[A]{.smallcaps}rchived Information

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  []{#__RefHeading___Toc518120430 .anchor}![](media/image1.jpeg)[Planning
  and Evaluation Service]{.smallcaps}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

# 

**[The Same High Standards for Migrant]{.smallcaps}**

**[Students: Holding Title I Schools]{.smallcaps}**

### [Accountable]{.smallcaps}

# 

# 

# Volume II: Measurement of Migrant Student Educational Achievement

##### **[Final Report]{.smallcaps}**

**2002**

![](media/image2.png){width="1.2361111111111112in" height="1.25in"}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ####### U.S. Department of Education                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| [Doc #2002-08]{.smallcaps}                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**[The Same High Standars for Migrnat Students: Holding Title I Schools
Accountable]{.smallcaps}**

**[Volume II: Measurement of Migrant Student]{.smallcaps}**

**[Educational Achievement:]{.smallcaps}**

**[Final Report]{.smallcaps}**

[Prepared by:]{.smallcaps}

Jean Lennon

Betty Markatos

Research Triangle Institute

Research Triangle Park, N.C.

[Prepared for:]{.smallcaps}

U.S. Department of Education\
Office of the Under Secretary

**2002**

# U.S. Department of Education

## Rod Paige

## *Secretary*

# Office of the Under Secretary

## Eugene W. Hickok

## *Under Secretary*

# Planning and Evaluation Service

Alan L. Ginsburg

## *Director*

# Elementary Secondary Education Division

Ricky T. Takai

## *Director*

September 2002

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of the Under Secretary, *The Same High Standards for
Migrant Students: Holding Title I Schools Accountable.* Volume II:
*Measurement of Migrant Student Educational Achievement: Final Report,*
Washington, D.C., 2002.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Editorial Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

Or via electronic mail, send your request to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>.

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to:
www.ed.gov/about/ordering.jsp.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
http://[www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/ed_for_disadvantaged.html#migranted](http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/ed_for_disadvantaged.html#migranted)

http://[www.ed.gov/offices/](http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/ed_for_disadvantaged.html#migranted)OESE/OME/pubs.htm

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such
as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center
(202) 205-8113.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

I. Introduction [1](#__RefHeading___Toc518120430)

A. Overview of the Migrant Education Program
[5](#a.-overview-of-the-migrant-education-program)

A.1. Participants [6](#a.1.-participants)

A.2. Migrant Student Services [7](#a.2.-migrant-student-services)

A.3. Migrant Program Staffing [8](#a.3.-migrant-program-staffing)

B. Migrant Students' Performance on State Assessments
[9](#b.-migrant-students-performance-on-state-assessments)

B.1. Inclusion in State Assessments
[9](#b.1.-inclusion-in-state-assessments)

B.2. Performance of Migrant Students
[10](#b.2.-performance-of-migrant-students)

B.3. Barriers to Increased Participation and Improved Performance in
State Assessments
[13](#b.3.-barriers-to-increased-participation-and-improved-performance-in-state-assessments)

C. High School Completion and Postsecondary Education for Migrant
Students
[14](#c.-high-school-completion-and-postsecondary-education-for-migrant-students)

D. Research Questions for the Current Study
[16](#d.-research-questions-for-the-current-study)

II\. Methodology [17](#ii.-methodology)

III\. Study Findings [19](#iii.-study-findings)

Q.1. What assessment and accountability data are collected on migrant
student achievement?
[20](#q.1.-what-assessment-and-accountability-data-are-collected-on-migrant-student-achievement)

Q.1.1. Extent of migrant student participation
[20](#q.1.1.-extent-of-migrant-student-participation)

Q.1.2. Exemption and exclusion policies
[22](#q.1.2.-exemption-and-exclusion-policies)

Q.1.3. Score reporting [23](#q.1.3.-score-reporting)

Q.1.4. Coordination between state and local levels
[24](#q.1.4.-coordination-between-state-and-local-levels)

Q.1.5. Current barriers to participation
[25](#q.1.5.-current-barriers-to-participation)

Q.1.6. Types of accommodations [28](#q.1.6.-types-of-accommodations)

Q.1.7. Prevalence of accommodations
[30](#q.1.7.-prevalence-of-accommodations)

Q.1.8. Ability to disaggregate by migrant status
[32](#q.1.8.-ability-to-disaggregate-by-migrant-status)

Q.1.9. Current estimates of migrant student performance
[35](#q.1.9.-current-estimates-of-migrant-student-performance)

Q.2. What data are available on migrant student graduation and dropout
rates?
[35](#q.2.-what-data-are-available-on-migrant-student-graduation-and-dropout-rates)

Q.2.1. Availability of data on migrant student graduation rates
[36](#q.2.1.-availability-of-data-on-migrant-student-graduation-rates)

Q.2.2. Availability of data on migrant student dropout rates
[39](#q.2.2.-availability-of-data-on-migrant-student-dropout-rates)

Q.3. What other types of data are routinely collected on migrant student
achievement?\
Is information collected on postsecondary outcomes?
[41](#q.3.-what-other-types-of-data-are-routinely-collected-on-migrant-student-achievement-is-information-collected-on-postsecondary-outcomes)

Q.3.1. Availability of postsecondary data on migrant students
[41](#q.3.1.-availability-of-postsecondary-data-on-migrant-students)

Q.3.2. Availability of other data related to migrant student academic\
outcomes
[42](#q.3.2.-availability-of-other-data-related-to-migrant-student-academic-outcomes)

Q.4. What is the overall quality of the data on migrant students?
[43](#q.4.-what-is-the-overall-quality-of-the-data-on-migrant-students)

Q.5. What steps can states and districts take to improve the quality and
availability\
of data on migrant student outcomes?
[44](#q.5.-what-steps-can-states-and-districts-take-to-improve-the-quality-and-availability-of-data-on-migrant-student-outcomes)

IV\. Summary and Recommendations [48](#iv.-summary-and-recommendations)

V. References [53](#references)

State and District Profile Data

Appendix A: Arizona [54](#appendix-a-arizona)

Appendix B: California [60](#appendix-b-california)

Appendix C: Florida [64](#appendix-c-florida)

Appendix D: Georgia [68](#appendix-d-georgia)

Appendix E: Kansas [73](#appendix-e-kansas)

Appendix F: Kentucky [77](#appendix-f-kentucky)

Appendix G: Oregon [80](#appendix-g-oregon)

Appendix H: Texas [83](#appendix-h-texas)

Appendix I: Washington [86](#appendix-i-washington)

[]{.mark}

Tables

Table 1: Percentage of Participants Receiving Specific Services During
Regular and\
Summer Terms, 1998--1999 [8](#__RefHeading___Toc517775915)

Table 2: Percentage of Migrant Students and All Students Meeting or
Exceeding State Proficiency Levels, by Grade and Subject
[12](#__RefHeading___Toc517775916)

Table 3. Size of Migrant Student Population, by State and District
[18](#__RefHeading___Toc517775917)

Table 4. State and District Abilities to Disaggregate State Assessment
Data by\
Migrant Status [32](#__RefHeading___Toc517775918)

Table 5. Examples of Graduation Rate Formulas
[37](#__RefHeading___Toc517775919)

Table 6. Calculation of Graduation Rates, by State and District
[37](#__RefHeading___Toc517775920)

Table 7. Examples of Dropout Rate Formulas
[40](#__RefHeading___Toc517775921)

Table 8. Calculation of Dropout Rates, by State and District
[40](#__RefHeading___Toc517775922)

[]{.mark}

Figures

Figure 1: Top Nine States According to Size of 1998--1999 Migrant Child
Count\
by Residency
[19](#figure-1-top-nine-states-according-to-size-of-19981999-migrant-child-count-by-residency)

[]{.mark}

**Acknowledgments**

We would like to thank the persons who provided us with assistance and
support over the course of our work on this project. We are especially
grateful to the state and local education agency migrant education
specialists and data specialists in the nine states involved in this
study: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Oregon,
Texas, and Washington. We very much appreciate the cooperation and
assistance of these individuals and their colleagues.

We also extend our appreciation to the federal officials who provided us
with assistance, including Francisco Garcia and Alex Goniprow of the
U.S. Department of Education's Office of Migrant Education, and Robin
Chait, Beth Franklin, and Elois Scott of the U.S. Department of
Education's Planning and Evaluation Service. The Research Triangle
Institute's study team included Betty Markatos, Kimrey Millar, John
Roberts, and Michael Tashjian. We would also like to particularly thank
Jennifer Drolet and Roxanne Snaauw for their editing and formatting
expertise.

Jean Lennon

> **Executive Summary**

This study investigated the extent to which migrant students participate
in state and local assessment and accountability programs, and the types
and quality of academic outcome data on migrant students collected and
maintained by state and local educational agencies. To obtain the
information needed to address these issues, the Department of Education
contracted with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to interview state
and local officials in the nine states reporting the largest number of
children eligible for migrant services, and in one district for each of
these states. In the remainder of this executive summary, the findings
are briefly presented according to the five main research questions.

-   **What assessment and accountability data are collected on migrant
    student achievement?**

> Eight states reported having the ability to disaggregate assessment
> results by migrant status, but only five do so on a regular basis.
> Only two of the nine states were able to provide actual estimates of
> the proportion of migrant students participating in state assessments.
> State migrant officials reported not being able to rely on these data,
> as many believe the data to be misrepresentative due to
> inconsistencies in the procedures used to identify students as migrant
> on the assessments. District officials generally reported more
> confidence that all migrant students were properly identified.
> However, some district officials experienced difficulties in gaining
> access to the data, usually because assessment data are housed
> separately from those maintained by migrant education agencies.
>
> The two most common barriers to migrant student participation in
> assessments continue to be language and mobility. All states and
> districts make some type of accommodation related to language,
> including the allowance of secondary assessments in the student's
> native language. Only Texas has instituted assessment accommodations
> for mobility, by making arrangements with 21 other states to allow
> migrant students from Texas to take the Texas exit-level assessment if
> they are in one of these 21 states at testing time.

-   **What data are available on migrant student graduation and dropout
    rates?**

> Seven states have the capability to produce estimates of graduation
> rates and six would be able to calculate dropout rates among migrant
> students. Most sites reported not calculating such rates, largely
> because they were not required for federal reporting purposes. Dropout
> rates are particularly problematic because migrant students move
> frequently and schools are often left unaware of their status.

-   **What other types of data are routinely collected on migrant
    student achievement? Is information collected on postsecondary
    outcomes?**

> States and districts typically collect little other academic outcome
> data for students in general, and thus for migrant students as well.
> Three of the nine states collected some information on postsecondary
> outcomes, although only two of them are able to disaggregate these
> results by migrant status.

-   **What is the overall quality of the data on migrant students?**

> The relevant aspects of data quality for the purposes of this study
> were accuracy and comprehensiveness, with accuracy referring to
> whether migrant student data are correct, and comprehensiveness
> addressing the inclusiveness of the data. In general, states and
> districts expressed confidence in the accuracy of the data currently
> collected and maintained. However, states and districts are more
> concerned about the comprehensiveness of the data due to the
> identification issues mentioned above. Use of data by states and
> districts is limited due to these concerns about comprehensiveness.
> Efforts to conduct needs assessments, plan for programs, and evaluate
> migrant education services are limited by the lack of breadth of
> information on migrant students. Migrant specialists seemed to be less
> involved in data collection efforts because of difficulty accessing
> data and inadequate time, staff, and funds to dedicate to data-related
> efforts.

-   **What steps can states and districts take to improve the quality
    and availability of data on migrant student outcomes?**

> Most current efforts in the area of migrant data are focused on issues
> of accessibility. Many of the sites visited were piloting efforts to
> improve the migrant data situation, or had specific efforts in the
> planning stages for implementation in the near future. Technological
> issues were often at the heart of problems with access to and use of
> migrant student data, especially the separate storage of migrant,
> academic, and assessment data.
>
> In order to improve the quality of data on migrant students, there are
> five main areas of recommended change at both the state and district
> levels. The first is that systems for assigning and tracking
> identification numbers need to be created or improved. The procedures
> for identifying migrant students should be standardized within and
> across states. The second is that states need to increase awareness of
> their assessment, exemption, and accommodation policies and practices,
> especially as they relate to language exemptions. To encourage the
> inclusion of migrant students in assessments, districts may need to
> reeducate schools about the ways in which accountability systems are
> used.
>
> The third area of change concerns the linking of databases. The
> majority of improvement efforts thus far have been aimed at easier
> linking of data sets and greater accessibility, especially at the
> district level. This work is particularly critical in enabling migrant
> staff to use migrant data to their fullest advantage in planning and
> evaluation of programs. Fourth, formulas for calculating graduation
> rate and dropout rate may need to be standardized or made more
> accessible. Assessment personnel and data specialists should be more
> involved in reviewing migrant statistics. Finally, more states need to
> develop programs to assist migrant students in overcoming educational
> disruptions due to mobility. States and districts need to continue to
> focus efforts in these areas in order for more accurate and thorough
> data collection to be possible.

### I. Introduction

The purpose of the Migrant Education Program (MEP), established by Title
I, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended by the Improving America's School Act of 1994 (IASA), is to help
migrant students overcome the challenges of mobility, limited English
proficiency, and other difficulties associated with a migratory life, in
order to succeed in school. Specifically, the program is intended to
ensure that migrant students (1) receive appropriate instructional and
support services that address their special needs, (2) have the same
opportunity to meet state content and student performance standards all
children are expected to meet, (3) benefit from state and local systemic
reform, and (4) successfully transition to postsecondary education or
employment. The MEP provides state educational agencies with funding
through a formula that is based on each state's per pupil expenditure
and counts of migratory children between 3 and 21 years old.[^1]

The Office of Migrant Education (OME), which administers the MEP,
strives to strengthen and support the efforts of states and other
grantees to continuously improve the quality of education provided to
migrant children. Acting on the legislative mandate above, OME has
established as the goal for the MEP that "all migrant students reach
challenging academic standards and graduate with a high school diploma
(or complete a GED certificate) that prepares them for responsible
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment." In
combination with other federal programs and state and local reform
efforts, the program's success in achieving this goal will be measured
three key indicators of progress:

-   the percentage of ninth grade migrant students who complete high
    school;

-   the percentage of migrant students who meet or exceed proficient
    and/or advanced performance levels on state assessments of reading
    and math; and

-   the percentage of migrant children entering elementary school ready
    to learn.

As with many federal programs, OME relies upon data collected by states
and districts to evaluate its performance. However, due to the mobility
of the migrant student population, collecting and maintaining data on
migrant student academic progress has proved more challenging. In an
effort to evaluate the current state of migrant student data collection
methods and data quality, the U.S. Department of Education (ED), with
the Research Triangle Institute, conducted a study with the following
purposes:

-   Investigate the extent to which data are available on migrant
    student participation in state assessments and accountability
    programs;

-   Identify what other types of information are being collected about
    migrant student achievement;

-   Examine state and local capacity to collect and maintain outcome and
    other data for migrant students, including educational achievement
    data that allow tracking of migrant students' dropout rates,
    graduation rates, and postsecondary enrollments; and

-   Determine what steps are being taken or planned to improve current
    migrant data systems.

Data were collected in the nine states reporting the greatest number of
children eligible for migrant services. As a context for the
presentation of the specific research questions, in the next section of
this review, we provide a brief overview of the MEP program, based
largely on information from annual state performance reports, which
include data on participants, services, and staffing. We then summarize
information on migrant students participating in state assessments and
their performance on these assessments relative to all students.
Barriers to increased participation and improved performance are
identified, as well as ways some districts and states have attempted to
overcome these constraints.

### A. Overview of the Migrant Education Program

State and local agencies administering the MEP collect data on a variety
of basic aspects of their migrant programs. Data collected through
annual state performance reports required by ED include the number of
students eligible to participate, the number of students served during
the regular school year and during the summer term, grade and race
information, types of services available to migrant students, and counts
of students by service type received. Staffing is another aspect of
migrant programs on which states collect data, usually for both the
regular school year as well as for the summer program. In this section
of the review, we summarize the data available from states' 1998--1999
performance reports to provide an overview of the MEP program
(www.migranted.org).

#### A.1. Participants

Overall, in 1998--1999, states reported 782,903 eligible students, and
of those, 575,220 (73 percent) were served during the regular school
year.[^2] In 1998--1999, 318,785 migrant students received services
during the summer term. States operated 11,120 local Title I MEP
projects, a nine percent decrease from the previous year. Of those
projects, 54 percent served students only during the regular school
year, 30 percent served participants both during the regular term and
during the summer, and 16 percent of projects operated during the summer
term only. Approximately 19 percent of the projects were part of an
MEP-funded schoolwide program, and approximately 30 percent were
non-MEP-funded schoolwide programs.

The great majority of migrant students in 1998--1999 were Hispanic (86
percent), while eight percent were white, and six percent were
Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, or black (not
Hispanic). During the regular term, approximately half (52 percent) of
migrant students were in elementary grades (K--6), 30 percent were in
secondary grades (7--12), and 13 percent of participants were in
preschool. The remaining 6 percent were classified as ungraded, or
received services in out-of-school settings. Compared with 1997--1998,
on average, there was a 12 percent increase in number of migrant
students in each elementary grade, and a six percent increase in each
secondary grade. There was a 33 percent increase in number of
participants receiving out-of-school services from the previous year.

A handful of states accounted for a majority of all migrant students in
the United States. California had the largest number of eligible migrant
students, with about one-quarter of all eligible students in the United
States. Texas had the next largest migrant population with 16 percent of
the nation's eligible students. Based on a 12-month count, six other
states reported having over 20,000 eligible students -- Colorado,
Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oregon, and Washington.

#### A.2. Migrant Student Services

Migrant students have many risk factors in common with other
disadvantaged students (e.g., poverty, poor health, learning
disabilities), but they face additional challenges unique to their
situations (e.g., disruption of education, poor record-keeping between
schools, cultural and language difficulties, social isolation). Because
migrant students usually account for only a small percentage of the
total student population, many schools and districts find it difficult
to dedicate the level of resources that may be necessary to ensure the
best educational experience possible for their migrant students. In this
context, state migrant programs often support a comprehensive range of
supplemental services in academics, English language, counseling,
medical and social support.

States report on services offered to students through the MEP in two
basic categories: instructional services and support services. In
1998--1999, the types of instructional courses offered included English
as a Second Language (ESL), reading, other language arts, mathematics,
vocational/career, social studies, science, and others (such as health
education, art, or physical education). Support services included
guidance and counseling, social work and outreach, health, dental,
nutrition, transportation, and others (such as translation services).
During the regular term, greater effort is devoted to ensuring that
students benefit from existing school and community services than is the
case during the summer term, when there are fewer existing academic
offerings and the MEP focuses on providing supplemental instruction.

***Table 1*** indicates the percentage of MEP participants who received
each service during the 1998--1999 school year and the 1999 summer term.
As indicated, during the regular school year, the instructional services
most often received by migrant students included reading (31 percent),
mathematics (22 percent), and English as a second language/limited
English proficiency (ESL/LEP; 15 percent). Almost one-third of
participants received instructional services in another unspecified
subject area. Social work/outreach is the specific support service most
commonly received by migrant students (50 percent), followed by health,
dental, and eye care services (18 percent). More than half of all
participants received some other form of support service.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc517775915 .anchor}Table 1: Percentage of
Participants Receiving Specific Services During Regular and Summer
Terms, 1998--1999

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Instructional Services  Percentage of           Percentage of
                          Regular-Term            Summer-Term
                          Participants Served     Participants Served

  Reading                 31                      61

  Mathematics             22                      42

  ESL/LEP                 15                      18

  Science                 7                       17

  Social Studies          7                       12

  Vocational/Career       5                       6

  Other Instructional     30                      53

  **Support Services**                            

  Social Work/Outreach    50                      36

  Health, Dental, and Eye 18                      22
  Care                                            

  Pupil Transportation    10                      23

  Other Supporting        58                      43
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

In contrast with the regular term, during the summer term, the MEP has
an increased focus on instruction with greater proportions of migrant
students receiving reading instruction (61 percent), mathematics
instruction (42 percent), and other instructional services (53 percent).

#### A.3. Migrant Program Staffing

States reported 7,857 full-time equivalent (FTE) program staff whose
salaries were paid by the MEP in 1998--1999. About half of these were
instructional staff including teachers (16 percent) or teacher aides (33
percent). Other MEP-funded staff roles include support positions such as
recruiters (13 percent), records staff (6 percent), clerks (5 percent),
and administrators (4 percent). During the summer term, the number of
FTE program staff nearly doubled the number of regular term FTE staff,
to 13,151. Consistent with the increased emphasis on instructional
services during the summer, 33 percent were teachers, 30 percent were
teacher aides, and 8 percent were bilingual teachers.

### B. Migrant Students' Performance on State Assessments

When states apply for MEP funding, they are required to describe how the
state will provide all migratory students with an opportunity to meet
the same challenging content and performance standards expected of all
students. States must also provide assurances that they will measure the
effectiveness of their MEP programs using the same approaches and
standards used to assess the performance of all students. In addition,
sending and receiving school districts must collaborate to provide
continuity in migratory children's education.

This section of the review provides information on estimated levels of
participation among migrant students in statewide assessments and
accountability programs, migrant student performance on these
assessments relative to other students, and ways in which states,
districts, and schools have tried to increase migrant students'
participation and improve performance.

#### B.1. Inclusion in State Assessments

Title I requires each state to adopt yearly student assessments aligned
with state content and performance standards, to measure proficiency in
mathematics, reading or language arts and other subjects determined by
the state, at some time during grades 3 through 5, grades 6 through 9,
and grades 10 through 12. Assessments must provide for the participation
of all students, and states must provide for "the inclusion of limited
English proficient students, who shall be assessed, to the extent
practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield accurate and
reliable information" (Section 1111(b)(3)(F)(iii)). Moreover, these
assessments must enable results to be disaggregated within each state,
local educational agency, and school, by, among other factors, a
student's English proficiency and migrant status (Section
1111(b)(3)(I)). Requirements that migrant student achievement data be
collected, disaggregated and reported are meant to ensure that all
migrant children are benefiting from state and local reforms, one of the
MEP's central purposes.

Despite these requirements, research has shown that in most states and
districts, migrant students do not fully participate in statewide
assessments, owing to their mobility, limited English proficiency, and
other factors. Accurate estimates of the degree to which migrant
students participate in state assessments and accountability programs
are not available. It is likely that some students do not participate
because they move from one community to another during the spring months
when much of standardized assessment occurs. In addition, some districts
may opt not to test students that have arrived in their school system
just prior to the annual administration of assessments, while others may
choose to test students on state standards in a state where they have
only recently relocated. Other students are intentionally exempted from
state assessments if they are new to the United States, new to ESL
programs, or score low on English proficiency exams.

Currently, 29 states allow districts to exempt students from state
assessments when their command of the English language is not sufficient
for meaningful participation (Shaul, 1999). However, because exempting
migrant students from assessments is typically a local decision, the
number of students affected is often not reported. Moreover, some
districts or schools choose not to categorize migrant students for fear
of labeling, and as a result, it is not possible to identify the level
of participation of migrant students in these districts. Finally, many
states have only recently implemented statewide assessment systems and
associated data collection practices, further complicating attempts to
identify the extent of migrant students' participation.

#### B.2. Performance of Migrant Students

Student mobility and limited English proficiency not only influence the
level of participation in statewide assessments among migrant students,
but also the performance of those migrant students who do take these
tests. Most states allow school districts to accommodate language needs
for students with limited English proficiency who are participating in
state assessments by extending testing time, reading the test aloud,
administering the tests in the students' native language, and other
means (Rivera, Stansfield, Scialdone, and Sharkey, 2000).

However, recent research suggests that school staff often do not
perceive that the educational or service needs of migrant students
differ significantly from the needs of other educationally disadvantaged
students in their schools, and thus make few special arrangements for
measuring the achievement of migrant students (Siler, et al., 1999). In
fact, most schools implement the same type and method of assessment for
migrant students as for all other students. Further, only half of all
summer projects reported that achievement test scores were available on
records for most or all migrant students, and 15 percent reported that
these data were not available for any migrant students in their state.

Measuring migrant students' performance relative to other students is
further complicated in some states that do not require a single
statewide test, but rather allow local educational agencies to select
from a list of standardized tests, thus making statewide comparisons
virtually impossible. Additionally, most states historically have not
disaggregated data by migrant status, although it is a federal
requirement that they do so by the year 2001. In 1997--1998, only 16
states tracked the achievement of their migrant students relative to
state proficiency levels (Blank, Manise, and Brathwaite, 2000). For
these states, in ***Table 2*** we present the percentage of students
meeting state proficiency levels by grade group and subject for migrant
and all students.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc517775916
.anchor}^Table\ 2:\ Percentage\ of\ Migrant\ Students\ and\ All\ Students\ Meeting\ or\ Exceeding\ State\ Proficiency\ Levels,\ by\ Grade\ and\ Subject^

  ---------- ------------ ------- ------------- ------- --------- ------- ------------- -------
  State^a^   Percentage                                                                 
             of Students                                                                

             Elementary                                 Middle                          

             Reading              Mathematics           Reading           Mathematics   

             Migrant      All     Migrant       All     Migrant   All     Migrant       All

  AL         57.5         68.1    68.7          68.8    58.3      65.9    35.7          59.5

  AK         55.4         81.8    69.1          84.2    47.9      77.8    53.9          70.7

  CT         8.5          54.4    18.8          61.4    14.8      66.4    10.9          56.7

  DC         76.2         75.7    69.3          67.9    71.8      75.6    38.4          43.0

  FL         20.0         51.0    37.0          62.0    20.0      54.0    28.0          57.0

  KS         62.5         78.9    53.0          76.2    52.2      76.7    47.5          67.7

  KY         21.8         32.6    9.5           19.9    7.3       15.5    18.6          31.9

  MA         3.0          20.0    7.0           34.0    20.0      55.0    9.0           31.0

  ME         79.0         89.0    56.0          72.0    63.0      78.0    61.0          74.0

  MI         9.1          58.6    51.5          74.1    28.1      48.8    33.3          61.4

  MO^b^      \*           \*      12.0          32.0    \*        \*      5.0           13.0

  NY         67.6         82.6    92.8          94.5    70.3      81.1    92.5          94.5

  NC         42.4         70.9    63.1          79.2    44.0      79.4    55.6          76.3

  OH         37.0         48.0    32.0          42.0    31.0      53.0    19.0          47.0

  TX         78.1         89.4    78.3          85.7    63.0      84.8    68.9          83.1

  WI         65.0         69.0    58.0          64.0    47.0      52.0    24.0          30.0
  ---------- ------------ ------- ------------- ------- --------- ------- ------------- -------

Source: 2000 CCSSO report on 1997--1998 state assessments.

^a^ Puerto Rico reported state proficiency data by migrant status, but
did not separate data into elementary and middle school grade levels.
Pennsylvania reported data by migrant status, but did not provide a
definition of proficiency, instead reporting results in terms of
quartiles.

^b^ Missouri did not report percentages for reading proficiency by grade
level.

These data must be interpreted with caution for a variety of reasons.
First, because each state determines its own definition of proficiency,
these figures cannot be used for comparison between states. The
instruments used for the assessments also vary from state to state, so
the outcomes are not truly comparable. The data are useful only for
suggesting how migrant students perform on assessments when compared to
all students who took the test within the same state. However, even
these within-state comparisons must be regarded cautiously since we do
not know the number or percentage of migrant students who were tested in
each state. Some states are reporting data based on a very limited or
incomplete sample, making true estimates of migrant students'
achievement relative to other students problematic.

With these cautions in mind, the data suggest that performance of
migrant students relative to all students was lower in all states, with
only one exception. Washington, DC actually reported a higher percentage
of migrant students meeting state standards, though the differences
between scores were only a couple of percentage points at most, and may
not be statistically significant. The difference between migrant
students and all students in most states is rather large. For example,
Arkansas and North Carolina reported 20 percent to 30 percent fewer
migrant students achieving state proficiency levels for reading at the
elementary school level. Five states, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine,
and Texas, reported 10 percent to 20 percent fewer migrant students
meeting state standards in mathematics at the middle school level.

#### B.3. Barriers to Increased Participation and Improved Performance in State Assessments

The major barriers associated with migrant students' participation in
and performance on state assessments are issues related to mobility and
limited English proficiency. Mobility creates multiple problems that
constrain, and even prevent, accurate and timely assessment of student
performance. The first of these is that migrant students are sometimes
assessed with tests that are not consistent with the curriculum of the
sending state. Additionally, migrant students may travel during the
spring harvest season when statewide assessments typically occur. Other
students move before their test results are returned and may not have
their scores included in student records needed by the receiving school
to assist with registration and appropriate grade placement.

The timely transfer of student records is an important issue related to
the barrier of mobility of migrant students. Without the most up-to-date
records, it is possible that students will not be placed in the
appropriate grade level nor assessed at the appropriate level.
Incomplete records further aggravate the situation. For example, while
most summer MEP projects reported that they had the majority of data
regarding information on students' last addresses, program availability,
and last grades completed, only about half of these programs reported
having records with achievement test scores, and even fewer had
transcript records for students. Also, although two-thirds of summer MEP
programs reported having data on students' limited English proficiency
and health, some programs reported having no data for any migrant
student on health records, language proficiency, transcripts, or
achievement test scores (Parsad, Heaviside, Williams, and Farris, 2000).

Some attempts to address these barriers have been made. The most
frequent accommodation to the special needs of migrant students,
relative to statewide assessments, is related to the language barrier.
In 1999, 37 states allowed language accommodations, 21 states allowed
bilingual word lists or dictionaries on some or all assessment
components, 13 allowed translation of directions, and 11 allowed
translation of tests into the students' native language (Rivera,
Stansfield, Scialdone, and Sherkey, 2000). Schools with larger
proportions of LEP students who were migrant were more likely to have
assessment results translated. School officials who had implemented the
program schoolwide believed there were improvements being made in
reporting results, especially if they served large numbers of migrant
students or had migrant parent participation in planning (Henderson, et
al., 1999). State or district accommodations of migrant students'
mobility are less common than accommodations for language difficulties.
Some efforts intended to address the challenges of student mobility
included consortia of states to coordinate identification and
recruitment.

### C. High School Completion and Postsecondary Education for Migrant Students

One of the primary goals of the MEP is to ensure that as many migrant
students as possible complete high school and pursue postsecondary
education. This is also one of the greatest challenges of migrant
education as migrant students come under increasing pressure to leave
school so that they may contribute to their families' income and
child-care responsibilities (Morse and Hammer, 1998; Salerno, 1991). In
1987, The Migrant Attrition Project found that the conditions most
likely to lead to early school leaving for migrant students included
overage grade placement, poverty, interrupted school attendance, lack of
continuity in curriculum, inconsistent recordkeeping, and limited
English proficiency (Salerno, 1991). Because teenagers are much more
productive in the field and more capable of caring for younger siblings
than when they were younger, some are under greater demand by their
families to work. Some teenagers have pride in becoming an economic
contributor to the household. High school is also a difficult time for
adolescents in general, when being different from other students, either
because one is starting at an unfamiliar school or because one is older
than most classmates, can be very uncomfortable. With the added
difficulties of poverty and limited English proficiency that are often
part of the migrant student's experience, it is not surprising that so
many migrant students are lost to the education system during their high
school years.

While it is estimated that graduation rates have increased over the past
several decades from 10 percent to more than 40 percent (Morse and
Hammer, 1998), it is reported that migrant students still have the
lowest graduation rate in the public school system (Educational
Resources Information Center, 1991). Over the years, many programs have
attempted to increase the number of migrant students finishing high
school by developing measures that reduce negative school experiences.
Some of these programs target those migrant students still attending
high school. Others are designed to work with those who have left school
and are seeking a high school equivalency degree (High School
Equivalency Program, or HEP), or are ready to attend college (College
Assistance Migrant Program, or CAMP). Most programs share a core of
support characteristics, which are believed to be critical in assisting
migrant students to complete high school and prepare for postsecondary
opportunities.

Many migrant students have limited English proficiency and experience
some degree of language difficulties. As a result, it is essential that
programs to facilitate the pursuit of postsecondary education provide
testing in the student's native language, as well as ESL instruction.
The college admissions process and the procurement of financial aid are
further complicated when the student has a limited grasp of the English
language. Another factor believed to be important in determining the
migrant student's success is ongoing support from family and educational
personnel (Duron, 1995).

Programs that promote high school graduation vary from state to state
(see Morse and Hammer, 1998). One widespread program, however, is the
Portable Assisted Study Sequence (PASS) program, found in 29 states.
Covering subject areas in grades 6 through 12, this semi-independent
program allows students to take their studies with them in an
uninterrupted fashion between states. The PASS system provides a
solution to one of the migrant student's greatest academic challenges,
the accrual of sufficient credits to graduate.

Evaluating the success of migrant students as they complete high school
and pursue postsecondary education is difficult for several reasons. As
will be discussed in further detail below, academic databases containing
graduation information very often do not have information on migrant
status. Therefore, MEP staff cannot examine graduation data relevant to
their target population. Postsecondary information is also obscured by
the lack of disaggregated information, as well as the difficulty of
tracking migrant students several months after graduation to collect
data on postsecondary outcomes. Finally, there are some students who may
not qualify as migrant during their high school years but who benefited
from MEP services at other times during their education. Those successes
are also important to measure, as services received through the MEP may
have helped those students to maintain a level of proficiency sufficient
for them to continue their education.

### D. Research Questions for the Current Study

In the preceding review, we have noted the difficulties in drawing
conclusions about migrant student achievement due to incomplete,
incompatible, or poor quality data. The present study was designed to
investigate the extent to which migrant students participated in state
and local assessment and accountability programs, and the types and
quality of academic outcome data on migrant students collected and
maintained by state and local agencies. Specifically, the study
addressed five main research questions:

-   What assessment and accountability data are collected on migrant
    student achievement?

-   What data are available on migrant student graduation and dropout
    rates?

-   What other types of data are routinely collected on migrant student
    achievement? Is information collected on postsecondary outcomes?

-   What is the overall quality of the data on migrant students?

-   What steps can states and districts take to improve the quality and
    availability of data on migrant student outcomes?

### II. Methodology

Between the months of October 2000 and January 2001, we conducted site
visits to the nine states reporting the greatest number of children
eligible for migrant services in the 1998--1999 school year.[^3] In
descending order according to size, these states are California, Texas,
Florida, Washington, Oregon, Kentucky, Kansas, Arizona, and Georgia (see
***Table 3*** and ***Figure 1***). These nine states accounted for
approximately 70 percent of the nation's migrant student population in
1998--1999 (www.migranted.org). We asked the director of the migrant
education program in each state to select a district that represented a
typical local migrant program in that state. Districts were to be around
the 25^th^ percentile in size of migrant student population, and
representative or average in terms of migrant education practices. We
interviewed migrant program directors and data and assessment records
specialists at both state and local levels. We followed up our on-site
data collection via E-mail and telephone calls, as necessary, to fully
address the study's information goals.

Our analyses of information collected during site visits, as well as
from state and district reports, focused on identification of themes
both among and within states. Interstate analyses focused on common
obstacles to more efficient collection, storage, management of, and
access to quality assessment data on migrant students. We also examined
the data for interstate differences in availability of migrant data,
assessment participation rates, and assessment accommodation practices.
Within states, we looked for consistency between state reporting
policies and district reporting practices. In several cases, we observed
that district-level officials presented information on current migrant
education practices that differed from what was reported by the state
officials.

There are two limitations of the study design the reader should consider
when reviewing the results. First, the districts chosen by the state
migrant directors may not have been truly representative of local
migrant programs in that state. Second, our findings are based primarily
on information obtained through interviews with state and district
staff, who may have been hesitant to be more specific when speaking
about sensitive topics.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc517775917 .anchor}Table 3. Size of Migrant Student
Population, by State and District

  --------- ------------ -------------- -------------- ----------- -----------
  Size      State        District       Number of      Number of   
  Ranking                               Children       Migrant     
                                        Eligible for   Students    
                                        Migrant        Served^†^   
                                        Services in                
                                        each State                 

                                                       State       District

  1         California   San Jose       220,860        220,000     1,587
                         Unified                                   

  2         Texas        La Joya        122,877        131,457     5,538
                         Independent                               

  3         Florida      Hillsborough   52,715         47,715      4,817
                         County                                    

  4         Washington   Sunnyside      34,574         31,850      2,100

  5         Oregon       Ontario        26,408         27,000      1,298

  6         Kentucky     Hardin County  25,146         22,000      250

  7         Kansas       Emporia        22,718         21,895      1,419

  8         Arizona      Yuma Union     18,141         18,460      2,245

  9         Georgia      Southern Pine  17,949         21,103      5,431
                         MEA^‡^                                    

  Total                                 541,388        541,480     24,443
  --------- ------------ -------------- -------------- ----------- -----------

Note: Migrant Education Programs serve migrant children and youth
between the ages of 3 and 22. However, school-based migrant statistics
provide information only on those migrant children and youth who are
enrolled in school.

\* 1998--1999 Title I Migrant Education State Performance Reports

^†^ As reported during site visits.

^‡^ Georgia's Southern Pine Migrant Education Agency encompasses 19 of
the state's 180 school districts.

## **Figure 1: Top Nine States According to Size of 1998--1999 Migrant Child Count by Residency**

![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.346527777777778in"
height="2.8243055555555556in"}

> Source: 1998--1999 Title I Migrant Education State Performance
> Reports.
>
> \* States were selected based on data available at the time of study
> design. According to final counts, Colorado had 20,259 eligible
> students and would have been included instead of Georgia.

### III. Study Findings

We organize our findings according to the five research questions,
giving examples from specific states and districts to illustrate points
wherever possible. We provide a summary of information for each of the
sites in Appendices A through I.

### Q.1. What assessment and accountability data are collected on migrant student achievement?

The IASA requires that states implement assessment systems that allow
all students the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and knowledge.
The nine states involved in this study have assessment policies and
instruments in place, but not all migrant students are participating in
statewide assessments. Migrant students are not tested at the same rate
as non-migrant students as a result of language exemption policies,
absenteeism due to high mobility, and other factors. According to state
performance reports, the majority of migrant students are Hispanic, and
for many, English is a second language, one in which they may not be
proficient. Although states allow some accommodations on assessments on
the basis of language, this does not ensure that migrant students'
scores are included in school, district, or state totals.

In this section of the report, we present study findings on the extent
of migrant student participation in state assessments. These findings
refer only to state assessments; none of the nine states in this study
collects information on the types of local assessments used by school
districts, and only one state requires that districts administer
assessments other than the statewide tests.

#### Q.1.1. Extent of migrant student participation

The extent of migrant student participation on statewide assessments
cannot be determined in most of the states we visited. To accurately
report the rate of migrant student participation in assessments, one
should know (1) the number of students eligible for testing, (2) the
number exempt, (3) the number not tested, (4) the number tested, and (5)
the number tested with accommodations. Texas and Kentucky were the only
two states in this study that provided comparisons between the number of
migrant students eligible to participate and the number of migrant
students who actually participated. Texas reports that 90 percent of
eligible migrant students were tested on its 1999--2000 assessments. (An
estimate of participation in the Texas district is provided in Appendix
H.) Kentucky reported participation rates by each of the seven grades
taking the test, ranging from a minimum of 42.56 percent in grade 5 to a
maximum of 70.65 percent in grade 4, with an overall average of 61.04
percent. Although these figures were made available to RTI, they
appeared to be calculated for this study's purposes, rather than for
routine use by assessment or migrant personnel. California and
Washington reported only the number of migrant students who
participated, not the total number of eligible migrant students.

The inability of migrant coordinators to produce accurate rates of
migrant student participation in assessments is indicative of the
overall lack of migrant student statistics available. Since migrant and
assessment specialists have not been required to report the rate of
participation, they do not compare the number of migrant students coded
on assessments with the total number eligible for testing. Complications
due to incompatible databases, limited resources, and other
state-specific issues further impede data collection efforts.

Eight of the nine states in this study coded assessments for migrant
status. Assessment answer forms are coded with student identifiers and
demographic information, enabling scores to be sorted by categories such
as gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (determined by
free/reduced lunch status), or other variables. In order to denote
migrant status, a unique column, code, or "bubble" identifier on the
answer sheet may be completed for eligible migrant students. The one
state that has not had a migrant status field on its assessment forms
added one in the spring 2001 administration of the test.

Since six of the nine states have assessment scores as their only source
of disaggregated migrant student data, it is especially critical that
their assessment databases include all migrant students and that these
students are accurately identified as migrant. However, migrant
specialists frequently expressed a lack of confidence in the accuracy of
migrant coding. Migrant status coding is the responsibility of the local
school systems, although districts allocate this responsibility in
different ways. In seven of the states, the regular school databases
that hold information on attendance and grades do not have fields to
denote migrant status. Therefore, school personnel are often asked to
complete the migrant identifier on assessments even though they may not
have received training on defining criteria. Some districts and states
provide lists of students already identified as migrant to principals or
teachers for use in coding migrant status. In other cases, migrant staff
provide the defining criteria of "migrant" to teachers who then become
responsible for the coding. In some cases, students themselves may be
asked to indicate their migrant status on their assessment sheets.

Some state officials expressed concern that students may be coded as
migrant because they move frequently, even if they move for reasons
other than migratory work (e.g., military relocation, construction
work). If school staff are coding assessments without a full
understanding of migrant eligibility criteria, they may neglect to
complete the migrant identifier or they may fill it in for more students
than is appropriate. This lack of standardized migrant status
identification for assessments increases the likelihood of errors and
may lead to over- and under-inclusion of migrant students. Awareness of
this variation undermines the confidence of migrant specialists in
migrant identification, and therefore their confidence in the validity
of the disaggregated assessment scores.

#### Q.1.2. Exemption and exclusion policies

Exemption and score reporting policies play a major role in the
under-representation of migrant students in state assessment reports
(Rivera, et al., 2000). The great majority of migrant students are
Hispanic, and for many, English is a second language. Eight of the nine
states in this study allow schools to exempt students from assessments
based on English language proficiency. Only California does not exclude
students from assessments for reasons related to language proficiency,
although they allow a second test to be taken in Spanish. Rivera, et al.
says exemption decisions are based on language-related criteria, with
emphasis on time-related, academic, or opinion-related criteria, and
often depend on formal assessments of English proficiency, language
program placement, and other factors to determine if students will be
included in assessments. Unfortunately, there is no way of estimating
how many migrant students are affected by these policies, as none of the
states that allow exemptions keeps records of how many students are
exempted. Only Texas automatically administers alternate native language
assessments to exempted students, while some other states make them
available by request.

In some states, migrant personnel were not fully aware of state
assessment policies. In one state, MEP staff believed that state policy
did not set parameters for determining English proficiency for exemption
purposes. However, as quoted by Rivera, et al., that state's policy
explicitly defines non-English-proficiency as a specific score on a
named formal language proficiency test (2000). In another state, migrant
education personnel said that all students are to participate in
assessments; however, state policy lists the criteria for exclusion as
formal assessment of English proficiency, language program placement,
and the student's best interest. One of the smaller states' contacts
said that students are only eligible for exemption during their first
year in the United States, although this is not written into the state
policy.

##### 

#### Q.1.3. Score reporting

When states allow students to be tested with accommodations, they may
also develop policies concerning how accommodated students' scores will
be reported. Three of the nine states require the scores of ELLs
(English language learners) who have received accommodations to be
included with the school, district, and state totals (Kentucky, Texas,
and Washington). Other states allow accommodated students' scores to be
excluded from totals and use unreported scores only at the individual
level (Kansas and Oregon). Rivera, et al. holds that Arizona does not
have a policy on score reporting, but migrant and assessment specialists
there mentioned that they do exclude some ELL scores. Several migrant
education contacts said that districts are not required to include
scores of students not enrolled for the entire school year, which is
relevant in the case of migrant students due to their high rate of
mobility.

#### Q.1.4. Coordination between state and local levels

Communication between state and local levels concerning migrant student
participation in assessments varies by state. The state migrant office
involvement at the local level depends on the number of project
districts in the state, the number of state-level staff, and whether the
personnel have a categorical or consolidated approach to special
programs. The local migrant education administering agency may be a
school district, a consortium, or a private organization. Some designs
allow for more direct interaction with the local level, with migrant
staff actively participating in migrant coding on assessments, as well
as assisting with other services. Other states may be less aware of
local testing situations due to the sheer number of district migrant
programs or the number of staff who manage the migrant education
programs. One state has four regional Migrant Education Agencies, which
provide assistance to the districts in their part of the state. As a
result, the state coordinator interacts less with the school districts
than with the four administering agencies. Other factors also influence
communication and coordination, like one state's recent migrant director
position vacancy. Without a state migrant director, service coordination
and data collection fell behind and local migrant specialists assumed
responsibilities that would otherwise be filled by the state official.
The structure of state and local migrant responsibilities plays a major
role in the communication between migrant specialists throughout each
state.

Gaps between state and district knowledge appear to exist around migrant
assessment identification issues and the availability of migrant data.
State personnel were not always aware of exactly what data are or could
be collected at the district level. The district staff generally
expressed confidence in the quality of their assessment coding for
migrant status, but state personnel had less faith in statewide coding
because not all districts have effective migrant coding procedures.
Similarly, migrant specialists and assessment specialists are often
unaware of each others' needs and capabilities at both state and local
levels. With no prior requirement to report migrant-specific data, there
has been no precedent to establish regular communication concerning the
types of data available, migrant identification on assessments, or
disaggregated migrant score reports. The lack of communication
significantly affects the level of confidence migrant specialists have
in migrant data. Also, state and local migrant education personnel do
not always have the same understanding of allowable accommodations. For
example, in one large state, district personnel were not aware of the
testing accommodations allowed under state policy, although the state
director reported the accommodations were in use across the state.

#### Q.1.5. Current barriers to participation

Barriers to participation are of two types: those that are
institutionalized in schools, assessment systems, and policies, and
those inherent in the migrant lifestyle. Those barriers that are part of
the system include exemption policies, accountability systems with
sanctions for poor performance, lack of enforcement of inclusion rules,
and low expectations held by school personnel of specific groups of
students. Challenges that are specific to the migrant population often
include poverty, lack of transportation, fear of immigration officials,
lack of formal schooling, mobility, and language difficulties. These
last two are the leading barriers to migrant student participation in
statewide assessments.

**Mobility** is a defining characteristic of the migrant student and his
or her family. Frequent moves cause disruption of the educational
process that may lead to problems with credit accrual, challenges
meeting academic standards, and lower participation in statewide
assessments. Migrant students travel at different times throughout the
year, including during testing times, and they may be tested in a state
other than their home state, or they may miss being assessed altogether.
Only Texas has taken steps to permit its migrant students to participate
in out-of-state testing. These conditions lead some migrant education
personnel to question whether assessment scores accurately represent
what students are learning if they are tested on curricula they may not
have been taught in their home state. Schools may also feel it is an
inaccurate reflection of their students' skills if they are forced to
include migrant students, whom they have not had the opportunity to
teach for the entire school year. It cannot be determined how this
directly affects rates of migrant student participation because, as
previously discussed, data are very rarely collected to enable such an
analysis.

**Language** is also a significant barrier to migrant student
participation in assessments. In fact, it was cited as a bigger problem
than mobility in two of the largest states, California and Florida.
State and district staff in California and Florida believe that most of
their students now move within the state. While this still creates
disruptions in a student's education, it means that more migrant
students can be tested against their home state's standards. However,
limited or non-English-proficiency was repeatedly noted as the largest
challenge to migrant student participation in statewide assessments.
Many migrant students are Hispanic, sometimes moving directly from
Mexico to work in the United States, and may have little knowledge of
English. Districts and states must find ways to provide this growing
population with instruction services, including staff, books, tests,
translators, and other services.

Using assessments as part of an accountability system provides a strong
disincentive for administrators to make extra efforts to ensure
participation by all populations, and might actually lead school-level
staff to discourage migrant students from participating. If state or
local personnel are judged on the performance of their students, they
may attempt to exclude students who are expected to perform less well.
While none of the state respondents explicitly reported purposeful
exclusion of migrant students, some acknowledged the potential for such
practices. None of the contacts were able to provide definitive evidence
of current violations of state or federal policy, but two large states'
contacts believe that schools make an effort to exclude students who are
expected to do poorly by encouraging parents to request that their
children be exempt. The contacts from one of the smaller states in the
sample expressed concern about the lack of enforcement of the state
policy that all students be tested. Although a state mandate declares
that all students are to be tested, local administrative control is
strong, and the extent to which this rule is followed cannot be
guaranteed. Several district officials in other states held similar
views. In one district, the migrant coordinator believed that such
exclusions had been a practice there in the past, but that the problem
had been addressed. Another district coordinator admitted such
exclusions were a problem, but qualified her assertion by saying she
thought it was happening elsewhere in the state, but not in her
particular district. Although there are no clear data, the possibility
exists of migrant student exclusion for reasons of accountability
concerns.

Migrant education personnel may conduct programs that assist migrant
students with English language proficiency or test-taking skills, but
they have no direct responsibility for assessment administration,
accommodations, or reporting. Each state has its own assessment
department and policies, and migrant education staff members are not
charged with overseeing assessments or accommodations. Migrant education
specialists recognize barriers to migrant student participation in
assessments, but their focus is more on providing services to help
overcome these barriers than enforcing rules on statewide testing.

#### Q.1.6. Types of accommodations

The two types of assessment accommodations made for migrant students are
those related to language difficulties and those related to mobility.
Language accommodations are specific changes to the testing situation
that enable English language learners (ELLs) to demonstrate their
academic knowledge despite limited proficiency in the English language.
Accommodations may involve the setting of the test, timing and/or
scheduling, presentation (e.g., translation), and response. State
policies often apply time limits to accommodations, making them
available to students for a maximum of one, two, or three years, with
the assumption that students will become proficient in English within
that time. Mobility accommodations are changes that allow students to
take assessments outside of the regular testing window or allow students
to take their home-state assessment in whatever state they are living
during the time assessments are normally administered.

All states and districts included in this study make some type of
**language accommodation** for ELLs, except California. California does
not allow accommodations on its statewide assessment, but offers an
additional assessment in the student's native language. The demand for
language accommodations is likely to increase as the Hispanic population
grows and more states face the challenges of meeting their language
needs. For example, the Hispanic population was virtually non-existent
in Kentucky a few years ago. However, the state migrant director
estimates the number of Spanish-speaking students has burgeoned from 300
to 3,000 in the past four years. Now, schools there are struggling to
find Spanish-speaking staff and to establish programs that meet the
linguistic needs of these students.

Rivera, et al. (2000) found that the accommodations which best address
the linguistic needs of ELLs are the least frequently allowed and the
most frequently prohibited. These include accommodations in test
presentation and response, such as those that allow students to test in
their native language or answer with the assistance of a dictionary or a
translator. For example, Georgia allows ELLs extra time on tests, but no
assistance with translation. Spanish assessments are available in some
of the states that have traditionally had a Hispanic population --
Arizona, California, Oregon, and Texas. California's Spanish assessment
is in addition to the regular English assessment, and some states'
policies set aside maximum time limits for which students may test in
Spanish.

Various other types of accommodations are allowed, unique to each state.
In one state, policy allows test directions to be translated and permits
students to use word lists or dictionaries on the mathematics, writing,
and listening content areas, but not on the reading section. Another
state allows translation and explanation of directions, the use of
dictionaries, and extended testing time. Although a third state allows
translation and the use of dictionaries, district personnel were unaware
of these accommodation possibilities so the extent to which they are
used is questionable. These students would likely benefit more from
assistance with translation or other accommodations that help reduce the
disadvantage of not being proficient in English. One of the smaller
states allows a simplified language version of the test that reduces the
use of cultural idioms and bias, but this sort of accommodation is rare.
Even with a variety of accommodations allowed across states, migrant ELL
students are limited in ways that may prevent them from performing to
the best of their ability.

In contrast to the prevalence of language accommodations, only one state
has created a system of **mobility accommodations** for student
assessments. Migrant students' high rate of mobility disrupts their time
in a school district, and may interfere with assessment testing
schedules. Migrant students may be tested in districts where they have
attended school for only a short period of time, and may be tested on
material in which they have not received instruction. In an attempt to
overcome some of these obstacles, Texas has made an agreement with 21
other states to allow Texas-based students to take the exit-level Texas
Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) exam. In this study, the states
which administer the TAAS under this agreement included California,
Florida, Georgia, Oregon, and Washington.[^4] Texas holds annual
training for states that use the TAAS at the National Migrant Education
Conference. Migrant education agencies in other states do offer services
tailored to helping students handle frequent transitions (e.g.,
academic, family, and community programs tailored to the migrant student
population), but no changes are made in the administration of statewide
tests.

#### Q.1.7. Prevalence of accommodations

As with the lack of information on exemptions, none of the states
collects or reports data on how often accommodations are used on
assessments. Only one district was able to provide information on the
prevalence of accommodations for this study, but does not regularly
calculate this figure. Migrant education specialists are not required to
submit data on how many students take assessments with accommodations.
Although migrant education coordinators may be better able to assess the
performance of migrant students with more complete and accurate
disaggregated information regarding state assessments, their lack of
evaluation training and support are further hindered by the fact that
historically these data have not been tracked. In one of the smaller
states in this study, the assessment specialist reported that the type
of accommodation allowed is coded on the answer form, and therefore
could be tallied for reporting. However, a report showing the prevalence
of these accommodations was not available and there was no discussion of
preparing these data for review in the future. In all states, this lack
of information, when combined with a similar dearth of exemption data,
leaves migrant educators largely uninformed about the conditions under
which their students are tested.

Data are also lacking concerning the number of students not tested.
Students who are not formally exempted may still not be tested for
reasons including absence from school or local exception policies for
students in the district for less than a year. Only two states made
reference to the number of students not tested, but they placed little
emphasis on this issue. Washington state reports show how many students
were not tested, but not how many were exempted. Kansas' assessment
administration manual states, "Reporting percentages of students not
tested, on the building report cards, is being seriously considered."
Data specialists typically do not seek out this information since it is
not required for reporting and there has been no precedent to raise
their awareness of the utility of such data collection.

The recent legislative emphasis on assessments has not been accompanied
by a correspondent focus on accommodation or score reporting data.
States vary in their approaches to ELL students' education and
assessment. California, Georgia, and Kentucky require that assessments
be taken in English although short-term exceptions are sometimes made
for students new to the state. While California does offer Spanish
language tests, they are in addition to the formal English assessments.
Arizona passed a proposition in 2000 that requires English-only
instruction, and policymakers have not yet determined how this will
affect assessments. The other five states in this study do allow some
accommodations on the basis of language, but have no statistics on how
often they are used.

#### Q.1.8. Ability to disaggregate by migrant status

Eight of the nine states in this study had the capability of
disaggregating their statewide assessment data by migrant status in
order to view migrant data compared to that of all students or to that
of non-migrant students (***Table 4***). The ninth state added this
capacity to its spring 2001 testing. However, these disaggregated data
are used predominantly by districts, rather than at the state level.
Although eight states are able to disaggregate data, only five regularly
do so at the state level.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc517775918 .anchor}Table 4. State and District
Abilities to Disaggregate State Assessment Data by Migrant Status

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 32%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>AZ</td>
<td>CA</td>
<td>FL</td>
<td>GA</td>
<td>KS</td>
<td>KY</td>
<td>OR</td>
<td>TX</td>
<td>WA</td>
<td>Total Yes</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>State can disaggregate assessment data by migrant status</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>(x)<sup>a</sup></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>8<sup>a</sup></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>State does disaggregate assessment data by migrant status</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>District can disaggregate assessment data by migrant status</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td><p><mark></mark></p>
<p>x</p></td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>District does disaggregate assessment data by migrant status</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td></td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>x</td>
<td>8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

> ^a^ As of Spring 2001, Georgia can disaggregate by migrant status.

Technically, it should be possible to report assessment scores by any
demographic category recorded on the test answer sheet. The variables by
which states most often report performance on assessments are content
area, grade, gender, race/ethnicity, economic status (determined by
free/reduced lunch), and special education. Four states' reports are
also available by LEP status, two by gifted and talented program
placement, one by at-risk status, and another by type of disability.
Since most assessment database systems are not electronically linked to
school-based systems, data reports do not show comparisons by attendance
or classroom academic performance. District migrant staff could
disaggregate data for migrant students in all of the eight states that
could designate migrant status on assessments.[^5] However, in order to
maintain confidentiality, assessment personnel often require that there
be a minimum number of students per school or district in the migrant
category in order to report performance. This does limit the utility of
assessment data for migrant education program staff in smaller
districts, as scores for their students may be coded as missing or
unavailable.

Washington's assessment office enables districts to view data in two
ways, both hard copy and on disk in spreadsheet format. District
personnel can rearrange data on the spreadsheet by any of the variables
measured. However, with migrant specialists' many responsibilities, they
often do not spend time manipulating the data report format.
Washington's Migrant Student Record System is capable of holding
assessment data, but has not been used for this because disparate
student identification numbers do not allow for the transfer of
information between databases. Programmers are working to match the
identification numbers in order to begin making assessment data
available in the migrant system through a single transfer of information
from the assessment system.

States we visited do not track district-level assessment information in
the state migrant or assessment office, and very few of the districts
involved in the study perform assessments in addition to the statewide
tests. Although Oregon does not have records of Ontario School
District's local assessments or score reports, they are aware that
Ontario's data collection and disaggregation capabilities are more
advanced than most other districts in the state. Ontario School District
tests the non-benchmark grades with assessments composed of comparable
questions to the regular assessments so that all students are assessed
annually with equivalent instruments. However, Ontario enjoys better
communication between migrant and data collection staff than many
districts. For example, district migrant coordinators in two large
states reported delays in receiving responses to their data requests
from accountability offices. In another state, migrant personnel were
unaware that they could request disaggregated reports.

While disaggregated assessment data are potentially available in all of
the states visited, they are not generally used. Overall, the migrant
education staff members do not seek out state or district assessment
results by variables other than those provided by the assessment
department. Complications in combining migrant student data with
meaningful academic data from the existing systems discourage migrant
education coordinators from seeking migrant statistics. Only two of the
nine states' migrant databases are currently compatible with the state
academic databases, and the remaining seven states in this study are
very limited in what information they can disaggregate by migrant
status. Their migrant data systems hold information regarding the number
of migrant students in the state by gender, grade level, race, and any
other demographic data included in the database, including address, age,
and family information. For information not otherwise listed by migrant
status, migrant specialists must take time-consuming steps to
disaggregate data from other sources. This disaggregation of data is an
involved task due to discrete data systems and the need to collaborate
with other offices, which also prove to be major disincentives to
evaluation. California and Oregon are piloting comprehensive databases
that combine many sources and will help with disaggregation, but neither
system is yet complete.

Migrant education specialists often view assessments as an imperfect way
to gauge migrant student performance due to application of
characteristics of the testing system to this mobile population. Migrant
education coordinators generally believe that the coding of migrant
status on assessments is not accurate. In addition, migrant students are
often prohibited from being allowed significant accommodations or being
tested in a native language other than English. Some migrant specialists
said that assessment data may be useful for migrant staff evaluating
particular students, but not the population as a whole. This lack of
confidence in disaggregated data on migrant student assessment
performance was common across most states.

#### Q.1.9. Current estimates of migrant student performance

Migrant education staff in all nine states believed that migrant
students are not performing as well as non-migrant students. Three
states provided reports on performance of migrant and non-migrant
students, while most states show disaggregated migrant scores in
comparison to all students. Districts in eight states showed local
migrant student performance on assessments.

The data available from the three states that presented state-level
assessment scores broken down into categories of migrant and non-migrant
students show the performance disparity between the two groups. Migrant
scores lag significantly behind non-migrant scores, with few migrant
consolidated scores matching or exceeding those of non-migrants.
Specific state and district assessment data are provided in Appendices A
through I.

### Q.2. What data are available on migrant student graduation and dropout rates?

In addition to migrant student participation in assessments, an area of
interest to the study was the availability of other data on migrant
student academic achievement. We asked migrant education staff about
graduation rates, dropout rates, postsecondary information, and any
other information routinely collected to measure academic outcomes for
migrant students. Such data could be used to supplement the assessment
data upon which most states currently rely in order to show a more
complete picture of migrant student achievement.

#### Q.2.1. Availability of data on migrant student graduation rates

The rate of graduation is a statistic calculated based on the number of
students completing a secondary education, and can be used to evaluate
how migrant student achievement compares to that of all students. States
and districts use slightly different methods for calculating these
rates, rather than using a standard formula. Variations include whether
rates compare a four-year cohort or a one-year peer group, as well as
whether GED completions are considered. ***Table 5*** lists examples of
several formulas used for graduation rates.

Although most states reported having the capacity to calculate
graduation rates for their migrant student populations, only two states
did so on a regular basis (see ***Table 6**)*. Migrant education
personnel in the other seven states cautioned that such calculations
would require several steps, and they emphasized that the process would
be both lengthy and labor-intensive. Graduation data are stored in
general school databases that are separate from those containing migrant
status information and do not have a field to denote migrant status.
While the combination of the databases for the purpose of computing a
migrant student graduation rate is possible in theory, few states pursue
these data because of the investment of resources involved and because
they are not required by the federal government. Some migrant
information databases have a field for graduation information, but since
the systems cannot be linked, that information would have to be manually
entered by local staff. This is not done consistently enough to allow
state rates to calculated.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc517775919 .anchor}Table 5. Examples of Graduation
Rate Formulas

+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|       | Examples of Graduation Rate Formulas                         |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1     | Number of students who graduated in four years               |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Divided by                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Number of students who had potential to graduate in that     |
|       | ninth-grade cohort                                           |
|       |                                                              |
|       | (Allowances are made for GED and fifth-year graduates.)      |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2     | Number of students (taken from the cohort group of           |
|       | first-time ninth graders in the fall four years earlier plus |
|       | subsequent incoming transfers on the same schedule to        |
|       | graduate) who received standard and special diplomas, high   |
|       | school GED diplomas, and adult GED diplomas                  |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Divided by                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Number of first-time ninth graders in membership during the  |
|       | fall four years earlier plus incoming transfer students on   |
|       | the same schedule to graduate minus students who left to     |
|       | enroll in a private school, a home education program, or an  |
|       | adult education program, and deceased students               |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3     | Number of graduates in any given year                        |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Divided by                                                   |
|       |                                                              |
|       | Number of graduates + year-4 dropouts + year-3 dropouts +    |
|       | year-2 dropouts + year-1 dropouts\*                          |
|       |                                                              |
|       | \* Year 1 dropouts are those who leave as freshmen, year 2   |
|       | dropouts are those who leave as sophomores, etc.             |
+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc517775920 .anchor}Table 6. Calculation of
Graduation Rates, by State and District

  ---------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -------
                         AZ   CA   FL   GA   KS   KY   OR   TX   WA    Total
                                                                       Yes

  State can calculate    x         x    x    x         x    x    x     7
  migrant student                                                      
  graduation rate                                                      

  State does calculate             x                        x          2
  migrant student                                                      
  graduation rate                                                      

                                                                       

  District can calculate x         x    x    x    x    x    x    x     8
  migrant student                                                      
  graduation rate                                                      

  District does                    x                        x    x     3
  calculate migrant                                                    
  student graduation                                                   
  rate                                                                 
  ---------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -------

Texas and Florida were the two states that provided recent graduation
rates. Texas's 1998--1999 state-level graduation rate is a four-year
cohort rate.[^6] The Texas state-level cohort graduation rate was 82.4
percent for migrant students, compared to 79.5 percent for non-migrant
students. The migrant student graduation rate for Texas's La Joya
Independent School District was 89 percent.

Florida's 1999--2000 one-year graduation rates were 78% for migrant
students and 82% for non-migrant students.[^7] Florida reported a
four-year cohort graduation rate for migrant students for the first time
in 1999--2000. The four-year cohort graduation rates are reported as 42%
for migrant students and 59% for non-migrant students.[^8] Florida's
state synopsis of migrant students in Florida for 1999--2000 states,
"This is the Cohort Graduation Rate as it appears in the Department of
Education Advisory Council Report. Please note that for Migrant students
this rate is an estimation at best." For Florida's Hillsborough County
School District, the one-year graduation rate was 91% for migrant
students and 89% for non-migrant students. Hillsborough County School
District's four-year cohort graduation rate was 59% for migrant students
and 68% for non-migrant students. The report cautions the reader to note
the number in the migrant cohort (110) in comparison with the number in
the non-migrant cohort (10,324) when considering district-level data.

All other sampled states and districts require manual computations with
several steps to arrive at the same information. In the Sunnyside School
District in Washington, the migrant coordinator compares the names on
graduation ceremony programs to his list of migrant students. Though he
did not report what the most recent graduation rate was, he explained
his method of calculation. At the end of each school year, the district
coordinator reviews graduation programs from across the district for the
names of migrant students. Using these programs, he then calculates a
migrant student graduation rate for the district. In Arizona, the
district contact went through a similar process to arrive at graduation
rates for each of the district high schools, comparing migrant student
file lists to the district list of graduating seniors. The district
contact did so in preparation for our site visit, but does not make such
calculations regularly. This time-consuming process is apparently the
most viable method for many school districts.

In addition to being an unwieldy process, calculating a migrant student
graduation rate is less likely to yield an accurate figure than one for
non-migrant students. The graduation rate for regular students is often
based on a 4-year cohort rate. Such a formula is more difficult to
calculate for the migrant student population because, by definition, a
student cannot remain in one school district for more than three years
and still qualify as migrant. Therefore, extensive tracking efforts
would be needed to obtain data from all of the schools attended by all
migrant students over the 4-year period. Setting up such a tracking
system would most likely prove difficult due to the lack of unique
migrant student identification numbers and the inability to track
students between states. Until states are able to dedicate the resources
needed to track all students who had received migrant services at any
time during their high school years, the statistically less preferred
1-year graduation rate will have to be used.

#### Q.2.2. Availability of data on migrant student dropout rates

Similar obstacles to the calculation of reliable graduation rates impede
the regular calculation of migrant student dropout rates. Inherent in
the migrant student's lifestyle is a degree of mobility that obscures
the true dropout rate in any particular district, regardless of the
calculation formula. (See ***Table 7*** for examples.) While most states
reported that they would be able to calculate a dropout rate for migrant
students, none did (***Table 8***). Just as with graduation data, data
needed to calculate the dropout rate are stored in a system that does
not communicate with the system storing migrant information. Further,
migrant staff on both the state and district levels reported very strong
doubts about the accuracy, and therefore utility, of such dropout rates
if they were to be computed.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc517775921 .anchor}Table 7. Examples of Dropout
Rate Formulas

+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
|         | Examples of Dropout Rate Formulas                          |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1       | All students who left school who did not graduate,         |
|         | transfer, or die (includes expelled, withdrawn due to      |
|         | chronic illness, etc.)                                     |
|         |                                                            |
|         | Divided by                                                 |
|         |                                                            |
|         | Students served (every student who had opportunity to drop |
|         | out; includes summer school)                               |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2       | The unduplicated count of students in grades 9 through 12  |
|         | for whom a dropout withdrawal reason code was reported by  |
|         | schools of this type in the state                          |
|         |                                                            |
|         | Divided by                                                 |
|         |                                                            |
|         | The total enrollment of all students in grades 9 through   |
|         | 12 at schools of this type in the state                    |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3       | Number of students who dropped out during the school year  |
|         | across all grades 7 through 12                             |
|         |                                                            |
|         | Divided by                                                 |
|         |                                                            |
|         | Number of students who were in attendance at any time      |
|         | during the school year across all grades 7 through 12      |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4       | Grade 9 through 12 dropouts                                |
|         |                                                            |
|         | Divided by                                                 |
|         |                                                            |
|         | Grade 9 through 12 enrollment                              |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc517775922 .anchor}Table 8. Calculation of Dropout
Rates, by State and District

  ---------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -------
                         AZ   CA   FL   GA   KS   KY   OR   TX   WA    Total
                                                                       Yes

  State can calculate    x         x    x    x         x    x          6
  migrant student                                                      
  dropout rate                                                         

  State does calculate                                                 0
  migrant student                                                      
  dropout rate                                                         

                                                                       

  District can calculate x         x    x    x    x    x    x          7
  migrant student                                                      
  dropout rate                                                         

  District does                                             x          1
  calculate migrant                                                    
  student dropout rate                                                 
  ---------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -------

One district official described the tracking of migrant dropouts as
"chasing butterflies in the dark." This characterization of keeping
accurate migrant dropout data as extremely difficult was consistent
across all nine states. There is no reliable mechanism by which to track
students who enroll in another district or take up another form of
education, such as GED classes, although a pilot study in California is
adding such information to the CoEstar database (see pages 44--48 on
steps to improve data quality and availability). Districts with smaller
numbers of students may have anecdotal knowledge of the outcomes for
each of their migrant students, but there is often no formal
notification of a student's withdrawal from school. Migrant staff
expressed concern that even if they reported dropout rates for migrant
students, these rates would be an inaccurate reflection of the number of
students who left school permanently. For example, one state's rate
relies on schools assigning an official dropout code, which may not
always be done for migrant students because schools may not have
definitive information by which to assign such a code. Therefore, that
state's assessment specialist expressed concern that reporting a dropout
rate would not accurately portray migrant students.

### Q.3. What other types of data are routinely collected on migrant student achievement? Is information collected on postsecondary outcomes?

In addition to assessment information, some states collect other
indicators of student achievement, such as postsecondary outcomes or
performance on national norm-referenced tests. Some schools collect
information from students in the 12^th^ grade about their immediate
postgraduate plans and others send surveys or do follow-up telephone
calls with students several months after graduation. National
norm-referenced tests may be used in addition to state assessments to
compare student performance within the state to performance across the
nation and to test students in grades that are between mandatory
assessment years. We asked each state and district if they did collect
such information, and if so, whether they were able to examine it by
migrant status.

#### Q.3.1. Availability of postsecondary data on migrant students

Florida, Kansas, and Kentucky were the only states in the study to
collect postsecondary information for their students. Kentucky and
Florida record the information in their accountability systems that list
MEP eligibility, which makes disaggregation by migrant status possible.
However, these states do not examine these data by migrant status.
Florida collects data on postsecondary plans prior to graduation, Kansas
surveys students one year after graduation, and Kentucky surveys
graduates after three months. The Kentucky survey collects information
on "transition to adult life," as graduates are categorized as employed,
unemployed, taking further education, or being a homemaker. The Kansas
survey reports survey respondents in one of the following categories:
enrolled in 4-year college or university, 2-year college, other type of
college, other postsecondary (non-college), employed, unemployed,
parenting (and not employed outside the home or attending school),
military service, other, and unknown. Kansas provides district and state
breakdowns by gender and race/ethnicity.

Though a limited amount of data are available on postsecondary plans and
outcomes for all students, collecting such information from migrant
students is particularly problematic, and their mobility makes it more
likely that they are under-represented in these reports. Kentucky and
Kansas mail surveys to students' last known addresses three months to a
year after they graduate, by which time migrant families may have moved.
None of the states that collects postsecondary data translates their
surveys into Spanish or other languages, which may further hinder
migrant student participation in such measurements.

#### Q.3.2. Availability of other data related to migrant student academic outcomes

States routinely maintain very little other achievement data. Two of the
smaller states did not collect any achievement data other than
assessment scores at the state or local level. Georgia is phasing out
its current high school graduation tests and replacing them with
end-of-course examinations based on state-specific criterion-referenced
testing. Several states, including Arizona, California, and Washington,
are developing a high school exit exam in an effort to ensure that their
graduates have met state standards. All students in California beginning
with the class of 2004 must pass the High School Exit Exam. Washington
expects that the 10^th^ grade Washington Assessment of Student Learning
will be a graduation requirement by 2008, and Arizona will require that
all 2002 graduates pass Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards for
10^th^ grade, with the mathematics portion possibly delayed until 2004.
Under their current systems, Georgia cannot disaggregate these data, but
California will be able to do so after the California Student
Information System is fully implemented and the migrant data component
has been added. Arizona and Washington were not aware of plans to
disaggregate these data by migrant status.

### Q.4. What is the overall quality of the data on migrant students?

One objective of this study was to solicit the views of state and
district migrant staff concerning the quality of data on migrant
students. Data quality was discussed in terms of accuracy and
comprehensiveness. **Accuracy** refers to the degree to which the data
in the system faithfully reflect the academic achievement of those
students for whom data has been collected. **Comprehensiveness** refers
to the extent to which the data in the system represent all migrant
students. Both of these characteristics need to be reviewed in order to
determine how useful the available numbers are in measuring the
educational achievement of migrant students.

State and district staff were overall much more certain of the accuracy
of their data than they were of the data's comprehensiveness. Most state
staff were confident in the demographic information that they currently
collect. Their reliance on these data is based on their beliefs that the
staff entering the data into the system are doing so correctly, due to
training, controlled system access, and approval processes that work to
ensure the information is precise. There was less assurance of the
quality of data regarding migrant participation in assessments. Larger
districts had concerns about the number of migrant students improperly
identified on assessment forms, but staff in smaller districts generally
mark the assessments themselves, or have much closer ties to the school
staff who do, and thus are more confident.

State and district migrant personnel were generally more doubtful of the
comprehensiveness of their data. Data collection issues that impact the
comprehensiveness of current migrant data include improper
identification of migrant status on assessment forms, language
exemptions that reduce migrant student participation, and a high degree
of mobility that leads migrant students to miss assessment
administration windows. Both state and district migrant educators are
aware of these complications, and therefore do not believe the data are
comprehensive. Regardless of accuracy, if data are not being collected
on all migrant students, limited conclusions may be drawn about migrant
student academic achievement as a group. Without a more thorough
understanding of overall migrant student achievement, efforts to plan
and design programs or realistically report performance measures are
inhibited.

### Q.5. What steps can states and districts take to improve the quality and availability of data on migrant student outcomes?

There are two main areas in which steps should be taken to improve
migrant data --quality and availability. **Data quality** is limited by
differences in data systems and statistical methods across districts,
staff turnover that necessitates the expenditure of resources on
repeated data system trainings, and a lack of enforced standards in
determining the types of data to be collected.

To improve data quality, local and state migrant staff need to
thoroughly evaluate what data is collected and how and when it is
gathered and stored. Ensuring truer data requires established formulas
and consistent data collection protocols. States should standardize the
way in which local staff report migrant student enrollment counts,
assessment participation, and service provision. Information concerning
academic and assessment policies needs to be readily accessible.
Training sessions should be made available and possibly supplemented by
manuals, resource guides, or online instruction. Approaches must be
catered to each area's needs and capabilities, but each state should
conduct a thorough review of their data collection methods to improve
the quality of data gathered.

The single practice that most plagues the **availability** of migrant
student data is the storing of assessment data separately from databases
containing migrant information and school information, such as
attendance and graduation data. Overall, academic databases and migrant
student databases contain discrete information that cannot be readily
combined to provide disaggregated data. Seven of the nine states in this
study are very limited in the amount and type of information they can
disaggregate by migrant status, since their migrant databases are
incompatible with their academic databases. Migrant eligibility
information is most often stored in a system maintained by the migrant
education office. School databases and assessment databases in most
cases do not denote migrant program eligibility, so the wealth of
information contained in those sources cannot be disaggregated by
migrant status. This means that migrant coordinators cannot look at
assessment scores according to variables such as health, attendance,
grades, behavior, retention, dropout, or graduation. Moreover, migrant
staff may have limited access to assessment and school databases, and
are therefore required to make requests through the offices controlling
those databases. One district coordinator reported being very grateful
for the ease with which he was able to access district databases, as he
believed few other district migrant educators in his state enjoyed such
good relations with their district academic offices. Several state and
district migrant personnel expressed frustration at the length of time
it takes for them to receive data reports, while some others seemed
unaware of the types of data available through other systems and
offices.

At both the state and district levels, migrant education staff were
aware of the need for improvements in the collection, maintenance, and
sharing of migrant student achievement data. Furthermore, in most states
we visited, efforts were underway to make such needed changes. Some of
these changes are focused on migrant data, while others are more global
and designed to improve the quality and accessibility of achievement
data for all students.

The three largest states in the study had some type of migrant student
data system in place or were in the process of developing one. Texas and
Florida have systems that provide a fairly comprehensive examination of
migrant student achievement data. California is in the midst of
overhauling its entire student data system and installing the California
Student Information System (CSIS), which will include the Migrant
Student Information System (MSIS). Three regions are participating in a
pilot study of the MSIS. Data fields have been added to the CoEstar
system in participating regions, increasing the types of data that can
be accessed and manipulated by migrant education staff and reducing the
need to link additional local school, migrant, and assessment databases.
Pilot regions are collecting data on state assessment performance,
whether students have met state standards, and level of language
proficiency. On the high school level, regions are also collecting data
on grade point average (GPA) and college track information, as well as
data on out-of-school youth. Out-of-school youth information includes
whether they have been contacted and interviewed by school staff, and
whether they are enrolled in other types of education, such as GED
classes. The latter is especially promising in its potential to increase
the accuracy of migrant student dropout rates, currently problematic due
largely to lack of information on student outcomes.

One of the regional directors implementing the pilot of California's
MSIS found the additional capacities of the CoEstar system to be
extremely helpful. She emphasized the utility of the new system in
allowing her to use data to pinpoint the greatest need among the 36
school districts in her region. In one of her districts, she noted a
significant drop in Stanford Achievement Test-version 9 reading scores
between the third and fourth grades, and provided that district with
extra funds to be used for staff development. The system also now allows
her to follow up on outliers in the data because she can look at
student-level data files. Errors were more likely to be missed under the
old system, in which only school-level information was available.

The remaining four states that are addressing the need for better
student data systems are in various stages of implementation. Kansas is
creating a central electronic migrant data system, accessible via the
Internet, that will store information gathered from Certificates of
Eligibility. Until now, staff conducted counts of eligible migrant
students by hand, so this system, scheduled to be updated on-line
throughout 2001, will greatly increase the state's ability to generate
state-level migrant data. However, the system is intended for
Certificate of Eligibility data, not assessment or academic information,
and there are no plans at this time to add such a capacity.

In Kentucky, school districts are in the process of installing a
standardized attendance system, scheduled to be fully operational in
2002--2003. This system will allow staff to attach migrant student
identification numbers to student-level data. The Kentucky Department of
Education's intention is to capture information such as migrant status
as part of the attendance system, thereby expanding the types of student
achievement analyses that can be conducted.

Oregon staff on both the state and district levels reported finding the
Oregon Migrant Student Information System (OMSIS), which stores
demographic, contact, health, and enrollment data, to be useful and
useable. Though it may be expanded to do so in the future, it is not
currently used to calculate graduation or dropout rates, nor does it
hold assessment information. However, Oregon is developing a state
database, the Enterprise system, that will include both migrant status
and assessment scores. Migrant staff expressed some hesitation in
embracing this system, as the Enterprise data comprise several sources
and may not be as clean as they believe the OMSIS to be.

The Washington Migrant Student Record System (MSRS) was taken directly
from the former national Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS)
and has been available on-line for three years now. The search
capabilities are extensive and personnel at the state and district
levels applauded its accessibility, quality, and potential. The biggest
disadvantage to the MSRS seems to be that the system generates and
depends upon student identification numbers that do not match those used
by other state databases. MSRS programmers are now working on changing
this discrepancy by using state identification numbers as migrant
identification numbers, which will allow the loading of assessment data
into the migrant data system.

Improving the quality and availability of data on migrant students is a
necessary step to make informed decisions concerning migrant education
programs. Staff training, technological changes, and collaborative
planning should continue to be part of the steps states and districts
use to advance these efforts. Some of these changes are already
occurring, but they must continue on a widespread basis for ongoing
improvements.

### IV. Summary and Recommendations 

Migrant student achievement data are generally limited to performance on
state assessments. While estimates are not regularly calculated on the
percentage of eligible migrant students actually participating in such
assessments, most states in the study can disaggregate their data and
compare migrant student performance to that of all students or
specifically to non-migrant students. There are significantly less data
available that measure any other type of academic outcome, including
graduation, dropout, and postsecondary information, and there are
significant concerns about the inclusion of all migrant students in
these statistics. In general, larger states are more likely than smaller
states to have the systems that would allow them to produce more
achievement data.

Across the nine states visited, state and local staff generally did not
rely upon available migrant student data to evaluate programs. There are
several reasons why migrant education coordinators may not ardently
pursue and use migrant student statistics. MEPs tend to focus their
limited time, personnel, and funds on providing services to migrant
students rather than evaluating data. Migrant education coordinators
often come from education backgrounds rather than research areas. They
assist migrant families with basic services including transportation,
literacy, and English as a second language, and tend to see data more as
information needed to fulfill federal reporting requirements than as a
means to evaluate their efforts. Many respondents stated that they only
collect data they are required to collect. They also expressed
reluctance to burden individual teachers, administrators, or migrant
education specialists with requests to collect data for which no
immediate need is seen. Moreover, calculating statewide statistics is
often very difficult, due to discrepancies in the way the data are
assembled at each locality. The lack of emphasis on, and training in,
evaluation combines with cumbersome data systems to keep migrant
education coordinators focused more on migrant students' needs than on
migrant statistics. State migrant coordinators appear unlikely to
initiate further data collection or compilation without federal
encouragement and assistance.

Technological, logistical, and communication barriers may also factor
into states' limited ability to gather and evaluate migrant student
data. For example, Kansas previously has not had migrant student
demographic information available at the state level and is in the
process of updating their technology by launching a statewide web system
in 2001 with this data. Migrant staff in Kentucky have faced logistical
problems as the number of limited English proficient migrant students
has increased far more quickly than the state's ability to assist them.
In another state, a lack of communication resulted in the migrant
education coordinator being unaware that the assessment specialist could
prepare state-level migrant student assessment data.

Another factor that reduces the pursuit and use of data by migrant
educators is the lack of resources to dedicate to data issues. In
addition to the demands of running an MEP, the migrant education
coordinator has the responsibility of requesting migrant reports from
those who collect and distribute the data. Therefore, the coordinators
must determine and communicate the types of information to be compiled.
While some states' migrant education specialists have good communication
with the state assessment office, others experience a gap in
communication that results in the inability to review disaggregated
data. Several states had migrant data specialists, who were often the
individuals who manage the state migrant databases, like Texas' NGS,
Oregon's OMSIS, Washington's MSRS, and CoEstar in Arizona and Georgia.
California has hired a contractor for this purpose. In Kansas, a
superintendent with experience in migrant education helps collect data
from districts, as the state is still in the process of preparing its
state migrant database. However, none of the states funds a full-time
migrant staff position dedicated to reviewing the migrant data and
evaluating program effectiveness and migrant student academic
achievement. Improving interaction and communication with state
assessment offices and other data system specialists will bring about
collaboration that will help yield more statistics concerning migrant
students.

There are several areas in which a modest amount of effort may produce
significant improvements in the collection, maintenance, and
comparability of migrant student achievement data. The first of these is
**migrant student identification procedures**. Systems of creating and
tracking migrant student identification numbers need to be created or
improved. To allow students' records to be maintained and transferred
when necessary, prevent duplication of paperwork, and track accurate
information on migrant students, each state's identification procedures
need to be reviewed and validated. Migrant identification systems
should, where possible, implement a statewide unique student
identification number so that data can be more easily transferred across
districts. States need to ascertain exactly how students are being
identified and if possible, standardize these procedures across
districts, at least for the purposes of state assessments. For example,
the criteria for migrant status are printed on all Wisconsin assessment
forms. This ensures that whoever is completing the migrant status code
on the form, be it a district migrant official, a teacher, or even a
student, that person has the correct information available to make a
migrant status determination.

Introducing valid identification procedures may also involve
distributing lists of migrant students to schools and providing teachers
with the federal definition of migrant students. These steps would make
the migrant data set more complete and would thereby increase confidence
in, and perhaps use of, the assessment data among state-level staff.
Communications in general should also be improved between state and
district migrant staff, and migrant and assessment staff. We saw
examples of districts being unaware of state data capabilities, as well
as state migrant staff being unaware of what the state assessment data
systems could provide for them.

The second area in which migrant student data practices could be
improved concerns the **clarification of policies surrounding
assessments**. Several states' migrant personnel were unaware of aspects
of assessment policies, including exemptions, accommodations, and score
reporting. It appears that migrant students may be informally excluded
from assessments due to the use of accountability ratings based on
student performance and the expectation that migrant students' scores
will lower the collective average. However, migrant student scores are
not used for accountability decisions. Therefore, reeducating schools on
what scores are part of the accountability system would decrease or even
eliminate this potential cause of migrant student exclusion.

A third area in which efforts should be is the **linking of databases**
so that migrant student data may be viewed by a collection of variables.
Databases need to be linked to show demographic information,
school-based information (such as grades, attendance, and discipline),
and assessment by migrant status. For planning, reporting, and needs
assessment purposes, it is important that migrant staff be able to view
individuals' profiles according to these variables, often stored in
different software systems. Such work is already underway in a number of
states, but the inability to combine data across these three systems
remains a widespread problem and is a major deterrent to regular
examinations of migrant student educational achievement.

The fourth way in which states and districts can improve migrant data
quality is to **standardize the formulas** used to report on migrant
student achievement. This recommendation relates to graduation rates,
dropout rates, and may also include assessment scores. Although
disaggregated reports of proficiency of migrant students as compared to
non-migrant students may vary according to each state's specific
assessment instrument, it is possible to collect data on graduation and
dropout rates with common formulas. The National Center for Education
Statistics has specific formulas for computing these rates, although
many states are in nonconformance with the standard definition and
reporting practices (Winglee, Marker, Henderson, Young, and Hoffman,
2000).

Finally, more states need to **develop methods to allow for migrant
student mobility**. Several states have services that enable students to
continue some of their coursework, but only one state allows its
exit-level assessment to be administered in other states so that
students may continue to work towards graduating under a consistent set
of standards. Improving intra- and interstate communication on records
transfer, assessment administration, and standards for graduating will
benefit migrant students.

Migrant education programs provide numerous services to migrant
students, and are working to improve those services and their data
collection efforts. However, further encouragement, assistance, and
education may enable them to take the necessary steps to elevate these
endeavors to the levels of which they are capable.

### References

Blank, R.K., Manise, J., and Brathwaite, B.C. (2000). *State education
indicators with a focus on Title I, 1999*. Washington, DC: Council of
Chief State School Officers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
442 868)

Duron, S.B. (1995). *Migrant farmworker students: Decisions involved in
post-secondary participation and success.* Geneseo, NY: BOCES Geneseo
Migrant Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 506)

Educational Resources Information Center (1991). Highly mobile students:
Educational problems and possible solutions. *ERIC/CUE Digest, 73*. New
York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 338 745)

Henderson, A., Daft, J., and Fong, P. (1999). *State Title I migrant
participation information 1997--98: First Draft* (Contract No.
EA94052001). Rockville, MD: Westat.

Morse, S., and Hammer, P.C. (1998). *Migrant students attending college:
Facilitating their success.* Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
423 097)

Parsad, B., Heaviside, S., Williams, C., and Farris, E. (2000).
*Participation of migrant students in Title I migrant education program
(MEP) summer-term projects, 1998* (NCES 2000-061). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 438 997)

Rivera, C., Stansfield, C.W., Scialdone, L., and Sharkey, M. (2000). *An
analysis of state policies for the inclusion and accommodation of
English language learners in state assessment programs during
1998--1999.* Arlington, VA: George Washington University Center for
Equity and Excellence in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 445 037)

Salerno, A. (1991). *Migrant students who leave school early: Strategies
for retrieval*. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education
and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335 179)

Shaul, M.S. (1999). *Public education: Title I services provided to
students with limited English proficiency* (GAO/HEHS-00-25). Washington,
DC: General Accounting Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 441 335)

Siler, A., Stolzberg, S., von Glatz, A., and Strang, W. (1999). *Meeting
the needs of migrant students in schoolwide programs: Congressionally
mandated study of migrant student participation in schoolwide programs*
(Contract No. EA94052001). Rockville, MD: Westat. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 427 930)

Winglee, M., Marker D., Henderson A., Young B.A., and Hoffman, L.
(2000). *A recommended approach to providing high school dropout and
completion rates at the state level* (NCES 2000-305). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 439 194)

# Appendix A: Arizona

# Yuma Union School District {#yuma-union-school-district .Heading1A}

#  {#section-4 .Heading1A}

+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| ### State MEP Overview       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of state migrant      |   |    | 5 |         |   |   |     |         |
| projects                     |   |    | 3 |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of migrant students   |   |    | S |         |   | 1 |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | t |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 4 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 0 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | D |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | s |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 4 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | c |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Amount of state funding      |   |    | T |         |   | \ |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | l |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | I |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 7 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 2 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | M |         |   | \ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | g |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | n |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 6 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Assessment Instruments     |   | ** |   |         |   |   | #   |         |
| Used**                       |   | Gr |   |         |   |   | ##  |         |
|                              |   | ad |   |         |   |   | Tim |         |
|                              |   | es |   |         |   |   | e o |         |
|                              |   | ** |   |         |   |   | f Y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Arizona's Instrument to      |   | 3, |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| Measure Standards (AIMS)     |   | 5, |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
|                              |   | 8, |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 10 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Stanford Achievement Test    |   | 2  |   |         |   |   | End |         |
| (Stanford-9) -- Reading,     |   | -- |   |         |   |   | of  |         |
| Mathematics, Writing         |   | 11 |   |         |   |   | Ma  |         |
|                              |   | \* |   |         |   |   | rch |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | to\ |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | mid |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | -Ap |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ril |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| \*Beginning with the 2001    |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| assessments, the Stanford-9  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| will no longer be            |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| administered to grades 10    |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| and 11.                      |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Summary of Data            | # |    |   | ### E   | * |   |     | **Est   |
| Collected**                  | # |    |   | stimate | * |   |     | imate** |
|                              | # |    |   |         | D |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | S |    |   |         | s |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         | r |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         | c |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can disaggregate by migrant  | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does disaggregate by migrant |   |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Has estimates of migrant     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| student participation in     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| assessments                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Makes assessment             | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| accommodations for:          |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Language                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| >                            |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Mobility                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate dropout rate   | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate dropout rate  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate graduation     | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate graduation    |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Collects postsecondary       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| information                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+

Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)---2000

Table values at the state level show the percentage of students at each
of Arizona's four achievement levels. Values at the district level show
percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standards. Percentages
may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Reading

  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------
  Grade                 **State**                  **District\***   

                        Migrant      All Students  Migrant          All Students

  3       Falls Far     ---          12            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          18            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          46            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          25            ---              ---

  5       Falls Far     ---          15            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          20            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          46            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          19            ---              ---

  8       Falls Far     ---          30            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          18            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          38            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          14            ---              ---

  10      Falls Far     ---          12            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          20            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          47            28               51

          Exceeds       ---          21                             
  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------

\* District data were available only for grade 10 because the district
identified for this study contains high schools, but no elementary or
middle schools.

**AIMS (continued)**

Table values at the state level show the percentage of students at each
of Arizona's four achievement levels. Values at the district level show
percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standards. Percentages
may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Mathematics

  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------
  Grade                 **State**                  **District\***   

                        Migrant      All Students  Migrant          All Students

  3       Falls Far     ---          19            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          35            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          32            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          14            ---              ---

  5       Falls Far     ---          24            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          38            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          23            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          16            ---              ---

  8       Falls Far     ---          50            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          34            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          11            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          5             ---              ---

  10      Falls Far     ---          72            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          11            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          16            3                6

          Exceeds       ---          1                              
  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------

\* District data were available only for grade 10 because the district
identified for this study contains high schools, but no elementary or
middle schools.

**AIMS (continued)**

Table values at the state level show the percentage of students at each
of Arizona's four achievement levels. Values at the district level show
percentage of students meeting or exceeding the standards. Percentages
may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Writing

  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------
  Grade                 **State**                  **District\***   

                        Migrant      All Students  Migrant          All Students

  3       Falls Far     ---          13            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          19            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          59            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          8             ---              ---

  5       Falls Far     ---          21            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          33            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          46            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          1             ---              ---

  8       Falls Far     ---          15            ---              ---
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          38            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          47            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          1             ---              ---

  10      Falls Far     ---          18            92               80
          Below                                                     

          Approaches    ---          49                             

          Meets         ---          33            8                20

          Exceeds       ---          1                              
  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------

\* District data were available only for grade 10 because the district
identified for this study contains high schools, but no elementary or
middle schools.

**Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford-9)---2000**

Table values show the number of students tested and their percentile
ranks.

**Reading**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Pct.    Number     Pct.    Number Tested  Pct.    Number     Pct.
           Tested      Rank    Tested     Rank                   Rank    Tested     Rank

  2        ---         ---     54,212     52      ---            ---     798        42

  3        ---         ---     57,442     48      ---            ---     906        37

  4        ---         ---     57,775     54      ---            ---     911        44

  5        ---         ---     59,404     51      ---            ---     932        39

  6        ---         ---     58,857     53      ---            ---     922        41

  7        ---         ---     57,127     52      ---            ---     854        39

  8        ---         ---     56,487     53      ---            ---     895        39

  9        ---         ---     56,068     43      ---            ---     2,035      30

  10       ---         ---     47,677     42      ---            ---     1,728      26

  11       ---         ---     40,078     45      ---            ---     1,509      29
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Mathematics**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Pct.    Number     Pct.    Number Tested  Pct.    Number     Pct.
           Tested      Rank    Tested     Rank                   Rank    Tested     Rank

  2        ---         ---     57,302     55      ---            ---     866        45

  3        ---         ---     58,462     52      ---            ---     959        46

  4        ---         ---     59,512     55      ---            ---     1,017      48

  5        ---         ---     60,441     55      ---            ---     972        48

  6        ---         ---     59,698     60      ---            ---     955        50

  7        ---         ---     57,370     56      ---            ---     864        43

  8        ---         ---     56,577     56      ---            ---     889        42

  9        ---         ---     57,023     59      ---            ---     2,049      43

  10       ---         ---     48,363     50      ---            ---     1,729      35

  11       ---         ---     40,557     55      ---            ---     1,503      37
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Stanford-9 (continued)**

Table values show the number of students tested and their percentile
ranks.

**Language**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Pct.    Number     Pct.    Number Tested  Pct.    Number     Pct.
           Tested      Rank    Tested     Rank                   Rank    Tested     Rank

  2        ---         ---     57,097     43      ---            ---     837        32

  3        ---         ---     58,240     54      ---            ---     954        45

  4        ---         ---     59,123     48      ---            ---     987        40

  5        ---         ---     59,983     45      ---            ---     957        35

  6        ---         ---     59,342     44      ---            ---     928        32

  7        ---         ---     57,492     54      ---            ---     854        43

  8        ---         ---     56,816     49      ---            ---     890        33

  9        ---         ---     56,408     40      ---            ---     2,040      26

  10       ---         ---     47,843     44      ---            ---     1,713      27

  11       ---         ---     39,887     44      ---            ---     1,478      28
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

# Appendix B: California

# San Jose Unified School District {#san-jose-unified-school-district .Heading1A}

#  {#section-5 .Heading1A}

+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| ### State MEP Overview       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of state migrant      |   |    | 2 |         |   |   |     |         |
| projects                     |   |    | 3 |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of migrant students   |   |    | S |         |   | 2 |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | t |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 0 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | D |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | s |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | 7 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | c |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Amount of state funding      |   |    | T |         |   | N |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | i |         |   | / |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | A |     |         |
|                              |   |    | l |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | I |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | M |         |   | N |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | / |     |         |
|                              |   |    | g |         |   | A |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | n |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Assessment Instruments     |   | ** |   |         |   |   | #   |         |
| Used**                       |   | Gr |   |         |   |   | ##  |         |
|                              |   | ad |   |         |   |   | Tim |         |
|                              |   | es |   |         |   |   | e o |         |
|                              |   | ** |   |         |   |   | f Y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Stanford Achievement Test    |   | 2  |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| (Stanford-9) -- Reading,     |   | -- |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
| Mathematics, Language        |   | 11 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Stanford Achievement Test    |   | 9  |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| (Stanford-9) -- Writing,\*   |   | -- |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
| Social Science, Science      |   | 11 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Stanford Achievement Test    |   | 2- |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| (Stanford-9) -- Spelling     |   | -8 |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| STAR Augmentation --         |   | 2  |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| English/Language Arts,       |   | -- |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
| Mathematics^†^               |   | 11 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| \* We did not receive        |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| results for the writing      |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| component of Stanford-9.     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| ^†^ Results of the STAR      |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| Augmentation are not given   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| in this appendix.            |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Summary of Data            | # |    |   | ### E   | * |   |     | **Est   |
| Collected**                  | # |    |   | stimate | * |   |     | imate** |
|                              | # |    |   |         | D |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | S |    |   |         | s |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         | r |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         | c |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can disaggregate by migrant  | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does disaggregate by migrant | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Has estimates of migrant     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| student participation in     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| assessments                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Makes assessment             |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| accommodations for:          |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Language                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| >                            |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Mobility                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate dropout rate   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate dropout rate  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate graduation     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate graduation    |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Collects postsecondary       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| information                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+

**Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford-9)---2000**

Table values show the number of students tested and the percentage at or
above the 50^th^ national percentile rank.

**Reading**

  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------
           **State**                                **District**                       

  Grade    Migrant              All                 Migrant                 All        
           Students             Students            Students                Students   

           Number      \% At or Number     \% At or Number Tested  \% At or Number     \% At or
           Tested      Above    Tested     Above                   Above    Tested     Above
                       50^th^              50^th^                  50^th^              50^th^
                       NPR                 NPR                     NPR                 NPR

  2        9,557       18       431,808    49       103            14       2,423      49

  3        10,209      11       450,878    44       92             5        2,612      45

  4        9,834       12       444,623    45       85             14       2,379      50

  5        9,067       11       425,917    44       51             8        2,352      48

  6        8,920       14       416,064    46       45             7        2,211      48

  7        8,669       14       402,942    46       54             20       2,159      49

  8        8,264       16       396,773    49       45             27       2,192      53

  9        7,516       08       411,866    35       38             16       2,067      42

  10       6,987       07       374,671    34       35             11       1,931      43

  11       5,692       09       323,193    36       31             23       1,745      43
  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------

**Mathematics**

  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------
           **State**                                **District**                       

  Grade    Migrant              All                 Migrant                 All        
           Students             Students            Students                Students   

           Number      \% At or Number     \% At or Number Tested  \% At or Number     \% At or
           Tested      Above    Tested     Above                   Above    Tested     Above
                       50^th^              50^th^                  50^th^              50^th^
                       NPR                 NPR                     NPR                 NPR

  2        10,344      35       450,089    57       111            50       2,560      58

  3        10,461      33       455,570    56       96             25       2,639      57

  4        10,336      26       456,215    51       86             23       2,466      53

  5        9,395       24       432,836    50       51             18       2,392      54

  6        9,164       31       420,760    55       44             25       2,210      53

  7        8,860       24       404,717    48       58             22       2,180      53

  8        8,424       23       397,537    48       46             37       2,186      51

  9        7,664       25       415,958    51       41             20       2,091      61

  10       7,054       21       377,090    46       38             24       1,969      61

  11       5,729       22       324,728    47       35             37       1,792      56
  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------

**Stanford-9 (continued)**

Table values show the number of students tested and the percentage at or
above the 50^th^ national percentile rank.

**Language**

  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------
           **State**                                **District**                       

  Grade    Migrant              All                 Migrant                 All        
           Students             Students            Students                Students   

           Number      \% At or Number     \% At or Number Tested  \% At or Number     \% At or
           Tested      Above    Tested     Above                   Above    Tested     Above
                       50^th^              50^th^                  50^th^              50^th^
                       NPR                 NPR                     NPR                 NPR

  2        10,042      22       445,083    52       104            19       2,493      53

  3        10,186      18       448,757    48       87             14       2,595      49

  4        10,118      21       451,978    51       65             26       2,387      52

  5        9,232       21       429,634    50       51             20       2,319      57

  6        8,951       25       414,865    52       42             26       2,201      55

  7        8,608       25       398,767    54       55             25       2,140      59

  8        8,290       21       394,555    51       44             30       2,178      58

  9        7,578       23       412,075    52       41             17       2,074      57

  10       6,953       10       372,936    40       38             11       1,951      48

  11       5,650       17       321,827    48       31             32       1,741      53
  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------

**Spelling**

  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------
           **State**                                **District**                       

  Grade    Migrant              All                 Migrant                 All        
           Students             Students            Students                Students   

           Number      \% At or Number     \% At or Number Tested  \% At or Number     \% At or
           Tested      Above    Tested     Above                   Above    Tested     Above
                       50^th^              50^th^                  50^th^              50^th^
                       NPR                 NPR                     NPR                 NPR

  2        10,182      20       448,628    50       108            16       2,532      48

  3        10,428      20       455,411    46       96             9        2,646      46

  4        10,313      15       456,674    43       86             13       2,463      45

  5        9,393       15       433,565    45       51             8        2,398      46

  6        9,181       18       421,171    44       46             13       2,229      43

  7        8,860       16       405,930    47       57             19       2,177      50

  8        8,391       11       399,089    37       45             24       2,201      44
  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------

**Stanford-9 (continued)**

Table values show the number of students tested and the percentage at or
above the 50^th^ national percentile rank.

**Science**

  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------
           **State**                                **District**                       

  Grade    Migrant              All                 Migrant                 All        
           Students             Students            Students                Students   

           Number      \% At or Number     \% At or Number Tested  \% At or Number     \% At or
           Tested      Above    Tested     Above                   Above    Tested     Above
                       50^th^              50^th^                  50^th^              50^th^
                       NPR                 NPR                     NPR                 NPR

  9        7,622       15       414,447    41       40             13       2,075      50

  10       7,014       18       374,647    46       38             18       1,960      53

  11       5,687       15       322,693    43       33             24       1,739      47
  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------

**Social Science**

  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------
           **State**                                **District**                       

  Grade    Migrant              All                 Migrant                 All        
           Students             Students            Students                Students   

           Number      \% At or Number     \% At or Number Tested  \% At or Number     \% At or
           Tested      Above    Tested     Above                   Above    Tested     Above
                       50^th^              50^th^                  50^th^              50^th^
                       NPR                 NPR                     NPR                 NPR

  9        7,638       22       413,817    46       40             33       2,073      57

  10       7,046       12       374,795    37       39             13       1,949      48

  11       5,696       33       322,521    57       30             33       1,737      61
  -------- ----------- -------- ---------- -------- -------------- -------- ---------- --------

#  {#section-6 .Heading1A}

# Appendix C: Florida

# Hillsborough County School District {#hillsborough-county-school-district .Heading1A}

+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| ### State MEP Overview       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of state migrant      |   |    | 3 |         |   |   |     |         |
| projects                     |   |    | 6 |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of migrant students   |   |    | S |         |   | 4 |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | t |         |   | 7 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 7 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 5 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | D |         |   | 4 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | s |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 7 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | c |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Amount of state funding      |   |    | T |         |   | \ |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | l |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | I |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 4 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 8 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | M |         |   | \ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | g |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | n |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 4 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 7 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Assessment Instruments     |   | ** |   |         |   |   | #   |         |
| Used**                       |   | Gr |   |         |   |   | ##  |         |
|                              |   | ad |   |         |   |   | Tim |         |
|                              |   | es |   |         |   |   | e o |         |
|                              |   | ** |   |         |   |   | f Y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Florida State Comprehensive  |   | 4, |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| Achievement Test (FCAT) --   |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
| Reading, Writing             |   | 10 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Florida State Comprehensive  |   | 5, |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| Achievement Test (FCAT) --   |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
| Mathematics                  |   | 10 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Summary of Data            | # |    |   | ### E   | * |   |     | **Est   |
| Collected**                  | # |    |   | stimate | * |   |     | imate** |
|                              | # |    |   |         | D |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | S |    |   |         | s |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         | r |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         | c |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can disaggregate by migrant  | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does disaggregate by migrant | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Has estimates of migrant     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| student participation in     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| assessments                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Makes assessment             | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| accommodations for:          |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Language                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| >                            |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Mobility                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate dropout rate   | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate dropout rate  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate graduation     | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate graduation    | x |    |   | 78%     | x |   |     | 91%     |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Collects postsecondary       | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| information                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+

**Florida State Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT)---2000**

Table values show the number and percentage of students performing at
each achievement level, from Level 1 (lowest) to Level 5 (highest).

**Reading**

  ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- --------- -------------- -------------- --------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- ---------
             **State**                                                                                              **District**                                                                            

  Grade 4    Migrant                                                Non-Migrant                                     Migrant                                           Non-Migrant                           
             Students                                                                                               Students                                                                                

  Level      Number                             Percent             Number Tested               Percent             Number Tested                 Percent             Number Tested               Percent   
             Tested                                                                                                                                                                                         

  1          1,116                              56                  40,845                      26                  73                            49                  2,563                       24        

  2          354                                18                  26,182                      17                  25                            17                  1,760                       17        

  3          401                                20                  48,886                      31                  43                            29                  3,316                       32        

  4          116                                6                   33,062                      21                  8                             5                   2,329                       22        

  5          10                                 1                   7,035                       5                   0                             0                   517                         5         

  Total      1,997                                                  157,010                                         149                                               10,485                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

  Grade 8                Migrant                                    Non-Migrant                                     Migrant                                           Non-Migrant                           
                         Students                                                                                   Students                                                                                

  Level                  Number                           Percent   Number Tested               Percent             Number Tested                 Percent             Number Tested               Percent   
                         Tested                                                                                                                                                                             

  1                      59                               43        1,615                       17                  861                           56                  36,499                      25        

  2                      40                               29        2,868                       30                  480                           31                  43,695                      30        

  3                      8                                6         2,853                       30                  168                           11                  44,458                      31        

  4                      0                                0         1,265                       13                  34                            2                   18,068                      12        

  5                      0                                0         184                         2                   0                             0                   2,420                       2         

  Total                  137                                        9,447                                           1,543                                             145,140                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                    **State**                                                                                      **District**                                                             

  Grade 10                          Migrant                                       Non-Migrant                                      Migrant                                          Non-Migrant             
                                    Students                                                                                       Students                                                                 

  Level                             Number                Percent                 Number Tested           Percent                  Number Tested            Percent                 Number Tested           Percent
                                    Tested                                                                                                                                                                  

  1                                 607                   63                      39,947                  31                       36                       56                      1,949                   26

  2                                 277                   29                      49,205                  38                       21                       33                      2,969                   39

  3                                 69                    7                       26,724                  21                       7                        11                      1,739                   23

  4                                 8                     1                       8,081                   6                        0                        0                       568                     8

  5                                 1                     0                       5,006                   4                        0                        0                       376                     5

  Total                             962                                           128,963                                          64                                               7,601                   
  ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- --------- -------------- -------------- --------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- ---------

Source: Survey 3, 1999--2000, Matched to FCAT Results for 2000

**FCAT (continued)**

Table values show the number and percentage of students performing at
each achievement level, from Level 1 (lowest) to Level 5 (highest).

Mathematics

  --------- ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- --------- -------------- -------------- --------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- ---------
                        **State**                                                                                      **District**                                                             

  Grade 5               Migrant                                       Non-Migrant                                      Migrant                                          Non-Migrant             
                        Students                                                                                       Students                                                                 

  Level                 Number                Percent                 Number Tested           Percent                  Number Tested            Percent                 Number Tested           Percent
                        Tested                                                                                                                                                                  

  1                     716                   40                      30,219                  20                       42                       34                      1,736                   17

  2                     635                   35                      45,513                  30                       40                       32                      2,978                   29

  3                     326                   18                      40,121                  26                       24                       19                      2,706                   26

  4                     108                   6                       29,064                  19                       16                       13                      2,269                   22

  5                     18                    1                       8,246                   5                        2                        2                       691                     7

  Total                 1,803                                         153,163                                          124                                              10,380                  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

            **State**                                                                                   **District**                                                                            

  Grade 8   Migrant                                     Non-Migrant                                     Migrant                                           Non-Migrant                           
            Students                                                                                    Students                                                                                

  Level     Number                  Percent             Number Tested               Percent             Number Tested                 Percent             Number Tested               Percent   
            Tested                                                                                                                                                                              

  1         59                      43                  1,615                       17                  695                           45                  32,596                      22        

  2         45                      33                  1,906                       20                  416                           27                  30,458                      21        

  3         27                      20                  3,017                       32                  352                           23                  44,766                      31        

  4         2                       2                   1,599                       17                  67                            4                   21,404                      15        

  5         3                       2                   1,299                       14                  20                            1                   16,038                      11        

  Total     136                                         9,436                                           1,550                                             145,262                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                

  Grade 10  Migrant                                     Non-Migrant                                     Migrant                                           Non-Migrant                           
            Students                                                                                    Students                                                                                

  Level     Number                  Percent             Number Tested               Percent             Number Tested                 Percent             Number Tested               Percent   
            Tested                                                                                                                                                                              

  1         15                      23                  1,207                       16                  379                           39                  27,718                      22        

  2         28                      43                  1,726                       23                  322                           33                  30,120                      23        

  3         17                      26                  1,916                       25                  187                           19                  31,553                      24        

  4         5                       8                   2,102                       28                  74                            8                   30,969                      24        

  5         0                       0                   662                         9                   3                             0                   8,733                       7         

  Total     65                                          7,613                                           965                                               129,093                               
  --------- ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- --------- -------------- -------------- --------- --------- ------------- ------------- --------- ---------

Source: Survey 3, 1999--2000, Matched to FCAT Results for 2000

**FCAT (continued)**

Table values show the number and percentage of students performing at
each achievement level, from Level 1 (lowest) to Level 5 (highest).

**Writing---Expository**

  ------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
          **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade   Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
          Students                                      Students                               

          Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
          Tested      \< 3                    \< 3                     \< 3                    \< 3

  4       964         24        79,309        17        74             10        5,314         9

  8       724         13        73,793        5         56             13        4,743         1

  10      481         18        65,885        9         31             10        3,815         6
  ------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

**Writing---Narrative**

  ------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
          **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade   Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
          Students                                      Students                               

          Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
          Tested      \< 3                    \< 3                     \< 3                    \< 3

  4       958         23        79,370        15        72             13        5,261         9
  ------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

**Writing---Persuasive**

  ------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
          **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade   Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
          Students                                      Students                               

          Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
          Tested      \< 3                    \< 3                     \< 3                    \< 3

  8       755         20        73,745        8         71             11        4,742         3

  10      450         23        65,866        12        33             30        3,839         7
  ------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

Source: Survey 3 1999--2000 Matched to FCAT Writing -- (Formerly Florida
Writes!)

# Appendix D: Georgia

# Southern Pine Migrant Education Agency {#southern-pine-migrant-education-agency .Heading1A}

####### 

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 41%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><h3 id="state-mep-overview-3">State MEP
Overview</h3></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Number of state migrant projects</td>
<td colspan="9">4 MEAs, 132 districts</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Number of migrant students</td>
<td colspan="7">State (as of 11/2000):</td>
<td colspan="2">21,103</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="7">District (2000):</td>
<td colspan="2">5,431</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Amount of state funding (2000–2001)</td>
<td colspan="2">Title I:</td>
<td colspan="7">$180,822,784 (including migrant funds)</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Migrant:</td>
<td colspan="7">$6,253,303</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="5"><strong>Assessment Instruments Used</strong></td>
<td><strong>Grades</strong></td>
<td colspan="5"><h3 id="time-of-year-3">Time of Year</h3></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="5">Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) (replaced by Stanford
Achievement Test) – Reading Comprehension, Reading Vocabulary,
Mathematics, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies, Sources of
Information</td>
<td>3, 5, 8</td>
<td colspan="5">Spring</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="5">Criterion-Referenced Comprehensive Test (CRCT) –
Reading, Mathematics, Language Arts</td>
<td>4, 6, 8</td>
<td colspan="5">Spring</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="5">Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT)</td>
<td>11 (12)</td>
<td colspan="5">Fall, winter, spring, and summer</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="5">National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)*</td>
<td>4, 8</td>
<td colspan="5">Spring of even-numbered years (2000, 2002, etc.)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="5">Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program (GKAP-R)*</td>
<td>K</td>
<td colspan="5">Fall, winter, and spring</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="11">*We did not receive results from the NAEP or
GKAP-R.</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><strong>Summary of Data Collected</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><h3 id="state-3">State</h3></td>
<td colspan="3"><h3 id="estimate-3">Estimate</h3></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>District</strong></td>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Estimate</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Can disaggregate by migrant status</td>
<td colspan="2">x*</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x*</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Does disaggregate by migrant status</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Has estimates of migrant student participation in
assessments</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2"><p>Makes assessment accommodations for:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Language</p>
<p>Mobility</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Can calculate dropout rate</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Does calculate dropout rate</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Can calculate graduation rate</td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2">x</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="2">Does calculate graduation rate</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2">Collects postsecondary information</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

\* Georgia can disaggregate assessments by migrant status as of the 2001
administration.

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)---2000

Table values show percentile scores, which rank students in comparison
to all the students in the norming group who scored lower than the
average student in that school or system.

**Reading Comprehension**

  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
             **State**                      **District\***   

  Grade      Migrant         All Students   Migrant          All Students

  3          ---             54             ---              ---

  5          ---             53             ---              ---

  8          ---             49             ---              ---
  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------

**Reading Vocabulary**

  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
             **State**                      **District\***   

  Grade      Migrant         All Students   Migrant          All Students

  3          ---             51             ---              ---

  5          ---             48             ---              ---

  8          ---             46             ---              ---
  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------

**Mathematics**

  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
             **State**                      **District\***   

  Grade      Migrant         All Students   Migrant          All Students

  3          ---             62             ---              ---

  5          ---             59             ---              ---

  8          ---             57             ---              ---
  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------

**Language Arts**

  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
             **State**                      **District\***   

  Grade      Migrant         All Students   Migrant          All Students

  3          ---             65             ---              ---

  5          ---             64             ---              ---

  8          ---             62             ---              ---
  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------

\* The local migrant education program identified for this study is a
Migrant Education Agency composed of a consortium of districts.
Therefore, no specific district assessment scores are available.

**ITBS (continued)**

Table values show percentile scores, which rank students in comparison
to all the students in the norming group who scored lower than the
average student in that school or system.

**Science**

  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
             **State**                      **District\***   

  Grade      Migrant         All Students   Migrant          All Students

  3          ---             59             ---              ---

  5          ---             60             ---              ---

  8          ---             56             ---              ---
  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------

**Social Studies**

  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
             **State**                      **District\***   

  Grade      Migrant         All Students   Migrant          All Students

  3          ---             55             ---              ---

  5          ---             56             ---              ---

  8          ---             54             ---              ---
  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------

**Sources of Information**

  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
             **State**                      **District\***   

  Grade      Migrant         All Students   Migrant          All Students

  3          ---             58             ---              ---

  5          ---             59             ---              ---

  8          ---             58             ---              ---
  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------

**Composite Score**

  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------
             **State**                      **District\***   

  Grade      Migrant         All Students   Migrant          All Students

  3          ---             58             ---              ---

  5          ---             58             ---              ---

  8          ---             57             ---              ---
  ---------- --------------- -------------- ---------------- --------------

\* The local migrant education program identified for this study is a
Migrant Education Agency composed of a consortium of districts.
Therefore, no specific district assessment scores are available.

**Criterion-Referenced Comprehensive Test (CRCT)---2000**

Table values show the percentage of students which did not meet, met, or
exceeded standards.

Reading

  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------
  Grade                 **State**                  **District\***   

                        Migrant      All Students  Migrant          All Students

  4       Does Not Meet ---          35            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          37            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          28            ---              ---

  6       Does Not Meet ---          29            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          39            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          32            ---              ---

  8       Does Not Meet ---          25            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          37            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          38            ---              ---
  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------

Mathematics

  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------
  Grade                 **State**                  **District\***   

                        Migrant      All Students  Migrant          All Students

  4       Does Not Meet ---          38            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          51            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          11            ---              ---

  6       Does Not Meet ---          34            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          49            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          17            ---              ---

  8       Does Not Meet ---          46            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          43            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          11            ---              ---
  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------

\* The local migrant education program identified for this study is a
Migrant Education Agency composed of a consortium of districts.
Therefore, no specific district assessment scores are available.

**CRCT (continued)**

Table values show the percentage of students which did not meet, met, or
exceeded standards.

Language Arts

  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------
  Grade                 **State**                  **District\***   

                        Migrant      All Students  Migrant          All Students

  4       Does Not Meet ---          29            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          55            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          16            ---              ---

  6       Does Not Meet ---          39            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          45            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          16            ---              ---

  8       Does Not Meet ---          34            ---              ---

          Meets         ---          49            ---              ---

          Exceeds       ---          16            ---              ---
  ------- ------------- ------------ ------------- ---------------- -------------

\* The local migrant education program identified for this study is a
Migrant Education Agency composed of a consortium of districts.
Therefore, no specific district assessment scores are available.

**Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT), 1999--2000**

Table values show the percentage of regular program 11^th^ graders
passing the Georgia High School Graduation Test on first administration.

+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+
| Subject          | **State** |            | **         |            |
|                  |           |            | District** |            |
+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+
|                  | Migrant   | All        | Migrant    | All        |
|                  |           | Students   |            | Students   |
+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+
| English Language | ---       | 95         | ---        | ---        |
| Arts             |           |            |            |            |
+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+
| Mathematics      | ---       | 92         | ---        | ---        |
+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+
| Social Studies   | ---       | 85         | ---        | ---        |
+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+
| Science          | ---       | 73         | ---        | ---        |
+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+
| > All components | ---       | 71         | ---        | ---        |
| > listed above   |           |            |            |            |
+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+
| Writing          | ---       | 91         | ---        | ---        |
+------------------+-----------+------------+------------+------------+

# Appendix E: Kansas

# Emporia School District {#emporia-school-district .Heading1A}

####### 

+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| ### State MEP Over           |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| view {#state-mep-overview-4} |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of state migrant      |   |    | 4 |         |   |   |     |         |
| projects                     |   |    | 1 |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of migrant students   |   |    | S |         |   | 2 |     |         |
| (1999--2000)                 |   |    | t |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 5 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | D |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | s |         |   | 4 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | c |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Amount of state funding      |   |    | T |         |   | \ |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | l |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | I |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 1 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | M |         |   | \ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | g |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | n |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 6 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 5 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Assessment Instruments     |   | ** |   |         |   |   | #   |         |
| Used**                       |   | Gr |   |         |   |   | ##  |         |
|                              |   | ad |   |         |   |   | Tim |         |
|                              |   | es |   |         |   |   | e o |         |
|                              |   | ** |   |         |   |   | f Y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |  {# |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | tim |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | e-o |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | f-y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | -4} |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kansas Reading Assessment    |   | 5, |   |         |   |   | Mid |         |
|                              |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | -Fe |         |
|                              |   | 11 |   |         |   |   | bru |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ary |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | to  |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | mid |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | -Ma |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | rch |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kansas Mathematics           |   | 4, |   |         |   |   | Mid |         |
| Assessment                   |   | 7, |   |         |   |   | -Fe |         |
|                              |   | 10 |   |         |   |   | bru |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ary |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | to  |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | mid |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | -Ma |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | rch |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kansas Writing Assessment    |   | 5, |   |         |   |   | Ea  |         |
|                              |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | rly |         |
|                              |   | 11 |   |         |   |   | De  |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | cem |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ber |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | to  |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | mid |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | -Ma |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | rch |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kansas Science Assessment\*  |   | 4, |   |         |   |   | F   |         |
|                              |   | 7, |   |         |   |   | all |         |
|                              |   | 10 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kansas Social Studies        |   | 6, |   |         |   |   | Ea  |         |
| Assessment\*                 |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | rly |         |
|                              |   | 11 |   |         |   |   | De  |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | cem |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ber |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | to  |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | mid |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | -Ma |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | rch |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| \*The Kansas Assessments of  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| Science and Social Studies   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| were not administered in     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| 2000.                        |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Summary of Data            | # |    |   | ### E   | * |   |     | **Est   |
| Collected**                  | # |    |   | stimate | * |   |     | imate** |
|                              | # |    |   |  {#esti | D |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   | mate-4} | i |   |     |         |
|                              | S |    |   |         | s |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         | r |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         | c |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | { |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              | # |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              | s |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | - |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | 4 |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | } |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can disaggregate by migrant  | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does disaggregate by migrant | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Has estimates of migrant     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| student participation in     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| assessments                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Makes assessment             | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| accommodations for:          |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Language                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| >                            |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Mobility                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate dropout rate   | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate dropout rate  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate graduation     | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate graduation    |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Collects postsecondary       | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| information                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+

**Kansas Reading Assessment---2000**

Table values at the state level show number of students tested and
percentage at each level of performance. District values show percentage
of students in top three quintiles.

  ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------
             **State**                                  **District**                        

  Grade 5    Migrant               All                  Migrant                  All        
             Students              Students             Students                 Students   

             Number      Percent   Number     Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number     Percent
             Tested                Tested                                        Tested     

  Unsatis.   137         33        4,994      14        ---            ---       ---        ---

  Basic      150         36        8,748      24        ---            ---       ---        ---

  Satis.     77          19        8,065      22        ---            28        ---        57

  Prof.      40          10        9,042      25        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       11          3         5,599      15        ---                      ---        

  Grade 8                                                                                   

  Unsatis.   89          30        4,237      12        ---                      ---        

  Basic      124         42        8,032      22        ---                      ---        

  Satis.     56          19        10,548     29        ---            58        ---        63

  Prof.      28          9         10,949     30        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       2           1         3,193      9         ---                      ---        

  Grade 11                                                                                  

  Unsatis.   47          31        4,764      15        ---                      ---        

  Basic      54          36        8,519      27        ---                      ---        

  Satis.     31          20        7,618      25        ---            12        ---        29

  Prof.      15          10        6,888      22        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       5           3         3,340      11        ---                      ---        
  ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------

**Kansas Mathematics Assessment---2000**

Table values at the state level show number of students tested and
percentage at each level of performance. District values show percentage
of students in top three quintiles.

**Mathematics**

  ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------
             **State**                                  **District**                        

  Grade 4    Migrant               All                  Migrant                  All        
             Students              Students             Students                 Students   

             Number      Percent   Number     Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number     Percent
             Tested                Tested                                        Tested     

  Unsatis.   151         30        5,367      14        ---                      ---        

  Basic      185         37        8,936      24        ---                      ---        

  Satis.     92          18        8,645      23        ---            33        ---        54

  Prof.      65          13        9,298      25        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       12          2         5,013      14        ---                      ---        

  Grade 7                                                                                   

  Unsatis.   162         49        8,511      23        ---                      ---        

  Basic      103         31        8,561      23        ---                      ---        

  Satis.     42          13        7,666      21        ---            33        ---        54

  Prof.      22          7         7,178      20        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       3           1         4,838      13        ---                      ---        

  Grade 10                                                                                  

  Unsatis.   106         57        9,937      29        ---                      ---        

  Basic      44          24        9,809      29        ---                      ---        

  Satis.     25          13        6,244      18        ---            9         ---        29

  Prof.      7           4         3,763      11        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       5           3         4,280      13        ---                      ---        
  ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------

**Kansas Writing Assessment---2000**

Table values at the state level show number of students tested and
percentage at each level of performance. District values show percentage
of students in top three quintiles.

  ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------
             **State**                                  **District**                        

  Grade 5    Migrant               All                  Migrant                  All        
             Students              Students             Students                 Students   

             Number      Percent   Number     Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number     Percent
             Tested                Tested                                        Tested     

  Unsatis.   ---         ---       4,947      14        ---                      ---        

  Basic      ---         ---       10,156     28        ---                      ---        

  Satis.     ---         ---       12,601     35        ---            22        ---        58

  Prof.      ---         ---       6,063      17        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       ---         ---       2,806      8         ---                      ---        

  Grade 8                                                                                   

  Unsatis.   ---         ---       3,299      9         ---                      ---        

  Basic      ---         ---       8,734      24        ---                      ---        

  Satis.     ---         ---       13,633     37        ---            .\*       ---        52

  Prof.      ---         ---       7,731      21        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       ---         ---       3,324      9         ---                      ---        

  Grade 11                                                                                  

  Unsatis.   ---         ---       2,539      8         ---                      ---        

  Basic      ---         ---       7,366      23        ---                      ---        

  Satis.     ---         ---       11,880     38        ---            57        ---        83

  Prof.      ---         ---       7,076      22        ---                      ---        

  Adv.       ---         ---       2,695      9         ---                      ---        
  ---------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------

\* No students were identified as migrant in the classes tested.

# Appendix F: Kentucky

# Hardin County School District {#hardin-county-school-district .Heading1A}

####### 

+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| ### State MEP Over           |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| view {#state-mep-overview-5} |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of state migrant      |   |    | 1 |         |   |   |     |         |
| projects                     |   |    | 7 |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of migrant students   |   |    | S |         |   | 2 |     |         |
| (1999--2000)                 |   |    | t |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 0 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | D |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | s |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | c |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Amount of state funding      |   |    | T |         |   | \ |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | l |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | I |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 7 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 8 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | M |         |   | \ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | g |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | n |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 0 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Assessment Instruments     |   | ** |   |         |   |   | #   |         |
| Used**                       |   | Gr |   |         |   |   | ##  |         |
|                              |   | ad |   |         |   |   | Tim |         |
|                              |   | es |   |         |   |   | e o |         |
|                              |   | ** |   |         |   |   | f Y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |  {# |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | tim |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | e-o |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | f-y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | -5} |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| CTBS 5 Survey Edition        |   | 3, |   |         |   |   | Ap  |         |
| (Reading, Mathematics,       |   | 6, |   |         |   |   | ril |         |
| Language)\*                  |   | 9  |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kentucky Core Content        |   | 4, |   |         |   |   | Ap  |         |
| Tests--Reading               |   | 7, |   |         |   |   | ril |         |
|                              |   | 10 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kentucky Core Content        |   | 5, |   |         |   |   | Ap  |         |
| Tests--Mathematics, Social   |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | ril |         |
| Studies, Arts and Humanities |   | 11 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kentucky Core Content        |   | 4, |   |         |   |   | Ap  |         |
| Tests--Writing               |   | 7, |   |         |   |   | ril |         |
|                              |   | 12 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kentucky Core Content        |   | 4, |   |         |   |   | Ap  |         |
| Tests--Science               |   | 7, |   |         |   |   | ril |         |
|                              |   | 11 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Kentucky Core Content        |   | 5, |   |         |   |   | Ap  |         |
| Tests--Practical Living and  |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | ril |         |
| Vocational Studies           |   | 10 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| \*We did not receive results |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| from the CTBS 5.             |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Summary of Data            | # |    |   | ### E   | * |   |     | **Est   |
| Collected**                  | # |    |   | stimate | * |   |     | imate** |
|                              | # |    |   |  {#esti | D |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   | mate-5} | i |   |     |         |
|                              | S |    |   |         | s |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         | r |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         | c |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | { |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              | # |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              | s |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | - |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | 5 |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | } |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can disaggregate by migrant  | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does disaggregate by migrant | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Has estimates of migrant     | x |    |   | 61.04%  |   |   |     |         |
| student participation in     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| assessments                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Makes assessment             | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| accommodations for:          |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Language                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| >                            |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Mobility                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate dropout rate   |   |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate dropout rate  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate graduation     |   |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate graduation    |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Collects postsecondary       | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| information                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+

Kentucky Core Content Tests---2000

Table values show the number of students tested and the percentage
meeting standards.

**Reading**

  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
           **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade    Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
           Students                                      Students                               

           Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
           Tested                                                                               

  4        1,189       71        44,345        78        7              .\*       860           76

  7        821         61        44,099        68        2              .\*       808           70

  10       309         57        44,048        70        1              .\*       969           68
  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

**Mathematics**

  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
           **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade    Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
           Students                                      Students                               

           Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
           Tested                                                                               

  5        1,023       53        43,931        68        10             45        901           67

  8        602         54        44,222        72        6              .\*       919           73

  11       179         49        40,318        69        1              .\*       947           66
  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

**Writing**

  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
           **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade    Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
           Students                                      Students                               

           Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
           Tested                                                                               

  4        1,189       50        44,345        55        7              .\*       860           76

  7        821         31        44,099        42        2              .\*       808           44

  12       135         43        37,723        55        2              .\*       915           56
  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

\* Cells with fewer than 10 students are not reported.

**Kentucky Core Content Tests (continued)**

Table values show the number of students tested and the percentage
meeting standards.

**Science**

  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
           **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade    Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
           Students                                      Students                               

           Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
           Tested                                                                               

  4        1,189       52        44,345        58        7              .\*       860           56

  7        821         32        44,099        38        2              .\*       808           41

  11       179         58        40,318        67        1              .\*       947           66
  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

**Social Studies**

  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
           **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade    Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
           Students                                      Students                               

           Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
           Tested                                                                               

  5        1,023       48        43,931        59        10             44        901           57

  8        602         41        44,422        54        6              .\*       919           55

  11       179         54        40,318        68        1              .\*       947           65
  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

**Arts and Humanities**

  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
           **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade    Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
           Students                                      Students                               

           Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
           Tested                                                                               

  5        1,023       25        43,931        33        10             22        901           31

  8        602         31        44,422        44        6              .\*       919           45

  11       179         31        40,318        41        1              .\*       947           36
  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

**Practical Living and Vocational Studies**

  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------
           **State**                                     **District**                           

  Grade    Migrant               Non-Migrant             Migrant                  Non-Migrant   
           Students                                      Students                               

           Number      Percent   Number Tested Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number Tested Percent
           Tested                                                                               

  5        1,023       37        43,931        46        10             32        901           45

  8        602         22        44,422        33        6              .\*       919           32

  10       309         27        44,048        39        1              .\*       969           37
  -------- ----------- --------- ------------- --------- -------------- --------- ------------- ---------

\* Cells with fewer than 10 students are not reported.

# Appendix G: Oregon

# Ontario School District {#ontario-school-district .Heading1A}

####### 

+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| ### State MEP Overvi       |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| ew {#state-mep-overview-6} |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of state migrant    | 2 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| projects                   | 4 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of migrant students | S |   |    |     | 2 |   |     |         |
|                            | t |   |    |     | 7 |   |     |         |
|                            | a |   |    |     | , |   |     |         |
|                            | t |   |    |     | 0 |   |     |         |
|                            | e |   |    |     | 0 |   |     |         |
|                            | ( |   |    |     | 0 |   |     |         |
|                            | 2 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 0 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 0 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 0 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | - |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | - |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 2 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 0 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 0 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 1 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | ) |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | : |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
|                            | D |   |    |     | 1 |   |     |         |
|                            | i |   |    |     | , |   |     |         |
|                            | s |   |    |     | 2 |   |     |         |
|                            | t |   |    |     | 9 |   |     |         |
|                            | r |   |    |     | 8 |   |     |         |
|                            | i |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | c |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | t |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | ( |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | a |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | s |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | o |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | f |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 1 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | / |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 3 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 0 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | / |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 0 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | 1 |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | ) |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            | : |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Amount of state funding    | T |   |    |     | \ |   |     |         |
| (2000--2001)               | i |   |    |     | $ |   |     |         |
|                            | t |   |    |     | 7 |   |     |         |
|                            | l |   |    |     | 7 |   |     |         |
|                            | e |   |    |     | , |   |     |         |
|                            | I |   |    |     | 4 |   |     |         |
|                            | : |   |    |     | 5 |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | 6 |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | , |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | 6 |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | 6 |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | 6 |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | ( |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | i |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | n |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | c |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | l |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | u |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | d |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | e |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | s |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | m |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | i |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | g |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | r |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | a |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | n |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | t |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | f |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | u |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | n |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | d |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | s |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | ) |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
|                            | M |   |    |     | \ |   |     |         |
|                            | i |   |    |     | $ |   |     |         |
|                            | g |   |    |     | 1 |   |     |         |
|                            | r |   |    |     | 2 |   |     |         |
|                            | a |   |    |     | , |   |     |         |
|                            | n |   |    |     | 0 |   |     |         |
|                            | t |   |    |     | 6 |   |     |         |
|                            | : |   |    |     | 9 |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | , |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | 9 |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | 6 |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     | 8 |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Assessment Instruments   |   |   | ** |     |   |   | #   |         |
| Used**                     |   |   | Gr |     |   |   | ##  |         |
|                            |   |   | ad |     |   |   | Tim |         |
|                            |   |   | es |     |   |   | e o |         |
|                            |   |   | ** |     |   |   | f Y |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   | ear |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   |  {# |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   | tim |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   | e-o |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   | f-y |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   | ear |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   | -6} |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Oregon Assessment Test --  |   |   | 3, |     |   |   | Win |         |
| Reading/Literature,        |   |   | 5, |     |   |   | ter |         |
| Mathematics                |   |   | 8, |     |   |   | and |         |
|                            |   |   | 10 |     |   |   | spr |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   | ing |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Summary of Data          |   | # |    | ##  |   | * |     | **Est   |
| Collected**                |   | # |    | # E |   | * |     | imate** |
|                            |   | # |    | sti |   | D |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    | mat |   | i |     |         |
|                            |   | S |    | e { |   | s |     |         |
|                            |   | t |    | #es |   | t |     |         |
|                            |   | a |    | tim |   | r |     |         |
|                            |   | t |    | ate |   | i |     |         |
|                            |   | e |    | -6} |   | c |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   | t |     |         |
|                            |   | { |    |     |   | * |     |         |
|                            |   | # |    |     |   | * |     |         |
|                            |   | s |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            |   | t |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            |   | a |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            |   | t |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            |   | e |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            |   | - |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            |   | 6 |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            |   | } |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can disaggregate by        |   | x |    |     |   | x |     |         |
| migrant status             |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does disaggregate by       |   | x |    |     |   | x |     |         |
| migrant status             |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Has estimates of migrant   |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| student participation in   |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| assessments                |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Makes assessment           |   | x |    |     |   | x |     |         |
| accommodations for:        |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
|                            |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| > Language                 |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| >                          |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| > Mobility                 |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate dropout rate |   | x |    |     |   | x |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate dropout     |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| rate                       |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate graduation   |   | x |    |     |   | x |     |         |
| rate                       |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate graduation  |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| rate                       |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+
| Collects postsecondary     |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
| information                |   |   |    |     |   |   |     |         |
+----------------------------+---+---+----+-----+---+---+-----+---------+

**Oregon Assessment Test---2000**

Table values show the number and percentage of students at each
performance level at the state level. At the district level, the number
and percentage of students who met or exceeded standards are given.

Reading/Literature

  ------- ------------ ----------- ----- ------------- ----- -------------- ------ ------------- -----
  Grade                **State**                             **District**                        

                       Migrant           Non-Migrant         Migrant               Non-Migrant   

                       Number      Pct   Number        Pct   Number         Pct    Number        Pct

  3       Very Low     133         22    2,455         6     ---            ---    ---           ---

          Low          74          12    1,792         5     ---            ---    ---           ---

          Nearly Meets 82          13    2,363         6     ---            ---    ---           ---

          Meets        227         37    11,437        30    63             42     157           81

          Exceeds      99          16    20,073        53                                        

  5       Very Low     108         19    1,631         4     ---            ---    ---           ---

          Low          132         23    3,483         9     ---            ---    ---           ---

          Nearly Meets 127         22    5,019         22    ---            ---    ---           ---

          Meets        186         33    19,778        33    58             37     131           58

          Exceeds      16          3     9,251         3                                         

  8       Very Low     35          9     735           2     ---            ---    ---           ---

          Low          163         43    5,511         14    ---            ---    ---           ---

          Nearly Meets 100         27    7,692         20    ---            ---    ---           ---

          Meets        58          15    10,679        27    56             27     129           61

          Exceeds      21          6     14,440        37                                        

  10      Very Low     24          9     539           2     ---            ---    ---           ---

          Low          139         50    6,514         18    ---            ---    ---           ---

          Nearly Meets 80          29    10,136        28    ---            ---    ---           ---

          Meets        27          10    12,439        35    40             8      144           55

          Exceeds      8           3     6,266         17                                        
  ------- ------------ ----------- ----- ------------- ----- -------------- ------ ------------- -----

**Oregon Assessment Test (continued)**

Table values show the number and percentage of students at each
performance level at the state level. At the district level, the number
and percentage of students who met or exceeded standards are given.

Mathematics

  ------- ------------ ----------- ----- ------------- ----- -------------- ----- ------------- -----
  Grade                **State**                             **District**                       

                       Migrant           Non-Migrant         Migrant              Non-Migrant   

                       Number      Pct   Number        Pct   Number         Pct   Number        Pct

  3       Very Low     69          8     714           2     ---            ---   ---           ---

          Low          262         31    3,592         9     ---            ---   ---           ---

          Nearly Meets 197         23    5,145         13    ---            ---   ---           ---

          Meets        280         33    17,092        43    63             38    157           67

          Exceeds      51          6     12,918        33                                       

  5       Very Low     74          11    924           2     ---            ---   ---           ---

          Low          238         35    4,684         12    ---            ---   ---           ---

          Nearly Meets 168         25    6,328         16    ---            ---   ---           ---

          Meets        190         28    20,496        51    58             28    131           50

          Exceeds      12          2     7,554         19                                       

  8       Very Low     126         29    2,743         7     ---            ---   ---           ---

          Low          182         41    7,538         19    ---            ---   ---           ---

          Nearly Meets 67          15    6,897         17    ---            ---   ---           ---

          Meets        46          10    10,181        26    56             19    129           59

          Exceeds      20          5     12,054        31                                       

  10      Very Low     78          25    2,375         7     ---            ---   ---           ---

          Low          142         45    7,841         22    ---            ---   ---           ---

          Nearly Meets 67          21    11,479        32    ---            ---   ---           ---

          Meets        19          6     9,024         25    40             0     144           35

          Exceeds      11          3     5,366         15                                       
  ------- ------------ ----------- ----- ------------- ----- -------------- ----- ------------- -----

# Appendix H: Texas

# La Joya Independent School District {#la-joya-independent-school-district .Heading1A}

####### 

+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| ### State MEP Over           |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| view {#state-mep-overview-7} |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of state migrant      |   |    | N |         |   |   |     |         |
| projects                     |   |    | / |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | A |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of migrant students   |   |    | S |         |   | 1 |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | t |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 7 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | D |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | s |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | c |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Amount of state funding      |   |    | T |         |   | N |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   |    | i |         |   | / |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | A |     |         |
|                              |   |    | l |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | e |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | I |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   |    | M |         |   | \ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | i |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   |    | g |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | r |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | a |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    | n |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | t |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    | : |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   | 0 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Assessment Instruments     |   | ** |   |         |   |   | #   |         |
| Used**                       |   | Gr |   |         |   |   | ##  |         |
|                              |   | ad |   |         |   |   | Tim |         |
|                              |   | es |   |         |   |   | e o |         |
|                              |   | ** |   |         |   |   | f Y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   |  {# |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | tim |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | e-o |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | f-y |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | ear |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         |   |   | -7} |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Texas Assessment of Academic |   | 3- |   |         |   |   | >   |         |
| Skills\                      |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| (TAAS) -- Reading,           |   | 1  |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
| Mathematics                  |   | 0- |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 12 |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Texas Assessment of Academic |   | 4, |   |         |   |   | >   |         |
| Skills\                      |   | 8, |   |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| (TAAS) -- Writing            |   | 10 |   |         |   |   | ing |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Summary of Data            | # |    |   | ### E   | * |   |     | **Est   |
| Collected**                  | # |    |   | stimate | * |   |     | imate** |
|                              | # |    |   |  {#esti | D |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   | mate-7} | i |   |     |         |
|                              | S |    |   |         | s |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         | r |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         | c |   |     |         |
|                              |   |    |   |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | { |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              | # |    |   |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              | s |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | a |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | t |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | e |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | - |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | 7 |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | } |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can disaggregate by migrant  | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does disaggregate by migrant | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Has estimates of migrant     | x |    |   | 90%     | x |   |     |         |
| student participation in     |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| assessments                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Makes assessment             | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| accommodations for:          |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| > Language                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| >                            |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Mobility                   |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate dropout rate   | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate dropout rate  |   |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate graduation     | x |    |   |         | x |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate graduation    | x |    |   | 82.4%   | x |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Collects postsecondary       |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
| information                  |   |    |   |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+----+---+---------+---+---+-----+---------+

**Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)---2000**

Table values show the percentage of students meeting minimum
expectations.

**Reading**

  -------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------
           **State**                        **District**    

  Grade    Migrant         All Students     Migrant         All Students
           Students                         Students        

  3        ---             87               83              87

  4        ---             89               78              89

  5        ---             87               82              82

  6        ---             86               69              72

  7        ---             83               61              71

  8        ---             89               82              83

  10       ---             90               76              78
  -------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------

**Mathematics**

  -------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------
           **State**                        **District**    

  Grade    Migrant         All Students     Migrant         All Students
           Students                         Students        

  3        ---             80               82              89

  4        ---             87               85              88

  5        ---             92               90              92

  6        ---             88               84              82

  7        ---             87               76              79

  8        ---             90               81              88

  10       ---             86               73              78
  -------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------

**Writing**

  -------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------
           **State**                        **District**    

  Grade    Migrant         All Students     Migrant         All Students
           Students                         Students        

  4        ---             90               78              87

  8        ---             84               61              67

  10       ---             90               69              78
  -------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ---------------

**Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) Percent Participation Rates
of the La Joya Independent School District Migrant Students**

Table values show the percentage of district migrant students
participating in state assessments.

  -------------------------- -------------- ----------------- --------------
  **Grade Level**            **Reading**    **Mathematics**   **Writing**

  3                          90             91                \*

  4                          88             84                84

  5                          89             91                \*

  6                          86             88                \*

  7                          82             84                \*

  8                          75             78                83

  10                         73             76                73

  11                         91             88                83

  12                         94             98                94

  District Migrant Total     83             85                78
  -------------------------- -------------- ----------------- --------------

\* Grades 3, 5, 6, and 7 are not tested on the TAAS writing.

# Appendix I: Washington

# Sunnyside School District {#sunnyside-school-district .Heading1A}

####### 

+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| ### State MEP Over           |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| view {#state-mep-overview-8} |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of state migrant      |   | 8 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| projects                     |   | 0 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Number of migrant students   |   | S |    |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   | t |    |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   | a |    |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   | t |    |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   | e |    |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   | ( |    |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   | a |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | s |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | o |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | f |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 1 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | / |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 2 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 0 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 0 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 1 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | : |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   | D |    |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   | i |    |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   | s |    |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   | t |    |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   | r |    |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   | i |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | c |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | t |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | ( |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 2 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 0 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 0 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 0 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | - |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | - |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 2 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 0 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 0 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | 1 |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | ) |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   | : |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Amount of state funding      |   | T |    |         |   | \ |     |         |
| (2000--2001)                 |   | i |    |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   | t |    |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   | l |    |         |   | 0 |     |         |
|                              |   | e |    |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   | I |    |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   | : |    |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | 9 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | 5 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | 7 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | ( |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | i |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | n |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | c |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | l |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | u |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | d |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | e |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | s |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | m |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | i |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | g |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | r |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | a |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | n |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | t |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | f |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | u |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | n |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | d |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | s |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | ) |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
|                              |   | M |    |         |   | \ |     |         |
|                              |   | i |    |         |   | $ |     |         |
|                              |   | g |    |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   | r |    |         |   | 4 |     |         |
|                              |   | a |    |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   | n |    |         |   | 2 |     |         |
|                              |   | t |    |         |   | 1 |     |         |
|                              |   | : |    |         |   | 8 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | , |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | 3 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | 4 |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   | 0 |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Assessment Instruments     |   |   | ** |         |   |   | #   |         |
| Used**                       |   |   | Gr |         |   |   | ##  |         |
|                              |   |   | ad |         |   |   | Tim |         |
|                              |   |   | es |         |   |   | e o |         |
|                              |   |   | ** |         |   |   | f Y |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   |   | ear |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   |   |  {# |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   |   | tim |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   |   | e-o |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   |   | f-y |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   |   | ear |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   |   | -8} |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Washington Assessment of     |   |   | 4, |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| Student Learning (WASL) --   |   |   | 7, |         |   |   | ing |         |
| Reading, Mathematics,        |   |   | 10 |         |   |   |     |         |
| Writing, Listening           |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Iowa Tests of Basic          |   |   | 3, |         |   |   | Spr |         |
| Skills/Iowa Tests of         |   |   | 6, |         |   |   | ing |         |
| Educational Development      |   |   | 9  |         |   |   |     |         |
| (ITBS/ITED) -- Reading,      |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| Mathematics, Language,       |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| Expression, Quantitative     |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| Thinking                     |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| **Summary of Data            | # |   |    | ### E   | * |   |     | **Est   |
| Collected**                  | # |   |    | stimate | * |   |     | imate** |
|                              | # |   |    |  {#esti | D |   |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    | mate-8} | i |   |     |         |
|                              | S |   |    |         | s |   |     |         |
|                              | t |   |    |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | a |   |    |         | r |   |     |         |
|                              | t |   |    |         | i |   |     |         |
|                              | e |   |    |         | c |   |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         | t |   |     |         |
|                              | { |   |    |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              | # |   |    |         | * |   |     |         |
|                              | s |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | t |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | a |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | t |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | e |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | - |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | 8 |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              | } |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can disaggregate by migrant  | x |   |    |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does disaggregate by migrant | x |   |    |         | x |   |     |         |
| status                       |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Has estimates of migrant     |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| student participation in     |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| assessments                  |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Makes assessment             | x |   |    |         | x |   |     |         |
| accommodations for:          |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
|                              |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Language                   |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| >                            |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| > Mobility                   |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate dropout rate   |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate dropout rate  |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Can calculate graduation     | x |   |    |         | x |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Does calculate graduation    |   |   |    |         | x |   |     |         |
| rate                         |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+
| Collects postsecondary       |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
| information                  |   |   |    |         |   |   |     |         |
+------------------------------+---+---+----+---------+---+---+-----+---------+

**Washington ITBS/ITED---2000**

Table values show number of students tested and their mean national
percentile rank.

**Reading**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Mean    Number     Mean    Number Tested  Mean    Number     Mean
           Tested      NPR     Tested     NPR                    NPR     Tested     NPR

  3        791         16      73,197     56      ---            ---     410        28

  6        444         16      72,201     54      ---            ---     362        23

  9        354         16      72,859     54      ---            ---     329        29
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Mathematics**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Mean    Number     Mean    Number Tested  Mean    Number     Mean
           Tested      NPR     Tested     NPR                    NPR     Tested     NPR

  3        789         29      72,273     63      ---            ---     398        36

  6        440         27      71,457     56      ---            ---     362        38
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Reading/Mathematics Composite**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Mean    Number     Mean    Number Tested  Mean    Number     Mean
           Tested      NPR     Tested     NPR                    NPR     Tested     NPR

  3        768         22      71,458     60      ---            ---     397        32
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Language**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Mean    Number     Mean    Number Tested  Mean    Number     Mean
           Tested      NPR     Tested     NPR                    NPR     Tested     NPR

  6        440         22      71,689     56      ---            ---     361        29
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Washington ITBS/ITED (continued)**

Table values show number of students tested and their mean national
percentile rank.

**Expression**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Mean    Number     Mean    Number Tested  Mean    Number     Mean
           Tested      NPR     Tested     NPR                    NPR     Tested     NPR

  9        360         31      72,901     55      ---            ---     290        36
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Quantitative Thinking**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Mean    Number     Mean    Number Tested  Mean    Number     Mean
           Tested      NPR     Tested     NPR                    NPR     Tested     NPR

  9        357         33      72,922     60      ---            ---     317        41
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Core/Core Total**

  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------
           **State**                              **District**                      

  Grade    Migrant             All                Migrant                All        
           Students            Students           Students               Students   

           Number      Mean    Number     Mean    Number Tested  Mean    Number     Mean
           Tested      NPR     Tested     NPR                    NPR     Tested     NPR

  6        430         19      70,079     55      ---            ---     355        28

  9        345         24      70,583     58      ---            ---     271        36
  -------- ----------- ------- ---------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------- -------

**Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)---2000**

The table values show number of students tested and percentage of
students meeting standards.

**Reading**

  ------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------
          **State**                                  **District**                        

  Grade   Migrant               All                  Migrant                  All        
          Students              Students             Students                 Students   

          Number      Percent   Number     Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number     Percent
          Tested                Tested                                        Tested     

  4       1,044       24        75,733     66        ---            ---       408        45

  7       761         8         72,134     42        ---            ---       352        14

  10      482         19        66,995     60        ---            ---       297        46
  ------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------

**Mathematics**

  ------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------
          **State**                                  **District**                        

  Grade   Migrant               All                  Migrant                  All        
          Students              Students             Students                 Students   

          Number      Percent   Number     Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number     Percent
          Tested                Tested                                        Tested     

  4       1,048       11        75,977     42        ---            ---       406        22

  7       766         3         72,503     28        ---            ---       361        13

  10      509         5         68,308     35        ---            ---       314        14
  ------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------

**Writing**

  ------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------
          **State**                                  **District**                        

  Grade   Migrant               All                  Migrant                  All        
          Students              Students             Students                 Students   

          Number      Percent   Number     Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number     Percent
          Tested                Tested                                        Tested     

  4       1,016       11        74,883     39        ---            ---       399        19

  7       706         13        70,623     43        ---            ---       344        16

  10      431         4         64,297     32        ---            ---       285        20
  ------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------

**Listening**

  ------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------
          **State**                                  **District**                        

  Grade   Migrant               All                  Migrant                  All        
          Students              Students             Students                 Students   

          Number      Percent   Number     Percent   Number Tested  Percent   Number     Percent
          Tested                Tested                                        Tested     

  4       1,053       34        76,125     65        ---            ---       408        45

  7       765         45        72,367     80        ---            ---       355        60

  10      493         45        67,472     78        ---            ---       305        66
  ------- ----------- --------- ---------- --------- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------

[^1]: The statute defines "migratory child" as a child under 22 years of
    age who is a migrant agricultural worker or fisher, or who has a
    parent, spouse, or guardian who is a migrant agricultural worker,
    and who has moved across school district boundaries within the
    previous 36 months, either on his/her own or with or to join his/her
    migrant parents, in order to obtain temporary or seasonal employment
    in agricultural or fishing work.

[^2]: Counts within states are unduplicated, but the national total may
    contain duplicates due to students moving out of state and being
    counted in multiple states.

[^3]: States were selected based on data available at the time of study
    design. According to final counts, Colorado had 20,259 eligible
    students and would have been included instead of Georgia.

[^4]: The other sixteen states that participate in administration of the
    TAAS are Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,
    Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio,
    Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

[^5]: The ninth state added this capacity to their 2001 assessment.

[^6]: The four final outcomes for Texas's four-year cohort are
    graduated, received GED, continued high school, and dropped out. The
    percent graduated is calculated with the following formula: number
    of on-time graduates from the 1995-96 cohort plus early graduates
    divided by the number of 9^th^ graders in 1995-96 plus transfers in
    minus transfers out.

[^7]: 'Graduation Rate' is calculated based on the number eligible to
    graduate (number of 12^th^ graders) compared to the number of
    students receiving a diploma or certificate of completion.

[^8]: This is the Cohort Graduation Rate as it appears in the Department
    of Education School Advisory Council Report.