volved."1 Congress expected that the state plans would be reviewed in detail each year to account for changing circumstances and that the actual state and local operations would reveal the extent to which the states have followed their plans. Thus, Congress did not intend that approval of state plans would be a pro forma procedure, or that package approval of the plans should take place. Each state plan is meant to "be reviewed separately and approved as a separate document."2 Unfortunately, because of shortage of staff, lack of a strong bargaining position, and/or a desire to maintain cordial relations with the states, the federal Migrant Programs Branch has not reviewed or been able to review state applications critically, nor has it determined to what extent the state objectives have been met. No state plan has ever been turned down, although a few have been delayed until suitable corrections were made. Title I specifically provides that special programs like Migrant Education must receive 100 percent of the funds to which they are entitled first and that general programs under Title I must make do with the remainder. However, Congress rarely appropriates enough money to adequately cover both migrant programs and the general Title I program, thus creating a situation which motivates Title I administrators to deemphasize the special programs in order to increase the general program's share of funds. In short, a rivalry is created between general Title I and the Title I Migrant Program. It is simply not in the interest of Title I administrators to pursue the much-needed broadening of identification and recruitment procedures for migrant children, because increased recruitment would further reduce general Title I funding. Similarly, it is not in the interest of these administrators to fully or properly staff the Migrant Programs Branch. The result of this is not simply a staff of insufficient size and energy to cope with the many tasks assigned but, equally important, a ripple effect comes down to state and local administrators who frequently and quite logically believe that they will not be held accountable for any mismanagement. Thus state offices can often freely abuse required funding practices, file incorrect or incomplete information, route money to ineligible recipients, avoid evaluation, and generally repeat the same failures in leadership that are seen in the national office. This is not to say that all state and local administrators are guilty of mismanagement, but many are, and once the mismanagement continues unchecked for a year or two, it becomes institutionalized and violations of the original intent and spirit of the law flourish. Senate Report No. 634, 91st Congress, 2nd Session, (1970) p. 5. 2 Ibid. We do not mean to suggest here that inadequate staffing at the top, or inadequate funding throughout the program are in any way justifications for the failures and violations in the Title I Migrant Education program. Rather that these problems are one important part of an appalling neglect of a law written to help poor youngsters. The responsibility for this neglect may not always be traceable to any one group of individuals, but the responsibility for altering the situation is now at the very top-the Congress and the federal administrators-because the state and local entities have shown themselves, in far too many instances, to be incapable of or unwilling to follow the law and serve migrant children. State migrant education programs are often caught between federal regulations regarding categorical funds and the local educational agencies' right to determine the kind of educational services they will provide. This situation is compounded by the bureaucratic structure of state education agencies and the placement of the migrant bureaus or officers in generally powerless positions in the decision-making chain. Most state migrant agencies are merely channels for moving federal funds to the local programs, with little power to control the quantity and quality of services delivered to migrant children. Because they are generally loath to trample on local prerogatives, much of the work depends upon personal contacts with local educators, and the ability to coax, wheedle, and cajole them into appropriate action. Although mandated by the law to assure compliance, both federal and state administrators are caught between the conflicting and equally compelling domains of national directives and local autonomy. Many of them would rather fund poor programs than no programs at all. Among the difficulties faced by administrators at all levels is defining just who is and who is not a migrant. Official definitions issued by various government agencies vary greatly, often leaving the interpretation to local officials who may or may not wish to provide good migrant education programs. This lack of agreement on the definition of a migrant also affects the ability of local and state programs to coordinate their activities with sending (home-base states) or receiving (areas traveled to) migrant programs; someone considered a migrant farm worker in one community might not be considered a migrant in another community. Delays in funding local programs, stemming from the inordinate amount of paper work flowing in many different directions, often limit their ability to establish and operate needed programs. Delays at the federal level are compounded at the state level, with disheartening results for local programs which cannot effectively plan or staff projects based on present local needs. Another difficulty inherent in a multi-tiered administrative structure is the lack of consistent and comparable evaluation standards. Within migrant education, evaluation of programs is generally conducted by the same people who are operating the programs. When local program evaluations are submitted to the states and then transmitted to the federal agency, there is literally no review or analysis made of the findings. This in turn, leads to re-funding of poorly run programs, poor educational continuity, and a costeffectiveness ratio which is impossible to determine. Federal officials who are supposed to disseminate reports on model programs and those elements in existing programs which appear to work well, cannot do an adequate job of reading and analyzing the evaluation and planning reports they receive from the states. What they do disseminate, therefore, probably reflects their own thinking as to what makes a "good" program, rather than the results of reviewing program documents. Such factors illustrate the gross lack of responsibility and accountability at all levels of administration. Thus, state and local agencies often misuse or do not use at all the money available with little or no fear of being reprimanded. Money, earmarked for migrants, is used for equipment, staff, and services for nonmigrant students. Compounding these problems is the tendency, when programs are not being properly run, to hide the facts from the public. Obtaining copies of reports, plans, evaluations, etc., was sometimes difficult for us, a national agency with some political influence; how much more difficult is it for a migrant parent with poor command of the language or little knowledge of how to circumvent bureaucratic delaying tactics? The lack of appropriate training for teachers and paraprofessional aides working in migrant programs, the lack of emphasis on preschool programs as a measure to prevent migrant children's failure in school, and the lack of properly elected and trained Parent Advisory Councils for the migrant programs, are other shortcomings in the administration of migrant education. Tying all of these problems together is the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS), a computerized, nationwide network designed to provide up-to-date records to those schools which receive migrant students. The MSRTS is a paradigm of all that has been discussed so far. Data fed into the system is not standardized, so determining comparability between communities is almost impossible. Information from the system often arrives too late to do any good; many teachers and administrators resist the system so that either no information is provided or that which is provided is meaningless; confidentiality of migrant student records is abused; parents have little opportunity to see and/or change what is printed on tape; and local administrators often ignore those identified as migrants by the system in their own communities. These and other problems are the focus of this report. We will attempt to spell out in some detail how migrant children are being denied equal educational opportunity under the law. The format chosen to accomplish this is to excerpt relevant portions of the Act using the language of the Act itself; to illustrate how the intent and letter of the law are being abused; to discuss, in part, why this is happening; and to make recommendations for improvement. Special Educational Needs 122.(a)(1)(A) The Commissioner may approve ... Perhaps more than any other this section epitomizes the intent of Congress in enacting the special legislation for the education of the children of migratory workers. That intent, signalled by the recognition that these children have special educational needs, should be evident to any personnel at whatever level of administration or service delivery, who are involved in migrant education programs resulting from the Act. However, assessments of performance under the Act indicate that this most basic of concepts in the legislation is accorded little, if any, recognition by those responsible for implementing the Congressional directive. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare's 1971 audit of the migrant education program in Texas, which is fairly typical of the audit's findings in other states, declares: "Our review of applications submitted by 15 LEA's throughout the State showed that the needs identified in most of the applications were of a broad, general educational type and did not set out specific needs of migrant students." The Exotech2 findings three years later, summarizing activities in migrant education programs in 10 states, found: "1. There is very little assessment done of the needs of migrant students as a group. Most assessment is of smaller, sub-groups of migrant students, usually at a local or state level. "2. Needs assessment is not done on an on-going national basis." In the time between the two studies there seems to have developed in educational circles an agreement to interpret the wording of the law as a requirement only that the reading, language and mathematics deficiencies of Audit Agency of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 2 Exotech Systems Inc., Vol. I, p. 8. |