U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans

A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Migrant Education

Goal 8: Migrant Education Specific Goal/Mission
Objective 1 of 1: More extensive follow-up communication with grantees will be done to increase response rate to 80-90%.
Indicator 8.1.1 of 4: Inclusion in State Assessments: In an increasing number of states, an increasing percentage of migrant students will be included in state assessments.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
- No Targets And Performance Data -
Status: Unable to judge. No FY 2000 data or 2001 data.

Explanation: Data not yet available for baseline year or the first comparison year. Data for the baseline year is expected to be available in late 2002.  
Additional Source Information: Consolidated State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001.
Data Available: January 2003.
Validated By: Experienced Public/Private Entity.
Data and tabulations are validated by internal review procedures of the Council of Chief State School Officers

Limitations: Initially, the percentage of migrant students tested will have to be calculated using the total number of migrant students who "participated" in the MEP during the regular term at the appropriate grade level rather than the total number of migrant children in residence in a State during the regular term in the appropriate grade level.

Improvements: Data on the total number of "resident" migrant students will be requested for inclusion in the next revised version.

 
Indicator 8.1.2 of 4: Meeting or Exceeding State Performance Standards: In an increasing number of states, an increasing percentage of migrant students will meet or exceed the proficient level on state assessments.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of States meeting performance target (of States reporting)-Reading Elementary
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Number of States Percentage of students who test at or above proficiency
Number of States Percentage of students who test at or above proficiency
1996
4  
  50
1997
4  
  50
1998
7  
  50
1999
2  
  50
2000
   
  50
2001
   
  55
2002
  60
   

Number of States meeting performance target (of States reporting)-Reading Middle
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Number of States Percentage of students who test at or above proficiency
Number of States Percentage of students who test at or above proficiency
1996
2  
  50
1997
3  
  50
1998
6  
  50
1999
4  
  50
2000
   
  50
2001
   
  55
2002
   
  60

Number of States meeting performance target (of States reporting)-Math Elementary
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Number of States Percentage of Students
Number of States Percentage of Students
1996
4  
  50
1997
5  
  50
1998
9  
  50
1999
6  
  50
2000
   
  50
2001
   
  55
2002
   
  60

Number of states meeting performance target (of States reporting)-Math Middle
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Number of States Percentage of students who test at or above proficiency
Number of States Percentage of students who test at or above proficiency
1996
3 50
  50
1997
3 50
  50
1998
7 50
  50
1999
4 50
  50
2000
50 50
  50
2001
50 50
  50
2002
50 50
  50
Status: Unable to judge. No FY 2001 data.

Explanation: This indicator shows that, after modest increases in both (1) the number of states disaggregating migrant students performance in reading and mathematics in state assessments (2) in the number of states reporting that 50% or more of those migrant students tested scored at or above the proficient level on those tests-the number of states meeting the performance target has declined and the number of state reporting migrant student data has leveled.  
Additional Source Information: Consolidated State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: April 2003.
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
Data and tabulations are validated by internal review procedures of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Limitations: The reported performance levels are not standardized across the states and the number of children tested may be small, likely unrepresentative, and thus imprecise. In particular, states are probably not testing all of their migrant children because under Title I, children who have not attended the schools of the same LEA for a full academic year have been excluded from the assessment process.

Improvements: States will be required to include all migrant students in state assessments for all purposes other than determining adequate yearly progress of schools.

 
Indicator 8.1.3 of 4: Targeting of "Priority for Service" Students: An increasing number of "priority for service" migrant students will receive MEP services in both the regular and summer-terms.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Numbers of "Priority for Service" Students
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Regular-Term Summer-Term
Regular-Term Summer-Term
1999
242,138 172,247
   
2000
268,405 196,667
   
Status: No current data but progress toward target is likely. No FY 2001 data, but progress toward target is likely. FY 2000 data is based on initial draft report and changes to the totals may occur during the data review process.

Explanation: Under section 1304(d), migrant students who are failing, or most at risk of failing to meet the States' challenging State content and State student performance standards, and whose education has been interrupted during the regular school year (rather than during the summer) have a priority for services under the MEP. The indicator will examine whether there is an increase over time in the numbers of such "priority for services" students receiving either regular-term or summer-term.  
Additional Source Information: Consolidated State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: April 2003.
Validated By: Experienced Public/Private Entity.
Data and tabulations are validated by internal review procedures of Westat, Inc.

Limitations: The percentage of priority students served (by type of service and by the intensity of such services) would provide a much better indication of how effective MEPs are targeting services.

Improvements: In order to calculate the percentage of "priority for service" migrant students who receive services, data on the total number of "priority for service" migrant students will be requested for inclusion in the next revised version of the Consolidated State Performance Report.

 
Indicator 8.1.4 of 4: Coordination with Title 1, Part A, Programs: In an increasing number of states, an increasing percentage of migrant students will receive services in School wide or Targeted Assistance Programs funded in part or wholly by Title 1, Part A.
Targets and Performance Data Assessment of Progress Sources and Data Quality
Number of States meeting Performance Target of Students Served
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Number of States Percent of Students served
Number of States Percent of Students served
1997
7 50
  50
1998
8 50
  50
1999
14 50
  50
2000
6 50
  55
2001
50  
  60
Status: Unable to judge. No FY 2001 data.

Explanation: This indicator examines the degree to which migrant students receive Title 1 Part A services. The indicator suggests that, at the baseline, very few states provide Title 1 services to 50 percent or more of their migrant children.  
Additional Source Information: Consolidated State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002.
Data Available: April 2003.
Validated By: Experienced Public/Private Entity.
Data are validated by internal review procedures of Weststat, Inc. Tabulations verified by ED attestation process and ED.

Limitations: Data on migrant student participation in Title 1 Part A programs is collected from local districts and aggregated at the state level. In some cases, the data reported does not agree student counts collected by the State MEPs.

Improvements: Next year, ED will ask Westat to ensure that the staff working on Title 1 Part A, participation data and those working on Title 1, Part C data coordinate their edit checking and compare migrant student data collected by the two programs.

 

Return to table of contents