U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Results in Brief: 

Study of the Implementation of the 

ESEA Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program 

August 2019 

The children of migratory workers are extremely disadvantaged and are more likely than their nonmigratory peers to live in poverty 

and experience disconnected educational experiences that can hinder their educational progress and success (Berger 2014; Quandt et 

al. 2016; U.S. Department of Labor 2017; Wiltz 2016). Congress established the Migrant Education Program (MEP) in 1966 through an 

amendment to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The goal of the program under ESEA, as amended by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), is to help meet the unique educational needs of migratory children. The Study of the 

Implementation of the ESEA Title I, Part C Migrant Education Program examined how state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP 

subgrantees implemented the program’s four central components—identification and recruitment, records transfer, service delivery, 

and coordination and collaboration—to help reduce barriers to migratory children’s school success. The findings can be used to help 

describe the program and the children it serves and to inform program planning and support by MEP grantees, subgrantees, and the 

Department. 

STUDY QUESTIONS 

1. How do state MEP grantees and local/regional 

subgrantees identify, recruit, and prioritize migratory 

children for services? 

2. How does the Migrant Student Information Exchange 

(MSIX) system facilitate the transfer of educational and 

health information to support enrollment, placement, and 

accrual of credits for migratory children? 

3. What services do state MEP grantees and local/regional 

subgrantees provide to migratory children? 

4. How do state MEP grantees and local/regional 

subgrantees collaborate with other programs and 

organizations to deliver services to migratory children? 

STUDY DESIGN 

The study team administered surveys to all state MEP 

grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees and conducted 

semi-structured interviews with a sample of state, regional, 

and local MEP staff in a purposive, nested sample of 10 state 

MEP grantees, 20 local/regional MEP subgrantees (two per 

state), and 40 schools or projects (approximately four per 

state). All 46 state MEP directors and 739 local/regional MEP 

coordinators (90 percent) completed the online surveys. 

Study limitations include self-reported survey data that were 

not independently verified and interview data that may not 

represent the full range of views among MEP staff. 

Highlights 

• Most state MEP grantees relied on their local/regional 

MEP subgrantees and outside contractors to manage the 

identification and recruitment (ID&R) process, including 

hiring, deploying, and supervising MEP recruiters. At the 

same time, states played a significant role in recruiter 

training, monitoring, and quality control. 

• Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP 

coordinators reported that MSIX had improved timely 

notification when migratory children moved across states 

and facilitated interstate migratory student records 

transfers. 

• State MEP directors considered a variety of factors in 

determining specific services to provide or fund for 

migratory children, including the needs of migratory 

children, the availability of funds, student outcomes, 

policy priorities, and the services provided by other 

programs. 

• State MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees 

that provided direct services to migratory children most 

commonly provided supplemental instructional services 

that included reading/language arts instruction and 

mathematics instruction. Among the state MEP grantees 

and local/regional subgrantees that directly provided 

support services to migratory children, most provided 

school supplies, language support (e.g., translation or 

interpretation services), and individual advocacy services. 

• Most state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP 

subgrantees that provided direct instructional and 

support services to migratory children collaborated with 

other agencies and organizations to provide these 

services. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IDENTIFYING ELIGIBLE MIGRATORY CHILDREN 

Most state MEP grantees relied on their local/regional MEP 

subgrantees and outside contractors to manage the ID&R 

process, including hiring, deploying, and supervising MEP 

recruiters. At the same time, states played a significant role 

in recruiter training, monitoring, and quality control. 

Under ESEA, the state is responsible for ID&R but has flexibility 

to determine whether to manage the process on a statewide, 

regional, or local basis. The majority of state MEP directors (74 

percent, or 34 of 46 states) reported relying on local/regional 

MEP subgrantees to manage ID&R. 

Recruiters most commonly identified and recruited migratory 

children using their contacts in the schools, communities, 

and businesses that migratory families frequent. 

State MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators most 

frequently reported that recruiters identified and recruited 

migratory children by developing and maintaining contacts 

with staff in local schools (100 percent of state MEP directors 

and 96 percent of local/regional MEP coordinators), in places 

or communities where migratory families are likely to reside 

(100 percent and 83 percent), with employers who hire 

migratory workers (96 percent and 81 percent), and with local 

businesses and organizations that serve migratory families (96 

percent and 77 percent). In interviews, local/regional MEP 

coordinators noted that recruiters often struggled to find outof-school youth because, for example, farmers and facility 

owners no longer granted recruiters access to work sites or 

these youth did not have time to participate in the MEP. 

USING THE MIGRANT STUDENT INFORMATION 

EXCHANGE (MSIX) 

Most state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators 

agreed that MSIX had moderately or substantially improved 

timely notification when migratory children moved across 

states and that it had facilitated interstate migratory student 

records transfers. In interviews, state MEP directors and 

local/regional MEP coordinators identified areas for 

improvement for MSIX, observing that not all states used MSIX 

consistently or in the same ways, which could lead to gaps in 

information about migratory children moving across state 

lines. 

SERVING MIGRATORY CHILDREN’S NEEDS 

Most state MEP directors considered multiple data sources 

and factors in determining what services to provide or fund 

for migratory children. 

The vast majority of state MEP directors identified several 

factors as important in determining what services to provide 

or fund for migratory children, including needs assessments of 

migratory children (100 percent of state MEP directors), the 

amount of MEP funding available (98 percent), and migratory 

student outcomes data (98 percent). 

More than a third of state MEP grantees directly provided 

instructional services and other academic supports to 

migratory children, including college and career supports and 

academic instruction. Ninety-three percent of local/regional 

MEP subgrantees directly provided instructional services to 

migratory children, the most common of which included 

reading/language arts instruction and mathematics 

instruction. 

State MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported providing a variety of supplemental instructional 

services to migratory children. Nineteen state MEPs provided 

instructional services and other academic supports, the most 

common of which were career exploration and guidance (69 

percent) and graduation planning and assistance (63 percent). 

Ninety-three percent of local/regional MEP subgrantees 

directly provided instructional services and other academic 

supports, including reading and language arts instruction (84 

percent) and mathematics instruction (82 percent). 

More than a third of state MEP grantees provided direct 

support services to migratory children, including leadership 

development and language support. Ninety-two percent of 

local/regional MEP coordinators directly provided support 

services to migratory children, including the distribution of 

school supplies and language supports, such as translation or 

interpretation services. 

To address the social, emotional, and health issues that 

migratory children experience regularly that can impact their 

ability to attend and fully focus at school, state and 

local/regional MEP subgrantees provided several types of 

support services. Eighteen state MEP grantees provided 

support services, the most common of which were leadership 

development (58 percent) and language support (50 percent). 

Ninety-two percent of local/regional MEP coordinators 

reported providing direct support services, including school 

supplies (82 percent) and language support (74 percent). 

COLLABORATING TO DELIVER SERVICES TO 

MIGRATORY CHILDREN 

Most state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP 

subgrantees that directly provided instructional and support 

services to migratory children collaborated with other 

agencies and organizations to provide these services. 

For example, of the 11 state MEP grantees that directly 

provided reading and language arts instruction, nine reported 

doing so in collaboration with other agencies and 

organizations. Similarly, of the 605 local/regional MEP 

coordinators that provided reading/language arts instruction, 

more than half (54 percent) reported collaborating with other 

agencies and organizations to provide these services. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

The complete report is available online: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/reports.html