Archived Information

**The Same High Standards For migrant Students:  Holding Title I Schools Accountable**

**Volume I:  Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students:  Recent Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools**

**Final Report**

**2002**

THE SAME HIGH STANDARDS FOR MIGRANT STUDENTS:  

HOLDING TITLE I SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE

Volume I:  Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students:  

Recent Evidence from the 

National Longitudinal Survey of Schools

Final Report

Submitted by:

Sheila Nataraj Kirby

Scott Naftel

Mark Berends

Jennifer Sloan McCombs

RAND

Arlington, Va.

Office of the Under Secretary

U.S. Department of Education

2002

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Susan Sanchez, under Contract Number EA 97010001.  The views expressed herein are those of the contractor.  No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Rod R. Paige

*Secretary*

**Office of the Under Secretary**

Eugene W. Hickok

*Under Secretary*

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Elementary and 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, Planning and Evaluation Service, Elementary and Secondary Education Division, *The Same Standards for Migrant Students:**Holding Title I Schools Accountable*.**Volume I:  *Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students:  Recent Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools*, Washington, D.C., 2002.  

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.  

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

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

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

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/OME/pubs.htm

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette.  For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

# Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Susan Sanchez, the contracting officer’s representative (COR) for the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS), U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service (PES) and Babette Gutmann, project director of the NLSS, Westat, for their interest and support of this project.    We thank Francisco Garcia and Alex Goniprow of the Office of Migrant Education, and Robin Chait, formerly of PES for their guidance and for sharing their knowledge of schools with migrant students and the challenges they face, and Beth Franklin of PES for comments on an earlier draft.  Several other individuals within the Department also provided useful comments.  

Most of all, we thank the teachers, principals, and staff in the studied schools who gave of their time to participate in the surveys.

We also thank our editor, Paul Arends, for his careful editing of the report.

# Contents

iiiAcknowledgments     

vContents

viiList of Figures

ixList of Tables

xiExecutive Summary

xiBackground                                                                                                                                    

xiOverview of the Study and its Results                                                                                       

xiiKey Findings                                                                                                                    

1Introduction                                                                                                                                     

3Data                                                                                                                                                   

3National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS)                                                         

4Common Core of Data (CCD)                                                                                          

5Sample Size of Title I Schools with Migrant Students in the NLSS                            

5Limitations of the Study                                                                                                                 

7Profile of Title I Schools                                                                                                                  

13Teacher Characteristics                                                                                                    

Student Outcomes                                                                                                            14

16Current Status of Implementation of Standards-Based Reforms in Title I Schools             5

25Provision of Title I Services                                                                                                          

30Professional Development in Title I Schools                                                                              

34Teacher Perceptions of Students’ Mathematics Abilities                                                          

34Mathematics Coursework in Secondary Schools                                                                       

36Parent Involvement Strategies                                                                                                      

40Availability and Use of Technology                                                                                             

41Schools Identified as in Need of Improvement                                                                       

42Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform Model s                                                  

44References

45Appendix:  Selected Tabulations from the NLSS Principal and Teacher Surveys

****

Figures

14Figure 2.  Selected Characteristics of Teacher Quality in Title I Schools, by School Level           and Migrant Status of School

15Figure 3.  Selected Student Outcomes in Title I Schools, by School Level And Migrant          Status of School

16Figure 4.  Percentage of Principals in Title I Schools Reporting That Standards were “Too Rigorous” for Most of Their Students “To a Great Extent,” by School Level and   Migrant Status of School

17Figure 5.  Percentage of Teachers in Title I Elementary Schools Reporting that Reading Standards And Assessments were “Too Hard” for their Students, by Migrant         Status of School

18Figure 6.  Percentage of Teachers in Title I Secondary Schools Reporting that Reading  Standards and Assessments were “Too Hard” for their Students, by Migrant Status      of School

20Figure 7.  Percentage of Elementary School Principals in Title I Schools Reporting That     Selected Factors were a Barrier “To a Great Extent” to Using Content Standards        with All Students, by Migrant Status of School

21Figure 8.  Participation Rate of Migrant Students in Title I Schools in Reading and    Mathematics Assessments, by School Level and Migrant Status Of School

23Figure 9.  Percentage of Elementary School Principals in Title I Schools Reporting          Receiving Assessment Information Summarized by Subgroups of Students, by   Migrant Status of School

32Figure 10.  Percentage of Elementary Teachers in Title I Schools Reporting Selected Types        Of Professional Development They Would Have Liked to Experience, by Migrant  Status of School

33Figure 11.  Percentage of Teachers in Title I Schools Reporting They Would Have Liked Professional Development in Instructional Strategies to Teach Migrant Students,          by Migrant Status of School

35Figure 12.  Percentage of Graduating Seniors in Title I High Schools That Have Taken     Selected Courses in Mathematics, by Migrant Status of School

39Figure 13.  Percentage of Elementary Principals in Title I Schools Reporting Selected     Strategies to Encourage Parent Involvement, by Migrant Status of School

## 

Tables

4Table 1.  Response Rates for the Principal Survey, NLSS, SY1998-99

4Table 2.  Response Rates for the Teacher Survey, NLSS, SY1998-99

6Table 3.  Title I Schools in the NLSS, by Migrant Status And School Level, Unweighted,   SY1998-1999

8Table 4.  Profile of Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School

# 

# Executive Summary

## Background

Migrant students are children of migratory workers who relocate across school and district boundaries in order to obtain seasonal or temporary employment in agriculture or fishing.  These students are often at high risk of educational failure because of language barriers, poverty, and educational disruptions that result from repeated moves and irregular attendance.  The Migrant Education Program (MEP) operates under Title I, Part C, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/sec1001.html).  Its primary purpose is to help migrant students overcome the challenges of mobility, limited English proficiency, and other educational consequences of a migratory life.  One of the program’s goals is to ensure that migrant students have the same opportunity to meet state content and student performance standards that all children are expected to meet.   

## Overview of the Study and ITs Results

The Congressionally-mandated National Assessment of Title I examines the progress of students whom the program is intended to benefit and the implementation of key provisions of the program.  The National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS) is one of several studies comprising the National Assessment of Title I.  Based on surveys of principals and teachers, the NLSS examines whether schools are using standards-based reforms, with a particular focus on implementation of the provisions added in the 1994 reauthorization of the Title I program that are designed to support such improvements.  The NLSS includes an oversample of schools serving significant proportions of migrant, limited English proficient (LEP) or Native American students, and schools that have been identified as in need of improvement.  

This report presents findings from the first of three years of data collection, beginning in the school year (SY) 1998-1999 to address two main research questions:******

· ***How do Title I schools with migrant students compare with Title I schools with no migrant students in terms of their social, demographic, and organizational characteristics?***

· ***How are standards-based reforms and the provisions of Title I being implemented in Title I schools with migrant students compared with Title I schools with no migrant students?***

For purposes of the report, schools are classified into Title I schools with no migrant students (those with no migrant students), Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students (those with fewer than 15 migrant students), and Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (those with 15 or more migrant students).  The sample sizes for these schools are 747, 164, and 155 respectively.  In what follows, we sometimes combine schools serving low and medium/high migrant students, referring to them as “Title I schools with migrant students.”

# Key Findings

The following are the major findings of the report.  These are discussed in more detail in the body of the report.

###### School Conditions

**Most of the Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students are both high-poverty schools (defined as schools with 50 percent or more of their students eligible for free/reduced price lunch) and high-minority schools (defined as schools serving 50 percent or more minority students).**  For example, less than half (46 percent) of Title I schools with no migrant students are high-poverty schools, compared with two-thirds of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and three-quarters of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  About one-quarter of Title I schools with no migrant students are high-minority schools compared with one-third of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and two-thirds of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  Indeed, about 61 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students are both high-poverty and high-minority schools compared with 21 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students and 28 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students.  

**Compared with principals and teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students, principals and teachers in Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students were more likely to:**

· Operate schoolwide programs, offer before- and after-school programs, report a greater degree of coordination between federal funds and other funding sources, and have quantifiable goals for their students’ progress;  

· Have higher percentages of inexperienced teachers and teachers teaching out-of-field;

###### Content Standards and Course Taking

###### Compared with teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students, teachers in Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students were more likely to report that content and performance standards were too rigorous for most of their students and to cite student mobility, diversity of student populations, and language barriers (although not lack of parent support) as barriers in using content standards with all students; 

**Principals in Title I schools with migrant students reported that only between two-thirds to three-quarters of their students were prepared to work at the next grade level but that almost all students were promoted to the next grade level.**

**The difference between the typical mathematics courses that graduating seniors in Title I schools with no migrant students and Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students have taken is striking.**Over 90 percent of seniors in Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students have taken Algebra 1 compared with less than 60 percent in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  Sixty percent have taken Algebra 2 while less than 30 percent in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students have done so.  Generally, fewer seniors in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students have taken higher level mathematics courses compared with seniors in other schools.  Many of these differences reflect differences we found between high-poverty and low-poverty Title I schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

###### Assessments

**Principals in Title I schools with migrant students reported that a large percentage of migrant students participated in the regular state/district assessments.**For example, in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, 70 percent of elementary migrant students and 90 percent of secondary migrant students participated in these assessments.  In schools with low numbers of migrant students, the participation rate was about 60 percent.  

**Only one-quarter to one-third of the Title I schools with migrant students received assessment results disaggregated by migrant status.**

###### Professional Development

**Sixty-five to seventy percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students who taught migrant students reported receiving no professional development in instructional strategies to teach migrant students, although most of these teachers (60 percent of elementary teachers and 84 percent of secondary teachers) reported that they would have liked professional development in this area.**  Teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were much more likely to desire professional development in this area compared with teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students.  In addition, among those who had not received professional development in instructional strategies for teaching low-achieving students and the use of technology, many more teachers in   Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported desiring such professional development.

###### Parent Involvement

**Title I schools with migrant students appeared to be making greater efforts to involve parents both at school and at home, compared with Title I schools with no migrant students.**  These parent involvement strategies included offering parent training, workshops and social support services for parents, having a parent liaison,  providing translations of school documents into other languages, and providing examples of work that met high standards.  In addition, compared with principals and teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students, principals and teachers in schools with migrant students were more likely to report using school-parent compacts and to report finding them useful in discussing shared responsibilities among the parents and students. 

###### Teacher Aides

Although all Title I schools used teacher aides, **the proportion that funded them through Title I was higher in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students compared with Title I schools with no migrant students.  In addition, Title I schools with migrant students were more likely to be located in districts offering career ladders and other educational supports to paraprofessionals.**

## Introduction

The federal role in promoting equity and excellence for students in high-poverty settings has a history that spans over three decades.  A centerpiece of this federal effort has been Title I, which originated in the 1960s and was deeply rooted in the civil rights movement and Great Society antipoverty programs (Natriello and McDill, 1999; Timar, 1994).  Today, Title I provides more than $8 billion annually to support school interventions and strategies for improving the learning opportunities of students at risk of educational failure.  

The reauthorization of Title I in 1994 represented a fundamental shift in the program’s vision for helping children in high-poverty schools.  Reauthorized as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, the “new Title I” was grounded in the proposition that “all children can master challenging content and complex problem-solving skills”  (http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/sec1001.html).  The purpose of the law was to “enable schools to provide opportunities for children served to acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the challenging State content standards and to meet the challenging State performance standards developed for all children” (Sec. 6301 (d)).   

The U.S. Department of Education conducted a nationally representative survey of Title I schools—the National Longitudinal Survey of Schools—in order to understand whether these reforms are being implemented in Title I schools across the nation.  The NLSS oversampled schools serving significant proportions of migrant, limited English proficiency (LEP), or Native American students, and schools identified as in need of improvement, in order to understand the effect of Title I provisions on these schools.   

In particular, there is considerable interest in trying to understand the characteristics of and conditions in schools serving migrant children because so little is known about these schools.  Migrant students—defined as children of migratory workers who relocate across school and district boundaries in order to obtain seasonal or temporary employment in agriculture or fishing—are considered at high risk of educational failure because of poverty, language barriers, unique health problems, and the educational disruptions that result from moves and irregular attendance at school (Prasad et al., 2000; Strang and von Glatz, 1999).

In recognition of the unique needs of migrant students, the Migrant Education-Basic Grant Program was first authorized in 1966 to provide supplemental instruction and other support services for migrant children.  The program currently operates under Title I, Part C, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1994 and provides formula grants to states to ensure that the unique needs of migrant students are met.  The primary purpose of the Migrant Education Program (MEP) is to help migrant students overcome the challenges of mobility, limited English proficiency, and other educational consequences of a migratory life.  One of the program’s goals is to ensure that migrant students have the same opportunity to meet state content and student performance standards that all children are expected to meet.  MEP services are generally administered by State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and provided by schools, districts, and/or other organizations.  Services may be provided during the regular school year and summer sessions.  MEP funding is in addition to any other Title I funds that the school may receive.                              

This report uses a wide array of descriptive data from the principal and teacher surveys administered during the first year of the NLSS—the 1998-99 school year (SY)—to address two main research questions:

· ***How do Title I schools with migrant students compare with Title I schools with no migrant students in terms of their social, demographic, and organizational characteristics?***

· ***How are standards-based reforms and the provisions of Title I being implemented in schools with migrant students compared with Title I schools with no migrant students?***

******Specifically, we focus on:  

· Profile of schools with migrant students;

· Current status of implementation of standards-based reforms;

· Provision of Title I services;

· Professional development of teachers and teacher aides;

· Teacher expectations and mathematics coursework in secondary schools;

· Parent involvement;

· Availability and use of technology; 

· Schools identified as in need of improvement; and

· Schools that adopted comprehensive school reform models.

We summarize the key findings to provide a broad overview of Title I schools with migrant students five years after the latest reauthorization of Title I in 1994.  The appendix contains estimates, standard errors, and sample sizes on which the report is based.  We also provide comparisons with all Title I schools.  Findings for all Title I schools reported here are taken from our earlier work (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).  

## Data

# National Longitudinal Survey of Schools (NLSS)

**Principal Survey.**  The total sample size for the NLSS was 1,507 schools.  Table 1 shows the final sample size, the number of completes, and the final response rate for the principal survey.  

**Teacher Survey.**The protocol for the NLSS study required a set of six teachers to be subsampled within each school to answer teacher questionnaires.  The object was to ensure a national probability sample of teachers (within particular well-defined, but representative, categories), as well as a national probability sample of Title I teachers within the same categories.  The teacher sample consisted of up to four third grade teachers, one Title I teacher, other regular grade 2 and grade 4 classroom teachers subsampled as necessary to ensure six teachers were interviewed from each elementary school.  In middle and high schools, the mathematics and English chairpersons were sampled, as well as one Title I teacher, where available, and additional mathematics and English teachers to make a total of six sampled teachers.  In all schools, if there were less than six available teachers, all were sampled.  Table 2 shows the response rates from the teacher survey.

**Table 1.  Response Rates for the Principal Survey, NLSS, SY1998-99**

**Table reads:  The total sample size for the principal survey in the SY1998-99 NLSS was 1,507.**

Source:  NLSS, Principal Survey, SY1998-1999

Note:     *Fourteen schools were not Title I schools; five did not complete the principal screener that determined eligibility for the survey, and two were sampled twice.

**Table 2.  Response Rates for the Teacher Survey, NLSS, SY1998-99**

**Table reads:  The total sample size for the teacher survey in the SY1998-99 NLSS was 7,333 teachers.**

Source:  NLSS, Principal Survey, SY1998-1999

Note:  *These teachers were not teaching mathematics or reading or were in ineligible schools.

**Types of Information Collected.**The principal and teacher surveys address awareness and understanding of standards, standards-driven planning, reporting and feedback for improvement, selection and implementation of comprehensive school reform models, Title I services, parental involvement, and professional development.  For schools identified as in need of improvement, the survey also includes questions regarding activities aimed at school improvement and changes in the school as a result of being identified as in need of improvement. 

# Common Core of Data (CCD)

In addition, we used the 1997-98 Common Core of Data (CCD) for selected school characteristics that were not available in the NLSS.  The CCD contains data on approximately 91,000 schools and 16,400 agencies providing free public elementary and secondary education in the United States and its outlying areas.  These data are provided by state education agencies (SEAs) using a common set of definitions that allow comparison across the states and other areas.  Variables on the CCD include school type (regular, special education, vocational education, and alternative), location code (seven categories from urban to rural), number of students by grade and ungraded, number of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch, and number of students by five racial/ethnic categories.  Schools in the NLSS were matched to the CCD data file, and selected characteristics (e.g., minority composition of the student body) from the CCD were used in the analysis.

# Sample Size of Title I Schools with Migrant Students in the NLSS

Table 3 presents the sample sizes of Title I schools in the NLSS by school level and migrant status:  Title I schools with no migrant students; Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students (1-14 migrant students); and Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (15 or more migrant students).   The data are based on a principal reports about the number of migrant students in the school.

The decision to base this categorization on the *number* rather than the *percentage*of migrant students in the school reflected a desire to examine whether and how schools with certain numbers of migrant students should be providing services to these students, regardless of whether these students accounted for a high or low percentage of student enrollment.  The decision to use 15 as the cut-off point to distinguish schools enrolling low and medium/high numbers of migrant students was based on the distribution of the number of migrant students enrolled in the NLSS schools.  Fifteen was approximately at the middle of the distribution.

## Limitations of the Study

The first and most important limitation of the study arises from the fact that the NLSS is a snapshot in time.  Our classification of schools into those with no migrant students, low and medium/high numbers of migrant students is based on data provided by the principal in the middle of the school year at one point in time, yet, migrant students, by definition, are those that are likely to move across school and district boundaries in a given year.  As a result, the classification may be subject to error if, for example, schools that had no or low numbers of migrant students at the time the survey data were collected enrolled some or a large number of migrant students sometime later in the school year.  Thus, it must be recognized that the distinctions made here and the inferences drawn from the data are not as clear-cut as one would like.  Nonetheless, we feel that the results of the study are useful in providing a profile of schools serving migrant students.

**Table 3.  Title I Schools in the NLSS, by Migrant Status And School Level, Unweighted, SY1998-1999**

**Table reads:  The unweighted sample size for Title I elementary schools with no migrant students in SY1998-1999 is 600 schools.**

Source:  NLSS, Principal Survey, SY1998-1999

Note:  Data on number of migrant students were missing for 15 of the 1081 schools.

Another potential limitation is that by using the number of migrant students as the threshold, rather than percentages, larger schools are much more likely to be classified as schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  This classification groups all schools with 15 or more migrant students together, regardless of whether migrant students account for a high or low percentage of student enrollment. However, given our sample sizes, it would have been difficult to subdivide the sample of schools serving medium/high migrant schools any further.     

There are some additional caveats that must be kept in mind when reading this report.  First, the analyses reported here are based on survey data, which rely on self-reports.

Second, as is clear from Table 3, sample sizes for secondary schools are quite small.  As a result, the estimates reported here for secondary schools have large standard errors, making these estimates imprecise.  Often, the findings regarding secondary schools must be viewed as suggestive rather than statistically meaningful.  Despite this, we decided to include the secondary school findings in this report for two reasons:  

· Secondary schools represent a higher proportion of schools with migrant students than Title I schools overall and very little is known about them.   

· Many of the findings make sense only when disaggregated by school level.  

The appendix tables report both estimates and standard errors.  However, it is important to keep this caveat in mind when reading the report.  

Third, several of the differences we report here are similar to differences we find for all Title I schools, between the lowest-poverty (defined as schools with less than 35 percent of their students eligible for free/reduced price lunch) and highest-poverty schools (defined as schools with 75 percent or more of their students eligible for free/reduced price lunch.  These differences are detailed in Berends and Kirby, et al. (in review).  Indeed, as we show below, a majority of the schools with migrant students are high-poverty schools.  Thus, differences reported here cannot be solely attributed to the migrant status of the school.  Small sample sizes make it difficult to separate out the degree to which poverty and migrant status contribute independently to the differences reported here.  

## Profile of Title I Schools

There are approximately 43,400 Title I schools nationwide.   Of these, approximately 31,300 schools (73 percent) are Title I schools with no migrant students, 7,700 schools (18 percent) are Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students, serving 1-14 migrant students, and 3,990 (9 percent) are Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, serving 15 or more migrant students.  In the report, we sometimes combine schools serving low, or medium/high migrant students into one group:  Title I schools with migrant students.

Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students serve about 6 migrant students on average; migrant students account for between less than 1 percent to about 25 percent of student enrollment in these schools, with an average of 1.4 percent.  In  Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, migrant students number 83 on average and account for about 13 percent of total enrollment (range is between 1-64 percent).  

According to the MEP report, California has the greatest number of schools with migrant students, followed by Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, and Florida (see http://www.migranted.org//ccdrep.htm).  The geographic distribution of schools with migrant students in the NLSS is similar in that California and Texas together account for 54 percent of schools with migrant students serving medium to high numbers of migrant students (15 or more migrant students).  

A profile of schools categorized by migrant status is shown in Table 4.  Listed below are some of the noteworthy similarities and differences between Title I schools with migrant students and those without migrant students.

Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students are more likely to be secondary schools and larger in size compared with other schools.  For example, while about four-fifths of Title I schools with no and low numbers of migrant students are elementary schools, only 55 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students are elementary schools.  When we combine all schools with migrant students, we find that 28 percent of schools with migrant students are secondary schools compared with 20 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students.  Moreover, about 38 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students have student enrollments of over 600 students compared with 20 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students and 23 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students.

Table 4.  Profile of Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School

**Table reads:  79.8 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students are elementary schools and 20.2 percent are secondary schools.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section Principal Screener and Common Core of Data, 1997-98

· Schools serving medium to high numbers of migrant students are disproportionately located in suburban or large towns (38 percent), compared with 32 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students and only 19 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students.   Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students tend to be largely rural schools.  At first sight, these data run counter to the results reported by the MEP office, which found that 43 percent of all schools with migrant students were located in rural areas, 32 percent in urban areas, and 25 percent in suburban areas (see http://www.migranted.org//ccdrep.htm).  However, when we combine both the low and medium/high categories, we find similar results:  48 percent of schools with migrant students are in rural areas, 27 percent in urban areas, and 26 percent in suburban areas.    

· Title I schools with migrant students tend to be much poorer than Title I schools with no migrant students.  Figure 1 compares schools classified by migrant status in terms of poverty and minority composition of their student bodies.  Less than half (46 percent) of Title I schools with no migrant students are high-poverty schools, (defined as schools with 50 percent or more of their students eligible for free/reduced price lunch), compared with two-thirds of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and three-quarters of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  We also examined the distribution of all migrant students by school poverty status.  We found that 87 percent of migrant students were enrolled in high-poverty schools, and 42 percent were enrolled in the highest-poverty schools.  

· Schools with migrant students serve disproportionately high numbers of minority students.  About one-quarter of Title I schools with no migrant students can be classified as high-minority schools (serving 50 percent or more minority students) compared with one-third of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and two-thirds of schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  Indeed, about 61 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students are both high-poverty and high-minority schools, compared with 21 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students and 28 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students.  

· Many migrant students are limited English proficient (LEP).  Over half of the Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students are classified as high LEP schools as well (defined as schools with 25 percent or more LEP students), compared with 12 percent of the Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 7 percent of the Title I schools with no migrant students.

Under the 1994 reauthorization of Title I, schools can adopt schoolwide programs if 50 percent or more of their students are eligible for free/reduced price lunch.  About 44 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students operated schoolwide programs, as did 72 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 57 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  There is not a one-to-one correlation between high poverty and adoption of schoolwide programs.  Some lower-poverty schools that would otherwise have been ineligible for schoolwide programs were apparently granted waivers to enable them to adopt schoolwide programs.  A significant percentage (43 percent) of eligible   Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students with poverty rates between 50 and 74.9 percent have not availed themselves of the schoolwide option and continue to offer targeted assistance to their Title I students.  It might be useful to examine these schools further to see whether they face particular challenges in being able to adopt schoolwide programs or whether these schools felt that targeted assistance programs were the best way to help their Title I (and migrant) students.  Among the highest-poverty schools, we find that 83-86 percent of schools operate schoolwide programs, regardless of migrant status of the school. 

**Figure 1.  Distribution of Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School, and Percentage of Poor and Minority Students**

**Figure reads:  34.4 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students have between 0-34.9 percent of students eligible for free/reduced price lunch compared with 17.8 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 5.7 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section Principal Screener, Q. PSC3 and Common Core of Data, 1997-98

· Overall, about 11 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students were identified by the district as in need of improvement under Title I.  The percentages were somewhat higher for schools with migrant students—19 and 16 percent among   Title I schools with low and medium/high numbers of migrant students respectively, although the differences were not statistically significant.****

# Teacher Characteristics

· The educational attainment of teachers is somewhat lower in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students compared with other Title I schools.  About 45 percent of teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students had a master’s degree or a degree beyond a bachelor’s degree compared with about 43 percent of teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students, and 31 percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  Disaggregating by school level does not change the picture.  Part of this difference may be explained by the somewhat lower average experience level of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students compared with that of other schools.  For example, teachers in Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students have 14-16 years of total teaching experience, and 10-11 years of experience in the current school.  Teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having 12-13 years of teaching experience, with 9 years in the current school.  

· Figure 2 shows selected indicators of teacher quality, gathered from the principal survey.  Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported higher percentages of inexperienced teachers than other Title I schools, and the differences between these schools and Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students with respect to this variable are statistically significant.  In addition, Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported higher levels of teachers who are teaching in fields for which they are not certified (as well as teachers who hold emergency or temporary certification, although not shown here).  Title I secondary schools with low numbers of migrant students also reported higher levels of teacher inexperience and out-of-field teaching compared with other secondary schools, although these differences were not statistically significant.   Many of these differences are similar to the differences we found by poverty status of schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).  For example, principals in the highest-poverty schools reported that between 15 and 21  

**Figure 2.  Selected Characteristics of Teacher Quality in Title I Schools, by School Level and Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  In Title I elementary schools with no migrant students, 10.6 percent of teachers have less than 3 years of experience and 1.3 percent of teachers are teaching subjects for which they are not certified.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section B, Q. PB14, PB16, PB17****

percent of their teachers have less than three years’ teaching experience compared with only 8-9 percent of low-poverty schools, and these differences were statistically significant for both elementary and secondary schools.

# Principals’ Attitudes about Student Performance

· Figure 3 shows the percentage of students that principals believed were prepared to do work at the next grade level by school level and migrant status of the school.  While principals in Title I with no or low numbers of migrant students believed that 82-84 percent of their students were ready for the next grade, principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were not as optimistic about their students.  Principals in schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported that about 76 percent of elementary students and 64 percent of secondary students were prepared to work at the next grade level.  In spite of this, 92-95 percent of all students were promoted to the next grade level.   The differences in principal reports about student preparedness between Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and other schools were statistically significant at the elementary level.****

Fi**gure 3.  Principals’ Attitudes about Student Performance, Title I Schools, by School Level And Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  Principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students reported that 81.8 percent of students in these schools were prepared to do work at the next grade level but 96.2 percent of students were promoted to the next grade level.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section B, Q. PB9, PB10

## Current Status of IMplementation of Standards-Based Reforms in Title I Schools

· Principals were asked the extent to which content and performance standards were too rigorous for most of their students.  Figure 4 shows the percentage of principals reporting “to a great extent,” and it reveals marked differences by the migrant status of the school.  For example, 11 percent of principals in elementary Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students reported that such standards were too rigorous for most of their students compared with only 3 percent of principals in elementary schools with low numbers of migrant students, and this difference was statistically significant.  The contrast among secondary schools between Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and Title I schools with no migrant students was even greater (35 percent versus 5 percent), although small sample sizes make these estimates less reliable.

**Figure 4.  Percentage of Principals in Title I Schools Reporting That Standards were “Too Rigorous” for Most of Their Students “To a Great Extent,” by School Level and Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  6 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students and 4.7 percent of principals in Title I secondary schools with no migrant students that used content standards reported that standards were too rigorous for most of their students “to a great extent.”**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section Principal Screener and Section A, Q. PA7a

Note:  Question asked of principals who reported that their school uses content standards.

· Teachers were asked about the appropriateness of standards and assessments for the students that they teach.  Figure 5 shows the responses of elementary teachers and Figure 6 shows the responses of secondary teachers.  Teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were more likely to rate the reading standards and assessments as “too hard” than were teachers in other schools, but the differences are not large. 

**Figure 5.  Percentage of Teachers in Title I Elementary Schools Reporting that Reading Standards And Assessments were “Too Hard” for their Students, by Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  Of teachers in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students, 23.2 percent reported that content standards in reading were “too hard” for their students; 18.7 percent reported that performance standards in reading were “too hard” for their students; and 37.1 percent reported that the reading section of the assessment was “too hard” for their students.**

Source:  NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A, Q. TA10

Note:  Question asked of reading teachers who reported that their school uses the respective standards/assessment.

**Figure 6.  Percentage of Teachers in Title I Secondary Schools Reporting that Reading Standards and Assessments were “Too Hard” for their Students, by Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  Of teachers in Title I secondary schools with no migrant students, 15.8 percent reported that content standards in reading were “too hard” for their students; 15.2 percent reported that performance standards in reading were “too hard” for their students; and 19.5 percent reported that the reading section of the assessment was “too hard” for their students.**

Source:  NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A, Q. TA10

Note:     Question asked of Language Arts/English teachers who reported that their school uses the respective standards/assessment.

· The only difference that was statistically significant was between Title I elementary schools with no migrant students and Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students with respect to teacher reports regarding performance standards (and interestingly enough, between Title I schools with no migrant students and Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students at the secondary level, where teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students were *less* likely to report that performance standards were “too hard”).  It is noteworthy that there were few differences in teacher reports regarding the appropriateness of the mathematics standards and assessments.

· Principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (similar to the highest-poverty school principals) were much more likely to report that they used alternate content or performance standards for their LEP students.  For example, while 61 percent of the principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students reported using alternate content standards in reading to accommodate LEP students, almost 80 percent of the elementary principals of schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students did so, and this difference was statistically significant.  Thirty percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students reported that alternate performance standards for LEP students were used compared with 45 percent of principals in elementary schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students.

· Principals were asked about barriers to using content standards with all students in their schools.  Figure 7 shows the responses for elementary school principals.  As expected, student mobility, diversity of student populations, and language barriers rank high for Title I schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students, and the differences in principal reports between schools with medium/high number of migrant students and no migrant students were mostly significant.   About 13 percent of school principals reported lack of parent support as a barrier, and there was little difference by migrant status of the school.  This is different from what we found for Title I schools categorized by poverty status.  Lack of parent support ranked highest among the highest-poverty schools, being cited as a barrier by 30 percent of elementary school principals and 35 percent of secondary school principals (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

**Figure 7.  Percentage of Elementary School Principals in Title I Schools Reporting That Selected Factors were a Barrier “To a Great Extent” to Using Content Standards with All Students, by Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  17.2 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students, 14.1 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with low numbers of migrant students, and 23.6 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported that student mobility was a barrier “to a great extent” to using content standards with all students.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A. Q. PA8

Note:  Questions asked of principals who reported that their school uses content standards.

· Figure 8 shows the participation of migrant students in the reading and mathematics assessments (in the grade levels tested).  About 70 percent of migrant students in elementary schools with migrant students participated in the assessments; the percentage varied in secondary schools, depending on the migrant status of the school, with Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reporting a participation rate of around 90 percent.  Lack of English proficiency, lack of instruments in the student’s native language, exclusions because students had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and not being enrolled (or enrolled long enough) were the main reasons for non-participation of migrant students.

**Figure 8.  Participation Rate of Migrant Students in Title I Schools in Reading and Mathematics Assessments, by School Level and Migrant Status Of School**

**Figure reads:  71.2 percent of migrant students in Title I elementary schools with low numbers of migrant students participated in the reading assessment and 69.2 percent participated in the mathematics assessment.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A, Q. PA16, PA26

Note:  Questions asked of principals who reported that their school uses the respective assessment.

· For students that did not participate in the reading or mathematics assessments, schools used substitute assessments, reading portfolios, and English proficiency testing to measure the progress of these students.  Elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students****were more likely to report using reading portfolios (68 percent) and English proficiency testing (83 percent) than were Title I elementary schools with no migrant students (51 percent and 61 percent respectively).  The difference with respect to English proficiency testing was statistically significant.

· About 63 percent of all Title I elementary school principals and 79 percent of secondary school principals reported that curriculum and instruction in their schools were aligned “to a great extent” with content and performance standards.

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school.   

· About 48 percent of all Title I elementary school principals and about one-third of secondary school principals reported that content and performance standards had resulted in major changes in their instructional programs “to a great extent.” 

· There was little difference between Title I schools with and without migrant students.

· States are required under Sec. 1111(b)(3)(I) of Title I of the ESEA, as amended, to provide state assessment data that are disaggregated for a variety of student subgroups in all schools and LEAs, if the data are statistically sound and final assessments are in place.  However, states were not required to have final assessments in place until SY2000-2001, and many states were using transitional assessments at this time.  Figure 9 shows the percentage of elementary schools that received assessment results summarized by different subgroups of students.  These data are useful in showing what types of schools were receiving assessment results.  Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were somewhat more likely to receive assessment results disaggregated by race/ethnicity, Title I participation, and poverty status, compared with other schools, and these differences were statistically significant.  However, only one-quarter to one-third of these schools received results disaggregated by migrant status.     

· About 90 percent of all Title I schools had an overall written annual or strategic plan and almost all these schools conducted a needs assessment as part of the plan.  

· These plans included Title I in well over 90 percent of schools with migrant students; in the Title I schools with no migrant students, inclusion of Title I in school plans was reported by 89 percent of elementary schools and 74 percent of secondary schools.  Almost all schools conducted a needs assessment as part of the plan.

**Figure 9.  Percentage of Elementary School Principals in Title I Schools Reporting Receiving Assessment Information Summarized by Subgroups of Students, by Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  37.7 percent of principals of elementary Title I school with no migrant students  reported receiving assessment results disaggregated by race/ethnicity; 50.7 percent by gender; 27 percent by Title I participation; 0 percent by migrant status; 16.8 percent by poverty status; 55.4 percent by LEP status; and 36.9 percent by whether students had IEPs or not.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section A, Q. PA36

Notes:Question asked of principals who reported that their school uses a math or reading assessment.

Question regarding migrant status and LEP status were only asked of principals who reported that their school contains a certain level of the special population (any migrant students or 10 percent or more LEP students).

· Not surprisingly, Title I principals of schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students were much more likely to report that the Migrant Education staff played a role in developing the plan than Title I principals of schools with low numbers of migrant students.  For example, 33 percent of elementary and 43 percent of secondary Title I principals in schools with low numbers of migrant students reported involving the Migrant Education staff in the plan compared with 66 percent and 84 percent of principals in schools with medium/high  schools numbers of migrant students.  These differences were statistically significant.  

· Principals of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students  were also much more likely to report involving parents of migrant students in the annual plan than principals in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students.  For example, 46 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools serving low numbers of migrant studetns reported involving parents of migrant students compared with well over 80 percent of principals in   Title I elementary schools that serve medium/high numbers of migrant students, and differences were statistically significant at both the elementary and secondary levels.  

· Overall, about 30-45 percent of principals in schools with migrant students reported involving community members with expertise in migrant populations in their school planning process. 

· Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were much more likely to have quantifiable goals for how far they expect their students to advance each year, as well as written comprehensive plans to improve student achievement, compared with Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students.  For example, 92 percent of elementary and 81 percent of secondary principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having quantifiable goals compared with 80 percent of elementary and 60-66 percent of secondary school principals in other Title I schools.  The difference between Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and Title I schools with no migrant students was statistically significant at the elementary level.  Similarly, 94 percent of elementary Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having written plans to improve student achievement in reading compared with 83 percent of elementary Title I schools with no migrant students; the comparable numbers for mathematics were 88 percent and 78 percent.  Both these differences were statistically significant.

· In elementary Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, quantifiable goals for student progress were less likely to be set by the school compared with Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students, where about half the principals reported that the school set such goals. 

## Provision of Title I Services

· About 57 percent of all Title I elementary and 49 percent of all secondary school principals reported that Title I funding priorities in their schools have changed in recent years.  

· A greater percentage of secondary school principals in schools with migrant students (70 percent) reported that priorities in their school for the use of Title I funds have changed in the last three years compared with their counterparts in Title I schools with no migrant students (37 percent).   

· By design, the 1994 reauthorization of Title I aimed to increase the flexibility of identifying students for services, minimize pullout programs, extend learning time, promote schoolwide reform, promote use of federal resources to support school improvement in high-poverty schools, increase the coordination of Title I funds with other federal programs, and promote parent involvement, particularly school-parent compacts.  Both at the elementary and secondary levels in the NLSS, the principal-reported effects of changes in Title I legislation were noticeably larger in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students than in Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students.  For example, elementary principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were significantly more likely to report that changes in Title I legislation had led to greater flexibility in identifying students for services, the ability to extend learning time, use of school-parent compacts, use of student performance results for continuous improvement, and the ability to use federal resources to support overall school improvement efforts compared with Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students.  Many of these differences are largely attributable to the higher proportion of schoolwides among Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students than among Title I schools with no migrant students; schoolwides are better able to exploit more fully the flexibility and integration of funds allowed under the 1994 Title I provisions than schools operating targeted assistance programs. 

· About 65-74 percent of elementary principals in the three types of schools reported that students were selected to receive Title I services in their school.  The vast majority (90 percent) of all elementary principals reported that performance on standardized tests (administered in English) and teacher judgement were used to select students, and over two-thirds of the principals reported using class grades, English language proficiency tests and parent consultation.  Much higher percentages of principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (65 percent of elementary and 90 percent of secondary principals) reported using scores on standardized tests administered in languages other than English to select students, compared with 44 percent of elementary principals and about 60 percent of secondary principals in Title I schools with no migrant students.  

· Principals were asked how migrant students were selected to receive Title I services if they enrolled in the school after the time when selection for Title I occurred.  In such an event, schools with migrant students reported using a variety of information sources to select migrant students for Title I services—reviewing previous school records, where available; relying on teachers’ judgement; and consulting with parents.  Title I principals in schools serving low numbers of migrant students were more likely to report relying on grade level compared with Title I principals of schools serving medium/high numbers of migrant students, and this difference was statistically significant at the elementary level.  

· A vast majority of all Title I elementary schools offered supplemental reading instruction and about two-thirds offered supplemental mathematics instruction.   These were all largely funded by Title I funds.  

· Well over 80 percent of secondary schools serving migrant students reported offering supplemental instruction in both Language Arts/English and mathematics compared with around half of the Title I secondary schools with no migrant students, and this difference was statistically significant. 

·  Overall, 87 percent of elementary and 85 percent of secondary school principals reported that their school has in-class services, and most reported funding these through Title I funds.  

· There was no significant difference by migrant status of the school.  

· About 70 percent of elementary and 56 percent of secondary school principals reported having pullout services; again, these were largely funded through Title I.  

· The incidence of pullout services was somewhat lower in elementary Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, due to the higher proportion of schoolwide programs among these schools.  

· Principals were also asked about the services and programs that extended the learning time of students.  Overall, about 82 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students offered programs to extend the learning time of students (weekend programs, before- or after-school programs, or summer programs) compared with 88 percent of schools with migrant students.  

· About half of all Title I schools offered before- or after-school programs; and about two-thirds offered summer or intersession programs.

· The percentage of  elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students offering before- or after-school programs was significantly higher than Title I elementary schools with no migrant students (74 percent versus 54 percent).  

· A significantly larger number of secondary schools with migrant students reported having summer or intersession programs compared with Title I secondary schools with no migrant students.  

· A higher percentage of Title I principals in schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having a class size reduction initiative compared with Title I principals of schools with no migrant students, and these differences were statistically significant.  This initiative was only partly funded through Title I funds.

·  Improving services to support parent involvement in schools was a critical component of the 1994 reauthorization.  A signficantly higher proportion (about four-fifths) of principals in Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having parent training services (largely funded through Title I) compared with about two-thirds of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students.  Similarly, nearly half of secondary principals in schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having training for parents compared with only 37 percent in Title I schools with no migrant students.  Schools with migrant students were also somewhat  more likely to have a parent liaison.

· Overall, 91 percent of principals in all Title I schools reported having teacher aides in their schools, and 63 percent reported using Title I funds for these services.  

· However, the proportion who reported funding them with Title I was significantly higher in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students compared with Title I schools with no migrant students, at both the elementary and secondary school levels.  For example, of schools that employed teacher aides, 84 percent of Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students used Title I funds to pay for these teacher aides, compared with 64 percent of Title I elementary schools with no migrant students.

· About 20 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 60 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported receiving Title I, Part C funds for migrant education programs and 30-55 percent of schools with migrant students reported coordinating migrant services with Title I, Part A services “to a great extent.”

· Principals were asked about the extent to which their school combined federal funds with funding from other sources.  Overall, about 30 percent of all Title I elementary school principals and 38 percent of Title I secondary school principals reported that they combined federal funds with other funding sources “to a great extent.”   

· A higher percentage of principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (43-45 percent) reported coordinating federal funds with other sources than principals in Title I schools with no migrant students (31-32 percent), largely because of the flexibility afforded them as schoolwide schools, although the difference was not statistically significant. 

· When asked about the the challenges they faced in this coordination, Title I elementary schools with no migrant students were much more likely to cite district and state control over the use of funds and uncertainty over what was allowed as challenges, compared with elementary schools with migrant students.  For example, 68 percent of principals of Title I elementary schools with no migrant students reported that district control over use of funds was a challenge compared with only 42 percent of elementary principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, and this difference was statistically significant.  These differences may be partly attributable to the higher proportion of schoolwides among schools with migrant students.  

· Principals were also asked what they would cut back on if Title I funds were not available.  In the NLSS, over 90 percent of Title I principals reported that they would cut back on teacher aide positions, and 86 percent reported that they would cut back on teaching positions.  About half of the principals reported that they would cut back professional development opportunities and parent involvement activities.  The percentages reporting cutbacks in these various areas at the elementary level were higher in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students compared with Title I schools with no migrant students.  

· A significantly higher percentage (63 percent) of elementary principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported that they would cut back on computers compared with 43 percent of elementary principals in Title I schools with no migrant students.  This is not surprising given that other research (for example, the *Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding*) found that federal funds were a significant source of support for new computers in high-poverty schools.  For example, Title I funds paid for 26 percent of new computers in the highest-poverty schools compared with 4 percent of new computers in the lowest-poverty schools (Chambers et al., 1999).    

## Professional Development in Title I Schools

· Almost all teachers (94 percent) in Title I schools, regardless of migrant status of the school, reported that they received professional development in the past 12 months.  Teachers reported participating in a wide range of professional development activities during the last year.  However, as we discuss below, teachers reported that there were several types of professional development that they did not experience.  In particular, secondary school teachers (particularly those teaching in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students) were much more likely to report non-participation in these activities than elementary school teachers.  

· In general, over 80 percent of all teachers in Title I schools reported receiving professional development in instructional strategies or subject area content, but the percentage was lower in Title I secondary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  

· About 63 percent of teachers in Title I secondary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students received professional development in content area compared with 84 percent of teachers in Title I secondary schools with no migrant students, but the difference was not statistically significant.  

· A little more than half of all elementary teachers and 40 percent of all secondary teachers received professional development in strategies to teach low-achieving students.

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school.  

· As expected, teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were significantly more likely to participate in professional development in instructional strategies for teaching special population students compared with teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students.  However, even in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, about 65-70 percent of teachers reported they did not receive professional development in instructional strategies to teach migrant students.  

· Between 17 and 33 percent of teachers in Title I schools received professional development in strengthening parent involvement.

· The percentage was somewhat lower among teachers in Title I secondary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (18 percent compared with 27 percent of teachers in Title I secondary schools with no migrant students).

· Between 74 and 77 percent of teachers received professional development in the use of technology.

· The percentage was somewhat lower in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (69 percent in elementary schools and 63 percent in secondary schools).

· For all Title I schools, we found that for the majority of the professional development activities considered, if teachers received the professional development, over half reported that it led them to change their teaching practice (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).  Professional development in the use of technology appeared to be the most effective, with about 65 percent reporting that it led to changes in their teaching practice, while professional development in parent involvement strategies had the least impact on teaching practice, as less than 30 percent of teachers reported that it led them to change their teaching practice.

· Figure 10 shows the types of professional development desired by teachers in elementary schools who wanted additional professional development in the past year.  Instructional strategies for teaching low-achieving students and use of technology ranked highest among all the types of professional development, being desired by over 80 percent of all teachers.  

· Teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were more likely to report they desired these particular types of professional development than teachers in Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students.  Differences between percentages of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students desiring professional development in instructional strategies for teaching low-achieving students and use of technology were statistically significant.

**Figure 10.  Percentage of Elementary Teachers in Title I Schools Reporting Selected Types Of Professional Development They Would Have Liked to Experience, by Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  Among teachers who wanted additional professional development, 64.2 percent of teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students, 60.4 percent of teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students, and 79.3 percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported they would have liked to have received professional development in strategies for using assessment results.**

Source:  NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section D, Q. TD5

· Among the teachers of migrant students who wanted additional professional development, about 60 percent of elementary teachers and 84 percent of secondary teachers reported they would have liked professional development in instructional strategies to teach migrant students in the past year (see Figure 11).  

· This was particularly true of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  For example, 93 percent of secondary teachers in these schools who had not received professional development in instructional strategies to teach migrant students in the past year reported they would have liked professional development in this area compared with 70 percent of secondary teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students.   The differences, however, were not statistically significant at either the elementary or secondary level.

**Figure 11.  Percentage of Teachers in Title I Schools Reporting They Would Have Liked Professional Development in Instructional Strategies to Teach Migrant Students, by Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  Among teachers of migrant students who wanted additional professional development, 63.1 percent of teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students reported they would have liked professional development in instructional strategies to teach migrant students.**

Source:  NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section D, Q. TD5  

· Nearly all of Title I school principals (97 percent) reported that they had teacher aides in their school, and 88 percent of the principals (96 percent in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students)  reported that teacher aides are included in professional development activities.  While a large percentage of the schools include teacher aides in their professional development activities, few districts have career ladders for these aides as reported by principals (30 percent).  

· However, elementary schools with migrant students were more likely to be in districts that had career ladders for aides compared with Title I schools with no migrant students (39 percent versus 26 percent).  

· In addition, these schools were more likely to report funding for higher education classes (37 percent versus 22 percent) or for getting a high school diploma or GED (11 percent versus 7 percent), and release time for higher education classes (35 percent versus 30 percent).

## Teacher Perceptions of Students’ Mathematics Abilities

· Both elementary and secondary teachers of mathematics were asked about how they would rank their own students relative to students nationally and internationally.  

· Among all Title I elementary schools, about two-thirds of the teachers ranked their students in the top half of the national distribution.  There was little difference by migrant status of the school.  

· Among secondary schools, teachers in schools with migrant students ranked students somewhat lower than teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students.  For example, while a little more than half the teachers in schools with migrant students ranked their students in the top half of the national distribution, two-thirds of teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students did so.  Similarly, teachers in secondary schools with migrant students ranked their students lower relative to international students compared with teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students.  For example, 43 percent of secondary mathematics teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students ranked their students in the top 50 percent internationally compared with only 14 percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  These differences in teacher rankings were similar to differences we found among teachers in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).  

## Mathematics coursework in Secondary Schools 

· High school mathematics chairs were also asked about the courses taken by seniors in their schools.  The difference between the typical courses that graduating seniors in Title I schools with no migrant students and Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students have taken in mathematics is quite striking, as Figure 12 shows.  

· Over 90 percent of seniors in the Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students have taken Algebra 1 compared with less than 60 percent in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  

**Figure 12.  Percentage of Graduating Seniors in Title I High Schools That Have Taken Selected Courses in Mathematics, by Migrant Status of School**

**Figure reads:  Mathematics chairpersons in Title I high schools with no migrant students reported that 91.6 percent of graduating seniors have taken Algebra 1; 58.1 percent have taken Algebra 2; 25.4 percent Trigonometry; 22.3 percent Precalculus; 9.8 percent College Algebra; and 6.2 percent Non-AP Calculus, prior to graduation.**

Source:  NLSS Teacher Survey, SY1998-1999, Section B, Q. TB11

Note:  Question asked of high school mathematics chairs.

· Sixty percent have taken Algebra 2 compared with less than 30 percent in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  

· Generally, fewer seniors in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students have taken higher-level mathematics courses compared with seniors in other schools with one exception, College Algebra, where the percentage is higher in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students than Title I schools with no migrant students.

## Parent Involvement Strategies

· The vast majority of principals in all Title I schools reported sharing school documents with parents.  For instance, over 90 percent of principals in schools having school plans or school improvement plans reported sharing those plans with parents, and about 85 percent reported sharing school performance profiles or school report cards with parents.  About 88 percent of elementary and 65 percent of secondary school principals (higher in schools with migrant students) provided copies of content and performance standards to parents (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review). 

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school.  

· Not surprisingly, principals in schools with migrant students, especially in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, were much more likely to translate school documents into languages other than English for parents with limited English proficiency.  For example, among Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students, about 88 percent of elementary and 73 percent of secondary school principals did so, compared with 24 percent of elementary and 17 percent of secondary school principals in Title I schools with no migrant students.

· Although every school that receives Title I funds is required to develop a school-parent compact, not all schools have developed and implemented school-parent compacts.  Among elementary schools, 73 percent of school principals in Title I schools with no or low numbers of migrant students reported using and sharing school-parent compacts with parents compared with 86 percent of principals in   Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  This may be partly due to the higher proportion of Title I schoolwides among the Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students:  schoolwides are more likely to have established school-parent compacts than schools with targeted Title I programs.  Among secondary schools, 60 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students had school-parent compacts compared with 83 percent of Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 75 percent of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  Elementary schools with migrant students also were more likely to ask all parents to participate in school-parent compacts rather than just parents of Title I students (again, this may be driven by the fact that many of these schools operate schoolwide programs).  

· Approximately 80 percent of all Title I principals using school-parent compacts reported monitoring the progress of school-parent compacts on an ongoing basis. Almost all principals relied on verbal feedback from parents and school personnel, and records of parent involvement (including parents of migrant and LEP students in schools with these students), while surveys of parents and school personnel were used less frequently.  

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school.

· The information from monitoring school-parent compacts was primarily used in parent-teacher conferences.  About half of the principals of elementary schools with migrant students used this information in teacher evaluations compared with 35 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students.  

· Elementary teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were significantly more likely to report using school-parent compacts than teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students (66 percent versus 56 percent).  In secondary schools, about 43 percent of teachers reported using school-parent compacts.  The difference in elementary teacher reports may largely be due to the higher percentage of schoolwides among Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  Our earlier work (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review) found that teachers in all Title I schoolwides were significantly more likely to use compacts than teachers in schools operating targeted assistance programs.  

· About 85 percent of all teachers using school-parent compacts discussed the compact at parent-teacher conferences.  

· About half the teachers in Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported that they found the compact useful “to a great extent” in discussing shared responsibilities compared with 26 percent of teachers in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students, and the difference was statistically significant.  

· However, teachers in Title I secondary schools with no migrant students were significantly more likely to report finding the compact useful than were teachers in secondary schools with migrant students.  

· Schools used a variety of strategies to promote parent involvement—using parents as volunteers, encouraging them to serve on school committees, training parents to work with their children at home, involving them in family nights at school, hosting social events, and providing individual student assessment results.  Figure 13 shows some strategies that were used to a greater degree by elementary schools with migrant students, including employing parents as classroom aides, providing workshops or social support services for parents, and providing translations of school documents.

· Almost all school principals reported that parents were given interim report cards, asked to sign off on homework, and/or given positive notes or phone calls from teachers.  Only about a quarter of the schools had school-sponsored homework hotlines and 40-50 percent provided information on school web sites.  Principals in schools with migrant students were significantly more likely than principals in    Title I schools with no migrant students to report that parents were given examples of work that meets high standards.  Principals in schools with migrant students were also more likely to report notifying parents about children’s ability-group placements, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Figure 13.  Percentage of Elementary Principals in Title I Schools Reporting Selected Strategies to Encourage Parent Involvement, by Migrant Status of School 

**Figure reads:  69.1 percent of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students reported their school employed parents as classroom aides; 85.3 percent reported providing workshops for parents; 25.7 reported providing materials translated into other languages; and 62.8 percent reported providing social support services for parents.**

Source:  NLSS Principal Survey, SY1998-1999, Section F, Q. PF7

· About 70 percent of elementary teachers in schools with migrant students felt they communicated to a moderate or great extent with parents of migrant students.  This was true of a smaller percentage of secondary teachers—about 35 percent of teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 60 percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.

· When asked about how teachers communicated with parents with limited English proficiency, less than half of the teachers (45 percent) reported that they communicated directly in a common language.  

· A higher percentage of teachers in elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students (65 percent) were able to communicate in a common language compared with teachers in other Title I elementary schools (43 percent).

· About 64 percent of elementary teachers and 30 percent of secondary teachers reported requiring parents to sign off on students’ homework at least once a week or more frequently.

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school.  

· About 30 percent of all teachers in elementary Title I schools reported sending home reading and mathematics activities for parents to do with students at home.

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school.

· Teachers in general were more likely to report that parent involvement efforts resulted in improved attendance and promptness, rather than improved rates of homework completion.  

· Again, there was little difference by migrant status of the school.

## Availability and Use of Technology

· Almost 90 percent of schools had a school plan that included a goal for using technology to improve student instruction, and about three-quarters of schools had a computer or technology coordinator.  

· A higher proportion of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported having technology coordinators than Title I schools with no migrant students, and this difference was statistically significant.  

· Fifty-six percent of classrooms in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students had computers that were linked to the Internet, compared with 47 percent in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students. 

· Lack of teacher knowledge about how to integrate technology into the curriculum was a major barrier in using technology for instructional purposes for over 70 percent of all Title I schools.   Other major barriers were lack of software that is integrated with the school’s curriculum and insufficient equipment, especially for schools with migrant students.  

· Principals in secondary schools with migrant students were especially likely to report barriers to using technology for instructional purposes, and many of the differences between Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and Title I schools with no migrant students at the secondary level were statistically significant.        

## Schools Identified as in Need of Improvement

· Between 10 and 20 percent of schools were identified as in need of improvement by the districts.  Elementary schools serving migrant students were more likely to be identified as in need of improvement than Title I schools with no migrant students (17-20 percent versus 11 percent), but the difference was not statistically significant.  

· Principals of schools with migrant students—particularly in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students—were somewhat more likely to report that they did not know what their district considered adequate yearly progress or substantial progress.  For example, 42 percent of elementary principals and 56 percent of secondary principals in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students reported that they did not know their district metrics of performance compared with 34 percent of elementary principals and 38 percent of secondary principals in Title I schools with no migrant students.  

· Of those who were familiar with district measures of progress, about 37 percent seemed to feel that these measures were not adequate to judge the school’s performance.

· Principals in schools with migrant students were more likely to report that these measures of progress were inadequate compared with principals of Title I schools with no migrant students.  For example, about half of principals in elementary schools with migrant students disagreed with the statement that their district’s measures of progress were adequate to judge the school’s performance, compared with about a third of the principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students.  However, this difference was not statistically significant.  

· A little less than half (47 percent) of schools reported receiving additional technical assistance or professional development as a result of being identified as in need of improvement; this assistance was largely provided by the district, state, and school support team.  

· About three-quarters of schools identified as in need of improvement implemented additional strategies, including more family and community involvement, revising or developing a school plan, more professional development, closer supervision of school decisions, and adopting a new, comprehensive model program.

· Among schools with special population students, about half of the schools with migrant students implemented teaching and learning strategies for migrant students, and 87 percent of those with LEP students implemented strategies focused on LEP students. 

## Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform MOdels

· About 31 percent of Title I schools overall had adopted comprehensive school reform models.

· Title I elementary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were slightly more likely (35 percent) and secondary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students were somewhat less likely (24 percent) to report adopting a comprehensive model than other Title I schools.   

· The majority of principals reported that their school became involved with a reform model because the model matched the school’s needs assessment and research.  A variety of factors influenced model choice.  While almost all principals cited factors such as a comprehensive approach and the research evidence as important in the choice of a model, more practical factors such as ease of implementation and affordability were somewhat less important.

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school.

· The majority of the principals in schools (elementary or secondary) serving migrant students (well over 80 percent) reported that the model was already partially or mostly implemented in their school.  While this was true of principals in Title I elementary schools with no migrant students as well, principals of Title I secondary schools with no migrant students were more likely to report that they were still in the initial selection or staff training and development phases (41 percent) rather than the implementation phase.  

· Seventy percent of the elementary school principals and 56 percent of the secondary school principals were very satisfied with the professional development or assistance received in implementing the model. 

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school, although principals of Title I secondary schools with low numbers of migrant students were the least likely to be very satisfied with the professional development received. 

· Almost all principals (88 percent of elementary school principals and 80 percent of secondary school principals) reported that Title I services were integrated into the model to a moderate or great extent.  

· There was little difference by migrant status of the school, although principals in Title I secondary school with no migrant students were the least likely to report integration of Title I services. 

References

Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., & Sloan, J. S.  (in review).  *The National Longitudinal Survey of Schools:  preliminary findings.*Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

Chambers, J., Lieberman, J., Parrish, T., Kaleba, D., Van Campen, J., & Stullich, S.  (1999).  *Study of education resources and federal funding*.  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

Naftel, S., Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., & Sloan, J. S.  (in review).  *The National Longitudinal Survey of Schools: technical appendices.* Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

Prasad, B., Heaviside, S., Williams, C., Farris, E., & Greene, B.  (2000).  *Participation of migrant students in Title I Migrant Education Program (MEP) summer-term projects, 1998.*Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

Siler, A., Stolzberg, S., von Glatz, A., & Strang, W.  (1999).  *Meeting the needs of migrant students in schoolwide programs.*  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

Strang, W. & von Glatz, A. (1999).  *Meeting the needs of migrant students in schoolwide programs:  summary.*  Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Education.

Appendix:  Selected Tabulations from the NLSS Principal and Teacher Surveys

The estimates provided in the main body of the report and in these tables are based on samples and are subject to sampling variability.  The standard errors reported here were estimated using the jackknife variance estimation procedure that incorporates the design features of the sample.  The standard errors provide an indicator of the reliability of each estimate.  If all possible samples of the same size were surveyed under identical conditions, an interval calculated by adding and subtracting 1.96 times the standard error from a particular estimate would include the population value in approximately 95 percent of the cases.  In general, for estimates based on sample sizes of less than 100, this procedure will underestimate the 95 percent confidence interval.  We suggest using a two standard error interval around the estimate; this will provide a reasonably accurate confidence interval for sample sizes between 30 and 100.  However, we warn that the standard errors do not take into account other errors or biases due to item nonresponse, measurement error, or other data errors.

**Selected Tabulations from the 1998/1999 National Longitudinal Survey of Schools,**

**With Standard Errors and Sample Sizes**

Note:  Questions are taken from the 1998/1999 NLSS principal and teacher surveys.  Question numbers beginning with the letter “P” are from the principal survey and those beginning with “T” are from the teacher survey.

�See Naftel and Kirby, et al. (in review) for a more detailed description of the sample design for the NLSS.  

�This is based on a question in the Principal Screener section of the Principal Survey that asked about the number of migrant students in the school.  However, there is some reason to question the accuracy of this classification.  For example, teachers in NLSS schools were asked whether they taught any migrant students.  About 58 percent of teachers in Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and 29 percent of teachers in Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students reported teaching migrant students.  Interestingly, however, about 10 percent of teachers in Title I schools with no migrant students reported teaching migrant students.  This suggests that the classification of schools based on principal reports may not be entirely accurate or may depend on the timing of when questionnaires were answered during the school year.  Alternately, there may be a discrepancy in the way principals and teachers define “migrant students.”          

�Strang and von Glatz (1999) reported that the average number of migrant students in schoolwide schools with migrant students was about 60 and that this represented 11 percent of student enrollment on average.

�This may be due partly to the fact that our definition of Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students uses the “number” of migrant students as the criterion, not percentage of migrant students.  As such, it is easier for larger schools to meet this criterion than smaller schools.  Secondary schools tend to be larger than elementary schools, so this may help explain part of the difference by school level.

�Locale is a 7-digit code on the CCD, defined as:  1. Large City—A central city of a CMSA or MSA, with the city having a population greater than or equal to 250,000; 2. Mid-size City—A central city of a CMSA or MSA, with the city having a population less than 250,000; 3. Urban Fringe of a Large City—Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place territory within a CMSA or MSA of a Large City and defined as urban by the Census Bureau; 4. Urban Fringe of a Mid-size City—Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place territory within a CMSA or MSA of a Mid-size City and defined as urban by the Census Bureau; 5. Large Town—Any incorporated place or Census designated place with a population greater than or equal to 25,000 and located outside a CMSA or MSA; 6. Small Town—Any incorporated place or Census designated place with population less than 25,000 and greater than or equal to 2,500 and located outside a CMSA or MSA; and 7. Rural—Any incorporated place, Census designated place, or non-place territory designated as rural by the Census Bureau.  The usual practice is to combine these into three categories:  urban=1,2; suburban/large town=3,4,5; and rural/small town=6,7.

�This distribution may also be partly driven by the fact that urban schools tend to be larger than many suburban or rural schools.  Given that our classification of migrant schools is based on the number of students, urban schools are more likely to be classified as schools serving medium/high migrant students than suburban or rural schools.   

�Strang and von Glatz (1999) reported that the percentage of migrant students in schoolwide Title I schools with migrant students that are eligible for free/reduced price lunch was very high, 87 percent.  More than one-half of the migrant students in these schools were limited English proficient.

� Schoolwide programs allow high-poverty schools to use Title I money in combination with other federal, state, and local funds, to improve the entire educational program for all their students (rather than just targeted Title I students).   Targeted assistance programs use Title I funds to provide services to students identified as failing or most at risk of failing to meet a state’s content and student performance standards.   While it is important to learn if the quality of services for migrant students differs under schoolwide and targeted assistance Title I programs, the NLSS does not provide data that inform this question.

�Throughout this report, the term “significant” is used in the statistical sense to indicate that the difference between two estimates is statistically significant at the .05 level.

�We found similar differences in the extent of student preparedness and promotion rates between the lowest- and highest-poverty schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

�Berends and Kirby, et al., (in review) found that 14 percent of the highest-poverty elementary school principals reported that such standards were too rigorous for most of their students compared with less than 2 percent of the lowest-poverty school principals and even larger differences exist among secondary schools (30 percent versus less than 1 percent).

�We found that principals in the highest-poverty Title I schools were less likely to report great alignment between curriculum and instruction and standards compared with principals in lowest-poverty Title I schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

�The difference between Title I schools with no migrant students and Title I secondary schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students with respect to inclusion of Title I in school plans was statistically significant.

�Strang and von Glatz (1999) reported that schoolwide programs that use Migrant Education Program funds are required to include migrant advocates in their planning.  

�This was true of the highest-poverty Title I schools as well, where between 80-90 percent of these schools had quantifiable goals.  This was significantly higher than the percentage of lowest-poverty Title I schools with such goals (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

�For example, we found that 56 percent of elementary schoolwide principals reported that changes in Title I legislation helped their school apply content standards to all students, compared with 28 percent of principals in targeted assistance elementary schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).  In some cases, the differences between schoolwide and targeted assistance schools were larger in secondary schools.   

�Similar differences were found between the lowest and highest Title I poverty schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

�In the highest-poverty Title I schools, 80 percent of both elementary and secondary schools reported having training for parents compared with 71 percent of elementary and 25 percent of secondary lowest-poverty schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

�We found equally large differences by poverty level of the school in the proportion of schools that funded teacher aides through Title I funds.  For example, the percentage of principals that reported funding them with Title I funds was highest in the highest-poverty schools at both the elementary and secondary school levels—about 70 percent compared with a little over 45 percent in the lowest-poverty schools, and both these differences were statistically significant (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

�Strang and von Glatz (1999) reported that only one-third of the surveyed schoolwide schools with migrant students indicated they combined MEP funds with other federal funds in implementing their schoolwide programs.  School personnel in some of the case study schools that did not combine MEP funds in their schoolwide programs cited reasons for not doing so:  MEP funds were spent at the district level and thus were not available to schools; migrant program staff were concerned about maintaining accountability for MEP funds spent by the school; and concern on the part of MEP staff that migrant student needs not be overlooked.   

� This question was asked only of teachers who reported teaching any migrant students.

�The difference between Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students and Title I schools with no migrant students with respect to this question was statistically significant.

�This was not asked of reading/Language Arts/English teachers.

�We found similar differences between the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty Title I schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

�The differences by poverty status were much larger than that reported here.  For example, over 70 percent of classrooms in the lowest-poverty elementary Title I schools had computers connected to the Internet compared with less than 40 percent in the highest-poverty Title I schools (Berends and Kirby, et al., in review).

�The unweighted sample sizes for migrant schools in this section are very small: 37 Title I schools with low numbers of migrant students and 35 Title I schools with medium/high numbers of migrant students.  Because of this, this section largely focuses on findings across all schools.  

�However, some principals denied that their school had been so identified, especially at the elementary level.  As a result, about 8-9 percent of principals in Title I schools with no migrant students and 12-15 percent of principals in schools with migrant students answered this set of questions.

�The data in this section represent the answers given by each principal on one model in their school.  While 75 percent of schools that adopted models selected only one model, 25 percent reported having 2-5 models.  In order to provide weighted estimates, we needed to identify one model per school.  Ideally, we would have chosen the primary model used in the school, but such a question was not contained in the 1998-1999 NLSS.  As a result, we chose the model that was farthest along in the implementation process.  In cases of a tie, we decided on the basis of strict adoption; then length of implementation; and, lastly, named models (of which there were 23 in the survey) were chosen over models that were coded as “other.”

xlii