As for the targeting needs dimension, California has 90 out of 100 points, while Moscow has only 10 points. The question addressed in MIPEX: “Are migrant children, parents, and their teachers entitled to have their specific needs addressed in school?” California is favorable in terms addressing targeting needs. Firstly, there is a system of educational assistance at various levels of interaction. For instance, this guidance includes information on the language of migrant origins, special centers for immigrant professional and psychological orientation, and services for parents of migrant schoolchildren. Secondly, special language support is obligatorily provided as a right due to the Supreme Court decision (Lau vs. Nicolas 1974). Thirdly, there are a couple of programs, which provide special financing for migrants to learn languages. These are the English Acquisition Grants program and NCLB. Fourthly, there is provision of communicative and academic fluency. Migrants educational programs do not differ from the one their native peers have. Teachers who work with immigrants have to give them knowledge not only in English, but also in other academic areas such as Maths, History, etc. Fifthly, policy on pupils monitoring developed in the USA. It aims to analyze and track the immigrants. It is important to understand how the system can be changed. Moreover, it is a part of NCLB program, which is called Waiver, which applies vast majority of all the states into the united monitoring system. Sixthly, migrants get targeted policies in systematic guidance and financing in accordance with NCLB. It is up to state to finance schools and districts from their local budgets to promote special facilities for migrants. California finances schools where there are many migrant schoolchildren. The last point is devoted to the special teacher trainings and guidance. NCLB pays great attention to this issue. However, as it is provided by law, there is no obligatory policy from the federal center. Teacher-assistance program is state-driven policy of a particular state. The existence of special training is necessary for teachers who work with many migrant students. They should be “highly qualified” in accordance with the law. Nowadays, there are only 11 states, which have initiatives to implement teacher-assistance programs. California is among these states.

The list of programs for teachers are quite huge for the average state. There are courses realized by the local authorities, NGO and with cooperation with Mexico. As an example, MEP SSDP “Migrant Education Program State Service Delivery Plan” focuses on the supporting teachers to have an ability to teach migrants on the high level. Teachers become a professionals in negotiating, monitoring, collaborating, tutoring migrants to help them to achieve better academic results. Another example is Binational Migrant Education Program. This program is created in cooperation between Mexican and American experts. One of the activity of the program is the summer camps for teachers from Mexico who come to California to share their cultural and educational experience (“Migrant Education Programs and Services”, n.d.).

California scored 50 points for intercultural education dimension, while Moscow has 50 points for the one. The question addressed in MIPEX: “Are all pupils and teachers supported to learn and work together in a diverse society?” Firstly, the existence of special curriculum to reflect diversity. As for California, there are no specific standards regulating teaching diversity in schools. However, some schools integrate stand-alone subjects to develop intercultural education. There are no specific subjects to reflect diversity in Moscow schools. However, as federal standard for education states the diversity of ethno cultural people of Russia has to be realized through the educational program. The main aim of these subjects is to teach pupils how to live in ethno cultural diverse world. Secondly, the only difference in California and Moscow in present dimension is in the state supported information initiatives indicator. As for California, there no norms or any regulations, which controls the promotion of public initiatives. However, as Moscow is interested in building tolerance society, there are federal educational standards, which state that every school should support initiatives in building tolerance and patriotic society. Thirdly, there are no federal regulation on the issue of the daily life changes in accordance with the cultural and religious needs of immigrants. All the changes are regulated on the school level. Frequently, immigrants do not achieve special conditions in both California and Moscow. In my opinion, it is connected with the idea of forming the united state with unified cultural norms.

Concerning new opportunities dimension, California has 15 out of 100 points, Moscow has 20 out of 100 points. The question addressed in MIPEX: “Do all pupils benefit from the new opportunities that immigration brings to schools like immigrant languages, cultures, diverse classrooms, and parental outreach?” These dimensions is poorly developed in both states, but Moscow is doing better. Firstly, MIPEX analyses option to learn immigrant languages in the country. As for California, there are special program, which is a part of NCLB Act. This program is called the Foreign Language Assistance Program. The main idea of the program is to provide immigrants with support on their native language. Comparing to Moscow, there are no assistance for immigrants to learn on their native language. Moreover, as for delivery of immigrant languages, California provide immigrant to study on their languages not only on adaptation courses, but also on the bilingual programs. Moscow does provide only additional courses of Russian language missing the opportunity to provide migrant children with their own languages. Secondly, MIPEX examines an opportunity to study immigrant cultures. The situation is different. There are no special regulations and recommendations of the state in California to study immigrant cultures. However, in accordance with the Federal migration program of Russia, there are recommendations from the state to study migrant and various ethnic cultures to avoid discrimination and xenophobia for the early ages. This policy is realized in Moscow schools through the additional courses and obligatory “classroom hours”. As for other three indicators in MIPEX, “Measures to counter segregation of migrant pupils and promote integration, measures to support migrant parents and communities, and measures to bring migrants into the teacher workforce” the score is similar in both California and Moscow. It equals zero. There are no special policy to attract migrant to Moscow schools because frequently it causes many problems with documents, licenses, registrations, etc. As for California, there are no laws that focuses on desegregation as existing federal policy focuses on race concept. In addition, there are no specific measures for migrant parents to be included into educational process in both Moscow and California. The inclusion of parents is limited only with informing them with performance and educational options.

Thus, the comparison between California and Moscow presents strong and weak sides of the educational policies in both states. California succeed in access and targeting needs dimensions. These sides are points for development for Moscow. However, as for intercultural education and new opportunities dimension, both states are on the same level of development. Present examination helps to assess the fortes and challenges, which are faced by the state.

Conclusion

Present thesis raises actual issues of modern Russia examining immigrant challenges over current situation. Russia is the second largest country on the number of immigrants after the USA. The scope of immigrant issues is massive. Experts agree in opinion that many countries are not ready to face these challenges. Modern political reality is concentrated mostly on solving issues connected with their own citizens. Frequently, immigrants are left behind the actual agenda. However, the issues are devoted to almost every sphere of life such as health, discrimination, labor mobility, residence issues, political participation, etc.

This master thesis is devoted to the challenges, which are faces by migrants in the sphere of education. I decided to analyze two outstanding examples of governmental regulation of educational processes in Moscow and California. Moscow is concerned as an individual subject of the Russian Federation. The reasoning over the choice can be found in the Chapter 3. However, I would like to highlight that these two subjects are similar and comparable.

The paper consists of two parts. The first one is devoted to the quantitative analysis of migrant schoolchildren in Moscow. The main idea was to understand how migrant background influence educational achievements of schoolchildren in Moscow. I used the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey over the years 2010 - 2013 to measure what affects children in their daily life. Based on the binary logistic regression and using control variables devoted to migrant status, educational achievements of children, socio-economic status, age, health issues and gender, the findings suggest that migrant background does not influence educational achievements of schoolchildren in Moscow. However, some factors affect study process of children such as socio-economic status of parents, age and gender. Firstly, one of the key factors is age: younger children showcase better results. Secondly, being female also increases the probabilities of being classified as a successful student. Female pupils performed better results than male pupils. As for the socio-economic status, which was estimated with a number of gadgets used by family members, it is not influence academic performance of schoolchildren. In addition, health conditions do not affect the way children study and their grading.

The results of this research are similar to authors (Vaquera & Kao, 2012) as in their survey female also outperform male students. Also, I have the same result with another group of authors (Conger et al., 2011). Oppositely, the results differ from findings of (Lai et al., 2014a). It is analysed that migrants study better than locals. However, migrant backgound does not influence grades of pupils in Moscow schools in acordance with my survey. It was also stated that family resources play a greater role in childrens' academic success (Tovar Garcнa, 2014). Moreover, females do not outperform male in Moscow.

The second part of the paper is devoted to the comparison of California and Moscow in terms of immigrant regulation in the sphere of education. I used MIPEX framework to organize the following work. The details of the analysis can be found in the text. California succeded in two dimensions. First one is an access to education. The dimension is dedicated to the analysis of how educational system is fovorable and accessible for immigrants. The scope of the analysis is based on an equality of both residents and non-residence. In accordance with the legal acts of the US, everyone has the right to education despite the immigrant status. Moreover, immigrants have an access to after schooling activities in California. As for Moscow, immigrants are highly discriminated if they don't have a temporary registration or permanent residence status. California is also better in targeting needs dimension. This dimension explains how parents, children, and tutors have their needs addressed in school. Educational process is migrant - oriented as children do not face problems with labguge barriers, communicative issues and feedback. The same is for the teachers who recieve appropriate peyments and trainings to work with migrants. However, California inferiors Moscow in intercultural education and new opportunities dimension. Hovewer, it is not possible to state that the situation in the states differs a lot. It is the general weaknesses of Moscow and California.

There are thousands of migrant pupils in Moscow. According to contemporary lagal acts, everyone has a right to attend schools and get secondary education. It is guaranteed by the 43rd article of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Also, there is a federal targeted program "Children from families of refugees and displaced persons" releasing by the Ministry of Education of Russia. The main goal of this program is to provide finansial, social and phycological assistance to refugees. Families are provided with targeted financial assistance. Educational institutions take children arriving without parents from zones of war or ethnic conflicts. There were created centers of psychological-pedagogical and medico-social assistance. Children are supplied with medical-sports equipment, soft sports forms, copying and computer equipment for complex rehabilitation. In addition, there was created a special book for migrants and those who do not speak or even understand Russian. All the innovations were fixed in the legal acts.

I agree with many points that are covered by the Federal program mentioned before. Adaptation to a culture is possible through an education of children and parents, additional language courses in schools, and familiarity with the culture. I think that schools have to provide obligatory classes in Russian language for migrant pupils. However, the problem is that Moscow schools do not enrol children of immigrants in due to lack of documents. At the same time, under the new law, which defines the procedure for admission of children to school, there must be the information about registration in the online application. As a result, there is no way to study. Another issue is that migrant children, especially in the case of resettlement of forced migrants in rural areas, simply have no place to study: not enough kindergartens, schools, specialized schools.

In my opinion, education should not be assessed as a bonus. It is an opportunity to become adoptated to the society. That is why we should build institutions, which could help us to overcome mentioned problems and build effective public policy of migrants adoptation. This institutions chould not be surved only by the Govenments, but also by business and NGOs. As I can see today, many initiatives, which are coming from the NGOs are not supported by the other sectors of society. As the issue of immigrants is a matter of national security, the peculiar steps should be done to avoid European scenario.

Reference list (Bibliography)