This is some 

POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE

AA SSNNAAPPSSHHOOTT OOFF TTIITTLLEE II SSCCHHOOOOLLSS SSEE

MMIIGGRRAANNTTSSTTUUDDEENNTTSS,, 22000000––0011

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC # 2003-03

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

AA SSNNNAAAPPPSSSHHHOOOTTTOOOFFFTTIITTTLLLEEEI SSCCCHHHOOOOOOLLLSSSSSEEERRRVVVI I I IINNNGGGMMIIIGGGRRRAAANNNTTTSSTTTUUUDDDEEENNNTTTSSS,, 220000

SHEILA NATARAJ KIRBY

JENNIFER SLOAN MCCOMBS

SCOTT NAFTEL

RAND 

1200 SOUTH HAYES STREET

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-5050 

2003 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number EA 97010001. The views expressed here

contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. U.S. Department of Education Roderick R. Paige Secretary Office of the Under SecretaryEugene Hickok Under Secretary Policy and Program Studies Service Alan L. Ginsburg DirectorProgram and Analytic Studies Division David Goodwin Director October 2003 This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this pu

necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Policy and Program Studies Ser

Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01, Washington, D.C., 2003. 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. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to: www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/ppss/index.html. 

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

Introduction ......................................................................................................1 Data .................................................................................................................3 Limitations of Study..........................................................................................4 Definition of Key Terms....................................................................................5 Acknowledgments............................................................................................6 Key Findings ....................................................................................................7 Profile of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students..........................................8 Standards.......................................................................................................15 Assessments..................................................................................................16 Provision of Title I Services............................................................................18 Parent Involvement in Schools ......................................................................22 Professional Development.............................................................................23 Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement Under Title I..........................25 Comprehensive School Reform Models ........................................................26 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 1. Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students........................................................................................................................Exhibit 2. School Poverty Level......................................................................................................................................................Exhibit 3. Percentage Minority Students.........................................................................................................................................Exhibit 4. Percentage of Schools Serving Students with Limited English Proficiency....................................................................Exhibit 5. Student Readiness for the Next Grade and Promotion Rates ........................................................................................Exhibit 6. Selected Teacher Characteristics...................................................................................................................................Exhibit 7. Prevalence of Schoolwide Programs..............................................................................................................................Exhibit 8. Barriers to Using Content Standards with All Students ..................................................................................................Exhibit 9. Participation of Migrant Students in State Assessments ................................................................................................Exhibit 10. Reporting of Disaggregated Assessment Results ..........................................................................................................Exhibit 11. Programs to Extend the Learning Time of Students.......................................................................................................Exhibit 12. Programs for Non-Native English Speakers ...................................................................................................................Exhibit 13. Settings in Which Additional Instructional Services Were Provided ...............................................................................Exhibit 14. Use of Teacher Aides to Provide Additional Instructional Services ................................................................................Exhibit 15. Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Student Learning.....................................................................................Exhibit 16. Professional Development to Meet the Needs of Migrant Students ...............................................................................Exhibit 17. Relationship Between Professional Development and Teacher Preparedness .............................................................Exhibit 18. Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement Under Title I ..........................................................................................Exhibit 19. Adoption of Comprehensive School Reform Models ......................................................................................................Exhibit 20. Difficulty Implementing Comprehensive School Reform Models ....................................................................................
INTRODUCTION 

Migrant students1—children of migratory workers who relocate across school district boundaries in order to obtain 

employment in agriculture or fishing—are often at high risk of educational failure because of educational disruptions 

moves and irregular attendance, language barriers, and poverty.2 Migrant farm workers in the United States typic

geographic migratory streams (East Coast, Midwest, and West Coast). The primary residence or homebase areas foeconomically disadvantaged areas. In the East Coast stream, most workers have their primary homebase in southern 

follow the crops northward to the mid-Atlantic states. In the Midwest stream, most farm workers use south Texas as thwinter crops there before moving up into the midwestern states. South Texas is the largest migrant homebase area in thfarm workers from there move into the East and West Coast migrant streams. Most migrant farm workers in the West Coa

California as homebase. These workers follow crops north through Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. The Migrant Education Program that operates under Title I, Part C, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (EShelp migrant students overcome the challenges of mobility and other educational consequences of a migratory life. The g

assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and achieving graduation from high school. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) embodies four principles: stronger accountability for results; expanded flean emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work; and expanded options for parents. For example, N

develop and implement challenging content and performance standards for all students, to adopt yearly assessments thastandards, and to establish rigorous and explicit criteria for measuring school progress (adequate yearly progress or AY

schools with 40 percent or more of their students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program have been givecombining Title I funds with other sources of funding to implement schoolwide Title I programs, to improve the educational 

rather than just targeted Title I students. Schools are to be provided data on the performance of their students, disagg

characteristics, including race-ethnicity, poverty status, limited English proficiency status, student disability status, gendefoster data-driven decisionmaking.3 If schools fail to attain the AYP goal for two consecutive years, they are to be 

improvement under Title I and provided technical assistance to help them improve. In the first year of being identified as schools must provide students the option of transferring to a better-performing school; in the second year, schools m

students supplemental educational services from approved providers (including outside groups). If schools fail to make 

1In ESEA §1309(2), a migrant student is defined as “a child who is, or whose parent or spouse is, a migratory agricultural worker, includin

worker, or a migratory fisher, and who, in the preceding 36 months, in order to obtain, or accompany such a parent or spouse, in order to 

seasonal employment in agricultural or fishing work has moved from one school district to another.” 2Parsad, B., Heaviside, S., Williams, C., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (2000). Participation of migrant students in Title I Migrant Education Pro

term projects, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education; Strang, W. & von Glatz, A. (1999). Meeting the needs of migrant 

programs: Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. 3The definition of adequate yearly progress for schools includes separate objectives for improvement in the achievement of students grou

with the exception of gender and migrant status. 

Page 1 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
after being identified for improvement, they are subject to “corrective action” by districts, including replacing school st

curriculum, significantly decreased management authority, or restructuring. Many of these provisions were first in

reauthorization of the ESEA. As such, understanding the progress that Title I schools made in implementing the provisionand the challenges they faced in doing so should offer useful lessons for the implementation of NCLB. The U.S. Department of Education conducted a nationally representative survey of Title I schools—the National Longitu

(NLSS)—to examine the implementation of the 1994 provisions in Title I schools across the nation. The NLSS included an 

serving significant proportions of migrant students. Principals and a sample of teachers in these schools were surveyed a

(SY) 1998–99 through 2000–01. An earlier report4 presented data from the first year of the NLSS, 1998–99, to address two main evaluation questions: 

• How did Title I schools with migrant students compare with Title I schools with no migrant students in terms of th

and organizational characteristics? 

• How were the provisions of Title I being implemented in Title I schools with migrant students, compared with Title I 

students?

This report uses a series of exhibits to present a snapshot of Title I schools serving migrant students on the eve of the 

addition to updating the information provided in the earlier report, this report also focuses on a third evaluation question: 

• What progress did these schools make over time between 1998–99 and 2000–01 in terms of implementation of th

legislation? 

For purposes of the report, schools are classified as Title I high-migrant schools (those with 15 or more migrant studschools (those with 1–14 migrant students), or Title I schools with no migrant students. In what follows, we sometimes chigh-migrant schools, referring to them as “Title I schools with migrant students.” In the remainder of this report, we largely focus on findings as of 2000–01, although we do comment on significant differe

and 2000–01. Tracking differences over time was not always possible because some questions were added to the sur

questions that had been present in earlier years were deleted; and the wording of some questions changed over time, ma

difficult. In addition, small sample sizes mean that differences across categories or over time are often not statistically sig

we report on these changes when they provide useful information, even if they fail to meet conventional standards of statis

4Kirby, S. N., Naftel, S., Berends, M., & Sloan, J. S. (2002). 

Title I schools serving migrant students: Recent evidence from the Nationa

Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/OME/pubs.html) 5

Throughout this report, the term “significant” is used in the statistical sense to indicate that the difference between two estimates was sta

.05 level. 

Page 2 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000

–01
DATA 

The NLSS was based on a nationally representative sample of Title I schools in SY 1998–99. Schools serving significan

students, Native American students, or students with limited English proficiency, and schools that had been identified as 

were over-sampled.6 Designed and conducted by Westat, the principal and teacher surveys of the NLSS were first 

schools that remained in Title I status were followed for the next two years through 2000–01.7

The total sample size for the NLSS was 1,507 schools. The number of schools responding in 1998–99 was 1,081, in 199901, 967. In schools that provided teacher rosters, up to six teachers were sampled in each school: a Title I teacher (wher

teachers, and reading, language arts, or English teachers.8 The total number of teachers completing the survey was ov

the survey. Sample Size of Title I Schools with Migrant Students in the NLSS, 1998–99 and 2000–01 Table 1 presents the sample sizes of Title I schools in the NLSS by school level and migrant status: Title I schools w

students (high-migrant schools); Title I schools with 1–14 migrant students (low-migrant schools); and Title I schools w

Migrant status is based on principal reports about the number of migrant students in the school in each year. 

Of the 1,507 schools in the sample, a total of 806 schools responded in both 1998–99 and 2000–01. The majority of s

same classification across the years, with the most movement occurring among schools originally classified as low-migr

one of the other two categories. A total of 159 schools that had failed to respond in 1998–99 responded in 2000–01. Ab

were schools with no migrant students; the remaining were evenly divided between the other two categories. 

6Sample weights were adjusted for over-sampling of schools, nonresponse, and overlap with other studies that examined Title I schools. 7Schools were determined to be ineligible for inclusion in the study if they were no longer classified as a Title I school at the time of the s

screener was not completed; or for other reasons such as school closures, mergers, or changes in the grade levels served. The design include refreshing the sample in subsequent years as schools moved in and out of Title I status. 8The sample of teachers was independently chosen in Year 2 and Year 3; thus, there was no longitudinal sample of teachers. 

Page 3 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Table 1. Title I Schools in the NLSS, by Migrant Status and School Level, Unweighted, 1998–99 and 

Migrant status 

School level 

Title I schools with 

15+ migrant students 

Title I schools with 

1–14 migrant students 

Title I schools wit

no migrant studen

1998–99 

Elementary schools 99 130 600 Secondary schools 56 34 147 Total 155 164 747

2000–01 

Elementary schools 99 111 539 Secondary schools 50 33 133 Total 149 144 672

Exhibit reads: The unweighted sample size for Title I elementary schools with 15 or more migrant students in 1998–99 was 99 scho

Note: Data on number of migrant students were missing for 15 of the 1,081 schools in 1998–99 and for two of the 967 scho

Source: NLSS, Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01. 

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY There are several important caveats that should be kept in mind when interpreting findings from the NLSS in general and a

particular. First, because schools move in and out of Title I eligibility status, the samples of schools in 1999–2000 representative of the 1998–99 population of Title I schools that remained eligible in those years, and not of the popula1999–2000 or 2000–01. As a result, the distribution by migrant status is not nationally representative in the latter two yearSecond, it is important to keep in mind that the analyses reported here are based on survey data, which rely on responden

Third, an important limitation of the study arises from the fact that the NLSS is a snapshot in time. As a result, the classific

error if there were changes in the number of migrant students over time. Further, other studies have found that identificatio

a problem, so counts of migrant students are subject to error. An additional potential limitation of using the number of 

threshold, rather than percentages, is that larger schools are much more likely to be classified as high-migrant schools. 

Fourth, as is clear from Table 1, sample sizes for secondary schools with migrant students are quite small. As a resulthere for secondary schools have large standard errors, making these estimates imprecise. Often, the findings regarding be viewed as suggestive rather than statistically meaningful. 

Page 4 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Fifth, several of the differences we report here are similar to differences we find between Title I low-poverty (defined as 

35 percent of their students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program) and highest-poverty schools (defined as 

or more of their students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program). Small sample sizes make it difficult to d

which poverty and migrant status contributed independently to the differences reported here. 

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS Title I School: School receiving Title I funds. School Poverty Level: Measured by the percentage of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program. 

as follows, based on the percentage of students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program: “highest-poverpoverty” (≥50 percent); “low-to-medium poverty” (35–49.9 percent); and “low-poverty” (<35 percent). 

Percentage Minority Students: Measured by the percentage of students who were classified as other than “white, non

categorized as follows, based on the percentage of minority students: “highest-minority” (≥75 percent); “high-minority” 

medium minority” (25–49.9 percent); and “low-minority” (<25 percent). Schoolwide Schools: Schoolwide programs allow high-poverty (≥50 percent) schools to use Title I money in combinstate, and local funds, to improve the entire educational program for all their students (rather than just targeted Title I stud

not meet the eligibility criteria can sometimes get a waiver to operate schoolwide programs. Targeted Assistance Schools: Targeted assistance programs use Title I funds to provide services to students identified 

of failing to meet a state’s content and student performance standards. Significant: The term is used in the statistical sense to indicate that the difference between the estimates being com

significant at the 0.05 level. 

NOTES • The exhibits report weighted estimates. • Each exhibit is accompanied by an “Exhibit reads” below the graph or table. This is not intended to highlight the key po

statistically significant findings, but simply to illustrate how to read the first few data points on the exhibit. 

• The text in the main body of the exhibit discusses key points and where appropriate, the statistical significance of the f

• The exhibits report estimates that have been rounded. As a result, numbers may not total 100 percent. 

9As mentioned, the 2001 legislation expanded eligibility for operating schoolwide programs from schools with 50 percent or more of their 

free and reduced-price lunch program to schools with 40 percent or more of their students eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch pr

Page 5 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We thank Susan Sanchez and Daphne Hardcastle, the former and current Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) fo

Gutmann of Westat, the Project Director of the NLSS, for their support of this study. We thank Francisco Garcia and 

interest in this project and Stephanie Stullich and Beth Franklin for useful comments on earlier versions of this report. following RAND colleagues for their assistance with this report: Paul Arends, our editor, Heather Barney, our reseaBloodsworth, our graphics artist, and Carolyn Rowe, our administrative assistant. Most of all, we thank the teachers, principals, and staff in the studied schools who gave of their time to participate in the su

Page 6 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
KEY FINDINGS

• In 2000–01, 24 percent of Title I schools served migrant students. Ten percent of Title I schools were high-migran

more migrant students, and 14 percent were low-migrant schools, serving 1–14 migrant students. 

• Compared with Title I schools with no migrant students, Title I schools with migrant students had higher student po

higher proportions of minority students and students with limited English proficiency. 

• Compared with principals in Title I schools with no migrant students, principals in Title I high-migrant schools were mor

• Offering programs to extend the learning time of students (such as before- and after-school instructional 

school-year programs); 

• Employing higher percentages of inexperienced teachers, but also higher percentages of teachers certified or 

English as a Second Language (ESL) or English Language Development (ELD); 

• Having a higher percentage of students who were not prepared to work at the next grade level; and • Perceiving diversity of student populations and lack of English language proficiency as barriers to using co

students. 

• Principals in Title I schools with migrant students reported that about 90 percent of migrant students at both the ele

level participated in state or district assessments in 2000–01. The participation rate of migrant students in assessme

time. 

• In 2000–01, only 40 percent of low-migrant schools and 50 percent of high-migrant schools received assessment r

migrant status of students. 

• Less than 30 percent of teachers who taught migrant students in Title I schools with migrant students reported 

development in instructional strategies to teach migrant students, although most of the teachers who did not redevelopment desired it. 

• Title I schools with migrant students appeared to be making greater efforts to involve parents both at school and a

Title I schools with no migrant students. These parent involvement strategies included parent training and litera

translations of school documents into other languages, and sending home activities in reading and mathematics for pa

students. 

Page 7 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 1 Profile of Title I Schools 

Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01. 

In 2000–01, 10 percent of Title I schools were high-migrant schools, sestudents, 14 percent were low-migrant schools, serving 1–14 migrant shad no migrant students. This was similar to the distribution of scho1998–99. In Title I high-migrant schools, migrant students numbeaccounted for about 15 percent of total enrollment on average (range wand 73 percent). On average, Title I low-migrant schools served about migrant students accounted for 2.5 percent of enrollment in these schoopercent and 33 percent). Percentage of Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School, 2000–

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools

10 14

Schools with 1–14

migrant students

Schools with 15

migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: Ten percent of Title I schools were high-migrant schools, serving 15 

Page 8 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 2 Profile of Title I Schools 

School Poverty Level SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01. 

Title I schools with migrant students tended to be much poorer than Title students. About 72 percent of Title I high-migrant schools were hi50 percent or more of their students eligible for the free and reduccompared with 55 percent of Title I low-migrant schools and 51 percent migrant students. Indeed, 40 percent of high-migrant schools were category, with 75 percent or more of students eligible for the free program, compared with 21 percent of Title I schools with no migrant schools appeared to have become poorer over time. For example, 40 were in the highest-poverty category in 2000–01, compared with 31 percthe change was not statistically significant. School Poverty Level: Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of Scho

0

204060

100

80

Percentage of schools

23

5

3240

18282332

16343021

Schools with 1–14

migrant students

Schools with no

migrant students

Schools with 15

migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: About 40 percent of Title I high-migrant schools were in the highest-with 32 percent of Title I low-migrant schools and 21 percent of Title I schools with n

Page 9 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 3 Profile of Title I Schools 

Percentage Minority Students SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Schools with migrant students served disproportionately high numbers 2000–01, 71 percent of high-migrant schools were high-minority populations with 50 percent or more minority students, compared with migrant schools and 27 percent of Title I schools with no migrant s66 percent of Title I high-migrant schools were both high-poverty ancompared with 39 percent of Title I low-migrant schools and 24 percent migrant students. Percentage Minority Students: Title I Schools Categorized by Migrant Status 

0

204060

100

80

Percentage of schools

19101655

16371432

1657

9

18

Schools with 1–14

migrant students

Schools with no

migrant students

Schools with 15

migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: About 55 percent of Title I high-migrant schools were in the highest-with 32 percent of Title I low-migrant schools and 18 percent of Title I schools with n

Page 10 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 4 Profile of Title I Schools 

Percentage of Schools Serving Students with Limited English ProficiencySOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Many migrant students also have limited English proficiency, so it is nschools served a higher proportion of students with limited English prowith no migrant students. Over one-third (35 percent) of high-migranpopulations in which 50 percent or more of students had limited Engliswith 9 percent of low-migrant schools and 2 percent of schools with no half (54 percent) of the Title I high-migrant schools served student popumore of students with limited English proficiency, compared with 21 pmigrant schools and 7 percent of the Title I schools with no migrant studePercentage of Schools Serving Students with Limited English Proficiency: Tby Migrant Status of School, 2000–01 

50–10025–491–240Percentage of studentswith limited Englishproficiency

9

124535

Title I schools

with 1–14 migrant

students 

351941

5

Title I schools

with 15 migrant

students 

–

>

Exhibit reads: Thirty-five percent of high-migrant schools served student populatioof the students had limited English proficiency, compared with 9 percent of lowpercent of schools with no migrant students. 

Page 11 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 5 Profile of Title I Schools 

Student Readiness for the Next Grade and Promotion Rates SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01. 

While principals in Title I high-migrant schools reported that 22 percent of 34 percent of secondary students were not prepared to work at the next schools with no or low numbers of migrant students reported that 16–19 were not ready for the next grade at both the elementary and secondawas statistically significant in the case of elementary schools. In spite students in high-migrant elementary schools and 4 percent of students ischools were not promoted to the next grade level. Principal Reports About Percentage of Students Not Prepared to Work at the Percentage Not Promoted: Title I Schools Categorized by School Level and 2000–01 

0

1020304050

Percentage of students 16

5 4

17

4

34

4

18

22

Elementary schools Secondar

Not prepared to do work at next grade levelNot promoted to next grade level

1–14 migrant

students

No migrant

students

 15 migrant

students

–

> 1–14 m

stud

 15 migrant

students

–

>

Exhibit reads: Among Title I elementary schools, principals in high-migrant schools students were not prepared to work at the next grade level, compared with 16 percprincipals in low-migrant schools and 17 percent of students reported by principals students. 

Page 12 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 6 Profile of Title I Schools 

Selected Teacher Characteristics SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01; NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01.

Principals in Title I high-migrant schools reported higher percentages o(defined as those with less than three years of experience) than did prinor low numbers of migrant students. For example, in Title I high-migabout 17 percent of teachers were inexperienced, compared with 11 schools with no or low numbers of migrant students, and this difsignificant. The difference at the secondary level (19 percent versstatistically significant (not shown). Teachers in high-migrant schools were significantly more likely to hcertification in English as a Second Language (ESL) or English LanguFor example, about 44 percent of elementary teachers in high-migrant had an endorsement in these fields, compared with 27 percent of elemewith no migrant students. The corresponding numbers for secondary s49 and 19 percent. Selected Teacher Characteristics: Title I Elementary Schools Categorized by 2000–01 

Percentage ofteachers with:Less than three yearsof experienceESL or ELD certificationor endorsement

Title I schools

with 1–14 migrant

students 

1131

–

>

1744

Title I schools

with 15 migrant

students 

Exhibit reads: Among Title I elementary schools, principals in high-migrant schools their teachers had less than three years of experience, compared with 11 percent rmigrant schools or schools with no migrant students. 

Page 13 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 7 Profile of Title I Schools 

Prevalence of Schoolwide Programs SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01.

Title I schoolwide programs allow schools to use Title I funds for all studthan targeting Title I funds solely to Title I students. In 2000–01, 64 percschools operated schoolwide programs, as did 69 percent of low-mig57 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students. The use of scsignificantly over time among high-migrant schools and schools with no mPercentage of Schools Adopting Schoolwide Programs: Title I Schools Cateof School, 1998–99 and 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools 57 72 

69 64

Schools with 1–14

migrant students

Schools with 15

migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: The percentage of Title I high-migrant schools operating schoolwide 57 percent in 1998–99 to 64 percent in 2000–01. 

Page 14 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 8 

Barriers to Using Content Standards with All Students NOTE: Questions asked of principals who reported that their school used content standards. SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01; NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Principals of high-migrant elementary schools reported lack of Englidiversity of student populations, and lack of parent support as important standards with all students. The differences in reports between high-migwith no migrant students with respect to diversity of student populatilanguage proficiency were statistically significant. Among secondary schEnglish language proficiency was mentioned as a barrier “to a great principals of high-migrant schools, compared with 6 percent of princmigrant students. On a related item on the teacher survey, teachers in high-migrant schooto report lack of basic skills, lack of student motivation, and high studpreventing all students from achieving at high levels, compared with teamigrant students. Percentage of Principals Reporting Perceived Barriers “to a Great Extent” in with All Students: Title I Elementary Schools Categorized by Migrant Status 

0

1020304050

Percentage of elementary school principals

reporting "to a great extent"

5

13

32

7

9

26

15 15

27

Lack of English

language

proficiency

Diversity of

student

populations

Lack of parent

support

Schools with 15 migrant studentsSchools with 1–14 migrant studentsSchools with no migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: Among Title I elementary schools, about 32 percent of principals in hreported that lack of English language proficiency was a barrier “to a great extent” iwith all students, compared with 13 percent of principals in low-migrant schools and schools with no migrant students. 

Page 15 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 9 

Participation of Migrant Students in State Assessments NOTE: Questions were asked of principals who reported that their school participated in the state or district assessment. SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01. 

Principals were asked about the participation of migrant students in thethe grade levels tested) in the previous year. According to principals, students in elementary schools with migrant students participated in ththe percentage varied much more in secondary schools, depending on school—84 percent in high-migrant schools and 54 percent in low-mstudent participation in the 1999–2000 assessments was significantlelementary schools (90 percent) and in low-migrant secondary schools with participation in the 1997–98 assessments. Percentage of Migrant Students Participating in State Assessments: Title I SSchool Level and Migrant Status of School, 1997–98 to 1999–2000 

0

204060

100

80

Percentage of migrant students participating

in the state assessment 75 68 84 87 

82

90

SY 1997–98SY 1999–2000

Elementary schools Seconda

1–14 migrant

students

 15 migrant

students

–

> 

 15 migrant

students

–

>

Exhibit reads: The percentage of migrant students participating in the stahigh-migrant elementary schools increased over time, from 75 percent in 1999–2000.

Page 16 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 10 

Reporting of Disaggregated Assessment ResultsNOTE: Questions were asked of principals who reported that their school participated in the state or district assessment. Questions regarding migrant status and limited English proficiency status were asked only of principals in schools with migrant students or more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency in 1998–99 or any students with limited English proficiency in later years. For comparability, data shown are for schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency.SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01. 

States were required to provide state assessment data that were disagstudent subgroups in all schools, if the data were statistically sound and fplace. However, states were not required to have final assessments in many states were using transitional assessments at the time of this sthigh-migrant elementary schools and 37 percent of low-migrant elemresults disaggregated by migrant status. The comparable numbers for 42 and 46 percent. Title I high-migrant elementary schools were somewhat more likely to redisaggregated by race-ethnicity, Title I participation, and poverty statusthat had no migrant students. Similar differences existed with respect to differences were significant with respect to Title I participation and poelementary and secondary levels. Percentage of Schools Receiving Assessment Results Summarized by SubElementary Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of elementary schools 56 55 69 61 66 69 38 46 61 34 58 54 

37

N/A

50

Migrant

students

Raceethnicity Gender Title I students Low-income students 

w

p

Schools with 15 migrant studentsSchools with 1–14 migrant studentsSchools with no migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: In 2000–01, 50 percent of Title I high-migrant elementary schools anmigrant elementary schools received assessment results disaggregated by migran

Page 17 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 11 P

Programs to Extend the Learning Time of Students SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Before- or after-school programs and summer programs were relatively schools, while extended school-year programs or weekend programprevalent. Overall, about 95 percent of high-migrant schools offered extend the learning time of students, compared with 84 percent of students, and the difference was statistically significant. At the elementary level, schools with migrant students were more likely year or weekend programs than schools with no migrant students. secondary schools were significantly more likely to offer extended leabefore- or after-school programs and summer or intersession programswith no migrant students. For example, 95–99 percent of high-migranbefore- or after-school programs or summer or intersession programs, c(before- or after-school programs) and 62 percent (summer or intersesswith no migrant students. Prevalence of Programs to Extend Instructional Time: Title I Schools CategoMigrant Status of School, 2000–01 

Percentage of scho

Elementary schools

Before- or after-school instructionalprogramSummer or intersession programExtended school-year programWeekend program

Secondary schools

Before- or after-school instructionalprogramSummer or intersession programExtended school-year programWeekend program

–

>

Title I schools

with 15 migrant

students 

737229

8

99951232

Title I schools

with 1–14 migra

students 

62752310846739

9

Exhibit reads: At the elementary level, 73 percent of Title I high-migrant schools offinstructional programs, as did 62 percent of low-migrant schools and 65 percent of students. 

Page 18 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 12 P

Programs for Non-Native English Speakers NOTE: Questions were asked of principals in schools with more than 10 percent of students with limited English proficiency.SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01. 

In 2000–01, 94 percent of elementary schools and 78 percent of secservices that were designed to teach English language skills to studproficiency. Eighty-nine percent of high-migrant elementary schools pro52 percent funded them through Title I. Almost all high-migrant secondprovided such services, compared with 61 percent of schools with no mdifference was statistically significant. Most of the high-migrant seconfunds for this purpose. About 55 percent of elementary schools and 47 percent of secondary schstudents’ native languages, such as bilingual education to teach content awas no significant difference by migrant status. Percentage of Schools Offering Services to Teach English to Students with Proficiency, by Whether Services Were Funded by Title I: Title I Schools Catand Migrant Status of Schools, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools

FundFund

375289

405393

5840

98

1188

99

2332

5

Elementary schools Secondar

1–14 migrant

students

No migrant

students

 15 migrant

students

–

> 1–14 m

stud

 15 migrant

students

–

>

Exhibit reads: Eighty-nine percent of Title I high-migrant elementary schools offered students with limited English proficiency, and 52 percent funded these services thro

Page 19 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 13 P

Settings in Which Additional Instructional Services Were ProvidedNOTE: Questions asked of classroom teachers who reported having students who received additional instructional services. Data shown are as a percentage of all elementary teachers. Although the exhibit refers to “additional instructional services,” students receiving these services, particularly in pullout settings, may be missing part of their regular instruction. SOURCE: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Teachers were asked whether any of their students received additionareading or mathematics, and if so, in what setting students received this i87 percent of teachers in elementary and secondary schools reported thadditional instructional services in class, in a pullout setting, and/or thtime, such as a before- or after-school instructional program. Despite tESEA reauthorization on minimizing pullout programs, additional instructmore likely to be provided in a pullout setting than in an in-class setting aFor example, 64–72 percent of elementary teachers reported that these pullout settings, compared with 41–53 percent who reported that their stuservices in class. However, about 34 percent of elementary teacherreceived additional services in both pullout and in-class settings, and students received services in all three settings. Compared with teachers in elementary schools with no migrant studentselementary schools were significantly more likely to report that serviceextended learning time programs (52 percent versus 39 percent). The secondary school teachers. Reports of Classroom Teachers of How Additional Instructional Services WeElementary Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of the School, 2000–01 

In classIn a pullout settingThrough extended learning time,such as a before- or after-schoolinstructional program

–

>

Elementary schools

with 15 migrant

students 

417252

Percentage

Elementary sch

with 1–14 mig

students 

537141

Exhibit reads: In Title I high-migrant elementary schools, 41 percent of teachers reinstructional services were provided in class, 72 percent in a pullout setting, and 52 extended learning time program.

Page 20 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 14 P

Use of Teacher Aides to Provide Additional Instructional ServicesNOTE: Questions about teacher aides were only asked of principals who reported having teacher aides in the school. Data shown are as a percentage of all Title I schools. Although the exhibit refers to “additional instructional services,” students receiving these services, particularly in pullout settings, may be missing part of their regular instruction. SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Overall, 47 percent of principals in all Title I schools reported using additional instruction in reading. About 31 percent of elementary 45 percent of secondary school principals reported using teacher aidinstruction in mathematics. High-migrant elementary schools were somteacher aides to provide additional instruction in reading and mathemamigrant students, but the differences were not statistically significant. At tmigrant schools were more likely to use teacher aides for additional inschools with no migrant students (86 percent versus 40 percent) amathematics instruction (59 percent versus 40 percent). Only the dreading was statistically significant. Percentage of Schools Using Teacher Aides to Provide Additional Instructioand Mathematics: Title I Schools Categorized by School Level and Migrant S

0

20406080

100

Percentage of schools 52 35 42 45 29

86

59

30

59

ReadingMathematics

Elementary schools Secondar

1–14 migrant

students

No migrant

students

 15 migrant

students

–

> 1–14 m

stud

 15 migrant

students

–

>

Exhibit reads: Fifty-nine percent of Title I high-migrant elementary schools used teaadditional instruction in reading, and 42 percent used teacher aides to provide addimathematics. 

Page 21 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 15 Pare

Strategies to Increase Parent Involvement in Student Learning SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01.

High-migrant elementary schools were significantly more likely than students to offer training for parents (77 percent versus 52 percent) and improve communication between school and home (74 percent versus 5elementary schools were significantly more likely to have a family liteschools (55 percent versus 34 percent). Almost all principals (99 percenreported that their school translated school documents into languageparents with limited English proficiency, compared with 67 percent of prinmigrant students. The percentage of principals who reported translatisignificantly between 1998–99 and 2000–01 across all migrant statulevels. Percentage of Schools Using Selected Parent Involvement Strategies: Title Categorized by Migrant Status of School, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of elementary schools 52 77 76 51 61 74 34 55 34 

Training for parents A parent liaison A family literacy

program

Schools with 15 migrant studentsSchools with 1–14 migrant studentsSchools with no migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: At the elementary level, 77 percent of Title I high-migrant schools anmigrant schools offered training for parents, compared with 52 percent of Title I schstudents. 

Page 22 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 16 P

Professional Development to Meet the Needs of Migrant Students NOTE: Questions were asked only of teachers who reported teaching migrant students and receiving anyprofessional development in the past 12 months. SOURCE: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01.

Overall, about 23 percent of teachers who reported teaching migrant stuprofessional development to meet the needs of these students. Teacherwere somewhat more likely to report such professional developmenteachers in low-migrant schools (29 percent versus 19 percent at th19 percent versus 14 percent at the secondary level). However, thesignificant. A large proportion of teachers who taught migrant stuprofessional development to teach migrant students. For example, halmigrant elementary schools and 71 percent of teachers in low-migrant taught migrant students reported wanting but not receiving such professcorresponding numbers at the secondary level were 64 percent and 45 peTeacher Reports Regarding Receipt of Professional Development for MeetinStudents: Title I Schools Categorized by School Level and Migrant Status of 

0

204060

100

80

Percentage of teachers

295021

197110

196417

Did not receive and did not want the professional deveWanted the professional development but did not receiReceived the professional development

Elementary schools Seconda

1–14 migrant

students

 15 migrant

students

–

> 

 15 migrant

students

–

>

Exhibit reads: About 29 percent of teachers who reported teaching migrant studenelementary schools received professional development to meet the needs of migrareported wanting this type of professional development and not receiving it; and 21 had neither received nor wanted such professional development. 

Page 23 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 17 P

Relationship Between Professional Development and Teacher Preparedness CAVEAT: The analyses reported here rely on respondents’ self-reports and may reflect socially desirable responses. The findings focus on comparisons among variables of interest and are not meant to suggest causality.NOTE: Questions were asked only of teachers who reported teaching migrant students and receiving anyprofessional development in the past 12 months. SOURCE: NLSS Teacher Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Teachers who received professional development to address the needs significantly more likely to report feeling “very well prepared” to do so. Foteachers in schools with migrant students who received professional devthe needs of migrant students reported feeling “very well prepared” t24 percent of teachers who had not received such professional develo10 percent of teachers who had received such professional development all prepared” to address the needs of migrant students, compared with 35 had not received such professional development. Teacher Reports Regarding Their Level of Preparedness to Meet the Needs Receipt of Professional Development to Meet the Needs of Migrant StudentsMigrant Students, 2000–01 

0

20406080

100

Percentage of teachers 56 34

9

25

40

24

Very well prepared Moderately prepared Somewhat prepared 

Teachers who received professional developmeTeachers who did not receive professional deve

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent of teachers who received professional developmenmigrant students reported feeling “very well prepared” to do so, compared with 24 pnot received this type of professional development. 

Page 24 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 18 Schools Identified as In Need of I

Schools Identified as In Need of Improvement Under Title I SOURCE: NLSS District Screener, SY 1998–99 and SY 2000–01.

The 1994 reauthorization of ESEA required states to identify schools (amake adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years as in need of iOverall, in 2000–01, about 17 percent of all Title I schools had been idenneed of improvement under Title I. The percentage was much higher 33 percent of which had been identified for improvement. The correspmigrant schools and schools with no migrant students were 14 prespectively. The percentage of high-migrant schools identified for impsharply over time, from 16 percent in 1998–99 to 33 percent in 2000–01. Many principals were confused about the school identification and imexample, among schools identified as in need of improvement, only agreed with the district that their school had been identified as in neeTitle I. Such levels of disagreement were found in both migrant and non-Percentage of Schools Identified by the District as In Need of Improvement USchools Categorized by Migrant Status of School, 2000–01 

0

1020304050

Percentage of schools 17 33 14 

All Title I schools Schools with 1–14

migrant students

Schools with 15

migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: Seventeen percent of all Title I schools were identified by the district under Title I, compared with 33 percent of Title I high-migrant schools, 14 percent oand 17 percent of Title I schools with no migrant students. 

Page 25 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 19 Comprehensi

Adoption of Comprehensive School Reform Models SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01. 

In 2000–01, about 62 percent of Title I schools had adopted compmodels. High-migrant elementary schools were less likely to adopt sclow-migrant elementary schools or elementary schools with no migraversus 69 percent). However, this difference was not significant. Of the schools that had adopted a model and had been identified as under Title I, over 60 percent of elementary school principals reportadopted a model because the school had been identified as in neepercentage was somewhat higher in high-migrant schools than in sstudents (78 percent versus 58 percent). However, this difference was noPercentage of Schools That Adopted Comprehensive School Reform Elementary Schools Categorized by Migrant Status of School, 2000–

0

20406080

100

Percentage of elementary schools 56 69 

Schools with 1–14

migrant students

Schools with 15

migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent of Title I high-migrant elementary schools had adopreform model, compared with 69 percent of low-migrant elementary schools or elemigrant students. 

Page 26 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01
Exhibit 20 Comprehensi

Difficulty Implementing Comprehensive School Reform Models SOURCE: NLSS Principal Survey, SY 2000–01. 

Among all Title I schools that adopted comprehensive school reform mprincipals were significantly more likely than elementary school princdifficult to implement the model “to a moderate extent” or “to a great e20 percent). At the elementary level, 28 percent of principals in high-migit was difficult to implement the model “to a moderate extent” or “to a gre19 percent of principals in elementary schools with no migrant students. more pronounced at the secondary level, where 73 percent of principalreported difficulty in implementation, compared with 40 percent of prinmigrant students. However, none of these differences was statistically sigPrincipal Reports Regarding Difficulty in Implementing the Model “to a ModeExtent:” Title I Schools Categorized by School Level and Migrant Status of S

0

20406080

100

Percentage of principals reporting "to a

moderate extent" or "to a great extent" 28 19 73 

Elementary schools Seconda

Schools with 15 migrant studentsSchools with no migrant students

–

>

Exhibit reads: Twenty-eight percent of principals in Title I high-migrant elementary comprehensive school reform model adopted by the school was difficult to implem“to a great extent,” compared with 19 percent of principals in Title I schools with no 

Page 27 | A Snapshot of Title I Schools Serving Migrant Students, 2000–01