant Programs;Migrant Youth; Poverty; Program Descriptions; Qualityof Life; Student Characteristics; Student Needs; WorkEnvironment

ABSTRACTThe condition of migrant students iu detailed in this

report, which points out that the problems facing migrant studentsare shared by many at-risk students and the recommendations formigrant students apply to many segments of the at-risk population.Chapter 1 outlines migrant student demographics noting racial andethnic minority status, limited English proficiency, high drop outrates, frequent unemployment, and low wages. Chapter 2 outlineslegislative and funding history from the mid-1960s to today's networkof interstate and intrastate cooperation designed to provide thecontinuity needed if migrant students are to move in and out of manyschools in a year and still succeed. Chapter 3 describes advocacygroups and the service network. Chapter 4 discusses the impact of theeducational reform movement on migrant education and points outopportunities and pitfalls. Chapter 5 contrasts migrants'contributions to the economy with their hazardous work conditions,meager wages, low status, and poor health. Chapter 6 argues thatfederal financial support is essential for migrant education andurges a commitment to equal access to education for the migrantpopulation. Appendices include brief descriptions of innovativemigrant programs and a summary in chart 'orm of state educationalreform efforts from 1982-1986. (JHZ)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

Migrant Education:A Consolidated View

Published by The Interstate Migrant Education CouncilA Special Project of the Education Commission of f, -fates

Congressman William D. Ford, Chairman

MEMBER STATES

Alaska MinnesotaArizona New JerseyArkansas New YorkCalifornia North CarolinaFlorida OregonLouisiana PennsylvaniaMassachusetts TexasMichigan Washington

Inter tate Migrant Education Council, Education Commission of the States, Suite 300, 1860 Lincoln Street,Denver, Colorado 80295, phone 303-830-3680

Cover photos by Al Wright and Donna Hurst

3

1

INTERSTATE MIGRANT EDUCATION COUNCILCongressman William D. Ford, ChairmanStaffSen. John D. Perry, Senior Project

ConsultantDr. Jim L Gonzales, Senior Policy AnalystEmmadine Speaks, Administrative AssistantScott Bell, Consultant/ Writer

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

AlaskaMr. Harvey CromettProgram Manager, Migrant Education

ProgramAlaska Department cf EducationArizonaDr. J. 0. Maynes, Jr.Director, Migrant Child EducationState Department of EducationArkansasMr. Homer NealSupervisor, Migrant Education ProgramState Department of EducationCaliforniaDr. Ramiro ReyesAssistant SupenntendentDivision of Categorical Support ProgramsState Department of Public InstructionDr. Jack SchaefferDirector of Migrant EducationState Department of Public InstructionFloridaDr. Cecil Carlton, Jr.Chief, Bureau of Compensatory EoueationState Department of EducationDr. Douglas CrawfordDirector, Division of Public SchoolsState Department of EducationLouisianaMr. Ronnie GloverDirector, Bureau of Migrant EducationState Department of EducationMassachusettsMr. Daniel McAllisterDirector, Massachusetts Migrant Education

ProgramMichiganMs. Cecilia Santa AnaSupervisor of Migrant EducationState Department of EducationMinnesotaMr. Peter MorenoSupervisor, Migrant Education UnitState Department of EducationNew JerseyDr. Sylvia RobertsDirector, Division of Compensatory/

Bilingual EducationState Department of EducationNew YorkMr. Richard BoveChief, Bureau of Migrant EducationState Education DepartmentNorth CarolinaMr. Daniel PrattChief Consultant, Migrant EducationState Department of Public InstructionOregonMr. Jose GarciaCoordinator, Migrant Education ProgramOregon Department of Education

PennsylvaniaDr. Manuel RemDirector, Migrant EducationState Department of EducationTexasMr. Frank ContrerasDirector, Division of Special ProgramsTexas Education AgencyDr. Ruben OlivaresAssistant Commissioner for AccreditationTexas Education AgencyWashingtonMr. Raul de la RosaDirector, Supplemental Education ProgramsOffice of the Superintendent of F-ublic

Instruction

Ex-officio Members

Mr. Winford "Joe" MillerDirector of Migrant Student Record

Transfer SystemState Department of Education (Arkansas)Mr. Robert PalaichSenior Policy AnalystPrograms and Policy StudiesEducation Commission of the StatesDr. John StaehleDirector, Office of Migrant EducationU.S. Department of Education

COUNCIL MEMBERS

AlaskaDr. Paul GoodwinCoordinator, Rural and Native EducationState Department of EducationDr. Richard SpazianiDeputy Director, Education Program

SupportState Department of EducationArizonaDr. Frances AinabiscaSuperintendent, Avondale Elementary

District #44Dr. Nicholas SilvaroliDirector, Reading CenterArizona State UniversityArkansasMr. Herman LubkerBald KnobMr. Tommy VentersDirector, General EducationState Department of EducationCaliforniaMs. Agnes ChanMember, California State Board of

EducationMr. Eugene EvenSupenntendent, Butte County SchoolsFloridaThe Honorable Don C. ChildersMember, Florida Senate, District #28The Honorable Elizabeth MetcalfMember, Honda House of RepresentativesLouisianaMr. William GallegosExecutive Officer, Educational

Support ProgramsState Department of EducationMr. Germ LafleurEducation Director, ECAA

4

MassachusettsMr. Michael DalyExecutive Deputy CommissionerState Department of EducationMr. Ernest MazzoneDirector, Bilingual BureauMigrant Education ProgramMichiganThe Honorable Donald GilmerMember, Michigan State House of

RepresentativesMs. Roberta E StanleyExecutive Assistant Superintendent

for State and Federal LegislaticnState Department cf EducationMinnesotaDr. Daniel LorazAssistant Director of the Minnesota

State Planning AgencyMs Jessie MontanoSupervisor, Limited English Proficient

Education UnitState Department of EducationThe Honorable James PehlerMember, Minnesota State SenateNew JerseyMr. Peter B. ContuuGloucester County SuperintendentMr John T KlagholzPresident, State Board of EducationNew YorkDr. Bruce CrowderAssistant Commissioner for District

SuperintendentsSchool District Organization and

DevelopmentState Education DepartmentThe Honorable Maurice HincheyMember, New York Assembly10Ist DistrictNorth CarolinaMr. Dennis DavisDirector of Support ProgramsState Department of Public InstructionNorth CarolinaDr. Theodore DrainAssistant State Supenntendent for Support

ServicesState Department of Public InstructionOregonDr. Ronald BurgeDeputy Superintendent of Public InstructionOregon Department of EducationMr. Boyd SwentSuperintendent, Umatilla County ESDPennsylvaniaThe Honorable William GoodhngMember, U.S House of RepresentativesTexas

s. Deha PompaAssistant Commissioner for Program

DevelopmentTexas Education AgencyWashingtonDr. Frank BrouilletState Superintendent of Public Insti uctionMr. James JungersSuperintendentOthello School District

iK

5

The publication of MigrantEducation: A Consolidated Viewrepresents the culmination of themost ambitious research effortundertaken yet by The InterstateMigrant Education Council(IMEC).

This document details thespecial problems facing migrantstudents and the programs forthis group of young people, whoare among those at greatest riskof not completing their secondaryeducation. With increased atten-tion focusing nationwide onyouth-at-risk issues, this publica-tion provides information whichshould be useful to educators andpolicymakers concerned withother at-risk groups.

IMEC's role in migrant educa-tion is to promote interstatecooperation by increasing com-munication and promoting thesharing of resources and informa-tion. Because of our philosophyand purpose, we welcome allthose who are concerned withyouth at risk to utilize the infor-mation herein.

The history of migrant educa-tion dating back to the mid -1960sis replete with individual andprogrammatic success stories.Migrant educators are among themost dedicated and compassion-ate people I have ever worked

Vfay the nation renew itsresolve to improve the educa-tional experience for all of ouryoung people.

William D. Ford,Member of Congress,15th District, MichiganChairman, Interstate MigrantEducation CouncilJuly, 1987

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

3

Executive Summary 5

Chapter 1Demographics of the Migrant Student Population 6

Chapter 2 Legislative and Funding History 14

Chapter 3Advocacy Groups and the Service Network 17

Chapter 4The Reform MovementAn Opportunity For Change 24

Chapter 5Harvest of Plenty 30

Chapter 6Policy Options and Strategies 33

Appendix AA Sampler of National, State and Regional Programs 35

Appendix BState Education Reform Efforts 36

Footnotes/ References 38

6

4

Considering the circumstances ofmigrant students, it is not surprisingthat they have more than their shareof difficulties in surviving the rigorsof public education. Certainly theirmobility hampers a continuouspattern of growth, but other factorscome into play as well. Seldom is aproblem a result of a single causeand seldom is that problem dimin-ished by simplistic solutions. Theperils facing migrant students areshared by many at-risk students.Migrant Education: A ConsolidatedView compiles factual informationthat portrays the condition of themigrant student in the U.S. today.But, in a very real sense, the story ofthe migrant student is the story ofother at-risk students. The conclu-sions apply to many segments of theat-risk population.

Understanding the migrant'ssituation involves knowing his orher circumstance. Migrant studentsare minority students. They oftenhave limited English fluency,blocking academic progress inEnglish language dominant class-rooms. They drop out of school at arate almost unparalleled by anyother group in the country. Theresulting lack of academic creden-tials leads them into a life cyclecharacterized by migration, lowstatus jobs, frequent unemploymentand low wages. By most commoncriteria, they cannot be consideredas leading lives holding promise andhope for the future. Recognition ofthe great needs of rhigant studentsled to establishment of federally-funded programs to improve thestudents' chances for success in asociety that has frequently left themto fend for themselves. Concern forthe migrant's well-being began toemerge during the mid-1960s. Sincethat time, a network of educatorsand others has formed that con-tinues to espouse the migrant stu-dent's cause. This network, typified

by interstate and intrastate coopera-tion uncommon to our system oflocally managed education, hashelped to create more consistencyand continuity in educational treat-ment for students as they movefrom school to school.

Funding is the lifeblood of themigrant education programfunding that is properly the respon-sibility of the federal government.Non-migrant students benefit froman educational system characterizedby strong local control. Migrantstudents who move in and out ofmany schools in a year requirefederal participation to provide thecontinuity needed for success. Thefunding that allows all this to exist isstable at best, and, most likely,receding.

The funding priorities that beganin the 1960s have permitted amomentum to build that hasencouraged development of educa-tional programs tailored to theneeds of the migrant student.Monies earmarked specifically forthe betterment of the migrant'scause have been around longenough to focus educators' attentionupon the needs of this unique groupof students. The attention hashelped the migrant student.

Education, along with other ele-ments of our society, needs to growand change to remain viable. Withthe National Commission on Excel-lence in Education's renort on edu-cational quality came a flurry ofactivity. New standards were set.New proclamations were issued. Aclimate of change moved quicklyfrom idea to action. Legislation wasenacted that mandated higherstandards. The migrant student isaffected by this movement in waysnot yet known. There are opportuni-ties and there are risks. Migranteducators who are interested inimproving the migrant student's lo:must assess these opportunities care-fully while avoiding the pitfalls.

7

All in all, the pursuit of educa-tional excellence for migrant stu-dents is a timely task. They, andtheir families, have enjoyed little ofthe bountiful harvest of Americanagriculture. Instead, migrant stu-dents have endured quietly the fateof their fathers and mothersafuture of hard labor with fewreturns. Change has begun. Changemust continue. Change must bepositive.

The Demographics of the MigrantStudent Population

Many changes are taking placenow in the numbers and compositionof the birth and immigrant groupsthat are beginning to enter elemen-tary schools. These changes willnecessarily occupy the educationalsystem for at least the next twentyyears. By knowing who is enteringthe system, and how well they areprogressing, everyone at all levels willhave time to develop effective pro-grams for the maximum educationalgains of all students.1

With a close watch on the ever-changing demographics of thenation's children and youth, oureducational systems can anticipateneeds and respond in time to avertmajor failure. But k,xping a closewatch is no easy task. In fact, thequality and quantity of currentlyavailable data make the job some-times complex and at other timesvirtually impossible. And this isespecially so with "at-risk" migrantstudents.

The population structure in theUnited States is in the throes ofchange. Both the nature of thechange and the implications for thefuture must be considered. Not toattempt to anticipate this future willsubstantially increase the risk thatour educational systems will beunprepared for the challenges tocome. First, as a population we arebecoming older. "In 1983 there weremore people over 65 in Americathan there were teen-agers, and(because of the Baby Boom growingold) that condition [will remain] aconstant for as long as any of uslive."2 A superficial look at this factcould lead us to conclude that adiminishing proportion of youngpeople means a decline in the need

6

..,

for educational services. However,other data complicate this view.

... the United Stateswill not be a nationwith a predominantlywhite student populacedaily entering thepublic school doors.

The birthrate is not uniformly lowin all groups. Hodgkinson pointsout that a birth rate of approxi-mately 2.1 per female is needed tomaintain a population of constantsize and notes the higher birthratesof minority groups as an example."However, Blacks (2.4), andMexican-Americans (2.9) will be alarger part of our population in thefuture. All these young people haveto do is GROW OLDER and wehave the future."3 In sharp contrastto the growing population of Blacksand Mexican-Americans, the birth-rates for Cubans and whites are 1.3and 1.7 children per female, respec-tively. Hodgkinson goes on to say:"Mostly because of varying birth-rates, the average age of groups inthe U.S. is increasingly variousthe1980 Census reveals that the averagewhite in America is 31 years old, theaverage Black 25, and theAVERAGE Hispanic only 22!"4 Itis apparent that the United Stateswill not be a nation with a predomi-nantly white student populace dailyentering the public school doors.California already has more"minority" students in its elementaryschools than it has "non-minorities."A national, state or local stance thatignores these demographic facts anddecides that there is a lessening need

s

to tend to the educational needs ofthe minority student would be dan-gerous. An increasing percentage ofminorities will constitute the laborpool, voting public and the decision-makers of the future. This group ofchildren must receive the highestquality education possible if we, as anation, are to continue to reap thesocial and economic rewards of atalented and informed citizenry.

Additionally, there is occurring". . . a perceptible change in [the]ethnic composition of the fruit-and-vegetables harvest workforce [that]has several important implications:First, it is clear that Spanish israpidly becoming the 'language ofthe fields,' and that this in turn pre-sents a formidable employmentobstacle for non-Spanish-speakingBlacks, whites, and Asians whomight otherwise pursue farmwork.Second, to the extent these workersand their dependents require specialservices, providers will be unable toassist, instruct, or communicateeffectively unless they, too, are fluentin Spanish. Finally, it appears thatwhile many of these Hispanicworkers (Including a high percentageof young males) will earn goodwages during the years of youngadulthood, most will be unable towithstand the physically gruelingpace indefinitely and will face eithermid-life career changes or severelyreduced earnings within five tofifteen years after entering theharvest workforce. There is littleevidence, however, that employmenttransition services or instruction inEnglish proficiency are being offeredat levels in any way commensuratewith the numbers of Hispanicworkers who almost certainly willrequire them for sake of future eco-

AH10'40792,5.9%

WIC, jS DER189)214.4xALASKAN' NAIVE -3;36 ,9X' OTHER 846..2%

SOURCE: U.S.. Dept. of Edith:, Migitiet;Performancb Reports 1984-1985

nomic survival."5 U.S. Departmentof Education information collectedon the racial/ethnic make-up of themigrant student population supportsthe preceding quotation (Figure1-1).

Clearly, the more we know aboutthe demographics of our country'sfuture population, the better able wewill be to respond to its educationalneeds. This holds true for ourknowledge of the migrant studentpopulation as well. The mobility ofthe population, combined with somequirks of data gathering processes,work against developing a clearpicture of this group of students.The best place to begin to under-stand migrant students is to answera fundamental question: Who is amigrant child?

A migrant child, according to theApril 13, 1930 Federal Register, may

FIGURE 1-1

be classified as either "currentlymigratory" or "formerly migratory":

Currently migratory child means achild whose parent or guardian is amigratory agricultural worker or amigratory fisher; and who has movedwithin the past 12 months from oneschool district to another ... toenable the child, the child's guardian,or a member cf the child's immediatefamily to obtain temporary or sea-sonal employment in an agriculturalor fishing activity.

Formerly migratory child means achild who was eligible to be countedand served as a currently migratorychild within the past five years, but isnot now a cr ,,ntly migratory child.6These students are further classi-

fied as members of one of sixsubgroups:

Status I

Status II

Interstate Agricultural(Currently Migratory)Intrastate Agricultural(Currently Migratory)

Status III Formerly Migratory(Agricultural)

Status IV Interstate Fishing(Currently Migratory)

Status V Intrastate Fishing(Currently Migratory)

Status VI Formerly Migratory(Fishing)

A good way to look at the educa-tional effort required to supportthese students in the nation's schoolsystems is to examine the number offull time equivalents (FTEs) gener-ated by the population. An FTE isequal to one student in residence forone full calendar year. If, forexample, two students were each inthe same school system for onlyone-half calendar year each, a singlefull time equivalent would berecorded. Information availablefrom the Migrant Student Record

MT COPY AVAILABLE

7

Transfer System (MSRTS) databasein Little Rock, Arkansas, identifies530,856 migrant students generating441,375 full time equivalents. TheFTEs are further described in thefollowing charts.

The first chart, "Full Time Equi-valent Distribution by Grade Level"shows the number of migrantstudent FTEs nationwide. Althoughthere is a steady decline in thenumber of FTEs as enrolled gradeincreases, the conclusion cannot bedrawn that less effort and supportare needed at the secondary level.The second chart, "Distribution ofFull Time Equivalents (FTEs) byMigrant Status," illustrates the rela-tive percentages of migrant studentsin each of the six status categories.

These data are taken from theMigrant Student Record TransferSystem (MSRTS) Managementreports 1A, "FTE DistributionSummary" and 1B, "Student Distri-bution Summary." These reportseach summarize data on a nationalbasis and cover the entire 1985calendar year. Several inferencesmay be drawn:

There are fewer FTEs generatedthan there are students. The numberof FTEs accumulated represent only84% of the total number of studentsreported as receiving services asmigrant students. Typically, the per-centage for non-migrant students ishigher. This implies the need forgreater identification and recruit-ment efforts.

The number of FTEs generatedby migrant students declinesmarkedly as grade level increases.This suggests a high dropout ratefor migrants. While there are morethan 35,000 FTEs at the first gradelevel, there are fewer than 15,000FTEc generated at the twelfth gradelevel. This represents a decline ofmore than 57%. The implication isthat there is a need for dropoutprevention activities.

The largest number of Au-dents are members of Status III,Formerly Migratory (Agricultural).It is tempting to conclude from this

statistic that most migrant studentsare "settling out" and are beginningto develop a more stable schoolmembership. A more likely scenariois one in which a family attempts toleave the migrant workforce formore financially and geographicallystable employment. With only mar-ginal skills and education, theattempt fails to produce adequateincome. The result is a return tomigratory farmwork. Even thot.gh ahigh proportion of migrant studentsserved are classified as Status III,settled out, they commonly "settleout" in rural areas. Compensatoryeducational programs are c'ncen-trated primarily in urban areasrather than rural oncs, therebyaffording migrant stadents limitedaccess to supplemental services.

The distribution of migrant stu-dents throughout the U.S. is, asmight be expected, uneven. Theratio of migrant students to non-migrant students tends to be higherin agricultural states than in non-agricultural states. Also, the numberof migrant students enrolled invarious parts of the nation is deter-mined by the time of year. Enroll-ments are highest during harvesttimes. Funding for migrant educa-tion programs varies directly withthe number of migrant studentsserved. Funding also varies by thearea in which migrant students arelocated. Figure 1-4 portrays thenumber of full time equivalents pro-duced by migrant students in thethirteen states with a total of morethan 5000 migrant full time equiva-lents for 1985.

The Migrant Student RecordTransfer System is the best currentsource of data regarding migrantstudents. Information from othersources confirm that migrant st-dents fare poorly in schools andthey leave schools ill prepared forthe future. A sampling of statisticssupport these observations:

"Migrant farmworkers have lesseducation than the rest of the U.S.population. In 1983, migrants 25years of age and over had completed

i0

a median 7.7 years of school corn-paled with 12.5 for the general popu-lation. Over 70 percent of themigrants had not completed highschool and 15 percent were func-tionally illiterate (fewer than 5 yearsof school)."7

"Typically, he children ofmigrant workers lag from six toeighteen months behind theexpected grade levels for their agegroups, and English is often asecond language."8

Farmworkers are among themost educationally disadvantagedgroups in our society. On average,they have no more than a sixth-grade education, and the rate ofenrollment in schools is lower forfarmworker children than for anyother group in the country."9

"Migrant students are markedlybehind other students in bothachievement and grade levels by thetime they reach the Ird and 4thgrades. Moreover, roughly threeyears were required for the averagemigrant student in some states toadvance one grade level."10

The Migrant Student RecordTransfer System provides a singlerepository for educational evalua-tion and progress data for migrantstudents. It has helped encourageeducational continuity for migrantstudents as they move from schoolto school. Evaluating the progress ofmigrant education programs has itson set of unique difficulties. Platowrites, "The problems associatedwith the measurement of achieve-ment of migrant students are welldocumented. Language deficiencyand lack of social adjustment hindertest taking. The mobility factormakes it difficult to obtain matchedtest scores for pre-post designs. ""Plato examined several attempts toevaluate migrant student achieve-ment and concluded, "The datafrom this wide variety of approachescannot be aggregated to produce anational report of migrant studentachievement."I2

There are no really good sourcesof cleanly quantified data that pin-

FTE) DISTRIBUTIONE

13%. t.,..cfatticjit.t-`=

loOOttil-P

stio

point the educational achievementsof migrant students. Without asingle data source, the comparabilityof each piece of information is sus-pect. An A is not always an Awithin the same local system, andcertainly is not the same fromsystem to system. The consequencesof this variability are of less concernto the student who spends severalyears within the same educationalframework than it is to the con-stantly mobile migrant student.

Even in the absence of evaluationdata, the unique problems thatmigrant students have in publicschools are clear. Many are non-native English speaking. As a result,migrant students have a generallylowered success rate in schoolswhere English fluency tends to betaken for granted. The mobility ofmigrant students surely retards edu-

1,2 "Ud

Data SoLirOe;, itOport for Notion. 01/01,185 -- 12/31/85FIGURE 1-2

DISTRIBUTION OF FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTEs)BY sM [GRANT., 5TATUS

VI 2.5%

IV .4%V 1.2%

Data Source: MSRTS, Report for Notion, 01/01/85 12/31/85

FIGURE 1-3

11 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

cational progress. It takes time tcadjust to a new educational environ-ment and even more time to learn tobe successful within it. This is timethat migrant students do not have.Migrant students are typically olderthan their classmatesanotb-rcumstance that takes its toll. Theirparents have less education thanother parents. Migrant studentshave ready access to work opportuni-ties, which, combined with a need towork, can interfere with school.They are outsiders in the communityand often excluded from schoolactivities. And the list goes on.

The Interstate Migrant EducationCouncil (IMEC) conducted a surveyearly in 1986 to collect informationfrom "individuals who had practical,hands-on experience in migranteducation to identify unique featuresof the program."13 It was noted that

10

U.S, beet. of Edue.. Migrant FTE 1985 Count. 2/18/86

FIGURE 1-4

". . . the survey was not intended tobe scientific; rather it was conductedto help IMEC in the identificationof noteworthy differences and trendsin migrant education for use in inter-state sharing of information."14Survey respondents spoke of theunique characteristics of migrantstudents:

Many of the student characteristicsidentified parallel those attributableto the overall family, e.g., lowincome, disadvantaged; however,several additional problems can beidentified from an education stand-point. Among the characteristicsidentified by the respondentsthroughout the interviews were thelinguistic needs of the students. Themigrant student is oftentimes Spanishdominant or linguistically different,e.g., Indochinese, Japanese orEskimo, of limited English profi-ciency and bicultural.

Another major feature describedby the Jun ey respondents is educa-tional disadvantage. Descriptorswhich convey this notion includecomments relating to students beingbelow grade level, at low levels ofliteracy, with limited experientialbackground. Concerns for the multi-ple support needs of the studentsinclude health, clothing, dental andnutritional services.°The data clearly suggest that

migrant students are more likely tofail than their more geographicallystable peers. But even this phrasingtends to place blame for failureupon the migrant student. A betterrestatement of the view is that theeducational system is much morelikely to fail migrant students thantheir more geographically stablepeers.

112 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Teacher Cathie Oshiro (right) with first grade migrant children, Dodge City, Kansas.(Photo courtesy of Dodge City USD #443)

fx':s "31

The educational disadvantages en-countered by migrant students cancombine to create such formidablebarriers to school completion thatquitting school becomes an attrac-tive alternative. Dropping out ofschool is a remedy for school failureall too often exercised by minoritystudents. And among minorities,dropping out is most common formigrant students who face some-times insurmountable obstacles tostaying in school. Dale Mann ofTeachers College, Columbia Univer-sity, has addressed the problemsfaced by school dropouts in hisarticle "Can We Help Dropouts:Thinking About Doing the Undo-able." Mann feels that Americantradition has it that no problem istoo difficult to solve if only theproper ingenuity and resources areapplied to it. The nation rose to thechallenge of reviving science andmathenr.tics in the Fifties, revisingscience and mathematics curricula inthe Sixties and raising graduationstandards and re-emphasizing"basics" in the Eighties. Each ofthese efforts was met with enthu-siasm and a sense of imminent vic-tory. A national response to theplight of the migrant student has yetto be heard.

For the general population to beconcerned with the dropout rateamong migrant youth, there must bean apparent benefit society as awhole. Mann says, "The fact thatthe dropout rate [among the generalpopulation] has not changed in sucha long time [25% since 1958] sug-gests that not everyone regaids thisas a crisis."16 Some other sourcesoffer emphasis:

A national estimate ,gests that25 percent of fifth graders will notmake it through high school."

Being retained one gradeincreases the risk of later droppingout by 40-50 percent, two grades by90 percent.18

.. . being in paid employmentposes a cruel choice for young peoplealready at risk. Ba: .1 says 'Bothmales and females are more likely todrop out if they work longer hours.'''

.. . it is . .. clear that what iscoming toward the educationalsystem is a group of children who willbe poorer, more ethnically and lin-guistically diverse, and who will havemore handicaps that will affect theirlearning.20

High school dropouts hay arather typical profile. They a:usually from low income or povertysettings, often from a minority groupbackground (although not oftenAsiar-American), have very low basic

academic skills, especially readingand math, have parents who are nothigh school graduates and who aregenerally uninterested in the child'sprogress in school, and do notprovide a support system for aca-demic progress. English is often notthe major language spoken in thehome, and many are children ofsingle parents. Dropouts are heavieramong males than females malestend to leave school to ,ct a job(which usually turns out to be afailure), while females tend to dropout in order to I ave a child. Drop-outs are generally bored in school,they perceive themselves accurately asfailures in the school culture, and areusually very alienated from schoo1.21For the migrant student the statis-

tics are even more appalling.Migrant youth have the lowest

graduation rate of any populationgroup identified in our public schoolsystem and the rate of completion ofpost - secondary educational programsis correspondingly grim. According to1980-81 MSRTS enrollment statistics,five times as many migrant studentsare enrolled in the second grade as inthe twelfth grade nationwide. Thegraduation rate for migrant studentsconsequently is estimated to bebetween 10% and 20%.22

The national dropout rate isabout 25% and has been for 30 years.However, the dropout rate for thethree states with the highest migrantpopulations (California, Florida, andTexas) exceeds 32.5%.23

... the average migrant studenthad a 40% chance of entering 9thgrade, an 11% chance of entering 12thgrade and that fewer than 10% wouldgraduate from high school (a 90%dropout rate).24Contemporary migrant educators

add, ho' ever, that the "90%dropout rate" mentioned in this 1974source has probably fallen to about50%. Although this represents con-siderable improvement, the dropoutrate for migrant students stillapproaches twice that of thenational average.

The data presented in Figure 1-2show that there are twice as manyFTEs generated by students ingrades K-3 as in grades 9-12. The

13 BEST COPY AVAILABL11

number of FTEs drops markedlyafter 9th grade. This suggests thatonce a migrant student becomesfully employable in the fields, schoolattendance falls abruptly.

Dropout rates for migrant stu-dents are obviously far higher thanfor the rest of the public schoolpopulation. Specific problems thatup the dropout rate include:

When first enrolling in schoo;migrant students are frequentlyplaced in a lower grade than isappropriate for their age. In subse-quent years, migrant students areoften retained for reasons such assize, maturity or language limitations.Being overage is presently the highestpredictor of dropout behavior amongmigrant students. More than 99% of[all] students who are one and a halfto two years overage drop out beforegraduation.25

Credit deficiency is the secondmost common reason for failure tograduate. Students who are severelycredit deficient often decide that they(or Lheir families) cannot afford thetime it will take to complete graduaterequirements.26

Senior year students are oftensurprised to discover that they do ilot1,ae all the pre-requisites to grad-uate. Migrant students frequentlyencounter difficulties because ofinadequate knowledge of schoolrequirements, which may vary fromdistnct to district.27

State or district competency orproficiency exams become anotherstumbling block for migrant students.These tests may vary in each district,making mobility a severe handicap.Success on these tests depends onhigh reading comprehension andwriting skills, both difficult areas fornon-native English speakingstudents.28

Lack of acceptance of migrantstudents by non-migrant students.Migrant students are thus less able toparticipate in a school's social activi-ties which further reduces (from astudent's point of view) the numberof reasons to attend school.

Lack of education support ofmigrant students by their parents.Undereducated parepki.frequentlybelieve that their children should bein the fields rather than in scl.00l,

12

The fact that migrant students areoften older than their classmates isvividly illustrated in Figure 1-5. Thechart compares MSRTS inforn-ta-tion reflecting the 1984 calendar yearand Bureau of CensusCurrentPopulation Survey-1983 for themodal grade of enrollment formigrant students and other students.The extent to which migrant stu-dents are behind is eye-opening.

Not only are migrant studentsbehind, but available informationpoints to a conclusion that migrantstudents who drop out of school areless likely to return. A U.S. GeneralAccounting Office report issued inJune, 1986, examined the extent andnature of the school dropoutproblem. The report states:

Data from the National Longitu-dinal Surveys of Labor MarketExperience include a nationally repre-sentative sample of over 12,000 youngmen and women who were age 14-21when first interviewed in 1979. Thedata show that among youth age 18dunng the period 1979-82, about 15percent of whites, 17 percent ofblacks, and 31 percent of Hispanicsfailed to complete high school (orattain a GED certificate). For olderyouth (age 21) the dropout rates forwhites, blacks, and Hispanics were 12percent, 23 percent, and 36 percent,respectively. Thus, for white youth,dropout rates have declined with age,while for their black and Hispaniccounterparts, the rates haveincreased. This suggests that minontyyouth may be less likely to return toschool once they have dropped out.29The GAO report continues by

saying, "Youth as a whole drop outof school for family, school, andwork-related reasons. Among themost powerful predictors for drop-ping out is being behind gradelevel."30 This finding, combined withthe information illustrated above,suggests that migrant students aremore likely to become school drop-outs and to stay school dropouts.

The ,:osts of failing to effectivelyeducate migrant students are notonly borne by the students them-selves, but are passd along tosociety in general. These costs are

14

`It costs only about$500 to provide a yearof compensatory edu-cation to a studentbefore he or she getsinto academic trouble.It costs over $3000when one such studentrepeats one grade once:.MEMIL MINLI111

both real and measurable.A Ford Foundation official

pointed out that. "Comparing theearnings of a cohort of 1966 male20- to 22-year-old high school grad-uates with their dropout counter-parts, earnings differed by about 12percent. By 1978, however, theearning gap between male highschool graduates age 20-22 andsimilar dropouts had increased to 24percent."31

The Appalachian Regional Com-mission estimates that "dropouts willearn $237 billion less over their life-times than will high school grad-uates. Thus, state and local govern-ments will collect $71 billion less intaxes. (Said another way, we wouldspend $71 billion on dropout pro-grams and still break even.) Themajority of inmates in jail are func-tionally illiterate yet a year in jailcosts three times as much ($25,000)as a year in college."32

Perhaps an even more dramaticcost of not educating the disadvan-taged student is pointed out: "Itcosts only about $500 to provide ayear of compensatory education to astudent before he or she gets intoacademic trouble. It costs over$30fln when one such studentrepeats one grade once."33 Hodg-kinson underscores the need toensure that students stay in schoolthrough graduation by saying, "Thefirst and perhaps most importantpoint to be made in this discussionis to point out the direct linkbetween state level economic devel-opment and high school retention.

LOW MODAL GRADE

64'

60

"i 9,14ROLLD GRADE,

10 12

Sources: GenerC19,!6,4tureaii:lot te,'Census Modal Grade of Enrollment:.(Octoper,-1984): Not4:166i 'Migrant MSRTS Management Report 1A, StudentDistribution Summary (1/1/85 12/31 /85).

FIGURE 1-5

In a state that retains a high percent-age of its youth to high school grad-uation, almost every young personbecomes a 'net gain' to the statewith a high school diploma, th is

a high probability of that persongetting a job and repaying the statefor the cost of his/her education,through taxable income, many timesover. Howevcr, in a state with apoor record of retention to highschool graduation, many youth area 'net loss' to the state, in thatwithout a high school diploma, thechances of that student gettingwork, and thus repaying the statefor that person's education, are very`small indeed. Additionally, thatyoung person is unlikely to leave the

state, becoming a permanent burdento that state's economy."14 States areperhaps more willing to attack thedropout problem of resident stu-dents when they see that these stu-dents can become a "a permanentburden to that state' s economy."Unlike resident students, themigrant student is an economicburden that may move to anotherstate. It is for this reason thatmigrant education must be seenmore broadly as a national solutionto a national economic problem.

The information presented hereclearly indicates that large numbersof migrant students drop out of orfail in school. The costs to society ofthese educational shortfalls are high.

The resulting problems are notexclusively those of individual states,but are of national concern. Otheremerging factors pose unique threatsto migrant student success. Theimpacts of contemporary educationreform movements as well as mecha-nisms designed to respond to theseand other difficulties encountered bymigrant students must be examined.

-15 REST COPY AVAILARE13

CHAPTER..2-

Legislative and Funding HistoryThe groundwork for migrant

education came as a result of theElementary and Secondary Educa-tion Act (ESEA), P.L. 89-10, of1965 (amended by P.L. 89-750 inNovember, 1966). Funding wasmade available to states throughTitle I. These monies were desig-nated for programmatic improve-ments to assist disadvantagedchildren. Though the intent was toprovide funding to benefit all dis-advantaged children, it was soonrecognized that Title I wasbecoming an urban program. Mostof the funds went to larger cities.Migrant students (who were mainlyrural) received a smaller share of thecompensatory educational dollar.

Title I was the largest federal aid toeducation program targeting fundsand educational services to those whoneeded them the most. While theESEA did not require any action onthe part of the states, under Title VIof the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it wasunlawful for any program receivingfederal assistance to exclude orsubject to discrimination on thegrounds of national origin any personin the U.S.

Title I was intended to assist dis-advantaged children in general. How-ever, not all disadvantaged childrenwere receiving the help that theyneeded, and one group was thechildren of migratory agriculturalworkers. The migrant child wasseldom in school for a full year. Hehad all the problems of the generallydisadvantaged child plus m,induced educational problems.

There were problems of educa-tional continuity: different educa-tional approaches and different text-books in many different schools inone academic year. Another majorproblem was the lack of informationon these students. Test scores fromone school were not passed on to thenext school. Many of the migrantchildren spoke English poorly,_

14

creating language learning problemsfor the children and general communi-cation problems for the school andthe community. For the migrants as agroup, there were problems of socialacceptance in the school community.

These and other problems led toaction resulting in an amendment toTitle I of P.L. 89-10. The basicamendment which established theMigrant Education Program(referred to as Title I-M) was con-tained in P.L. 89-750, which waspassed in 1966. The key factor in therelationship between Title I-M(migrant education) and Title I (dis-advantaged education) was that TitleI-M was a supplement to Title I.Many children eligible for andreceiving Title 1 -M were also eligiblefor, but did not necessarily receive,Title I assistance.'The Title I program focused upon

services in response to specific edu-cational needs. "For example, Title Ipaid for extra teachers and aides,inservice training for Title I per-sonnel, and bonus payments toteachers ... A Title I program hadto be part of an overall compensa-tory educational program, in"ol"ingthe use of resources from a numberof programs and agencies. The TitleI program could support the regularschool program and, where neces-sary, change it.. . . Title I could bedescribed as a federally financed,state r dministered and locally oper-ated program. The federal government paid the bills for Title I and, toprotect this financing, made sure therules were followed. The state edu-cation agency oversaw all Titleoperations in the state, ensuring thatall participating school districts fol-lowed the guidelines. But, it was thelocal school district which wasprimarily responsible for the actualplanning, operation, and evaluationof its own Title I program.2

18

Federal educational funding wasrevamped by new legislation underChapter 1 of the Education Consoli-dation .. . of 1981. Migrant educa-tion was then targeted specificallyunder the Chapter I Migrant Educa-tion Program.

The purpose of Chapter 1 is tocontinue to provide financial assist-ance to state and local educationalagencies to meet the special educa-tional needs of educationally deprivedchildren. Chapter 1 ensures thatchildren of migrant families have acontinuing opportunity for educa-tional growth. For a child to beconsidered currently migratory, hemust have moved within the pasttwelve months.

To receive a Chapter 1 MigrantEducation Program grant, a localeducation agency may submit to thestate Superintendent of education anapplication to cover a period of onefiscal year. Each school district offersthe services appropriate to its partic-ular needs, population, and location.

Under the terms of the Chapter 1Migrant Education Program, theU.S. Department of Education allo-cates funds to the states based oneach state's identified migrant studentpopulation. This federally fundedprogram is administered by the states,the District of Columbia, and PuertoRico. Each state department of ec:u-cation determines the best ways todeliver services to eligible migrantchildren, from pre-school through the12th grade. The program providesservices that help educate migrantchildren and foster their well-being.Migrant children may receive supple-mentary basic skills instructionaccording to their needs. In addition,they may receive supportive healthservices, including medical and dentalscreening, corrective measures, andnutritional and psychological coun-seling, if such services are needed toimprove their academic skills. Otherspecial needs are met as they are

Migrant student 'lurking with a computer in Renville, Minnesota. (Photo court es} of Minnesota Department of Education)

identified, including career education,vocational training, ESL, bilingualinstruction, and enrichment activities.

1 he Migrant Education Programis project oriented, organized by areasin the state where migrants reside.The projects are child-centered, andthey generally operate in more than asingle district in the area. The statehas the responsibility for supervisingthe projects which are intended toinitiate, expand, and improve educa-tional and supplemental services tomigrant children. The funds are sup-plementary and are not to be used forgeneral support. Projects must meetguidelines for size, scope, andquality.;Legislation is the forerunner to

funding. Legislation and companionfunding created a time in the 1960sand early 1970s when an array ofeducational efforts were produced,some of which were designed toimprove the education of migrantchildren. In 1983, a Report To TheCongress was issued by the Comp-troller General of the United States.

It was titled Analysis of MigrationCharacteristics of Children ServedUnder The Migrant Education Pro-gram. A section within the reportprovides a cogent summary ofadministrative and funding detailsfor federal involvement in migranteducation.

The Department of Educationbases funding for the migrantprogram on the number of full-timeequivalent students, ages 5 to 17, inthe Migrant Student Record TransferSystem. The funding formula is asfollows:

I. Each State accumulates 1 resi-dency day for each day dunng acalendar year a migrant childresides in that State.

2. A State's total accumulated resi-dency days is divided by 365(365 residency days equal onefull-time equivalent).

3. Each State's total full-timeequivalent is then multiplied by40 percent of its per pupilexpenditure rate to determine itsfunding. Each State has a

funding floor and ceiling, com-puted to be not less than 40percent of 80 percent of thenational average per pupilexpenditure rate, or more than40 percent of 120 percent of tLenational average per pupilexpenditure rate.

Since the program's inception,several changes have taken place inmigrant program funding. The Edu-cation Amendments of 1974 (PublicLaw 93-380), which took effect withfiscal year 1975 programs, changedthe data base used for funding fromDepartment of Labor estimates ofmigrant workers to students counts inthe Migrant Student Record TransferSystem. As this change would havedecreased funding to many States,legislation also provided that Stateswere to be 'held harmless' at 100percent of the prior year's allocation.This prevented a State from receivingless money than in the prior year. Infiscal year 1983, however, this provi-sion [was] reduced to 85 percent ofthe pnor year's funding allocation.The 1974 amendments also expanded

17 BEST COPY AWAKE15

the program by adding provisions forfunding students classified as 'for-merly migratory children' and thechildren of migratory fishermen. The1978 amendments provided specialfunding for migrant summer pro-grams. Under implementing provi-sions, however, special funding islimited to students who experienceboth an enrollment and a withdrawalduring the summer school term.

For 2 fiscal years, 1980 and 1981,the Congress placed a funding cap onthe migrant program. During fiscalyear 1982 actual calculations showeda gross program entitlement of $288minion. but appropri.ttions fell shortof thh; amount by about $22 million.Nonetheless, funding allocations forthe migrant program have increasedeach year since the program's incep-tion, as shown in the following table.

Fiscal Year Allocation

1967 S 9,737,8471968 41,692,4251969 45,556,0741970 51,014,3191971 57,608,6801972 64,822,9261973 72,772,1871974 78,331,4371975 91,953,1601976 97,090,4781977 130,909,8321978 145,759,9401979 174,548,8291980 209,593,7461981 245,000,0001982 266,400,0001983 255,744,000 Note A1984 255,744,0001985 258,024,0001986 264,524,000

In accordance with legislativerequirements, funding for the migrantprogram is taken 100 percent "off thetop" of the total Chapter 1 fundingauthorization; any reduced require-ment for the migrant program wouldmake available additional funds forother Chapter 1 programs:,

Note A: 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986funding was not originally identified inthe cited source. The data are added herefor clarity and accuracy.

16

+11=151

Decreased federalfunding in a time ofrising educationalstandards may vuelllead to a largerachievement gapbetween the main-stream student and hisor her migrantcounterpart.

For the 1986-1987 school yearthere is a reduction in funding to alevel almost equalling that of 1981.In a recent memorandum to StateChapter 1 Migrant Directors, JohnF. Staehle, Acting Director, Officeof Migrant Education, forecast thecondition of migrant funding whenhe wrote "... this ... is to transmitestimates of the amounts of Chapter1 Migrant Education Program fundsthat will be available July 1, 1986,on the basis of the Gramm-Ruddman-Hollings (GRH) legisla-tion and the amounts that wouldhave been available without thatlegislation. For all Chapter pro-grams, GRH requires a 4.3 percentreduction in the budget authority."5The figures that Staehle reportedindicated $257,458,400 budgeted and$246,387,212 following the GRHreduction with $33,700,998 eal-marked for state administration.Staehl's forecast was reasonablyaccurate as actual funding (reportedby the U.S. Department of Educa-tion) was $253,149,000. This repre-sents a 4.3 percent or $11,375,000reduction from the 1985-1986program year funding level. In theface of state educational reformefforts and an apparent willingnessfor states to infuse new funds intothe improvement of their educa-tional systems, these federal reduc-tions seem to run counter to theexcellence in education effort.Decreased federal funding in a timeof rising educational standards maywell lead to a larger achievement

gap between the mainstream studentand his or her migrant counterpart.

The Interstate Migrant EducationCouncil (I MEC) has summarized itsconcerns with respect to reductionsin Chapter 1 Basic and the migranteducation programs by noting that:

The number of children [ChapterI] served declined by 640,000 between1979-80 and 1982-83 school years;

Between 1979-80 and 1982-83expenditures per Chapter 1 studentsfell from $516 to $436 in 1979 dollars;

The ratio of Chapter 1 pupils toinstructional staff increased by 11percent, from 32.1 to 36.1;

A decline has occurred in con-stant dollar funding for the migrantprogram from $245.0 million in 1979-80 to $216.7 million in 1983-84;

There have been reductions onchildren served, both in absolutenumbers and as a proportion of totalelementary and secondary enrollment.6These concerns mirror those held

by most educators of migrant youth.An erosion of funding for themigrant program foreshadows an ill-advised decrease in services at a timewhen school systems are embarkingupon system-wide changes toincrease student performancestandards.

Despite federal funding level fluc-tuations in a downward direction,the states have established andmaintained successful strategies forimplementing a network of educa-tional and health services in supportof migrant students. States havecreated interstate and intrastatecooperation through the InterstateMigrant Education Council, theMigrant Student Record TransferSystem and other groups as a meansof coordinating services and sharinginformation. The organizationsespousing advocacy for migrantchildren and the mechanisms bywhich federal funding is translatedinto action are discussed later in thisreport.

I a

Advocacy Groups and the Service NetworkPrograms foi migrant students

have expanded in quantity andquality in the past twenty years Thisexpansion has been abetted byorganizations who supportimprovement in health and educa-tional services for migrant children.There is still work to be done. Anelaboration on the programs thatnow bring positive forces to bearupon the problems faced by themigrant student can help shed lightupon what remains to beaccomplished.

Certainly one of the most signifi-cant service mechanisms is theMigrant Student Record TransferSystem (MSRTS). This system,begun in 1969, grew from amounting national awareness thatan urgent need existed to providefor efficient and timely transmittalof essential educational and healthdata from one host community toanother. Proper educational curric-ula and health care simply could notbegin to be offered to the migrantstudent until knowledge of what hadgone before was in hand.

The Education Commission ofthe States (ECS) set forth the par-ticulars of MSRTS in the July 5,1985, "ECS Issuegram ":

Another major component of themigrant education program at thenational level is the Migrant StudentRecord Transfer System (MSRTS).Located in Little Rock, Arkansas,MSRTS is a national computernetwork that facilitates the transfer ofeducation and health records acrossschool districts and states. To trackthe number, status and service pro-vided to these children, the MSRTSrelies on input from terminal opera-tors and records clerks in all 50 juris-dictions. When a migrant child entersa state, is identified and deemed eli-gible, he or she is assigned an identifi-cation number on the MSRTS.When a record of information isassembled from eligibility forms, the

student data are added to thenational bank of information in LittleRock. When a family moves fromone school district to another toengage in seasonal or temporary agri-culture or fishing work, a copy of thechild's record is sent to the newschool.'MSRTS has been successful. Its

focus upon a single populationthemigrant studenthas been suffi-ciently confined to enhance its effect.Educational and health data areroutinely entered, stored and sentalong to each new school. MSRTShas become a framework for inter-state exchange of vital informationabout migrant students. And it hashelped to establish continuity in themigrant student's educationa criti-cally missing feature beforeMSRTS. MSRTS has helped toreduce the negative effects ofmobility upon the educationalexperience.

Along with the creation ofMSRTS, there occurred a parallelemergence of two advocacy groups,the Interstate Migrant EducationCouncil (IMEC) and the NationalAssociation of State Directors ofMigrant Education (NASDME).IMEC (originally known as theInterstate Migrant Education TaskForce) was born of efforts made bythe Education Commission of theStates. It began in 1976 "... througha cooperative agreement with thestates for a consortium to addressmajor issues affecting migrant stu-dents."2 ECS describes the role ofIMEC:

... to serve as a forum to helpresolve some of the education difficul-ties experienced by mobile migrantstudents and to promote interstatecooperation. Among the council's 29members from participating jurisdic-tions are a Congressman, 2 chiefschool officers, 2 local school boardmembers, 7 state legislators, 3 localsuperintendents and 14 key state edu-

19

cation department officials. Both thecouncil and its steering committeemeet at the call of Chairman WilliamD. Ford, Congressman from Michi-gan, to conduct business and pursueproject goals. These goals are to con-tinue to:

Develop broad-based under-standing and awareness among edu-cation, business and governmentdecision makers of the unique needsof the migrant student population.

Facilitate opportunities for inter-state cooperation through sharing ofmodel programs that meet the uniqueneeds of migrant students.

Identify major barriers anddevelop alternative solutions for mini-mizing the difficulties caused by stu-dents' mobility and intermittentattendance.;IMEC's mission was well de-

scribed by Raul H. Castro, formerGovernor of Arizona and thenChairman of the IMEC EducationTask Force. He wrote in the fore-word to the Task Force's FirstInterim Report:

My interest in migrant educationstems back to the time when, as ayoung man, I was a migrant workerin Arizona, Idaho, Montana andOregon. As an educator, judge andpublic official, I have seen the prob-lems of migrants in education, law,employment, health and other areas.

The Interstate Migrant EducationTask Force offers us an opportunityto address the most pressing prob-lems migrants havethe education,health and general welfare of theirchildren. Education is one way forpeople to increase their opportunitiesto achieve the American dream.What follows is the product of ourmeetings and much thought on thepart of one of the best groups ofpeople I have ever worked with. Ourtask force has a commitment to posi-tive and productive change in theeducation system that will increasethe education opportunities for thechildren of migrant workers.

17

These recommendations are notthe last word on probable solutionsto very difficult problems, but are afirst step in a long journey that wehope will improve the chances ofmigrant children to enjoy health andhappiness.4In its early years, the IMEC Task

Force named three general catego-ries in which migrant educationrequited improvement.

Improved cooperation amongstate education agencies (SEAs) inthe administration, planning, imple-mentation, staffing, monitoring a1devaluation of Title I (migrant prc-gram) of the federal Elementary/Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

Improved cooperation amongfederal, state and local agencies thatserve migrant families and children.

Improved cooperation betweenthe SEA and local school districts inthe enrollment of migrant students interms of planning, implementation,monitoring and evaluation of Title Imigrant education programs.3These needs continue to some

degree and in some form today.They are answered by an array ofprograms throughout the countrywhose continuance is nurtured byIMEC and NASDME.

The migrant education program isadministered at the federal level bythe U.S. Education Department'sOffice of Migrant Education. Federalfunds are channeled by the migrantoffice through state education agen-cies for distribution to approved localprograms....

the . . . programs [those of localeducation agencies] are diverse,varying in size, scope and duration.But they have been guided by a set ofcommon goals developed byNASDME. These goals suggest thatmigrant programs:

1. Provide a wide range of ser-vices including specificallydesigned curricular programs inthe academic disciplines,success-oriented academic pro-grams, career options andcounseling activities, communi-cation skills programs andsupport services that fosterphysical and mental well-being.

18 ,,, 0 41

2. Include parent involvement,staff development, a recruit-ment component, preschooland kindergarten programs,evaluation and assurances tomaintain sequence and conti-nuity.

3. Be developed through inter-agency coordination at the fed-eral, state and local levels.'

IMEC is joined in its advocacyfor migrant children by the NationalAssociation of State Directors ofMigrant Education (NASDME).Founded in 1975, the Associationassists with interstate programmingand planning. NASDME facilitatescommunication among state admini-strators, educators and migrantparents. NASDMEfrls publishedeleven points that embody the goalsto be attained by migrant educationprograms.

1. Specifically designed curricularprograms in academic disciplinesbased upon migrant children'sassessed needs;

2. Success-oriented academic pro-grams, career options and coun-seling activities, and vocationalskill training that encouragesmigrant children's retention inschool and contributes to successin later life;

3. Communication skills programswhich reflect migrant children'slinguistic and cultural back-grounds;

4. Supportive services that fosterphysical and mental well-being,for migrant children's successfulparticipation in the basic instruc-tional programs, includingdental, medical, nutritional, andpsychological services;

5. Programs developed throughinteragency coordination at fed-eral, state, and local levels;

6. A component for meaningfulmigrant parent involvement inthe education of their childrenand in which the cooperativeefforts of parents and educatorswill be directed toward theimprovement of migrant chil-dren's academic and social skills;

7. Staff development opportunitiesthat increase staff competenciesin the cognitive, psychomotor,and affective domains;

2 0

8. A component to identify andenroll all eligible migrant chil-dren;

9 Preschool and kindergarten pro-grams designed to meet migrantchildren's developmental needsand prepare them for future suc-cess;

10. Development, evaluation, anddissemination of informationdesigned to increase knowledgeof program intent, intra- andinterstate program development,the contribution of migrants tothe community, and the overalleffect of the program; and

1!. The assurance that sequence andcontinuity will be an inherentpart of the migrant child's educa-tion program through a systemwhich facilitates the exchange ofmethods, concepts, and mate-rials, and the effective use of theMigrant Student Record Trans-fer System in the exchange of thestudent records.'

These advocacy groups stay inclose touch with the problems facedby migrant youth and serve effec-tively as proponents of program-matic change and growth. IMECand NASDME play pivotal roles incollecting and presenting informa-tion about the status of migranteducationinformation oftenserving as the foundation for con-gressional decision making.

In addition to NASDME andIMEC, there are interstate coalitionsworking on cooperative projects forthe benefit of migrant students. Afederal discretionary grant program,commonly known as "Section 143,"funds efforts "... to improve theinterstate and intrastate coordina-tion among State and local educa-tional agencies of the educationalprograms available for migratorychildren." [Public Law 95-561).

In the 1985-1986 program year,there were 20 Section 143 grantawards involving the cooperativeefforts of 38 states. These programs,varied in focus and form, re; resenta willingness of states to worktogether toward the common goalof improving the quality and qua-t-

s

t.

MSZZPSFACZWIAra,",

, ,

`AA

OA.

Former migrant returns to help this generation of migrant students in California's Mini-Corps program. (Photo courtesy ofButte County, Office of Education)

tity of services offered to migrantchildren. An Interstate MigrantEducation Council tally portrays theprogrammatic efforts for 1985-1986.

Number ofAct:I v"ty Projects

3

4

Computer UseCurriculum DevelopmentDisseminationDropout/ Secondary

EducationEvaluationHealthSpecial EducationTraining

z1

2

2

5

An example of such an activity isthe Migrant Dropout ReconnectionProgram (MDRP). The state ofFlorida is the grantee and acts asfiscal agent; the BOCES GeneseoMigrant Center (NY) serves ascoordinating agency. A total of 21states participate in the program.The goal of the MDRP is "Toincrease the number of migrantyouth who resume secondary orvocational education and/or pursueeducation beyond the secondarylevel. "8

This project has set about both tocoordinate the efforts of variousagencies serving migrant youth andto provide services to migrant youth.The MDRP identifies eight majoractivities to support attainment oftheir goal.

identify, enroll and provide directcounseling services to eligible migrantdropout youth (ages 16-21) through anetwork of regional facilitators

identify and establish cooperativeworking agreements with serviceagencies to provide services to theyouth

refer migrant dropout youth toexisting educational and vocationalagencies (these referral agenciesinclude but are not limited to HighSchool Equivalency Program (H EP),College Assistance Migrant Program(CAMP), Job Corps, Local ABE/GED Programs, Adult Migrant andSeasonal Farmworker Programs)

provide youth with access to atoll-free hotline to receive counselingand referral services wherever theyare in the country

provide to youth and serviceagencies a monthly bilingual new-sletter, Real Talk, which features

educational-vocational opportunities,health, personal and financial aidinformation, role models, careeropportunities and other topics ofinterest to the youth

proide personalized correspon-dence with youth to encourage themto reconnect with educational-vocational options

develop special pilots, i.e., PeerFacilitator Project and Adopt-A-Migrant Program

provide technical assistance andtraining to state and local educatorsin the implementation of the programThe Eastern Stream Child Abuse

Prevention and Education ProjLet(Proje t ESCAPE) began in 1982and serves different needs than thoseof the Migrant Dropout Model.Now in its fourth phase, for "... thepast two years, ESCAPE hasworked closely with state migranteducation directors to begin toaddress this urgent issue [childabuse]. Phase IV . .. provides theimpetus fox sustained response tothe problem of migrant child mal-treatment through statewide preven-

21 10 COPY AVAIIABif1 9

1

tion programs based upon stronginterstate, intrastate, and interagencycooperation and coordination."9

ESCAPE, located at CornellUniversity in Ithaca, New York, hasstated six objectives for the 1985-1986 project year.

I. Developing model state migrantchild abuse prevention plans.

2. Training migrant education staffas child abuse specialists.

3. Involving migrant parents inprogram planning and implemen-tation.

4. Compiling baseline data on childmaltreatment.

5. Improving service delivery to mal-treated migrant children and fami-lies.

6. Developing parent educationmaterials designed for migrantparents.'°

The project description points outthat ". . . the special characteristicsof the migrant populationparticularly its mobility andisolationare significant obstaclesto the ...-vestigation, treatment, andprevention of maltreatment by childprotective services. Migrant educa-tors have a vital role to play in sup-porting these efforts by virtue oftheir unique relationship withmigrant families. Therefore, inter-agency cooperation and coordina-tion between migrant education andchild protective services is the essen-tial factor for providing the full andproper protection of migrantchildren. Building strong partner-ships between these two systems atthe national, state, and local levels isa major theme which underlies theESCAPE objective.""

These two Section 143 projectsare examples of how interstatecooperation and coordination cancontribute to the well-being of themobile children of the migrantworker in the U.S. There is activityat the local level, too. Many of theselocal efforts to improve migranteducation grow into programs,techniques and knowledge that findwide dispersion and application.

Just as the existence of MSRTS,IMEC, NASDME and Section 143

20

programs has produced positivechange for migrant students, educa-tors at state and local levels haveresponded to these students' needs ina variety of ways over the last twodecades.

Bertoglio identified some of theseimportant accomplishments.

Development and implementa-tion of a secondary credit exchangesystem.

Initiation of Learn and Earnprograms for students who are notcollege bound and those who dropout of school.

Development of short-term units(6 weeks) of instruction to accommo-date the short school attendance spanand individual student needs.

Development of a variety ofinstructional materials and metho-dologies to address the needs oflimited English speaking students.

Use of a variety of models formeaningful parental involvement.

High School Equivalency Pro-grams (HEP) in operation for pur-poses of addressing the high incidenceof school dropouts within themigrant student community.

Operation of College AssistanceMigrant Programs (CAMP) for pur-poses of identifying, recruiting andenrolling migrant high school grad-uates, with the desire and academicpotential, in post-secondaryeducation.

Summer school programsofferinf; a complete gamut of instruc-tione.1 courses and services to allowstudents to catch up or make upcourse work missed as a result ofmigration. These programs run from8 weeks to 3 months in duration.Some include r..vLning classes tiaccommodate older students whoiiiust work in the fields during theday.

Individualized instruction is nowthe rule as a result of smaller teacher/pupil ratios and additional humanresources (aides) in the classroom inaddition to supplies and equipmentnecessary for development andimplementation of new materials andapproaches (innovation).12These accomplishments have

occurred in a context of cooperationand mutual support. The federalfunding mechanism for migrant

f 2

,.

education channels money to indi-vidual states for local educationagencies (LEAs) to use in estab-lishing and maintaining service pro-grams for migrant youth.

State educational agencies (SEAs)play a pivotal role in migrant educa-tion program implementation. Eachstate prepares a plan detailing itsproposed methods for deliveringservices to migrant students. Thisplan generally serves as both theblueprint for upcoming program-matic activities and as the applica-tion grant for federal funding.Funding is made available to theSEA which, in turn, passes funds onto LEAs and other entities tosupport educational efforts. Policy,then, is an outcome of federal levelactivities; strategy, a product ofactivities at the state level. Localeducation agencies complete thecycle through direct delivery of edu-cational services to migrant children.

The plans for providing neededservices to migrant students differfrom state to state because eachstate has a unique educationalnetwork into which migrant pro-grams must be integrated. Federalguidelines provide focus withoutrequiring duplication from state tostate.

California, a state with a largemigrant student population, haswritten a document titled the Cali-fornia Plan for the Education ofMigrant Children (for the threeschool years beginning in 1986 andending in 1989). Funding requestedis for almost 75 million dollars (for a15 month period) with approxi-mately 2 percent earmarked for stateuse and 98 percent to be spent bylocal education agencies. The Cali-fornia plan's major emphases are:1) Interstate and Intrastate Coordi-nation; 2) Program Operation;3) Identification and Recruitment;4) Parent and Teacher Involvement;and, 5) Evaluation. Although theplan is uniquely California's, manyfeatures are common to other

' statesespecially as they define themethods for interstate and intrastatecoordination.

11111MIIIMIr

Californiz. commits to "Activeparticipation with the EducationCommission of the States and itsInterstate Migrant EducationCouncil."13 The Migrant StudentRecord Transfer System is a regularpart of California's information col-lection and dissemination systemdesigned to coordinate educationalenergies directed toward migrantchildren. California is no exceptionto a pervasive, nationwide willing-ness of migrant educators to supportinterstate exchange of informationon student-by-student basis and aprogrammatic basis.

Coordination of programs withinthe state is deemed important, too.For example, the instrastate focus ofthe California plan incorporatesthese items:

Coordination with other Cali-fornia State Department of Educa-tion offices such as the Child Devel-opment Division, the VocationalEducation Division, the Special Edu-cation Division, and the BilingualEducation Office.

Participation in the StateDepartment of Education's Coordi-nated Compliance Review processwhich monitors school district pro-grams with a single review teamcomposed of experts in all the cate-gorical programs. This reviewemphasizes coordination of servicesbetween the various programs.

Coordination of health serviceswith public and private agencies suchas: local public health departments,rural health agencies, March ofDimes, Lions, Easter Seal Society,California Children's Services, welfareand other social agencies, privatehealth care provithrs, etc.14Intrastate coordination is com-

pleted via a network that maintainscooperative relationships with othermigrant-focused programs fundedby Community Service Block Grantsand the Job Training PartnershipAct. The La Familia Program,administered through the StateDepartment of Economic Oppor-tunity, ".. . enables the entire familyto participate together in an educa-tional program that takes into con-sideration the individual needs ofeach family member."15

t.

": t4,....2:14 rill172MF46J

Reading teacher Steve Palmer with class of migrant students in Tipton, Indiana,summer program. (Photo by Al Wright)

Though the migrant program isof considerable size in California,the goal is to serve the needs ofindividual children. Migrant educa-tion is described as "Essentially ...an individualized program with eachstudent having an individual needsassessment and subsequent learningplan. The needs served by eachlearning plan are addressed by thelocal program which .. . is a tutorialprogram working with individualsand small groups."I6

Program operation includesaspects dedicated to academicinstruction, remedial and compensa-tory education, bilingual and multi-cultural instruction, vocationalinstruction and counseling andcareer education services. Theseaspects of migrant student educationare melded with activities promotingthe identification and recruitment ofeligible students into a networkfostering both parent and teacherinvolvement.

An ongoing evaluation programcompletes the plan. This "programwithin the program" establishes datacollection mechanisms to allow sys-tematic and timely improvement tomigrant programs. Evaluation isextended to assess agency as well asprogrammatic effectiveness.

The California plan is an exampleof how a state plan provides theframework within which local pro-grams are constructed. Interestingly,some local programs have becomeso successful that their applicationhas expanded. A California-basedprogram, commonly known asPASS (Portable Assisted StudySequence), is a program that hasproven successful on a local level,then expanded to broader applica-tion. Johnson and others have notedthat the PASS Program has beenreplicated in ten states with aresulting presence widely felt inmigrant education.

The greatest impediment to gra-duation [for the migrant student] islack of credits. Migrant programsneed to provide or assist the school toprovide a means by which migrantsecondary students can make up orearn extra credits to graduate. Pres-ently the most effective means ofdoing this is the PASS program.

. The program consists of pre-pared curriculum material which ispackaged to be portable and designedfor independent study. Most requiredcourses are available through PASSas well as some challenging electivesand some courses in Spanish andPunjabi.

23 BEST COPY AVAILABLE21

/141Aide provides supplemental instruction for migrant children at Crescent Elem.Iberville Parish, Louisiana. (Photo by Al Wright)

F

PASS material can be used by themigrant student independently athome during the school year or withsupervision during study periods; inextended programs and in summerschool.

School districts generally approvethe use of PASS and award creditsfor satisfactory completion of thecoursework: however, PASS creditalso can be awarded through thePASS administration site whichserves the entire state.

Although some districts havedevised their own credit make upprograms (such as night schools andextended day), few have the scopeand flexibility and rate of use andsuccess that the PASS programoffers.' 7

While there is reason for concernabout the migrant student dropoutrate, there is a responsibility at theother end of the school-age spec-trum to provide for early childhoodeducation. Early intervention hasbeen shown beyond any doubt tomake an enormous difference inlater years. David P. Weikert, Presi-

22

dent of the High/Scope EducationalResearch Foundation says, "over thelast twenty years, those of usinvolved in the Perry Preschoolstudy have watched 123 youngchildren grow from toddlers to ado-lescents to young adults. It has beenfascinating and sometimes painful towatch their lives unfold to age nine-teen. Now we have vital informationto share about what we have learnedfrom the Perry Preschool study ofeconomically disadvantaged childreninformation about how youngpeople grow and what we as educa-tors can do to help prevent some ofthe major social problems oursociety experiences. The outcomesof this landmark study, recentlypublished under the title ChangedLives, are proof of the value of high-quality early education and are atribute to teachers and the power ofgood programs and schools.""

Weikert, in a summary of basicfindings, supports the value of earlychildhood education by citing someconvincing statistics.

24

High quality early childhood edu-cation enables families and communi-ties to improve the life chances oftheir children. Long-term researchshows that young adults, now 19years old, who attended a highqualit; preschool program madegreater gains in education, employ-ment, and social responsibility thansimilar young adults who didattend preschool.

In education:Fewer classified as mentally retarded(15% vs. 35%)More completed high school (67% vs.49%)More attended college or job trainingprograms (38% vs. 21%)

In the world of work:More hold jobs (50% vs. 32%)More support themselves by theirown (or spouse's) earnings (45% vs.25%)More satisfaction with work (42% vs.26%)

In the community:Fewer arrested for criminal acts (31%vs. 51%)Fewer arrested for crimes involvingproperty or violence (24% vs. 38%)Fewer minor offenses (2% vs '5%)Lower birth rate (64 vs. 117 1 100women)Fewer on public assistance (18% vs.32%)

These gains lead to substantialeconomic benefits for the community.An investment in preschool returns$7 for every $1 Invested (based onone year of preschool after adjustingfor inflation and discounting at 3% toestimate present value).

High quality early childhood edu-cation helps children become suc-cessful adults. It also reduces majorsocial and economic problems withina community. Preventing lifelongproblems in high-risk children is abetter community investment thanattempting to correct them. 19Some very convincing evidence

has been accumulated to show theadvantages that accrue from "highquality early childhood education."These advantages have been de-scribed in terms identifying the "costavoidance" benefits that accrue.Good early education has the effectof lessening the costs of crime andwelfare costs for Opulations who

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Seeing the education ofmigrant youth as anational priorityrequiring a synthesisof approaches ratherthan fragmentation isimportant progress.

might otherwise be a liability tosociety. The message for migranteducation is plainattention paid tothe early childhood education repayshealthy returns on the investment.

The preceding discussion islimited to but a few of the exem-plary programs that are representa-tive of others that exist throughoutthe nation (see Appendix A). Cali-fornia's migrant education effortsare highlighted to develop a sense ofthe sizeable discipline applied tocreate a continuum of experiencesfor the migrant student living in aworld marked by geographic dis-continuity.

Other state plans reflect sensitivityto migrant student needs whileadapting the form of service deliveryto existing educational structures.An emphasis is placed upon studentrecruitment in Pennsylvania wherenon-educational entities are encour-aged to participate in identifyingeligible migrant students.

service agencies such as theCounty Agricultural Extension Ser-vice, public health agencies, farmers'associations, the Post Office andother federally funded migrantworkers' projects will need to be con-tacted to determine the location ofthe workers who may have beenmissed during the initial survey.20Even in recruiting, the Pennsyl-

vania plan underscores commitmentto interstate cooperation when itstates:

The recruitment plan will alsoallow the recruitment coordinator toretroactively check to make certainthat all the children listed were alsoidentified in the cities and towns fromwhich they reportedly came... .

'11)1

Also, the reports wi:1 be forwarded tothe state directors in those states fromwhich children/parents reportedlycame. This will aid those states inidentifying the children when theyreturn.Pennsivania's evaluation plan

accents assessment of all compo-nents of its migrant education pro-gram. Each Local Operating Agency(LOA) is required to complete eval-uation instruments and, throughtwice a year visits by an independentevaluatior team, the LOA's recruit-ment, identification and enrollmentprocesses are evaluated. In addition,evaluation of it,. .uctional compo-nents is performedincluding anevaluation of instructional diagnosisand prescription for every migrantchild.

Texas, a state serving the educa-tional needs of a large migrantstudent population, sets a require-ment for

... each migrant project applicantapplying for migrant funds to deter-mine student needs and programpriorities. Educational needs (in basicskills, support services, and specialareas) of children selected to partici-pate will be determined with sufficientspecificity to ensure concentration onthose needs. Documented needs willbe a factor in the allocation of fundsand will be determined throughformal and informal assessmentprocedures.2iThe Texas Education Agency

conducts a migrant applicationreview process that "... ensures thatthe size, scope, and quality of pro-jects offered are sufficient to givereasonable promise of substantialprogress toward meeting the needsof migratory children."22 Throughthis application review process theSEA is able to place funding sup-port with LEAs and other groupsthat are most likely to provide ser-vices to "... all significant concen-trations of currently migratoryschool-aged children in the state."23

The plan identifies the five mostimportant objectives for the TexasMigrant Educational Program. Aslisted here, they offer a concisesummary of the program's emphases:

25

(a) to lower the statewide drop-outrate of migrant students from theprevious school year;

(b) to impt ov,. the achievement levelsof migrant students, grades 1-12,in the basic skills areas, whereapplicab1e;

(c) to inform the public and parentsof the target population aboutrelated state and federal legisla-tion, and involve them in the edu-cational process;

(d) to assist ESCs [education servicecenters] and LEAs in the identifi-cation and recruitment process,especially in geographical areas ofthe state in which no migratorychildren have been identified, andto provide instructional andinstructional support services tomigrant students according toneeds-based criteria and all applic-able rules and regulations.24

As with other states, Texas hasspecifically designed methods forinterstate and intrastate cooperation,including use of MSRTS. Theimplementation of the plan, againconsistent with aspects of other stateplans, calls for regular in-servicetraining of migrant program staff asa structured approach to main-taining quality of services.

Nationally, each successfulmigrant program has a commoncharacteristic: it addresses the needto cross state lines. Each is imple-mented and supported by states andlocal agencies addressing commonproblems. Each is contributing toenhanced continuity in the servicesprovided to migrant students. Seeingthe education of migrant youth as anational priority requiring a syn-thesis of approaches rather thanfragmentation is important progress.The extent to which such a geo-graphically dispersed group of edu-cators has come to join togetheracross state boundaries is testimonyto the dedication that exists forimproving opportunities for migrantyouth. It is this availability of con-sistent, continuous and cooperativeprogrammatic effort that helpscreate promise in the migrant stu-dent's future.

(e)

23

The Reform MovementAn opportunityFor Change

Advocates for improved migranteducation have long been supportersof reform. Reform has been themechanism by which more equitableservices have been achieved. As anexample, the creation of theMigrant Record Transfer System(MSRTS) was acknowledgement ofa need for exchange of studenthealth and educational data tobetter serve a mobile population.The history of migrant education isreplete with reforms to the "normal"school program in recognition ofspecial requirements of the migrantstudent. In most instances, thebenefits from such reforms havebecome clear. Few would argueagainst the continuance of MSRTSas a beneficial force for migrant stu-dents. Schools have managed toincorporate programmatic changesinto their daily routinesaninstance of healthy reform pro-ducing positive change.

Change in migrant education hascome, by and large, at a measuredpace with each new gain enhancingthe network of available services.Change has occurred as a directresult of concerned advocacy. Thecurrent natic 1 educational reformmovement warrants examinationand understanding by migrant edu-cators throughout the U.S. in prepa-ration for action in what may be anew climate for educational growth.

The pace of change in Americaneducation surprisingly quickenedwith the National Commission onExcellence in Education's April,1983, report on our country's educa-tional quality. A nationwide interestin education was sparked that con-tinues at a high level some fouryears later. The reform movementoffers educators new freedom as

public sentiment is more disposed tofunding instructional change. Thenation's educational establishment,with a history of local ccntrol, mayexperience difficulty in re-pondingrapidly to reforms mandated bystate legislatures and school boards."Top Down commands foi funda-mental and massive change are poorsubstitutes for inspirational leader-ship and/or participative approach-es."' While concerns about "topdown commands" producing changeill-suited to local conditions are bothreal and valid, there is another sideto the coin of educational reform."The excellence movement, right orwrong in its focus, has afforded theprofession a unique window ofopportunity to achieve a new renais-sance for education. It will takecommitment, time, cooperation, andpatience. Excellence must also bebalanced with equity concerns togenerate the support needed for thelong haul. The dream and challengeis apparent."2

The reform movement offersmigrant educators two major chal-lenges. One is to seize the oppor-tunity for change and to make gooduse of a system-wide readiness toimprove schools. This may well be apropitious time to create andimplement better programs formigrant students. The second chal-lenge is to remain alert and advocateagainst shifts in the educationalsystem that may further remove themigrant student from equitableopportunity.

Understanding the genesis of thisnew, more hospitable climate forchange is important. When theNational Commission on Excellencein Education issued its dramaticallytitled report A Nation At Risk:

24 26

Imperative for Educational Reform,it received Virtually overnight recog-nition coupled with much attentionby the mass media. What did thereport contain that focused so muchattention on American education?

The Com_niiaion made fiv, majorrecommenda'.ions to be taken assteps toward achievement of excel-lence in schools.

Recommendation A: ContentWe recommend that State and localhigh school graduation requirementsbe strengthened and that, at a num-mum, all students seeking a diplomabe required to lay the foundations inthe FiNe New Basics by taking thf.t fol-lowing curriculum dunng their 4years of high school: (a) 4 years ofEnglish; (b) 3 years of mathematics;(c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years ofsocial studies; and (e) one-half year ofcomputer science. For the college-bound, 2 years of foreign language inhigh school are strongly recom-mended in addition to those takenearlier.

Recommendation B: Standards andExpectationsWe recommend that schools, colleges,and universities adopt more rigorousand measurable standards, andhigher expectations, for academicperformance and student conduct,and that 4year colleges and uniNersi-ties raise their requirements foradmission. This will help students dotheir best educationally with challen-ging materials in an environment thatsupports learning and authenticaccomplishment.

Recommendation C: TimeWe recommend that significantlymore time be devoted to learning theNew Basics. This will require moreeffective use of the existing schoolday, a longer school day, or a leng-thened school year.

Recommendation D: Teachingthis recommendation consists ofseven parts. Each is intended toimprove the preparation of teachersor to make teaching a morerewarding and respected profession.Each of the seven stands on its ownand should not be considered solelyas an implementing recommendation.(Note. These seven recommendationsinclude teaching competence, teachersalaries, 11-month teacher contracts,teacher career ladders, application ofnonschool personnel resources suchas "recent graduates with mathe-matics and science degrees," financialincentives to attract quality people toteaching and, finally, the involvementof master teachers in the design ofteacher preparation programs.)

Recommendation E: Leadership andFiscal SupportWe recommend that citizens acrossthe Nation hold educators andelected officials responsible for pm-viding the leadership necessary toachieve these reforms, and that citi-zens provide the fiscal support andstability required to bring about thereforms we propose.3The report closes with a section

titled "A Final Word." It is writtenhere: "Children born today canexpect to graduate from high schoolin the year 2000. We dedicate ourreport not only to these children,but also to those now in school andothers to come. We firmly believethat a movement of America'sschools in the direction called for byour recommendations will preparethese children for far more effectivelives in a far stronger America. "'

The Commission report contin-ues: "It is their America, and theAmerica of all of us, that is at risk;it is to each of us that this impera-tive is addressed. It is by our willing-ness to take up the challenge, andour resolve to see it through, thatAmerica's place in the world will beeither secured or forfeited. Ameri-cans have succeeded before and sowe shall again."5

The optimism of this last sectionis infectious and the response to theCommission's call for reform is vir-tually unprecedented. Arthur W.Steller observes, "The current

reform movement will engulf eventhose educators accustomed to hunk-ering down or riding out the wind ofchange because it is substantially dif-ferent than other movements."6Steller goes on to remark that themovement has attracted muchpublic attention and the energeticsupport of business and politicalleaders. "Money has flowed intocurrent educational reforms in afashion unlike anything that hasoccurred since the educational revo-lution following the launching ofSputnik. Governors are in a madscramble to outdo one another inpresenting educational reform pack-ages to their legislatures. Clearly, weare witnessing a unique period-ineducation."

"Certainly, full implementation ofthe Commission's recommendationswould upgrade most school -.tricts,however, it is probably true thatfew, if any, districts have theresources to address all of the sug-gestions at once. Long term priori-ties have to be set," says Steller.8"The Commission's investigativeefforts have been considered insuffi-cient by some educational

'Money has flowed intocurrent educationalreforms in a fashionunlike anything thathas occurred since theeducational revolutionfollowing the launchingof Sputnik.'

researchers accustomed to morerigorous and comprehensive applica-tion of research methodology thatmay also give slight pause to carteblanche endorsement of theserecommendations. Another reasonto refrain from unilateral and uncriti-cal adoption of the Commission'sreport is its scant notice paid to edu-cational equalizationa long recog-nized goal of U.S. education."9

State legislatures and schoolboards everywhere have imple-

27

mented the Commission's faom-mendations by enacting measuresthat call for a stiffening of educa-tional standards and a refocusing ofteaching efforts toward basic aca-demic skills. The rapid legislativeresponse to the Commission'srecommendations has been well-intentioned with the goal ofimproving educational attainmentby all students. Though the intent isto benefit all students, the pro-grammatic realities resulting fromimplementation may leave at-risk,migrant youth with mixed expe-riences. There may be gains offsetby losses.

Any attempt to predict the futureis a speculative endeavor, but con-sidering how the reform movementmay affect the quality of migrantstudents' educational future isworthwhile Ns with many issues ofhigh national visibility, polarizedgroups develop. Some see thereform movement as holdingnothing but promise for the futureand others foresee only ill ahead.For migrant education, the move-ment is unlikely to produce suchdichotomized results. There arepromises and pitfalls. The responsi-bility of migrant educators is to helpsteer the movement in a directionthat recognizes the special needs ofmigrant students.

Excellence in education is a noblegoal for Americaa goal enjoiningthe support of migrant educatorsthroughout the nation. The commit-ment by migrant educators, when allis said and done, is to the pursuit ofexcellence in education with migrantstudents receiving equitable support.

Pipho commented in the ForumSection of Ed..cation Week that"Most new legislation needs to betested and tinkered with before itdoes well what it is intended to do.No matter how carefully a law isdrafted, it will have some unex-pected results. When the unexpectedturns up, usually where the law iscarried out, it needs thoughtfulattention. Sometimes fine-tuningnew laws will call for new kinds ofinformation. It's inel itable."1°

25

The plethora of new legislationintending to return excellence to ourschools is certainly "turning up theunexpected." A few of the findingsunearthed by this series of articlesare worth noting. In Part 5:TestingCan It Measure theSuccess of the Reform Movement?,Pipho says "Improved studentachievement was the primary goal ofthe excellence movement when ANation at Risk was issued. The manin the street had already identifiedthe lower-test-score problem andwanted students to do better. It isnot surprising that student testscores have been singled out mostoften as a measure of the success ofthe reform movement. With thisemphasis on testing mandates ..ascome a sharpening of two divergentpoints of view. "11 Pipho notes thatthere are those opposed to testingand, of course, those staunchly insupport of it. He writes, "But peoplefrom both sides are beginning toagree that the complexity andinterrelatedness of the reformsshould bring on a new kind of testdata and accompanying descriptivedata."12

Testing reforms have manifestedthemselves in many ways, but a sig-nificant trend is toward the adminis-tration of "minimum competencytests" to all high school studentsnearing graduation. The intent ofthese tests is plainto establish a setof minimum skill competencies onwhich all students should demon-strate mastery.

It is foolhardy to argue against aneed for improved student achieve-ment. Especially when case aftercase of declining test scores,"creeping mediocrity" and highdropout rates can be cited. Butchange in achievement testing isonly one entry in a list of reformsbeing proposed, planned and imple-mented in the U.S. today. Will thereforms yield further gains only forthose students who already success-fully maneuver their way throughthe educational system? Do reforms,

26

in any way, foreshadow possiblenegative consequences for the lesscapable student?

Migrant educators are not alonein expression of concern about thepossible effects of the reformmovement. The Association forSupervision and Curriculum Devel-opment has published a report titledWith Consequences For All. Thereport focuses upon the effects ofincreased high school graduationrequirements. A section of theExecutive Summary from theReport conveys misgivings aboutadopting Commission recommenda-tions "to the letter."

Required general education courseshave increased to the point wherethey now consume three-quarters ofthe high school years, thus offsettinga trend over the last two decades ofoffering a large array of electivecourses. Following are some majorfindings of the ASCD Task Force.

More of today's students arerequired to make a greater effort tomeet teachers' expectations in aca-demic subjects. Most educators agreethat many students have completedhigh school much too easily in recentdecades. In contrast, today's studentswho go on to higher education willbe more likely tc ;'.tve studied inareas that will help assure theirsuccess in college. However, the mostacademically able students are prob-ably those least affected by increasedgraduation requirements.

Negative consequences are morelikely for high school students whodo not go on to college. Althoughnearly three-fourths of today's stu-dents graduate from high school, thisrate has dropped in recent years whilethe dropout rate has accelerated.Although this seems not to worrysome reformers, it clearly runscounter to this country's goal of uni-versal education.

Inadequate attention has beenpaid to ensuring that the new man-dates require a carefully balancedprogram of general education. Veryoften no courses are required in thearts or humanities even though virtu-ally all scholars consider them essen-tial to a balanced precollegiateprogram.

28

Increasing the number of unitsrequired in academic subjects willobviously decrease the timeremaining for elective courses.Increased requirements seem to re-inforce past artificial divisions ofknowledge, which do nothing todevelop student awareness that trueunderstanding of a concept oftendraws knowledge from a variety ofperspectives.

Some stern pronouncements arecausing 'bogus rigor,' narrow defini-tions are being imposed from the top,and teachers' professional latitude isbeing sharply curtailed. Therefore, wemay be moving into an era which alleducation for the ,Ioncollege-boundand much education for all adoles-cents will become a 'body of reduc-tionist certitude and exactitude.'

The thrust of reform must not beallowed to fade into another short-lived social cause that produces aspate of critical salvos and somesecondary reshuffling, but no realsolutions. Although the schools haveprimary responsibility for cognitivedevelopment, real danger exist- thatnew scnool programs may impedeadolescents' holistic development,which is crucial to the caliber offuture adults.13While these comments are aimed

at the general effects that recentreforms may have, the effect uponminority studentsand especiallyupon migrant studentsmay bemagnified. "Increased secondaryrequirements may hit equity broad-side. The present strong negativecorrelation between school successand race/ ethnicity already challen-ges the capacity of our schools tocompensate for disadvantaged socialgroups. Current reports of Hispanicdropout rates reach as high as 80percent in New York City and 70percent in Chicago."14 The ASCDTask Force concludes: "The nationalcommitment to equal opportunityplaces a serious responsibility on allof us to weigh any proposal verycarefully if it seems likely to dis-engage more people from thefunctioning citizenry." 15

Odden remarks that "Excellenceand equity are integrally linked.

.

I. is.

)

414Science teacher Ted Beverly (left) with students in summer institute on University ofSouth Florida campus in Tampa, Florida. (Photo by Frank Compano)

t

Together, they provide the key toimproving the position of the UnitedStates in the world market, by en-abling American workers at 'all'levels to outperform their counter-parts in countries. Together,they are also the embodiment of theAmerican dream, which focuses onmaximizing potential rather than onreinforcing a rantage."16

Odden's view of excellence andequity being "integrally linked" isvital in developing strategies forimproved educational opportunitiesfor migrant youth. The allocation offunding to educational reform activi-ties is a critical variable in achievingsuccess. "The rub is that some localschool districts cannot fund even anadequate educational program ontheir own. It is generally recognizedthat the educational gap between the`haves' and the 'have nots' will widenif some intervention is not insti-gated. Perhaps, unfortunately, theallocation of money is the mostexpedient means of attending to thismatter of equity or quality."

Most would agree that wideningthe gap between the haves and thehave-nots is to be avoided. Actionto prevent needed educational

reform on the assumption that"doing nothing" is better thanhelping some students get furtherahead is an unacceptable approachto the problem. Educational policiesand practices 'hat assist all studentsis the solution of choice. But with allthe demands of newly emerg,ng legis-lation now lying on the desks ofeducators awaiting action, Americaneducation could move more towardschooling for the already capable atthz expense of the bulk of ournation's future populace. Program-matic and fi.riding priorities some-time seem contradictory to the inter-ests of the at-risk, migrant student.Increased requirements call forincreased compensatory and alterna-tive programs to ensure equity ineducational opportunity. Any otherorientation will only further isolatethese students from an education sovital to a successful future.

Despite uneasiness about theeffects of the reform movementamong advocates of improved edu-cation for at-risk youth, there is abalancing sense of optimism. Educa-tors of migrant youth see reformmovement goals as holding promisefor migrants. The issues of reform

are not simple. Reaching a singleconclusion about whether the neteffect of this complex reformmovement will be positive or nega-tive for migrant students is not easy.By understanding the reforms andtheir contexts, migrant educatorscan develop a sensitivity to thepossibilities.

Differing markedly from themajor educational programs of anearlier era, the funding for the excel-lence in education reform movementhas come from state treasuries, notthe federal government. "The schoolreforms initiated in 1983 and 1984,then, differed in several importantways from past ones. In contrast toearlier post-war reforms, like thoseof the Sputnik and Great Societyeras, these were state, not federally-sponsored. Unlike school financingreform, they were directed at thecore processes of schoolingwhoteaches, what is to be learned, andin some cases, even how it is to belearned. And unlike earlier pro-grams directed primarily at specialsubgroups (e.g., the poor, limitedEnglish-speaking, gifted, and handi-capped), these were aimed at all stu-dents. Perhaps the greatest differ-ence, however, was their compre-hensiveness and the remarkablespeed with which these policiesspread across the states."17

South Carolina was one of theearlier states to begin a sweepingprocess of educational reform. Not-ably, funding for the reform was notlimited to mainstream educationalefforts, but included provisions forcompensatory programs intended toprovide less successful students withsupport, too. Early results fromSouth Carolina disclose improvedachievement following the adoptionand funding of its educationalreforms.

Peterson and Strasler report that"Since 1977, South Carolina hasbeen attempting to make substantialimprovements in her public elemen-tary and secondary schools. Althoughthe educational reforms initiatedwere designed to help all students

BEST COPY AVAILABLL29

27

improve, a number of special initia-tives have been taken to helpchildren who often are at-risk ofexperiencing problems in the schools(i.e., low-income, minorities, dis-advantaged and handicapped.) "

The educational reforms referredto are summarized here.

I. Financial ReformThe SouthCarolina Education Finance Actof 1977 consisted of a more equa-lized school finance system byusing a portion of new state fundsto compensate property-poorschool districts, many of whichhave a majority-black population.

19. . .

Funds were also added to reduceclass size, to add music, art andphysical education teachers, toexpand programs for the handi-capped, to guarantee minimumteacher salaries and, finally, toincrease school and district levelaccountability.

2. Basic Skills AssessmentProgramThis program focusesupon basic skills testing andinstruction from entry into firstgrade through high schoo1.20 Thisprogram includes notifying parentsof results and mandates that ...schools must address specificstudent deficiencies noted by thetests.21 The Basic Skills Assess-ment Program was begun in 1978and was wholly implemented by1983.

3. Kindergarten and Child Develop-ment Reforms were passed thatincreased kindergarten attendanceand created child developmentservices for 3, 4 and 5 year olds. Inaddition, an interagency earlychildhood committee under theGovernor's Office was formed andcharged with improving educa-tional development services oryoung children, particularly at-riskchildren."22

4. Teacher CertificatiorImplementation of a new teachercompetency testing program wasbegun in 1979. This was combinedwith frequent performance evalua-tion during the early years of ateacher's service.

5. South Carolina Educationimprovement Act of 1984--Salestax and education appropriationsproduced increased funding. This

28

Act ... consists of higher stand-ards, but unlike many states, itprovides extra help to meet thosestandards.23 Additional help isgiven to any student below basicskills standards in grades 1-9.24Interestingly, the South Carolinafunded program is larger than theFederal Chapter 1 program in thestate.

Through examination of testscores, an attempt was made toassess longitudinal achievementgains or losses for students at severalgrade levels. The tests, proceduresand data are expounded in Petersonand Strasler's paper. They conclude:

Concerns raised about possiblenegative consequences of the recenteducational reforms on minoritychildren, such as Black children, arenot substantiated by this investigationof educational reforms in SouthCarolina. In fact, this investigationfound that Black students and allstudents in South Carolina madesubstantial progress since their educa-tional reforms have been implemented.

Although almost all states enactingmajor reforms have raised studentstandards for either promotion, grad-uation or entrance into college, manyof the reforms in a number of statesdo not contain significant initiativesto help at-risk children or youth.South Carolina's series of reforms docontain a number of special initiativesto provide extra help to children andyouth who may be at risk of notmeeting the higher standards. There-fore, the results of this investigationmay not be able to be generalized toother states which have enactedmajor education reforms.25While South Carolina was one of

the first states to undertake substan-tial reform efforts, "Educationalreform activities in New York pre-dated the report of the NationalCommission on Excellence in Edu-cation by a number of years. Thespirit of educational innovation andreform has always been strong in thestate."26

Early in the 70s, teacher educa-tion and certification was revamped.Curriculum revision and modifica-tion to graduation standards tookplace in the mid-1970s. "New Yorkhas been administering a statewide

30

basic competency testing programfor students since 1973. This RegentsCompetency Testing program hasbeen integrated with the more tradi-tional state Regents Examination toprovide a comprehensi' : programfor student assessment ..nd schoolaccountability. Results of theprogram have been used since 1978as a basis . . . to improve pupilperformance."27

Ward and Santelli examine theprospects for New York's successfulimplementation of its reformprogram by writing ". .. the desireand commitment must exist to takesuch actions as are necessary toeffectuate reform and to provide thenecessary financial resources. Thelack of either one will doom thereform effort in New York andevery other state."28

Though the reform efforts ofSouth Carolina and New York arehighlighted in this report, they areby no means the only states nader-taking substantive revisions of theireducational systems. So widespreadis the reform movement, a torn- ofconsiderable length would berequired to detail the flurry ofactivity taking place throughout thenation. The Education Commissionof the States conducted a nationalsurvey of reform activity and identi-fied, where possible, the source ofeach reform. The results of thiswork are summarized in Appendix B.

With only a few years havingpassed since the issuance of theNational Commission on Excellencein Education report, there is scanthistory to examine for answeringwhether the at-risk migrant studentwill fare better than before. Thatindividual states have taken it uponthemselves to begin reform inresponse to the report is under-scored by a report entitled TheStates' Excellence in EducationCommissions: Who's Looking Out

for At-Risk Youth (MDC, Inc.,1985). The report says, "By Feb-ruary 1984 10 months after theNational Commission on Excellencein Education's report was issued-47 of the states had at least one

1111111.

Harvest of PlentyMigrant farmworkers have been

an invisible group to most ofsociety. A family living in one place,then another, has neither the timenor the energy to establish an intri-cate network of contacts within thecommunity. Yet it is just such anetwork that allows familiarity withthe community to grow to a pointwhere the resources of the com-munity can be mustered when helpis needed.

As the produce harvested bymigrants is consumed daily withoutconscious thought of how it came tothe table, so is the migrant farm-worker's economic contributionconsumed without conscious aware-ness of its value. Although theincome levels of average farm-workers do not target them as con-sumers to be courted by Americanbusiness, they are an integral part ofthe economic machinery that hasmade American agriculturesuccessful.

Annual wages for migratory farm-workers are low. The U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture's AgriculturalStatistics 1984 supports this conclu-sion. In 1983, there were 226,000migratory farmworkers with 25 daysor more of hired farm work whowere counted in a statistical classfurther defined as:

... persons 14 years of age andover in the civilian noninstitutionalpopulation at or near the end of theyear who did migratory farm work atsome time during the year. Migratoryworkers are those who leave theirhomes temporarily overnight to dofarm work in another county or state.Does not include foreign nationalsbrought into the United States to dofarm work who have left the countrybefore the time of the survey)

30

In 1981, the Department of Agricu!ture reported 115,000 such workersand in 1979, 217,000. Counts for theyears from 1969 through 1977 hoveraround 200,000.

For an average of 145 days spentat farm work in 1983, the migratoryworker's mean earnings for the yearwere $5,338. These workers supple-mented their wages by nonfarm laborand boosted the average total daysworked to 206. The combinedaverage income from both farm andnonfarm work was $6,178. For thefarm labor portion of earnings, aquick calculation reveals an averagemonthly income of only $444.83.Even the combined farm and non-farm income yields an averagemonthly wage of only $514.83. In1981 (there was no data collected in1982) the average monthly earningswere $280.08 for farm work aloneand $355.08 for farm and nonfarmwork combined. Average monthlywages for 1979 were, respectively,$249.67 and $417.00.

The %aim: of the products migrantfarmworkers help bnng to the market-place places the wages received inperspective. Again, Department ofAgriculture statistics for 1984 areused.2

Crop Value of Production ($1000)

1981 1982 1983

Potatoes 1,831,474 1,562,639 1,869,946Sugarbeets 803,569 740,342 n.a.Grapes 1,323,310 1,360,922 1,070,833Cherries 158,852 127,383 174,773Oranges 1,295,281 1,167,795 1.400,242Lettuce 681,470 755,490 783,601To matoes 946,199 1,131,405 1,133,362

AnnualTotals 7,040,155 6,845,976 6,432,757

Even for this abbreviated list ofcrops, the total value for the years1981, 1982 and 1983 exceeds twentybillion dollars.

National statistics enumeratingbillion dollar crop values are com-posites of agricultural incomes for

Janie Rodriguez reads to migrant children at migrant camp near Kalamazoo,Michigan. (Photo by Al Wright)

31 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

state-wide task force or commissionanalyzing some aspect of education.Some states had several looking atdifferent issues. The opportunity totake a fresh look at educationalgoals from the broadest possible per-spective clearly was at hand."29

MDC declared that, "As anorganization working for educa-tional and employment opportuni-ties for disadvantaged youth for 18years, MDC shared the concern thata new educational crusade mightleave underachieving students evenfarther behind. With youth unem-ployment rising again to well over20 percent for all youth and toaround 40 percent for minorityyouth, we feared the consequencesof policies Vim might actually impelmore unprepared youth to drop outof school.".4)

The results of the MDC survey ofthe ".. . deliberations and recom-mendations of the newly formededucation commissions .. . appliedto at-risk youth"31 are revealing.While some 27 percent of the 14states surveyed felt they had focusedupon the special needs of "youth notcontinuing education after highschool,"3' only 2 percent identifiedmigrants as having received thesame consideration. Some commis-sions, it should be pointed out,' "...did not fee! that all of these group-ings [those posed by MCD's surveyinstrument] were legitimate targetsin their states (migrants, forinstance, in some states)."33 TheMDC survey goes on to comment,"Just as clearly from the responses,however, many commissions feltthat focusing on specific targetgroups of youth was a had idea.One commission staff memberresponded by writing on his surveythis way: "Wanted across-the-boardreforms to benefit all students. Edu-cators don't like to separate outeconomically disadvantaged stu-dents from better-off students. Feelit stigmatizes these youth. Also,these are the kids who present themost difficulty and are the leastresponsive to teachers.'"34

Despite the fact that not allcommissions see migrant educationas a legitimate concern for theirindividual states, it is significant thatMDC concludes: All caveats to onesidethe survey was nut returnedby all commissions; some states arelikely to be slighted in resultsoneconclusion seems inescapable. Withalmost two-thirds of the statesrepresented in returns, it is safe tosay that at-risk youth do not yetfigure seriously in this nation's plansto achieve educational excellence. Itis clear that when we think of 'excel-lence' we think of students mostcapable, most ready, to achieve."35

The migrant student, being theleast visible member of this at-riskgroup of young people, seems lesslikely to be singled out for specialassistance than other members of thegroup. The MDC report's ExecutiveSummary contains a terse answer toan important question. "This surveyattempted to answer one centralquestion: Wnether, on the whole,the educational excellence commis-sions established in the states overthe last few years have paid atten-tion to the at-risk youth who makeup as much as one-third of all highschool students. The answer is no."36

We concluded from this surveythat, while overall results are dis-tressing, the minority of commissionsmaking recommendations regardingat-risk youth have recognized thisproblem. They know that the nationis losing 25 percent of all studentsentering the ninth grade before theygraduate. They know that this lostbody of students and that minoritystudents are coming to represent anincreasingly high proportion of allAmerican youth. They know it isfrom these potentially wasted humanresources that we can expect anincrease in dependency and a drag orthe economy.37

The excellence in education thrust isnot a movement to be rejected, butrather a force to be shaped towardsuccessful and equitable educationof at-risk migrant students. AsSteller urges:

32

The key may very well rest in thehearts of enlightened educatorswilling to join the great debate overeducational reform. The very lifework of millions of educators dedi-cated to the well-being of others is atstake. As much as any professionals,educators have a working knowledgeof the debilitating effects of inequitiesimposed by socioeconomic differ-ences, sexual preferences, racism,ethnic biases, etc. The passions withinsincere educators need to be arousedso they lead school renewal towardsachieving excellence and equity."Expression of concern and a zeal

for reform will not make the neces-sary difference for migrant students.Based upon known barriers tosuccess for migrant students, therequirements being imposed by thereform movement may well createadditional hardships for studentsand c*-111enges for migrant educa-tors. Aoditional resources need to beapplied to enable at-risk, migrantyouth to cope with higher educa-tional standards. Without this neces-sary ingredient in our newly formu-lated educational prescnption, at-risk students may continue theirexodus from schools throughout thecountry. And we will be poorer for it.

29

-revy,*1 4:fiber actse1884 'a Marie/Akre Statist100

individual states. The state of Michi-gan published its own reportdetailing the economic returns real-ized, in part, as a result of migrantfarmworker labor within the state'sborders. The value of each of thecrops is enough to give Michigan aranking that ranges from 1st to 7thin national production. Some$501,000,000 is represented by thecrops shown (see Figure 5-1). Anadditional $107,000,000 is derivedfrom a collection of other agricul-tural crops whose harvest dependsat least in part upon migrant labor.

A migrant farmworker's lowincome level contrasts sharply withthe value of U.S. crops. But thesparseness of wages is compoundedby other problems faced by themigrant. There are health care prob-lems, housing problems, transporta-

FIGURE 5-1

tion problems and a host of othersthat seem to bind the migrant to alifestyle from which escape is diffi-cult. Adequate health care has con-sistently eluded the migrant farm-worker. A lack of adequate carecombines with an abundance ofoccupational hazards to portend apessimistic health future formigrants.

The National Rural Health CareAssociation commented in its releaseof a health summary report.

The estimated three million U.S.migrant and seasonal farmworkersand their families suffer from aVariety of occupational hazards andailments exacerbated by limited, OTnon-existent, health care services.Even a good health care deliverysystem cannot by itself combat themany health problems of these farm-

workers because so many of theproblems are rooted in the difficultconditions in which the farmworkersmust live and work.3Confronted with a shortage of

funds, health care professionals findefforts to provide adequate care formigrants stymied. The Office ofMigrant Health had a budget of $44million for the 1985 fiscal year andfunded 122 migrant health centers in300 rural areas throughout thenation. Despite the extent of theeffort, ".. . its programs reach only15% (460,000) of the estimated threemillion migrant and seasonal farm-workers and their families in theUnited States."4 The Preface to thesummary report concludes:

There is no comprehensive baselinehealth data of migrant and seasonal

33 BEST COPY AVAILF 31

farmworkers. Although some farm-worker health problems and hazardsare well documented, others requiremuch more investigation andresearch. An aggressive nationallycoordinated effort to focus on pre-ventive care, eliminate environmentalhazards, and educate the farmworkerand the agricultural employer on per-tinent health issues is needed for sus-tained improvement of the health andwelfare of farmviorkers.5It is difficult for the lay public to

relate easily to the problems faced bymigrant farmworkers and their fami-lies. A sampling of findings pub-lished in The Occupational Healthof Migrant and Seasonal Farm-workers in the United States allowsa glimpse at the harsh realities ofmigrant health.

The migrant population suffershealth problems related to poor sani-tation and overcrowded living condi-tions at rates much higher than thenonmigrant population;

Provision, maintenance, and useof field sanitation facilities such astoilets, handwashing facilities and suf-ficient potable drinking water at theworksite would substantially decreasethe incidence of sanitation-relatedhealth problems among farmworkers;

The majority of migrant and sea-sonal farmworkers and their familiesseek medical treatment for acute ail-ments rather than chronic conditionsor preventive services (e.g. check-upsor immunizations);

Parasitic infections afflictmigrant adults and children anaverage of 20 times more than thegeneral population;

The full extent of both acute andchronic pesticide poisoning still is notknown and needs further study;

The dangers of agricultural laboron women, particularly pregnantwomen and their newborn, and onthe development of farmworkerchildren are poorly documented;

The health problems most fre-quently reported at migrant healthclinics include dermatitis, injuries,respiratory problems, musculoskeletalailments (especially back pain), eyeproblems, gastrointestinal problems,hypertension, and diabetes;

Agriculture is the second mostdangerous occupation in the United

States. Yet, farmworkers are rarelyoffered or able to afford health insur-ance, and in 20 states are not coveredby workers' compensation of anykind.6

Adequate health care is not pro-vided to the migrant farmworker.Another obstruction to equal treat-ment is inadequate housing.Migrant farmworker housing wasthe topic of a hearing held beforethe Congressional Subcommittee onHousing and Community Develop-ment at French Camp, California, inearly January, 1982. The hearingrecorded information (extracts ofwhich follow) that helps complete apicture of the day-to-day world inwhich the migrant lives.

... low incomes deter many ofCalifornia's 284,000 agriculturalemployees from improving theirhying situation. Farmworkers have towork to be poor. With approximatelyhalf the State median family income,the lament of these testifiers [at thehearing], whether in the Imperial,Coachella or San Joaquin Valleys, isthe same: 'Would you think thatworking people like me that onlyearn $500 to $600 a month can makeit? Our only future is the route to thegrave.... For the farmworker thereis nothing except hard work.'(Horton Saldanya, Indio),

Some farmworkers such as JoseJuerta of Indio are paying up to 80%of their income for housing.8

The lack of affordable housing,particularly during peak harvest, hasresulted in conditions of overcrowdingwhich we typically associate withdeveloping countries. One of everythree rural Spanish-surnamed house-holds in the State are overcrowded.,

... the field hearings revealedthat many permanent and seasonalfarmworkers live in units which aredismally substandard. Highway 99,running the length of the State andlined with farmworker shanties, hasbeen dubbed the longest slum in theworld.'10The pathos, so much a part of the

migrant's life, is vividly representedby a description of the living condi-tions tolerated by Lalo and LuzCruz. This eider couple lives in theDelano, California area.

32 34

Both are seasonally employed in anumber of crop acmities includingtying grape vines, harvestingalmonds, pruning grape vines, andthinning cotton. Mrs. Cruz workedeight months last year and herhusband was able to work only sixmonths. Their farm work income wassupplemented during the off seasonand the period of Mr. Cruz's illnessby welfare and disability payments.Their total income for the year was$6,900 and this must support them-selves and their two teen-agedchildren. A World War H vintage,wood frame, two-bedroom house ishome for the family. The structurehas a wooden floor, is poorly insu-lated, needs paint, and provides onlycramped space. The living roomdoubles as a bedroom. This dwellinghas indoor plumbing, is cooled withan evaporative cooler in the summer,and heated by a defective gas heater.

The cabin rents for $75 a monthand the residents must pay for all utili-ties which average $50 per nonth,and any repairs which they canafford. The picture [shown in thehearing proceedings] of this family'srental home reveals its generally dete-riorated condition. The courage,humor, and generosity which thefamily brings to their situation arereflected in Mrs. Cruz's comment atthe end of the interview: 'Mi casa essu casa, hasta que se taiga.' (Myhouse is your house, until itcollapses)."The hazards faced by the migrant

are many, the rewards few. Migrantfarmworker labor, though mostlyunseen by the majority of oursociety, contributes greatly to ourcountry's ability to harvest its crops.While society shares the crops, themigrant farmworker submits toback-breaking work that isrewarded only with meager wagesand low status neither of whichwill buy full membership Into asociety that reaps the harvest oftheir toil in the fields.

Policy Options and StrategiesTraditionally, the education of

our youth is the province of thelocal community. Educationalpolicies and practices emerge asproducts locally conceived, statedand implemented. This traditionhas had a preserving effect ondiversity. No two school systemsare exactly alike. This diversity,while it has much to recommendit, can be an impediment to amigrant student's progress.

The Migrant Student RecordTransfer System along with com-pensatory educ4donal programshave helped bridge the gapcreated for migrant students byincompatible and conflicting localschool policies.

Policymakers might wish toconsider development of data col-lection procedures aimed at pin-pointing the migrant studentdropout rate. Development of astandard definition for a dropoutleads logically to consideration ofthe Migrant Student RecordTransfer System as a vehicle forcollecting the information to chartdropout rates.

While student educational pro-gress data is a necessary part ofschool-to-school continuity, thereis more to be learned aboutchildren than what appears ontheir achievement profiles. Theaspirations of students can betaken into consideration moreeasily when day-to-day, year-to-year contact is maintained withteachers and counselors within thesame school system.

The aspirations held by anindividual child, if transmittedfrom school to school in the samemanner as academic information,might allow school staff toprovide another dimension ofsupport to migrant children. This

information might include detailson special talents, awards, oraccomplishments in sports. Again,MSRTS could serve as thecommunications medium.

Academic progress remains asignificant yardstick against whichprogrammatic success is mea-sured. There is work in this areathat can be considered. Forexample, a national collection ofachievement data combined witha regular reporting system wouldallow comparison of migrant pro-gress to national, more stablegroups to determine the natureand magnitude of migrant studentneeds.

Also, much could be learnedfrom information gatheredthrough a national follow-upstudy designed to compare "lifeachievements" of individuals whorecently left the migrant programto those who terminated fifteenyears ago. The study might takethe form of a random samplingfrom a stratified age grouping.The results of the study coulddetect progress in migrant educa-tion over time. Correlationsbetween improved achievementand increased supplementarysupport could be examined.

Migrant educatorshave shown a tenacityfor solving problemsand have remainedproponents of sharingideas.

Migrant educators have showna tenacity for solving problemsand have remained proponents ofsharing ideas. Earlier chapters inthis report are replete with exam-

35

pies of instructional innovation.The California PASS Program isan attempt to go beyond theexchange of student progress datato provide improved program-matic continuity from school toschool. ESCAPE concerns itselfwith the tragedies surroundingchild abuse as it builds preventionand support networks. Manyprograms embody features specifi-cally intended to improve themigrant student's opportunity foracquiring a quality education.

A concerted effort to extendprogrammatic options couldallow teachers in schools havinglarge migrant enrollments moreflexibility in serving migrantneeds. A pre-existing "menu" ofprograms and solutions wouldavoid redundancy of effort whereworkable solutions have alreadybeen formed.

The policy and program optionsnoted above are possible exten-sions to an already existingnetwork of cooperation amongmigrant educators. State educa-tion agencies, local educationagencies and community organi-zations have developed coopera-tive working relationships to servethe migrant child. Migrant educa-tors have broken tradition byextending the boundaries of theschool world beyond city limitsand state lines.

In the process of extending thesetraditional boundaries, migrant edu-cators have worked at developingneeded federal, state and localfinancial support for migrant stu-dents. There is genuine concerninherent in an effort to reenfranchisethe migrant student. Migrant educa-tors want the migrant children toreceive a "fair shake" in a competi-tive world that often operates to the

33

disadvantage of the powerless.Despite the staunch commitment ofmigrant educators throughout theU.S., there would be no migrantprogram without sufficient funding.

Federal financial support is thelife-blood of migrant education.Without the infusion of federalfunds and regulations to the migranteducation system, the stage is setfor money to be spent on interestscloser to home. Declining federalfiscal support may sway local educa-tional priority-setting away from theinterests of the transient migrantstudent. Should this occur, thenetwork of support that has beenbuilt for the migrant may begin tofalter. Headway that has beengained may be lost. Momentum willfade. Strategies for ensuring thiscontinued support must be enter-tained by migrant educators andadvocates of migrant education.Tactics for attaining this goal remainto be formulated and set into motion.

In addition to the need forfunding and programmatic innova-tion, other concerns threaten themigrant program.

What, for example, might be theconsequences of an ever-increasingproportion of illegal aliens pro-viding the labor to work the nation'scrops? Almost certainly, one effectwould be to reduce the opportunityfor U.S. citizens to earn income;with this loss of income comes lossof tax revenue for local, state, andfederal governments. Although notclearly supportable by statistical evi-dence and although illegal aliensmay be freely enrolled in publicschools, there is an open questionabout the willingness of such aliensto report their migrant status. Withno report of migrant status, nomigrant education funding is avail-able to support their education.States and local school districts thenbear the cost, spreading an oftenthin educational budget eventhinner. The issues and solutions tothis problem are complex, but surely

34

fa

:OrInstructional assistant Norma Aceveda helps student Edward Gonzalez in Camden,New Jersey, summer program. (Photo by Al Wright)

warrant further analysis becausethey bear upon the issues and solu-tions germane to the education ofthe migrant student.

There are still other questions tobe contemplated by policymakers.Will technological advances in theagricultural industry create agradual shrinkage in the workforcerequired to support its needs?Though there are contentions thatsome crops will always be harvestedby hand, "always" has been the mostuncertain of predictions. Will adramatic and sudden cut in requiredlabor result? Is it like!) to reduce therequirement to zero? If so, whatemployment will this undereducatedand largely unskilled workforce findin our society? At present, educa-tional systems have their hands fulltrying to retain the migrant studentthrough high school graduation.Planning for the migrant student'sfurther vocational or academictraining is secondary to the morebasic task of providing a successfulhigh school education.

The prospects for a migrant

student receiving a post-high scho aleducation are diminished in the faceof dwindi;ng monetary and pro-grammatic support. Even when astudent has the desire and ability tocontinue education beyond highschool, the realization of the drea.nis difficult. Yet, equitable access tofurther education is an integral partof full enfranchisement. Themandate is clear. The educationalsystems in the U.S. must meet theneeds of the migrant populationwhile encouraging each student torealize full indiNidual potential. Thisrealization will allow migrant youthto opt for futures more varied thanmigratory farm labor. To prepare achild to take control of his owndestiny is the greatest investment we,as a nation, can make.

' M... 040.0114.001.6. U.

APPENDIX A

A Sampler of National, State and RegionalMigrant ProgramsCAPR/CAPM (Computer AssistedProgram in Reading/Computer AssistedProgram in MathNew York Education Department.Promotes continuity in the education ofmigrant students by transmitting toteachers specific page references in cur-riculum materials of both reading andmath. Used within the school whichrelates directly to the skills under studyby a student at the time of a move fromone district to another. Independent ofthe textbook in use by the student at thepresent school. This will be linked to theMigrant Student Record TransferSystem.

CARE (Community of Awareness andResources Efforts)Pennsylvania Department of Education,Bureau of Curriculum Services. Con-cerned with the establishment of anetwork of partnership representativesto be trained by the project at theregional/State level for the enhance-ment of migrant education nationwide.Through the guidance and direction ofan interstate consortium representingmigrant education programs and agen-cies of the public and private sectors,the project will develop training strate-gies for migrant staff and will distributea catalog of existing partnership efforts.A manual of corporate/communityresources will be compiled for regionalareas.

IISNETArkansas Department of Education.Provides improved information tomigrant students and their parentsregarding the programs, goods and ser-vices available to them as they travelfrom Texas and Louisville to mid-Western states in search of agriculturalemployment. A communicationsnetwork among all cooperating stateshas been established. Training to allagencies involved with the networkbe provided. Pamphlets and newslettersoffer information on-summer school,

locations and time spans, level of educa-tional opportunities, employment,health, day care and social servicesavailable.

ESCAPENew York Education Department. ASection 143 grant now in the fourthphase of the Eastern Stream ChildAbuse Preventive and Education pro-ject. Cffers the impetus for a sustainedresponse to the problem of migrantchild maltreatment through statewid,-;prevention programs based upon stronginterstate, intrastate, and interagencycooperation and coordination. Themajor purpose of the project is to insti-tutionalize child abuse prevention pro-grams by "formularizing" preventionmodels in a significant number of statesand equipping migrant education withthe trained staff and resources to con-tinue prevention efforts.

HAPPIER (Health Awareness PatternsPreventing Illness and EncouragingResponsibility)Pennsylvania Department of Education,Bureau of Curriculum Services. Theprimary purpose of HAPPIER is tobring together adequate information onpreventing illness and promoting healthwith the single largest group in Americawho are, at once, most at risk and leastlikely to have good information onhealth and illnessthe migrant popula-tion. The project disseminates informa-tion to all states with migrant programsthrough the resource guide of educa-tional materials including trainingstrategies to implement the materialswith migrant families.

Oregut,SpeciplEducation ProjectOregon Department of Education,Genera! Education Division. Addressesthe special education needs of migranthandicapped students. Encouragesincreased identification and providesservices for migrant handicapped stu-dents through a unified system that

facilitates intrastate and interstate co-ordination and communication. Con-sists of the following program compo-nents: 1) Identification; 2) Referral andPlacement; 3) Program Elements; and,4) Servic.' Delivery and Continuity.

TEACH (Teaching EnvironmentalAwareness to the Children of theHarvest)Pennsyhania Department of Education,Bureau of Curriculum Services. Addres-ses the critical issue of pesticide hazardsfor migrant children in grades pre-K to 8.

z:37 35

State- Education Reform Efforts1982-1986

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MOADMINISTRATION

Certification L I. L

Competency testing L L

Evaluation LSta:T development L L L I. L L L L L L

DISTRICTAcademic bankruptcy S L L L

Accountability/ plan L L L L

Class size

Consolidation L

EARLY CHILDHOODPrekindergartenMandatory kindergarten L L L

Early intervention X I,Prime-time/class size L I. L L L S

Handicapped programs L L L

FINANCETax Increases X X L L X I, X X L S

Funding innovationsTeacher salanes L L L L L S L L I. L L L

GENERALAdult literacy S S S S L S S

Computers/ technology L L

Incentive awards to schools L L L L L L

Governance L.

Length of day/year L L L S L L

Parental involvement I.

Special pop (g/t) L L L I, I,School discipline L L L L L I. L I, L

Guidance/counseling S S L S L S

POST SECONDARYAdmissions requirements S S L S L S

Undergraduate quality I, I.

Program consolidation L I

STUDENTSCurnc. change (math/ sci) L L S L L I. I. L L LAt-risk youth programs L L I. I. A L I. L L

Graduation requirements S S S L I, S L S S

Competency testing L L L L L L L L L I. I L I

Academic recognition L L S L L L LPlacement/promotion L

Extracurr participation S L XHome instruction (choice) I. I. l I,Remedial programs I. L I. l

TEACHERSInstruction timeTeacher shortages L L I.Certification S L S

Education I.Alternative certification I.Competency testing/ eval I. I, I. I, I. I. I l. I I I I. I. l, I,Career ladder plan L L L I. L X I I. L I. I. I. I I. l I. I, XStaff development I,Loans to attract L L l.

L = LEGISLATURE S = S IATE BOARD, SUPERINTENDENT X = ACTIVITY NOI ED. YE I UNDL I ERMINED ORI6IN

NOTE. Adapted from a chart furnished by the Education Commission of the States Clearinghouse (4, 3/ 86)

336

J

MT NE Nv NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN 1X UT YE VA WA WV WI WY

ADMINISTRATIONCertification 1. I. S S 1.

Competency testingEvaluationStaff development L 1. S L L I. I. L

DISTRICTAcademic bankruptcy X L LAccountability/plan. L S I. I. I. S I.Class size L L L S I. LConsolidation L I.

EARLY CHILDHOODPrekindergarten S L L L LMandatory kindergarten L L L S I.Early intervention 1, LPnme -ume /class size S L I. L LHandicapped programs L L I. L

FINANCETax increases X L X I. L L L I. I. I. XFunding innovations I, L XTeacher salaries L L L L L L I. I. I. I. L L

GENERALAdult literacy S S S S SComputers/technology L L L L L L L L L L L L LIncentive awards to schools LGovernance L X L I.Length of day /year L S S I. L I. L I. S LParental involvement L I. L SSpecial pop (g/t) L L L S L S I I. I.School discipline I. S 1. S L L I. SGuidance/counseling S 1. I. I.

POST SECONDARYAdmissions requirments S S S S SS SS I S SUndergraduate qualityProgram consolidation

STUDENTSCurnc change (math, set) L l I. I. S I.At-risk youth programs L L L 1. SGraduation requirements S L S S LS S SS LSLSLSS SSSLI, S I.Competency testing L S L SLSI,SI.SL L S S I I. I, 1.

Academic recognition S S I. S S I. I LPlacement/ promotion L L LExtracurr participation L I. L S I X SHome instruction (choice) X I I. I.Remedial programs I. L S L I. S I I S

TEACHERSInstruction time I. X S S S I,Teacher shortagesCertification I. S S S I. S L I.

ilI S S S S

Education L S l IAlternative certification I. S S 5 X I. I XCompetency testing, cval L S S L S I. S I. I I. L I S I SCareer ladder plan I X I. I. I I l I. X X I.Staff development I. L L S I L L I. L SLoans to attract L 1. 1. I. I. I. I I. I I L I,

LEGISLA1URE S = S IME BOARD, SUPERINTENDENT X = ACIIVIIY NOIED. YE1 UNDL1ERMINED ORIGIN

NOl E Adapted from a chart furnished by the Education Commission of the States Clearinghouse (4, 3,86)

39 37

I

CHAPTER 1Tim Demographics of theMigrant StudentPopulation

1. Harold L. Hodgkinson, All OneSystem: Demographics of Educa-tion Kindergarten through Grad-uate School (Washington, D.C.:Institute for Educational Leader-ship, Inc., 1985), p. 2.

2. Ibid., p. 3.3. Ibid.4. Ibid.5. Edward F. Dement, "Working

Paper,' Out of Sight, Out of Mind:An Update on Migrant FarmworkerIssues in Today's AgriculturalLabor Market (Washington, D.C.:National Governors' Association,1985), p. 47.

6. Kathleen C. Plato Ph.D., Programfor Migrant Children's Education:A National Profile (Washington,D.C.: National Association of StateDirectors of Migrant Education,1984), p. 14.

7. Hodgkinson, All One System, p. 7.8. Ibid., p. 39.9. Dement, Out of Sight, p. 6.

10. Ibid., p. 39.11. Plato, A National Profile, p. 35.12. Ibid., p. 44.13. What's Distinctive About the

Migrant Education Program(Denver, Colo.: Education Com-mission of the States, draft March1986), p. 2.

14. Ibid., p. 3.15. Ibid., p. 5.16. Dale Mann, "Can We Help Drop-

outs. Thinking About the Undo-able," Teachers College Record,vol. 87, no. 3 (New York, N.Y.:Teachers College, Columbia Uni-versity, 1986), p. 315.

17. Ibid, p. 307.18. Ibid., p. 308.19. Ibid., p. 310.20. Hodgkinson, All One System, p 7.21. Ibid., p. 11.

38

22. Frederic C. Johnson, et al.,Migrant Students at the SecondaryLevel: Issues and Opportunities forChange: 1985 (Washington, D.C.:National Institute of Education,1985), chap. III, p. 1.

23. Ibid., p. 2.24. Ibid.25. Ibid., chap. IV, p. 6.26. Ibid., p. 6.27. Ibid.28. Ibid., p. 7.29. United States General Accounting

Office, SCHOOL DROPOUTS,The Extent and Nature of theProblem, GAO/ H RD-86-106BR(Washington, D.C., June, 1986),p. 11.

30. Ibid., p. 13.31. Ibid., p. 29.32. Mann, "Can We Help Dropouts:,"

pp. 315-316.33. Ibid., p. 318.34. Hodgkinson, All One System,

p. 11.

CHAPTER 2Legislative andFunding History

1. Susan H. Chin, Federal Legislationand the Migratory Farmworker(Atlanta, GA: Georgia StateDepartment of Education, July1984), p. 95.

2. Ibid., pp. 95-96.3. Ibid., pp. 97-98.4. The Comptroller General, Report

:o the Congress of the UnitedStates: Analysis of MigrationCharacteristics of Children ServedUnder the Migrant Education Pro-gram, GAO/ H RD-83-40(Washington, D.C.: GeneralAccounting Office, May 1983),PP. 3-4.

5. John F. Staehle, "Memorandum toState Chapter I Migrant Directors,"U.S. Department of Education,Washington, D.C., February-March 1986.

40

6. Reauthorization Recommenda-tions, Chapter I of The Elementaryand Secondary Education Act of1965, Program for MigrantChildren, Executive Summary(Denver, Colo.: Interstate MigrantEducation Council, A SpecialProject of the Education Commis-sion of the States, draft October1986), p. 1.

CHAPTER 3Advocacy Groups andthe Service Network

1. "Migrant Education," Issuegramno. 39 (Denver, Colo.: EducationCommission of the States, July1985), p. 2.Ibid.Ibid.

2.

3.

4. Interstate Migrant Education TaskForce, First Interim Report: Preli-minary Findings and Recommen-dations, Report no. III (Denver,Colo.: Education Commission ofthe States, June 1977), p. v.

5. Ibid., p. 1.6. "Migrant Education," p. 2.7. Kathleen C. Plato, Program for

Migrant Children's Education: ANational ProPe (Washington,D.C.: National Governors' Associa-tion, 1985), p. 2-3.

8. Migrant Dropout Youth Program(Geneseo, N.Y.: Resource Centeron Migrant Dropout Youth, n.d.),il.p.

9. Infra /Interstate Coordination Pro-gram, Summary of Facts and Fig-ures, Program Year 1985-86 (Inter-state Migrant Education Council,March, 1986), n.p.

10. Ibid., n.p.11. Ibid., n.p.12. Ibid., pp. 2-3.13. California Plan for the Education

of Migrant Children, FederalApplicaticn for Fiscal Years 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 (Sacramento,CA.: California State Departmentof Education, 1986), p. 19.

o

a

14. Ibid., p. 19.15. Ibid., p. 20.16. Ibid., p. 23.17. Frederic C. Johnson, et al.,

Migrant Students at the SecondaryLevel: Issues and Opportunities forChange, 1985 (Washington, D.C..National Institute of Education,1985), pp. 2-3.

18. David P. Weikart, "Changed Lives:A Twenty-Year Perspective onEarly Education," American Edu-cator (Winter 1984), p. 22.

19. David P. Weikart, "The YpsilantiPerry Preschool Project in Supponof Early Childhood Education:Basic Findings," (Ypsilanti, MI:High/Scope Educational ResearchFoundation).

20. Application for Federal Funds toConduct Supplemental EducationalPrograms fcr Migrant Children(Harrisburg, PA: PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education, 1986),P. 1.

21. Application for a Program Grantfor Educational Programs forMigrant Children, (Austin, TX.Texas Education Agency, 1986),p. 14.

22. Ibid., p. 14.23. Ibid., p. 16.24. Ibid., p. 17.

CHAPTER 4The Reform Movement-An Opportunityfor Change

1. Van D. Mueller and Mary P.McKeown, eds., The Fiscal, Legal,and Political Aspects of StateReform of Elementary ana Secon-dary Education (Cambridge, M,lssa-chusetts: Ballinger PublishingCompany, 1986), p. 83.

2. Ibid., p. 112.3. A Nation At Risk: The Imperative

for Educational Reform(Washington, D.C.: NationalCommission on Excellence in Edu-cation, April 1983), pp. 25-33.

4. Ibid., p. 36.5. Ibid.6. Mueller and McKeown, The Fiscal,

Legal, and Political Aspects,pp. 65-66.

7. Ibid., p. 66.

8.

9.

10.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.21.22.23.24,

25.26.

27.28.29.

30.31.32.33.34.35.

36.37.33.

Ibid., p. 67.Ibid.Chris Pipho, "Tracking theReforms: Part 5: Testing--Can ItMeasure the Success of the ReformMovement?," Forum (Denver,Colo.: Education Commission ofthe States, May 1985).Ibid.lbid.With Consequences for All: AReport from the A SCD Task Forceon Increased High School Gradua-tion Requirements (Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development,1985), pp. iv-vi.Ibid., p. 17.Ibid.Mueller and McKeown, The Fiscal,Legal, and Political Aspects, p. 77.Ibid., p. 50.Terry K. Peterson and Gregg M.Strasler, "The Impact of RecentEducational Reforms on Minorityand All Low Achieving Studentsand On Minority and All HighAchieving Students: Positive EarlyIndications from South Carolina"(speech at American EducationalResearch Association AnnualMeeting, San Francisco, CaliforniaApril 1986), p. 2.Ibid., p. 3.Ibid., p. 4.Ibid.Ibid., p. 5.Ibid., p. 8.Ibid., pp. 8-9.Ibid., p. 25.Mueller and McKeown, The Fiscal,Legal, and Political Aspects, p. 210.Ibid.Ibid., p. 217.The State's Excellence in EducationCommissions: Who's Looking Outfor At-Risk Youth (Chapel Hill,N.C.: MDC, Inc., Fall 1985), p. 3.Ibid., p. I.

Ibid., p. 2.Ibid., p. 6.Ibid.Ibid.Ibid., p. 15.Ibid., p. ii.Ibid.Mueller and Mckeown, The Fiscal,Legal, and Political Aspects, p. 95.

41

CHAPTER 5Harvest of Plenty

1. Agricultural Statistics 1984(Washington, D.C.. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, 1984),p. 390.

2. Ibid., p. 392-393.3. Robert T. Van Hook, The Occupa-

tional Health of Migrant and Sea-sonal Farm workers in the UnitedStates, letter announcing publica-tion of "Report Summary,"(Kansas City, MO. National RuralHealth Care Association, 1985),

P. I.

4. The Occupational Health ofMigrant and Seasonal Farm-workers in the United States,Report Summary, (Kansas City,MO: National Rural Health CareAssociation, November 1985), p. 1.

5. Ibid.6. Ibid., p. 2.7. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker

Housing in the United States,Hearilie before the Subcommitteeon Housing and CommunityDevelopment of the Committee onBanking, Finance and UrbanAffairs, Ninety-Seventh Congress,Second Session, Part 2,(Washington, D.C.: January 1982),p. 263.

8. Ibid., p. 265.9. Ibid.

10. Ibid., p. 266.II. Ibid., p. 80.

39