State to Repay U.S. $10 Million for Migrant Education

In a decision that state officials said could sharply curtail education for the children of migrant workers, a federal appeals court Thursday ordered the state to repay $10.3 million in disputed federal grants for migrant education.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in a long-running dispute between the California Department of Education and the federal government, concluded that the state overestimated the number of students eligible for grants under the federal migrant education program in the late 1970s.

The decision, which a lawyer for the state predicted would have “a chilling effect” on the admission of students to the program, upholds strict federal standards for estimating the number of students eligible for special educational help and orders an immediate repayment of the disputed money.

‘Bean-Counter Perspective’

“It’s really frustrating. We were taking an educational perspective, the most benefit to the most students, and they’re taking a bean-counter perspective, that if you don’t play by the rules precisely, you have to give the money back,” said Taylor C. Carey, a lawyer for the education department.

The 21-year-old migrant education program is designed to provide special programs for the children of migrant farm workers and fishermen who are often unable to stay in one school for longer than a few months. Federal grants to state education departments also make up for the lack of local property tax revenues from migrant workers.

There are now about 130,000 schoolchildren in California participating in the program.

The current dispute arose when a federal audit determined that California had overestimated the number of eligible students in its funding requests for 1978 through 1980.

A random sample of 500 students claimed by the state found that eligibility determinations were erroneous in 122 cases and insufficiently documented in an additional 28.

Based on those findings, the federal government initially demanded a $30.3-million refund, an amount which was reduced to $10.3 million last year. The state appealed to the courts.

Language difficulties and the reluctance of illegal aliens to reveal personal data to government officials make it difficult to reliably estimate the number of eligible students, Carey said.

Moreover, he said, state officials believe federal law requires that states receive reimbursement for their best estimate of eligible students.

“California claims that because it was right about 90% of the children it reported as eligible, it should be entitled to keep 100% of the money. We are unable to agree,” said Judge Cecil F. Poole, writing for the three-member appeals panel.

Judges Robert Boochever and Albert Lee Stephens Jr. concurred.

Carey said the court’s ruling will likely have a chilling effect on future admissions to the migrant education program by causing educators to rule ineligible any students about whom there is a question.

“Is it better to err on the side of allowing eligibility and letting the students benefit, or go the other way and exclude them from the program?” Carey asked.

“What I’m concerned about is that . . . people are going to have to be more conservative in their resolution of these questions and will tend to exclude kids from the program, rather than include, whenever there’s a question.”

State officials said they had not decided whether to pursue a further appeal of the ruling. Federal education officials could not be reached for comment late Thursday.