Study of the Implementation of the 

ESEA Title I – Part C 

Migrant Education Program 

Volume II: Technical Appendices 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Prepared by: 

Policy Studies Associates 

Leslie M. Anderson 

Julie Meredith 

SRI International 

Rebecca Schmidt 

Jaunelle Pratt-Williams 

Deborah Jonas 

Arroyo Research Services 

Kirk Vandersall 

2019 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. GS-10F-0554N/BPA Order ED-PEP-16-

A-0005/TO01 with SRI International. Joanne Bogart and Victoria Hammer served as the contracting officer’s 

representatives. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the 

Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, 

commodity, service, or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s 

convenience, this publication contains information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and 

URLs. Inclusion of such information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Betsy DeVos 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

James Blew 

Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Greg Fortelny 

Director 

August 2019 

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 Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Washington, D.C., 2018. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

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

Availability of Alternate Formats 

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the Alternate 

Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons 

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for Department 

information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you 

need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-

5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of 

Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 

20202. 

Content Contact: 

Joanne Bogart 

Phone: 202-205-7855 

Email: Joanne.Bogart@ed.gov 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

Contents......................................................................................................................................................... i 

Appendix A. Statutory Provisions for the Migrant Education Program........................................................ 1 

Appendix B. A Brief History of the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)..................................... 9 

Appendix C. State MEP Director Survey Instrument................................................................................... 10 

Migrant Education Program (MEP) Background and Context.............................................................. 10 

Migratory Student Identification and Recruitment (ID&R).................................................................. 10 

Priority for Service (PFS)....................................................................................................................... 13 

MEP-funded Services and Supports ..................................................................................................... 14 

Coordination and Collaboration........................................................................................................... 21 

Other OME-funded Programs .............................................................................................................. 25 

Data Use and Decision Making............................................................................................................. 26 

Appendix D. Regional/Local MEP Coordinator Survey Instrument............................................................. 30 

Migrant Education Program Background and Context ........................................................................ 30 

Migratory Student Identification and Recruitment (ID&R).................................................................. 31 

Priority for Service (PFS)....................................................................................................................... 34 

MEP-funded Services and Supports ..................................................................................................... 35 

Coordination and Collaboration........................................................................................................... 46 

Other OME-funded Programs .............................................................................................................. 50 

Data Use and Decision Making............................................................................................................. 54 

Appendix E. State MEP Director Interview Guide....................................................................................... 56 

Introduction to the Interview............................................................................................................... 56 

Interview Questions ............................................................................................................................. 57 

Program Staffing and Administration................................................................................................... 57 

Migrant Student Needs ........................................................................................................................ 58 

Identification and Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 59 

MEP-funded Services and Supports ..................................................................................................... 60 

Services Specific to PFS .................................................................................................................. 61 

Services Specific to Out-of-School Youth (OSY) ............................................................................. 62 

Services Supporting High School Completion, Postsecondary Education, and Workforce/Career 

Readiness................................................................................................................................. 62 

Coordination and Collaboration........................................................................................................... 62 

Accountability and Data Use ................................................................................................................ 63 

Technical Assistance, Monitoring, and Accountability .................................................................. 63 

Data Collection and Use................................................................................................................. 64 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Agricultural Workers and Fishers i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F. Regional/Local MEP Coordinator Interview Guide ................................................................. 66 

Introduction to the Interview............................................................................................................... 66 

Interview Questions ............................................................................................................................. 66 

Program Staffing and Administration................................................................................................... 67 

Migrant Student Needs ........................................................................................................................ 68 

Identification and Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 69 

MEP-funded Services and Activities ..................................................................................................... 70 

Services Specific to PFS .................................................................................................................. 72 

Services Specific to Out-of-School Youth (OSY) ............................................................................. 72 

Services Supporting High School Completion, Postsecondary Education, and Workforce/Career 

Readiness................................................................................................................................. 72 

Coordination and Collaboration........................................................................................................... 73 

Accountability and Data Use ................................................................................................................ 74 

Technical Assistance, Monitoring, and Accountability .................................................................. 74 

Data Collection and Use................................................................................................................. 75 

Appendix G. Supporting Data for Exhibits .................................................................................................. 76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A. Statutory Provisions for the Migrant 

Education Program 

PART C—EDUCATION OF MIGRATORY CHILDREN 

SEC. 1301. ø20 U.S.C. 6391¿ PROGRAM PURPOSES. 

The purposes of this part are as follows: 

(1) To assist States in supporting high-quality and 

comprehensive educational programs and services during the school 

year and, as applicable, during summer or intersession periods, that 

address the unique educational needs of migratory children. 

(2) To ensure that migratory children who move among the States 

are not penalized in any manner by disparities among the States in 

curriculum, graduation requirements, and challenging State academic 

standards. 

(3) To ensure that migratory children receive full and appropriate 

opportunities to meet the same challenging State academic standards 

that all children are expected to meet. 

(4) To help migratory children overcome educational disruption, 

cultural and language barriers, social isolation, various health-related 

problems, and other factors that inhibit the ability of such children to 

succeed in school. 

(5) To help migratory children benefit from State and local 

systemic reforms. 

SEC. 1302. ø20 U.S.C. 6392¿ PROGRAM AUTHORIZED. 

In order to carry out the purpose of this part, the Secretary shall make grants to 

State educational agencies, or combinations of such agencies, to establish or 

improve, directly or through local operating agencies, programs of education for 

migratory children in accordance with this part. 

SEC. 1303. ø20 U.S.C. 6393¿ STATE ALLOCATIONS. 

(a) STATE ALLOCATIONS.—Except as provided in subsection (c), each State (other than the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) is entitled to receive 

under this part an amount equal to the product of— (1) the sum of— 

(A) the average number of identified eligible migratory 

children aged 3 through 21 residing in the State, based on data 

for the preceding 3 years; and 

(B) the number of identified eligible migratory children, aged 

3 through 21, who received services under this part in summer or 

intersession programs provided by the State during the previous 

year; multiplied by (2) 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in the State, 

except that the amount determined under this para- graph shall not 

be less than 32 percent, nor more than 48 per- cent, of the average 

per-pupil expenditure in the United States. 

(b) HOLD HARMLESS.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), for each of fiscal 

years 2017 through 2019, no State shall receive less than 90 percent of 

the State’s allocation under this section for the pre- ceding fiscal year. (c) ALLOCATION TO PUERTO RICO.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—For each fiscal year, the grant that the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall be eligible to receive under this 

part shall be the amount determined by multiplying the number of 

children who would be counted under subsection (a)(1) if such 

subsection applied to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico by the 

product of— 

(A) the percentage that the average per-pupil expenditure in 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is of the lowest average perStudy of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pupil expenditure of any of the 50 States, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3); and 

(B) 32 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in the 

United States. 

(2) MINIMUM PERCENTAGE.—The percentage described in paragraph (1)(A) shall not be less than 85 percent. 

(3) LIMITATION.—If the application of paragraph (2) for any fiscal 

year would result in any of the 50 States or the District of Columbia 

receiving less under this part than it received under this part for the 

preceding fiscal year, then the percentage described in paragraph (1)(A) that is used for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for the fiscal 

year for which the determination is made shall be the greater of the 

percentage in paragraph (1)(A) for such fiscal year or the percentage 

used for the preceding fiscal year. (d) RATABLE REDUCTIONS; REALLOCATIONS.— (1) IN GENERAL.— 

(A) RATABLE REDUCTIONS.—If, after the Secretary re- serves 

funds under section 1308(c), the amount appropriated to carry out 

this part for any fiscal year is insufficient to pay in full the 

amounts for which all States are eligible, the Secretary shall 

ratably reduce each such amount. 

(B) REALLOCATION.—If additional funds become available for 

making such payments for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall 

allocate such funds to States in amounts that the Secretary 

determines will best carry out the purposes of this part. (2) SPECIAL RULE.— 

(A) FURTHER REDUCTIONS.—The Secretary shall further 

reduce the amount of any grant to a State under this part for any 

fiscal year if the Secretary determines, based on available 

information on the numbers and needs of migratory children in 

the State and the program proposed by the State to address such 

needs, that such amount exceeds the amount required under 

section 1304. 

(B) REALLOCATION.—The Secretary shall reallocate such 

excess funds to other States whose grants under this part would 

otherwise be insufficient to provide an appropriate level of 

services to migratory children, in such amounts as the Secretary 

determines are appropriate. (e) CONSORTIUM ARRANGEMENTS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a State that receives a grant of 

$1,000,000 or less under this section, the Secretary shall consult with 

the State educational agency to determine whether consortium 

arrangements with another State or other appropriate entity would 

result in delivery of services in a more effective and efficient 

manner. 

(2) PROPOSALS.—Any State, regardless of the amount of such 

State’s allocation, may submit a consortium arrangement to the 

Secretary for approval. 

(3) APPROVAL.—The Secretary shall approve a consortium 

arrangement under paragraph (1) or (2) if the proposal demonstrates 

that the arrangement will— (A) reduce administrative costs or program function costs for 

State programs; and 

(B) make more funds available for direct services to add 

substantially to the academic achievement of children to be served 

under this part. 

(f) DETERMINING NUMBERS OF ELIGIBLE CHILDREN.—In order to 

determine the identified number of migratory children residing in each 

State for purposes of this section, the Secretary shall— 

(1) use the most recent information that most accurately reflects 

the actual number of migratory children; 

(2) develop and implement a procedure for monitoring the 

accuracy of such information; 

(3) develop and implement a procedure for more accurately 

reflecting cost factors for different types of summer and inter- session 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

program designs; 

(4) adjust the number of migratory children who reside in each 

State to take into account— 

(A) the unique needs of those children participating in 

effective special programs provided under this part that operate 

during the summer and intersession periods; and (B) the additional costs of operating such programs; 

and 

(5) conduct an analysis of the options for adjusting the formula so 

as to better direct services to migratory children, including the most 

at-risk migratory children. 

(g) NONPARTICIPATING STATES.—In the case of a State desiring to 

receive an allocation under this part for a fiscal year that did not receive 

an allocation for the previous fiscal year or that has been participating for 

less than 3 consecutive years, the Secretary shall calculate the State’s 

number of identified migratory children aged 3 through 21 for purposes of

subsection (a)(1)(A) by using the most recent data available that identifies 

the migratory children residing in the State until data is available to 

calculate the 3-year average number of such children in accordance with 

such sub- section. 

SEC. 1304. ø20 U.S.C. 6394¿ STATE APPLICATIONS; SERVICES. 

(a) APPLICATION REQUIRED.—Any State desiring to receive a grant 

under this part for any fiscal year shall submit an application to the 

Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require. 

(b) PROGRAM INFORMATION.—Each such application shall include— 

(1) a description of how, in planning, implementing, and 

evaluating programs and projects assisted under this part, the State 

and its local operating agencies will ensure that the unique 

educational needs of migratory children, including preschool 

migratory children and migratory children who have dropped out of 

school, are identified and addressed through— 

(A) the full range of services that are available for migratory 

children from appropriate local, State, and Federal educational 

programs;

(B) joint planning among local, State, and Federal 

educational programs serving migratory children, including 

language instruction educational programs under part A of title 

III; 

(C) the integration of services available under this part with 

services provided by those other programs; and 

(D) measurable program objectives and outcomes; 

(2) a description of the steps the State is taking to provide all 

migratory students with the opportunity to meet the same challenging 

State academic standards that all children are expected to meet; 

(3) a description of how the State will use funds received under 

this part to promote interstate and intrastate coordination of services 

for migratory children, including how the State will provide for 

educational continuity through the timely transfer of pertinent school 

records, including information on health, when children move from 

one school to another, whether or not such move occurs during the 

regular school year; 

(4) a description of the State’s priorities for the use of funds 

received under this part, and how such priorities relate to the State’s 

assessment of needs for services in the State; 

(5) a description of how the State will determine the amount of 

any subgrants the State will award to local operating agencies, taking 

into account the numbers and needs of migratory children, the 

requirements of subsection (d), and the availability of funds from 

other Federal, State, and local programs; and 

(6) a description of how the State will encourage programs and 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

projects assisted under this part to offer family literacy services if the 

program or project serves a substantial number of migratory children 

whose parents do not have a high school diploma or its recognized 

equivalent or who have low levels of literacy. 

(c) ASSURANCES.—Each such application shall also include assurances 

that— 

(1) funds received under this part will be used only— 

(A) for programs and projects, including the acquisition of 

equipment, in accordance with section 1306; and 

(B) to coordinate such programs and projects with similar 

programs and projects within the State and in other States, as 

well as with other Federal programs that can benefit migratory 

children and their families; 

(2) such programs and projects will be carried out in a manner 

consistent with the objectives of section 1114, subsections (b) and (d) 

of section 1115, subsections (b) and (c) of section 1118, and part F; 

(3) in the planning and operation of programs and projects at 

both the State and local agency operating level, there is consultation 

with parents of migratory children, including parent advisory 

councils, for programs not less than 1 school year in duration, and 

that all such programs and projects are carried out— 

(A) in a manner that provides for the same parental 

involvement as is required for programs and projects under 

section 1116, unless extraordinary circumstances make such 

provision impractical; and 

(B) in a format and language understandable to the parents; 

(4) in planning and carrying out such programs and projects, 

there has been, and will be, adequate provision for addressing the 

unmet education needs of preschool migratory children and migratory 

children who have dropped out of school; 

(5) the effectiveness of such programs and projects will be 

determined, where feasible, using the same approaches and standards 

that will be used to assess the performance of students, schools, and 

local educational agencies under part A; 

(6) such programs and projects will provide for outreach activities 

for migratory children and their families to inform such children and 

families of other education, health, nutrition, and social services to 

help connect them to such services; 

(7) to the extent feasible, such programs and projects will provide 

for— 

(A) advocacy and other outreach activities for migratory 

children and their families, including helping such children and 

families gain access to other education health, nutrition, and 

social services; 

(B) professional development programs, including 

mentoring, for teachers and other program personnel; 

(C) family literacy programs; 

(D) the integration of information technology into educational 

and related programs; and 

(E) programs to facilitate the transition of secondary school 

students to postsecondary education or employment; and 

(8) the State will assist the Secretary in determining the number 

of migratory children under section 1303(a)(1). 

(d) PRIORITY FOR SERVICES.—In providing services with funds received 

under this part, each recipient of such funds shall give priority to 

migratory children who have made a qualifying move with- in the previous 

1-year period and who—

(1) are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the challenging 

State academic standards; or 

(2) have dropped out of school. 

(e) CONTINUATION OF SERVICES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this part—

(1) a child who ceases to be a migratory child during a school 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

term shall be eligible for services until the end of such term; 

(2) a child who is no longer a migratory child may continue to 

receive services for 1 additional school year, but only if comparable 

services are not available through other programs; and 

(3) students who were eligible for services in secondary school 

may continue to be served through credit accrual pro- grams until 

graduation. 

SEC. 1305. ø20 U.S.C. 6395¿ SECRETARIAL APPROVAL; PEER REVIEW. 

The Secretary shall approve each State application that meets the requirements 

of this part,and may review any such application with the assistance and advice 

of State officials and other officials with relevant expertise. 

SEC. 1306. ø20 U.S.C. 6396¿ COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND SERVICE- DELIVERY PLAN; AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES. 

(a) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State that receives assistance under this 

part shall ensure that the State and its local operating agencies 

identify and address the unique educational needs of migratory 

children in accordance with a comprehensive State plan that— 

(A) is integrated with other programs under this Act or other 

Acts, as appropriate; 

(B) may be submitted as a part of a consolidated application 

under section 8302, if— 

(i) the unique needs of migratory children are specifically 

addressed in the comprehensive State plan; (ii) the comprehensive State plan is developed in 

collaboration with parents of migratory children; and 

(iii) the comprehensive State plan is not used to supplant 

State efforts regarding, or administrative funding for, this 

part;

(C) provides that migratory children will have an opportunity 

to meet the same challenging State academic standards that all 

children are expected to meet; 

(D) specifies measurable program goals and outcomes; 

(E) encompasses the full range of services that are available 

for migratory children from appropriate local, State, and Federal 

educational programs; 

(F) is the product of joint planning among such local, State, 

and Federal programs, including programs under part A, early 

childhood programs, and language instruction educational 

programs under part A of title III; and 

(G) provides for the integration of services available under 

this part with services provided by such other pro- grams. 

(2) DURATION OF THE PLAN.—Each such comprehensive State plan 

shall— 

(A) remain in effect for the duration of the State’s 

participation under this part; and 

(B) be periodically reviewed and revised by the State, as 

necessary, to reflect changes in the State’s strategies and 

programs under this part. (b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.— 

(1) FLEXIBILITY.—In implementing the comprehensive plan 

described in subsection (a), each State educational agency, where 

applicable through its local educational agencies, retains the flexibility 

to determine the activities to be provided with funds made available 

under this part, except that such funds first shall be used to meet the 

identified needs of migratory children that result from their migratory 

lifestyle, and to permit these children to participate effectively in 

school. 

(2) UNADDRESSED NEEDS.—Funds provided under this part shall be 

used to address the needs of migratory children that are not addressed 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by services available from other Federal or non-Federal programs, 

except that migratory children who are eligible to receive services 

under part A may receive those services through funds provided under 

that part, or through funds under this part that remain after the 

agency addresses the needs described in paragraph (1). 

(3) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this part shall be construed to 

prohibit a local educational agency from serving migratory children 

simultaneously with students with similar educational needs in the 

same educational settings, where ap- propriate. 

(4) SPECIAL RULE.—Notwithstanding section 1114, a school that 

receives funds under this part shall continue to address the identified 

needs described in paragraph (1), and shall meet the unique 

educational needs of migratory children before using funds under this 

part for schoolwide programs under section 1114. 

SEC. 1307. ø20 U.S.C. 6397¿ BYPASS. 

The Secretary may use all or part of any State’s allocation under this part 

to make arrangements with any public or private agency to carry out the 

purpose of this part in such State if the Secretary determines that— 

(1) the State is unable or unwilling to conduct educational 

programs for migratory children; 

(2) such arrangements would result in more efficient and 

economic administration of such programs; or 

(3) such arrangements would add substantially to the educational 

achievement of such children. 

SEC. 1308. ø20 U.S.C. 6398¿ COORDINATION OF MIGRANT EDUCATION ACTIVITIES. 

(a) IMPROVEMENT OF COORDINATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the States, 

may make grants to, or enter into contracts with, State educational 

agencies, local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, 

and other public and private entities to improve the interstate and 

intrastate coordination among such agencies’ educational programs, 

including through the establishment or improvement of programs for 

credit accrual and exchange, available to migratory children. 

(2) DURATION.—Grants under this subsection may be awarded for 

not more than 5 years. (b) STUDENT RECORDS.— 

(1) ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary shall assist States in the electronic 

transfer of student records and in determining the number of 

migratory children in each State. 

(2) INFORMATION SYSTEM.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation with the 

States, shall ensure the linkage of migrant student record 

systems for the purpose of electronically exchanging, among the 

States, health and educational information regarding all 

migratory students eligible under this part. The Secretary shall 

ensure that such linkage occurs in a cost-effective manner, 

utilizing systems used by the States prior to, or developed after, 

the date of the enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

Such information may include— 

(i) immunization records and other health information; 

(ii) elementary and secondary academic history (including partial credit), credit accrual, and results from 

State assessments under section 1111(b)(2); 

(iii) other academic information essential to ensuring 

that migratory children achieve to the challenging State 

academic standards; and 

(iv) eligibility for services under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act. 

(B) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall maintain ongoing 

consultation with the States, local educational agencies, and other 

migratory student service providers on— 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(i) the effectiveness of the system described in 

subparagraph (A); and 

(ii) the ongoing improvement of such system. 

(C) NOTICE AND COMMENT.—After consulting with the States under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall publish a notice in 

the Federal Register seeking public comment on any new 

proposed data elements that each State receiving funds under 

this part shall be required to collect for purposes of electronic 

transfer of migratory student information and the requirements 

that States shall meet for immediate electronic access to such 

information. 

(3) NO COST FOR CERTAIN TRANSFERS.—A State educational agency 

or local educational agency receiving assistance under this part shall 

make student records available to another State educational agency or 

local educational agency that requests the records at no cost to the 

requesting agency, if the request is made in order to meet the needs 

of a migratory child. 

(c) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—For the purpose of carrying out this section 

in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall reserve not more than $10,000,000 of 

the amount appropriated to carry out this part for such year. 

(d) INCENTIVE GRANTS.—From the amounts made available to carry out 

this section for any fiscal year, the Secretary may reserve not more than 

$3,000,000 to award grants of not more than $250,000 on a competitive 

basis to State educational agencies that propose a consortium 

arrangement with another State or other ap- propriate entity that the 

Secretary determines, pursuant to criteria that the Secretary shall 

establish, will improve the delivery of serv- ices to migratory children 

whose education is interrupted. 

(e) DATA COLLECTION.—The Secretary shall direct the National Center 

for Education Statistics to collect data on migratory children. 

SEC. 1309. ø20 U.S.C. 6399¿ DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this part: 

(1) LOCAL OPERATING AGENCY.—The term ‘‘local operating agency’’ 

means— 

(A) a local educational agency to which a State educational 

agency makes a subgrant under this part; 

(B) a public or private agency with which a State educational 

agency or the Secretary makes an arrangement to carry out a 

project under this part; or 

(C) a State educational agency, if the State educational 

agency operates the State’s migrant education program or 

projects directly. 

(2) MIGRATORY AGRICULTURAL WORKER.—The term ‘‘migratory 

agricultural worker’’ means an individual who made a qualifying move 

in the preceding 36 months and, after doing so, engaged in new 

temporary or seasonal employment or personal subsistence in 

agriculture, which may be dairy work or the initial processing of raw 

agricultural products. If an individual did not engage in such new 

employment soon after a qualifying move, such individual may be 

considered a migratory agricultural worker if the individual actively 

sought such new employment and has a recent history of moves for 

temporary or seasonal agricultural employment. (3) MIGRATORY CHILD.—The term ‘‘migratory child’’ means a child 

or youth who made a qualifying move in the preceding 36 months— 

(A) as a migratory agricultural worker or a migratory fisher; 

or 

(B) with, or to join, a parent or spouse who is a migratory 

agricultural worker or a migratory fisher. 

(4) MIGRATORY FISHER.—The term ‘‘migratory fisher’’ means an 

individual who made a qualifying move in the pre- ceding 36 months 

and, after doing so, engaged in new temporary or seasonal 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

employment or personal subsistence in fishing. If the individual did 

not engage in such new employment soon after the move, the 

individual may be considered a migratory fisher if the individual 

actively sought such new employment and has a recent history of 

moves for temporary or seasonal fishing employment. 

(5) QUALIFYING MOVE.—The term ‘‘qualifying move’’ means a move 

due to economic necessity— (A) from one residence to another residence; and 

(B) from one school district to another school district, 

except—(i) in the case of a State that is comprised of a single 

school district, wherein a qualifying move is from one 

administrative area to another within such district; or 

(ii)in the case of a school district of more than 15,000 

square miles, wherein a qualifying move is a distance of 20 

miles or more to a temporary residence. 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix B. A Brief History of the Migrant Student 

Information Exchange (MSIX) 

In order to address the need for timely transfer of migratory student records, the Migrant Student 

Records Transfer System (MSRTS) was created in 1969. MSRTS was a nationwide program, based in 

Arkansas, that tracked migratory students' educational and health information. By 1995, however, many 

states found the system burdensome to access and stopped using it, so Congress terminated the 

system. Because there was still a need for student records transfer, three separate migrant student 

records systems emerged (NGS, CoStar, and MIS2000) that were supported by private or non-profit 

vendors and used by 42 states. The remaining states customized electronic migrant student record 

systems developed and maintained by an in-house or outside consultant. Because states could not 

exchange information unless they used the same system, efforts to transfer data became extremely 

time-consuming. 

When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) was reauthorized by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Congress directed the Department of Education through section 1308(b) 

to “assist the States in developing effective methods for the electronic transfer of student records and in 

determining the number of migratory children in each State.” Section 1308(b) also required the 

Department, in consultation with the states, to ensure the linkage of migrant student record systems for 

the purpose of electronically exchanging health and educational information for migratory students. 

The Office of Migrant Education (OME) then consulted with states and other migrant education experts 

to develop recommendations and determine the development of a mechanism to transfer migrant 

student records in a cost-effective, efficient manner. In April 2000, OME established the "Common Data 

Elements (CDE) Committee," which was composed of 12 state representatives charged with 

recommending a set of common data elements that would provide teachers, counselors, and migrant 

education personnel with the necessary information to make timely and accurate decisions regarding 

school enrollment, grade and course placement, accrual of secondary course credits, and participation 

in the MEP for migratory children. 

In October 2006, the Department contracted personnel to facilitate the design, development, and 

operations and maintenance of MSIX, and to provide ongoing customer coordination and support. As a 

result of OME’s consultation with stakeholders and the committee’s recommendations, 63 minimum 

data elements (MDEs) were included in the initial version of MSIX (the system currently collects 76 

MDEs). Although use of MSIX was previously voluntary, in May 2016 the Department published final 

regulations requiring use of MSIX. As a condition of receiving Migrant Education Program (MEP) funds, 

each State educational agency (SEA) is required to collect, maintain, and submit the MDEs to MSIX 

within time frames specified in the regulations. 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C. State MEP Director Survey Instrument 

NOTE: If your state MEP provides services to migratory students only in the summer months, please 

answer all questions reflecting on your experiences in summer 2017. 

Migrant Education Program (MEP) Background and Context 

* 1. Does your state MEP contract with any outside contractors or consultants for MEP-related 

activities (e.g., Identification and recruitment (ID&R), instructional or support services, etc.)? (Select 

one.) 

 Yes 

 No 

 Don't know 

If yes to Q1: 

2. For which MEP-related activities does your state MEP contract with outside contractors or 

consultants? (Select all that apply.) 

 Identification and recruitment (ID&R) 

 Instructional services 

 Support services 

 Professional development for school or project staff who serve migratory students and/or out-ofschool youth 

 Records transfer 

 Other (please specify) 

Migratory Student Identification and Recruitment (ID&R) 

* 3. Which of the following best describes how your state MEP manages the identification and 

recruitment (ID&R) of migratory students and out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply.) 

 The state MEP manages migratory student ID&R activities directly 

 The state MEP contracts with an external organization/agency to conduct migratory student ID&R 

activities 

 The state MEP relies on its MEP subgrantees to conduct migratory student ID&R activities 

 Don't know 

 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If “The state MEP manages migratory student ID&R activities directly” Is Selected in Q3: 

* 4. To your knowledge, how helpful are the following groups, organizations, agencies, and individuals 

for purposes of identifying eligible migratory students and out-of-school youth for MEP services? 

(Select one per row.) 

Not at 

all 

helpful 

A little 

helpful 

Somewhat 

helpful 

Very 

helpful 

Don’t 

know 

NA: Do not 

work with 

this entity 

on ID&R 

Local businesses/work sites      

Nonprofit organizations      

Religious organizations      

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in 

my state      

Other state-level agencies and 

organizations in my state (e.g., 

state department of health and 

human services, state department 

of agriculture, state department 

of labor, etc.) 

     

State-level agencies and 

organizations in other states (e.g., 

state department of health and 

human services, state department 

of agriculture, state department 

of labor, etc.) 

     

Migratory families and youth      

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)      

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 5. To your knowledge, do recruiters in your state use the following strategies to identify and recruit 

eligible migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select one per row.) 

Yes No 

Don't 

know 

Use referrals from other agencies and organizations (e.g., state department of 

health and human services, state department of labor, etc.)   

Develop and maintain contact with employers who hire migratory workers   

Develop and maintain contacts with staff in local schools (i.e., school secretaries, 

nurses, guidance counselors, teachers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers) who 

work directly with migratory families 

  

Develop and maintain contact with local businesses and organizations that serve 

migratory families   

Develop and maintain contacts in places/communities where migratory families 

are likely to reside (i.e., local apartment complexes, shared homes/trailers, etc.)   

Attend community events to raise awareness about the availability of MEPfunded services   

Use mass media (e.g., radio, television, newspapers, etc.) to raise awareness 

about the availability of MEP-funded services for eligible migratory students and 

out-of-school youth 

  

Use social media (e.g., Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc.) to raise awareness 

about the availability of MEP-funded services for eligible migratory students and 

out-of-school youth 

  

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)   

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority for Service (PFS) 

* 6. Which criteria to determine PFS eligibility, if any, has your state MEP used under NCLB and/or 

does it plan to use under ESSA? (Select one per row.) 

Used under 

NCLB and use 

(or plan to use) 

under ESSA 

Used under 

NCLB, but no 

longer use (or 

plan to stop 

using) under 

ESSA 

Not used under 

NCLB, but use 

now (or plan to 

use) under 

ESSA 

Not used 

under 

NCLB or 

ESSA 

Don't 

know 

Changed schools during the 

previous or current school year 

    

Achieving below grade-level 

based on state assessment 

results 

    

Lack of state assessment data 

(e.g., designated absent, 

exempt, not tested, or not 

scored on the state 

assessment) 

    

Grade point average (GPA) 

below 1.5     

Dropped out-of-school     

Discipline incidents including 

suspensions or expulsions     

Chronic absenteeism     

Truancy     

Involvement in the juvenile 

justice system (i.e., arrested for 

delinquency, truancy, etc.) 

    

In foster care     

Pregnancy / teen parenthood     

Reports of substance abuse     

Limited English proficiency     

Overage for their grade level     

Behind in accumulating credits 

for grade level     

Teacher / staff reports of 

problems (e.g., academic, 

social/emotional, etc.) 

    

Retained in grade     

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)     

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEP-funded Services and Supports 

In this section, please consider the services and supports the state provides or funds to serve the 

needs of migratory students. 

* 7. How important were each of the following to your state MEP in determining the specific 

instructional and support services it provides or funds to meet the needs of migratory students and/or 

out-of-school youth? (Select one per row.) 

Not 

important 

Minimally 

important 

Somewhat 

important 

Very 

important 

N/A: Not 

Considered 

Don't 

know 

Needs assessments of 

migratory students      

Research evidence on 

migratory students      

Migratory student 

outcomes data      

Federal policy 

priorities      

State policy priorities      

LEA policy priorities      

Social service agency 

priorities      

Amount of MEP funds 

available      

Availability of services 

from other programs 

(e.g., state, local, or 

nonprofit) that may 

serve migratory 

students and/or outof-school youth 

     

Other (PLEASE 

SPECIFY)      

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 8. How does your state MEP know what services eligible migratory students already receive from 

other sources (i.e., in school or outside of school) in order to determine what services to provide or 

supplement with MEP funds? (Select all that apply.) 

 The state MEP surveys Local Education Agency (LEA) personnel to identify migratory student needs 

 The state MEP surveys school personnel to identify migratory student needs 

 The state MEP surveys staff of nonprofit organizations to identify migratory student and/or out-ofschool youth needs 

 The state MEP conducts regular meetings (e.g., annual, bi-annual, bi-monthly, monthly, etc.) with 

stakeholder groups to identify migratory student and/or out-of-school youth needs 

 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

* 9. Which of the following MEP-funded instructional services are provided to migratory students 

and/or out-of-school youth either directly by the state MEP or through its MEP subgrantees? (Select 

all that apply in each row.) 

State 

MEP 

provides 

directly 

Provided by 

MEP 

subgrantees 

Not 

provided 

by the 

MEP 

Don't 

know 

Math instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial education, or other 

instructional services) 

   

Reading/language arts instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial 

education, or other instructional services)    

Online courses    

Other online educational support (e.g., test prep, homework help)    

Graduation planning assistance    

Career exploration and guidance    

Academic guidance and advocacy services    

Preschool or early childhood education programs    

Preparation for post-secondary transition    

Career and technical skills training (e.g., IT, hospitality, etc.)    

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs    

Credit-recovery programs    

High School Equivalency Diploma (HSED) classes    

English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction    

Adult education classes    

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)    

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 15 
 

 

 

 

 

* 10. When are these MEP-funded instructional services offered to eligible migratory students and/or 

out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

Respond only for the services selected as “Directly Provided by the State” in Q9 

During the 

school day in 

the regular 

school year 

Before or after 

school during 

the regular 

school year 

Yearround 

During the 

summer or 

intersession 

period ONLY 

Don't 

know 

Math instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial 

education, or other instructional services)     

Reading/language arts instruction (e.g., 

tutoring, remedial education, or other 

instructional services) 

    

Online courses     

Other online educational support (e.g., 

test prep, homework help)     

Graduation planning assistance     

Career exploration and guidance     

Academic guidance and advocacy services     

Preschool or early childhood education 

programs 

    

Preparation for post-secondary transition     

Career and technical skills training (e.g., 

IT, hospitality, etc.)     

Diagnostic evaluations of educational 

needs     

Credit-recovery programs     

High School Equivalency Diploma (HSED) 

classes     

English as a Second Language (ESL) 

instruction     

Adult education classes     

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)     

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 16 
 

 

 

* 11. Which of the following MEP-funded support services are provided to migratory students and/or 

out-of-school youth either directly by the state MEP or through its MEP subgrantees? (Select all that 

apply in each row.) 

State 

MEP 

provides 

directly 

Provided by 

MEP 

subgrantees 

Not 

provided 

by the 

MEP 

Don't 

know 

Individual student advocacy services    

Counseling/mental health services    

Health care    

Dental care    

Eye care    

School supplies    

Clothing    

Transportation not otherwise provided    

Language support (e.g., translation or interpretation services) not 

otherwise provided    

Mentoring    

Leadership development programs    

Housing guidance or assistance    

Child care    

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)    

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 12. To your knowledge, when are these support services offered to eligible migratory students 

and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

Respond only for services selected as “Directly Provided by the State” in Q11 

During the 

school day in 

the regular 

school year 

Before or 

after school 

during the 

regular school 

year 

Yearround 

During the 

summer or 

intersession 

period ONLY 

Don't 

know 

Individual student advocacy services     

Counseling/mental health services     

Health care     

Dental care     

Eye care     

School supplies     

Clothing     

Transportation not otherwise provided     

Language support (e.g., translation or 

interpretation services)     

Mentoring     

Leadership development programs     

Housing guidance or assistance     

Child care     

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)     

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

* 13. For which of the following services are eligible migratory students and/or out-of-school youth 

referred, either directly by the state MEP or by its MEP subgrantees? (Select all that apply in each 

row.) 

State 

MEP 

refers 

students 

directly 

for this 

support 

service 

MEP 

subgrantees 

refer 

students for 

this support 

service 

The MEP 

does not 

refer 

students 

for this 

support 

service 

Don’t 

know 

Individual student advocacy services    

Counseling/mental health services    

Health care    

Dental care    

Eye care    

School supplies    

Clothing    

Transportation    

Language support (e.g., translation or interpretation services)    

Mentoring    

Leadership development programs    

Housing guidance or assistance    

Child care    

Meal or nutrition programs [e.g., Women, Infants, and Children 

Program (WIC) assistance; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP)] 

   

Flexible service delivery (e.g., home-based versus site-based 

programs)    

Adult education classes    

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)    

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 14. How does your state MEP ensure that services are prioritized for PFS migratory students? (Select 

all that apply.) 

 Base the selection of MEP subgrantees on the number of identified PFS students 

 Select MEP subgrantees based on how they will prioritize services for PFS students 

 Require MEP subgrantees to provide a minimum level of instructional services for PFS students 

(e.g., minimum number of hours or contacts) 

 Apply a weighted funding formula for MEP subgrantees based on the number of identified PFS 

students 

 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

 None of the above 

* 15. What strategies does your state MEP use to ensure that MEP-funded activities and services are 

provided to eligible migratory out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply.) 

 Use recruiters to provide on-demand support (e.g., referrals, support materials, supplies) to eligible 

migratory out-of-school youth 

 Deliver tutoring and instructional support to eligible migratory out-of-school youth through MEPfunded service providers 

 Use recruiters and/or MEP staff to deliver basic English language instruction to eligible migratory 

out-of-school youth 

 Use recruiters and/or MEP staff to refer eligible migratory out-of-school youth to ESL programs 

 Use recruiters and/or MEP staff to help eligible migratory out-of-school youth enroll in classroomor online-based credit recovery programs 

 Collaborate with other organizations and agencies to serve the needs of eligible migratory out-ofschool youth 

 Use MEP funding to support nonprofit organizations’ programming for eligible migratory out-ofschool youth 

 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

 None of the above 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coordination and Collaboration 

* 16. How important is it for your state MEP to coordinate and collaborate with the following agencies 

and organizations for purposes of serving the needs of migratory students and/or out-of-school 

youth? (Select one per row.) 

Not at all 

important 

Minimally 

important 

Somewhat 

important 

Very 

Important 

Don't 

know 

Other offices within the state educational agency 

(e.g., Title I, Part A; Title III, etc.) (Please specify)     

Other state agencies (Please specify)     

Nonprofit organizations     

Institutions of higher education (IHEs)     

State Chamber of Commerce     

State-level parent associations     

Other states or other state-level government 

agencies outside the state     

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)     

* 17. Which of the following advocacy and outreach activities, if any, did your state MEP use to 

engage other agencies and organizations to support the needs of migratory students and/or out-ofschool youth? (Select all that apply.) 

 Workshops 

 Presentations 

 In-person meetings 

 Task force(s) 

 Dissemination of materials (e.g., informational letters, brochures; data or research; etc.) 

 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

 None of the above 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 21 
 

 

 

 

 

* 18. Does your state MEP collaborate with other agencies and organizations to provide any of the 

following instructional services to migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that 

apply in each row.) 

Respond only for the services selected as “Directly Provided by the State” in Q9 

Yes, for 

migratory 

students 

Yes, for 

migratory 

out-ofschool youth 

No, for 

neither 

migratory 

students 

nor outof-school 

youth 

Don't 

know 

Math instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial education, or other 

instructional services) 

   

Reading/language arts instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial 

education, or other instructional services)    

Online courses    

Other online educational support (e.g., test prep, homework 

help)    

Graduation planning assistance    

Career exploration and guidance    

Academic guidance and advocacy services    

Preschool or early childhood education programs    

Preparation for post-secondary transition    

Career and technical skills training (e.g., IT, hospitality, etc.)    

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs    

Credit-recovery programs    

High School Equivalency Diploma (HSED) classes    

English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction    

Adult education classes    

Other    

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

* 19. Does your state MEP collaborate with other agencies and organizations to provide any of the 

following support services to migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply in 

each row.) 

Respond only for the services selected as “Directly Provided by the State” in Q11 

Yes, for 

migratory 

students 

Yes, for 

migratory 

out-ofschool youth 

No, for 

neither 

migratory 

students 

nor outof-school 

youth 

Don't 

know 

Individual student advocacy services    

Counseling/mental health services    

Health care    

Dental care    

Eye care    

School supplies    

Clothing    

Transportation not otherwise provided    

Language support (e.g., translation or interpretation services) not 

otherwise provided    

Mentoring    

Leadership development programs    

Housing guidance or assistance    

Child care    

Other    

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* 20. What, if any, formal agreements does your state MEP have with other organizations and 

agencies to serve the needs of migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply in 

each row.) 

Memoranda 

of 

Understanding 

(MOU) 

Costsharing 

agreement 

Other formal 

agreement 

(PLEASE 

SPECIFY) 

No formal 

agreement 

Don't 

know 

Other LOAs in the state that do not 

have an MEP subgrant     

State health department     

State department of labor     

State department of child and family 

services     

Other state agencies     

Other state-level government agencies 

outside your state     

State Chamber of Commerce     

Institutions of higher education (IHEs)     

Nonprofit organizations     

State-level parent associations     

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)     

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other OME-funded Programs 

* 21. In which of the following ways, if any, does your state MEP coordinate or collaborate with the 

following OME-funded programs, including the College Assistance Program Migrant Program (CAMP), 

the High School Equivalency Program (HEP), and other OME-funded programs? (Select all that apply in 

each row.) 

CAMP HEP 

Other OMEfunded 

programs 

(SPECIFY) 

N/A: We do not 

coordinate or 

collaborate 

using this 

method 

Agreed to share information/ data on 

migratory students and/or out-of-school 

youth 

   

Participate in an interagency task force or 

committee for migratory students    

Agreed to work together to distribute 

program information to students, youth, 

and families 

   

Agreed to work together to identify and 

contact eligible high school students    

Other method of collaboration (PLEASE 

SPECIFY)    

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

If you selected any type of coordination in Q21: 

* 22. To what extent, if at all, have efforts to coordinate and collaborate with OME-funded programs 

(e.g., CAMP, HEP, other OME-funded programs) improved MEP activities in each of the following 

areas? (Select one per row.) 

Not 

at all 

Minimal 

improvement 

Moderate 

improvement 

Substantial 

improvement 

Don't 

know 

Identifying and recruiting eligible... 

Migratory students     

Out-of-school migratory youth     

Delivering services to... 

Migratory students     

Out-of-school migratory youth     

PFS migratory children and youth     

Migratory high school students     

Data Use and Decision Making 

* 23. Is a student’s migratory status tracked in your state's student information system? (Select one.) 

 Yes 

 No 

 Don't know 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If yes to Q23: 

24. Which of the following data, if any, can your state's student information system disaggregate by 

students' migratory status? (Select one per row.) 

Yes No Don't know 

Course grades   

Scores on state assessments   

Attendance   

Truancy or chronic absenteeism   

Discipline incidents including suspensions or expulsions   

Involvement with the criminal justice system   

Involvement with social services or foster care   

Pregnancy / teen parenthood   

Reports of substance abuse   

Limited English proficiency   

Overage for their grade level   

Retention in grade   

Changed schools during the previous or current school year   

Cohort graduation rates   

Dropout status   

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)   

If yes to Q23 and yes to at least one item in Q24: 

* 25. How are data disaggregated by students' migratory status made available to MEP subgrantees? 

(Select one.) 

 On demand 

 Through periodic reports sent to MEP subgrantees 

 Through periodic reports made available to the general public 

 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

 Don’t know 

If yes to Q23: 

26. How many days must a student be enrolled in a school to be included in the school's reported 

count of migratory students? (Please fill in a number.) 

Number of days: ___________________ 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) was developed to improve the appropriate 

enrollment, placement, and accrual of credits for migratory children by enabling states to share 

educational and health information on students whose records span the information systems of multiple 

states. 

* 27. To what extent does MSIX facilitate migratory student records transfer across states? (Select 

one.) 

 Does not at all facilitate student records transfer across states 

 Minimally facilitates student records transfer across states 

 Somewhat facilitates student records transfer across states 

 Significantly facilitates student records transfer across states 

 Don't know/Not sure 

* 28. To what extent does MSIX facilitate migratory student records transfer across LEAs within your 

state? (Select one.) 

 Does not at all facilitate student records transfer within my state 

 Minimally facilitates student records transfer within my state 

 Somewhat facilitates student records transfer within my state 

 Significantly facilitates student records transfer within my state 

 Don't know/Not sure 

* 29. To what extent, if at all, has the MSIX system improved each of the following systems, supports, 

and services for migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select one per row.) 

Not at all 

Minimal 

improvement 

Moderate 

improvement 

Substantial 

improvement 

Don't 

know 

Timeliness of school enrollment     

Appropriateness of grade 

placements     

Appropriateness of course 

placements     

Reduction in unnecessary 

immunizations     

Facilitation of course credit 

accrual     

Timely notification when 

migratory students move across 

states 

    

Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)     

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 28 
 

 

 

 

 

* 30. What data, if any, does your state MEP use to inform its planning and delivery of MEP-funded 

services? (Select all that apply.) 

 Progress on Measurable Program Outcomes 

 Progress on MEP Performance Targets 

 Performance on MEP Indicators 

 Student performance on state assessments 

 Student enrollment patterns 

 Student graduation rates 

 Participant survey responses 

 Parent survey responses 

 Staff survey responses 

 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

 None of these 

31. Which of the following sources, if any, does your state MEP use to select evidence-based 

instructional and support services for migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that 

apply.) 

 The What Works Clearinghouse (Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education) 

 Evidence for ESSA (Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University School 

of Education) 

 The Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) (Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education) 

 The Comprehensive Centers Program (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. 

Department of Education) 

 The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services) 

 Other national centers (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

 Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 

 None of these 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix D. Regional/Local MEP Coordinator Survey 

Instrument 

NOTE: If your LOA MEP provides services to migratory students only in the summer months, please 

answer all questions reflecting on your experiences in summer 2017. 

Migrant Education Program Background and Context 

1. How many MEP grant awards does your LOA currently administer? 

___________ Number of MEP grant awards administered in 2017-18 

2. Does your LOA award MEP subgrants to any of the following entities? 

Yes No 

Local Education Agencies (LEAs)  

Other Local Operating Agencies (LOAs)  

Other (please specify below)  

Please specify other: 

If yes to Q2: 

3. How many subgrants did your LOA award this year, in 2017-18? (Enter a number.) ______________ 

4. Does your LOA MEP contract with any outside contractors or consultants to provide or conduct 

MEP-related activities (e.g., Identification and recruitment (ID&R), instructional or support services, 

etc.)? (Select one.) 

 Yes 

 No 

 Don't know 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

If yes to Q4: 

5. For which of the following MEP-related activities does your LOA MEP contract with outside 

contractors or consultants? (Select all that apply) 

 Identification and recruitment (ID&R) 

 Instructional services 

 Support services 

 Professional development 

 Records transfer 

 Other (please specify below) 

Please specify other: 

Migratory Student Identification and Recruitment (ID&R) 

6. Which of the following best describes how your LOA’s MEP manages the identification and 

recruitment of migratory students and out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply.) 

 The LOA MEP manages migratory student ID&R activities directly 

 The LOA MEP relies on the state MEP to conduct migratory student ID&R activities 

 The LOA MEP relies on regional/intermediate educational service agencies or other entities to 

conduct migratory student ID&R activities (please specify below) 

 The LOA MEP contracts with an external organization/agency to conduct migratory student ID&R 

activities 

 The LOA MEP relies on its MEP-funded schools/projects to conduct migratory student ID&R activities 

 Don't know 

 Other (please specify below) 

Please specify regional/intermediate educational service agencies or other entities: 

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

If “The LOA MEP manages migratory student ID&R activities directly” is selected in Q6: 

7. To your knowledge, how helpful are the following groups, organizations, agencies, and individuals 

for purposes of identifying eligible migratory students for MEP-funded services? (Select one per row.) 

Not at all 

helpful 

A little 

helpful 

Somewhat 

helpful 

Very 

helpful 

Don’t 

know 

N/A: Do 

not work 

with this 

entity 

Local businesses/work sites      

Nonprofit organizations      

Religious organizations      

Local schools      

The state MEP      

School districts/LEAs in my 

area 

     

Other agencies and 

organizations in my area (e.g., 

health department, human 

resources department, 

housing department, etc.) 

     

Migratory families and youth      

Other (please specify below)      

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. To your knowledge, do recruiters for your LOA MEP use the following strategies to identify and 

recruit eligible migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select one per row.) 

Yes No Don't 

know 

Use referrals from other agencies and organizations (e.g., department of health 

and human services, housing department etc.)   

Develop and maintain contact with employers who hire migratory workers   

Develop and maintain contacts with staff in local schools (i.e., school secretaries, 

nurses, guidance counselors, teachers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers) who 

work directly with migratory families 

  

Develop and maintain contact with local businesses and organizations that serve 

migratory families   

Develop and maintain contacts in places/communities where migratory families 

are likely to reside (i.e., local apartment complexes, shared homes/trailers, etc.)   

Attend community events to raise awareness about the availability of MEPfunded services   

Use mass media (e.g., radio, television, newspapers, etc.) to raise awareness of 

MEP-funded services for eligible migratory students and out-of-school youth   

Use social media (e.g., Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc.) to raise awareness 

about the availability of MEP-funded services for eligible migratory students and 

out-of-school youth 

  

Other (please specify below)   

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 33 
 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Priority for Service (PFS) 

9. Which criteria to determine PFS eligibility, if any, has your LOA MEP used under NCLB and/or does it 

plan to use under ESSA? (Select one per row.) 

Used under NCLB 

and use (or plan 

to use) under 

ESSA 

Used under NCLB, 

but no longer use 

(or plan to stop 

using) under ESSA 

Not used under 

NCLB, but use 

now (or plan to 

use) under ESSA 

Not used 

under 

NCLB or 

ESSA 

Don't 

know 

Changed schools during the 

previous or current school year     

Achieving below grade-level based 

on state assessment results     

Lack of state assessment data 

(e.g., designated absent, exempt, 

not tested, or not scored on the 

state assessment) 

    

Grade point average (GPA) below 

1.5     

Dropped out-of-school     

Discipline incidents including 

suspensions or expulsions     

Chronic absenteeism     

Truancy     

Involved in the juvenile justice 

system (i.e., arrested for 

delinquency, truancy, etc.) 

    

In foster care     

Pregnancy / teen parenthood     

Reports of substance abuse     

Limited English proficiency     

Overage for their grade level     

Behind in accumulating credits for 

their grade level     

Teacher / staff reports of 

problems (e.g., academic, 

social/emotional, etc.) 

    

Retained in grade     

Other (please specify below)     

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

MEP-funded Services and Supports 

In this section, please consider the services and supports the LOA provides or funds to serve the needs 

of migratory students. 

10. How important were each of the following to your LOA MEP in determining the specific 

instructional and support services it provides or funds to meet the needs of migratory students and/or 

out-of-school youth? (Select one per row.) 

Not 

important 

Minimally 

important Important 

Very 

important 

N/A: Not 

Considered 

Don't 

know 

Needs assessments of 

migratory students      

Research evidence on 

migratory students      

Migratory student 

outcomes data      

Federal policy priorities      

State policy priorities      

LEA policy priorities      

Social service agency 

priorities      

Amount of MEP funds 

available      

Availability of services from 

other programs (e.g., state, 

local, or nonprofit) that 

may serve migratory 

students and/or out-ofschool youth 

     

Other (please specify 

below)      

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

11. How does your LOA MEP know what services eligible migratory students already receive from 

other sources (i.e., in school or outside of school) in order to decide what to provide or supplement 

with MEP funds? (Select all that apply.) 

 The LOA MEP surveys Local Education Agency (LEA) personnel to identify migratory student needs 

 The LOA MEP surveys school personnel to identify migratory student needs 

 The LOA MEP surveys staff of nonprofit organizations to identify migratory student and/or out-ofschool youth needs 

 The LOA MEP conducts regular meetings (e.g., annual, bi-annual, bi-monthly, monthly, etc.) with 

stakeholder groups to identify migratory student and/or out-of-school youth needs 

 The LOA MEP conducts monitoring visits to schools to identify migratory student needs 

 The LOA MEP meets with migratory families and youth to identify migratory student needs 

 Other (please specify below) 

 None of these 

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Which of the following MEP-funded instructional services are provided to migratory students 

and/or out-of-school youth either directly by the LOA MEP {IF YES to Q2: “, through its subgrantees”}, 

or through its contractors? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

LOA MEP 

provides 

directly 

LOA MEP funds 

through its MEP 

subgrantees {if 

YES to Q2 only} 

LOA MEP 

contracts with 

external 

organizations/a 

gencies to 

provide 

Not provided by 

the LOA MEP 

Don't 

know 

Math instruction (e.g., 

tutoring, remedial 

education, or other 

instructional services) 

    

Reading/language arts 

instruction (e.g., tutoring, 

remedial education, or other 

instructional services) 

    

Online courses     

Other online educational 

support (e.g., test prep, 

homework help) 

    

Graduation planning 

assistance     

Career exploration and 

guidance     

Academic guidance and 

academic advocacy services     

Preschool or early childhood 

education programs     

Preparation for postsecondary transition     

Career and technical skills 

training (e.g., IT, hospitality, 

etc.) 

    

Diagnostic evaluations of 

educational needs     

Credit-recovery programs     

High School Equivalency 

Diploma (HSED) classes     

English as a Second 

Language (ESL) instruction     

Adult education classes     

Other (please specify below)     

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 37 
 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Please specify other: 

13. Are the same instructional services provided to both migratory students and to migratory out-ofschool youth? 

Yes 

No 

Don’t know 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 38 
 

If “No” to Q13: 

14. To which group(s) of migratory youth are each of the following MEP-funded instructional services 

provided? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

Only respond for services you said your “LOA MEP Provides Directly” in Q12: 

Migratory 

students 

Migratory out-ofschool youth Don't 

know 

Math instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial education, other 

instructional services)   

Reading/language arts instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial 

education, other instructional services)   

Online courses   

Other online educational support (e.g., test prep, homework 

help)   

Graduation planning assistance   

Career exploration and guidance   

Academic guidance and advocacy services   

Preschool or early childhood education programs   

Preparation for post-secondary transition   

Career and technical skills training (e.g., IT, hospitality, etc.)   

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs   

Credit-recovery programs   

HSED classes   

ESL instruction   

Adult education classes   

Other (please specify below)   

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. When are these MEP-funded instructional services offered to eligible migratory students and/or 

out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

Only respond for services you said your “LOA MEP Provides Directly” in Q12: 

During the 

school day in 

the regular 

school year 

Before or 

after school 

during the 

regular school 

year 

Yearround 

During the 

summer or 

intersession 

period ONLY 

Don't 

know 

Math instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial 

education, other instructional services)     

Reading/language arts instruction (e.g., 

tutoring, remedial education, other 

instructional services) 

    

Online courses     

Other online educational support (e.g., 

test prep, homework help)     

Graduation planning assistance     

Career exploration and guidance     

Academic guidance and academic 

advocacy services     

Preschool or early childhood education 

programs     

Preparation for post-secondary transition     

Career and technical skills training (e.g., 

IT, hospitality, etc.)     

Diagnostic evaluations of educational 

needs     

Credit-recovery programs     

HSED classes     

ESL instruction     

Adult education classes     

Other     

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

16. Which of the following MEP-funded support services are provided to migratory students and/or 

out-of-school youth either directly by the LOA MEP {IF YES to Q2: “, through its subgrantees”}, or 

through its contractors? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

LOA MEP 

provides 

directly 

LOA MEP funds 

through its MEP 

subgrantees {If “YES” 

to Q2 only} 

LOA MEP contracts 

with external 

organizations/ 

agencies to provide 

Not 

provided 

by the 

LOA MEP 

Don’t 

know 

Individual student 

advocacy services     

Counseling/ mental 

health services     

Health care     

Dental care     

Eye care     

School supplies     

Clothing     

Transportation not 

otherwise provided     

Language support 

(e.g., translation or 

interpretation 

services) not 

otherwise provided 

    

Mentoring     

Leadership 

development 

programs 

    

Housing guidance or 

assistance     

Child care     

Other (please specify 

below)     

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 41 
 

 

 

 

 

17. Are the same support services provided to both migratory students and to migratory out-of-school 

youth? 

Only respond for services you said your “LOA MEP Provides Directly” in Q16: 

Yes 

No 

Don’t know 

If “No” to Q17: 

18. To which group(s) of migratory youth are each of the following MEP-funded support services 

provided? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

Only respond for services you said your “LOA MEP Provides Directly” in Q16: 

Migratory 

students 

Migratory out-ofschool youth Don't know 

Individual student advocacy services   

Counseling/ mental health services   

Health care   

Dental care   

Eye care   

School supplies   

Clothing   

Transportation not otherwise provided   

Language support (e.g., translation or interpretation 

services) not otherwise provided   

Mentoring   

Leadership development programs   

Housing guidance or assistance   

Child care   

Other   

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 42 
 

 

 

 

 

19. To your knowledge, when are these support services offered to eligible migratory students and/or 

out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

Only respond for services you said your “LOA MEP Provides Directly” in Q16: 

During the 

school day in 

the regular 

school year 

Before or 

after school 

during the 

regular school 

year 

Yearround 

During the 

summer or 

intersessions 

period ONLY 

Don't 

know 

Health care     

Counseling/ mental health services     

Dental care     

Eye care     

Individual student advocacy 

services     

School supplies     

Clothing     

Transportation not otherwise 

provided     

Language support (e.g., translation 

or interpretation services)     

Mentoring     

Leadership development programs     

Housing guidance or assistance     

Child care     

Other     

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 43 
 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

20. For which of the following services are eligible migratory students and/or out-of-school youth 

referred directly by the LOA MEP {IF YES to Q2: “or through its subgrantees”}? (Select all that apply in 

each row.) 

LOA MEP refers 

students directly 

Subgrantees funded 

through the LOA MEP refer 

students {“YES” to Q2 only} 

Not referred by 

the LOA MEP 

Health care   

Counseling/ mental health services   

Dental care   

Eye care   

School supplies   

Clothing   

Transportation   

Language support (e.g., translation or 

interpretation services)   

Mentoring   

Meal or nutrition programs [Women, 

Infants, and Children Program (WIC) 

assistance; Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP)] 

  

Flexible service delivery (e.g., homebased versus site-based programs)   

Child care   

Adult education classes   

Other (please specify below)   

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 44 
 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

21. What strategies does your LOA MEP use to ensure that MEP-funded activities and services are 

provided to eligible migratory out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply.) 

 Use recruiters to provide on-demand support (e.g., referrals, support materials, supplies) to eligible 

migratory out-of-school youth 

 Deliver tutoring and instructional support to eligible migratory out-of-school youth through MEPfunded service providers 

 Use recruiters and/or MEP staff to deliver basic English language instruction to eligible migratory 

out-of-school youth 

 Use recruiters and/or MEP staff to refer to eligible migratory out-of-school youth to ESL programs 

 Use recruiters and/or MEP staff to help to eligible migratory out-of-school youth enroll in classroomor online-based credit recovery programs 

 Collaborate with other organizations and agencies to serve the needs of eligible migratory out-ofschool youth 

 Use MEP funding to support nonprofit organizations’ programming for eligible migratory out-ofschool youth 

 Other (please specify below) 

 None of the above 

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 45 
 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Coordination and Collaboration 

22. Which of the following advocacy and outreach activities, if any, does your LOA MEP use to engage 

other agencies and organizations to support the needs of migratory students and/or out-of-school 

youth? (Select all that apply.) 

 Workshops 

 Presentations 

 In-person meetings 

 Task force(s) 

 Dissemination of materials (e.g., informational letters, brochures; data or research) 

 None of these 

 Other (please specify below) 

 None of these 

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23. Does your LOA MEP collaborate with other agencies and organizations to provide any of the 

following instructional services to migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that 

apply in each row.) 

Only respond for services you said your “LOA MEP Provides Directly” in Q12: 

Yes, for 

migratory 

students 

Yes, for 

migratory outof-school youth 

No, for neither 

migratory students 

nor out-of-school 

youth 

Don't 

know 

Math instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial 

education, or other instructional services)    

Reading/language arts instruction (e.g., 

tutoring, remedial education, or other 

instructional services) 

   

Online courses    

Other online educational support (e.g., test 

prep, homework help)    

Graduation planning assistance    

Career exploration and guidance    

Academic guidance and advocacy services    

Preschool or early childhood education 

programs 

   

Preparation for post-secondary transition    

Career and technical skills training (e.g., IT, 

hospitality, etc.)    

Diagnostic evaluations of education needs    

Credit-recovery programs    

HSED preparation classes    

ESL instruction    

Adult education classes    

Other    

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 47 
 

 

 

24. Does your LOA MEP collaborate with other agencies and organizations to provide any of the 

following support services to migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply in 

each row.) 

Only respond for services you said your “LOA MEP Provides Directly” in Q16: 

Yes, for 

migratory 

students 

Yes, for 

migratory outof-school youth 

No, for neither 

migratory students 

nor out-of-school 

youth 

Don't 

know 

Health care    

Counseling/ mental health services    

Dental care    

Eye care    

Individual student advocacy services    

School supplies    

Clothing    

Transportation not otherwise provided    

Language support (e.g., translation or 

interpretation services)    

Mentoring    

Leadership development programs    

Housing guidance or assistance    

Child care    

Other    

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

25. What, if any, formal agreements does your LOA MEP have with other organizations and agencies 

to serve the needs of migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that apply in each 

row.) 

Memoranda of 

Understanding 

(MOU) 

Cost-sharing 

agreement 

Other 

formal 

agreement 

(please 

specify 

below) 

No formal 

agreement 

Don't 

know 

Other LOAs in the state that do 

not have an MEP subgrant     

Local health department     

Local department of child and 

family services     

Other local government agencies     

Nonprofit organizations     

Institutions of higher education 

(IHEs)     

Local businesses     

Local School Boards     

Parent associations, committees, 

etc.     

Other (please specify below)     

Please specify other organizations or agencies: 

Please specify other formal agreement(s) and the organization or agency for each: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Other OME-funded Programs 

26. In which of the following ways, if any, does your LOA MEP coordinate or collaborate with the 

following Office of Migrant Education (OME)-funded programs, including the College Assistance 

Migrant Program CAMP), the High School Equivalency Program (HEP), and other OME-funded 

programs? (Select all that apply in each row.) 

CAMP HEP 

Other OMEfunded 

program(s) 

(please specify 

below) 

We do not 

collaborate 

using this 

method 

   

   

   

   

   

Agreed to share information/ data on migratory 

students and/or out-of-school youth 

Participate in an inter-agency task force or committee 

for migratory students 

Agreed to work together to distribute program 

information to students, youth, and families 

Agreed to work together to identify and contact eligible 

high school students 

Other method of collaboration (please specify below) 

Please specify the other OME-funded program(s): 

Please specify other method of collaboration: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 50 
 

 

 

 

If you selected ANY type of collaboration in Q26: 

27. To what extent have efforts to coordinate and collaborate with OME-funded programs (e.g., 

CAMP, HEP) improved your LOA MEP activities in each of the following areas? (Select one per row.) 

Identifying and recruiting eligible... 

Not at 

all 

Minimal 

improvement 

Moderate 

improvement 

Substantial 

improvement 

Don't 

know 

Migratory students     

Migratory out-of-school youth     

Delivering MEP-funded services and 

supports to... 

Not at 

all 

Minimal 

improvement 

Moderate 

improvement 

Substantial 

improvement 

Don't 

know 

Migratory students     

Migratory out-of-school youth     

PFS students     

High school students     

28. Is a student’s migratory status tracked in your LOA 's student information system? (Select one.) 

 Yes 

 No 

 Don't know 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 51 
 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

If yes to Q28: 

29. Which of the following data, if any, can your LOA's student information system disaggregate by 

students' migratory status? (Select all that apply.) 

Yes No Don't 

know 

Course grades   

Scores on state assessments   

Attendance   

Truancy or chronic absenteeism   

Discipline incidents including suspensions or expulsions   

Involvement with criminal justice system   

Involvement with social services or foster care   

Pregnancy / teen parenthood   

Reports of substance abuse   

Limited English proficiency   

Overage for grade level   

Retention in grade   

Changed schools during the previous or current school year   

Cohort graduation rates   

Dropout status   

Other (please specify below)   

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 52 
 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

If yes to Q28 and yes to at least one item in Q29: 

30. How are data disaggregated by students' migratory status made available to your 

organization/agency (i.e., as a MEP grantee)? (Select one.) 

 On demand 

 Through periodic reports sent to MEP subgrantees 

 Through periodic reports made available to the general public 

 Other (please specify below) 

 Don’t know 

Please specify other: 

If yes to Q28: 

31. How many days must a student be enrolled in a school to be included in the school's reported 

count of migratory students? (Please fill in a number.) 

 Number of days: ________________ 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Data Use and Decision Making 

The Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX) was developed to improve the appropriate 

enrollment, placement, and accrual of credits for migratory children by enabling states to share 

educational and health information on students whose records span across the information systems of 

multiple states. 

32. To what extent does MSIX facilitate migratory student records transfer across states? (Select one.) 

 Does not at all facilitate student records transfer across states 

 Minimally facilitates student records transfer across states 

 Somewhat facilitates student records transfer across states 

 Significantly facilitates student records transfer across states 

 Don't know/Not sure 

33. To what extent does MSIX facilitate migratory student records transfer across LEAs within your 

state? (Select one.) 

 Does not at all facilitate student records transfer within my state 

 Minimally facilitates student records transfer within my state 

 Somewhat facilitates student records transfer within my state 

 Significantly facilitates student records transfer within my state 

 Don't know/Not sure 

34. To what extent, if at all, has the MSIX system improved each of the following systems, supports, 

and services for migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select one per row.) 

Not 

at all 

Minimal 

improvement 

Moderate 

improvement 

Substantial 

improvement 

Don't 

know 

Timeliness of school enrollment     

Appropriateness of grade placements     

Appropriateness of course placements     

Reduction in unnecessary immunizations     

Facilitation of course credit accrual     

Timely notification when migratory students 

move across states     

Other (please specify below)     

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 54 
 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

35. What data, if any, does your LOA MEP use to inform its planning and delivery of MEP-funded 

services? (Select all that apply.) 

 Progress on Measurable Program Outcomes 

 Progress on MEP Performance Targets 

 Performance on MEP Indicators 

 Student performance on state assessments 

 Student enrollment patterns 

 Student graduation rates 

 Participant survey responses 

 Parent survey responses 

 Staff survey responses 

 Other (please specify below) 

 None of these 

Please specify other: 

36. Which of the following sources, if any, does your LOA MEP use to select evidence-based 

instructional and support services for migratory students and/or out-of-school youth? (Select all that 

apply) 

 The state MEP Director or other state MEP staff 

 The What Works Clearinghouse (Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education) 

 Evidence for ESSA (Center for Research and Reform in Education, Johns Hopkins University School of 

Education) 

 The Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) (Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education) 

 The Comprehensive Centers Program (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. 

Department of Education) 

 The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services) 

 Other national centers (please specify below) 

 Other (please specify below) 

 None of these 

Please specify other national centers: 

Please specify other: 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E. State MEP Director Interview Guide 

Introduction to the Interview 

• Introduce the interviewer(s). 

• Explain the purpose of the study and topics to be covered in the interview. Interviewers will read the 

following statement to interview respondents at the beginning of each interview: 

The Evaluation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I—Part C Migrant 

Education Program (MEP) is being carried out under contract for the U.S. Department of Education 

by Policy Studies Associates (PSA), a research organization, Arroyo Research Services (ARS), a 

research organization, and SRI International (SRI), an independent, nonprofit research institute 

(collectively “the study team”). The evaluation will describe how state and local MEP-funded 

programs have evolved in response to changing requirements and how they are serving the needs of 

a changing migratory student population. 

• Explain the provisions for protecting respondent’s privacy. Interviewers will read the following 

statement to interview respondents at the beginning of each interview: 

As part of the evaluation, the study team will share its findings with the U.S. Department of 

Education. However, the results of the interviews will be summarized across all the states, districts, 

and programs participating in interviews. Individuals will not be identified by name in any report, 

and data will be reported in a manner that does not reveal your identity or the identity of your 

program. However, we may use anonymous quotes to help illuminate the findings. 

• Advise the respondent that the interview will last approximately 45-60 minutes. 

• Invite questions from the respondent. 

• Ask permission to audio-record the interview using the following statement: 

We would like to record this conversation in order to ensure that we accurately capture your 

comments. If you agree, we would retain the recording only until we are able to validate the notes, 

at which point the voice recording would be destroyed. The transcripts will be destroyed at the end of 

the study. If at any point you would like to say something off the record, I will stop the recording. Do 

you agree to allow us to record the interview? 

• Confirm respondent’s current roles and responsibilities within the agency/organization and in terms 

of the MEP Program. Ask if there are others we should speak with regarding MEP. 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interview Questions 

NOTE: Interviewers will ask all follow-up questions as specified in the protocol. In addition, interviewers 

will be directed to seek clarification of any response they judge to be vague or incomplete. The primary 

strategy for seeking clarification will be to ask respondents to provide specific examples to illustrate 

their responses. A second strategy will be to ask respondents to “say more” or to “expand on” or 

“explain the meaning of” a particular comment. 

Program Staffing and Administration 

1. What is your professional background? 

a. How long have you worked for the SEA? 

b. How long have you worked with the Migrant Education Program (MEP)? 

c. How many hours a week do you estimate you devote to MEP-related activities? 

d. What other responsibilities, if any, have you held within the SEA? 

2. In the past year, on what MEP-related activities do you spend most of your time? [Probe for: 

responding to federal reporting/monitoring requirements; identifying and recruiting (ID&R) or 

setting ID&R policy for migrant students; identifying and/or providing program services and activities 

to serve eligible migrant students’ needs; collaborating with other state-level agencies and 

organizations working with migrant or other at-risk populations; monitoring and evaluating local 

MEP subgrantees; providing technical assistance and professional development to MEP subgrantees, 

etc.] 

a. Please describe what you do for each of those activities? 

3. [FOR MEP DIRECTOR ONLY] In which department or office within the State Department of Education 

is the MEP located? 

4. [FOR MEP DIRECTOR ONLY] Please describe the MEP staffing. 

a. How many SEA staff [number of staff positions and FTEs] are assigned to the MEP? How 

many staff are full-time on MEP? 

b. What are the administrative responsibilities and time commitments of SEA staff assigned to 

the MEP? [Probe for: responding to federal requirements; setting identification and 

recruitment (ID&R) policies; developing program strategies and services for migrant 

students; collaborating with other agencies and organizations across the state; monitoring 

and evaluating MEP subgrantees; providing technical assistance and professional 

development to MEP subgrantees; identifying and recruiting eligible migrant students, COE 

review, data entry and management, etc.] 

c. If MEP staff have administrative responsibilities to other programs within the SEA, what are 

those other responsibilities? 

5. In your opinion, is the number of MEP-funded staff and the administrative set-aside for your 

program sufficient to administer the MEP effectively? If so, why; if not, why not? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Do you contract with any outside contractors or consultants for services related to the MEP? If not, 

why not? 

a. [If yes:] How many outside contractors/consultants does your program work with and what 

services do they provide? [Prompt: evaluation, technical assistance, re-interviewing, 

service delivery plan, comprehensive needs assessment, professional development, 

recruiting, OSY services] 

i. Are contractors providing educational services (e.g. tutors)? 

ii. What percentage of your administrative set-aside under the MEP is allocated to 

outside contractors/consultants? 

7. [Note to Interviewer: Confirm the distribution of subgrant awards by subgrantee type (i.e., none, 

regional educational service providers (RESPs, LEAs, LOAs)]. What is the rationale for structuring the 

MEP program this way? 

a. [If subgrantees include regional educational service providers] Why does your state award 

subgrants to regional educational service providers? 

b. [If subgrantees include ONLY LEAs, not LOAs] Why does your state award subgants only to 

LEAs and not LOAs or regions? 

c. [If state does not award subgrants] Why does your state not award subgrants to regional 

educational service providers, LEAs, or LOAs to administer an MEP-funded program? What 

challenges, if any, hinder the ability of regional or local entities to deliver direct services to 

eligible migrant students? 

d. [If state delivers ANY direct services to eligible migrant students or their families] Why did 

your state choose to provide direct services to address migrant students’ academic as well 

as non-academic needs? 

e. [If state does not deliver direct services] Are there circumstances under which you believe 

the state should deliver direct services to eligible migrant students? If so, what are they? 

What challenges hinder the state’s ability to deliver direct services to eligible migrant 

students or OSY? Are there instances in which you believe the state should deliver direct 

services, but cannot? Why? [Probe for: state education priorities, state vs. local capacity, 

grant-making strategies, etc.] 

Migrant Student Needs 

8. What are the most significant barriers or challenges of migrant students in your state that may 

disrupt or delay their educational progress? To your knowledge, do these differ than 

barriers/challenges faced by other states? [Probe for: cultural and language barriers, social isolation, 

academic achievement, educational continuity, access to services, health-related problems, family 

support, etc. 

9. How, if at all, have changes in migrant communities in your state affected the current needs of 

migrant students? [Probe for: small/large migrant population size, concentrated or spreading 

population, fluctuating migrant population numbers, funding, state-level cross-agency collaboration] 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

10. [Note to Interviewer: confirm the date from the last Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA) the 

study team has on file] Did you participate in the process of developing the Comprehensive Needs 

Assessment (can)? Please describe the process of developing the CNA. 

a. What stakeholder groups (other state-level agencies and organizations, MEP subgrantees, 

community-based organizations, parents, etc.), if any, were involved in identifying migrant 

student needs and/or writing the CNA? Were there any stakeholder groups or individuals 

who were not involved in the CNA who should have been? Why? 

b. How were migrant student needs identified and prioritized? What methods were used to 

gather and analyze data and make decisions? What data were most influential? 

11. How does your state determine its measurable program outcomes (MPO) identified in the state’s 

Service Delivery Plan (SDP)? What sources of input most influence the selection of MPOs? 

a. To what extent do MPOs influence the selection or provision of services delivered to 

migrant students? 

b. How, if at all, does the state differentiate MPOs for PFS vs. non-PFS students? 

c. What migrant student needs have been identified that the SDP and MPOs do not address? 

Why? 

12. What data sources, if any, does the state draw on to make decisions about the effectiveness of MEP 

services and activities at the state and local level? [Probe for: ongoing implementation decisions, not 

just while crafting the SDP; SEA/LEA student performance, enrollment, graduation data; 

participant/parent/staff surveys; individual student plans; program data, MEP participant/end-ofproject reports] 

a. How does the state use evaluations of program implementation and quality, either formally 

or informally, to make decisions about MEP implementation? To what extent, if at all, have 

evaluation findings informed state efforts to guide and assist local programs? 

b. Which other data sources have been most influential on decision making? Do you have a 

specific example of a time when those data have informed decision making or supported an 

activity? Who was involved and what implementation decisions were made? 

Identification and Recruitment 

13. How does your state identify and recruit migrant students? 

a. What strategies are used at the state-level? [Probe for: Are there particular regions or school 

districts in the state that receive highest priority?] 

b. How, if at all, does your state work with your subgrantees to coordinate identification and 

recruitment efforts? 

c. What criteria are used for identifying eligible migrant students? Does the state apply any 

additional criteria beyond the federal criteria for determining migrant student eligibility? 

d. Are there processes in place to ensure the accuracy of eligibility determinations? If so, what 

are they? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14. Has the state changed how it identifies and recruits migrant students in response to the Every 

Student Succeeds Act’s (ESSA’s) expanded definition for Priority for Service (PFS)? 

a. [If yes:] What identification and recruitment strategies were added or changed and why? 

i. What were the benefits and challenges, if any, of these additions or changes? 

b. [If no:] Does your state have plans to change your ID&R practices in the future in response 

to ESSA? If not, why not? 

15. With regard to out-of-school youth (OSY), how does your state identify eligible migrants who are 

OSY (e.g., collaborate with youth-serving organizations and programs on outreach)? How do 

identification strategies differ for those who are at risk for dropping out of school versus who have 

already dropped out of school, are working towards their GED, or are “here to work” only? 

MEP-funded Services and Supports 

16. Please describe the types of services your state funds or directly delivers to support the academic 

needs of migrant students. [Probe for: instructional services including ELA, math, and other 

supplemental instruction; credit recovery/online courses; guidance/advocacy services; preschool 

services; preparation for post-secondary transition, etc.] 

a. How many students receive each of these types of services? 

b. Who delivers these academic support services to eligible migrant students? How many 

school staff are involved in delivering those services and to what extent have they received 

training in working with migrant student populations? 

c. When are these academic support services delivered (e.g., during the school day, before or 

after school, in the summer months or intercession periods, year-round)? 

d. What are the challenges, if any, to delivering these academic services to eligible migrant 

students and how are they addressed? [Probe for: small/large migrant population size, 

concentrated or spread population, fluctuating migrant population numbers, funding, statelevel cross-agency collaboration] 

e. To your knowledge, what benefits have resulted from the academic support services 

delivered to eligible migrant students? 

17. Please describe the types of services your state funds or directly delivers to support the nonacademic needs of migrant students. [Probe for: health, dental, and eye care; school supplies; 

clothing; transportation; parent education and support; referrals etc.] 

a. How many students receive each of these types of services? 

b. Who delivers these non-academic support services to eligible migrant students? How many 

school staff are involved in delivering those services and to what extent have they each 

received training in working with migrant student populations? 

c. When are they usually delivered (e.g., during the school day, before or after school, in the 

summer months or intercession periods, year-round)? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d. What are the challenges, if any, to delivering these non-academic services to eligible 

migrant students and how are they addressed? [Probe for: small/large migrant population 

size, concentrated or spread population, fluctuating migrant population numbers, funding, 

state-level cross-agency collaboration] 

e. To your knowledge, what benefits have resulted from the non-academic support services 

delivered to eligible migrant students? 

18. What OTHER services or activities are provided to support the needs of migratory children and 

youth (including OSY)? For example, to what extent does the state fund or deliver professional 

development (i.e., for state staff, local program staff, school practitioners on ID&R, service delivery, 

and/or data collection and reporting) or parent involvement activities (e.g., adult education, ESL, 

GED, etc., or parent training on supporting children educational growth)? 

a. How many staff members receive professional development? Who delivers these services? 

What challenges are associated with delivering these services? [Probe for: lack of interest; 

lack of funding, lack of quality, etc.] How, if at all, does the state address these challenges? 

What benefits have resulted from these services and activities? 

b. How many parents participate in parent involvement and education activities? Who delivers 

these services? What challenges are associated with delivering these services? [Probe for: 

lack of interest; lack of funding, lack of quality, etc.] How, if at all, does the state address 

these challenges? What benefits have resulted from these services and activities? 

19. Looking across the services provided to migrant students (i.e., directly or through subgrantees), 

which have been the most effective in meeting migrant student needs? Why [Probe: better 

outcomes, greater satisfaction or participation, easier implementation, more cost-effective, other 

reason]? How do you know? 

20. What, if any, services do you think should be added, dropped, or adjusted among the portfolio of 

services and supports offered to migrant students in your state? Why? Are there needed services 

that the state lacks the capacity to provide? If so, why? 

21. What if any changes do you think ESSA will have on the services (i.e., type, frequency, duration, etc.) 

provided for eligible migrant students? How do you expect those changes might affect your capacity 

to meet the needs of eligible migrant students? Are those changes driven by changes in policy, 

funding, regulations, accountability plans, etc.? 

Services Specific to PFS 

22. Which MEP-funded services has your state prioritized providing for students who have moved 

within the year, are at-risk of failing, or dropped out of school, or otherwise have been identified as 

PFS? [Probe for: instructional services including ELA, math, and other supplemental instruction; 

guidance/advocacy services; preschool services; preparation for post-secondary transition; staff 

professional development, health, dental, and eye care; school supplies; clothing; transportation; 

parent education and support; referrals; staff professional development, etc.] 

a. How did your state determine those priorities? 

b. To what extent, if at all, did federal changes in the definition of PFS affect the type and 

distribution of services for migratory students? If so, how were services affected and why? If 

not, why not? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Services Specific to Out-of-School Youth (OSY) 

23. What services has your state prioritized funding or delivering to migrants who are identified as OSY? 

a. How did your state select MEP-funded services to provide to eligible migrants who are OSY? 

b. How and when are these services delivered to eligible migrants who are OSY? [Probe for: 

through what structures/personnel?] What factors dictate when these services are 

provided? 

Services Supporting High School Completion, Postsecondary Education, and 

Workforce/Career Readiness 

24. What specific academic and non-academic services has the state prioritized funding, provided, or set 

policy for older migrant students who are working toward high school completion, post-secondary 

education, and the workforce? 

[Probe for: Review and revise state and local attendance and credit accrual policies; professional 

development to educators and social service providers on the special needs of migratory youth; 

alternative schooling options, such as individualized instruction, credit recovery, online courses, and 

providing access to adult education courses; after school opportunities for supplemental instruction 

and enrichment; health and wellness support, including medical, dental, and mental health services; 

life skills development, including communications, problem solving, critical thinking, and behavior 

management skills.] 

a. What factors did your state consider when selecting those priority strategies? 

b. How and when are these services to improve high school completion rates provided to 

eligible migrant students (i.e., year-round, summer, school-year)? What factors dictate 

when these services are provided? 

Coordination and Collaboration 

25. Does the state MEP coordinate its administrative responsibilities/activities with other departments, 

agencies, organizations, or programs in the state to address the needs of migrant students? If so, 

why? If not, why not? 

26. [If yes:] With what departments, agencies, organizations, and programs does the state MEP 

coordinate and collaborate? [Probe for: Title I, Parts A & D; Title III; Title IV, Part B; Title VI, Part B; 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program; IDEA; Department of Health; Department of 

Labor; Department of Agriculture; etc.] 

a. What is the purpose for each collaboration? What are the shared goals and objectives? 

b. Who is involved in efforts to coordinate and collaborate; what is the frequency of 

interactions and the topics of communication? 

c. What formalized agreements, such as Memoranda of Understandings or cost-sharing 

agreements, exist between the MEP and other state-level programs or agencies? 

d. What strategies or processes have supported effective coordination and collaboration 

between the MEP and other state programs or agencies? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e. What are the benefits of coordination and collaboration for MEP and for migrant students? 

Has it increased the types, frequency, duration, volume, and/or quality of services provided 

to migrant students? 

f. What are the challenges or drawbacks, if any? 

27. Does the state make referrals to other service providers to directly provide services to migrant 

students? [If yes] Describe the portfolio of services offered through referrals. What gaps, if any, exist 

in service providers to whom the state can refer migrant students? 

28. How, if all, does your state coordinate with the College Assistance Migrant Program, the High School 

Equivalency Program, the Migrant Education Even Start Program, and other programs funded by the 

U.S. Office of Migrant Education (OME)? 

a. What is the purpose for each collaboration? What are the shared goals and objectives? 

b. Who is involved in efforts to coordinate and collaborate; what is the frequency of 

interactions and the topics of communication? 

c. What formalized agreements, such as Memoranda of Understandings or cost-sharing 

agreements, exist between the MEP and other state-level programs or agencies? 

d. What strategies or processes have supported effective coordination and collaboration 

between the MEP and other state programs or agencies? 

e. What are the benefits of coordination and collaboration for the MEP and for migrant 

students? Has it increased the types, frequency, duration, volume, and/or quality of services 

provided to migrant students? 

f. What are the challenges or drawbacks, if any? 

29. In what ways, if at all, does the state MEP facilitate coordination and collaboration between 

subgrantees and other local programs and agencies working with migrant or other at-risk student 

populations? For what purposes does the state facilitate program coordination and collaboration at 

the local level? 

a. To your knowledge, what are the challenges to subgrantees coordinating and collaborating 

with other organizations and agencies to serve the needs of migrant students? 

Accountability and Data Use 

Technical Assistance, Monitoring, and Accountability 

30. Are migrant students included as a subgroup in your state accountability framework under ESSA or 

in your NCLB waiver (if your state has one)? If not, why not? If so, what implications has that had for 

the MEP? 

31. To what extent do the data requirements of the federal Comprehensive State Performance Report 

(CSPR) adequately capture useful data regarding migrant student needs and outcomes? 

a. Which CSPR data on migrant students are the most useful, and how are they useful? 

b. Does your state collect additional data that is not required by the CSPR? Please describe the 

data and why they are collected. 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. What have been the challenges, if any, associated with completing the MEP portion of the 

CSPR? 

d. What changes, if any, would you like to see in federal CSPR reporting requirements related 

to migrant student data? Why? 

32. [If state has MEP subgrantees] Does the state provide targeted technical assistance regarding MEP 

to it subgrantees? If so, how does the state identify which subgrantees need assistance and how the 

state can best help? 

33. What other types of supports does the state MEP provide to its subgrantees? [Probe for: statewide 

conferences, resource guides, etc.] 

34. To your knowledge, has state support had an effect on subgrantees’ efforts to deliver services and 

supports to eligible migrant students? If so, what? Please describe the successes and challenges 

resulting from state support. 

a. What are the most significant challenges associated with providing technical assistance and 

support to MEP subgrantees? 

35. Does the state monitor its MEP-funded subgrantees? If not, why not? 

a. [If yes:] What specific strategies does the state use to monitor MEP-funded subgrantees and 

why? For example, do state administrators conduct in-person monitoring visits to 

subgrantee sites? If so, how often? Are monitoring visits conducted annually to all 

subgrantee sites? If not, why not? 

b. What subgrantee monitoring strategies have been most and least effective and why? 

c. Is MEP subgrantee monitoring coordinated or integrated with other ESSA program 

monitoring? 

36. Has the state evaluated (directly or through a grant or contract with an external evaluator) the 

effectiveness of its MEP program? If so, how many evaluations have been conducted since 2010? 

a. To what extent, if at all, have evaluation findings informed state efforts to guide and assist 

subgrantees? 

b. What have been the challenges, if any, associated with conducting an MEP evaluation? 

Data Collection and Use 

37. What data, if any, are collected and reported on migrant students in your state’s student data 

system? 

a. Are migrant students reported as a sub-population in formal reporting, such as in a state 

report card? If not, why not? 

b. Which state data on migrant students are the most useful, and how are they useful? 

c. To what extent, if at all, does your office/MEP-funded state administrators work with the 

state accountability office regarding migrant student data and formal accountability 

reporting? What are the challenges? 

d. What changes, if any, would you like to see in the state accountability system and reporting 

requirements related to migrant student data? Why? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38. Does the state MEP use outcomes data to inform ongoing decisions about SDPs, such as changing, 

continuing, or discontinuing services and supports for eligible migrant students and OSY? 

a. [If yes:] What specific types of outcomes data are used to inform SDPs? For example, does 

the state look at student outcomes data—academic (academic performance, graduation, 

grades, course completion) and non-academic (health, job attainment, housing)—to inform 

SDPs? [If yes:] Does the state link individual MEP participation data to student outcomes 

data? 

i. Which outcomes data are most useful for purposes of informing state SDPs? Why? 

ii. What is the process for reviewing these outcomes data for decision-making 

purposes, and how frequently does that review occur? 

iii. What program decisions were made based on outcomes data? 

b. [If no:] Are there challenges or other reasons that inhibit the use of student outcomes data 

or other outcomes evidence for decisions about SDPs? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F. Regional/Local MEP Coordinator

Interview Guide 

Introduction to the Interview 

• Introduce the interviewer(s). 

• Explain the purpose of the study and the topics to be covered in the interview. Interviewers will 

read the following statement to interview respondents at the beginning of each interview: 

The Evaluation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I—Part C Migrant 

Education Program (MEP) is being carried out under contract for the U.S. Department of Education 

by Policy Studies Associates (PSA), a research organization, Arroyo Research Services (ARS), a 

research organization, and SRI International (SRI), an independent, nonprofit research institute 

(collectively “the study team”). The evaluation will describe how state and local MEP-funded 

programs have evolved in response to changing requirements and how they are serving the needs 

of a changing migratory student population. 

• Explain the provisions for protecting respondent’s privacy. Interviewers will read the following 

statement to interview respondents at the beginning of each interview: 

As part of the evaluation, the study team will share its findings with the U.S. Department of 

Education. However, the results of the interviews will be summarized across all the states, districts, 

and programs participating in interviews. Individuals will not be identified by name in any report, 

and data will be reported in a manner that does not reveal your identity or the identity of your 

program. However, we may use anonymous quotes to help illuminate the findings. 

• Advise the respondent that the interview will last approximately 45-60 minutes. 

• Invite questions from the respondent. 

• Ask permission to audio-record the interview using the following statement: 

We would like to record this conversation in order to ensure that we accurately capture your 

comments. If you agree, we would retain the recording only until we are able to validate the 

transcripts, at which point the voice recording would be destroyed. The transcripts will be destroyed 

at the end of the study. If at any point you would like to say something off the record, I will stop the 

recording. Do you agree to allow us to record the interview? 

• Confirm respondent’s current roles and responsibilities within the agency/organization and in terms 

of the MEP Program. Ask if there are others we should speak with regarding MEP. 

Interview Questions 

NOTE: Interviewers will ask all follow-up questions as specified in the protocol. In addition, interviewers 

will be directed to seek clarification of any response they judge to be vague or incomplete. The primary 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 66 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

strategy for seeking clarification will be to ask respondents to provide specific examples to illustrate 

their responses. A second strategy will be to ask respondents to “say more” or to “expand on” or 

“explain the meaning of” a particular comment. 

Program Staffing and Administration 

1. What is your professional background? 

a. How long have you worked for the [RESP, LEA, or LOA]? 

b. How long have you worked with the Migrant Education Program (MEP)? 

c. How many hours a week do you estimate you devote to MEP-related activities? 

d. What other responsibilities, if any, have you held within the [RESP, LEA, or LOA]? 

2. In the past year, on what MEP-related activities do you spend most of your time? 

[Probe for: responding to state requirements; delivering program strategies and services for migrant 

students; collaborating with other agencies and organizations; providing professional development 

and parent involvement activities; identifying and recruiting eligible migrant students; 

evaluating/monitoring service delivery and quality; COE review, data entry and management, etc.] 

a. In the past year, to what areas of program administration would you say you devoted the 

most time? Please describe what you do for each of those activities. 

3. [FOR MEP Coordinator ONLY] In which department or office within the [RESP, LEA, or LOA] is the 

MEP located? 

4. [FOR MEP Coordinator ONLY] Please describe the MEP staffing. 

a. How many [RESP, LEA, or LOA] staff [number of staff positions and FTEs] are assigned to the 

MEP? How many staff are full-time on MEP? 

b. What are the administrative responsibilities and time commitments of [RESP, LEA, or LOA] 

staff assigned to the MEP? [Probe for: responding to state requirements; delivering program 

strategies and services for migrant students; collaborating with other agencies and 

organizations; providing professional development and parent involvement activities; 

identifying and recruiting eligible migrant students; evaluating/monitoring service delivery 

and quality; COE review, data entry and management, etc.] 

c. If [RESP, LEA, or LOA] MEP staff have administrative responsibilities to other programs 

within the SEA, what are those other responsibilities? 

5. In your opinion, is the number of MEP-funded staff sufficient to administer the MEP effectively? If 

so, why? If not, why not? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

6. Do you contract with any outside contractors or consultants for services related to the MEP? If not, 

why not? 

a. [If yes:] How many outside contractors/consultants does your program work with and what 

services do they provide? [Prompt: evaluation, technical assistance, re-interviewing, service 

delivery plan, comprehensive needs assessment, professional development, recruiting, OSY 

services] 

i. Are contractors providing educational services (e.g. tutors)? 

ii. What percentage of your administrative set-aside under the MEP is allocated to 

outside contractors/consultants? 

Migrant Student Needs 

7. What are the most significant barriers or challenges that migrant students in your region or district 

face that may disrupt or delay their educational progress? [Probe for: cultural and language barriers, 

social isolation, academic achievement, educational continuity, access to services, health-related 

problems, family support, etc.] 

8. How, if at all, have changes in migrant communities in your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] affected the current 

needs of migrant students? [Probe for: small/large migrant population size, concentrated or 

spreading population, fluctuating migrant population numbers, funding, cross-agency collaboration] 

9. Has your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] conducted a Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CNA)? If yes, please 

describe the process of developing the CNA. 

a. What stakeholder groups (other agencies and organizations, community-based 

organizations, parents, etc.), if any, were involved in identifying migrant student needs 

and/or writing the CNA? 

i. Were there any stakeholder groups or individuals who were not involved in the CNA 

who should have been? Why? 

b. How were migrant student needs identified and prioritized? 

c. What methods were used to gather and analyze data and make decisions? 

i. What data were most influential? 

d. To your knowledge, are migrant student needs in your [region, district, locale] different 

from those identified by the state? If so, explain. 

i. How do those differences affect the types of services and supports your program 

provides to eligible migrant students or program operations and implementation? 

10. Does your State’s Service Delivery Plan (SDP) align with or influence local priorities? 

a. To what extent did your program provide input on your state’s SDP? 

b. To what extent does the state’s SDP change what you do in terms of the students served 

and the services provided? 

c. Do you believe the MPOs focus on the appropriate outcomes for the MEP? If not, why not? 

i. What migrant student needs have been identified that the state’s SDP and MPOs do 

not address? Why? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii. What MPOs do you believe are particularly challenging for your program to achieve? 

Why? 

11. What data sources, if any, does your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] draw on to make decisions about the 

effectiveness of MEP services and activities for your eligible migrant student population? [Probe for: 

LEA student performance, enrollment, graduation data; participant/parent/staff surveys; individual 

student plans; program data, MEP participant/end-of-project reports] 

Identification and Recruitment 

12. What is the size of the eligible migrant student population in the [region/district]? 

13. How does your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] identify and recruit migrant students? 

a. What strategies are used? [Probe: Are there particular [districts/schools] that receive 

highest priority?] 

b. How, if at all, does your [region/district] work with other local agencies, organizations, 

schools, and community-based organizations to coordinate its migrant student identification 

and recruitment efforts? 

c. What criteria are used for identifying eligible migrant students? 

d. Does your [region/district] apply any additional criteria beyond the federal criteria for 

determining migrant student eligibility? 

e. Are there processes in place to ensure the accuracy of eligibility determinations? 

i. If so, what are they? 

14. Has your [region/district] changed how it identifies and recruits migrant students in response to the 

Every Student Succeeds Act’s (ESSA’s) expanded definition for Priority for Service (PFS)? 

a. [If yes:] What identification and recruitment strategies were added or changed and why? 

b. What were the benefits and challenges, if any, of these additions or changes? 

c. [If no:] Does your [region/district] have plans to change your ID&R practices in the future in 

response to ESSA? If not, why not? 

15. With regard to out-of-school youth (OSY), how does your [region/district] identify eligible migrants 

who are OSY (e.g., collaborate with youth-serving organizations and programs on outreach)? 

a. How do identification strategies differ for those who are at risk for dropping out of school 

versus those who have already dropped out of school, are working towards their GED, or are 

“here to work” only? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEP-funded Services and Activities 

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: Request a copy of their Service Delivery Plan (SDP). 

16. Please describe the types of services your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] funds or directly delivers to support 

the academic needs of migrant students. 

[Probe for: instructional services including ELA, math, and other supplemental instruction; credit 

recovery/online courses; guidance/advocacy services; preschool services; preparation for postsecondary transition, etc.] 

a. How many students receive each of these types of services? 

b. Who delivers these academic support services to eligible migrant students? 

i. How many school staff are involved in delivering those services 

ii. To what extent have they received training in working with migrant student 

populations? 

c. When are these academic support services delivered (e.g., during the school day, before or 

after school, in the summer months or intercession periods)? 

d. What are the challenges, if any, to delivering these academic services to eligible migrant 

students? 

[Probe for: small/large migrant population size, concentrated or spread population, 

fluctuating migrant population numbers, funding, level cross-agency collaboration] 

i. How are these challenges addressed? 

e. To your knowledge, what benefits have resulted from the academic support services 

delivered to eligible migrant students? 

17. Please describe the types of services your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] funds or directly delivers to support 

the non-academic needs of migrant students. 

[Probe for: health, dental, and eye care; school supplies; clothing; transportation; parent education 

and support; referrals etc.] 

a. How many students receive each of these types of services? 

b. Who delivers these non-academic support services to eligible migrant students? 

i. How many school staff are involved in delivering those services 

ii. To what extent have they received training in working with migrant student 

populations? 

c. When are they usually delivered (e.g., during the school day, before or after school, in the 

summer months or intercession periods)? 

d. What are the challenges, if any, to delivering these non-academic services to eligible 

migrant students? 

[Probe for: small/large migrant population size, concentrated or spread population, 

fluctuating migrant population numbers, funding, cross-agency collaboration] 

i. How are these challenges addressed? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e. To your knowledge, what benefits have resulted from the non-academic support services 

delivered to eligible migrant students? 

18. What OTHER services or activities are provided to support the needs of migratory children and 

youth (including OSY)? For example, to what extent does your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] fund or deliver 

professional development (i.e., for local program staff, school practitioners on ID&R, service 

delivery, and/or data collection and reporting) or parent involvement activities (e.g., adult 

education, ESL, GED, etc., or parent training on supporting children educational growth)? 

a. How many staff members receive professional development? 

i. Who delivers these services? 

ii. What challenges are associated with delivering these services? [Probe for: lack of 

interest; lack of funding, lack of quality, etc.] 

iii. How, if at all, does the region or district address these challenges? 

iv. What benefits have results from these services and activities? 

b. How many parents participate in parent involvement and education activities? 

i. Who delivers these services? 

ii. What challenges are associated with delivering these services? 

[Probe for: lack of interest; lack of funding, lack of quality, etc.] 

iii. How, if at all, does the region or district address these challenges? 

iv. What benefits have results from these services and activities? 

19. Looking across the services and supports provided to migrant students, which have been the most 

effective in meeting migrant student needs? 

a. Why? [Probe: better outcomes, greater satisfaction or participation, easier implementation, 

more cost-effective, other reason]? 

b. How do you know? 

20. What, if any, services to do think should be added, dropped, or adjusted among the portfolio of 

services and supports offered to migrant students in your [RESP, LEA, or LOA]? 

a. Why? 

b. Are there needed services that your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] lacks the capacity to provide? 

i. If so, why? 

21. What if any changes do you think ESSA will have on the services (e.g., type, frequency, duration) 

provided for eligible migrant students in your [RESP, LEA, or LOA]? 

a. How do you expect those changes might affect your capacity to meet the needs of eligible 

migrant students? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Services Specific to PFS 

22. Which MEP-funded services has your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] prioritized providing for students who have 

moved within the year, are at-risk of failing, or dropped out of school, or otherwise have been 

identified as PFS? 

[Probe for: instructional services including ELA, math, and other supplemental instruction; guidance/ 

advocacy services; preschool services; preparation for post-secondary transition; staff professional 

development, health, dental, and eye care; school supplies; clothing; transportation; parent 

education and support; referrals; staff professional development, etc.] 

a. How did your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] determine those priorities? 

b. Did federal changes in the definition of PFS affect the type and distribution of services for 

migratory students? 

i. If so, to what extent? How were services affected and why? 

ii. If not, why not? 

Services Specific to Out-of-School Youth (OSY) 

23. What services has your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] prioritized funding or delivering to migrants who are 

identified as OSY? 

a. How did your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] select MEP-funded services to provide to eligible migrants 

who are OSY? 

b. How and when are these services delivered to eligible migrants who are OSY? 

[Probe for: through what structures/personnel?] 

i. What factors dictate when these services are provided? 

Services Supporting High School Completion, Postsecondary Education, and 

Workforce/Career Readiness 

24. What specific academic and non-academic services has your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] prioritized 

providing for older migrant students who are working toward high school completion, postsecondary education, and the workforce? 

[Probe for: Review and revise local attendance and credit accrual policies; professional development 

to educators and social service providers on the special needs of migratory youth; alternative 

schooling options, such as individualized instruction, credit recovery, online courses, and providing 

access to adult education courses; after school opportunities for supplemental instruction and 

enrichment; health and wellness support, including medical, dental, and mental health services; life 

skills development, including communications, problem solving, critical thinking, and behavior 

management skills.] 

a. What factors did your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] consider when selecting those priority strategies? 

b. How and when are these services to improve high school completion rates provided to 

eligible migrant students (i.e., year-round, summer, school-year)? 

i. What factors dictate when these services are provided? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coordination and Collaboration 

25. Does your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] coordinate its administrative responsibilities/activities with other 

departments, agencies, organizations, or programs in the region/district to address the needs of 

migrant students? 

a. If so, why? 

b. If not, why not? 

26. [If yes:] With what departments, agencies, organizations, and programs does your [RESP, LEA, or 

LOA] coordinate and collaborate? 

[Probe for: Title I, Parts A & D; Title III; Title IV, Part B; Title VI, Part B; Education for Homeless 

Children and Youth Program; IDEA; Department of Health; Department of Labor; Department of 

Agriculture; etc.] 

a. What is the purpose for each collaboration? 

b. What are the shared goals and objectives? 

c. Who is involved in efforts to coordinate and collaborate? 

d. What is the frequency of interactions and the topics of communication? 

e. What formalized agreements, such as Memoranda of Understandings or cost-sharing 

agreements, exist between the MEP and other local programs or agencies? 

f. What strategies or processes have supported effective coordination and collaboration 

between the MEP and other local programs or agencies? 

g. What are the benefits of coordination and collaboration for the MEP and for migrant 

students? 

h. Has it increased the types, frequency, duration, volume, and/or quality of services provided 

to migrant students? 

i. What are the challenges or drawbacks, if any? 

27. Does your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] make referrals to other service providers to directly provide services 

to migrant students? 

a. [If yes] Describe the portfolio of services offered through referrals. 

b. What gaps, if any, exist in service providers to whom your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] can refer 

migrant students? 

28. How, if at all, does your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] coordinate with the College Assistance Migrant 

Program, the High School Equivalency Program, the Migrant Education Even Start Program, and 

other programs funded by the U.S. Office of Migrant Education (OME)? 

a. What is the purpose for each collaboration? 

b. What are the shared goals and objectives? 

c. Who is involved in efforts to coordinate and collaborate? 

d. What is the frequency of interactions and the topics of communication? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e. What formalized agreements, such as Memoranda of Understandings or cost-sharing 

agreements, exist between the MEP and other local programs or agencies? 

f. What strategies or processes have supported effective coordination and collaboration 

between the MEP and other local programs or agencies? 

g. What are the benefits of coordination and collaboration for the MEP and for migrant 

students? 

h. Has it increased the types, frequency, duration, volume, and/or quality of services provided 

to migrant students? 

i. What are the challenges or drawbacks, if any? 

Accountability and Data Use 

Technical Assistance, Monitoring, and Accountability 

29. Has the state provided you with any technical assistance regarding MEP? 

a. If so, what was the nature of the assistance and how was it delivered? Was it helpful? 

b. If not, why not? 

30. What other types of supports has the state MEP provided to you? [Probe for: statewide conferences, 

resource guides, etc.] 

a. To what extent did you find this support helpful? 

i. If not, why not? 

31. From what other sources, if any, have you sought or received support in the administration of the 

MEP? 

32. Does the state monitor your MEP-funded program/activities? 

a. If not, why not? 

b. If so, what specific strategies does the state use to monitor your MEP-funded 

program/activities? 

i. For example, do state administrators conduct in-person monitoring visits to your 

program? If so, how often? 

c. How, if at all, have state monitoring activities supported your efforts to administer your 

MEP-funded program? 

d. What changes, for example, have you made in response to monitoring and technical 

assistance? 

33. Has your program been evaluated by an external evaluator? 

a. If so, when? [NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: Obtain a copy of evaluation report] 

b. To what extent, if at all, have evaluation findings informed your efforts to administer your 

MEP-funded program? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data Collection and Use 

34. How are data on migrant students tracked in your state’s data system? 

a. How, if at all, does your office work with the state accountability office regarding migrant 

student data and formal accountability reporting? 

b. Are migrant students reported as a sub-population in formal [LEA or RESP] reporting? 

c. Which state data on migrant students are the most useful, and how are they useful? 

d. What have been the challenges, if any, associated with complying with state reporting 

requirements? 

e. What changes, if any, would you like to see in federal and/or accountability system and 

state reporting requirements related to migrant student data? 

i. Why? 

f. Does your [RESP, LEA, or LOA] collect additional data that are not required by the state? 

i. Please describe the data and why they are collected. 

35. Do you use outcomes data to inform ongoing decisions about changing, continuing, or discontinuing 

MEP-funded services and supports for eligible migrant students and OSY? 

a. [If yes:] What specific types of outcomes data are used to inform your decision making 

regarding the delivery of services and supports? For example, do you look at student 

outcomes data—academic (academic performance, graduation, grades, course completion) 

and non-academic (health, job attainment, housing)—to inform your decision making? 

i. Which outcomes data are most useful for purposes of informing local goals and 

objectives? Why? 

ii. What is the process for reviewing these outcomes data for decision-making 

purposes, and how frequently does that review occur? 

b. What program decisions were made based on outcomes data? 

[If no:] Are there challenges or other reasons that inhibit the use of outcomes data or other 

evidence for program decision-making? 

c. What service-level data do you track, if any? How are those data tracked and how are they 

used when reviewing program outcomes? 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G. Supporting Data for Exhibits 

Exhibit F-1. Supporting data for Exhibit 4. State MEP ID&R management structures, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Pct. n SE 

Subgrantees manage ID&R directly 33 15 7.0 

Subgrantees manage ID&R directly and the state contracts with an external 20 9 5.9 

organization(s) or agency(ies) to manage ID&R 

The state contracts with an external organization(s) or agency(ies) to manage ID&R 13 6 5.0 

Other 9 4 4.2 

The state manages ID&R directly 7 3 3.7 

The state and its subgrantees manage ID&R directly 7 3 3.7 

The state manages ID&R directly, its MEP subgrantees manage ID&R directly, and the 

state contracts with an external organization(s) or agency(ies) to manage ID&R 

7 3 3.7 

The state manages ID&R directly and contracts with an external organization(s) or 

agency(ies) to manage ID&R 

7 3 3.7 

Source: State MEP director survey, Items 2 and 3 (n = 46). 

Exhibit F-2. Percent reporting that they managed ID&R directly, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Rely on MEP subgrantees to conduct migratory student 

ID&R activities 

65 30 7.1 20 148 1.5 

Contract with external organizations/agencies to conduct 

migratory student ID&R activities 

46 21 7.4 2 17 0.6 

Manage migratory student ID&R activities directly 26 12 6.6 78 576 1.5 

Other 13 6 5.0 2 16 0.5 

Rely on the state MEP to conduct migratory student ID&R 

activities 

N/A N/A N/A 21 154 1.5 

Rely on regional/intermediate educational service agencies 

or other entities to conduct migratory student ID&R 

activities 

N/A N/A N/A 11 82 1.2 

Don’t know 0 0 0.0 2 14 0.5 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 3 (n = 46); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 6 (n = 735). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-3. Average number of recruitment strategies recruiters used to identify and recruit 

migratory children, 2017–18 

Average number of 

recruitment strategies SE 

State MEP directors * 6.7 0.2 

Local and regional MEP coordinators 5.5 0.1 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 11 (n = 18); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 16 (n = 709). 

Exhibit F-4. Supporting data for Exhibit 5. Strategies state and local /regional recruiters used to 

identify and recruit migratory children, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Develop and maintain contacts with staff in local schools 

(i.e., school secretaries, nurses, guidance counselors, 

teachers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers) who work 

directly with migratory families 

100 46 0.0 96 707 0.7 

Develop and maintain contacts in places/communities 

where migratory families are likely to reside (i.e., local 

apartment complexes, shared homes/trailers, etc.) 

100 46 0.0 83 613 1.4 

Develop and maintain contact with employers who hire 

migratory workers 96 44 3.0 81 593 1.5 

Use referrals from other agencies and organizations (e.g., 

state department of health and human services, state 

department of labor, etc.) 

91 42 4.2 71 521 1.7 

Attend community events to raise awareness about the 

availability MEP-funded services 80 37 5.9 75 553 1.6 

Use social media (e.g., Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc.) to 

raise awareness about the availability of MEP-funded 

services for eligible migratory students and out-of-school 

youth 

46 21 7.4 31 231 1.7 

Use mass media (e.g., radio, television, newspapers, etc.) to 

raise awareness about the availability of MEP-funded 

services for eligible migratory students and out-of-school 

youth 

35 16 7.1 28 206 1.7 

Other 31 13 7.2 9 61 1.1 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 5 (n = 46); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 8 (n = 721). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 77 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-5. Supporting data for Exhibit 6. Criteria state grantees and local /regional subgrantees 

used to determine PFS eligibility, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Academic performance 

Achieving below grade-level based on state assessment 

results-PFS criteria 94 43 3.7 89 654 1.2 

Dropped out of school-PFS criteria 89 41 4.6 70 512 1.7 

Limited English proficiency-PFS criteria 85 39 5.4 78 572 1.5 

Retained in grade-PFS criteria 80 37 5.9 71 525 1.7 

Behind in accumulating credits for their grade level-PFS 

criteria 72 33 6.7 73 538 1.6 

Overage for their grade level-PFS criteria 65 30 7.1 60 437 1.8 

GPA below 1.5-PFS criteria 42 19 7.4 53 391 1.8 

Lack of state assessment data-PFS criteria 36 16 7.2 50 369 1.8 

Teacher/staff reports of problems-PFS criteria 35 16 7.1 45 333 1.8 

Social risk factors 

Changed schools during the previous or current school 

year-PFS criteria 74 34 6.5 75 552 1.6 

Chronic absenteeism-PFS criteria 44 20 7.4 52 380 1.8 

Truancy-PFS criteria 32 14 7.1 40 296 1.8 

Discipline incidents including suspensions or expulsionsPFS criteria 18 8 5.8 25 184 1.6 

In foster care-PFS criteria 18 8 5.8 27 201 1.6 

Pregnancy/teen parenthood-PFS criteria 17 8 5.7 23 165 1.5 

Involved in juvenile justice system-PFS criteria 16 7 5.5 22 162 1.5 

Reports of substance abuse-PFS criteria 2 1 2.2 17 122 1.4 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 6 (n = 46); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 9 (n = 738). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-6. Supporting data for Exhibit 7. Changes to Priority for Services eligibility criteria under 

ESSA, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Criteria most often added under ESSA 

Dropped out of school 22 10 6.1 9 69 1.1 

Pregnancy/teen parenthood 11 5 4.6 3 22 0.6 

In foster care 11 5 4.7 5 33 0.8 

Retained in grade 7 3 3.7 2 17 0.6 

Lack of state assessment data 7 3 3.7 3 24 0.7 

Criteria most often dropped under ESSA 

Changed schools during the previous or current school year 15 7 5.4 6 46 0.9 

Chronic absenteeism 7 3 3.7 6 46 0.9 

Teacher or staff reports of problems 7 3 3.8 1 7 0.4 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 6 (n = 46); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 9 (n = 738). 

Exhibit F-7. Supporting data for Exhibit 8. State strategies used to ensure local/and regional 

subgrantees prioritize services for PFS migratory children, 2017–18 

Pct. n SE 

Apply a weighted funding formula for MEP subgrantees based on the number of 

identified PFS students 77 33 6.5 

Require MEP subgrantees to provide a minimum level of instructional services 

for PFS students (e.g. minimum number of hours or contacts) 23 10 6.5 

Base the selection of MEP subgrantees on the number of identified PFS students 14 6 5.3 

Select MEP subgrantees based on how they will prioritize services for PFS 

students 7 3 3.9 

Other 16 7 5.7 

None of the above 7 3 3.9 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 14 (n = 43). 

Exhibit F-8. Supporting data for Exhibit 9. Extent to which MSIX improved timely notification when 

migratory students move across states, 2017–18 

State MEP directors Local/regional MEP coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Substantially or moderately improved 72 30 7.1 70 379 2.0 

Minimally improved 26 11 6.9 19 105 1.7 

Does not at all improve 2 1 2.4 11 59 1.3 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 29 (n =42); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 34 (n = 543). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-9. Supporting data for Exhibit 10. Extent to which MSIX facilitated migratory student 

records transfer across states, 2017–18 

State MEP directors Local/regional MEP coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Significantly or somewhat facilitates 76 35 6.4 82 447 1.6

Minimally facilitates 22 10 6.1 14 74 1.5 

Does not at all facilitate 2 1 2.2 4 24 0.9 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 27 (n =46); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 32 (n = 545). 

Exhibit F-10. Percent of MEPs who reported that they did not know whether MSIX improved other 

practices intended to mitigate educational disruptions for migratory children, 

2017–18 

Pct. n SE 

State MEP directors 7 3 3.7 

Local/regional MEP coordinators 24 178 1.6 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 29 (n =46); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 34 (n = 742). 

Exhibit F-11. Supporting data for Exhibit 11. MEP directors’ and coordinators’ perceptions of the 

extent to which MSIX improved practices intended to mitigate educational disruptions 

for migratory children, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Facilitation of course credit accrual 54 22 7.9 62 316 2.1 

Appropriateness of course placements 51 21 7.9 63 331 2.1 

Appropriateness of grade placements 49 20 7.9 63 330 2.1 

Timeliness of school enrollment 46 19 7.9 59 314 2.1 

Reduction in unnecessary immunizations 40 14 8.4 53 249 2.3 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 29 (n = 41); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 34 (n = 542). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 80 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-12. Supporting data for Exhibit 12. Sources of influence on state MEP grantees’ 

determination of specific services for migratory students and out-of-school youth, 

2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Needs assessments of migratory students 100 45 0.0 95 702 0.8 

Amount of MEP funds available 98 44 2.2 93 684 1.0 

Migratory student outcomes data 98 44 2.2 91 669 1.1 

Federal policy priorities 93 42 3.8 84 622 1.3 

Availability of services from other programs 93 42 3.8 87 642 1.2 

State policy priorities 84 38 5.5 92 676 1.0 

Research evidence on migratory students 78 35 6.3 91 670 1.1 

LEA policy priorities 73 33 6.7 74 546 1.6 

Social service agency priorities 56 25 7.5 53 390 1.8 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 7 (n = 45); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 10 (n = 738). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-13. Sources state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees used to select 

evidence-based instructional and support services for migratory children, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

The What Works Clearinghouse (Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education) 45 20 7.5 30 216 1.7 

Evidence for ESSA (Center for Research and Reform in 

Education, Johns Hopkins University School of Education) 

39 17 7.4 25 181 1.6 

The Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) (Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education) 

34 15 7.2 16 113 1.3 

The Comprehensive Centers Program (Office of Elementary 

and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education) 

32 14 7.1 12 84 1.2 

The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and 

Practices (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) 

7 3 3.8 6 44 0.9 

None of these 34 15 7.2 12 93 1.2 

Other 14 6 5.2 9 64 1.1 

State MEP director or staff n/a n/a n/a 75 544 1.6 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 31 (n = 44); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 36 (n = 726). 

Exhibit F-14. Data state MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators used to inform planning 

and delivery of MEP-funded services, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Progress on Measurable Program Outcomes 93 42 3.8 75 549 1.6 

Student performance on state assessments 93 42 3.8 87 637 1.3 

Student graduation rates 84 38 5.5 71 518 1.7 

Progress on MEP Performance Targets 80 36 6.0 64 469 1.8 

Parent survey responses 80 36 6.0 74 544 1.6 

Staff survey responses 73 33 6.7 53 392 1.8 

Performance on MEP Indicators 71 32 6.8 64 472 1.8 

Participant survey responses 69 31 7.0 55 407 1.8 

Student enrollment patterns 60 27 7.4 57 419 1.8 

Source State MEP director survey, Item 30 (n=45); Regional/local MEP coordinator survey, Item 35 (n=734). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-15. Supporting data for Exhibit 13. Percentage of state MEP grantees and local/regional 

MEP subgrantees that could disaggregate various types of data by students’ migratory 

status, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Academic performance 

Limited English proficiency 97 38 2.6 92 550 1.1 

Dropout status 87 34 5.4 76 455 1.7 

Changed schools during the previous or current school year 87 34 5.4 84 498 1.5 

Scores on state assessments 85 33 5.9 85 509 1.4 

Cohort graduation rates 82 32 6.2 62 369 2 

Retention in grade 69 27 7.5 81 483 1.6 

Attendance 67 26 7.6 88 525 1.3 

Course grades 66 25 7.8 90 534 1.3 

Overage for their grade level 62 23 8.1 70 414 1.9 

Social risk factors 

Truancy and chronic absenteeism 50 19 8.2 83 490 1.6 

Discipline incidents 37 14 7.9 76 449 1.8 

Involvement with social services 22 8 6.9 41 242 2.0 

Involvement with juvenile justice 6 2 3.9 25 147 1.8 

Reports of substance abuse 3 1 2.6 16 93 1.5 

Pregnancy 0 0 0.0 20 117 1.6 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 24 (n = 39); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 29 (n = 596). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-16. Supporting data for Exhibit 14. State MEP structures for providing instructional services 

to migratory children, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Pct. n SE 

MEP subgrantees provide instructional services directly 37 17 7.2 

MEP subgrantees provide instructional services directly and the state contracts with 

an external organization(s) or agency(ies) to provide instructional services 22 10 6.1 

The state provides instructional services directly 4 2 3.0 

The state provides instructional services directly and its subgrantees provide 

instructional services directly 22 10 6.2 

The state provides instructional services directly, its subgrantees provide instructional 

services, and the state contracts with an external organization(s) or agency(ies) to 

provide instructional services 

13 6 5.0 

The state provides instructional services directly and contracts with an external 

organization(s) or agency(ies) to provide instructional services 2 1 2.2 

Source: State MEP director survey, Items 2 and 9 (n = 46). 

Exhibit F-17. Number of MEP-funded instructional services provided directly to migratory students 

and out-of-school youth, 2017–18 

Average number of 

instructional services SE CI 

State MEP directors 6 0.6 [5.4, 7.7] 

Local /regional MEP coordinators 9 0.1 [9.0, 9.4] 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 11 (n = 19); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 16 (n = 709 coordinators). 

Exhibit F-18. State MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reporting that they provide 

instructional or support services directly, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Provided instructional services directly 41 19 7.3 93 688 1.0 

Provided support services directly 39 18 7.3 92 684 1.0 

Source: State MEP director survey, Items 9 and 11 (n = 19); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Items 12 16 (n = 742 coordinators). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 84 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-19. Supporting data for Exhibit 15. MEP-funded instructional services that state 

grantees and local/regional subgrantees provided directly to migratory students 

and out-of-school youth, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Academic instruction 

Reading/language arts instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial 

education, or other instructional services) 58 11 11.6 84 614 1.4 

Math instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial education, or 

other instructional services) 53 10 11.8 82 604 1.4 

Credit-recovery programs 53 10 11.8 60 438 1.8 

English as a second language (ESL) instruction 37 7 11.4 58 423 1.8 

Online courses 26 5 10.9 41 299 1.8 

Academic support 

Academic guidance and advocacy 47 9 11.8 80 583 1.5 

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs 42 8 11.6 51 369 1.9 

Online educational support other than online courses 

(e.g., test prep, homework help) 26 5 10.4 50 360 1.9 

Support for college and career 

Career exploration and guidance 69 13 11.0 75 546 1.6 

Graduation-planning assistance 63 12 11.4 76 555 1.6 

Preparation for postsecondary transition 53 10 11.8 69 501 1.7 

Career and technical skills training (e.g., IT, hospitality, 

etc.) 37 7 11.4 43 315 1.8 

High School Equivalency Diploma classes 22 4 10.1 21 152 1.5 

Adult education classes 16 3 8.6 18 132 1.4 

Other 

Preschool or early childhood education programs 47 9 11.8 69 503 1.7 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 9 (n = 19); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 12 (n = 734). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-20. Supporting data for Exhibit 16. Percentage of local/regional MEP subgrantees that 

provided various instructional services to migratory students or to migratory outof-school youth, 2017–18 

Provided to migratory 

students 

Provided to migratory 

out-of-school youth 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Academic instruction 

Reading/language arts instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial 

education, or other instructional services)* 83 609 1.4 55 402 1.8 

Math instruction (e.g., tutoring, remedial education, or 

other instructional services)* 82 601 1.4 52 379 1.8 

English as a second language (ESL) instruction* 56 408 1.8 42 309 1.8 

Online courses* 40 287 1.8 30 221 1.7 

Academic support 

Academic guidance and advocacy* 78 568 1.5 59 431 1.8 

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs* 50 361 1.9 35 257 1.8 

Other online educational support (e.g., test prep, homework 

help)* 46 333 1.8 33 243 1.7 

Support for college and career 

Graduation planning assistance* 74 542 1.6 48 352 1.8 

Career exploration and guidance* 72 527 1.7 55 401 1.8 

Preparation for postsecondary transition* 67 486 1.7 41 299 1.8 

Credit-recovery programs* 59 428 1.8 43 312 1.8 

Career and technical skills training (e.g., IT, hospitality, etc.)* 41 301 1.8 29 213 1.7 

High School Equivalency Diploma (HSED) classes 18 128 1.4 19 138 1.5 

Adult education classes 14 99 1.3 16 119 1.4 

Other 

Preschool or early childhood education* 68 496 1.7 40 290 1.8 

* Difference between services provided to migratory students versus migratory out-of-school youth is statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Source: Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Items 12 and 14 (n = 736). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-21. Strategies local/regional MEP subgrantees used to ensure that MEP-funded 

activities and services were provided to eligible migratory out-of-school youth, 

2017–18 

Pct. n SE 

Use recruiters to provide on-demand support (e.g., referrals, 

support materials, supplies) 

78 576 1.5 

Collaborate with other organizations and agencies to serve the 

needs of out-of-school youth 

70 516 1.7 

Use recruiters and/or MEP staff to help out-of-school youth enroll in 

classroom or online-based credit recovery programs 

64 469 1.8 

Use recruiters and/or MEP staff to refer out-of-school youth to ESL 

programs 

61 452 1.8 

Source: Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 21 (n = 730). 

Exhibit F-22. Supporting data for Exhibit 17. State MEP structures for providing support services to 

migratory children, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Pct. n SE 

MEP subgrantees provide support services directly 39 18 7.3 

MEP subgrantees provide support services directly and the state contracts with an 

external organization(s) or agency(ies) to provide support services 22 10 6.2 

The state provides support services directly 2 1 2.2 

The state provides support services directly and its subgrantees provide support 

services directly 20 9 5.9 

The state provides support services directly, its subgrantees provide support 

services, and the state contracts with an external organization(s) or agency(ies) to 

provide support services 15 7 5.4 

The state provides support services directly and contracts with an external 

organization(s) or agency(ies) to provide support services 2 1 2.2 

Source: State MEP director survey, Items 2 and 11 (n = 46). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-23. Supporting data for Exhibit 18. MEP-funded support services state MEP grantees or 

local/ regional MEP subgrantees provided directly to migratory children, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

School supports 

Leadership development programs 58 11 11.8 42 303 1.8 

Language support not otherwise provided 50 9 12.1 74 544 1.6 

Transportation not otherwise provided 39 7 11.8 57 419 1.8 

School supplies 28 5 10.9 82 602 1.4 

Health supports 

Health care 28 5 10.9 19 137 1.4 

Dental care 28 5 10.9 16 115 1.4 

Eye care 22 4 10.1 18 130 1.4 

Counseling/mental health services 22 4 10.1 27 199 1.6 

Home supports 

Housing guidance or assistance 16 3 9.0 19 141 1.5 

Clothing 11 2 7.6 51 369 1.9 

Child care 11 2 7.6 14 102 1.3 

Advocacy and mentoring 

Individual student advocacy services 39 7 11.8 65 475 1.8 

Mentoring 28 5 10.9 61 447 1.8 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 11 (n = 18); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 16 (n = 737). 

Exhibit F-24. Number of MEP-funded support services provided directly to migratory students 

and out-of-school youth, 2017–18 

Average number of 

support services SE CI 

State MEP directors 4 0.5 [3.0, 4.9] 

Local/regional MEP coordinators 6 0.1 [5.6, 6.0] 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 11 (n = 18); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 16 (n = 709). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-25. Percentage of state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees that directly 

referred migratory students for at least one service, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Do not refer directly for services 72 33 6.7 9 57 0.1 

Refer directly for services 28 13 6.7 91 669 0.1 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 13 (n = 46); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 20 (n = 731). 

Exhibit F-26. Supporting data for Exhibit 19. Services for which state MEP grantees or 

local/regional MEP subgrantees directly referred eligible migratory children for 

services, among referring MEPs, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

School supports 

Language support (e.g., translation or interpretation services) 71 10 12.5 75 541 1.6 

School supplies 57 8 13.7 79 570 1.5 

Transportation not otherwise provided 50 7 13.9 65 468 1.8 

Adult education classes 43 6 13.7 58 419 1.8 

Health supports 

Health care 64 9 13.3 73 532 1.6 

Eye care 64 9 13.3 71 515 1.7 

Dental care 64 9 13.3 70 507 1.7 

Counseling/mental health services 43 6 13.7 70 510 1.7 

Social services and other supports 

Meal or nutrition programs 64 9 13.3 69 496 1.7 

Child care 50 7 13.9 45 325 1.9 

Clothing 43 6 13.7 73 528 1.7 

Other 

Flexible service delivery 50 7 13.9 48 345 1.9 

Mentoring 43 6 13.7 63 453 1.8 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 13 (n = 14); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 20 (n = 731). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-27. Supporting data for Exhibit 20. Outreach activities state MEP grantees and 

local/regional MEP subgrantees used to engage with other agencies and 

organizations to support the needs of migratory children, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Presentations 89 40 4.7 61 447 1.8 

In-person meetings 87 39 5.1 83 616 1.8 

Dissemination of materials (e.g., informational letters, 

brochures, or briefs; data or research; etc.) 80 36 6.0 78 577 1.4 

Workshops 69 31 7.0 41 304 1.3 

Task force(s) 33 15 7.1 12 105 1.5 

Other 11 5 4.7 5 40 0.8 

None of the above 2 1 2.2 7 48 0.9 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 17 (n = 45); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 22 (n = 739). 

Exhibit F-28. State MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees with no formal 

agreements with other organizations or agencies, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

No formal agreements 49 22 7.5 60 408 1.9 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 11 (n = 45); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 16 (n = 676). 

Exhibit F-29. Number of formal agreements among state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP 

subgrantees that had formal agreements with other organizations or agencies, 

2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

1 formal agreement 43 10 10.6 53 143 1.8 

More than 1 formal agreement 57 13 10.6 47 125 1.8 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 20 (n = 23); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 25 (n = 268). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-30. Supporting data for Exhibit 21. Types of organizations and agencies with which state 

MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees had at least one formal 

agreement to collaborate, 2017–18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Nonprofit organizations 16 7 5.5 14 88 1.4 

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) 15 7 5.4 11 73 1.3 

Other districts in the state that do not have an MEP 

subgrant 15 7 5.4 9 58 1.1 

Other state/local government agencies 9 4 4.2 8 49 1.1 

State/local parent associations or committees 7 3 3.8 5 34 0.9 

State/local health department 4 2 3.0 11 68 1.2 

State/local department of child and family services 2 1 2.2 8 52 1.1 

Local school boards n/a n/a n/a 12 78 1.3 

Local businesses n/a n/a n/a 5 29 0.8 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 20 (n = 44 to 45); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 22 (n = 640). 

Exhibit F-31. Percent of state MEP grantees and local/regional MEP coordinators who coordinated 

or collaborated in any way with the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and/or 

the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Yes, coordinate and collaborate with HEP and/or CAMP 68.9 31 7.0 59.0 430 1.8 

No, do not coordinate and collaborate with HEP or CAMP 31.1 14 7.0 41.0 299 1.8 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 11 (n = 45); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 16 (n = 729). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-32. Supporting data for Exhibit 22. Ways in which state MEP directors and local/regional 

MEP coordinators coordinated and collaborated with HEP or CAMP, 2017–18 

State MEP Directors 

HEP CAMP 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Agreed to work together to distribute program 

information to students, youth, and families 83 24 7.1 72 21 8.4 

Agreed to share information/data on migratory students 

and/or out-of-school youth 86 25 6.5 69 20 8.7 

Agreed to work together to identify and contact eligible 

high school students 70 19 9.0 70 19 9.0 

Participated in an interagency task force or committee 

for migratory students 60 12 11.2 55 11 11.4 

Local/regional MEP coordinators 

Agreed to work together to distribute program 

information to students, youth, and families 72 293 2.2 89 362 1.6 

Agreed to share information/data on migratory students 

and/or out-of-school youth 70 267 2.4 87 332 1.7 

Agreed to work together to identify and contact eligible 

high school students 68 257 2.4 89 336 1.6 

Participated in an interagency task force or committee 

for migratory students 63 111 3.6 76 134 3.2 

Source: State MEP Director Survey, Item 17 (n = 29); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 26 (n = 408). 

Exhibit F-33. Supporting data for Exhibit 23. Collaboration between MEPs and other agencies 

and organizations to directly provide at least one instructional or support service to 

migratory children, 2017-18 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Yes, collaborate 84 16 7.2 90 623 1.5 

No, do not collaborate 22 2 7.2 10 73 1.5 

Source: State MEP director survey, Items 9, 11, 18 and 19 (n = 18); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Items 12, 16, 23, and 24 (n = 696). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 92 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit F-34. Supporting data for Exhibit 24. Collaboration among state MEP grantees, 

local/regional subgrantees, and other agencies and organizations to directly provide 

instructional services to migratory children, 2017–2018 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

Academic instruction 

Reading/language arts instruction 91 10 9 54 325 2.0 

Math instruction 90 9 10 53 316 2.0 

English as a second language 86 6 14 61 251 2.4 

Credit-recovery programs 80 8 13 60 259 2.4 

Online courses 80 4 11 60 177 2.9 

Academic support 

Academic guidance and advocacy services 89 8 11 62 353 2.0 

Diagnostic evaluations of educational needs 88 7 13 52 187 2.6 

Other online educational support 60 4 24 57 202 2.6 

Support for college and career 

Career and technical skills training 100 7 0 67 207 2.7 

Career exploration and guidance 85 11 10 66 353 2.0 

Graduation planning assistance 83 10 11 62 337 2.1 

Preparation for postsecondary transition 80 8 13 65 320 2.2 

Adult Education classes 67 3 33 69 87 4.1 

High School Equivalency Diploma (HSED) classes 60 4 24 68 101 3.8 

Other 

Preschool or early childhood education programs 89 8 11 69 342 2.1 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 18 (n = 13); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 23 (n = 605). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 93 
 

 

 

Exhibit F-35. Supporting data for Exhibit 25. Collaboration between state MEP grantees, 

local/regional subgrantees, and other agencies and organizations to directly provide 

support services to migratory children, 2017–2018 

State MEP directors 

Local/regional MEP 

coordinators 

Pct. n SE Pct. n SE 

School supports 

Leadership development programs 100 11 0.0 74 222 2.5 

School supplies 80 4 2.0 71 426 1.9 

Transportation not otherwise provided 57 4 2.0 63 262 2.4 

Language support not otherwise provided 78 9 1.5 62 336 2.1 

Health supports 

Eye care 100 4 0.0 92 106 2.5 

Dental care 100 5 0.0 90 123 2.6 

Counseling/mental health 100 4 0.0 83 163 2.7 

Health care 100 5 0.0 69 324 2.1 

Home supports 

Housing guidance or assistance 100 3 0.0 83 116 3.2 

Clothing 50 1 0.0 80 292 2.1 

Child care 0 1 0.0 67 68 4.7 

Advocacy services 

Individual student advocacy services 100 7 0.0 89 115 2.8 

Mentoring 80 4 2.0 63 279 2.3 

Source: State MEP director survey, Item 19 (n = 11); Local/regional MEP coordinator survey, Item 24 (n = 598). 

Study of Implementation of the ESEA Title 1—Part C 

Migrant Education Program Serving Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers and Fishers 94