Julie Sugarman, Simon Morris-Lange, and Margie McHugh from the Migration Policy Institute authored a report, “Improving Education for Migrant-Background Students: A Transatlantic Comparison of School Funding”, discussing the findings of supplementary funding between four countries: Canada, France, Germany, and the United States.
Migrant students are defined as:
-
born in another country (“first generation”) or native born to immigrant parents (“second generation”);
-
with or without native language literacy and academic skills;
-
at varying levels of proficiency in the language of instruction;
-
who enter the receiving country’s educational systems in younger or older grades;
-
with more or less exposure to cultural norms of the new country;
-
from more vulnerable immigrant groups such as refugees, unaccompanied minors, or unauthorized immigrants, as compared to children from immigrant families with more secure socioeconomic or legal status; and
-
from families that have achieved varying degrees of integration in the new country.
“National and international studies have demonstrated that migrant- background students are likely to be at risk of educational difficulties due to their lack of proficiency in the language of instruction, limited or interrupted prior formal education, lack of cultural or systems knowledge, the effects of low socioeconomic status, and—among first-generation immigrant children—possible physical or emotional trauma experienced in countries of origin or while migrating. Supplementary funding can then be targeted to support remedies that address these disadvantages and improve student results. These remedies, which vary in intensity and length of support required, may include helping students develop academic proficiency in the language of instruction, close gaps in formal education resulting from conditions in countries of origin or the process of migrating, develop cultural and systems knowledge about schools and the wider society, address physical and mental health issues that impede school persistence or success,3 and close gaps in educational preparation due to low socioeconomic status” (p.1).
The study finds that there are four lesson to be learned for policymakers (p.3):
-
Identification of target needs and students play a central role in system design and integrity.
-
Funding designs must manage the tension between flexibility and accountability
-
Creation and collection of robust data are necessary to understand student needs and effectively direct funds.
-
Funding mechanisms should be subject to regular review in order to respond to changed circumstances, new information, and evolving needs.