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 - 2002

CFDA Number: 84.011 - Migrant Education_State Grant Program


Goal 8: To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and achieving graduation from high school (or a GED program) with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship
Objective 8.1 of 1: Along with other federal programs and state and local reform efforts, the Migrant Education Program will contribute to improved school performance of migrant children.
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
Number of states meeting performance target
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
States meeting target States that reported results Percent of students assessed
States meeting target States that reported results Percent of students assessed
2000
    50
52 52 50
2001
    50
52 52 50
2002
    50
52 52 50
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: Although data are not available to report directly on the performance indicator, in 2000, 56, 091 migrant students were reported as tested in 27 states. In 2001, 85,729 migrant students were reported as tested in 26 states. For elementary reading: 2000 -- 17,389, 2001-22,759; elementary math: 2000-14,513, 2001--23,634; middle school reading: 2000-13,542, 2001-19,623; middle school math: 2000-10,647, 2001-19,713.

Explanation: Some of the data for 2000 and 2001 are missing and not expected. Specifically, although many states did report the numbers of migrant students tested in each grade assessed, most states did not report the number of migrant students enrolled in the grade level(s) tested. Thus, ED was not able to calculate percentages of migrant students tested for reporting on the inclusion of migrant students in state assessments. 2002 data are pending and expected.   		Additional Source Information: Consolidated State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002
Data Available: March 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
ED Contractor

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 of the Consolidated State Performance Report. However, ED staff plan to delete this indicator from the GPRA plan in 2004 as it focuses on a 'process' indicator (instead of a results indicator).

 
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 in reading--Elementary.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students who test at or above proficient
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students who test at or above proficient
1996
4 10 50
52 52 50
1997
4 15 50
52 52 50
1998
7 18 50
52 52 50
1999
2 19 50
52 52 50
2000
5 26 50
52 52 50
2001
6 23 50
52 52 50
2002
     
52 52 50

Number of States meeting performance target in reading--Middle.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students who test at or above proficient
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students who test at or above proficient
1996
2 10 50
52 52 50
1997
3 15 50
52 52 50
1998
6 18 50
52 52 50
1999
4 18 50
52 52 50
2000
2 23 50
52 52 50
2001
7 21 50
52 52 50
2002
     
52 52 50

Number of States meeting performance target in Math--Elementary.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students who test at or above proficient
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students who test at or above proficient
1996
4 10 50
52 52 50
1997
5 15 50
52 52 50
1998
9 18 50
52 52 50
1999
6 19 50
52 52 50
2000
7 25 50
52 52 50
2001
10 23 50
52 52 50
2002
     
52 52 50

Number of States meeting performance target in Math--Middle.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students who test at or above proficient
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students who test at or above proficient
1996
3 10 50
52 52 50
1997
3 15 50
52 52 50
1998
7 18 50
52 52 50
1999
4 18 50
52 52 50
2000
2 22 50
52 52 50
2001
4 20 50
52 52 50
2002
     
52 52 50
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: Over the six years reported, this indicator shows a general trend increase in the number of states disaggregating migrant students performance in reading at the elementary & middle school level. Measure 1: The number of states reporting that 50% or more of those migrant students tested scored at or above the proficient level on those tests remains relatively flat. Measure 2: The number of states reporting that 50% or more of those migrant students tested at or above proficient on those tests has risen. Measure 3: The number of states reporting that 50% or more of those migrant students tested at or above proficient on those tests has risen. Measure 4: The number of states reporting ths 50% or more of those migrant students tested scored at or above the proficient level on those tests remains relatively flat.

Explanation: 2002 data are pending and expected. Numbers have been corrected since the previous report and an additional column (States that reported results for migrant students) has been added to additional clarity.   		Additional Source Information: Consolidated State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: March 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
ED contractor

Limitations: The states reporting assessment data for migrant students are fluctuating from on year to the next. As such the indicator does not represent performance on the same states from one year to the next.

Improvements: It is expected that this indicator will become reliable as the state assessment systems become more stable.

 
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
   
2001
300,197 237,739
   
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: Progress toward target is likely. 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 examines whether there is an increase over time in the numbers of such 'priority for services' students receiving either regular-term or summer-term, MEP services. 2001 data are based on an initial draft report and changes to the totals may occur during the data review process.

Explanation: 2002 data are pending and expected.   		Additional Source Information: Consolidated State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2001 - 2002
Data Available: March 2003
Experienced Public/Private entity. Data and tabulations are validated by internal review procedures of an ED contractor.

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. However, ED staff plan to delete this indicator from the GPRA plan in 2004 as it focuses on a 'process' indicator (instead of a results indicator).

 
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
 
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students served
States meeting target States that reported results for migrant students Percentage of students served
1997
7 50 50
52 52 50
1998
8 49 50
52 52 50
1999
14 43 50
52 52 50
2000
10 44 50
52 52 50
2001
11 50 50
52 52 50
Status: Unable to judge

Progress: This indicator examines the degree to which migrant students recieve Title 1 part A services. The indicator suggests that less than 25% of the states provide Title 1 services to 50 percent or more of their migrant children.

Explanation: 2002 data are pending and expected. Numbers in data fields were corrected since the previous report and an additional column (States that reported results for migrant students) was added for clarity.   		Additional Source Information: Consolidated State Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.
Collection Period: 2002 - 2003
Data Available: December 2003
Validated By: No Formal Verification.
ED contractor

Limitations: Data on migrant student participation in Title I Part A programs is collected from local districts and aggregated at the state level.

Improvements: Better instructions on how this data should be collected will be provided in the next revised version of the Consolidated State Performance Report. However, ED staff plan to delete this indicator from the GPRA plan in 2004 as it focuses on a 'process' indicator (instead of a results indicator).

 

Return to table of contents