Dr. John A. Tompkins

Commissioner of Education

Kansas Department of Education

120 South East Tenth Avenue

Topeka, KS 66612-1182

Dear Dr. Tompkins:

This **Final Audit Report** (Control Number ED-OIG/A06-C0032) presents
the results of our audit of the Migrant Education Program at the Kansas
Department of Education (Kansas). The objectives of our audit were to
determine whether Kansas and its sub-grantees (1) established and
implemented appropriate procedures to identify and target services to
migratory children who are failing or most at risk of failing to meet
state standards and whose education has been interrupted during the
regular school year, and (2) established procedures to report to the
Department the number of "Priority for Service" migratory children in
Kansas. Our audit focused on the period July 1, 2000, through July 31,
2002.

A draft of this report was provided to the Kansas Department of
Education. In its response, Kansas concurred with our recommendations.
Kansas's comments are summarized in the section that follows the
Recommendations. A copy of the complete response is enclosed with this
report.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended,
authorizes federal funding of programs of education for migratory
children. In Fiscal Year 2001, over \$371.3 million was authorized for
the education of migratory children. Kansas received approximately
\$10.9 million in Migrant Education Program funds. A migratory child is
a child who is, or whose parent, spouse, or guardian is, a migratory
agricultural worker, including a migratory dairy worker or a migratory
fisher. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 further specify that children who are failing, or
most at risk of failing, to meet the State\'s challenging content
standards and challenging student performance standards, and whose
education has been interrupted during the regular school year shall
receive "Priority for Services." Priority for Services means students
who meet both criteria will receive Migrant Education Program funded
services before services are provided to other migratory children.

Guidance from the Department provides that if "the state does not have
assessment data on a particular migrant child (e.g., the child was not
present in the district when the assessment was administered), then the
state might use other relevant information, like the degree to which the
child is subject to multiple risk factors (e.g., being overage or behind
grade level, eligible for free/reduced price lunch, limited English
proficient) to determine the child's need for services." The Department
also establishes that "the state, in collaboration with local operating
agencies, is free to determine what constitutes 'educational
interruption' under Section 1304 (d)."

Section 1306 of the ESEA, as added by the Improving America's Schools
Act of 1994, requires each State and local operating agency to identify
and address the special educational needs of migratory children in
accordance with a comprehensive State needs assessment plan.

Table C-6 of the Consolidated State Performance Report, which is
submitted to the Department's Office of Migrant Education for every
award year, requires that States indicate the "count of students served
who have a priority for services under Section 1304 (d) of the ESEA
(those whose schooling has been interrupted and who are failing or
\[most\] at risk of failing to meet state standards.)"

On November 26, 2002, the Department issued final regulations for No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 governing the Migrant Education Program
to, among other changes, require that each State Education Agency
determine the effectiveness of its program, particularly for those
students who have Priority for Services. These regulations are in
response to *The* *President's Management Agenda* for Fiscal Year 2002
and the Department of Education's *Blueprint For Management Excellence*
released October 30, 2001. One of the expected long-term results in
*The* *President's Management Agenda* is better control over resources
used and accountability for results by program managers. The
Department's *Blueprint* describes one of the Department's commitments
to management improvement as achieving an "Accountability for Results"
culture. Through the *Blueprint,* the recipients of Department funds
will be held responsible for their performance in relation to the goals
and objectives.

Kansas did not comply with Section 1304(d) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. Specifically, Kansas did
not establish and implement appropriate procedures to identify and
target Priority for Services to migratory children who are failing, or
most at risk of failing, to meet State standards, and whose education
was interrupted during the regular school year. As a result, the U.S.
Department of Education has no assurance that Kansas used the \$10.9
million in Migrant Education Program funds it received for Fiscal Year
2001 for Priority for Services migratory children before providing
services to other migratory children; and Kansas was unable to report
the correct number of Priority for Services migratory children served in
the Consolidated State Performance Report to the Department's Office of
Migrant Education.

Kansas's migrant education funding allocation procedures to its
sub-grantees were not based on identified Priority for Services
migratory children to be served. Kansas provided migrant education funds
to the sub-grantees by reviewing various funding factors from the annual
needs assessment and student information from the State database. Only
two of the eight funding factors used by Kansas related to Priority for
Services criteria. Those two factors were: 1) a qualifying move in the
last year and 2) low-test scores. However, the Kansas Coordinator for
State and Federal Programs stated that low-test scores were rarely used
as a deciding factor.

Kansas also overstated the number of Priority for Services migratory
children served in the Fiscal Year 2001 Consolidated State Performance
Report. Kansas reported to the Department that there were 5,130 Priority
for Services students. We determined that the number was obtained from
the State's MIS2000 system and represented the recently mobile students
without identifying which of these students also met the at risk of
failing criteria.

We visited three sub-grantees and found that none of the three were
properly identifying and targeting migratory children for Priority for
Services. Instead of focusing services on migratory children with low
test scores and a qualifying move, all three sub-grantees delivered
services to children with limited English skills. One sub-grantee
delivered services to migratory children who were also
English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) students. The second sub-grantee
prioritized services to migratory children who were new to the district
or had a limited English proficiency. The last sub-grantee considered
all ESL students to be at risk of failing regardless of whether the
student's education had been interrupted during the regular school year.
The three sub-grantees visited received nearly \$2.3 million for migrant
education.

We concluded that these conditions occurred because Kansas (1) relied
upon its sub-grantees' assurances that they were providing services to
Priority for Services children first before other migratory children,
and did not perform independent monitoring of the sub-grantees to ensure
services were provided; (2) did not provide clear guidance to the
sub-grantees as to the definition of "at risk of failing" State
standards and "whose education has been interrupted during the regular
school year"; and (3) did not require the schools, school districts, or
sub-grantees to report the number of Priority for Services migratory
students for 2000 and 2001.

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education require Kansas to:

1.  Monitor sub-grantees to ensure funds are used for Priority for
    Services migratory children before funds are used for other
    migratory children.

2.  Provide a clear definition to all sub-grantees of what constitutes
    "at risk of failing" State standards and "whose education has been
    interrupted during the regular school year."

3.  Establish procedures to identify and report to the Department the
    number of Priority for Services migratory children served in Kansas
    schools.

Kansas officials indicated that they agreed with our findings and
recommendations. They stated that they (1) are revising the Local
Consolidated Plan onsite monitoring instrument to include specific
review of documentation of appropriate use of migrant funds for the
Priority for Services migratory children; (2) have defined what
constitutes "at risk of failing" State standards and "whose education
has been interrupted during the regular school year"; and (3) are
implementing procedures to identify and collect the number of Priority
for Service migratory students served in Kansas's schools.

The objectives of our audit were to determine whether Kansas and its
sub-grantees (1) established and implemented appropriate procedures to
identify and target services to migratory children who are failing or
most at risk of failing to meet state standards and whose education has
been interrupted during the regular school year, and (2) established
procedures to report to the Department the number of Priority for
Services migratory children in Kansas.

To accomplish our objectives, we:

-   Reviewed Kansas's and its sub-grantees' policies and procedures for
    providing services to migratory children.

-   Interviewed Kansas and sub-grantee officials regarding their
    procedures for providing Priority for Services to migratory
    children.

-   Reviewed the Kansas State Single Audit Report for 2001 and other
    reviews performed.

-   Reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and other guidance.

-   Reviewed the sub-grantees' documentation regarding the Priority for
    Services provided to migratory children.

-   Reviewed Kansas's and the sub-grantees' decision-making process for
    allocating migrant education funds.

We obtained computer-processed data from Kansas that we used for
background information and to select the two sub-grantees that received
the largest migrant funding allocations. Because we did not use the data
for projection or to make any determinations, we did not perform
reliability assessments on the data.

Our audit of Kansas's Migrant Education Program covered the period July
1, 2000, through July 31, 2002. We performed onsite fieldwork from
August 20-22, 2002, at the State offices in Topeka, and at three
sub-grantees from August 23-28, 2002. We selected two of the largest
sub-grantees in Kansas at the request of the Office of Migrant
Education. We also selected one other sub-grantee at our discretion. The
sub-grantees visited were Topeka Public Schools, Dodge City Public
Schools, and Wichita Public Schools. We discussed our audit results with
Kansas officials on August 22, 2002. We held an exit conference with
Kansas officials on November 6, 2002. Our work was performed in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards
appropriate to the scope of the audit described above.

As part of our review, we assessed the system of management controls,
policies, procedures, and practices applicable to Kansas's
administration of the Priority for Services portion of the Migrant
Education Program. Our assessment was performed to determine whether
Kansas had management controls established to ensure Priority for
Services migratory children received services before services were
provided to other migratory children.

Because of inherent limitations, a study and evaluation made for the
limited purpose described above would not necessarily disclose all
material weaknesses in the management controls. However, our assessment
disclosed that Kansas had neither developed and implemented procedures
nor established a monitoring system for sub-grantees to identify,
target, and count migratory children to be served first through the
Migrant Education Program. As a result, we concluded that Kansas did not
have sufficient management controls to ensure that sub-grantees complied
with the requirements of Section 1304(d) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended. The AUDIT RESULTS section of the
report provides details on our finding.

If you have any additional comments or information that you believe may
have a bearing on the resolution of this audit, you should send them
directly to the following U.S. Department of Education official, who
will consider them before taking final Departmental action on the audit:

> Eugene Hickok, Acting Assistant Secretary
>
> U.S. Department of Education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Room 3W315, FB6 Building

Washington, D.C. 20202

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-50 directs Federal agencies
to expedite the resolution of audits by initiating timely action on the
findings and recommendations contained therein. Therefore, we request
receipt of your comments within 30 days.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. §552),
reports issued by the Office of Inspector General are available, if
requested, to members of the press and general public to the extent
information contained therein is not subject to the exemptions in the
Act.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss the contents of this
report, please contact me at 214-880-3031. Please refer to the control
number in all correspondence related to this report.

Sincerely,

Sherri L. Demmel

Regional Inspector General

for Audit

Attachment