Order Code RL31325
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Federal Migrant Education Program as
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
March 11, 2002
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

The Federal Migrant Education Program as Amended
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Summary
The Migrant Education Program (MEP) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) provides financial assistance to state educational agencies to
establish and improve programs for children of migratory farmworkers and fishers.
The ESEA and MEP were recently reauthorized by H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, which was signed into law (P.L. 107-110) by the President on January
8, 2002. This report describes the legislative and funding history of the program —
highlighting important changes made since it was established. A section on
evaluations of the program is included at the end of the report.
Since 1966, the MEP has sought to help migrant children overcome the many
problems associated with multiple moves. These problems include educational
disruption, social barriers, limited English proficiency, various health problems, and
other factors that keep migrant children from performing well in school. MEP
provides grants to state educational agencies to develop or improve education
programs for migrant students. Most migrant programs are administered by local
educational agencies and operate during the summer as well as in the regular school
year.
The MEP has been subject to incremental amendments over the years. The main
changes that have occurred concern student eligibility criteria and records transfer.
The former change has resulted in expansion of the population served, while the latter
has simply attempted to keep track of these elusive students. The funding formula for
the MEP has remained largely unchanged over time; however, it received significant
modification in the most recent amendments. Appropriations for the MEP have
generally increased from year to year. However, after adjusting for inflation, funding
has declined an estimated 17.4% between FY1980 and FY2002.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Program Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Population Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Student Eligibility Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Student Records Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Funding Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Funding History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Program Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
National Commission on Migrant Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Post-Commission Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
List of Tables
Table 1. ESEA Title I Migrant Education Program Appropriations,
FY1980-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

---

The Federal Migrant Education Program
as Amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Introduction
The educational challenges posed by the disruptions and interruptions associated
with repeated and seasonal migration have long been recognized. Since the 1940s,
children of migrant workers in agricultural and other sectors of the economy have
received help meeting these challenges. At first this help came from state-sponsored
programs and later from the federal government. The Migrant Education Program
(MEP) was established as part of the 1966 amendments (P.L. 89-750) to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to help alleviate the problems
faced by this mobile student population.1
In its first year of existence (FY1967), the federal MEP had an appropriation of
$9,737,847 and provided grants to 44 states that served approximately 169,910
students. For FY2002, the program was appropriated $396,000,000 and will award
grants to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. A total of 760,000
full-time equivalent (FTE) students were served by the program in FY2001.2 This
report describes the legislative and funding history of the program — highlighting
important changes made since it was established. A section on evaluations of the
program is included at the end of the report.
Program Overview
The MEP provides grants to state educational agencies (SEAs) to develop or
improve education programs for migrant students. Most migrant programs are
administered by local educational agencies (LEAs) and operate during the summer as
well as in the regular school year. LEAs typically provide instruction (remedial,
compensatory, bilingual, multicultural, and vocational), health services, counseling
1For a general overview of the reauthorized ESEA, see CRS Report RL31284, K-12
Education: Highlights of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), by Wayne
Riddle. While services are also provided specifically to migrants by the College Assistance
Migrant Program (CAMP), High School Equivalency Program (HEP), Even Start, Head
Start, and other programs, the focus of this report is solely on MEP.
Please note that portions of this report were adopted from CRS Report 98-945, The Federal
Migrant Education Program: An Overview, by Patricia Osorio-O’Dea.
2U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2003 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates
to the Congress, v. 1, 2002. p. A-45.

---

CRS-2
and testing, career education, preschool services, and transportation to migrant
students. Further details on service provision will be discussed in the program
evaluation section of this report.
By law, priority for services is given to current migrant students and especially
those who are failing, or at greatest risk of failing, to meet state performance
standards. To be eligible for program funding, children must have moved from one
school district to another, or from one administrative area to another within a state
having a single district; or, if living in a school district of at least 15,000 square miles,
the child must travel at least 20 miles from their usual residence for purposes of
gaining employment for themselves or their parents/guardians.
Population Served
According to a recent study, most of the students served in the early years of the
program’s existence were U.S.-born African Americans or non-Hispanic whites.3
However, by 1998, 85% of students served were Hispanic (and increasingly foreign-
born, although precise figures were not available).
The Department of Education’s (ED) Fiscal Year 2001 Justifications of
Appropriation Estimates to the Congress indicates that, during the 1999-2000 school
year, over 40% of migrant students were limited-English proficient (LEP).4 ED data
also reveal that migrant students at this time were more likely than other children of
school age to come from families with low levels of education, households with
incomes below the poverty level, and to experience health problems, including
nutritional diseases and respiratory infections.
An earlier ED study reported that the majority of migrant students receiving
services through the MEP were concentrated in five sending states: California,
Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Washington.5 Migrant families typically travel in three
patterns of migration, also known as migrant streams. These migrant streams include:
1) Texas and north through the central plains region, 2) California to the northwest
and western states, and 3) Florida and north along the East Coast.
Legislative History
The MEP has been subject to incremental amendments over its 35-year
existence. The main changes that have occurred concern student eligibility criteria
3U.S. Department of Education. Title I Migrant Education State Performance Reports:
1997-1998. Prepared by Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD. School districts are not required to
establish U.S. citizenship or legal residence status for students who are provided services
through this program.
4U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2001 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates
to the Congress, v. 1, 2000. p. B-44.
5U.S. Department of Education. Services to Migrant Children: Synthesis and Program
Options for the Title 1 Migrant Education Program. Washington 1993.

---

CRS-3
and records transfer. The former change has resulted in expansion of the population
served, while the latter has simply attempted to keep track of these elusive students.
The funding formula for the MEP has remained largely unchanged over time;
however, it received significant modification in the most recent reauthorization.
Student Eligibility Criteria
The major revisions to MEP eligibility criteria have been the inclusion of
additional migratory worker occupational groups, wider age groups, and broader
geographic areas; consideration of migratory students themselves as workers; and
restriction of the number of years of eligibility. Initially, the MEP was designed to
serve the children of migratory agricultural workers. The children of migratory fishers
were added to the program in 1974,6 and children of agricultural dairy workers were
added in 1988.7
The amendments of 1988 also expanded the eligible age range from the 5 to 17
group (as defined in the initial legislation) to persons between 3 and 21. The 1966
provisions required that students cross school district boundaries to be classified as
migratory. The 1988 amendments expanded this criterion to include: 1) moving from
one administrative area to another within a state having a single school district
(applicable to Hawaii and Puerto Rico), and 2) living in a school district of at least
15,000 square miles and migrating at least 20 miles to a temporary residence to
engage in a fishing activity (applicable to Alaska). Finally, the 1988 amendments
established the National Commission on Migrant Education to study issues related to
the education of migrant children.8
In response to the Commission’s report, the amendments of 1994 made two
important changes to the MEP.9 First, the definition of a migratory child was
extended to include unaccompanied minors who are themselves migrant workers or
who are married to a migrant worker, as well as those under the legal guardianship
of a migrant worker. Second, eligibility was restricted to those moving in the last 3
years (where previously it was 5 years).
Student Records Transfer
To enumerate migrant students and move records between schools, Congress
established the Migrant Student Records Transfer System (MSRTS) through the
Education Amendments of 1974. Prior to that time, data from the Department of
Labor were used to determine the number of eligible migratory children for purposes
of calculating state allocations. The 1994 amendments eliminated the use of the
MSRTS because of its high cost and alleged ineffectiveness.
6Education Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-380).
7Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-297).
8The results of this study are discussed in detail in the final section of this report. National
Commission on Migrant Education. Invisible Children: A Portrait of Migrant Education
in the United States. Washington 1992.
9Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-382).

---

CRS-4
The 1994 amendments also charged the ED with developing a new system for
counting and keeping track of migrant students. To this end, the Migrant School
Locator Demonstration Project was established and pointed to the feasibility of using
the Internet to count migrant students and locate student information.10 Compared
to the MSRTS, the locator project simply coordinates operations run at the state
level. This decentralized approach does not send actual educational records from one
school system to another; rather, it helps SEAs and LEAs verify the correct student
and contact information for the school in which the student had been previously
enrolled. By the 1997-1998 school year, eight states were participating in the project.
Further, the 1994 amendments provided funds for improving this type of inter-
and intra-state coordination among educational agencies and ensuring the linkage of
migrant student records systems across agencies. The ED awarded discretionary
grants to SEAs, LEAs, institutions of higher education, and other public and private
nonprofit entities to support such agency coordination. In the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLBA), up to $10 million can be reserved for these and other
coordination activities.11
Funding Formula
The NCLBA also modified the funding formula for the first time in many years.
Since the program’s inception, the formula has been based on the product of each
states’ share of migratory students and a fraction of its per-pupil expenditure (PPE).12
FY2002 appropriations will be allocated to states in much the same manner as in the
past; however, in subsequent fiscal years, the formula will be pegged to the FY2002
state distribution. From FY2003 forward, states will receive the same amount they
received in FY2002 plus a share of any additional appropriations.
For FY2002, then, each state will be entitled to an amount equal to the number
of migrant children multiplied by 40% of the average PPE in the state, with the
resulting amount not to be less than 32% and not greater than 48% of average PPE
in the U.S.13 In subsequent fiscal years, appropriations above the FY2002 level will
be allocated based on the same formula, but with updated (and slightly modified)
enrollment figures.
Specifically, the FY2002 formula uses an adjusted estimate of the number of full-
time equivalent (FTE) migratory children residing in the state during the school year
10Migrant Student Locator Demonstration Project. Report on the Findings from the
Migrant/Mobile School Locator Demonstration Project, April 1998. Available on-line:
[http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/MEP/PrelimGuide/locator.html].
11Additionally, the NCLBA requires that SEA report cards on pupil performance be
disaggregated by a number of student characteristics, including migrant status.
12Although the definition of a “migratory student” (as was discussed earlier) and the fraction
of the PPE has evolved over time, the basic formula has remained the same.
13The PPE used in the case of Puerto Rico differs slightly.

---

CRS-5
as well as during the summer and inter-session.14 Thereafter, the formula for
distributing appropriations over the FY2002 level uses an unadjusted count of the
number of migratory children residing in the state during the previous year plus the
number receiving services under the MEP in summer or inter-session during the
previous year.
Estimates of migratory student enrollment have always been difficult to obtain.
Thus, even though the MSRTS was eliminated in 1994, current counts of migratory
students partially rely on that year’s MSRTS enrollment estimates. The NCLBA
amendments are intended to end this practice after the FY2002 allocations. The hold
harmless language is meant to mitigate any drastic redistribution that may occur as a
result.
If funding is insufficient to pay in full the amounts for which all states are eligible,
the Secretary may ratably reduce the amount allocated to each state. In the case of
states receiving grants of $1,000,000 or less, the Secretary will consult with the state
agency to determine if a consortium arrangement would be most beneficial to service
delivery.15
Funding History
Table 1 shows the funding history for MEP since FY1980. These figures
indicate that funding for MEP has generally and incrementally increased from year to
year. However, after adjusting for inflation, the funding for MEP has actually
declined an estimated 17.4% from $479,293,500 in FY1980 (expressed in FY2002
dollars) to $396,000,000 in FY2002.16
The distribution of MEP appropriations among the states has remained quite
stable over time. Three states — California, Texas, and Florida — have traditionally
received the majority of the funds available for state distribution. In FY1980, Texas
received 27% of these funds, followed by California at 22% and Florida at 8%.
California received 31% of the FY2001 funds, followed by Texas at 14% and Florida
at 7%.17
14These FTE estimates are based in part on “[s]tate-specific factors [that] were developed
from calendar year 1994 MSRTS data, and represent each State’s reported FTEs as a
fractional proportion of the unique count of those children who generated FTEs.”
Memorandum from ED, Director of the Office of Migrant Education to state directors of
migrant education.
15ED was also directed to develop a funding mechanism that accurately reflects the cost
factors involved in conducting different types of summer programs, such as school-based
versus home-based programs. The focus on summer programs is due to the wide variation
in the cost of these programs compared to school-year programs.
16A GDP deflator was used to adjust the 1980 figure to FY2002 constant dollars.
17The data source used for these state grant figures were taken from tables released by the
Budget Office of the Department of Education.

---

CRS-6
Table 1. ESEA Title I Migrant Education Program
Appropriations, FY1980-FY2002
Fiscal year
Appropriation
Percentage change (year to year)
1980
$245,000,000
—
1981
$266,400,000
8.73
1982
$255,744,000
-4.00
1983
$255,744,000
0.00
1984
$258,024,000
0.89
1985
$264,524,000
2.52
1986
$253,149,000
-4.30
1987
$264,524,000
4.49
1988
$269,029,000
1.70
1989
$271,700,000
0.99
1990
$282,444,000
3.95
1991
$294,592,000
4.30
1992
$308,298,000
4.65
1993
$300,038,000
-2.68
1994
$302,458,000
0.81
1995
$305,475,000
1.00
1996
$305,474,000
0.00
1997
$305,473,000
0.00
1998
$305,473,000
0.00
1999
$354,689,000
16.11
2000
$354,689,000
0.00
2001
$380,000,000
7.14
2002
$396,000,000
4.21
Source: U.S. Department of Education.

---

CRS-7
Program Evaluations
National Commission on Migrant Education
Congress ordered a major evaluation of the MEP through the ESEA
amendments of 1988.18 This law established the National Commission on Migrant
Education to study issues related to the education of migrant children. The
Commission released its report in September 1992.19
The highlights of the report focus on the changing population served by the
program, the difficulties faced by this population, indicators of their academic
achievement, and suggestions for improving the program. According to the study, the
migrant population has changed from predominantly U.S.-born children of agricultural
workers following crops, to a predominantly immigrant population whose parents are
or have recently been employed in agricultural work. Increasing numbers of new
farmworkers are young immigrant males, many of whom are unaccompanied minors.
Poverty, lack of English proficiency, parents and other family members with low
educational attainment, and isolation from the larger community all contribute to
difficulties migrant children face in integrating into the social mainstream and
obtaining comparable educational opportunities. As a consequence of these
challenges, the dropout rate for students in the MEP is estimated to be several times
higher than the national average.
The Commission’s report concluded that while the MEP has changed and
expanded in scope since 1966, the students served by this program are often
overlooked. And further, the program has been significantly underfunded: the
Commission noted that appropriations in 1991 were only 33% of full funding of the
formula in the legislation.
Post-Commission Evaluations
On the heels of the Commission report, Westat, Inc., under contract with the
ED, released a report which provided a breakdown of MEP participation, services,
and student achievement data for 1992-1993.20 A more recent Westat report was
released that focused on summer-term projects and produced similar results.
MEP participants were more likely to receive instructional services in reading
(96%) and math (87%) than in other instructional services such as science (57%) and
social science (48%). A substantial proportion received bilingual instruction (69%)
as well as a variety of non-instructional services including social work and outreach
(84%), transportation (78%), and meals (68%).
18Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-297).
19National Commission on Migrant Education. Invisible Children: A Portrait of Migrant
Education in the United States. Washington 1992.
20State Chapter 1 Migrant Participation and Achievement Information, 1992-1993.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education by Westat, Inc. Rockville, MD, 1993.

---

CRS-8
Performance data for students was gathered using various standardized, norm-
referenced tests.21 Generally, migrant students performed better in math than in
reading. However, the results indicate that migrant students were not faring well in
basic math and reading. With one exception, the results show that average scores for
students in each grade were below the 50th percentile.
21For more information on these tests see Harcourt Educational Measurement on-line at
[http://www.hbem.com].

---