BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
331 (Romero)
Hearing Date: 05/11/2009 Amended: 04/29/2009
Consultant: Dan Troy Policy Vote: ED 8-1
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 331 would make several modifications to the
Migrant Education Program (MEP). Specifically, the bill would
require:
The development and revision, as necessary, of the State
Master Plan for services to migrant students.
The master plan to include an evaluation and oversight
component to monitor operating agencies.
The collection and reporting of individual and aggregate
data for migrant students.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
develop a monitoring instrument operating agencies comply
with state and federal laws.
The SPI to ensure that local operating agencies provide
MEP services to migrant students in juvenile halls or other
alternative education settings.
Refunding applications for MEP providers to demonstrate
effectiveness.
The provision of documents in a language understandable
to the parent or guardian, when requested and practicable.
The provision of interpretation services at parent
advisory council meetings.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund
MEP local costs $1,100
$2,200 $2,200 Federal
MEP administration $700 $1,300 $1,300
Federal
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral to the
Suspense File.
The Migrant Education Program (MEP) was established by the
federal government in 1966 to address the educational needs of
mobile school-aged children whose family members doing seasonal
work, typically related to agriculture. The MEP is funded
entirely through federal funds and is intended to supplement the
core instructional services received during the regular school
day. The federal government allows broad flexibility for MEP
implementation. In California, services are provided through a
system of 23 regional centers operated either by county offices
of education or school districts.
For the 2008-09 fiscal year, the state received $129 million for
the program, of which approximately 65 percent is used to
augment instructional services for migrant pupils during the
regular school day, including the hiring of additional teachers,
tutors, aides,
Page 2
SB 331 (Romero)
and instructional materials. Remaining funds support
administrative costs, summer school/intersession programs, data
collection, health services, parental participation, and
professional development.
A 2006 report produced by the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO)
entitled "Improving Services for Migrant Students" identified
several concerns with the state's MEP operations. Specifically,
the LAO report indicated that current services lack
accountability, partly because the federal and state
accountability systems are focused on district and school
performance while the MEP is primarily county-based, and also
because there is inadequate collection and accessibility of data
on migrant students. Further, the LAO report noted a mismatch
between the state funding formula and the program priorities
reflected in state and federal law. The LAO recommended revising
the funding formula to a district-based model and also
recommended the development of a state-level data system that
would build on existing state systems. The latter system would
help ensure better program accountability.
Further, a 2007 Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) required by
federal law cited a lack of hard data as a concern and
recommended the state work to address the issue.
This bill would address some of the concerns raised in the CNA
and the LAO report, particularly in its requirements to augment
data collection and enhance the program's assessment component.
The bill would make various other changes intended to authorize
updates to the program and to increase the participation of
parents.
The bill would entail significant costs, both one-time and
ongoing. There would be costs to Department of Education for
revising the master plan, expanded program monitoring,
augmenting data systems, translations, technical assistance and
evaluations. There would also be significant local assistance
costs for local evaluations and interpretations. Further, while
the bill requires the provision of services of migrant youth in
alternative education programs, it should be noted that the
program is not currently funded at a rate that allows services
to be provided to every eligible child. It is estimated that
350,000 children are eligible but services are provided to only
210,000.