 |
 |
|
|
Please Note: Due to the number of charts and graphs in this Publication, it may take several moments to load. |
Patterns and Trends In By Mazin A. Heiderson, Ph.D. and Edgar R. Leon, Ph.D. November 1996
Statistical Briefs of the Julian Samora Research Institute are designed to provide facts and figures on Latinos of the Midwest. The data presented are those of the author(s) and are intended for use in further public policy research. The Julian Samora Research Institute is a unit of the Colleges of Social Sciences and Agriculture & Natural Resources at Michigan State University.
Suggested Citation Heiderson, Mazin A. and Edgar R. Leon. Patterns and Trends in Michigan Migrant Education. JSRI Statistical Brief No. 8, the Julian Samora Research Institute. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. November 1996.
Acknowledgement This publication was produced in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Education's Migrant Education Program. For additional information or clarification of statistics contained in this paper, contact:
Table of Contents
The State of Michigan through the Michigan Department of Education began operating a Migrant Education Program in 1966. Under this federally-funded program, school districts or nonprofit agencies received funds to operate supplementary educational programs for the children of migratory agricultural workers or migratory fishers. Typically, these educational services may include instruction in reading, math, oral language, English as a second language, and tutoring in other school subjects. In addition, the children get supportive services such as medical and dental screening and referral, career guidance, transportation to and from school, emergency clothing and coordination of food services provided by other programs. Day care may be provided to preschools to free their school age siblings from babysitting duties. Unlike the regular school, migrant education operates during the summer as well as the school year. Generally, summer programs serve a larger number of migratory children than school year programs, however, enrollments are substantial in fall and spring corresponding with planting and harvest employment of their parents. Data presented in this publication is mostly from the 1989 to the 1995 service cycles. Each cycle comprises a school year and the following summer, e.g., 1989 is made up of the 1988-89 school year plus the summer of 1989. The federal funding cycle (Fiscal Year) is not the same. The Fiscal Year begins July 1 of one year and ends on June 30 of the following year. Both cycles are a full year. However, the service cycle is the regular school year plus the following summer vacation The data portray the funding for migrant education in Michigan and the nation. They describe the number and percentage of migratory children in the 10 largest states. Other tables, charts, and figures show a breakdown of Michigan migratory children by sex, ethnicity/race, qualifying migrant activity (agriculture and fishing), and migrant status (mobile and settled-out). In addition, Michigan migratory children are identified by home base state and by migratory pattern (interstate and intrastate). Interstate migrants move between states or countries; intrastate migrants move within one state. The monthly and seasonal movement of migratory children in Michigan is also described. Data are presented on the age/grade distribution of migratory children served in Michigan by season (regular school year and summer). Finally, several maps show the location and type of local migrant education programs in the state for the past three years and a map of the six regional identification and recruitment projects. In sum, this statistical brief accounts for the recent patterns and trends in Michigan Migrant Education. Data alone do not illustrate problems. But through a better understanding of migrant education, there is a clearer picture of the needs and issues of migrant children and their education. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix
Michigan Agriculture The second leading industry, agriculture, contributed nearly $3.4 billion to the state's economy in 1994. The processing component of agriculture added another $4 billion. Cash sales of crops and livestock contributed $3.4 billion to the total. In 1994 approximately 10.7 million acres were used for farming, supporting about 52,000 farmers. More than 60 major commercial crops are produced each season. Nationally, Michigan ranks among the top three producers of 20 different crops. Michigan's "number one" crops include black turtle beans, cranberry beans, navy beans, other dry beans, blueberries, tart cherries, cucumbers for pickles, geraniums, Easter lilies, and hanging flowers. Michigan is the second largest producer of all dry beans, celery, bedding plants, gladiola, other lilies, and summer potatoes. It is the third largest producer of asparagus, dark kidney beans, snap beans and carrots. The state is the fourth producer of apples, small white dry beans, sweet cherries, fresh cucumbers, floriculture, concord grapes, prunes and plums, and tomatoes. Michigan ranks fifth in the production of light red kidney beans, all grapes, mohair, mushrooms, fresh bell peppers, poinsettias, and sugar beets. It is sixth in the production of cauliflower, maple syrup, milk sherbet, pears, and spearmint (see "List of Crops" on page 3). Michigan's livestock and poultry industry accounts for about half of total cash receipts from farming. In 1995, the state's inventory of livestock was 1.2 million head of cattle with a value of $894 million. During 1994 chicken and egg production value was $52.2 million with eggs accounting for 97% of the total poultry production value. The state inventory of 1.25 million hogs and pigs in 1994 was valued at $184 million. In 1994, there were 95,000 sheep and lambs with a value of $4.2 million with an additional $311,000 for wool production. Michigan ranked seventh nationally in milk production and 10th in ice cream production in 1994. The 328,000 head of dairy cows produced 5.5 billion pounds of milk. The state's commercial trout farms produced 942,000 pound valued at $2.32 million making it seventh in the nation. Michigan also ranked seventh in the production of honey. In 1994, the state produced 7.7 million pounds of honey valued at $4.3 million.
Michigan Forestry Forests cover 50% (19.3 million acres) of Michigan's total land area. They are used for both industry and recreation. The total timberland, or forest lands capable of producing commercial timber, cover 95% of Michigan's total forested lands. Hardwoods cover 75% of the of the timberlands and softwoods cover the remaining 25%. Michigan has the 5th largest timberlands acreage in the continental United States. Timberlands ownership in the state is as follows: 57% private noncommercial, 21% state, 14% federal, and 8% commercial forest industry Michigan's forests contribute significantly to the state's economy. Forest-based industries (wood products industry, tourism, and recreation) support nearly 150,000 jobs statewide while contributing $10 billion to the state's economy. The wood products industry provides 75% of the economic value of the state's forests while forest-based tourism and recreation make up the remaining 25%. Michigan residents use 800 million cubic feet of wood products annually. This is nearly equals the 830 million cubic feet of timber grown each year of the total timberlands. Annual timber harvest are about 350 million cubic feet, or just under half the annual timber growth and resident consumption of wood products.
Michigan Fisheries Michigan borders four of the five Great Lakes, which collectively comprise the largest body of fresh water in the world. In addition, Michigan has over 10,000 inland lakes, and 36,000 miles of rivers and streams. Approximately 2 million individuals, including nearly 400,000 nonresidents purchase licenses to sport fish in Michigan each year. About one-third of Michigan anglers fish on the Great Lakes, while 45% fish inland lakes and 20% fish rivers and streams. Spending by sport fishermen in Michigan amounts to $1.7 billion, not including investments in boats, cottages, and real estate. The Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair, Houghton Lake, and Higgins Lake are intensively fished. Michigan is third in the nation in fishing licenses sold and first in the number of nonresident fishing. Each year Michigan commercial fishermen take nearly 16 million pounds of fish from the Great Lakes, worth $10 million. Fish processing and marketing adds another $9 million to the state's economy. Whitefish account for about three-quarters of the total value. Native Americans fish in the northern parts of Lakes Michigan and Huron and eastern Lake Superior. State-Licensed fishermen are primarily restricted to northern Green Bay in Lake Michigan and Saginaw Bay in Lake Huron. This general overview of Michigan agriculture, forestry, and fisheries underscores the rich diversity of seasonal employment in the state and the ways migrant workers add value to a number of different products. All combined, the industries of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries are of significant importance to the wealth of Michigan's economy. As highlighted in the list on the ensuing page, numerous state jobs are available to migrant workers.
Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Since mid-1960's, the Migrant Education Law has changed in significant ways. Authorized in 1966, Migrant Education Program (MEP) is part of a much larger federally funded program, the 1965 Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA), designed to help low achieving poor children in the nation's schools. Since its inception, the MEP has gone through 10 renditions culminating in the 1994 ESEA amendment known as Improving America's Schools Act. At the beginning of 1966, only 5 to 17-year-olds who had moved in the last twelve months (currently migratory) with their migratory agricultural worker parents were eligible for program services. The 1968 amendment extended services to formerly migratory children (those who moved, then settled-out) for a total of six years. The 1972 changes gave currently migratory children priority and allowed but did not fund services to preschoolers. In 1974, the program was expanded again to include the children of migratory fishers. The Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS) was funded directly as a grant in 1978. Before that, MSRTS was indirectly funded through state migrant education directors. The 1988 amendment extended eligibility to children ages 3-21 and added the children of migratory dairy workers. Currently migratory preschoolers remained unfunded, but were given service priority over formerly migratory school age children. Changes in 1994 abolished MSRTS and returned its functions to the States. Services to formerly migratory children (now called "settled-out") was reduced to a total of three years. Mobile and settled-out children received the same funding, but the service priority shifted to low achieving children whose schooling was disrupted by the migratory lifestyle. The latest changes tied the MEP more closely to State and national school reforms and student performance standards. The hallmark of this comprehensive approach became the consolidated State and local program applications that sought to unify program goals and increase their joint effects. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 To serve the educational needs of migratory children in the state, Michigan has used grants from the federal government to deploy about 60 local migrant education programs in areas with significant concentration of migratory children. Figure A, and Figures I and J in the Appendix, describe the location and type of local migrant education programs in Michigan. As these maps indicate, the majority of children and projects are in the western part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, what might be termed the lower and upper fruit and vegetable belts. A smaller pocket of programs exists in the Saginaw Valley, and the rest of the programs are dispersed widely. Fluctuations in the number of local migrant education programs reflects variations in agricultural activities from year to year as well as program consolidations to gain economics of scale in program operations. Figure B shows the location of licensed agricultural labor camps, which roughly correspond to the location of migrant education programs in Fig. A The 1994 amendment to the Migrant Education Law allowed and even encouraged consolidated approaches to the education of migratory children. In 1996, eleven local migrant education programs chose to operate under consolidated applications. In addition, Michigan funds six regional identification and recruitment projects covering the entire State to locate and serve migratory children not identified or served by local projects (Fig. C). The regional projects also help to enter data, distribute materials and conduct training workshops in their geographic areas. The Upper Peninsula does not have any agricultural labor camps.
Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Tables 9-15 (Appendix), and Charts 1-6, report the age or grade of migratory children served by Michigan migrant education programs since 1990. For each year, the service is further broken down by season: regular school year and summer. In addition, the counts for 1989-94 report the classification of children by currently or formerly migratory. These categories were dropped with the October 1994 changes in the law. The overwhelming majority of migratory children in Michigan are in grade 6 or below. More specifically, about two-thirds of school year children are in grade 6 or below, and three-quarters of the children during the summer fall within that range. Grades K-4 account for most of the children in the elementary school range. The 1994 amendment to ESEA included Title I-Part A-Basic Programs Helping Disadvantaged Children Meet High Standards, Part B-Even Start Family Literacy and Part C-Education of Migratory Children. Other sections include Title II-Eisenhower Professional Development Programs (Science & Math), Title III-Technology Acquisition Programs, Title IV-Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities and Title VII-Bilingual Education. As with previous reauthorizations, the legislation extended for five years programs funded under the 1965 Elementary & Secondary Education Act. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program Before a child can receive services through the migrant education program, his or her eligibility is determined by filling out a Michigan Family Certificate of Eligibility (COE). The COE is a legal document completed by a migrant education recruiter on behalf of a local or regional migrant education program. The COE (Fig. D) contains basic biographical data on a migrant family as well as some health and education data. It is the source for federal funding decisions about migrant education to the states. Recruiters receive training in the rules governing eligibility and they get various job aids to help them do their work. Among those is the Recruiter's Guide to Qualifying Migrant Work in Michigan (Fig. E). A simple decision procedure (Fig. F) is used to determine basic eligibility by a migrant education recruiter. Those who qualify then receive instructional and support services from a local or regional migrant education program. Five key terms are important in this process: 1. Qualifying Activity: Any temporary or seasonal agricultural or fishing work can be considered as long as it constitutes a principal means of livelihood. 2. Agricultural Work: Any activity related to the production or processing of crops, forestry, dairy production, poultry, livestock or fish farms for initial commercial sale or subsistence. 3. Fishing Work: Any activity related to catching or processing of fish or shellfish for initial commercial sale or personal subsistence. 4. Temporary Employment: Work related to agricultural or fishing activities lasting less than 12 months. 5. Seasonal Employment: Work related to agricultural or fishing activities that depend on the natural cycles of the earth, typically the four seasons.
Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Michigan operates the Migrant Education in accordance with federal law and adheres to its goals and requirements. The purpose of Title I, Part C - Education of Migratory Children of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 is to assist States to: 1. Support high-quality comprehensive educational programs for migratory children to help reduce the educational disruptions and other problems that result from repeated moves; 2. Ensure that migratory children are provided with appropriate educational services (including supportive services) that address their special needs in a coordinated and efficient manner; 3. Ensure that migratory children have the opportunity to meet the same challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards that all children are expected to meet; 4. Design programs to help migratory children overcome educational disruption, cultural and language barriers, social isolation, various health-related problems, and other factors that inhibit the ability of such children to do well in school, and to prepare such children to make a successful transition to post secondary education or employment; and 5. Ensure that migratory children benefit from State and local systemic reforms. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Michigan's position Within the National Scene In the last eight years (1989-1996), national funding for Migrant Education has hovered around three hundred million dollars. During the same period, Michigan's share has fluctuated narrowly from $8-12 million averaging $10,954,498. As Table 1 and Chart 7 show, Michigan has received between 3 to 4% of the national allocation averaging 3.8%.
Charts 8 reveals that Michigan is fifth of the top 10 states serving migrant children. Chart 8, in particular, shows that the budget allocation for the leading states for 1993. Chart 9 provides a count of children for the 10 leading states in 1993. Only four states have more migrant children: California, Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico. The top 10 states have three-quarters (75%) of the children and get almost the same proportion of the money (74.1%). Michigan gets a slightly higher proportion (Chart 9) of the money (4.1%) than the proportion of children (3.5%) warrants, because a higher percentage of Michigan migrant children are currently migratory, and the allocation was weighted in favor of the mobile children. Puerto Rico does not fit the proportional funding rules, because it gets funded according to special rules applicable to this state alone.
Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Despite common perceptions that more females than males would be enrolled in Migrant Education programs, the proportions are almost even with a slight edge for males. Approximately half of Michigan migrant children are male and half are female with a slight edge for the males (51.6% to 48.4%). The proportions are almost identical for the national picture (Chart 10 and Table 2). The overwhelming majority (98.6%) of Michigan migrant children accompany their migratory agricultural parents while only a small proportion 1.4% move because with their migratory fisher parents.
During the past seven years (1989-95), the ethnic/racial breakdown of Michigan migrant children has averaged 72.7% Hispanic, 15% White, 6.3% Unreported, 2.8% American Indian, 2.2% Black and 1% Asian (Chart 11 and Table 3). The national data is slightly different with more Hispanics and Asians, and fewer American Indians.
Actually, Michigan's Hispanic migratory children are closer to the national picture, because the unreported category is probably all Hispanic. In 1995, the ethnic/racial data was collected by local migrant education programs. Consequently, the unreported category disappeared and the Hispanic category increased to 77.9%, which is almost identical to the national picture of 79.8% Hispanic. Michigan has ninth largest American Indian population estimated at 54,000. Treaty rights give American Indians fishing privileges not available to the general population. Indians migrate to fish and log in the upper Great Lakes region. In Michigan, migratory fishers are mostly Native Americans along the Great Lakes in the upper part of the Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula. The national picture for qualifying activity is close, but not identical to Michigan (Chart 12 and Table 4).
As defined by law, settled-out migratory children may be served by Migrant Education for a total of three years: the year of the qualifying move and an additional two years. Until 1995, settled-out migratory children were eligible for a total of six years. Data from 1989-1994 (Chart 13 and Table 5) shows that Michigan's migrant children were about two-thirds (64.3%) currently migratory and one-third (35.7%) formerly migratory. This profile differs significantly from the national picture in one important way: Michigan has more "current" migratory children enrolled compared to the nation 64.3% vs. 43.1%, respectively. Starting in 1995, the data on migrant students is not collected by the categories of currently and formerly migratory and the eligibility was shortened for settled-out children from 6 to 3 years. As a result of this change, Michigan lost eligibility for about a fifth (21.5%) of the formerly migratory children.
Generally speaking, since 1989 Michigan has had a steady flow of migratory children in its Migrant Education program. Annual fluctuations in the number of children served reflect changes in agricultural activities and recruiting effectiveness. The economic and agricultural situation in sending states and countries (Mexico) has an effect on the number of migrant laborers coming to Michigan. International agreements, like NAFTA, also play a part. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns The vast majority of migrant children in Michigan count four states as their home base (Chart 14). In descending order these four are: Michigan 51.8%, Texas 29.3%, Florida 12.3% and Mexico 3.1%. Together the above four home base states accounted for 96.5% of migrant children in Michigan in 1994.
Reduction in the years of eligibility in 1994 from six to three years meant that fewer settled-out migratory children are eligible for services. Table 6 does not have a row for 1995 because migratory children were not reported by migrant status (mobile and settled-out) from 1995 onward. The step-down in eligibility because of the 1994 changes alter the mix slightly but not significantly. The new percentages for home base become: Michigan 40%, Texas 32.5%, Florida 13.7% and Mexico 3.5%. Just as important are the number of children whose home base is reported as Texas but is in reality Mexico. A clue to this miscount is the number of children from Texas whose home address is given as a post office box in Texas. If this were verified, it would increase by at least a third the number of children with a Mexico home base making it 4.7% and reducing Texas home base students to 31.4%. About eight out of 10 (78.4%) currently migratory children in Michigan are interstate migrants and the rest (21.6%) are intrastate migrants (Chart 15 and Table 6).
Nationally about seven out of 10 migrant children are interstate migrants. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Monthly Patterns of Enrollment Migratory children do not have a summer vacation, but they have a chance to catch up on school work in the summer. Chart 16 and Table 7 illustrate the monthly and seasonal movement of currently migratory children in Michigan by showing enrollments and withdrawals for currently migratory children in 1993. Over two-thirds (72%) of the movement occurs during the summer and one-third (28%) during the school year.
Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix
Health Overview Migratory farm and seasonal workers and their families have poorer health than the general population. Infant mortality is twice as high and life expectancy is 26 years shorter on average (49 years compared to 75 years). Migratory children suffer chronic health conditions at three times the national rate (10.9% vs. 3%). Common health problems among migrants include lower anthropometric attainments such as lower height and weight, respiratory disease, parasitic conditions, skin infections, chronic diarrhea, and vitamin A deficiency. They also include undiagnosed congenital and developmental problems. Agriculture is the most dangerous occupation in the country. According to a 1992 General Accounting Office Report about 23,800 children and adolescents were injured on farms between 1979 and 1983; 300 deaths resulted from these injuries. About a quarter of all farm labor in the U.S. is performed by children. Studies show that about one-third of migratory children work on farms to help their families earn money. They may not be hired as laborers but the are in the fields to help their parents or because child care is not available. Migratory children are at high risk from farm injuries and pesticide poisoning. Farm accidents include falling from heights, drowning, and injuries from implements, equipment, and vehicles. Pesticide exposure causes a variety of problems (touching residues, breathing the air, drinking the water, and eating the food) up to and including death. Lack of adequate sanitation (for washing, drinking water, and toilets) aggravates these problems. Children are more susceptible than adults because they absorb more pesticides per body weight and their developing nervous systems and organs are more vulnerable. Poverty among migratory families leads to poor nutrition, poor sanitation, and chronic illnesses. Children usually suffer from vitamin A, calcium, and iron deficiencies. Closely related to malnutrition and poverty are parasitic infestations. Among migrant children, these include bacterial, protozoan, viral, and worm infections. Parasitic infections among migrants are at least 11 times higher than the general population. Respiratory diseases also plague migrant farm workers. These include tuberculosis, pneumonia, asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Death rates from influenza and pneumonia are at least 20 times higher among migrants that the rest of the population. Dental caries is another very common health problem among migratory children. Up to one-fifth of migrant children suffer from acute dental problems and they visit a dentist less frequently than other children. In addition, some health problems of the general population are filtering down to migrant workers and their families. These include teen pregnancy, domestic violence, alcohol abuse, and HIV infections. Language barriers, lack of formal education, and fear of discovery by immigration officials further compound treatment and prevention of simple as well as serious health problems in this population.
Migrant Health Centers The U.S. Health Service through Community and Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the Homeless, and the Public Housing Primary Care Program provides comprehensive family-oriented primary health services to medically under served, disadvantaged populations experiencing financial, geographic or cultural barriers to care. In Fiscal Year 1992, about 7 million people (535,000 were migrant and seasonal farm workers) received health care services through these programs at 2,000 sites. Much of the health care is provided by the National Health Service Corps, which recruits and deploys health care providers to serve in rural and urban areas that have been federally designated as health professional shortage areas. For 20 years, the National Health Service Corps has been a model of community service in exchange for educational scholarships for health professional students and loan repayments for primary care providers. At the end of 1992, the National Health Service Corps was over 1,200 strong. The migrant health program uses lay health outreach workers, bilingual/bicultural health personnel, and culturally appropriate protocols developed by the Migrant Clinicians Network. Enacted in 1962, the Migrant Health Act provides comprehensive primary care services to address the unique health care needs of migrant and seasonal farm workers and their families. This is accomplished through a network of more than 100 community based migrant health centers (Figure G) at 364 sites in 35 states and Puerto Rico. Migrant health centers funding totaled about $56 million in Fiscal Year 1992; in Fiscal Year 1994, the funding increased to $58.6 million. Services by physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants at Migrant Health Center sites may include primary care, preventive care, outreach, transportation, dental care, and environmental health.
Cooperative agreements with State agencies and State and Regional Primary Care Associations augment the efforts of the Migrant Health Centers. These organizations coordinate Federal and State primary care resources. The Migrant Health Program promotes partnerships between Migrant Health Centers and State and local health departments, area health education centers, hospitals, social service providers, and residency programs.
Michigan Migrant Health Centers Six federally funded Migrant Health Centers (Figure H) operated in Michigan in 1995-96. These Centers deployed a total of 22 service sites (Table 8) in the Lower Peninsula. Generally, the location of migrant health service sites corresponds to closely to the agricultural activities utilizing migratory labor in the State. Some sites are permanent year-round operations, some are seasonal, while others are mobile units at migrant labor camps. In addition to these sites, many county health departments in areas where migrants work, offer special health services targeted to them including Spanish interpreters.
Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix The presence of migratory children in Michigan is related to the state's economic well-being. The parents of these children, migratory agricultural workers, are a vital part of Michigan agriculture, the second leading industry. Although eligible for the entire range of schooling (preschool - 12th grade), most migratory children are in grade 6 and below. Slightly over half (51.8%) count Michigan as their home state followed by Texas (29.3%), Florida (12.3%), and Mexico (3.1%). Over the past eight years, funding for Michigan Migrant Education has been fairly stable averaging about $11 million per year. At the same time, the number of children served by migrant education programs has averaged about 18,500. The state ranks fifth from the top in the number of children served and fourth in the amount of money it receives to operate its education programs. The overwhelming number of children (98.6%) qualify on the basis of agricultural work and the rest (1.4%) qualify on the basis of fishing work. The children are almost evenly divided between males and females, however, the ethnic/racial breakdown shows that about three-quarters (72.7%) are Hispanics, followed by Whites (15%), American Indians (2.8%), Blacks (2.2%), and Asians (1%). The rest (6.3%) did not report ethnicity/race, but they are strongly suspected of being Hispanic. Three-quarters of the participation (enrollments and withdrawals from migrant education programs) occurs during the summer in June, July and August. One-quarter of the participation occurs during the regular school year from September to May. This is a clear reversal of the normal schooling pattern of the larger society. The concentration of migratory children in the elementary stage of education is relatively higher than the funds allocated to this range of participants. Programs designed to educate these children must take note of these differences and deploy their resources and effort to serve the actual needs of these children. Coordination with other school programs should also note that the foundations of learning characterizing elementary education should be the main concern for Michigan's migrant education. Contrary to common perceptions, intrastate coordination (within Michigan) between migrant education programs is more important than interstate coordination (outside Michigan). That includes the academic continuity of programs as well as the exchange of school and medical records. This shift in focus is required by the fact that about half of the migratory children list Michigan as their home state. Lastly, we suggest a list of research questions and concerns that require further consideration about this neglected and nearly invisible group of children. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix There are a number of issues which have not been addressed by this report. The following research questions may be derived from the data presented. 1. Are the intra-state migration patterns being studied in order to coordinate the state's educational program? 2. Is there a way to address the mismatch between the migrant student arrival to the state of Michigan and the regular school program? 3. How do migrant attrition rates compare to regular student attrition? 4. Is there a mismatch between service delivery and intensity of migrant program effort? 5. Is there equal coordination efforts between the state of Michigan and the sending states of Texas, Florida and Mexico? 6. What is the current quality of each migrant education program? What are the strengths? 7. What is intensity of K-6 training and technical assistance being provided by the state of Michigan? 8. Does the migrant education program personnel reflect the need of the migrant student population in Michigan? 9. What is the composition of the all migrant education personnel in Michigan? 10. What is the migrant student drop-out rate in Michigan? 11. What positive effects would an agricultural vocational technical education have over migrant students? 12. What are effective teaching techniques to be used with migrant students? 13. What are the ESL (English as a Second Language) needs and efforts needed for Michigan migrant students? 14. What are the components of an effective migrant education program as it relates to academic progress? 15. What effects does the Michigan agricultural patterns have over the migrant student educational program continuity? 16. Is there a mismatch between the migrant student arrival to the state of Michigan and the summer program? Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix 1989-95 Michigan Migrant Education Performance Reports, Migrant Education Program, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Mich. 1993-1994 Michigan Manual, Legislative Service Bureau, Legislative Council, State of Michigan, 1993. 1994 Michigan Migrant Education State Plan, Migrant Education Program, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Mich., March 9-10, 1994. 1994 Homebase State Report for Michigan, Migrant Student Record Transfer System Database, Migrant Education Program, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Mich., Jan. 1995. 1995 Michigan Agricultural Statistics, Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service, Michigan Department of Agriculture, Lansing, Mich., July 1995. 1995-1996 Michigan Manual, Legislative Service Bureau, Legislative Council, State of Michigan, 1995. 1995/96 Migrant Health Centers Referral Directory, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., September 1995. 1996 Migrant Health Services Directory, Migrant Health Information Office, Inc., 502 W. Elm Ave., Monroe, Mich., 1996. Demographics of American Indians. Hodgkinson, Harold L., Janice Outtz, and Anita M. Obarakpor. Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1990. Facts and Figures: Bureau of Primary Health Care, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., September 1993. Facts and Figures: Migrant Health Program, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., September 1993. Health Condition of Migrant Farmworkers. Leon, Edgar. Unpublished Paper, The Julian Samora Research Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., 1996. Health Problems Among Migrant Farmworkers' Children in the U.S., Huang, Gary. ERIC Digest, Document No. ED357907, ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Charleston, W.V., January 1993. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Public Law 103-382, Federal Register, U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 20, 1995. Invisible Children: A Portrait of Migrant Education in the United States, National Commission on Migrant Education, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Sept. 23, 1992. Location & Type of LEA Migrant Education Projects in Michigan for FY 1994-96, Migrant Education Program, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Mich., 1994-96. Map of Regional Identification & Recruitment Projects, Michigan Migrant Education Program, Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Mich., February 1996. Memorandum, Diane Austin, Migrant Education Office, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1996. Memorandum, Francis V. Corrigan, Migrant Education Director, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., Jan. 27, 1994. Michigan 1993 Commercial Fish Harvest, Commercial Fisheries Newsline, Michigan State University Extension, East Lansing, Mich., June 1994. Migrant Education: A Consolidated View, Interstate Migrant Education Council, Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo., July 1987. Preliminary Guidance for Migrant Education Program, Title I, Part C, Public Law 103-382, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 1995. State Chapter 1 Migrant Participation Information 1992-93, Westat, Inc., Rockville, Md., 1994. State of Michigan Summary of Enrollments and Withdrawals Reported by Month Beginning 1/1/93 and Ending 12/31/93, Migrant Student Record Transfer System, Little Rock, Ark., June 14, 1994. Strategy for Managing Michigan's Fisheries in the 1990's, Fisheries Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Dec. 1993. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix Cox, Lamarr et. al. Descriptive Study of the Chapter 1 Migrant Education Program, Volume I: Study Findings and Conclusions. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., October 1992. Heiderson, Mazin and Marion Stiles. Instructional Needs of Currently Migratory Students in the Central Migrant Stream. No. 366497. ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education & Small Schools. Charleston, W.V., 1994. Hodgkinson, Harold and Janice Outtz. The Demographics of Michigan and Selected Areas: Implications for Educational Reform. Institute for Educational Leadership, Inc., Washington, D.C., May 1994. Kids Count in Michigan 1995 Data Book: County Profiles of Child & Family Well-Being. Michigan League for Human Services. Lansing, Mich., 1996. Leon, Edgar. Challenges and Solutions for Educating Migrant Students. Working Paper #28. The Julian Samora Research Institute. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., July 1996. Prewitt-Diaz, Joseph, Robert Trotter II and Vidal Rivera, Jr. The Effects of Migration on Children: An Ethnographic Study. Center for the Study of Migration. Pennsylvania State University, State College, Penn., 1990. Rochín, Refugio and Marcelo Siles. Michigan's Farmworkers: A Status Report on Employment & Housing. Statistical Brief #2. The Julian Samora Research Institute. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., December 1994. Rochín, Refugio, Anne Santiago and Karla Dickey. Migrant and Seasonal Workers in Michigan's Agriculture: A Study of Their Contributions, Characteristics, Needs, and Services. Research Report No. 1. The Julian Samora Research Institute. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., November 1989. Siles, Marcelo, Monica Elicerio and Manuel Gonzalez. Mutual Concerns of Farmers and Farmworkers: An Agenda for Building Partnerships in Michigan. Working Paper #20. The Julian Samora Research Institute. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., March 1995. Siles, Marcelo and Rosemary Aponte. The Education of Hispanics in Michigan: A Comparative Assessment. Statistical Brief #4. The Julian Samora Research Institute. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., October 1995. Strang, William, Elaine Carlson and Margaret Hoppe. Services to Migrant Children: Synthesis and Program Options for Chapter 1 Migrant Education Program. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 1993. Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix
Introduction | Overview Of Activities | Legislative Highlights | Locations of Migrant Education Programs in Michigan, 1989-95 | Number of students | Eligibility for the Migrant Education Program | Goals of Migrant Education | Michigan's position Within the National Scene | Profile of Participants | Migrant Homebase and Intra-Inter-state Patterns | Monthly Patterns of Enrollment | Migrant Health | Conclusions | Future Research | Sources | Related Reading | Appendix |
|
|
|
For more information, contact: |
