PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE

THE SAME HIGH STANDARDS FOR MIGRANT

STUDENTS: HOLDING TITLE I SCHOOLS

ACCOUNTABLE

Volume II: Measurement of Migrant Student

Educational Achievement

FINAL REPORT

2002

U.S. Department of Education

DOC #2002-08

THE SAME HIGH STANDARS FOR MIGRNAT

STUDENTS: HOLDING TITLE I SCHOOLS

ACCOUNTABLE

VOLUME II: MEASUREMENT OF MIGRANT STUDENT

EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT:

FINAL REPORT

PREPARED BY:

Jean Lennon

Betty Markatos

Research Triangle Institute

Research Triangle Park, N.C.

PREPARED FOR:

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 Departmentís Web site at:

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/ed_for_disadvantaged.html#migranted

http://www.ed.gov/offices/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 Departmentís Alternate Format Center (202)

205-8113.
iii

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

I. Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

A. Overview of the Migrant Education Program............................................................... 5

A.1. Participants........................................................................................................ 6

A.2. Migrant Student Services................................................................................. 7

A.3. Migrant Program Staffing ................................................................................ 8

B. Migrant Studentsí Performance on State Assessments................................................. 9

B.1. Inclusion in State Assessments ........................................................................ 9

B.2. Performance of Migrant Students.................................................................. 10

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

Assessments.................................................................................................... 13

C. High School Completion and Postsecondary Education for Migrant Students......... 14

D. Research Questions for the Current Study .................................................................. 16

II. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 17

III. Study Findings ..................................................................................................... 19

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

achievement? ................................................................................................................ 20

Q.1.1. Extent of migrant student participation.......................................................... 20

Q.1.2. Exemption and exclusion policies.................................................................. 22

Q.1.3. Score reporting................................................................................................ 23

Q.1.4. Coordination between state and local levels.................................................. 24

Q.1.5. Current barriers to participation..................................................................... 25

Q.1.6. Types of accommodations.............................................................................. 28

Q.1.7. Prevalence of accommodations...................................................................... 30

Q.1.8. Ability to disaggregate by migrant status...................................................... 32

Q.1.9. Current estimates of migrant student performance ....................................... 35

Q.2. What data are available on migrant student graduation and dropout rates?............... 35

Q.2.1. Availability of data on migrant student graduation rates.............................. 36

Q.2.2. Availability of data on migrant student dropout rates................................... 39

Q.3. What other types of data are routinely collected on migrant student achievement?

 Is information collected on postsecondary outcomes? .............................................. 41

Q.3.1. Availability of postsecondary data on migrant students ............................... 41

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

outcomes......................................................................................................... 42

Q.4. What is the overall quality of the data on migrant students?...................................... 43
iv

Q.5. What steps can states and districts take to improve the quality and availability

of data on migrant student outcomes? ......................................................................... 44

IV. Summary and Recommendations.......................................................................... 48

V. References............................................................................................................ 53

State and District Profile Data

Appendix A: Arizona.................................................................................................... 54

Appendix B: California ................................................................................................ 60

Appendix C: Florida..................................................................................................... 64

Appendix D: Georgia.................................................................................................... 68

Appendix E: Kansas..................................................................................................... 73

Appendix F: Kentucky................................................................................................. 77

Appendix G: Oregon .................................................................................................... 80

Appendix H: Texas....................................................................................................... 83

Appendix I: Washington ............................................................................................. 86

Tables

Table 1: Percentage of Participants Receiving Specific Services During Regular and

Summer Terms, 1998ñ1999................................................................................. 8

Table 2: Percentage of Migrant Students and All Students Meeting or Exceeding State

Proficiency Levels, by Grade and Subject.......................................................... 12

Table 3. Size of Migrant Student Population, by State and District .................................. 18

Table 4. State and District Abilities to Disaggregate State Assessment Data by

Migrant Status................................................................................................... 32

Table 5. Examples of Graduation Rate Formulas............................................................. 37

Table 6. Calculation of Graduation Rates, by State and District....................................... 37

Table 7. Examples of Dropout Rate Formulas ................................................................. 40

Table 8. Calculation of Dropout Rates, by State and District ........................................... 40

Figures

Figure 1: Top Nine States According to Size of 1998ñ1999 Migrant Child Count

by Residency.................................................................................................... 19
v

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

Educationís Office of Migrant Education, and Robin Chait, Beth Franklin, and Elois Scott of

the U.S. Department of Educationís Planning and Evaluation Service. The Research

Triangle Instituteís 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
1

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 studentís

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.
2

• 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.
3

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.
4

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

Americaís 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

stateís 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 ìall 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.î

In combination with other federal programs and state and local reform efforts, the programís

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

 

1

 The statute defines ìmigratory childî 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.
5

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 studentsí 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
6

the review, we summarize the data available from statesí 1998ñ1999 performance reports to

provide an overview of the MEP program (www.migranted.org).

A.1. Participants

Overall, in 1998ñ1999, states reported 782,903 eligible students, and of those,

575,220 (73 percent) were served during the regular school year.2 In 1998ñ1999, 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 1998ñ1999 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 (Kñ6), 30 percent were in

secondary grades (7ñ12), 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 1997ñ1998, 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 nationís eligible students. Based on a 12-month count, six other states

 

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.
7

reported having over 20,000 eligible students ñ 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 1998ñ1999, 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 1998ñ1999 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
8

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.

Table 1: Percentage of Participants Receiving Specific Services During Regular and

Summer Terms, 1998ñ1999

Instructional Services

Percentage of RegularTerm Participants ServedPercentage of SummerTerm 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 Care 18 22

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 1998ñ1999. 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
9

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 Studentsí 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 childrenís 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 studentsí 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 ìthe 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 informationî (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 studentís 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 MEPís central purposes.
10

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

studentsí 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 studentsí native language, and other means (Rivera, Stansfield,

Scialdone, and Sharkey, 2000).
11

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 studentsí 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 1997ñ1998, 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.
12

Table 2: Percentage of Migrant Students and All Students Meeting or Exceeding State

Proficiency Levels, by Grade and Subject

Percentage of Students

Elementary Middle

Reading Mathematics Reading Mathematics

Statea

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

MOb * * 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 1997ñ1998 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
13

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 studentsí 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 studentsí 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
14

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 studentsí 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

studentsí 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 studentsí 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 studentsí 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 familiesí 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
15

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 studentís

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 studentís 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
16

believed to be important in determining the migrant studentís 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 studentís 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:
17

• 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

1998ñ1999 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 nationís

migrant student population in 1998ñ1999 (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 25th 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 Email and telephone calls, as necessary, to fully address the studyís 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

 

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.
18

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.

Table 3. Size of Migrant Student Population, by State and District

Number of Migrant Students

ServedÜ

Size

Ranking State District

Number of

Children Eligible

for Migrant

Services in each

State

State District

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

2 Texas La Joya

Independent 122,877 131,457 5,538

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

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 MEAá 17,949 21,103 5,431

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.

* 1998ñ1999 Title I Migrant Education State Performance Reports

Ü

 As reported during site visits.

á

 Georgiaís Southern Pine Migrant Education Agency encompasses 19 of the stateís 180 school districts.
19

Figure 1: Top Nine States According to Size of 1998ñ1999 Migrant Child Count by

Residency

Source: 1998ñ1999 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.

1

2

3

4

5

7 6

8

9

Size Number of Children Eligible

Ranking State* for Migrant Services 

1 California 220,860

2 Texas 122,877

3 Florida 52,715

4 Washington 34,574

5 Oregon 26,408

6 Kentucky 25,146

7 Kansas 22,718

8 Arizona 18,141

9 Georgia 17,949
20

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 studentsí 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

Key Findings

Most states could not estimate the percentage of migrant

students participating in assessments.

The identification and coding of migrant students on

assessments may be problematic.
21

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 1999ñ2000 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 studyís 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 ìbubbleî 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
22

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 ìmigrantî 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

Key Findings

Eight states allowed exemptions for migrant students based on

limited English proficiency.

No state could provide an estimate of the number of migrant

students affected by language exemptions.
23

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

stateís 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

studentís best interest. One of the smaller statesí 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 studentsí 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 studentsí scores to be excluded from
24

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 stateís 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

Key Finding

State and district officials differed in their knowledge of

migrant student identification procedures and data

capabilities.
25

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 othersí 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

Key Findings

Language and mobility remain the greatest barriers to greater

migrant student participation in assessments.

Most states considered language to be a greater problem for

migrant students than is mobility.

The accountability system may discourage efforts to include

migrant students in assessments.
26

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 studentsí 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 studentís

education, it means that more migrant students can be tested against their home stateís

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
27

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 statesí 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.
28

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 studentís 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 Spanishspeaking staff and to establish programs that meet the linguistic needs of these students.

Key Findings

Language accommodations were found in almost every state,

but do not always best address the linguistic needs of

English language learners.

Spanish assessments were available in four states.

Only one state had accommodations that specifically addressed

migrant student mobility.
29

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 ñ Arizona, California, Oregon, and Texas. Californiaís Spanish assessment is in

addition to the regular English assessment, and some statesí 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 studentsí 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
30

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

 

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.

Key Finding

No state could provide an estimate of the number of

migrant students who were tested with

accommodations.
31

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. Kansasí assessment administration manual states, ìReporting percentages of

students not tested, on the building report cards, is being seriously considered.î 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 studentsí 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.
32

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.

Table 4. State and District Abilities to Disaggregate State Assessment Data by

Migrant Status

AZ CA FL GA KS KY OR TX WA Total

Yes

State can disaggregate

assessment data by migrant

status

xxx (x)a xxxx x 8a

State does disaggregate

assessment data by migrant

status

xx xx x 5

District can disaggregate

assessment data by migrant

status

xxx xxxx x 8

District does disaggregate

assessment data by migrant

status

xxx xxxx x 8

a

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

Key Findings

All nine states can disaggregate assessment data by migrant

status.

Disaggregation is more often done at the district level (five

states reported doing so, as compared to eight districts).

The use of separate databases often prevents the examination

of assessment data in conjunction with other academic

information (e.g., grades, attendance, etc.).
33

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 statesí 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.

Washingtonís 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 specialistsí many

responsibilities, they often do not spend time manipulating the data report format.

Washingtonís 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 Districtís local assessments or score reports, they are aware that Ontarioís

data collection and disaggregation capabilities are more advanced than most other districts in

 

5

 The ninth state added this capacity to their 2001 assessment.
34

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 statesí 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
35

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.
36

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 laborintensive. 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.

Key Findings

The use of separate databases often prevents the examination

of migrant student graduation data.

Of the seven states reporting the ability to calculate a migrant

student graduation rate, only two did so on a regular basis.

Of the eight districts reporting the ability to calculate a migrant

student graduation rate, only three did so on a regular basis.
37

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.

Table 6. Calculation of Graduation Rates, by State and District

AZ CA FL GA KS KY OR TX WA Total

Yes

State can calculate migrant

student graduation rate x xxx xx x 7

State does calculate migrant

student graduation rate x x2

District can calculate migrant

student graduation rate x xxxxxx x 8

District does calculate migrant

student graduation rate x x x 3

Texas and Florida were the two states that provided recent graduation rates. Texasís

1998ñ1999 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 Texasís La Joya Independent

School District was 89 percent.

 

6

 The four final outcomes for Texasís 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 9th graders in 1995-96 plus transfers in minus transfers out.
38

Floridaís 1999ñ2000 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 1999ñ2000. The four-year cohort graduation rates are

reported as 42% for migrant students and 59% for non-migrant students.8

 Floridaís state

synopsis of migrant students in Florida for 1999ñ2000 states, ìThis 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.î For Floridaís Hillsborough County

School District, the one-year graduation rate was 91% for migrant students and 89% for nonmigrant students. Hillsborough County School Districtís 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

 

7

 ëGraduation Rateí is calculated based on the number eligible to graduate (number of 12th 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.
39

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 studentís 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.

Key Findings

The use of separate databases often prevents the examination

of migrant student dropout data.

Estimating dropout rates for migrant students is problematic

due to their high mobility.
40

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

Table 8. Calculation of Dropout Rates, by State and District

AZ CA FL GA KS KY OR TX WA Total

Yes

State can calculate migrant

student dropout rate x x x x x x 6

State does calculate migrant

student dropout rate 0

District can calculate migrant

student dropout rate x x x xxxx 7

District does calculate migrant

student dropout rate x 1

One district official described the tracking of migrant dropouts as ìchasing butterflies

in the dark.î 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 44ñ48 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 studentís withdrawal from

school. Migrant staff expressed concern that even if they reported dropout rates for migrant
41

students, these rates would be an inaccurate reflection of the number of students who left

school permanently. For example, one stateís 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 stateís

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 12th 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

Key Findings

Only three states collect postsecondary data and although two of

them could examine it by migrant status, they do not do so.

Tracking migrant students after graduation to collect postsecondary

information may be difficult.
42

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 ìtransition to adult life,î 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 studentsí 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 endof-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

Key Finding

None of the states currently examine any other data on

migrant student achievement.
43

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 10th grade Washington Assessment of Student Learning will be a graduation

requirement by 2008, and Arizona will require that all 2002 graduates pass Arizonaís

Instrument to Measure Standards for 10th 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 dataís 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

Key Finding

Due to concerns about incomplete data, almost all migrant

staff expressed doubts about the extent to which

assessment data fully reflected migrant student

performance.
44

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

ñquality and availability. Data quality is limited by differences in data systems and

statistical methods across districts, staff turnover that necessitates the expenditure of

Key Findings

Two states have fairly comprehensive migrant student data

systems and one state is currently piloting such a system.

Four other states are in various stages of improving the utility of

regular student databases for examining migrant data.
45

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 areaís 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
46

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 Californiaís 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
47

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 stateís

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 2002ñ2003. This system will allow staff to

attach migrant student identification numbers to student-level data. The Kentucky

Department of Educationís 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.
48

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

Summary of Key Findings

Currently, there is no way to estimate the percentage of migrant

students participating in assessments.

The inability to link migrant, assessment, and academic

databases is the single greatest barrier to evaluating migrant

student achievement more accurately.

Lack of data on the number of migrant students not tested,

exempted, or tested with accommodations leaves migrant

staff relatively uninformed about conditions under which

their students are being assessed.

Data on migrant student achievement, especially on assessments,

are most likely incomplete, making conclusions or

comparisons with non-migrant students difficult.

Most states are in the process of large-scale adjustments to their

data systems, so the picture may change a great deal in the

near future.
49

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 studentsí 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 statesí

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
50

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 stateís 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 statesí 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 Texasí NGS, Oregonís OMSIS, Washingtonís 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 studentsí records to be maintained and transferred when necessary,

prevent duplication of paperwork, and track accurate information on migrant students, each
51

stateís 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 statesí 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 studentsí 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
52

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 individualsí 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 stateís 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.
53

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

1997ñ98: 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 1998ñ1999. 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)
State and District Profile Data

Arizonañ54

Appendix A: Arizona

Yuma Union School District

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects 53

State: 18,460 Number of migrant students (2000ñ2001) District: 2,245

Title I: $136,918,732

Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) Migrant: $6,806,586

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

Arizonaís Instrument to Measure Standards

(AIMS) 3, 5, 8, 10 Spring

Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford-9) ñ

Reading, Mathematics, Writing 2ñ11* End of March to

mid-April

*Beginning with the 2001 assessments, the Stanford-9 will no longer be administered to grades 10 and 11.

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x x

Does disaggregate by migrant status x

Has estimates of migrant student

participation in assessments

Makes assessment accommodations for:

Language

Mobility

x x

Can calculate dropout rate x x

Does calculate dropout rate

Can calculate graduation rate x x

Does calculate graduation rate

Collects postsecondary information
State and District Profile Data

Arizonañ55

Arizonaís Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)ó2000

Table values at the state level show the percentage of students at each of Arizonaís 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

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 Falls Far Below ó 12 ó ó

Approaches ó 18 ó ó

Meets ó 46 ó ó

Exceeds ó 25 ó ó

5 Falls Far Below ó 15 ó ó

Approaches ó 20 ó ó

Meets ó 46 ó ó

Exceeds ó 19 ó ó

8 Falls Far Below ó 30 ó ó

Approaches ó 18 ó ó

Meets ó 38 ó ó

Exceeds ó 14 ó ó

10 Falls Far Below ó 12 ó ó

Approaches ó 20 ó ó

Meets ó 47

Exceeds ó 21

28 51

* District data were available only for grade 10 because the district identified for this study contains

high schools, but no elementary or middle schools.
State and District Profile Data

Arizonañ56

AIMS (continued)

Table values at the state level show the percentage of students at each of Arizonaís 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

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 Falls Far Below ó 19 ó ó

Approaches ó 35 ó ó

Meets ó 32 ó ó

Exceeds ó 14 ó ó

5 Falls Far Below ó 24 ó ó

Approaches ó 38 ó ó

Meets ó 23 ó ó

Exceeds ó 16 ó ó

8 Falls Far Below ó 50 ó ó

Approaches ó 34 ó ó

Meets ó 11 ó ó

Exceeds ó 5 ó ó

10 Falls Far Below ó 72 ó ó

Approaches ó 11 ó ó

Meets ó 16

Exceeds ó 1

3 6

* District data were available only for grade 10 because the district identified for this study contains

high schools, but no elementary or middle schools.
State and District Profile Data

Arizonañ57

AIMS (continued)

Table values at the state level show the percentage of students at each of Arizonaís 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

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 Falls Far Below ó 13 ó ó

Approaches ó 19 ó ó

Meets ó 59 ó ó

Exceeds ó 8 ó ó

5 Falls Far Below ó 21 ó ó

Approaches ó 33 ó ó

Meets ó 46 ó ó

Exceeds ó 1 ó ó

8 Falls Far Below ó 15 ó ó

Approaches ó 38 ó ó

Meets ó 47 ó ó

Exceeds ó 1 ó ó

10 Falls Far Below ó 18

Approaches ó 49

92 80

Meets ó 33

Exceeds ó 1

8 20

* District data were available only for grade 10 because the district identified for this study contains

high schools, but no elementary or middle schools.
State and District Profile Data

Arizonañ58

Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford-9)ó2000

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

Reading

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

2 ó ó 54,212 52 ó ó 798 42

3 ó ó 57,442 48 ó ó 906 37

4 ó ó 57,775 54 ó ó 911 44

5 ó ó 59,404 51 ó ó 932 39

6 ó ó 58,857 53 ó ó 922 41

7 ó ó 57,127 52 ó ó 854 39

8 ó ó 56,487 53 ó ó 895 39

9 ó ó 56,068 43 ó ó 2,035 30

10 ó ó 47,677 42 ó ó 1,728 26

11 ó ó 40,078 45 ó ó 1,509 29

Mathematics

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

2 ó ó 57,302 55 ó ó 866 45

3 ó ó 58,462 52 ó ó 959 46

4 ó ó 59,512 55 ó ó 1,017 48

5 ó ó 60,441 55 ó ó 972 48

6 ó ó 59,698 60 ó ó 955 50

7 ó ó 57,370 56 ó ó 864 43

8 ó ó 56,577 56 ó ó 889 42

9 ó ó 57,023 59 ó ó 2,049 43

10 ó ó 48,363 50 ó ó 1,729 35

11 ó ó 40,557 55 ó ó 1,503 37
State and District Profile Data

Arizonañ59

Stanford-9 (continued)

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

Language

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

Number

Tested

Pct.

Rank

2 ó ó 57,097 43 ó ó 837 32

3 ó ó 58,240 54 ó ó 954 45

4 ó ó 59,123 48 ó ó 987 40

5 ó ó 59,983 45 ó ó 957 35

6 ó ó 59,342 44 ó ó 928 32

7 ó ó 57,492 54 ó ó 854 43

8 ó ó 56,816 49 ó ó 890 33

9 ó ó 56,408 40 ó ó 2,040 26

10 ó ó 47,843 44 ó ó 1,713 27

11 ó ó 39,887 44 ó ó 1,478 28
State and District Profile Data

Californiañ60

Appendix B: California

San Jose Unified School District

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects 23

State: 220,000 Number of migrant students (2000ñ2001) District: 1,587

Title I: N/A

Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) Migrant: N/A

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford-9) ñ

Reading, Mathematics, Language 2ñ11 Spring

Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford-9) ñ

Writing,* Social Science, Science 9ñ11 Spring

Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford-9) ñ

Spelling 2ñ8 Spring

STAR Augmentation ñ English/Language

Arts, MathematicsÜ 2ñ11 Spring

* We did not receive results for the writing component of Stanford-9.

Ü

 Results of the STAR Augmentation are not given in this appendix.

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x x

Does disaggregate by migrant status x x

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
State and District Profile Data

Californiañ61

Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford-9)ó2000

Table values show the number of students tested and the percentage at or above the 50th

national percentile rank.

Reading

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

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

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

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
State and District Profile Data

Californiañ62

Stanford-9 (continued)

Table values show the number of students tested and the percentage at or above the 50th

national percentile rank.

Language

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

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

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

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
State and District Profile Data

Californiañ63

Stanford-9 (continued)

Table values show the number of students tested and the percentage at or above the 50th

national percentile rank.

Science

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

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

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

NPR

Number

Tested

% At or

Above

50th

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
State and District Profile Data

Floridañ64

Appendix C: Florida

Hillsborough County School District

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects 36

State: 47,715 Number of migrant students (2000ñ2001) District: 4,575

Title I: $363,365,948 Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) Migrant: $23,564,907

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

Florida State Comprehensive Achievement

Test (FCAT) ñ Reading, Writing 4, 8, 10 Spring

Florida State Comprehensive Achievement

Test (FCAT) ñ Mathematics 5, 8, 10 Spring

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x x

Does disaggregate by migrant status x x

Has estimates of migrant student

participation in assessments

Makes assessment accommodations for:

Language

Mobility

x x

Can calculate dropout rate x x

Does calculate dropout rate

Can calculate graduation rate x x

Does calculate graduation rate x 78% x 91%

Collects postsecondary information x x
State and District Profile Data

Floridañ65

Florida State Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT)ó2000

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 Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Level

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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 Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Level

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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 Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Level

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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, 1999ñ2000, Matched to FCAT Results for 2000
State and District Profile Data

Floridañ66

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 Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Level

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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 Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Level

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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 Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Level

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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, 1999ñ2000, Matched to FCAT Results for 2000
State and District Profile Data

Floridañ67

FCAT (continued)

Table values show the number and percentage of students performing at each achievement

level, from Level 1 (lowest) to Level 5 (highest).

WritingóExpository

State District

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 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

WritingóNarrative

State District

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

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

WritingóPersuasive

State District

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 3

Number

Tested

Percent

< 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 1999ñ2000 Matched to FCAT Writing ñ (Formerly Florida Writes!)
State and District Profile Data

Georgiañ68

Appendix D: Georgia

Southern Pine Migrant Education Agency

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects 4 MEAs, 132 districts

State (as of 11/2000): 21,103 Number of migrant students District (2000): 5,431

Title I: $180,822,784 (including migrant funds) Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) Migrant: $6,253,303

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) (replaced by Stanford

Achievement Test) ñ Reading Comprehension, Reading

Vocabulary, Mathematics, Language Arts, Science,

Social Studies, Sources of Information

3, 5, 8 Spring

Criterion-Referenced Comprehensive Test (CRCT) ñ

Reading, Mathematics, Language Arts 4, 6, 8 Spring

Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) 11 (12) Fall, winter, spring, and

summer

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)* 4, 8 Spring of even-numbered

years (2000, 2002, etc.)

Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program (GKAP-R)* K Fall, winter, and spring

*We did not receive results from the NAEP or GKAP-R.

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x* x*

Does disaggregate by migrant status

Has estimates of migrant student

participation in assessments

Makes assessment accommodations for:

Language

Mobility

x x

Can calculate dropout rate x x

Does calculate dropout rate

Can calculate graduation rate x x

Does calculate graduation rate

Collects postsecondary information

* Georgia can disaggregate assessments by migrant status as of the 2001 administration.
State and District Profile Data

Georgiañ69

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)ó2000

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 ó 54 ó ó

5 ó 53 ó ó

8 ó 49 ó ó

Reading Vocabulary

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 ó 51 ó ó

5 ó 48 ó ó

8 ó 46 ó ó

Mathematics

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 ó 62 ó ó

5 ó 59 ó ó

8 ó 57 ó ó

Language Arts

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 ó 65 ó ó

5 ó 64 ó ó

8 ó 62 ó ó

* 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.
State and District Profile Data

Georgiañ70

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 ó 59 ó ó

5 ó 60 ó ó

8 ó 56 ó ó

Social Studies

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 ó 55 ó ó

5 ó 56 ó ó

8 ó 54 ó ó

Sources of Information

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 ó 58 ó ó

5 ó 59 ó ó

8 ó 58 ó ó

Composite Score

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

3 ó 58 ó ó

5 ó 58 ó ó

8 ó 57 ó ó

* 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.
State and District Profile Data

Georgiañ71

Criterion-Referenced Comprehensive Test (CRCT)ó2000

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

Reading

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

4 Does Not Meet ó 35 ó ó

Meets ó 37 ó ó

Exceeds ó 28 ó ó

6 Does Not Meet ó 29 ó ó

Meets ó 39 ó ó

Exceeds ó 32 ó ó

8 Does Not Meet ó 25 ó ó

Meets ó 37 ó ó

Exceeds ó 38 ó ó

Mathematics

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

4 Does Not Meet ó 38 ó ó

Meets ó 51 ó ó

Exceeds ó 11 ó ó

6 Does Not Meet ó 34 ó ó

Meets ó 49 ó ó

Exceeds ó 17 ó ó

8 Does Not Meet ó 46 ó ó

Meets ó 43 ó ó

Exceeds ó 11 ó ó

* 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.
State and District Profile Data

Georgiañ72

CRCT (continued)

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

Language Arts

State District*

Grade Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

4 Does Not Meet ó 29 ó ó

Meets ó 55 ó ó

Exceeds ó 16 ó ó

6 Does Not Meet ó 39 ó ó

Meets ó 45 ó ó

Exceeds ó 16 ó ó

8 Does Not Meet ó 34 ó ó

Meets ó 49 ó ó

Exceeds ó 16 ó ó

* 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), 1999ñ2000

Table values show the percentage of regular program 11th graders passing the Georgia High

School Graduation Test on first administration.

State District

Subject Migrant All Students Migrant All Students

English Language Arts ó 95 ó ó

Mathematics ó 92 ó ó

Social Studies ó 85 ó ó

Science ó 73 ó ó

All components listed

above ó 71 ó ó

Writing ó 91 ó ó
State and District Profile Data

Kansasñ73

Appendix E: Kansas

Emporia School District

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects 41

State: 21,895 Number of migrant students (1999ñ2000) District: 1,419

Title I: $56,306,231 Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) Migrant: $10,995,365

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

Kansas Reading Assessment 5, 8, 11 Mid-February to

mid-March

Kansas Mathematics Assessment 4, 7, 10 Mid-February to

mid-March

Kansas Writing Assessment 5, 8, 11 Early December to

mid-March

Kansas Science Assessment* 4, 7, 10 Fall

Kansas Social Studies Assessment* 6, 8, 11 Early December to

mid-March

*The Kansas Assessments of Science and Social Studies were not administered in 2000.

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x x

Does disaggregate by migrant status x x

Has estimates of migrant student

participation in assessments

Makes assessment accommodations for:

Language

Mobility

x x

Can calculate dropout rate x x

Does calculate dropout rate

Can calculate graduation rate x x

Does calculate graduation rate

Collects postsecondary information x x
State and District Profile Data

Kansasñ74

Kansas Reading Assessmentó2000

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

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade 5

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

Unsatis. 137 33 4,994 14 ó ó ó ó

Basic 150 36 8,748 24 ó ó ó ó

Satis. 77 19 8,065 22 ó ó

Prof. 40 10 9,042 25 ó ó

Adv. 11 3 5,599 15 ó

28

ó

57

Grade 8

Unsatis. 89 30 4,237 12 ó ó

Basic 124 42 8,032 22 ó ó

Satis. 56 19 10,548 29 ó ó

Prof. 28 9 10,949 30 ó ó

Adv. 2 1 3,193 9 ó

58

ó

63

Grade 11

Unsatis. 47 31 4,764 15 ó ó

Basic 54 36 8,519 27 ó ó

Satis. 31 20 7,618 25 ó ó

Prof. 15 10 6,888 22 ó ó

Adv. 5 3 3,340 11 ó

12

ó

29
State and District Profile Data

Kansasñ75

Kansas Mathematics Assessmentó2000

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

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade 4

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

Unsatis. 151 30 5,367 14 ó ó

Basic 185 37 8,936 24 ó ó

Satis. 92 18 8,645 23 ó ó

Prof. 65 13 9,298 25 ó ó

Adv. 12 2 5,013 14 ó

33

ó

54

Grade 7

Unsatis. 162 49 8,511 23 ó ó

Basic 103 31 8,561 23 ó ó

Satis. 42 13 7,666 21 ó ó

Prof. 22 7 7,178 20 ó ó

Adv. 3 1 4,838 13 ó

33

ó

54

Grade 10

Unsatis. 106 57 9,937 29 ó ó

Basic 44 24 9,809 29 ó ó

Satis. 25 13 6,244 18 ó ó

Prof. 7 4 3,763 11 ó ó

Adv. 5 3 4,280 13 ó

9

ó

29
State and District Profile Data

Kansasñ76

Kansas Writing Assessmentó2000

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

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade 5

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

Unsatis. ó ó 4,947 14 ó ó

Basic ó ó 10,156 28 ó ó

Satis. ó ó 12,601 35 ó ó

Prof. ó ó 6,063 17 ó ó

Adv. ó ó 2,806 8 ó

22

ó

58

Grade 8

Unsatis. ó ó 3,299 9 ó ó

Basic ó ó 8,734 24 ó ó

Satis. ó ó 13,633 37 ó ó

Prof. ó ó 7,731 21 ó ó

Adv. ó ó 3,324 9 ó

.*

ó

52

Grade 11

Unsatis. ó ó 2,539 8 ó ó

Basic ó ó 7,366 23 ó ó

Satis. ó ó 11,880 38 ó ó

Prof. ó ó 7,076 22 ó ó

Adv. ó ó 2,695 9 ó

57

ó

83

* No students were identified as migrant in the classes tested.
State and District Profile Data

Kentuckyñ77

Appendix F: Kentucky

Hardin County School District

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects 17

State: 22,000 Number of migrant students (1999ñ2000) District: 85

Title I: $135,217,898 Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) Migrant: $9,933,000

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

CTBS 5 Survey Edition (Reading,

Mathematics, Language)* 3, 6, 9 April

Kentucky Core Content TestsñReading 4, 7, 10 April

Kentucky Core Content TestsñMathematics,

Social Studies, Arts and Humanities 5, 8, 11 April

Kentucky Core Content TestsñWriting 4, 7, 12 April

Kentucky Core Content TestsñScience 4, 7, 11 April

Kentucky Core Content TestsñPractical Living

and Vocational Studies 5, 8, 10 April

*We did not receive results from the CTBS 5.

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x x

Does disaggregate by migrant status x x

Has estimates of migrant student

participation in assessments x 61.04%

Makes assessment accommodations for:

Language

Mobility

x x

Can calculate dropout rate x

Does calculate dropout rate

Can calculate graduation rate x

Does calculate graduation rate

Collects postsecondary information x x
State and District Profile Data

Kentuckyñ78

Kentucky Core Content Testsó2000

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

Reading

State District

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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.
State and District Profile Data

Kentuckyñ79

Kentucky Core Content Tests (continued)

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

Science

State District

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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

Migrant Students Non-Migrant Migrant Students Non-Migrant

Grade

Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

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.
State and District Profile Data

Oregonñ80

Appendix G: Oregon

Ontario School District

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects 24

State (2000ñ2001): 27,000 Number of migrant students District (as of 1/30/01): 1,298

Title I: $77,456,666 (includes migrant

Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) funds)

Migrant: $12,069,968

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

Oregon Assessment Test ñ Reading/Literature,

Mathematics

3, 5, 8, 10 Winter and spring

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x x

Does disaggregate by migrant status x x

Has estimates of migrant student

participation in assessments

Makes assessment accommodations for:

Language

Mobility

x x

Can calculate dropout rate x x

Does calculate dropout rate

Can calculate graduation rate x x

Does calculate graduation rate

Collects postsecondary information
State and District Profile Data

Oregonñ81

Oregon Assessment Testó2000

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

State District

Migrant Non-Migrant Migrant Non-Migrant

Grade Number Pct Number Pct Number Pct Number Pct

3 Very Low 133 22 2,455 6 ó ó ó ó

Low 74 12 1,792 5 ó ó ó ó

Nearly Meets 82 13 2,363 6 ó ó ó ó

Meets 227 37 11,437 30

Exceeds 99 16 20,073 53

63 42 157 81

5 Very Low 108 19 1,631 4 ó ó ó ó

Low 132 23 3,483 9 ó ó ó ó

Nearly Meets 127 22 5,019 22 ó ó ó ó

Meets 186 33 19,778 33

Exceeds 16 3 9,251 3

58 37 131 58

8 Very Low 35 9 735 2 ó ó ó ó

Low 163 43 5,511 14 ó ó ó ó

Nearly Meets 100 27 7,692 20 ó ó ó ó

Meets 58 15 10,679 27

Exceeds 21 6 14,440 37

56 27 129 61

10 Very Low 24 9 539 2 ó ó ó ó

Low 139 50 6,514 18 ó ó ó ó

Nearly Meets 80 29 10,136 28 ó ó ó ó

Meets 27 10 12,439 35

Exceeds 8 3 6,266 17

40 8 144 55
State and District Profile Data

Oregonñ82

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

State District

Migrant Non-Migrant Migrant Non-Migrant

Grade Number Pct Number Pct Number Pct Number Pct

3 Very Low 69 8 714 2 ó ó ó ó

Low 262 31 3,592 9 ó ó ó ó

Nearly Meets 197 23 5,145 13 ó ó ó ó

Meets 280 33 17,092 43

Exceeds 51 6 12,918 33

63 38 157 67

5 Very Low 74 11 924 2 ó ó ó ó

Low 238 35 4,684 12 ó ó ó ó

Nearly Meets 168 25 6,328 16 ó ó ó ó

Meets 190 28 20,496 51

Exceeds 12 2 7,554 19

58 28 131 50

8 Very Low 126 29 2,743 7 ó ó ó ó

Low 182 41 7,538 19 ó ó ó ó

Nearly Meets 67 15 6,897 17 ó ó ó ó

Meets 46 10 10,181 26

Exceeds 20 5 12,054 31

56 19 129 59

10 Very Low 78 25 2,375 7 ó ó ó ó

Low 142 45 7,841 22 ó ó ó ó

Nearly Meets 67 21 11,479 32 ó ó ó ó

Meets 19 6 9,024 25

Exceeds 11 3 5,366 15

40 0 144 35
State and District Profile Data

Texasñ83

Appendix H: Texas

La Joya Independent School District

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects N/A

State: 131,357 Number of migrant students (2000ñ2001) District: 5,538

Title I: N/A

Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) Migrant: $51,000,000

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

(TAAS) ñ Reading, Mathematics 3-8, 10-12 Spring

Texas Assessment of Academic Skills

(TAAS) ñ Writing 4, 8, 10 Spring

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x x

Does disaggregate by migrant status x x

Has estimates of migrant student

participation in assessments x 90% x

Makes assessment accommodations for:

Language

Mobility

x

x

x

x

Can calculate dropout rate x x

Does calculate dropout rate x

Can calculate graduation rate x x

Does calculate graduation rate x 82.4% x

Collects postsecondary information
State and District Profile Data

Texasñ84

Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)ó2000

Table values show the percentage of students meeting minimum expectations.

Reading

State District

Grade Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

3 ó 87 83 87

4 ó 89 78 89

5 ó 87 82 82

6 ó 86 69 72

7 ó 83 61 71

8 ó 89 82 83

10 ó 90 76 78

Mathematics

State District

Grade Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

3 ó 80 82 89

4 ó 87 85 88

5 ó 92 90 92

6 ó 88 84 82

7 ó 87 76 79

8 ó 90 81 88

10 ó 86 73 78

Writing

State District

Grade Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

4 ó 90 78 87

8 ó 84 61 67

10 ó 90 69 78
State and District Profile Data

Texasñ85

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.
State and District Profile Data

Washingtonñ86

Appendix I: Washington

Sunnyside School District

State MEP Overview

Number of state migrant projects 80

State (as of 1/2001: 31,850 Number of migrant students District (2000ñ2001): 2,100

Amount of state funding (2000ñ2001) Title I:

$108,939,573

(includes

migrant

funds)

Migrant: $14,218,340

Assessment Instruments Used Grades Time of Year

Washington Assessment of Student Learning

(WASL) ñ Reading, Mathematics, Writing,

Listening

4, 7, 10 Spring

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa Tests of

Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) ñ

Reading, Mathematics, Language, Expression,

Quantitative Thinking

3, 6, 9 Spring

Summary of Data Collected State Estimate District Estimate

Can disaggregate by migrant status x x

Does disaggregate by migrant status x x

Has estimates of migrant student

participation in assessments

Makes assessment accommodations for:

Language

Mobility

x x

Can calculate dropout rate

Does calculate dropout rate

Can calculate graduation rate x x

Does calculate graduation rate x

Collects postsecondary information
State and District Profile Data

Washingtonñ87

Washington ITBS/ITEDó2000

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

Reading

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

3 791 16 73,197 56 ó ó 410 28

6 444 16 72,201 54 ó ó 362 23

9 354 16 72,859 54 ó ó 329 29

Mathematics

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

3 789 29 72,273 63 ó ó 398 36

6 440 27 71,457 56 ó ó 362 38

Reading/Mathematics Composite

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

3 768 22 71,458 60 ó ó 397 32

Language

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

6 440 22 71,689 56 ó ó 361 29
State and District Profile Data

Washingtonñ88

Washington ITBS/ITED (continued)

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

Expression

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

9 360 31 72,901 55 ó ó 290 36

Quantitative Thinking

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

9 357 33 72,922 60 ó ó 317 41

Core/Core Total

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

Number

Tested

Mean

NPR

6 430 19 70,079 55 ó ó 355 28

9 345 24 70,583 58 ó ó 271 36
State and District Profile Data

Washingtonñ89

Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)ó2000

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

standards.

Reading

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

4 1,044 24 75,733 66 ó ó 408 45

7 761 8 72,134 42 ó ó 352 14

10 482 19 66,995 60 ó ó 297 46

Mathematics

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

4 1,048 11 75,977 42 ó ó 406 22

7 766 3 72,503 28 ó ó 361 13

10 509 5 68,308 35 ó ó 314 14

Writing

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

4 1,016 11 74,883 39 ó ó 399 19

7 706 13 70,623 43 ó ó 344 16

10 431 4 64,297 32 ó ó 285 20

Listening

State District

Migrant Students All Students Migrant Students All Students

Grade Number

Tested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent NumberTested Percent

4 1,053 34 76,125 65 ó ó 408 45

7 765 45 72,367 80 ó ó 355 60

10 493 45 67,472 78 ó ó 305 66