Page images
PDF
EPUB

One of the greatest needs of the migrant child is the continuity of instruction on an individualized basis. Since the ability to read is generally recognized as one of the most important factors in school success, a reading system designed to meet his individual needs is mandatory. The reading system must be one in which diagnosis, prescription, and evaluation are intrinsic components; one in which the various reading skills are stated in behavioral terms; one that demands mastery of skills; one that is implemented in the various states in which the child enrolls in school.

The Language Development program activity attempted to meet these criteria through the combination of an assessment system for diagnosing reading weaknesses and capabilities with a learning management system designed to help the individual pupil acquire reading and communication skills competence.

It consisted of approximately 450 identified skills necessary for reading and language competence, performance objectives for each of these skills, and diagnostic assessments designed to determine the individual pupil's mastery in each skill, as well as to pinpoint any weakness.

The system does not do the teaching. It helps to identify critical skills and define specific areas in which the teacher concentrates her teaching. It helps her discriminate between the merely adequate and the most effective curriculum materials at her disposal.

For the migrant child, the greatest advantages come from the removal of the failure element which has, in the past, relegated the migrant child to the lowest depth of the bell shaped curve and in the provision of individualized instruction.

Unfortunately, it is the same individualization which is such a boone to the migrant child that provides a handicap when it comes to the collection of data to establish the value of the system and when it comes to attempts to correlate progress made under the system with such signposts of progress as grade gains in reading.

While selection of participants and implementation of activities did not follow the basic criteria for inferential research, the following statements represent an effort to report the success factor of the Language Development program activity. Case No. I. Statements:

A total of 2,352 migrant students assessed in all (448) skills at all (five) levels demonstrated a mastery of 40 percent of them at the beginning of the program activity and at the conclusion (approximately 15 weeks) they demonstrated a mastery of 58 percent. Summary data is supplied in Table 23.

2. In Level I, which covers Sensorimotor Skills (visual, auditory, motor, and prerequisites to language learning); 13 percent showed need for skills mastery and 9.7 percent of skills mastery need was met. The total percentage gain (skills mastered after instruction) amounted to 72% in Level I. Summary data is supplied in Table 24.

3. In Level II, which covers Phonology Skills (the sound system of language); 32 percent showed need for skills mastery and 23 percent of skills mastery need was met. The total percentage gain (skills mastered after instruction) amounted to 73% in Level II. Summary data is supplied in Table 25.

4. In Level III, which covers Structural Analysis Skills (the system of word changes); 44.7 percent showed need for skills mastery and 20.1 percent of skills mastery need was met. The total percentage gain (skills mastered after instruction) amounted to 45% in Level III. Summary data is supplied in Table 26.

5. In Level IV, which covers Verbal Information Skills (the concept and Vocabulary of language); 51 percent showed need for skills mastery and 25.9 percent of skills mastery need was met. The total percentage gain (skills mastered after instruction) amounted to 51% in Level IV. Summary data is supplied in Table 27.

6. In Level V, which covers Syntax Skills (the grammatical structure of language); 37.5 percent showed need for skills mastery and 10.6 percent of skills mastery need was met. The total percentage gain (skills mastered after instruction) amounted to 18% in Level V. Summary data is supplied in Table 28. From the first figure in the above statements the percentage of migrant population showing skill need after assessment can be determined (a consideration for assessing overall program value on a large scale).

For the second figure, effectiveness of mastery gain is shown, which can be used, further analyze the reasons for smaller or larger gain at different levels and therefore serve as a basis for program improvement.

From the third figure, the ascending difficulty inherent in the hierarchy of skill arrangement can be readily seen.

TABLE 23.-CRITERION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM EVALUATION (COMPREHENSIVE)

[blocks in formation]

Note: Percent of gain: Skills mastered (M) after instruction (17,232–29,705), 58 percent; average number of students assessed in all skills at all levels. 2,352; Length of time program was implemented, approximately 15 weeks.

TABLE 24.-Criterion assessment program evaluation, level 1, (72 skills)

Total number of assessments administered__

Total number of skills not yet mastered (N*)

Total number of "P's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment---.
Total number of "N's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment..
Total number of skills mastered (M) after instruction (learning evalua-
tion-N)

50, 723

44, 239

6, 484

4, 700 1,784 72

Percentage of gain: Skills mastered (M) after instruction (4,700÷6,484)

TABLE 25.-Criterion assessment program evaluation, level II (24 skills) Total number of assessments administered__.

Total number of "P's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment__
Total number "N's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment--
Total number of skills mastered (M) after instruction (learning evalua-
tion-N/)

Total number of skills not yet mastered (N*).

Percentage of gain: Skills mastered (M) after instruction (5,071÷6,957)

21, 552 14,595 6, 957

5, 071 1,886 73

TABLE 26.—Criterion assessment program evaluation, level III (49 skills) Total number of assessments administered__

Total number of "P's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment-
Total number of "N's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment..

25, 642

14, 179

Total number of skills mastered (M) after instruction (learning evaluation-N/)

11, 463

5, 134

Total number of skills not yet mastered (N*).

6, 329

Percent of gain: skills mastered (M) after instruction (5,134÷11,463) __

45

TABLE 27.-Criterion assessment program evaluation level IV (42 skills) Total number of assessments administered__

Total number of skills not yet mastered (N*)-

Total number of "P's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment_---
Total number of "N's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment----
Total number of skills mastered (M) after instruction (learning evalua-
tion -N/).

8, 737

4, 278

4, 459

2, 264 2,195

Percent of gain: Skills mastered (M) after instruction (2,264÷4,459) __.

51

TABLE 28.-Criterion assessment program evaluation, level V (51 skills) Total number of assessments administered__

Total number of "P's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment--.
Total number of "N's" received on diagnostic outcome assessment----
Total number of skills mastered (M) after instruction (Learning Evalua-
tion -N/).

Total number of skills not yet mastered (N*)

Percentage of gain: Skills mastered (M) after instruction (63÷342)-

950

608

342

63

279

18

KANSAS STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TOPEKA, KANS.

As a representative of a small receiver state, it is felt that continued funding for this fiscal year at the minimum of last years level must be restored to all states because the cuts made without sufficient warning are going to cause a great deal of direct and indirect hardship to the Migrant children; the principal object of our National and Interstate concern.

It is our concern to attempt to adequately inform you about our program and its need for continuation as a state operated program and funded under a separate category. Full funding must continue as in the past in order to assure that quality programs will be available for Migrant children as long as their parents continue to migrate in search of improved economic opportunity. Catagorical aid must be continued in this manner even though it may still be under the umbrella of Title I because delegation of responsibility of setting up these programs to Local School Districts might not be continued with the same amount of con. cern as the coordinated efforts developed by State Migrant Directors toward improvement of programs and correlation of curriculum in order to provide a continueum for the Migrant child in his movement from school to school, district to district and state to state.

This for state operation has been very real to us in Kansas because in one case in western Kansas, a school district had been accused of misusing the Migrant Education funds; they were later exonerated after Federal investigation but the defensiveness and spirit of retaliation toward Migrants in general engendered by the allegations moved the community to press the School Board to relinquish the program even though the local school board were willing to consider continuation of the undertaking.

The program was replaced after an area non-profit organization was willing to undertake the project. This organization was the Kansas Council of Agriculture Workers and Low Income Families, Inc. It was established in a closed down parochial school that was obtained even after lengthy discussion and convincing with the local priest and his parish council. They too, were under community pressure but the amount of rental payment on the use along with a few moralistic quotations from the Bible helped to convince them that it was the right thing to do. Successful and productive results of last year's summer program also helped prove to them that they had made the right decision in allowing the Kansas Council the use of their facility.

In Kansas we conduct programs during peak periods of Migrant influx into our state which is usually from the first of June to mid-July. Our programs are from six to eight weeks. This year, due to the cutback, we are being forced to limit all our programs to six weeks even though the children will still be in the area and in need of some type of educational activity that will hopefully help them in bringing the educational gaps that exist due to their migrancy. Some facts to consider about the Migrant children in Kansas and throughout the nation are the following:

1. Migrant children have no local school district that they can call their own .. the Nation is their school district. They are not very long at ony one given place and consequently their parents are not anyone's permanent or stable, political, social, economic or educational constituancy. They could very easily be lost because they constitute only about one million of the 299 million population of the United States. Numerically speaking, they are not a great number but they do have grave and dramatic educational needs.

2. Migrant Children are usually found in rural areas of our states, since their parents are and must be employed in agriculturally connected work in order to qualify. Title I funds are used with priorities in mind, and unique needs such as Bilingual Education in Kansas, since about 95 percent of our participants are

Mexican American or Spanish speaking would not be addressed to. A lack of bilingual teachers or teachers aides could and would hinder the educational growth of the Spanish speaking child. The educational assets and abilities that he can express in his home language would not be capitalized on by a monolingual English speaking person.

3. Migrant Children are usually members of a family group and consequently would never end up on the aid to dependent children rolls, except in time of dire need. The ADC is often used as one method of identifying the Title I child, so many times he ends up not being counted, but still in need of the services. Title I would again be hard pressed to provide services for the Migrant child because he may not have generated any funds at the time the count may have been made.

4. Migrant Children are and can very often be innocent victims, along with the farmer, of one of the most whimsical and unpredictable traits of nature-the weather. If the weather is unfavorable for work by his parents, they may choose to move on, thereby further interrupting and unwillingly hindering the child's educational progress growth.

Despite the belief that Migrant parents are not very concerned about the education of their children, in one instance in Kansas, two separate families chose to stay in the area of Piper, Kansas, the two additional weeks of the 8 weeks summer school, just so that their children could take advantage of the educational program available to them last summer.

Someone must be their advocates and someone must understand their plight. We have called upon each other, as State Directors, to call upon you to consider Migrant Children needs and to support our National and Interstate efforts toward the betterment of the Migrant Children's future. We must continue to fully support and fund the educational programs for the children of "The Hands That Feed U.S." They are the Nation's Children-they are the Nation's Responsibility.

STATEMENT OF JESSE M. SORIANO, SUPERVISOR, MICHIGAN MIGRANT EDUCATION PROGRAM, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Michigan agriculture is big business. This is attested to by the fact that Michigan is one of the largest users of migrant farm labor in the nation. It is often referred to as the largest receiving state. In order that the richness of Michigan's land be realized, forty to fifty thousand farm laborers come into the State, arriving as early as March and remaining until December.

Coming predominantly from the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, they bring with them their Spanish-speaking children. They are children who until now have been destined to fail in our schools. They are children who are often seen as outsiders by our local communities. Many local communities feel little or no responsibility for them.

In spite of their Texas residency, they are children who can hardly call any one place their home. They, more than any other group, can rightfully be called the children of a nation. They are the children of Michigan, of Ohio, of Texas, of Florida, of Montana. They are children of every state in which their parents must toil.

Our Congress recognized this in 1966 by amending Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The educational responsibility of migrant children could not be left solely to the states or the local schools. It was and remains a national, an interstate responsibility.

Specifics regarding the educational needs of migrant children-their linguistic differences, their cultural differences, their lack of educational continuityhave been documented countless numbers of times. Michigan, with the use of Title I ESEA Migrant funds, has tried to meet these needs. Upwards of seven thousand migrant children were enrolled in this past summer's migrant education programs; more than three thousand were enrolled in the fall and spring of the regular school year (Exhibit A).

In an attempt to remedy the lack of continuity, Michigan migrant education programs have provided a uniform language arts program. Curriculum materials, designed specifically for migrant children, have been developed and are in use in all of the State's migrant education programs. These materials have also been disseminated nationally. An additional element providing continuity for Michigan migrant education programs is the requirement that all education pro

grams operate in accordance with Michigan's Common Goals of Education and its six-step Educational Accountability Model (Exhibits B and C). Recognizing the need for supportive services, programs have attempted to provide a sound nutritional program and an adequate health care program.

While it is difficult to evaluate the educational success of such short-term programs, where children come and go without giving notice, the data submitted by several programs has indicated that migrant children in Michigan's summer programs are making substantial progress in improving their reading abilities and their language facility. One area, for example, showed an average gain of 10.4 months over a twenty-day period using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; two-thirds of their students showed a minimum of two years' gain on the reading section of the Wide Range Achievement Test. Specifically-developed tests from the Michigan Migrant Education Center and a science-oral language project at Michigan State University also showed gains in language arts achievement.

Doubly difficult to evaluate in the program is that which takes place in those areas commonly referred to as the affective domain. However, based on observation reports by teachers, on interviews with migrant parents, and on such measures as the Vineland Social Maturity Scale, we can assume that migrant children are changing their attitudes about school, about themselves, and about their chances for success.

The effects of migrant education in Michigan, however, do not stop with the effects on children themselves. In Michigan it is migrant education which has provided the impetus in getting the State and many local schools to recognize the needs of the Spanish-speaking population. It is migrant education which has provided the means for developing curriculum materials and teacher training programs necessary in dealing with migrant children, specifically bilingual migrant children. It is the migrant education program which, more than any other, has offered migrant parents their first opportunity for becoming meaningfully involved with schools. It is migrant education programs which, in any communities, have become the catalyst for creating a greater spirit of cooperation and understanding between migrant and local residents. A demonstration of the concern being generated is the creation of the Governor's State Interagency Committee on Migrant Problems; education is a major focus for that committee.

In Michigan, as in the rest of the nation however, there still remains much to be done. Education programs for migrants must be made more comprehensive; they must be extended to include infant day care as well as adult and career education. The present Title I ESEA Migrant legislation does not make allowances for that. Of great importance in Michigan as in all of the Midwest-migrant education presently does not adequately provide for the increasing number of migrants who are remaining as residents. Every year Michigan schools are faced with increasing enrollments of migrant children whose parents have chosen to remain, and every year schools find themselves unprepared to meet the needs of those children. The recently settled migrant also has unique needs and must be provided with those educational opportunities for developing skills necessary to achieve a standard of living commensurate with the rest of the nation.

It is safe to assume that whatever progress has been made in migrant education would not have occurred, nor will it continue, without benefit of federal funds. State legislatures and local schools, given their own priorities and concerns, may not respond to the needs of migrants. Neither should we expect other federally-funded education programs to respond. Regulated as they are by their respective criteria or guidelines, they cannot, and have not, adequately served migrant children.

In summary, the following statements should be viewed not only as a summary conclusion about Migrant Education in Michigan, but also about Migrant Education nationally.

1. There is some imperical evidence already identified which indicates that migrant children, provided the types of programs that are supported by Federal funds, will achieve effective gains in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains of learning; however, as indicated on page 16 of the program activities report of January 16, 1973 shown as exhibit A, the final phase of a study to determine migrant pupil achievement more accurately, needs to be effectuated.

2. Continued categorical funding is needed and legislation more comprehensive then that which presently exists must be enacted. Furthermore, the inter-state nature of the migrant population as well as the need for national program continuity would seem to indicate the State Departments of Education are the appropriate agencies to administer and implement migrant education programs.

« PreviousContinue »